Mr. Sadler,

Perhpas there is less need.

For instance, if you take the total need, subtract those who could provide for themselves but fail to becuase of lack of character, you arrive at a core of people in this nation that simply can not provide for themselves, yet are of excellent character.

I am sure you will say that core is growing. I suggest you reconsider. It is shrinking.

John Donohue Pasadena, CA

For instance, if you take the total need, subtract those who could provide for themselves but fail to becuase of lack of character, you arrive at a core of people in this nation that simply can not provide for themselves, yet are of excellent character.// John Donohue

That is to equate with a perverted formula that poverty is a matter of character and not an issue for government, or charity. Good, the problem solved!

Let's see what could go wrong with this equation? Maybe Life! Maybe your health, maybe the millions of auto accidents on our roads, maybe a crime, or maybe your a reservist, or in the National Guard with little family to help, maybe .....

Only a sheltered fool would make such a suggestion, and I would hope that we start to open our eyes to a ever growing under class that has been marginalized and ignored at our own peril. History has taught us that we need to keep a diligence for the weakest, and most vulneralbe among us, and to insure that any prosperity should find the top and bottom of our society to be sustained without the chaos that is eneviable without charity!!!

Not I don't know much about conservatives except what I read in the paper, but I do know a bit about Libertarians and Russell most don't practice what Ayn Rand wrote, but please let me suggest that some of that poverty is due to government regulations and barriers. Here's a few examples. A government study on transportation titled TCRP49 noted that part-time working mothers, the elderly and inner city poor were most likely to have a lack of adequate transportation. Today in most city across the country it is almost immpossible to own,operate and maintain a private transportation company and of course the local government agency does a poor job. Portland is a good example. When Trimet open the Yellow line lite rail it reduced the bus service in the existing neighborhoods. In the early 1900s housing cost 23% of a families income. Today that amount is about 34%. Much of that is due to so called regulations to protect the environment. Maybe, but we are protecting the environment on the backs of the poor. Last week there was a story out from the Education Trust showing that state funded colleges and universities do a poor job of educating the lower income students, if they educate them at all. OF course we will hear complaints about the rich getting ahead next and the cries for more education money. But it will end up help some rich kid more than any poor on. Then there are the problems with inner city schools, which have the least qualified teachers in many cases. And let's not forget Social Security where if you earn over $12,480 bucks in wages while collecting that bit of your money they reduce your benefits. But you can get all the interest money, capital gains and stock dividends that you want without a reductions. And of course there's the cutoff on paying Social Security to begin with. What is it? If you earn over $80,000 some bucks you don't have to pay any more. Just a few examples of people using the government to get ahead often at the expense of the poor. BTW Russell I know a lot of Libertarians who are a long way from rich, or even well off. And I think if you check the literature you will find it was some of the non government types who did much of the work in New Orleans to help people and not many of the big outfits stuck around. I know a hell of a lot of Libertarians who give a lot to others on their own.

Charity, for all its importance, is not designed to help the poor. Charity is deliberately designed to make the well-to-do feel good about themselves during seasons we are supposed to “help others.” The rest of the year self-styled conservatives and Libertarians practice Ayn Rand’s “Virtue of Selfishness.” The poor remain an out-of-sight, out-of-mind disposable low-wage workforce to serve those who can still afford to live well.

Thousands of Oregonians do charity work all year round and all political beliefs are included in this bunch. It's like a slap in the face to every one of them.

Do you think you are actually helping the cause of Democrats by writing this drivel?

I could go on and on about Government programs that are not designed to help the poor and are only designed to make the "well-to-do politicians feel good about themselves". But I won't because the VAST MAJORITY of Government programs are designed and do help the poor, just like the VAST MAJORITY of charity groups are designed and do help the poor as well.

Russ,

Meh.

"That is to equate with a perverted formula that poverty is a matter of character and not an issue for government, or charity."

You are the "sheltered fool" if you do not think poverty is sometimes due to lack of character. Some people are perfectly capable of solving their poverty, but neglect to do so. Your government programs do not (or barely do) discriminate on this point, thus the wasting of billions of dollars on people who don't deserve it.

A secondary -- not primary -- reason that 'charity' under the force of government is wrong is this: it prevents the judging of character. When you are in a voluntary giving situation, you look the other person in the eye, you hear their story, you have an interactive exchange with them. You judge their character. Are they honest? This uplifts both parties. If it is not face to face, it is the managers of your chosen charity that you must judge: are they giving my gift to deserving people or not?

In voluntary helping, the giver gets to see the person and make the connection to them, the receiver gets to see that the giver trusted him/her and believes in him/her. I have been on both sides of the equation. It is a fair exchange with high value.

to jimbo: "when someone finds a qualified judge of human character...' I certainly would not want government to judge a person's personal character. However, in volutary giving, the giver (or his/her agency) and the receiver perform this judging. No 'official' or legal determination need be made. It is all human to human. That is best.

John Donohue

John Donohue = Aynn Rand ??

John would be the judge of whom would be deserving a helping hand; whom should eat, whose children should be clothed, whom should get health care, whom should receive shelter, and if they could not do for themselves, and not appeal to John, well to bad.

I've heard of this place you discribe, that would have the wealthy deciding whom should eat, whom should have and whom should not if they can not do for themselves!! I believe they call it the "Dark Ages" and the poor were anyone whom was not part of the nobility, or trading/skilled classes, the rest of the known world was refered to as serfs!!

Later we helped along the birth of Communism as a form of government of nearly half of the world which lead to the Cold War, and untold suffering from the excesses of the Laisse Faire Economics of the Industrial Age. The "Darwinist" ideal before the estate tax assured a family in wealth would be in control of wealth that would prevent anyone other than those annoited should have wealth.

Yes, I can see this model emerging today after a form of governance that was on the brink of Fascism should have grabbed onto the last chance for Democracy in the '06 election to speak to power that this form of government is not for America.

Atlas Shrugged, the anthem of Aynn Rand's philosophy assured everyone whom would want to work would find a place in her world to work at the level of his/her skills, and motivation. Yet when applied in reality in dissolves into a buddy/cronie system of corruption and distorted truths to shape a perversion of free enterprise that seeks only to make labor cheap, and social responsiblity of government a joke.

When we look around we see the character in her book that is the President and his cronies in charge, only they happen to be the same people selling this form of government and economics. I wonder how that happened???

The utopian nightmare that would have everyone on their own dispite their circumstance has a name, chaos!

Let me tell why government has failed of resent in helping the poor, the mentally ill, the sick, the vulnerable, the elderly.

We had decided to hand government over to those who believe government was the problem, and did not believe in sincere governance, and did everything they could to prove it's failure, so they not suprisingly failed.

We as a democracy need only to have the political will which is inspired by a severe event, or circumstance to mobilize our efforts to solve what at the time seems overwhelming situations.

FDR brought the new deal, and a nation together to correct the disparity of wealth and industry to end the Great Depression, and mobilized a nation to defeat the onset of Fascism. LBJ used his deal making skills to end the embarassing plight of severe poverty, and introduced the Medicare/Medicaid programs to address the elderly, and sick among us as a collective voice, or a government. Not a Communism, or Socialist state, a democratic effort expressed through government and by free will at the ballot box to lift the most vulnerable and weakest among us.

The reality history tells us over and over again is that if we allow the huge disparities between the have's and havenot's we foster our own demise!

Although much of what Mr. Sadler wrote seems reasonable, his repeated allusions to so-called Christian charity--yes, I know he did not explicitly use that term, but he certainly did couch his discussion in an explicitly Christian framework--stuck in my craw. I am not a Christian, have no wish to become one, and still manage to make charitable donations, volunteer my time, and (my spouse's idea) hand cans of food out the driver's window to folks begging at stop signs. As with the comment from the person who noted that charity is hardly restricted to political progressives, it is equally not restricted to Christians.

I suspect what Mr. Sadler was trying to say is that for himself personally, Christian teachings inform his choices about charity. I really respect that, because gawd only knows how many so-called Christians use so-called Christian teachings to justify their meanness of spirit. One of these so-called Christians has (as noted by Mr. Grady), from his perch on Pennsylvania Avenue in DC, in fact been doing his damnedest to pervert and subvert the very government programs that could help people in need.

"Thousands of Oregonians do charity work all year round and all political beliefs are included in this bunch. It's like a slap in the face to every one of them.

Do you think you are actually helping the cause of Democrats by writing this drivel?"

Hear, hear! Though I'd agree that all Americans should be far more charitable (myself included), Russel takes a cheap shot at all who do not share his socialist-leaning views. In his misguided mind, the only solution is government extracting ever higher tax revenues from those who earn it and redistrubing it how he sees fit. Seems to me the best way to encourage giving is not with a gun to the head.

Sorry doretta I believe you are wrong. The #6 bus used to serve Rivergate from MLK with a 20 minute trip. That bus was rerouted and anyone now wanting to get to Rivergate from MLK and Killingsworth now has to take three buses and it is an hour trip, or at least was last time I checked. M.H.W.

Mr. Grady, "John would be the judge of whom would be deserving a helping hand; whom should eat, whose children should be clothed, whom should get health care, whom should receive shelter, and if they could not do for themselves, and not appeal to John, well to bad.'

No, it is quite clear I only propose to be the judge of who is or is not deserving of my dollar, not everyone's dollar. When the right to control only one's own life and property is villified as if it were a wish to control everyone's, that is prime facie evidence of power lust.

If you are that upset about me controlling my own giving, it begs the question of which two remaining options you prefer?

1) the government (controller of collected funds) judges who is deserving; 2) the ought be no judging, anyone claiming need is automatically owed it by law

Can you say which you prefer? Or..something else that I did not list?

John Donohue

Kari Chisholm,

Bankruptcy due to medical costs is usually due to inadequate insurance. A really good catastrophic insurance policy -- one that covers everything and can't be cancelled -- with a high deductable, say $5,000, is not expensive. That protects the individual from their assets being drained.

That of course leaves the first $5000 per year to be covered by the individual out of cash (cash payers get discounts from many doctors, I have a plan like that) or another insurance.

To live this way, you have to budget for medical. You have to pay the premium on the catastrophic, perhaps $200.00 per month, and you never get that money back. But by banking $5000 as a young person (when you are healthy) and never touching that money, you are self-covered for needs during the year. Since you will use that money for regular checkups, kids illnesses, shots, etc., you have to budget monthly to replenish the $5000.00 but the upside is, if your family is healthy in a given year, you keep your money; it is not in the pocket of an insurance company.

I realize that most people do not think or plan this way. I suggest they should. I have no need to judge the character of people already in trouble with medical, I am only saying that there are ways without government programs to get medical care and not go bankrupt, and people ought to practice them before they get in trouble.

John Donohue

about catastrophic insurance

The key is: get the insurance from a highly reputable, stable, permanent company that can't cancel you or start placing needed procedures outside coverage.

Since these plans have caps of one to three million lifetime, I suggest that this is the way to prevent bankruptcy due to medical. Also, the premiumn of $200 I referred to is high; you can get catastrophic for less.

When the right to control only one's own life and property is vilified as if it were a wish to control everyone's, that is prime facie evidence of power lust.// John Donohue

You complain that government assistance, or the safety net is a government intrusion on your freedom to earn wealth, or an attempt to prevent you from being wealthy for helping those whom are poor. I wonder why when fair, and common sense taxation was in effect just recently in the Clinton years, along with welfare reforms, millionaires increased at a historical rate, as well as the millions that were lifted out of poverty with the increased jobs that support a living wage.

The truth is if we spent a minute fraction of money on direct assistance to the poor it would actually increase economic growth compared to the squandering of billions to the military industrial complex. When a person spends a dollar of cash assistance it spends like five dollars throughout the economy. I would not make the program for that reason alone, but the social responsibility of our democracy is wrapped up into our continued survival.

I find your suggestion that a family needs only pay for insurance from a budget that may not allow for food would be laughable if it weren't so insidious. With your perspective poverty is a myth, and we should just believe whatever we want regardless of the hungry children, homeless in our streets, mentally ill among them, or the elderly that have been left to in the cold.

The argument that the individual and their right to pursue there desires for wealth is the only way is to assume that the individual will be humane and help his fellow individuals without any mandate from government.

That the individual wouldn't just ignore their fellow man for the love of wealth would be sarcastically naive.

Happy Thoughts;

Dan Grady

It is too bad you have such a low opinion of people's generousity to voluntarily help the truly needy, and so dire an assessment of current conditions in this nation. I do not share these judgments.

If this were merely a matter of personal differences of judgment, then I would say "so be it." Unfortunately, complusion is on the table.

No one who supports the claim that "we are our brother's keeper" ever bothers to demonstrate why we should be "our brother's keeper".

The idea that we are each other's keeper is nothing more than a call for moral cannibalism.

"No one who supports the claim that 'we are our brother's keeper' ever bothers to demonstrate why we should be 'our brother's keeper'.

"The idea that we are each other's keeper is nothing more than a call for moral cannibalism."

dbc--Not sure why this needs to be stated explicitly, but here goes: The brother's keeper concept is of course articulated within the ethical code of many (to some extent, all) societies. The idea is pretty simple: society is better if we care for one another.

The particular wording of "brother's keeper" is from the Jewish Bible (aka Old Testament). Other wordings of the same idea are attributed to Jesus in the Christian Bible (aka New Testament). Other religious traditions express the same idea.

I happen to be someone who does not think ethics and morality are derived from religion (although a sincere religious practice may reinforce ethics and morality), but rather from good old human experience and common sense.

Again, the idea is pretty simple: society is better if we care for one another. What we're in fact disagreeing about (or at least what I hope we're disagreeing about) is how we go about caring for one another.

I extrapolate from what you wrote (correct me if I am wrong, please) that you are fundamentally in sympathy with the libertarian-esque postings by Mr. Donohue, who seemingly rejects the idea that there is any place for we the people collectively to care for one another, and that instead such actions should be strictly private and a matter of individual choice. I don't happen to agree with this perspective because IMHO it reduces all human interactions to the cold calculus of buyer and seller.

It is too bad you have such a low opinion of people's generousity to voluntarily help the truly needy, and so dire an assessment of current conditions in this nation. I do not share these judgments. // John Donohue

Sight an example of a nation/state that sustained economic prosparity, political & human freedoms, and cared for the poor enough to maintain this form of governance?

John Donohue's obvious apathy is an example of how insulated we can be. This can be reflected on in the revelation that Bobby Kennedy came to when he left his Northeastern home to see the poverty of the deep south. This made such a impression on him that he made a 360 on his previous belief of the issue's exaggeration.

We have emptied the mental hospitals during Reagan, and have eroded the safety net that brought civility to our society at the cost of the rich keeping less than a lion's share of the new wealth to help stabilize our society. We had unions that assured a living wage for our workers, and a middle class that was financially viable enough to be politically active.

With the erosion of these simple, and sustainable measures we have begun the slide to where we started. It's easy not to notice, just don't look. The networks are corporate animals so they aren't going to harp on the issue so we don't notice a problem, and can go on as though it doesn't exist.

1) the government (controller of collected funds) judges who is deserving;// JOHN DONOHUE

The past 40 years plus of Medicare/Medicaid, Food Stamps, and Section 8 housing, along with the Social Security Income since FDR has been ample evidence of responsible government implementation of social programs!!

lin qiao: "...Mr. Donohue..who seemingly rejects the idea that there is any place for we the people collectively to care for one another, and that instead such actions should be strictly private and a matter of individual choice. I don't happen to agree with this perspective because IMHO it reduces all human interactions to the cold calculus of buyer and seller."

Since you used juxtaposition, "for we the people collectively to care for one another" clearly does not mean voluntarily in your context; you mean run by the state, with funds collected be the state. Such coerced giving reduces to the cold calculus of "I can't get you to do it volutarily by persuasion, so I will force you to do it." I prefer the warm calculus I described it prior posts above, eye to eye, human to human, with no coercion involved. And yes, that IS the way business is run, eye to eye, exchange of value for value. It is highly moral.

And I clearly state there is a place to act "big", namely mass giving to deserving charities. But this can only be called collective action in the sense that a lot of people did the same thing individually. They chose, one by one. That is not "collective" in the sense of "we are all bound by law together to do this collectively".

I am very curious in general about this phrase "care for one another." In a non-emergency setting, how does this concept stack up morally with "be supportive and helpful while the other person is gaining skills to care for themselves?" Which one is more moral, in a non-emergency setting?

DAN GRADY "The past 40 years plus of Medicare/Medicaid, Food Stamps, and Section 8 housing, along with the Social Security Income since FDR has been ample evidence of responsible government implementation of social programs!!"

I will just say in an understated way that the supposed good done by these programs is questionable, and that there is not much judging going on over who is deserving in them, and that the free market could have served those needs much better.

"Sight [sic] an example of a nation/state that sustained economic prosparity, political & human freedoms, and cared for the poor enough to maintain this form of governance?'

The United States, with qualifications, from after the Civil War through WW1. Did "the poor" have it rough? Yes, just as they had for thousands and thousands of years. Did things become far better, did a middle class arise, did life expectancy tripple, did sanitary conditions, food quality, standard of living rocket up, with no socialism/govt programs? Yes. The only reason the US did not "maintain this form of governance" is that the Progressives and cartel capitalists destroyed it. They didn't like it.

Mr. Donohue--yes, indeed, you are consistent about your libertarian perspective. I respect the consistency; I don't agree with the perspective. I think it's probably fair to conclude that yours is the dogmatic libertarian perspective neatly summarized (by libertarians, not by me) as "taxation is theft". I, on the other hand, consider taxes to be not theft but rather my membership dues to be part of society. So yes, along with the sum I donate to specific charities via payroll deductions, I am comfortable with and support the idea that some portion of my taxes go to government-administered programs to assist others. You consider this coercion; I do not. I don't expect either of us will ever persuade the other on this point.

lin qiao,

However: under a government prohibited from taxing people coercively for various programs, you would still be free to contribute volutarily to the same causes you favor now. Under a socialist or progressive government as we have now, I am not free to not contribute.

I will just say in an understated way that the supposed good done by these programs is questionable, and that there is not much judging going on over who is deserving in them, and that the free market could have served those needs much better. // John Donohue I find your conclusion incredulous to think times and standards of living for the working poor were better before the Great Depression, or when in American History?? I wonder if the suffering and the near dissolution of our American Democracy was the likely consequence of no New Deal. I wonder who would stand up but you to say that life’s standards were better in the 19th Century, and that we should aspire for times before electricity for an example of our future. Ludicrous!

Apropos Mr. Donohue's statement about the United States from Reconstruction until WWI, an alternate perspective was offered at the time by Mark Twain in The Gilded Age.

I used to direct both a shelter program with 100 bed spaces and a soup kitchen that served 90,000 noon meals a year.

The thougths expressed here in this thread sadly miss reality. Any discussion of the homeless and hungry should start with the assumption that like people who have homes and who are well feed, there are many differences between people. That is to say, there is not one type of person under the label of homeless or hungry.

I ran these programs in Richmond CA. I met there a Vietnam vet. He and I had gone to the same High School in Portland. He had the worst case of post-traumatic I've ever seen, couldn't sleep more than about an hour at a time - nice guy but completely/hopelessly unemployable. Needed treatment that just wasn't there. Met a fellow I'd seen at a prior program I ran. He was 2 years sober and had had a great job. Walking home from work he was beat up for $20 in his pocket, ending up with a broken leg and arm. No health insurance. I met single women with children from abusive relationships that were in flight. I met people that stuggled day to day to get in recovery from alcohol and drugs. Some made it, others didn't. I met a former lawyer who lost a suit for poor representation on a criminal case, and lost his livelihood. About a third of the people I saw had physical disabilities. About a third had mental disabilities.

Some worked their way back up into a housed and fed society. Others didn't, and didn't live very long. I knew hundreds of people in these programs, some better than others. I could never find a way to look someone in the eye and figure out if he/she could make it or not. The degree of internal "rugged individualism" seemed not to matter. The degree of education didn't matter. Whether from a "good" home and family or not didn't matter. Whether people in these circumstances made it or not appeared to be solely based upon luck.

Am I making an argument not to provide such services? - absolutely not. I believe we as a society have a duty to do more than just house and feed - we need to offer hope. We will always have the poor, and it isn't their fault.

Our economic sector depends upon an indirect control of wages and labor expenses. When the unemployment rate gets too close to full employment, when workers can start to bargain for higher wages; the Federal Reserve deliberately slows the economy. That point is roughly when the unemployment rate gets to "only" one out of 25 being unemployed. Our economy depends upon 1 able bodied "what to work" person out of 25 not getting work to keep all the rest of us in our place, not asking for higher wages.

Poverty in this society is what keeps the rich rich. Poverty is used to surpress the wages of all of those that work for a living. Poverty helps keep the gap large between the truly rich and those of us that work.

If you are doing well in our society, part of that is your hard work, and part of that is an uneven playing surface that is bound to slide off some people to the lower end of the field. If they weren't there, you wouldn't be as successful. Make any mis-step in life, it might be you that slides off the edge.

So, Russ has some good points about charity. A capitalistic society without meaningful charity is just cruel.

Lin Qiao;

Or David Copperfield, the poor house, indentured servitude, a starving working class, child labor, and a divide between those whom have the comforts of lifes little pleasures like a full belly, and those who learn to go without!!

The era of Robber Barons and their Monopolies strangling the public and the nation's resources without contributing anything that did'nt turn a profit, as well as presuming to be soveriegn as though an nation within a nation. We forget the excesses for the little thread of something to make a grand justification.

I think just another rationale for a Libertarian nervana on the dark side of nowhere.

former, You state that "not one type of person under the label of homeless or hungry" and then proceed to list examples of misfortunes that landed people in your shelter program. No problem with that, but you didn't list those who just don't bother. They existed at your shelter, I am sure. When I served at the Catholic Worker in New York, that was extremely true.

The Catholic Worker, and I am sure your shelter, does not ask questions, simply provides for those who show up. That is the choice for a voluteer organization. It may not be the healthiest policy, since enabling does no good for those who don't bother. The trade off, I suppose, is that it puts no pressure on all the others and also makes it easier for the staff. Imagine if they had to interview and qualify each person in a soup line!

I object to my tax money going to social programs. It is wrong on principle, period. Secondarily, it is REALLY wrong when it goes to people who cynically game the system, or (closer to the middle) would find their own way except that the social program is so much easier to engage.

You say "we need to offer hope." In my experience, hope, ambition, desire to live...the actual spark that makes a person "go?" These things cannot come from the outside.

You state that you could never look them in the eye and "figure out if he/she could make it or not". I do not know if you inteded that as a counter to my talk of judging character and 'deserving'. If it is, I respond that the issue of 'will a person make it or not' would not be my criteria for judgment, but rather, is this person honest and will he exchange my gift with effort to solve problems, or will he use it to self-medicate or self-comfortize and thus avoid the hard work of self-reconstruction.

John Donohue

Mr. Grady

Which social program created the light bulb and the electricity industry?

John,

The shelter I ran did case management. We didn't just warehouse people. So, we got to know every person we served.

I find your statement that the government should spend no money on social services outrageous in that so many "cases" can be traced directly back to government policies that cause or contribute to poverty, homelessness, and hunger.

As for those you say just don't bother - yep, some people run out of hope after several crushing experiences. You state this as if it is a conclusion - but I ask if they don't bother, they have run out of hope - what can be done to instill new hope?

I don't know about your background, but in mine - in the American I live in - we don't throw people away.

Mr. Grady Which social program created the light bulb and the electricity industry? // John Donohue

You either are a young adult that had a poor attendance record in history class, and just read Atlas Shrugged, or your so lost in your own self importance that wealth has distorted all reality for you.

Who ever suggested government should replace enterprise, or invention, or investment, or business interest. I own a business myself and would not look to government to assist me accept to regulate the industry from criminal behavior, or infringing on the rights of my fellow citizen, or adverse effects on the commons.

I enjoy, embrace, and endorse free enterprise as much as any profit loving businessman. I believe government has a important role in democratic, civil society. I expect, and intend to see government performed effectively, and with a sincere intent to protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution & Bill of Rights of the United States of America.

Your question reveals a desperation of a set of ideals you seem confusingly unfamiliar with, or so stubborn that when you reach a critical mass you are compelled to change the subject.

Mr. Grady No, my question just exposed your interesting comment...

"I wonder who would stand up but you to say that life’s standards were better in the 19th Century, and that we should aspire for times before electricity for an example of our future."

in which it certainly appeared to me that you seemed to think I prefer the Golden Age of Capitalism (1865-1917) to the Progressive era (1890-present) and in which, given the context of anwering your prior question about when has a free enterprise era ever sustained itself and made life better for the least wealthy, you implied that, since the onset of electricity occured "during" the progressive age, you intended to accrue its benefit to the Progressives. I simply wanted you to make a more formal connection between Progressive policy and electricity.

John Donohue

former,

I used the phrase "don't bother." I clearly meant people in trouble who make no effort whatsoever, who 'don't bother' to solve their problems. You immediately used "don't bother" in a complete different sense,

"As for those you say just don't bother"

and in the context of this thread it is emphatically necessary to note that your initial usage of that phrase can NOT be equated with mine. Let there be no confusion whatsoever: your "As for those you say just don't bother" has nothing to do, whatsoever, with my use of "don't bother," nor with my position or anything else I have said above.

Now, that having been said, and having the charge of "throwing people away" raised, I will become more clear:

There are people who do not want to live. They are in trouble, and their lack of will to live caused the trouble. All attempts to help these people come to naught, because they do not want to live. This is a person of bad character, the kind I would not help in any way shape or form, and for whom state-run social programs cannot screen and do not screen. (And they should not screen; they should be abolished.)

I encounter this working with alcoholics. The onset of alcoholism is not necessarily the person's fault. However, it is treatable. People who do not want to face their bad character traits (steps 4-9) often relapse. It is rare to find a sober alcoholic who has not proactively engaged his will to live, and is taking action to that end. I do not know of one person like that. {side note: some people of good character, who do engage the will to live, who do take steps to live, still fail. Alcoholism is brutal)

All social programs, state mandated, church run or private charity, encounter these people. These are the people for whom any kind of enabling, even a bowl of soup with no accountability, is not only a waste, but lethal for them. They have only one chance, to look death right in the eye and choose life. Any "help" or "caring" is the exact wrong thing at that point.

If they die, no one "throws them away." They throw themselves away. You asked "...they have run out of hope - what can be done to instill new hope?" The answer is: nothing. That flame of the will to live comes only from the inside. We can help them after they light it, but we cannot ignite the fire. [Some alcoholics claim that they did not ignite their own will to live, that God did. Regardless, and choosing not to go down THAT path, I still maintain that the light got lit, and not by a government agency, a caring spouse or a social worker.)

I discontinued working with Catholic Worker, largely because of this issue -- they help anyone. That is their choice, Dorothy Day believed in miracles and she took Christ's edict to help the poor, regardless of character, as a divine mission.

Today when I choose to help people, they might be at any stage of progress, but I first determine that they are honest, have chosen life, and are in action.

John Donohue

"...I prefer the warm calculus I described it prior posts above, eye to eye, human to human, with no coercion involved." -- John Donahue

No coercion except the requirement of being "worthy" of your help, which means - by your definition - up to your lofty standards.

Thanks for the post Mr. Sadler. I think some of the responses here proved your point.

Madam you did not understand my posts at all. Sad you could not have made a more intelligent response.

What you prefer me to do when someone asks for my help? Close my mind and eyes and hand over the request just because it is requested, or judge if the person is going to abuse it?

JD-- "No problem with that, but you didn't list those who just don't bother".

When have you ever been laid off? What would you do without your current support circle of friends, family, co-workers? Do you have health insurance?

I was working 2 jobs and living with a relative. Then 3 years ago the work just wasn't there anymore for one on-call job, but then at least I had the other part time job. Until the day I got the "don't go to work tomorrow, you'll be getting something in the mail" phone call. That something was a memo saying my 10 years of work were appreciated, but the position (with a large corporation) had been eliminated.

It took a temporary job in July 2006 (great experience, good pay, but temp.) to prevent me from being unemployed for 3 years straight, and I've had one other temp job with the same employer since then. I've applied for hundreds of jobs and interviewed for many.

My last interview question is whether all the interviewees will be contacted with the decision that a hire has been made, even contacting those who don't get the job. The angels say they consider that a matter of honor. Then there are those who promise a call, email or letter and never follow through. I called one of those back about a year ago and was told "The position is filled, guess that call fell through the cracks but Merry Christmas" (that one was a religious institution, by the way). Some institutions say "check our website to see if the position is filled".

JD, your attitude sounds like that guy (can't remember his name) who said during the Reagan years "the unemployed are lazy", just as there were news pictures of people lining up around the block to apply for jobs although there were 10 times more applicants than jobs. Maybe that is one reason why Republicans lost so badly this time: lots of fully employed people have a friend or relative like me who is far from lazy, is well educated with lots of experience, but who can't land a permanent job.

There is a form of propaganda known as "broad brush". In your case it seems to be that people like me don't deserve government services (yes, I exhausted my unemployment benefits long before I found work) because somewhere there are unemployed people that "don't bother" trying to find a job.

I keep applying for jobs but as I told a friend recently even with my education and experience the ratio is maybe 1 interview for every 5-10 applications. I don't live in Portland so there aren't as many jobs available. I have interviewed within about a 25 mile radius of my home, and would gladly commute that far for a job. But of course commuting for a low paying job means gas prices eat into the paycheck more than if the job is nearby.

JD, ever hear the sayings "walk a mile in someone else's shoes" or "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"? How about "judge not, that ye be not judged".

Thanks for the column, Russell.

This will be my last post here, most people are not actually responding to me accurately or dealing with my points....

1) I am not judging that 'you' don't deserve governmnet assistance, nor am I attempting to say how government should judge. I am saying that government assistance is wrong per se, that all helping should be private. 2) Any judging I do is simply when I am in a personal, specific situation where I am asked to help, I seek to help, or I am asking for help. In those cases my criteria are stated clearly above: is the person honest, have they chosen to live and are they in action. Again, these are my personal testing points, each human (if he/she choses to judge at all in such situations) applies his/her own standards.

That is all.

John Donohue

No, Mr. Donahue, I understood your posts perfectly. It's telling that you choose to launch ad hominem attacks against my intelligence rather than address the duplicity of your statements. The fact that you don't consider your "conditions" as coercion tell me plainly that you've never been standing there with your hat in your hands asking for help.

I'm not a religious person but it seems you are. How do you resolve your position with the teachings of Christ? Regardless, it's irrelevant. The sentiment LT espoused in several different ways above is the same across cultures and religions - it's basic morality: The Golden Rule.

Judge not lest ye be judged, Mr. Donahue.

Christians generally believe in God as a trinity of Divine Persons- something like the way we understand the space we live in- as generally 3 dimensional. e.g. the height of a room accounts for all the space, but it is also so with the other dimensions. Love, which we hope and strive to live in, necessarily involves every one and every thing. Since we're made in God's image (I speak as a christian here and mean no offense to others) -Charity is always personal and always communal. So manifestations of it are sometimes more individual and sometimes more social. As Lincoln said, "governments do what we cannot do . . . or do well enough ourselves." and also "we are friends ... we must not be enemies." Charity is the same whether done by one or by all. What is important is that the need is met. Let's give each other the benefit of doubt.

Sorry, i know I promised to go away, but I could NOT resist posting this link to an article in today's New York Times.

Seems I was WRONG. Yes, I was wrong. Apparently government agencies ARE attempting to judge!

The only personal comment I will make is, if you what to know the type of person I would judge to be unworthy of my personal giving? The guy in this article.

Medicaid judges people

There's a phrase in the Soto Zen tradition that goes like this:

"Put aside the intellectual habit of investigating words and chasing phrases, and learn to take the backward step that turns the light and shines it inward."

It would perhaps be useful for those reading this discussion to put aside word-smithing for awhile and turn the light inward to contemplate why we all seem to feel the need to judge some people worthy and others unworthy.

JD, it is one thing to talk specifically about an ill person who refuses to quit smoking. Such people might need "tough love". But you are responsible for what you have written here, and your words don't seem to indicate that only slobs who are ill and smoke should be denied help. Some of your words sound like the old anti-tax "they don't need our help, and we deserve to keep our own money". Are you by any chance friends with Don McIntire?

It is one thing to say that people who have substance abuse problems and aren't enrolled in a program to deal with that shouldn't be allowed other charity.

It is something else entirely to make remarks about people who "game the system" as if everyone not employed full time is somehow responsible for that state in life, as if there are no massive layoffs, or jobs lost to disaster, or Katrina victims who lost everything, etc.

You sound like a believer in the "unemployed people are lazy" idea which some Republicans seem to support.

You said "I object to my tax money going to social programs. It is wrong on principle, period. " You also talk about the volunteer organization Catholic Worker and refer to enabling. That sounds like the propaganda device called "broad brush".

You talk about hope and ambition. What have you ever done to give another person hope, or don't you think that can be done?

You mention what you consider to be a reasonable premium for catastrophic health care coverage. Just how should the Katrina victims or the people laid off who have trouble finding full time work pay for those premiums? If the eat as healthy as their budget allows (fresh food can be spendy) apply for as many jobs per week as they can find, don't smoke or drink or use other unhealthy substances and exercise regularly, are they not worthy unless you say they are? That is what your various posts imply.

Perhaps you could enlighten us about any time you have struggled in your life---or aren't we supposed to ask about you?

As I recall, Jesus said "as ye do to the least of these, you do unto me".

Your attitude seems to be "snap out of it--if only you have enough drive and ambition you can overcome anything" and thus there shouldn't be food stamps, unemployment insurance, subsidies for people who can't afford lifesaving drugs and a whole lot of other government or voluntary programs.

Sorry, but your views don't impress me. If you want to be personally opposed to any help to anyone in need unless you give the OK, that's fine. But don't expect everyone else to agree with you just because you believe it.

<hr/>