Which is a better way to help the poor?
Do you agree with Democrats, who feel morally superior because they feel supporting a government check from tax payers is really helping and is compassionate?
Or do you agree with the late Sister Connie Driscoll who helped people at St. Martin de Porres House of Hope in Chicago?
"Almost all the women who come to St. Martin de Porres kick their drinking and drug habits. Only 5% return to shelters. Sister Connie estimates that the citywide return rate could be as high as 40%."
"Sister Connie doesn’t encourage her wards to feel sorry for themselves or to blame society. She takes the view that they brought their problems on themselves-and have the inner power to solve them."
"For the first couple of months after we started, I had the same rose-colored glasses as everybody else-thinking these poor people have been abused and victimized. After a while you have to take the glasses off."
"We give every woman a job in the house the day she arrives, whether that’s cooking, security duty or helping Sister Therese teach the children."
We teach them to pay rent, utilities and food bills first, then prioritize what else they need.
The word on the street is that ours is a tough house, probably the toughest in the city. Everyone’s up at 6 a.m. and in bed with the lights out at 10:30 p.m. Children are in bed by 8 p.m., and 9 p.m. in the summer. No men can visit.
Other than a 3/4-hour pass to go for job interviews, the women always have somewhere to be: career or computer training, GED classes, Alcoholics and Narcotics Anonymous meetings or a job here in the house."
"Since 1990 the average resident stays 7 1/2 months, and every day we talk about responsible sexual behavior, the dangers of illegitimate child births and how to hold a job."
"People equate welfare with compassion. But compassion’s got nothing to do with it. A handout is the least compassionate thing you could do. Compassion means suffering with, doing with, being with. Teaching is 99% of what we do."
What do you think is a more compassionate and more effective way of helping the poor? Through conservative ideas of hands-on charity, like Sister Connie? Or liberal government handouts?
A copy of her interview with Forbes in the late 1990s:
http://www.larryelder.com/solutions/sisterconnie.htm
Only Liberals promote the entitlement mentality. that’s what’s wrong with the country today. Nobody wants to take care of themselves. This lady teaching women job skills and how to take care of themselves is exactly what needs to be done in the place of welfare.
November 4th, 2009 at 6:04 am
If you give a man a fish,he eats for a day. If you teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime.
References :
November 4th, 2009 at 6:41 am
"We give every woman a job in the house the day she arrives, whether that’s cooking, security duty or helping Sister Therese teach the children."
That’s a sexist statement.
References :
November 4th, 2009 at 7:12 am
I think it helps to remember that one person’s experience is not everyone’s experience and that even a decade change is significance in affecting people’s experience.
References :
November 4th, 2009 at 7:23 am
Teach a man to fish & he’ll eat all his life.
References :
November 4th, 2009 at 8:02 am
Providing handouts for lazy losers is like saying we know you are too damn stupid to ever be able to feed yourself, we know you are too ignorant to stop making keeds you can’t afford, we know you are cheats and so were your parents and so will your kids be, at least we hope so …..then you will keep voting dem. to keep those raises coming.
References :
November 4th, 2009 at 8:09 am
Sister Connie Driscoll is a liberal.
References :
November 4th, 2009 at 8:19 am
We give every woman a job in the house the day she arrives, whether that’s cooking, security duty or helping Sister Therese teach the children."
Other than a 3/4-hour pass to go for job interviews, the women always have somewhere to be: career or computer training, GED classes, Alcoholics and Narcotics Anonymous meetings or a job here in the house
-________________________________
Wow, a false economy of fake jobs – that is a major of hand out; plus free daycare and free education….
References :
November 4th, 2009 at 8:56 am
Conservatives have no monopoly on encouraging responsible behavior.
References :
November 4th, 2009 at 9:38 am
The best way to help the poor would be to eliminate minimum wage laws, eliminate all employee-related lawsuits, and eliminate all employer-related taxes.
References :
November 4th, 2009 at 9:44 am
Only Liberals promote the entitlement mentality. that’s what’s wrong with the country today. Nobody wants to take care of themselves. This lady teaching women job skills and how to take care of themselves is exactly what needs to be done in the place of welfare.
References :
November 4th, 2009 at 10:26 am
Lovely Lady, but I wonder if any of her particular brand of help requires an indoctrination into her religious beliefs?
References :
November 4th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Getting rid of dumb taxes we have had for decades could be a start,this would help the middle class too.Also get work forces and the like out of government control.
References :
Independent American
November 4th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Give them just enough to kill their motivation.
References :
November 4th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
That "teach a man to fish" Conservative line is such BS…especially when they’re destroying ALL the fish with their industrial pollutants.
That phrase, "teach a man to sell fish for an inflated price while other peons do the fishing for him at a slave labor rate so he can sit around and complain about being taxed for ever" is more akin to the "Conservative way".
(No, the best way to help the poor is by educating them.)
References :
November 4th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Welfare is a complete failure.
References :
November 4th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
your source is a ten year old article. Ten years ago, there was less acrimony than there is today. In the last ten years the gop has moved farther to the right, and now is a party of extremists, and my evidence is the current NY 23rd congressional race. Today, there is virtually zero effort by the right to help anyone but themselves, and this means no help for the poor, but also no help for women, children, latinos, blacks and the unemployed.
References :
November 4th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
So, no compassion until someone is literally living on the streets? I think I’ll stick with the democrats for now.
References :
November 4th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
and how many of these organizations are there and how many does it serve relative to the need?
how many sister Driscolls are there?
and perhaps the most important… what about the children of the people that don’t want to be a part of a program like that?
it’s a great idea… now let’s do it on a grand scale… instead of peacemealing it together randomly at the whim of this church or that…
how about making a real difference instead of one nice story?
that’s the problem with conservative ideas… they take a lot of time, a lot of money and a lot of patience… yet there seems to be a lack of all of those things coming from conservative party members… sure there is this one or that one that does it… but relative to the need, it’s grains of sand on the beach…
References :
November 4th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Neither. Good natured people like youreself should house and feed them, since it’s the good christian thing to do. Then the rest of us could stop hearing about it.
References :
November 4th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Who cares what is more compassionate? What works? The more locally charity is administered, the more effective it is.
When the US was still considered a collection of neighborhoods, cities, and states (rather than one federally controlled mass), private charities and churches were the primary providers of welfare. When your next door neighbor, pastor, and relatives were the ones donating clothes, food, or shelter to you; your incentive was to show your appreciation for their help by eliminating the need for it. This still works when tried today.
The locus of responsibility was close to the recipient of the aid. The recipient saw the faces of the people who were helping them every day. People felt ashamed if they were not doing everything they could to improve their situation and the donors would follow up when they thought people were not doing their part. Those with the means to help felt a personal obligation to help.
The Progressive movement changed all of that.
As populists campaigned for government paid benefits, the roles of private charities and churches was reduced. When Progressives got elected, their tax increases reduced the money available to donate and increased the demand for government assistance. Government bureaucrats have neither the time nor incentive to effectively hold recipients of aid responsible for improving their condition. In fact, the politicians have an incentive to increase the number of people who see themselves as reliant on them for their basic needs. Over the years, politicians have used these people to solidify their voting blocks and drive wedges between the voters.
What was once seen as a personal problem has become distant and less human. Tax payers resent all who receive aid because some flaunt their ability to game the system. The "welfare queen" reputation prevails. At the same time, recipients do not respect the individual tax payer’s right to what they earn. The "greedy capitalist" reputation prevails. Politicians benefit as the people spend so much time fighting each other that they fail to place blame where it belongs – with the Politicians.
Effective welfare is funded by private citizens freely giving their own money to the charities of their choice. Effective welfare does not threaten the benefactor with prison time if they choose not to contribute money to the beneficiary. Effective welfare holds the recipients accountable for getting themselves up on their feet. The goal of effective welfare is eliminating the need for its own existence, not creating and fostering intergenerational dependency for political gain.
References :