I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.
There is no country in the world where so many provisions are established for them; so many hospitals to receive them when they are sick or lame, founded and maintained by voluntary charities; so many alms-houses for the aged of both sexes, together with a solemn general law made by the rich to subject their estates to a heavy tax for the support of the poor.
Under all these obligations, are our poor modest, humble, and thankful; and do they use their best endeavours to maintain themselves, and lighten our shoulders of this burthen? — On the contrary, I affirm that there is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent.
The day you passed that act, you took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to industry, frugality, and sobriety, by giving them a dependance on somewhat else than a careful accumulation during youth and health, for support in age or sickness.
In short, you offered a premium for the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder that it has had its effect in the increase of poverty.
Repeal that law, and you will soon see a change in their manners. St. Monday, and St. Tuesday, will cease to be holidays. SIX days shalt thou labour, though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them.
Amen to this! True then, and true today!
So amazing that this man had such an ability to lead. We have totally lost leaders like him in this country, and replaced them with criminals. The Democrats figured out a long time ago if their voting base rose out of poverty they would lose them, so the keep them dependent. The biggest crime ever perpetrated on the poor and even more seriously against minorities have been liberal policies.
This is one of my favorite Franklin quotes. I have to say one of because he was so good.
a most excellent dispensary of the naught of socialism, even in today’s standards.
Same then…same thousands of years ago…and hasn’t changed since…no matter how much you want to keep them in poverty for your own political benefit. Oh, and it isn’t considered charity either.
I’m with Ben on this….”I am for doing good to the poor… The best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. The more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer.”
The poor do not need a hand out – they need a hand up. The expectation that work is required for the daily bread is not an evil motive. Rather it gives a person the pride of doing, of being able to meet his own needs.
However, it is important that we DO take care of the least of these, the ones who cannot take care of themselves. Cannot does not mean will not, mind you.
Get rid of federal funding of abortion entirely and put that money to a better use, such as getting industries to bring jobs BACK to the US. Providing the American worker with employment would go a very long way toward alleviating poverty. Stop throwing fish at the poor. Deregulate the pond and make fishing poles and bait available. Then determine those who cannot fish from those who will not fish and decide THEN who will get the charity help. Refuse it to those who are lazy, drugged and drunken.
It would help, too, to make sure there were good, low cost day cares available for single parents so they COULD bring in a pay check. I don’t consider that charity, I consider that a necessary part of providing the opportunity.
How do you make sure there are good, low cost day cares available without starting the cycle all over again?
Notice that the same thing occurs when we give foreign aid.
There is a difference between subsidizing rent for everyone and giving businesses incentives to create affordable day care.
The last time someone gave me crap about being a stay at home mom – I asked them if they were going to make up the difference between what I was able to reasonably earn at a minimum wage job (about all I can get, unfortunately, despite a college education – long story), and what it would cost me to put two strong willed, high needs kids into day care. The last quote I got was $6 an hour PER CHILD – and that was the subsidized day care. Private was twice that. Even though my kids are 12 and 13, there is NO WAY on God’s green earth that I can let them go unsupervised. I’m unemployed until they prove they are responsible enough for me to let them look after themselves.
Where is their father?
What’s that got to do with it? Suppose he is dead. Will you subsidize her? Suppose he is mentally retarded, abusive or physically incapacitated to be a father, are you in favor of government help for her?
Her point is that she does not see how she, on her own initiative, can escape her predicament with a job that does not pay her a living wage. Are you in favor of requiring businesses to pay all workers a wage that will allow them to pay for living expenses, child care, and schooling to enable her to follow a path out of poverty? If not, how is she suppose to get out of her situation?
I have not seen any concrete proposals that Ben Franklin did not made for this.
Maybe some of the other contributors can show us “liberals” a plan that that does more than “trickles” on the poor and, soon to be poor, middle class..
Miki, please watch your language. This is a family page.
The greatest compassions the government could show and the greatest dignities it could provide, are the conditions necessary to provide productive lives through economy and jobs. What most liberal thinkers would argue is actually creating irresponsibility and sloth. We have to remember that, just because the surface of a cause looks good, it does not always have a good result and just because the surface seems cruel and mean, the lessons learned can save you for a lifetime. Giving money is good as a temperary fix. But I have to refer again to the wisdom of, “Give a man a fish he will eat for a day…………” You all know the rest. Dignity is in personal liberty.
That was fine when people could freely fish. But what happens when a few people control all the fishing holes and the sea? What happens when the cost of fishing supplies are monopolize by a few people who are so rich they can set the price of fishing supplies at whatever price they want or just choose not to sell fishing supplies, without consequence? What happens when the cost of fishing resources exceeds the value of the fish? What happens when you want to eat something beside fish, you need to buy clothes or you want to by a house but most of it is own by a few people and you have to compete for they trickle down on all of the poor people? How does that work?
There’s that Bible quote again !!! Love it !!!
When I was a child we lived in a humble dwelling. My dad was a mechanic and his shirt was mended several times over until, in some places, all one could see what the thread from the treadle sewing machine that had been zigzagged to repair the tear. My dad said that we had no need to be on welfare because he had a job and we had to live within our means. My parents saved what they could and sent three of us on to college, with no school loans.
The gift of self-reliance is freedom.
So what happens to the kid who doesn’t have a dad? What happens to the family who doesn’t have a sewing machine or other resources your family had? What should happen to the family who is working but whose income means they have to choose between eating and an “humble dwelling”?
Are you saying that no one helped you or your family? You did it all on your own? Incredible!
Was your dad working for minimum wage with no benefits but was still able to save enough to pay for your schooling? Since you lived and learned this, could you please show us a plan we could present to poor people across the nation on how they could do the same with today’s minimum wage? If so, please email me and I will publish this plan.
If conservatives could show me such a plan, with proof that it works, I champion such a plan to my liberal friends.
I agree that people in difficult circumstances will need help from time to time — but this help should not come from the government. Which means the rest of us should look for ways to helping, so the govt can get out of the “helping” business.
Last time I checked, we, the American People, are the government. If we want religion in government and religion says help the poor, what is wrong with the government helping the poor. If people are paid minimum wage, how can they help their relatives, let alone strangers in need?
Looks like we all need to be more financially independent. It’s not just the “poor” getting govt money — from news article: “U.S. households are now getting more in cash handouts from the government than they are paying in taxes for the first time since the Great Depression. … includes expanded unemployment benefits, as well as payments for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and stimulus spending, among other things.”
Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/04/20/government-cash-handouts-exceed-tax-revenues/#ixzz1KDJZyKfp
How about all the money businesses get from the government? Why is everyone so concerned about a few thousand for a mother or father on welfare but not the billions businesses rake off?
Want a great practical example? Look at our own Indian tribes. The Bureau of Indian Affairs has eviscerated an entire race of people and should be charged with capital crimes.
When one reads the whole letter it is self serving, putting his interest above that of his countrymen. If we accept Ben Franklin’s position in this document, then it is everyman for himself. If I were to accept his position I would join the NRA, buy all the guns I could afford and use them to steal those I could not afford, because I would not be constrained by fear nor consideration of my fellow Americans. I would have disdain for the common good of my fellow citizens. It would be all about me.
But I hold patriotism to mean I have a mutual protection pact with all Americans. And I don’t mean protection against only “terrorist” threats. I mean everything.
While I am sure there are some well meaning conservatives, the most visible people representing themselves as conservatives seem to be anti-American because they put their self interest above their fellow Americans. Some clearly have no concern for anyone but themselves.
They ship American jobs, capital, technology and resources to the worlds largest communist country, so I have to think they are communist sympathizers.
They say they are against government control, but they are happy to have the government control others on their behalf. They even want to the government to control how and with whom other people have sex. They say they are against control on business while they lobby for laws to hobble competition.
They say they are against government “hand outs” but they take billions in government “hand outs”.
“Liberal” ideology has many flaws and is often impractical. But when it comes to taking care of the American people, “liberal” ideas put the needs of the many ahead of the needs of the few. In this case, Ben Franklin did no put the needs of his fellow Americans before his personal needs.