You can not multiply wealth by dividing it, great quote must read

[psalms1v123]

"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that, my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it." :angel:

Quote by the late Dr. Adrian Rogers

[starclassics]

I love adrian rogers....a wise man if there ever was one.

One of the many wise who will never be listened to in extreme masses because truth is not always pretty.

[daveNYC]

Thank God for a pastor with the strength to say that charity work is for suckers.

[BigBagel]

What does the quote mean in practicality? Should all welfare be abolished including for those severely disabled? Should any kind of aid for children living in poverty be abolished? If an uninsured child becomes severely ill should we watch him or her die if no voluntary assistance is offered? Should Social Security be abolished since it's basically a wealth transfer from one generation to another? How about Medicare?

[deester]

What does the quote mean in practicality? Should all welfare be abolished including for those severely disabled? Should any kind of aid for children living in poverty be abolished? If an uninsured child becomes severely ill should we watch him or her die if no voluntary assistance is offered? Should Social Security be abolished since it's basically a wealth transfer from one generation to another? How about Medicare?

It's really very simple...go to work!

[janer]

The founder of a NJ organization "Liberty and Prosperity" writes a weekly local column and used this quote as a springboard for this week's issue.
http://shorenewstoday.com/nls/

[BigBagel]

Not sure what you mean? Repeal child labor laws? Have the aged in nursing homes do piecemeal work? Have quadriplegics do work involving blowing through straws. Of course those able should work or starve but what about these others? If the state provides them with assistance that would violate the spirit of the quote.

[donesprague]

What does the quote mean in practicality? Should all welfare be abolished including for those severely disabled? Should any kind of aid for children living in poverty be abolished? If an uninsured child becomes severely ill should we watch him or her die if no voluntary assistance is offered? Should Social Security be abolished since it's basically a wealth transfer from one generation to another? How about Medicare?

Charity is a gift from one who earned it. Government forced removal of the product of one person's hard work is not charity it is legalized robbery. The purpose of government is supposed to be for national defense and domestic tranquility. That doesn't justify government intrusion. People who need health care should purchase it or get it from a charity. Social Security is supposedly an insurance plan. Like any other insurance plan, the payout comes from both the past payments into the plan as well as current payments. Social Security only becomes a welfare plan when we get into the Supplemental security where people who didn't pay in get a payout.

[BigBagel]

[quote=donesprague;48359691]Charity is a gift from one who earned it. Government forced removal of the product of one person's hard work is not charity it is legalized robbery. The purpose of government is supposed to be for national defense and domestic tranquility. That doesn't justify government intrusion. People who need health care should purchase it or get it from a charity. Social Security is supposedly an insurance plan. Like any other insurance plan, the payout comes from both the past payments into the plan as well as current payments. Social Security only becomes a welfare plan when we get into the Supplemental security where people who didn't pay in get a payout.[/quote

If Social Security was indeed based on actuarial tables benefits would be cut drastically or eliminated. Are you prepared to live in a Dickens novel where the orphans beg on the streets if charity is not available? What about funding research? We would not be having this conversation if the government did not play a part in the development of the internet.

[psalms1v123]

I am sorry to see such upset. I assumed (my bad) that it was obvious that the quote is not to say that if you are unable to care for yourself that you shouldn't recieve help. The Key word there is UNABLE. That is not the case today. We as blessed individuals have an obligation to help take care of those who are not able to care for themselves and it starts at our own homes.

[DDG421985]

That too many people that have not paid into it are taking out of it. ADD, ADHD, etc, etc..... It was supposed to be for retirement after years of working. Well, as a supplement anyway. But now it is used as a source of income by many people too lazy(yes I said LAZY!) to work! I know some of these people personally I am ashamed to say, and no longer associate. It does no good to report anything because a government employee might lose their person(job)! All the children need is discipline and guidance(YES! IT'S TRUE!) My son was diagnosed by doctors, and cured by me. No beating, no abuse, just discipline and guidance. "He who does not discipline his child surely hates his child". Does anyone know where this statement comes from besides me? OH! And as for the sick, and poor. In parts of the world where there is no welfare people take care of their own by working together. Not to take advantage of the system, like what is happening here in the United States, but to achieve what is necessary for the family to survive. Thus making the family closer and the bond stronger. If you don't believe me I have a few places you can visit. Been there. Saw it with my own two eyes!

[DDG421985]

That too many people that have not paid into it are taking out of it. ADD, ADHD, etc, etc..... It was supposed to be for retirement after years of working. Well, as a supplement anyway. But now it is used as a source of income by many people too lazy(yes I said LAZY!) to work! I know some of these people personally I am ashamed to say, and no longer associate. It does no good to report anything because a government employee might lose their person(job)! All the children need is discipline and guidance(YES! IT'S TRUE!) My son was diagnosed by doctors, and cured by me. No beating, no abuse, just discipline and guidance. "He who does not discipline his child surely hates his child". Does anyone know where this statement comes from besides me? OH! And as for the sick, and poor. In parts of the world where there is no welfare people take care of their own by working together. Not to take advantage of the system, like what is happening here in the United States, but to achieve what is necessary for the family to survive. Thus making the family closer and the bond stronger. If you don't believe me I have a few places you can visit. Been there. Saw it with my own two eyes!

[donesprague]

If Social Security was indeed based on actuarial tables benefits would be cut drastically or eliminated. Are you prepared to live in a Dickens novel where the orphans beg on the streets if charity is not available? What about funding research? We would not be having this conversation if the government did not play a part in the development of the internet.

Before welfare became a simple handout, it was performed different. People went to the poor farm. They worked to get themself going again. That worked but is wasn't "nice enough". Before the poor farm, it was the family who worked together. As for children on the street, people didn't have methods of birth control and various overall economic conditions impact that situation. A tug on the heart strings is a ploy but it can be resolved with an orphans home.


As for the Internet, I know a great deal about the government participation in it's existence. The electronic highway was well on it's way before the National Science Foundation funded a contract in 1985 for IBM, a university and a telco to develop the “Internet” with virtually free networking with fair use rules that specialty limited use to government, academic, and research. There were firm rules to prohibit advertisement and individual use. One side of the communication had to be government, academic or research. The first internet was to address a small portion of the myriad of government networks that connected various government, academic and research users with a strong military justification. That philosophy of Internet 1 came from the strategy and architecture that had been defined and was being deployed in the public sector years before the NSF promoted the contract for Internet 1. Various commercial value added networks were providing private individual, public, business and government connectivity. All the states as well as the federal government were connected to one or more of the VANs. One VAN known as IGN had all 50 states and the Federal government doing various programs in areas such as health care and highway communication and improvement. IGN had become the largest VAN provider of services for a very large electronic customer support user community allow all types of businesses to conduct their E business strategy. It became obvious to the NSF that Internet 2 had to eliminate the fair use rules to move from a very small service with the weakest technology. Since the Internet was virtually free, it had an advantage over the commercial VANs. Then the NSF eliminated the fair use rules allowing it to compete head on with the public services. The NSF also defined new contracts for Internet 2 providers opening it up for more that the initial three providers and developers. It didn’t take long for all the existing VANs to adopt TCP/IP to become Internet VANs also know as internet providers. As a result, there was an assimilation of prior existing VANs using the NSF’s funded TCP/IP without the former Internet 1 fair use rules. That enabled the realization of the existing commercial strategy and architecture that specifically defined and promoted a methodology of providing any to any connectivity and communication. The NSF didn’t define the E business architecture and strategy. It didn’t define the any to any public, private, business and government communication architecture and strategy. The NSF’s main and virtually only contribution to the existing public deployment of the electronic highway was TCP/IP. The Internet is clearly an assimilation of public sector providers using a common communication protocol that was developed by a consortium of business and education to realize a public sector architecture and strategy. This is fact from one who was there.

[stptk11]

We are a society that has come to worship the mantra "You have a right to lifestyle you cannot afford."

[BrennyMac]

"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that, my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it." :angel:

Quote by the late Dr. Adrian Rogers





Given his support for the Iraq War, I wonder how Dr. Rogers would have defended the give away of 12 billion dollars on pallets to Iraqis who didn't work for it. Or health care for Iraqis who didn't work for it. Or adopting the strategy of paying Sunni militias to not shoot at Americans. How can one be an interventionist and a conservative at the same time? Must the threat of violence exist in order for someone of his opinion to concede to giving aid? And didn't Jesus at least multiply sustinance by dividing it? It would seem there are some principles in conflict here.

Also, I happen to like the idea of a poor farm, but even were such an idea included in a stimulus bill presented by Democrats, wouldn't it still be called a socialist project, or more spending on people who don't pay taxes? The pre-disposition to partisanship keeps a number of good ideas from getting through. Just look at the attempts to block federal assitance in paying for state fire and police forces at a time when America is still under threat of attack.

[Counsel]

What does the quote mean in practicality? Should all welfare be abolished including for those severely disabled? Should any kind of aid for children living in poverty be abolished? If an uninsured child becomes severely ill should we watch him or her die if no voluntary assistance is offered? Should Social Security be abolished since it's basically a wealth transfer from one generation to another? How about Medicare?

I saw nothing in the quoted phrase that says anything about not helping those who need help. Rather, it says

"The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that, my dear friend, is about the end of any nation."

The saying is one of "giving from those who have to those who have not" makes it more "fair." However, "fair" includes working hard for what you get--or, in my opinion, should include the benefit for the work done.

I think to "get" you should have to "work." The work could be volunteer work with a federal/state agency or actual work through other means. Nobody should get paid for just sitting around. Most people can work, and only a small percentage can not do anything of benefit to society.

Why do we think "we" (include you and me) are entitled to money or wealth? Because this is the "land of the free?" You are free to not work and not have money... Our rights include:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

While there are others, "free" health care, income, and other "benefits" may not be included. Remember... "free" just means YOU don't pay for it. However, I guarantee that someone, somewhere is paying for whatever "it" is...:hug:

Perhaps you are okay with giving, or charity. Great! I too give. Does taking from someone to give to another solve the problem?

You don't end discrimination by discriminating against those in the majority to correct for past discrimination because you are still discriminating. What was wrong then is still wrong now, and I don't think two wrongs make a right. The answer is simply to stop discrimination.

The same reasoning applies to other arguments. Giving to those who "don't have" does not solve a "problem." Rather, it may make those without more dependent on the system. What we want is a productive population rather than a large number of people sitting back and not working--all while waiting on the government to send them a check.

Of course, your opinion may vary...

[Scot]

The PEOPLE of the United States of America are THE MOST GENEROUS of any nation. I emphasize the word PEOPLE. Where is the credit for all the TRILLIONS of dollars given to the poor, underpriveledge and disabled on our soil as well as abroad?

The PEOPLE of this country will not let the disabled die in the streets. The PEOPLE of this country do not want to see fellow Americans down and out.

The PEOPLE of this country do not need the Government to confiscate their money and do as THEY see fit with it.