Paying it Forward

I pay for the order behind me at Tim Horton's two or three times a week, and provide a fund for my staff to draw from so they can do the same sort of thing whenever they wish.

"But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing. So that your giving me be in secret"

Very true, and that has absolutely nothing to do with this.

Andrew how can you do that? We are nasty evil conservatives who don't care about others remember...

Laura,
great article, I couldn't agree more. Even though our acts of kindness are often met with skepticism or even outright rudeness, we keep on doing it simply because it is the right thing to do. Andrew, great idea, probably shocks a lot of people, I just hope people don't catch on to this and fight to line up behind you in Tim Horton's!

I applaud Andrew's generosity.
Unlike others who believe that achievers should not contribute to the welfare of the needy, it is an admirable gesture.
I wonder if some would rather give the person in front of them a handful of coffee beans to teach them that growing their own coffee is better than accepting Andrew's generosity?

Who are those others Bea?

My last comment was facetious.

Charity is great so long as its done through volunteerism. No one should be forced.

Peter, your comment may have been ironic, but your politicizing of charity is compelling. It reminds me of a Bushism that was panned oxymoronic: "compassionate conservative."

Compassion or charity are qualities blind to political affiliation. Politicans, on the other hand, are bound to manipulate public policy that may be construed as charitable so law conforms to political notions. I suppose one could label public highway maintenance as charitable. I wouldn't. I find it disturbing that Bush considered public assistance as better handled by churches.

If the world were not so complex, it might be practical to allow accidental human kindness to tend the unfortunate. But like the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus and Mighty Mouse- such idealism is inconsistent with reality. We shall always have individuals who by age, environment, intellectual and physical limitations are unable to function independently. Coping with those limitations should not be left to chance opportunity.

Government as envisioned by the founding fathers was a mode of protecting inalienable rights from tyranny. From the Declaration of Independence: "... mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Our current tyrants are those industries that have reduced the population to credit-dependent servitude for the sole purpose of profits. Despite statements to the contrary, the middle class is shrinking. Middle class being working class/skilled trade employees self-sufficiently established in a middle income bracket. That is not the same as a two-income household eking out in a sagging economy.

If government will not mediate in resolving the deterioration of the middle class- who will? Corporate greed got us where we are; don't expect the greedy to correct the problem.

Allowing pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies and corporate care facilities to manage our health care is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house.

C.M., in a country more in keeping with the intentions of the Founders -- limited Federal government, rights reserved for the people -- where communities were less burdened with unfunded mandates and one-size-fits-all laws and restrictions handed down both from Federal and State bureaucrats ... in that country, charity could more easily be handled closer to home. There is something very perverse and dehumanizing about people becoming dependent on Federal and State aid for basic sustenance and health. When the government handles charity, people are more apt to join a permanently dependent class rather than being encouraged by friends, family and neighbors to regain independence.

In other words, I'm in sympathy with the notion that the government should not be in the charity business, but as you note, our society has become too complex (I say too burdened) to make that notion very realistic.

As for the shrinking middle class, starting in 1985, average wages fell and average hours worked rose dramatically. This trend is community and democracy destroying. This is the effect of corporate chains pushing manufacturing jobs overseas in order to obtain ever lower prices on increasingly poorly made goods that can be sold at ever higher profit margins.

And that, too, is a problem, the government can or should be expect to fix (except to enforce anti-trust legislation as originally intended). This is largely the responsibility of each individual consumer to fix, becoming smarter shoppers.

Howard, if there were alternatives to buying products manufactured overseas, I would agree with you. I do not see very many opportunities to buy appliances, tools, entertainment products or other household items that are made in U. S. factories. For the consumer to affectively compensate corporate disaffection for domestic labor, there must be such products on hand. When I bought a DVD player a couple years back, I purposely went with an Oppo, a company based in California. Since then I discovered that the units are made in China. I bought a Maytag washer recently, assuming they were made in Newton, Iowa. Not since 2006, Whirlpool bought up the brand, and the washer was made in Hong Kong. I was speaking with an employee of Pavilion Gift Company, located in Bergen, and discovered that the products by large are manufactured overseas. The local employees merely apply a couple dabs of paint to legitimize a "Made in U.S.A." claim.

Our country seems to be headed down the same path that destroyed the former USSR's economy. We are forfeiting our domestic-made consumer-products and relying on arms manufacturing vis-a-vis our role as world police force to generate GNP. The US spends more than 20 percent of its annual budget on defense, with some 700 military naval and air bases in over 100 countries. The Department of Defense’s planned expenditure for the fiscal year 2008 was larger than all other nations’ military budgets combined. Defense-related spending for fiscal 2008 exceeded $1 trillion for the first time in history. The US is the largest single seller of arms and munitions to other nations on Earth.

The problem with this situation (for those who do not recollect the fall of the Soviet Union) high wage jobs associated with domestic production are lost as consumer products are manufactured overseas. Without the resources to purchase such consumer products, consumers rely on credit- in any event, the profits are split with the overseas manufacturer. At the same time, trillions of tax dollars are syphoned away from necessary domestic infrastructure improvements to pay for military operations. These operations may be profitable for defense contractors, but they are paid for by tax dollars. So the taxpayer is being double-dip screwed; he/she loses wages, his/her tax dollars are spent on spent munitions and his/her bridges collapse. Coupled with this, wages lag cost of living increases.

If government really wanted to fix this problem, a tariff would be applied to all overseas manufactured domestic products to the extent that manufacturing domestically would be more profitable. But that would probably violate NAFTA/CAFTA and several other agreements toxic to the American worker.

On a separate note... When I speak of those who require more than charity- public assistance; I'm talking about the mentally ill, physically challenged, children and elderly who are unable to "pull up their bootstraps" and take charge of their lives. We have become so blinded by stories of welfare fraud and abuse that the millions who have no recourse but survive on social security, medicare/aid and public assistance languish invisible. We may not be callous, but we certainly prefer the foibles of Paris Hilton to recognizing poverty, affliction and disenfranchisement.

Posted by C. M. Barons on June 27, 2009 - 9:22pm
On a separate note... When I speak of those who require more than charity- public assistance; I'm talking about the mentally ill, physically challenged, children and elderly who are unable to "pull up their bootstraps" and take charge of their lives. We have become so blinded by stories of welfare fraud and abuse that the millions who have no recourse but survive on social security, medicare/aid and public assistance languish invisible. We may not be callous, but we certainly prefer the foibles of Paris Hilton to recognizing poverty, affliction and disenfranchisement

Haven't you heard. These people are in their situations because they WANT to be. The achievers have no use for those who are truly in need. They should be able to pull up their bootstraps and make something of their lives without help.

‘Are there no poorhouses? No workhouses? No debtor's prisons?’”
A Christmas Carol
by Charles Dickens

"I find it disturbing that Bush considered public assistance as better handled by churches." Where do you think the concept of public assistance came from? It was never the intentions of our founding fathers for government to be the source of social welfare. They too believed that the churches were best equipped for that. I am not not however naive enough to believe that to be the case now.
As easy as it would be to pass the blame to liberal social programs, the church must take some responsibility. When churches became inward focused and put there emphasis more on their differences with other denominations, the poor and disadvantaged became collateral damage.
I would like to see ALL churches step up and take back that responsibility, if they need help with how that is done, they can simply follow the pattern of the first social programs czar...Jesus Christ.

...And what of the 22% of Americans who never attend church or the 15% of Americans who are non-Christian? The primary complaint regarding the Faith-based Initiative is coercion. Proselytizing and political coaching aside; church-sponsored charities are skewed by sectarian attitudes toward family services, women's health, homosexuality, to name a few. Churches won't employ people with divergent viewpoints; how could they serve people with divergent lifestyles?

Then there is the Constitutional issue of public money funding religious institutions.

I have no objection to church-sponsored charities. I object to the pretense that religious charities should be public-funded to augment (or replace) government programs collectively known as public assistance.

Another factor: economics/urban parishioner decline has resulted in church closings. In 2007, the Rochester Catholic diocese announced the closing of twelve churches and schools. Their urban ministries, however, remained to feed, house, and care for the poor.

Aside from vacant churches and school buildings becoming a blight on struggling neighborhoods, the proliferation of nonprofits (ministries) in urban neighborhoods is counter-productive. The ministries occupy buildings otherwise suited for commercial enterprise and project a negative image of the neighborhood. Shelters tend to perpetuate poverty rather than remedy it.

Obviously the closing of urban churches (as church-going populations head to the suburbs) presents a vacuum in areas needing the most support. ...Hardly the ideal substitute for public assistance.

As for Christ (czar is a new twist): "And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing." 1 Corinthians 13:2

Jesus served divergent lifestyles.

You don't have to attend church or believe, per se, to receive a churches charity, or at least that's the way it should be.

To say churches became inward forcused, I'd put it this way: They became more about personal salvation, which grew into more of a self-help revivalism as the 20th Century progressed.

But this is far more of a complex issue that church vs. state. There are a number of intermingled sociological issues that go far beyond just churches and government. Social cohesion is threadbare these days. Without strong communities this country cannot survive. We need to find ways of rebuilding local community connectedness, and then we'll have greater resources for tackling these social issues.

C.M.,
good points that further support my assertion that the failure of the church to hold to one of it's original missions is in large part why the poor and disadvantaged were left without a place to go. Before government social programs, that percentage of non-church goers and/or non-Christians you refer to were not left out, they still knew that the church would take them and in and meet their needs regardless of their spiritual standing. Yes, coercion and proselytizing are a problem. Jesus and his disciples never used coercion and proselytizing and they still spread the gospel while meeting the needs of the poor.
As to your point about government funding for faith-based programs, I agree again. Churches should not need government money. If Christians gave to their local church as it was modeled in the New Testament, and churches in turn used those gifts to meet the needs of the poor, government run social programs would cease to be relevant.
Your point of vacant churches in urban areas, right again. We don't need more churches, we need more people going to and faithfully supporting the churches that already exist.
Lastly, the difference between faith driven social support (not faith-based government programs) of the poor and government run social programs is this:
Faith says "what's MINE is YOURS and if you have a need, let me freely and without condition, SHARE from my abundance(success) so that all our needs are met".
Government run social program says "what's YOURS is MINE and let me TAKE from your abundance(success), so that I can give equally to everyone else.

"Rich and poor have this in common: The LORD is the Maker of them all." Proverbs 22:2

"When Jesus had finished speaking, a Pharisee invited him to eat with him; so he went in and reclined at the table. But the Pharisee, noticing that Jesus did not first wash before the meal, was surprised.
Then the Lord said to him, "Now then, you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. You foolish people! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also? But give what is inside the dish to the poor, and everything will be clean for you. Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone." Luke 11:37-42

Then Jesus said to his host, "When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous." Luke 14:12-14

Jesus and the social agenda he preached was pared by history (or the lack thereof), being shaped by folklore, political expediency and centuries of revision. He is less often guiding light, more often endorsement for those who have assumed his mantle. I hold up such pretenders as Fred Phelps, James Dobson, Peter Marshall et al. Christ's take on Caesar was not prophetic of the Church of Rome, but the preeminent separation of church/state.

Howard speaks of "rebuilding local community connectedness." The best way to do that is by securing parity of opportunity for members of communities- a tough (not impossible) bill in today's diverse society. As evidenced by extreme situations in Northern Ireland, former Soviet states and the Mideast; religion can be more divisive than cohesive. Parity of opportunity needs to start with level fields in education and commerce. Once those disparities have been evened, community members identify with community rather than fall victim to it.

Rebuilding is a teamwork task. We have been tackling urban blight for decades from various points of view. HUD didn't fix it, urban action groups haven't fixed it. Curfews and electronic surveillance won't fix it. The progress that has been made resulted from two key ingredients: government-funded incentives and suburbanite resurgence in urban areas. ...But the two go hand-in-hand. Initially there must be an attraction. Poor schools and front-loaded capital demands are not attractive.

Posting for later.

Nice story Laura.Sometimes when i am at dollar general, my boys hold the door for people.Some say thanks.Sometimes people just gave me a cart at Aldis.Sometimes i give them one.Its not much but it is something we can do that's nice.

There are more charity organizations in this country than just the church related ones.

If the government were capable of solving all of society's problems, that government would be so incredible oppressive that it would eventually collapse when the wealth creators stop creating.

The problem with all social programs (government and private) are the related bureaucracies. Those can be avoided in smaller local charities or by only giving to charities that spend 100% of donations on those they are trying to help.