A Good Question

My wife often questions my actions and those question almost always begin with "since when."  Maybe you've heard them:

"Since when did we start storing your underwear on the floor in the bedroom?"

"Since when do we leave the closet light on when we're not using in there?"

"Since when are peanut-butter chocolate chip pancakes a suitable meal for dinner?"

While the questions are rhetorical, they do make one think about the exact moment when something changed and something new began.  I often wonder about this with many things.  Maybe that's why I've been obsessed with books on odd facts and little known trivia bits - you often get the answer of "since when" something started.

My "since when" question might have an answer that crisp and clear, but I doubt it.  I will venture to guess that your answers will be varied and mostly general, however, they'll probably interesting.  So here's my question (drum roll)... Since when is the government's primary function to take care of the sick and poor? 

Now, don't get bogged down wondering if the government takes care of the sick and poor - they do.  I just want to know when that started.  I know when our federal government was designed that both of those groups were not necessarily the focal point of the government's available funds.  I also know that the specific roles of the government and it's branches were stated quite clearly. What's not clear is how we got here. 

I imagine the first government handout was not received with joy.  Our older generations were embarrassed by charity and found begging to be an atrocious activity.  People who took the government's help were driven by necessity and wracked with guilt for doing so.  Later on people were driven by convenience more than necessity.  And now people are driven by entitlement as if the government's only role is to fund their inability to provide for themselves.   When did this happen? I know why - it's knowing when that I'm interested in.

Anybody care to venture a guess?

Comments

[TIm]

I am no Tea Party expert, but doesn't the Preamble to the Constitution say something about "promoting the general welfare" of the nation..where we are all supposed to take care of each other and work together for the common good?

I would think that that phrase could be broadly interpreted to answer your question. Of course, I could be wrong, since I don't carry the Constitution around in my shirt pocket as a fashion statement like many are doing these days...

[Lisat]

Oh about 2,000 years ago

[gabe]

I'll venture to say late '40s, early '50s.

And peanut-butter chocolate chip pancakes are good anytime of the day.

[Carl Starr]

Taking care of Veterans was first duty then of course the orphan and widows and elderly naturally followed.

It can be no other way.
All nations do or try to.

[TIm]

Actually, it goes back about 4000 years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule

Perhaps you have heard of the Golden Rule?

[Andre]

It all began with the New Deal.

[david k]

This is good. We've got some people saying the moral code among men started this and I guess it was implied silently in our constitution. Then there are some pointing direct events in american history. It is interesting to see where people are on this question.

[Manuel salcido]

Social welfare economics is really a twentieth century phenomenon. I believe that as societies become affluent, and it's citizens are able to provide for themselves beyond basic subsistence, there is a greater calling for excess resources to be used to help less fortunate individuals achieve basic subsistence. Before the twentieth century, most people in this country worked to survive, literally, and had little opportunity for capital accumulation or to spend on luxury items. Social welfare economics, as it was envisioned in the early years, was quite logical as it would strengthen and move forward the consolidation of our democracy in many ways. The idea goes that by making sure people are not living short, brutish lives, struggling to find their next meal or place to sleep, their political viewpoints and activities would become moderated and the rule of law would be uplifted as a result. A corrolary to the last statement would include the rise of secularism in our society as more people would have the opportunity to work in an effort that may very well contribute to the advancement of society instead of just working to feed themselves, thus providing for more opportunity to overcome traditional ways of thinking that may impinge on modern ideas of human rights. I believe strongly in these early notions of social welfare, but also believe that today's interpretation is taking it too far. Liberals have extrapolated these ideas to mean that people NEED things beyond what is required to survive, and that the people have an obligations to provide for those needs. Some examples of liberal lunacy include the supposed need for the people to provide a free public education beyond high school or, outrageously, the need for a free cell phone because no one can survive without immediate access to emergency services. If we were to follow the liberal idea of social welfare, there would be no end to the need for government intervention. We would hear crazy liberals talking about how the government needs to give everyone a car, because, after all, how can you provide for yourself and get a job if you don't have a car. Or, better yet, everyone should get a government issue dog, because, studies have shown pet owners live longer, happier lives, and people shouldn't die sooner just because they can't afford a dog. It's lunacy. I believe that we do have an obligation to make sure that people in our great society are not fighting for scraps on the street, and living like wild animals, but I also believe that handouts should not go beyond very basic subsistence because it saps motivation, and limits our ability to judiciously allocate scarce resources to assure our competitive advantage on the global scale and maintain out affluence. But tell that to Harry Reid and the rest of his liberal cohorts. If he had his way, we would all be cowboy poets with a free set of government issue spurs.

[Just Askin']

What would Jesus do?

[WWJD]

During His mortal ministry, Jesus Christ was asked which commandment was the greatest or most important. He answered, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” (Matthew 22:37-40)

[kindasimple]

"Since when is the government's primary function to take care of the sick and poor?"

As far as this country goes, it is not something that was contemplated as a central government responsibility when the Constitution was written (and yes I carry one around in my hip pocket and have for a couple of decades).

The idea was that the states should each decide what to do about the issue and leave the central government out of it.

Personally, I have no moral objection to the central government doing this as long as the people vote to ammend the rules (Constitution) to allow for this.

The Constitution is the only set of written rules we have. It needs to be changed, but in the meantime what are the rules? Should it be whatever those rascals in Washington decide they want to do?

I hope not.

[kindasimple]

Tim, as far as the "general Welfare" goes your argument would lead a teen-aged child whose parent said "I want you to be happy, so I will let you go to the movie" to conclude that anything that made the kid happy was sanctioned by the parent.

The Constitution sets out very specifically what the central government is allowed to do. Anything else is specifically prohibited by the Tenth Amendment.

Once again, if the rules need to change we should change them instead of ignoring them.

[Juana]

My answer would be when FDR started the New Deal. But it's interesting how many people are confusing individual moral responsibility with government responsibility. They are not and cannot be the same.

[Lupe]

Since when is it so great for the rich to have all the tax cuts, and the working person do without? More and more every year that is all they do, and that is to tax the middle class and the poor.What is so great about the rich having more than their fair share? It seems that there is a sentence or two about this issue in the constitution. Right now since Bush Jr. started it; it seems that the government has not been responsible with their constituents. All they want to do is to take from the poor and middle class and give it to the rich.

[susie]

Since when has it been the role of the Federal Government to bailout the Banks and Wallstreet? Since when has the "wealthiest one percent" become the "WELFARE QUEEN?"

[taxpayer]

50% of the working adults in the U.S. do not pay federal income taxes. They get all their withholding back at tax time. That 50% is the middle class and especially the "poor" as defined by the government.

[Salcido via David K]

This comment was sent to me via email.

Social welfare economics is really a twentieth century phenomenon. I believe that as societies become affluent, and it's citizens are able to provide for themselves beyond basic subsistence, there is a greater calling for excess resources to be used to help less fortunate individuals achieve basic subsistence. Before the twentieth century, most people in this country worked to survive, literally, and had little opportunity for capital accumulation or to spend on luxury items. Social welfare economics, as it was envisioned in the early years, was quite logical as it would strengthen and move forward the consolidation of our democracy in many ways. The idea goes that by making sure people are not living short, brutish lives, struggling to find their next meal or place to sleep, their political viewpoints and activities would become moderated and the rule of law would be uplifted as a result. A corrolary to the last statement would include the rise of secularism in our society as more people would have the opportunity to work in an effort that may very well contribute to the advancement of society instead of just working to feed themselves, thus providing for more opportunity to overcome traditional ways of thinking that may impinge on modern ideas of human rights. I believe strongly in these early notions of social welfare, but also believe that today's interpretation is taking it too far. Liberals have extrapolated these ideas to mean that people NEED things beyond what is required to survive, and that the people have an obligation to provide for those needs. Some examples of liberal lunacy include the supposed need for the people to provide a free public education beyond high school or, outrageously, the need for a free cell phone because no one can survive without immediate access to emergency services. If we were to follow the liberal idea of social welfare, there would be no end to the need for government intervention. We would hear crazy liberals talking about how the government needs to give everyone a car, because, after all, how can you provide for yourself and get a job if you don't have a car. Or, better yet, everyone should get a government issue dog, because, studies have shown pet owners live longer, happier lives, and people shouldn't die sooner just because they can't afford a dog. It's lunacy. I believe that we do have an obligation to make sure that people in our great society are not fighting for scraps on the street, and living like wild animals, but I also believe that handouts should not go beyond very basic subsistence because it saps motivation, and limits our ability to judiciously allocate scarce resources to assure our competitive advantage on the global scale and maintain our affluence. But tell that to Harry Reid and the rest of his liberal cohorts. If he had his way, we would all be cowboy poets with a free set of government issue spurs.

[Lisat]

Paragraph anyone

[(:-p)]

I don't mean to get all Alex Jones-y BUT, if you were a political party with communistic tendenties and you wanted to have a fair amount of control over society, would you do these things like we did in the mid-sixties:

Lower our immigration standards, dumb down the government schools, tell people it's ok to not work because they're probably a "victim" of evil, capitalist america and as long as you vote for a certain party, we'll make sure that you recieve "social(ism) justice," make the tax system very convoluted so everyone is timid, and sub-servaint to it, offer encouragement to those who foolishly and accidentally become pregnant by offering them "free" money, start creating copious amounts of gun laws while at the same time giving serious criminals a slap on the wrist, demonize capitalism with an over-abundance of lawsuits, regulations, and insulting the risk-takers.

And of course, divide americans into sub-groups by continuously playing the race card so that people will spend less time thinking of themselves as individuals (american-ism) and more time thinking as just another member of a community-ism.

Past+Present=Future=a lot of turbulance.