Bernie Sanders supports welfare over charity, even though evidence suggests welfare leads to laziness, but not in the way you think it does.

You would think that a candidate, whose campaign relies solely on charity, would be a little more sympathetic to it. A New York Times article from 1981, contains a shocking admission from the #2 Candidate. (h/t: Powerline):

”I don’t believe in charities,”: said Mayor Sanders, bringing a shocked silence to a packed hotel banquet room. The Mayor, who is a Socialist, went on to question the ”fundamental concepts on which charities are based” and contended that government, rather than charity organizations, should take over responsibility for social programs. (full story)

Now, maybe he was just warning the people at that United Way event, not to bother hitting him up for a check. But it’s really a wrong headed position to take. Not only is government distribution of welfare notoriously ineffiecient, there seems to be a direct correlation between government assistance, and laziness.

Not to say the people who take welfare are lazy. That’s been suggested for quite some time and it’s not exactly true. The reality is, when you can make more money sitting at home watching Judge Judy, than working for a minimum wage, most will take jury duty for Judy. It’s not the fault of the unfortunate, that they’re gifted with good business sense.

The laziness actually occurs on the other end: the Sloth of the Compassionate. Before government took over social services, people who cared for the impoverished would roll up their sleeves and dig into their own bank accounts. They’d be active members of churches and service organizations.

That’s not the way things are today. For most people life has become so complicated, no one has time to participate in these organizations in between their status updates. These institutions are from a different age, a time when Community meant more than just an inferior college. “I gave at the office”, is no longer one of the three biggest lies, because no one today, actually gives at the office. (Come to think of it, I don’t think anyone puts checks in the mail either.)

In modern America, you show compassion by putting a sign on your front lawn, and wearing a sticker on election day. That’s it. No need to contribute to charity. In fact, many will tell you that churches are corrupt institutions who steal from the taxpayers through exemptions, and don’t deserve your support.

Even for the institutions people do support, contributions will go to candidates who promise continued federal subsidies, rather than directly to the organization. Public Broadcasting has to use gimmicks like coffee mugs and tote bags to pry a few bucks out of member’s wallets (and STILL requires Government subsides to keep Thomas the Tank Engine on the tracks).

It’s not entirely our fault. Since Roosevelt’s New Deal, candidates have been promising to eliminate poverty, and hunger, and all we have to do as citizens is pull the correct lever on election day.

Actually hunger has been virtually eliminated in America, though it has more to do with the leaps in agricultural technology, than politicians. (Contrarily, Government programs increase the scarcity of food, by limiting how much farmers can grow.) Today there is more focus on childhood obesity than childhood hunger, which proves that no matter how good life gets, there will always be crisis to exploit.

Government has become the new church. Look at the comparisons you see between Bernie Sanders and Jesus. Of course, Jesus never ran for office. Certainly he could have. That water into wine trick would have earned him Bernie level support on the college campuses. (And just imagine what he could do with Flint water!)

Jesus also never said that you should help the poor, by electing compassionate Romans to the Senate. In fact, he made a distinction between God and Caesar, by pointing out whose face was on the coin.

On the other hand, American money today, does mention God…