Robbing Peter to pay Paul: typical socialist behaviour

[zachor_ve_kavod]

Let's look at two types of charity, socialist charity and Jewish charity.  These two approaches are polar opposites.  There are several different methods of performing charity in Judaism, but there is one clearly best way.  If you can give a man that which he needs so that he can eventually stand on his own two feet, that is the best type of charity.  For example, lending or giving somebody money for college tuition or starting a business, is preferable to just giving somebody money with which they will do who know what. 

This applies to foreign aid as well.  Throwing money at Africa to solve the "AIDS problem" will do nothing to solve the AIDS problem.  America could give a billion dollars to Botswana for instance, and that money will disappear with no benefit to anyone.  On the other hand, America (acting in its own interest) could give that money to India for creating businesses or infrastructure or new technologies, and that could make India a valuable economic partner for the United States.  In the second scenario, that money would go to make the country stand on its own two feet.

We've talked about foreign aid to Israel.  I think that history has shown that it has been a mistake to give Israel its annual fix.  It has prevented Israel from creating a self-sustaining economy.  Israel could be much better off on its own.  Anyway, I don't want to get into that too much.

Too sum up this type of charity, let me just say that in this case the giver and receiver both win.  Both are ultimately better off.  And morally, helping somebody (whether it's a person or a country) to become self-reliant is an important mitzvot.

Now take a look at the opposite.  The worst kind of charity is robbery, that is, taking money from one person, giving it to another, and claiming that you were the generous party who gave the money.  First of all, taking credit for someone else's generousity is a lousy thing to do, but that is exactly what Obama would do if G-d forbid he becomes president.  He will take your money and give it to people who haven't earned it and say, "see how generous I am?"  The democrats define themselves as a party which is on your side and which helps the "little guy".  What they will actually do is get the support of those who don't want to contribute and want to live off of your money.  Furthermore, those who will get the money will not actually be helped in any meaningful way, because the money that they will get will not help them to become self-reliant.  And worse, those who have legitimately earned their money will have a significant chunk of it taken away from them.

The fact that the democrats will take your money, leaving you with less, and give it to those who haven't earned it, leaving them no better off, and then claiming that this proves that they are compassionate is morally repugnant to me.  It is a lose/lose situation.