Obama

[Winchester]

Thank you.

Social security is an enforced retirement program. If the decision is made to cut benefits, those who were forced to contribute find themselves not reimbursed for their investment. This is a problem for retired persons. I agree--the government's inability to properly manage social security has left us with this problem.

The opposition is more toward cutting programs due to the desires of businesses.

Now could you place this excerpt in the context of subsidiarity--for which the encyclical actually argues (nowhere does it argue for a welfare state or state sponsored wealth redistribution-though it does argue for wealth to be created for all).

[Maggyie]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1285776789' post='2176744']
Thank you.

Social security is an enforced retirement program. If the decision is made to cut benefits, those who were forced to contribute find themselves not reimbursed for their investment. This is a problem for retired persons. I agree--the government's inability to properly manage social security has left us with this problem.

The opposition is more toward cutting programs due to the desires of businesses.

Now could you place this excerpt in the context of subsidiarity--for which the encyclical actually argues (nowhere does it argue for a welfare state or state sponsored wealth redistribution-though it does argue for wealth to be created for all).
[/quote]

I don't think the Pope is using the term "social security" in its strictly American sense. In America, we only call ONE program (our mandatory retirement program) "Social Security." That is its official name, (note the two capital S's), the name it was given when the bill was pushed through by FDR. However the general term, social security, is a term is used in the rest of the world to refer to the general safety net programs provided by the government - food, housing, healthcare, help for pensioners, unemployment etc. It is these social security programs that Benedict is referring to when he talks about cuts.

Sometimes you will hear an American scholar talking about our social security programS, (note the plural) but usually we don't use that word because people think you are just talking about [b]THE[/b] Social Security program. So instead we talk about our welfare system as a seperate thing. Benedict is talking about the whole enchilada.

Edited September 29, 2010 by Maggie

[Winchester]

[quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1285777236' post='2176745']
I don't think the Pope is using the term "social security" in its strictly American sense. In America, we only call ONE program (our mandatory retirement program) "Social Security." That is its official name, (note the two capital S's), the name it was given when the bill was pushed through by FDR. However the general term, social security, is a term is used in the rest of the world to refer to the general safety net programs provided by the government - food, housing, healthcare, help for pensioners, unemployment etc. It is these social security programs that Benedict is referring to when he talks about cuts.

Sometimes you will hear an American scholar talking about our social security programS, (note the plural) but usually we don't use that word because people think you are just talking about [b]THE[/b] Social Security program. So instead we talk about our welfare system as a seperate thing. Benedict is talking about the whole enchilada.
[/quote]
I acknowledged that in my second paragraph by using 'programs' in the plural. I left in the first sentence to show the creation by the welfare state of dependence upon the state.

Can you put this paragraph in the context of subsidiarity or not?

[Maggyie]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1285777839' post='2176750']
I acknowledged that in my second paragraph by using 'programs' in the plural. I left in the first sentence to show the creation by the welfare state of dependence upon the state.

Can you put this paragraph in the context of subsidiarity or not?
[/quote]

Yes, I think I can! I can't quote it directly b/c I closed it, arrrrgh, but Benedict also specifically says that the Church does not propose specific "solutions" or intend to step on the State's toes in terms of deciding how this stuff should be handled. The principle of subsidiarity of course does not mean, no welfare state. It suggests that everything should be handled at the most local level possible. This absolutely makes a lot of sense, but I think, in the practical realm, it makes more sense that most of the necessary social security programs be handled at a federal level.

It would be wonderful if every county (or even every town?) could have its own housing, food stamp, and health care programs etc etc, since the programs could be custom-tailored to meet the needs of local citizens, and the programs would probably be more responsive to individuals than the behemouth federal bureaucracy is. But practically, this would probably lead to a lot of inequity, since wealthy parts of the state could afford to provide more generous welfare systems than others. We already see this on a state-by-state basis sometimes - NY can provide more social security than a poor state like MS - but within the same state, it would mean people in Columbus could get more help than people in Cleveland. Our mobile society would pose a challenge - if people move thirty miles down the road to a new county, do they get new benefits? Do their old doctors no longer take their government-provided insurance? Not to mention most local governments just don't have the resources in terms of personnel, bureaucracy or money to take care of complex, expensive needs like health insurance, housing etc for all of their needy. I know my own little city would be overwhelmed.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1285779330' post='2176755']
Yes, I think I can! I can't quote it directly b/c I closed it, arrrrgh, but Benedict also specifically says that the Church does not propose specific "solutions" or intend to step on the State's toes in terms of deciding how this stuff should be handled. The principle of subsidiarity of course does not mean, no welfare state. It suggests that everything should be handled at the most local level possible. This absolutely makes a lot of sense, but I think, in the practical realm, it makes more sense that most of the necessary social security programs be handled at a federal level. [/quote]
"subsidiarity is the most effective antidote against any form of all-encompassing welfare state" (57. Caritas in veritate)

It is a fundamental principle of social philosophy, fixed and unchangeable, that one should not withdraw from individuals and commit to the community what they can accomplish by their own enterprise and industry. (Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, 79)


[quote]It would be wonderful if every county (or even every town?) could have its own housing, food stamp, and health care programs etc etc, since the programs could be custom-tailored to meet the needs of local citizens, and the programs would probably be more responsive to individuals than the behemouth federal bureaucracy is. But practically, this would probably lead to a lot of inequity, since wealthy parts of the state could afford to provide more generous welfare systems than others. We already see this on a state-by-state basis sometimes - NY can provide more social security than a poor state like MS - but within the same state, it would mean people in Columbus could get more help than people in Cleveland. Our mobile society would pose a challenge - if people move thirty miles down the road to a new county, do they get new benefits? Do their old doctors no longer take their government-provided insurance? Not to mention most local governments just don't have the resources in terms of personnel, bureaucracy or money to take care of complex, expensive needs like health insurance, housing etc for all of their needy. I know my own little city would be overwhelmed.
[/quote]
"Equity" is not justice and the obligation to help the poor does not mean one may simply sit and await help. Maybe people would have to move. Maybe people would have to give up some of their property or luxuries in order to do this. Referring back to the quote from Pius--taking from me to help another isn't justice. If I willingly give, that's my business. Taking from me to help someone when they (with or without my cooperation) could get out of their circumstance is certainly rejected. How many welfare recipients are truly unable to help themselves in some fashion? How many are actually incapable of leaving one area to seek work in another, or to form some manner of cooperative with others? How many truly could not be helped via their own actions?

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]"subsidiarity is the most effective antidote against any form of all-encompassing welfare state" (57. Caritas in veritate)

It is a fundamental principle of social philosophy, fixed and unchangeable, that one should not withdraw from individuals and commit to the community what they can accomplish by their own enterprise and industry. (Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, 79)[/quote]

notice the words 'all-encompassing.' that doesn't mean some welfare of some degree is a bad thing. and it doensn't detract from benedict saying the loss of welfare is bad for us all. as with "all socialism v. no socialism", the only way to reconcile what the popes have said, is to say that some welfare is a good thing. perhaps it should be at a state level only, or most sesibly or at least ideally it should be primarily, with some federal guidelines etc.
also, it's very easy to argue that the certain thigns are not cable of being done by individuals, and should given to the community.
what the above quotes from the popes essentially are accomplishing, is just another way of saying "one cannot be a true socialist". and given we know popes have said some socialism is okay... the only way to reconcile the above quotes and the 'liberal' quotes, is to some say form of socialism is okay.
the above quotes are more specific, though, sure, and are harder to overcome, than vague 'one cannot be a true sociialist.' but that doesn't mean the above quotes can't be overcome, and it doesn't mean that the only way to reconcile all the things the popes have said, is to say 'some socialism is good', or at least 'can be good'.

Edited September 29, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

taking what someone doesn't deserve is theft. taking what someone has isn't necessarily theft, at least as it should should be defined.
one could say i'm playing word games, but it seems the ones playing word games, are the ones trying to overcome natural law, by saying anything taken from them is inherenlty and necessarily theft.

don't forget that popes have explicitly said that 'the right to private property is not absolute- and must be subject to the right of access to the earth (resources)" "we are to have luxury taxes (tax the rich)" "it is the government's role to facilitate solidarity" the list could go on for most 'liberal conspiracies'.

Edited September 29, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[Socrates]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' timestamp='1285724261' post='2176615']
Would you call what they have in Europe socialism? Cuz the Church seems pretty comfortable with what they have ...
[/quote]
It's not pure socialism, but it certainly has socialistic elements, and I certainly don't think it is something to be emulated by America. Of course, the wild federal spending by Obama now exceeds anything taking place in Europe. I don't think such systems will prove sustainable, in either Europe or America.

[quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1285766172' post='2176695']
The Church condemns the atheistic materialism (and abolishment of private property) of socialism. However, she is OK with big government and re-distribution of wealth. In fact in his last encylical Pope Benedict spoke out against down-sizing welfare systems, reiterated the importance of labor unions, and emphasized the need to protect the environment, all attitudes that are sometimes considered "socialistic."
[/quote]

Appears Winchester already answered part of this for me. Forced redistribution of property amounts to abolishment of private property in practice - and is thus socialism/theft. My point was that it is false to say that the Church is okay with absolutely any economic systems, as she has unequivocally condemned socialism, most notably in Pius XI's encyclical [i]Quadragesimo Anno[/i].

If you think the Church has given her full blessing to "big government" and the welfare state, you should read this section of John Paul II's [i]Centesimus Annus[/i]:
[quote]In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of State, the so-called "Welfare State". This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the "Social Assistance State". Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.100

By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbours to those in need. It should be added that certain kinds of demands often call for a response which is not simply material but which is capable of perceiving the deeper human need. One thinks of the condition of refugees, immigrants, the elderly, the sick, and all those in circumstances which call for assistance, such as drug abusers: all these people can be helped effectively only by those who offer them genuine fraternal support, in addition to the necessary care.[/quote]

[dairygirl4u2c]

the concept of 'solidarity' is pretty vague. but, it's usually thrown out as teh counter to 'subsidiarity'. not as in the absolute counter, but as in, all things must be balanced and tempered. given the only way to reconcile all the things the popes have said, is to say 'some socialism' is okay... the idea of solidarity is pretty clear to mean government involvement, and all that jazz. the only real justifiable question isn't whether government should act, but how and in what circumstances etc.

[dairygirl4u2c]

don't forget that popes have explicitly said that 'the right to private property is not absolute- and must be subject to the right of access to the earth (resources)" "we are to have luxury taxes (tax the rich)" "it is the government's role to facilitate solidarity" the list could go on for most 'liberal conspiracies'.

Edited September 29, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[Winchester]

Holy croutons--the popes are against tyranny?

[Socrates]

[quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1285769716' post='2176719']
Well regardless, I don't think you can really trust lifesite news anyway. They tend to to distort things unfortunately, which is too bad because we really do need a spotlight shown on what's going on with the life issues. A good example is the VA manual that was given to veterans that supposedly encourages them to kill themselves. The big issue was that the manual had a checklist the veteran was supposed to go through that had boxes for things like "I am a big financial burden to my family" "I am emotionally burdensome" etc. Well, checklists like that are used all the time to determine the patient's state of mind and diagnose clinical depression or PTSD. When I was diagnosed with my GAD I had a form like that to fill out, and they weren't encouraging me to have a nervous breakdown, they wanted to see if I fit the symptoms for GAD, or something else. Maybe it was pro-euthanasia-ish, maybe it was a treatment tool, but we don't know since lifesite doesn't tell us that part. They are always leaving out the context, maybe not on purpose, maybe they are just not interested in it.
[/quote]
While some points on there like the VA manual may be debatable, much of it is publicly established fact, including Obama's reversal of the Mexico City Policy, removal of conscience clauses for medical workers, authorizing spending on embryonic stem cell research from aborted babies, and spending federal money on groups that promote abortion.
And, as has been pointed out in your website, it appears likely the new healthcare plan will in actuality provide funds for women to get abortions, despite the sneaky language.

To claim that the Obama administration has done nothing to promote abortion is quite simply false.

You can't make a case by simply dismissing the messenger. It is obvious to anyone who hasn't been living under a rock that Obama is in fact an actively pro-abortion president.
Obama hasn't even really even made a pretense of being pro-life, so I find all the incredulity a bit weird.

Edited September 29, 2010 by Socrates

[Maggyie]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1285781053' post='2176757']
"subsidiarity is the most effective antidote against any form of all-encompassing welfare state" (57. Caritas in veritate)

It is a fundamental principle of social philosophy, fixed and unchangeable, that one should not withdraw from individuals and commit to the community what they can accomplish by their own enterprise and industry. (Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, 79)



"Equity" is not justice and the obligation to help the poor does not mean one may simply sit and await help. Maybe people would have to move. Maybe people would have to give up some of their property or luxuries in order to do this. Referring back to the quote from Pius--taking from me to help another isn't justice. If I willingly give, that's my business. Taking from me to help someone when they (with or without my cooperation) could get out of their circumstance is certainly rejected. How many welfare recipients are truly unable to help themselves in some fashion? How many are actually incapable of leaving one area to seek work in another, or to form some manner of cooperative with others? How many truly could not be helped via their own actions?
[/quote]

The Church would definitely be against an "all-encompassing" welfare state... that would leave no room for the Church's ministry. We don't have an all-encompassing welfare state in America, nor in Europe, although theirs is larger - the Church continues to play an important role in feeding, housing, healing, and educating the poor even in developed countries. However the Church says things like food, water and health care are human rights, and if people do not have access to food, water, housing or health care or the means to pay for them, then that is a major injustice (the Church says this, not me). The government at whatever level definitely needs to do what it takes to gurantee and protect our rights (that is why we consent to have a government, anyway). That is why we consent to have a justice system and a legal system. At the same time the government should not muscle out private charities that are trying to help people too. Although I guess it could be argued that will happen with healthcare. Definitely in terms of food and housing, it hasn't happened, as your local food pantry can tell you - demand out the roof.

There is a common impression among many better-off people that the poor are lazy or just sit there waiting for a hand up. A minority of them may abuse the system, but the false impression that "poor equals lazy" can be corrected by spending some time getting to know the working poor, or the unemployed poor, ministering to them and getting to know them as human beings and not as strangers we have never met, who only exist in the context of political debates. Many of these people are living out the consequences of choices their parents made for them. Others, through misfortune or illness, find themselves needing help. Some are there because of their own choices, but they are humans and you don't let human beings rot in the street. The recession has pushed many previously middle class people into the ranks of the poor. If you visit the local office that hands out food stamps you may see people you know there.

In fact perhaps a visit to the local welfare office is exactly was is needed for many people. I had a friend who used to get very worked up about "welfare queens" and the inner city thugs sucking up her money, but one day we were walking to lunch and saw our old high school teacher (AP History) coming out of the office. It was one of those situations where she couldn't avoid us because we already saw each other. We talked, she looked so ashamed as we discussed the weather and the woes of our Cleveland Indians. Finally she burst into tears, she had gotten divorced and then laid off, and a few months ago she had actually gone four days eating nothing but pickles and mustard because she was so humiliated to use her stamps. The sight of this nice white educated lady sobbing and clutching her packet I think would be enough to change anybody's mind about the need for a welfare system.

Now you might say she could go to the Church, and indeed she could, except that often the Church does not even have the resources to pay its own people a living wage, let alone help all of the poor who come to her. At my (poor) parish we pay about $5,000/month in bus fares, emergency rent assistance, emergency utility assistance, food, gas money etc. We still have to turn people away. We have to, if we are going to have money to keep the doors open and the lights on.

Our social security programs reflect our culture's concern for the poor, regardless of whether they are "deserving" or not (and the Church teaches that EVERYONE, even if they are an addict or a criminal, is deserving of human rights like life, food, health care etc). They protect all of us, even if we think that WE will never need them. The fact that we have these programs proclaims to others and to ourselves that we value our neighbors.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1285779330' post='2176755']
It would be wonderful if every county (or even every town?) could have its own housing, food stamp, and health care programs etc etc, since the programs could be custom-tailored to meet the needs of local citizens, and the programs would probably be more responsive to individuals than the behemouth federal bureaucracy is. But practically, this would probably lead to a lot of inequity, since wealthy parts of the state could afford to provide more generous welfare systems than others. We already see this on a state-by-state basis sometimes - NY can provide more social security than a poor state like MS - but within the same state, it would mean people in Columbus could get more help than people in Cleveland. Our mobile society would pose a challenge - if people move thirty miles down the road to a new county, do they get new benefits? Do their old doctors no longer take their government-provided insurance? Not to mention most local governments just don't have the resources in terms of personnel, bureaucracy or money to take care of complex, expensive needs like health insurance, housing etc for all of their needy. I know my own little city would be overwhelmed.
[/quote]
Much of the criticism of the welfare state is that the state has taken over duties which ideally should be performed at the family or community level, rather than by government at all. Thus the welfare state contributes to the breakdown of the family, and helps perpetuate destructive patterns of behavior. What should be a safety net for use as a last resort, has become for some people and communities a substitute for family and work.

The rush to nationalize and socialize everything is hardly in accord with the principle of subsidiarity.

[Maggyie]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1285783030' post='2176776']
While some points on there like the VA manual may be debatable, much of it is publicly established fact, including Obama's reversal of the Mexico City Policy, removal of conscience clauses for medical workers, authorizing spending on embryonic stem cell research from aborted babies, and spending federal money on groups that promote abortion.
And, as has been pointed out in your website, it appears likely the new healthcare plan will in actuality provide funds for women to get abortions, despite the sneaky language.

To claim that the Obama administration has done nothing to promote abortion is quite simply false.

You can't make a case by simply dismissing the messenger. It is obvious to anyone who hasn't been living under a rock that Obama is in fact an actively pro-abortion president.
Obama hasn't even really even made a pretense of being pro-life, so I find all the incredulity a bit weird.
[/quote]

I definitely do not think he is pro-life, and if he had the chance I am sure he would be more pro-abortion, but the fact is the status quo is pretty pro-abortion so there isn't much need for action on his part. He already has almost everything he wants. I agree about the Mexico City Policy etc. These again reflect the status quo for the most part, they have been switching back and forth on that with every administration. It's a bone that the GOP Presidents throw to pro-lifers and a bone the Democrats throw to pro-abortion supporters to show "hey look I am pro-life" or "hey look I am pro-choice." It is a detail, not meaningless, but a detail. The health care bill, it remains to be seen how nasty that is, given that it will mostly be interpreted by bureaucrats (that he appoints of course). But I think it is premature to declare it pro-abortion.