Catholic Church And Gov. Welfare Programs

[Maggyie]

[quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1305504033' post='2242026']
And Jesus said "Thou shalt force upon the rich taxes which shall provide for the needy, turn them upside down and shake from their pockets all checkbooks, wallets, cash, and coins because after all isn't the amount of money what charity is all about. Where did that story about the widow with the pennies come from anyway".
[/quote]

Again, from the Church's point of view it's not a shake-down. What does the Church's Social Doctrine mean to you? Believing in and working toward social justice is not optional for a practicing Catholic, but it means different things to different people. What do you think we should do about structures of sin and so forth? Do you agree with the popes that these structures exist and pose a serious moral problem?

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1305508804' post='2242071']
I didn't realize that your church was for a radical form of socialism that would have the government confinscate money or services from individuals that earned it and give it to those who didn't. I will remember this as another reason why I'm not affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church, thanks. As for Jesus, he didn't advocate for this.
[/quote]

Jesus proposed no political program, which is why it's legitimately hilarious when people claim Jesus was a liberal. Jesus was not liberal or conservative, He was God. Period. The Church also does not promote socialism - as Pope Pius XI said, "You can not be both a sincere socialist and a sincere Catholic." Socialism is, according to the dictionary, "A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." Basically its goal is the absolute abolition of private property. This wound be contrary to the commandments (thou shalt not steal). Entitlement programs do not equal socialism - something contemporary Americans often don't realize. Entitlements are usually a characteristic of socialist governments but I would say they are certainly not the primary characteristic.

While repudiating socialism, the Church does promote concepts such as the universal destination of goods. Everything in creation, including the earth itself, was created by God not just for a certain number of people but for all people. For instance, I own land, yes, and it is important that my private property be respected; at the same time, my private property rights are not morally absolute. Say that under my property there was a mineral that could cure cancer - it would be morally wrong for me to charge up the wazzoo to let it be mined so it could be processed and turned into a drug. Even though it's my property. Because really, I may have worked for the money to buy the property but it's actually all a gift from God. And He really didn't create it just for my own personal aggrandizement.

Similarly, if you own a corporation, it would be morally wrong for you to have profit as your only goal. If profit could be ethically the only value, then there would be nothing wrong with running a sweat shop and selling customers goods that break or injure or harm them. As long as a profit is turned, then everything else is value neutral. The Church instead envisions an economy where work and industry function for the good of all: workers are treated well, use their talents to contribute, are able to support their families in dignity; customers receive a necessary good or service that enriches or eases their lives; owners turn a profit. The whole community benefits, not just one single person. Even though the company owners perhaps make less money by providing their employees with quality of life benefits like sick time or a lunch break, or by putting products through time consuming and expensive safety protocols, they would do these things because ultimately what is good for the community (the "common good") is also good for them as individuals.

The idea is that the lives of the well-off should not be lessened in any way by being taxed to provide for the poor. Rather, the well-to-do benefit when their neighbors have enough food to eat and places to live. Their human dignity is much more harmed when their poorer, uninsured brothers and sisters sicken and die due to a lack of timely medical attention, for instance. What happens to one human being affects us all. If you have ever heard the expression "no man is an island" you have some feeling of what this means.

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1305511404' post='2242098']


The more that people rely upon entitlements, the less likely they are going to stand on their own two feet. Enabling them is only going to postpone what they could and should become. When I was homeless, what did I do? I drove my car [with my whole family] to Target and got a job [instantly]. Target and Walmart are two corporations that give people that are homeless or on government substities employment within no time at all. What was my wage? It was 8$ an hr unloading trucks at 4AM in the morning until approx. 2PM in the afternoon. Was it "ideal"? No...was it alot of hard work unloading trucks for little pay? Yes. However this is what starting opportunities capitalism gives. Did my life get better after that? Slowly.

The reality is that the rich in this country pay the most taxes, give the most to charity [outside of the government] and create most of the jobs.



That is true but saying that we should cut off government entitlements is not the same as not loving the poor. Rather it's about loving the poor more, because socialism does not create vaccines to illnesses, it doesn't create job growth, etc.



Yes, for me - someone who is not rich but knows many rich people - it's about not allowing the country to slip into bankruptcy and get so far in debt that it can't come out of it. It's about loving this country and the freedoms that we have to create jobs and be productive members of society.
[/quote]

The first thing I noticed about your story was that you had a working car. Who gave you/where did you get the money for it? If the car was leased or purchased on loan, how did you qualify for the credit? Lack of access to credit and lack of access to transportation are two important structural problems the poor face. You were able to get a job because you were able to get transport to the job site. Did you live in an urban area or a city with an effective and affordable public transit system? When people think of the poor, they often think of the inner city, but so much of the population below the poverty level lives in isolated rural areas. It also sounds like you had an intact family and someone able to provide child care. Put yourself in the position of a woman who has recently fled an abusive home with her minor children. You are homeless, jobless, and probably car-less. There is a wait-list at the shelter run by the Christians. Without a job, you can't afford childcare. Without childcare, you can't get a job. This situation is more common than people think. Suppose you develop an illness and go blind. Which low-wage entry level jobs are available to you? How will you manage transportation?

I am glad that you were able to instantly get a job at Target upon application. However there are many, many people who are not so lucky. If you paid attention to the recent McDonald's hiring day, you know that they hired 62,000 people out of more than 1,000,000 applications. That means that more than 9 out of 10 applicants were turned down for a McJob. There are very high applicant-to-position ratios at most low level employers right now. Not that getting such a job would end the need for entitlement programs. Employees of Walmart for instance are among the biggest users of government entitlement programs. This is because in the free market they do not earn a living wage. Walmart actually has worker assistance programs that walk new employees through the process of signing up for food stamps. These people want to work and they are working, but they are the working poor.

The rich are not flailing under an oppressive tax regime. I believe it was Warren Buffet who recently boasted that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary?

[4588686]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1305430752' post='2241701']
No, I'm arguing for cutting it completely off. Not just welfare but all entitlements before they sink the whole country.[/QUOTE]

I know what you are arguing.

[QUOTE]If you want to call it a "theme", it's the theme that this nation was founded upon. If you don't do for yourself, nobody is going to do for you, so get used to it. [/QUOTE]

Right. And you provide your own security, right? It's not like the society doesn't collectively contribute to a first rate military that provides you the safety necessary to maintain property. You also taught yourself math, right? I'm sure you didn't participate in ome perverse socialist program like free, public education.

[QUOTE]Not necessarily true, it depends on the amount of time they recieve it. If they put it for 25 years and are only on it for 2 years, they put more in then they recieve.[/QUOTE]

This is correct.

[QUOTE]As for my wealthy uncles, I know that they didn't recieve it because they tell me and financially, they don't need it.[/QUOTE]

Then why did you give three different versions of what might have happened to their social security checks?



I[QUOTE] didn't say that it didn't exist before FDR, what I cited was his second bill of rights, which would have been a nightmare. No I'm not re-writing history, I'm living in the American history, [/QUOTE]

Ok. So you admit that wellfare has always been part of the American and English Common Law Tradition. But you dispute that wellfare is compatable of the American tradition. That makes sense.

[QUOTE]not the Hasan Socialistic History [/QUOTE]

It's getting difficult to take you seriously if you think that I am a socialist. I don't know if you just have nothing left but mudslinging or if you just don't understand what socialism is. Neither is good.

[QUOTE]of entitlements for people who are too good to work in fields and push lawn mowers for a living. People who did not save their own money but think that everyone elses should be their safety net.[/QUOTE]

Straw man.



[QUOTE]It is when these entitlements are selling this country off to china, because somebody thinks that they are entitled to somebody else's services that they didn't earn.
[/quote]
There are kids who will die without 24/7 care. They live with famlies that cannot afford 24/7 care. They will die withoutout wellfare. That situation does exist. I have direct experience with it. What would you do with the kids?

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1305516773' post='2242159']
So because someone choses not to give to charity, during a particular crisis in Alabama, that makes them not an American? You have serious problems with your ideology my friend. Serious problems.
[/quote]

you have serious problems with your logic, friend. i guessed based on my lack of knowledge of you and you trotting out morocco as an example, and talking about alabama as an international issue that you werent american. if i was wrong, so be it. doesnt really matter anyways.

i was making a point about charities and the people who do or dont give to them. the alabaman crisis is a particularly good example, because it is recent, and unlike haiti or japan is not an international aid situation. i figured that if people were inclined to give to charities, then something like one of the worst disasters in recent history, in their backyard might be a good reason to donate. if people are advocating the rolling back of govt. systems and letting private charities fill the void, i was wondering how well they would do? would the people advocating this actually be putting their money where their mouth is and giving to charities?

it is all well and good to bleat out "but private charities are more efficient" until the end of time, but it hardly matters if they are more efficient if they recieve a tiny fraction of the money with which to work. A more efficient but vastly underfunded private charity will not be sufficient to cover a long term tragedy, such as the recent tornado damage, or New Orleans.


[quote]
Coincidentally I do not live in Morocco, but I don't think that giving, as prescribed by the Catholic Church or Jesus Christ himself, has boarders. As a Canadian giving to Alabama, you proved that there is no boarders. So to say that everyone has an obligation to give to Alabama, that is like saying that you have an obligation to give to Morocco, the logic doesn't fit - sorry.
[/quote]

not really. a govt funded relief system should care for the well being of the country it is based in and funded by first. IE the floods in manitoba should be the concern, primarily, of the canadian govt. It is great when other countries pitch in to help, like when haiti was wrecked by earthquakes, but not as necessary as it is for a country to pitch in to heal itself. Coincidentally, i am fine with my tax money(a portion of it) being used in foreign aid.

[quote]
Your post really didn't have a point outside of the fact of telling everyone that they are bad if they didn't give during a specific tragedy, discounting everyother relief effort they may have given to.

Many of them did work hard and save hard, and have a savings to rely on during hard times.
[/quote]

as i repeat myself, it was an example. can you think of a better recent relief effort to use as an example in the USA?

having money saved in a bank doesnt mean jack when your bank is destroyed, and every nearby store where you could spend those savings is destroyed and you need food, water and shelter.

[quote]
Who here said that they were supporters of the various wars? I have objected to them since they got going and every true fiscal conservative that I know is opposed to them. Ron Paul 2012. Typical Canadian getting involved in American politics.
[/quote]

that was on an aside, and not directed at you specifically. although i guess there arent that many of you "true" guys in the conservative camp, or at least not until recently, judging by the amount of support for the wars over the past decade.

besides, america isnt the only country involved in wars. Canada joined one of your foolish wars and is still there, and if our current PM had his way we would have jumped right into the festering pile of croutons that was Iraq as well. not to mention we have also had an inordinate amount of money being spent stupidly on very soon to be out dated fighter jets, amongst other things.

Ron paul isnt a bad dude. he has some good policies, and some truly stupid ones too. im glad he is a congressman, but also kinda glad he isnt president.

[quote]
Nonsense, Ron Paul started the discussion on the fiscal crisis and has said that if he were president he'd remove a trillion off the national spending by ending the wars immediately and then start on the social programs. Stick to Canadian politics please.
[/quote]

well thats just great for him. you have a relatively fringe politician with a good idea. now if a few other people with some weight behind them had the same idea you would have something, but as it is, me saying that in general you pretty much never hear about military programs being seriously cut in the USA is perfectly valid.
and to the last request, make me.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1305520754' post='2242184']
there are kids who will die without 24/7 care. They live with famlies that cannot afford 24/7 care. They will die withoutout wellfare. That situation does exist. I have direct experience with it. What would you do with the kids?
[/quote]

probably tell them "smells of elderberries to be you children, your parents should have been rich, and you should have been stuffing your piggy bank from your 2nd trimester" shortly before making delicious Soylent Green out of them.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1305518693' post='2242173']
Again, from the Church's point of view it's not a shake-down. What does the Church's Social Doctrine mean to you? Believing in and working toward social justice is not optional for a practicing Catholic, but it means different things to different people. What do you think we should do about structures of sin and so forth? Do you agree with the popes that these structures exist and pose a serious moral problem?[/quote]

Then a practicing Catholic can chose to give their money to whomever they want without using the government to force people to do it, who do not chose to do so.

[quote]Jesus proposed no political program, which is why it's legitimately hilarious
when people claim Jesus was a liberal. Jesus was not liberal or conservative, He
was God. Period. The Church also does not promote socialism - as Pope Pius XI
said, "You can not be both a sincere socialist and a sincere Catholic."
Socialism is, according to the dictionary, "A political and economic theory of
social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution,
and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
Basically its goal is the absolute abolition of private property. This wound be
contrary to the commandments (thou shalt not steal). Entitlement programs do not
equal socialism - something contemporary Americans often don't realize.
Entitlements are usually a characteristic of socialist governments but I would
say they are certainly not the primary characteristic.

[/quote]

It is socialism to redistribute wealth, which is what these entitlement programs are doing, alongside taking the country into major debt.

[quote]While repudiating socialism, the Church does promote concepts such as the universal destination of goods. Everything in creation, including the earth itself, was created by God not just for a certain number of people but for all people. For instance, I own land, yes, and it is important that my private property be respected; at the same time, my private property rights are not morally absolute. Say that under my property there was a mineral that could cure cancer - it would be morally wrong for me to charge up the wazzoo to let it be mined so it could be processed and turned into a drug. Even though it's my property. Because really, I may have worked for the money to buy the property but it's actually all a gift from God. And He really didn't create it just for my own personal aggrandizement.[/quote]

That would be your personal choice. If you bought that land, knowing that that particular mineral would cure cancer, and you paid for that research to be developed and chose to make a profit on it, that's your choice. Just as pharmecutical corporations are not morally wrong for making a profit on their cancer healing drugs.

[quote]Similarly, if you own a corporation, it would be morally wrong for you to have profit as your only goal. If profit could be ethically the only value, then there would be nothing wrong with running a sweat shop and selling customers goods that break or injure or harm them. As long as a profit is turned, then everything else is value neutral. The Church instead envisions an economy where work and industry function for the good of all: workers are treated well, use their talents to contribute, are able to support their families in dignity; customers receive a necessary good or service that enriches or eases their lives; owners turn a profit. The whole community benefits, not just one single person. Even though the company owners perhaps make less money by providing their employees with quality of life benefits like sick time or a lunch break, or by putting products through time consuming and expensive safety protocols, they would do these things because ultimately what is good for the community (the "common good") is also good for them as individuals.[/quote] What do you think the purpose of somebody going into business is? It's to make a profit. If I own a lawn mowing company and I hire additional staff, I'm hoping to make money from their labor. I'm not just doing it because I "feel like being a good guy and giving some people a job", no - it's about profits.

[quote]The idea is that the lives of the well-off should not be lessened in any way by being taxed to provide for the poor. Rather, the well-to-do benefit when their neighbors have enough food to eat and places to live. Their human dignity is much more harmed when their poorer, uninsured brothers and sisters sicken and die due to a lack of timely medical attention, for instance. What happens to one human being affects us all. If you have ever heard the expression "no man is an island" you have some feeling of what this means.[/quote] The Well to do, should have a choice in who and what charities they chose to invest their money in, as they earned it. They don't need big brother confinscating that which they earned in order to give it to charities of their choice.

[quote]The first thing I noticed about your story was that you had a working car. Who gave you/where did you get the money for it? If the car was leased or purchased on loan, how did you qualify for the credit? Lack of access to credit and lack of access to transportation are two important structural problems the poor face.[/quote] I paid for my car with the money that my wife and I had earned prior to our circumstances of becoming homeless. We weren't completely stupid, we did save money for in case we went through hard economic times in the future. As for credit, good credit is not hard to come by. When our last car broke down, we didn't make much money but had the highest credit rating with Toyota Financing because we paid our bills on time and didn't get garbage on credit like cell phones, etc. Ironically I have never owned a cell phone, yet I know over 20 families in my own community that get entitlements, who have more then one cell phone with unlimited service and text messaging, yet claim that they can't pay their own rent.


[quote]You were able to get a job because you were able to get transport to the job site. Did you live in an urban area or a city with an effective and affordable public transit system? When people think of the poor, they often think of the inner city, but so much of the population below the poverty level lives in isolated rural areas. It also sounds like you had an intact family and someone able to provide child care. Put yourself in the position of a woman who has recently fled an abusive home with her minor children. You are homeless, jobless, and probably car-less. There is a wait-list at the shelter run by the Christians. Without a job, you can't afford childcare. Without childcare, you can't get a job. This situation is more common than people think. Suppose you develop an illness and go blind. Which low-wage entry level jobs are available to you? How will you manage transportation?[/quote]

Throughout my life, I have been in a number of situations with and without a car. I hav had jobs where I had to be there at 5AM and ride a bike over 2hrs away. If any of you have ever been to washington, particularly the Auburn/Tacoma area, I used to have to ride a bike from Sumner WA to Federalway. I had to leave at 3AM just to get there at 5 and then when I'd gotten off at 6PM, I had to ride home. This was a very physically demanding job, it was Masonry Construction. I'd worked this job for over 10 years, 5 of which I'd rode a bike. You know if people can come up with the money for a cell phone on welfare, I think that they could find the money for a bike.

As for the rest of it, I have been homeless in urban and rural areas with and without transportation. As for "put yourself in a woman's position", I was raised by a single mother who raise me and my sister by herself with no government help, who made $5 an hr at Safeway [a local grocery store]. I went to work [illegally] at 13 years old and completed high school at age 20 at a local college because of it. I know what hardship is like and yet I didn't sit around and play the victim role. I got off my butt and made the best of it. The minute people stop playing the victim role is the minute they find solutions for their own problems. If you constantly think that somebody or some charity is going to help you, you have no incentive to find your own solution. Many people in my community growing up used church charities [and often even pretended to be catholic] in order to get their phone, rent and electricity bills paid for. They'd outwardly tell me this. If those charities weren't there, they'd have no choice but to sink or swim.

[quote]I am glad that you were able to instantly get a job at Target upon application. However there are many, many people who are not so lucky. If you paid attention to the recent McDonald's hiring day, you know that they hired 62,000 people out of more than 1,000,000 applications. That means that more than 9 out of 10 applicants were turned down for a McJob. There are very high applicant-to-position ratios at most low level employers right now. Not that getting such a job would end the need for entitlement programs. Employees of Walmart for instance are among the biggest users of government entitlement programs. This is because in the free market they do not earn a living wage. Walmart actually has worker assistance programs that walk new employees through the process of signing up for food stamps. These people want to work and they are working, but they are the working poor.[/quote]

Sweetheart it wasn't luck, it was choice. I was not anymore special then anyone else that would have applied. The only thing that made me special was that I got off my butt and applied. Targets problem was that not enough people applied and when they did often didn't truly want to work. They just wanted to do the bare minimum and get paid. It's true it was only 8$ and hr, but you have an obligation to make your company as much money as possible for every hr that you make $8 an hr. Why did I make it past the 30 day evaluation? Because I ran with pallet jacks like I was in a marathon, I essentially outworked the guy next to me.

When Americans were complaining that mexicans were "Taking their jobs", the mexican migrant workers held a campaign called "Take our Jobs", in which they offered any American the right to come and take their jobs in the fields. Stephen Colbert made fun of this on his show, as he too tried it. So far, only 16 Americans have taken them up on their offer and none of them have lasted because they don't want to do those lower paying jobs.

[quote]The rich are not flailing under an oppressive tax regime. I believe it was Warren Buffet who recently boasted that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary?
[/quote]

Sorry but the rich create the jobs and I'm not sure if you're aware but job growth is less then substantial right now. Warren Buffet pays more taxes then anyone else in this country. What he was boasting about was payroll taxes, as a percentage.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1305520754' post='2242184']Right. And you provide your own security, right? It's not like the society doesn't collectively contribute to a first rate military that provides you the safety necessary to maintain property. You also taught yourself math, right? I'm sure you didn't participate in ome perverse socialist program like free, public education.[/quote] Well I'm for cutting off public schools too. However as for national security that is completely different, as those people are getting paid by our taxes to provide a service. Government entitlement beneficiaries are not.


[quote]Then why did you give three different versions of what might have happened to their social security checks?[/quote] Because I have more then one uncle, however what they do is irrelevant as they have made more then enough to stand on their own feet without the checks and support cutting the whole system too.

[quote]Ok. So you admit that wellfare has always been part of the American and English Common Law Tradition. But you dispute that wellfare is compatable of the American tradition. That makes sense.[/quote] I didn't say that either, you're taking what I said out of context. Glad that you don't have troubles with reading and comprehension. I was very clear that they existed before FDR but I never said that they were there from get go.

[quote]There are kids who will die without 24/7 care. They live with famlies that cannot afford 24/7 care. They will die withoutout wellfare. That situation does exist. I have direct experience with it. What would you do with the kids?[/quote] I'd say that it's the responsbility of the parents and if people chose to help them out willingly, which I'd encourage, then that's great too.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1305511404' post='2242098']
Yes, the animosity is not about people being less fortunate and needing help.



Umm, no. I have been homeless with a wife and daughter and before that I'd spent alot of time amongst the poor helping feed them, as well as donated time at local assisted living and nursing homes. It's not about "good people don't become poor", sorry.

It's not about seeing them as a drain, rather it's about holding people accountable and responsible for their own actions. The truth be told, entitlements do not make people productive in our society. I'm part Native American and have spent some time living on Reservations [with relatives and friends]. The truth be told is that with all the entitlements that Native Americans get, it has turned many of them into third world countries. Just go to Red Lake Minnesota. It's high on crime, jobs are scarce, the "free healthcare" is primative, and young adults only go to college until they get their government check, then they stop going.

The more that people rely upon entitlements, the less likely they are going to stand on their own two feet. Enabling them is only going to postpone what they could and should become. When I was homeless, what did I do? I drove my car [with my whole family] to Target and got a job [instantly]. Target and Walmart are two corporations that give people that are homeless or on government substities employment within no time at all. What was my wage? It was 8$ an hr unloading trucks at 4AM in the morning until approx. 2PM in the afternoon. Was it "ideal"? No...was it alot of hard work unloading trucks for little pay? Yes. However this is what starting opportunities capitalism gives. Did my life get better after that? Slowly.

The reality is that the rich in this country pay the most taxes, give the most to charity [outside of the government] and create most of the jobs.



That is true but saying that we should cut off government entitlements is not the same as not loving the poor. Rather it's about loving the poor more, because socialism does not create vaccines to illnesses, it doesn't create job growth, etc.

Amen

Wow, thou I had been poor most of my life [hence my foster relatives], I don't remember any IRS problems.



I have been audited before [3 years ago] for this reason but it was simple to get off the hook for us. We lived [and still do] quite humble.



Yes, for me - someone who is not rich but knows many rich people - it's about not allowing the country to slip into bankruptcy and get so far in debt that it can't come out of it. It's about loving this country and the freedoms that we have to create jobs and be productive members of society.
[/quote]


I agree with everything you said in this post.


Yes this was the spring after my we lost virtually everything in a grain elevator explosion. My Father made 7000 dollars a year ( and he graduated with honors from a very highly rated university) and I was seriously ill, causeing massive debt to accrue enough that a few years later my mother calculated she woudlnever, ever pay off the debt if she lived to be 80. My mother could not work because of my illness. Of course that was before the inflasion of the late 70's.
The one thing the auditors found they could get my parents for was they said that they could not count the cloths we had to replace as a loss, becuase cloths had no value.
They directly told my parents that it was not possible to live on the amount of money that we had after the payment of my medical bills.

You don't have to be rich, or even comfortable to reject this.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1305521446' post='2242187']
you have serious problems with your logic, friend. i guessed based on my lack of knowledge of you and you trotting out morocco as an example, and talking about alabama as an international issue that you werent american. if i was wrong, so be it. doesnt really matter anyways.[/quote]

I never said that alabama was an international issue. I specifically said "local, national and international" in regards to the many different tragic events that have inflicted loss on people. As for you being in Canada and sending money to Alabama that is international, as you are not a national of America. This is simple lingustics.

[quote]i was making a point about charities and the people who do or dont give to them. the alabaman crisis is a particularly good example, because it is recent, and unlike haiti or japan is not an international aid situation.[/quote] It doesn't matter weather it's an international aid situation or not. America is an unusually large nation. People in Washington often feel a large disconnect from Alabama because it is so far away. However many people willingly gave to Haiti as if it was part of their country, just as many did with Alabama. The point was cheap and not a good example.

[quote]i figured that if people were inclined to give to charities, then something like one of the worst disasters in recent history, in their backyard might be a good reason to donate. if people are advocating the rolling back of govt. systems and letting private charities fill the void, i was wondering how well they would do? would the people advocating this actually be putting their money where their mouth is and giving to charities?[/quote] Well first off, if people weren't paying so much taxes to governments that mismanage so much of the funds, that would allow for more money to be given to charities.

[quote]it is all well and good to bleat out "but private charities are more efficient" until the end of time, but it hardly matters if they are more efficient if they recieve a tiny fraction of the money with which to work. A more efficient but vastly underfunded private charity will not be sufficient to cover a long term tragedy, such as the recent tornado damage, or New Orleans.[/quote] They recieve a tiny franction because the majority of it goes to government charities. In America, Planned Parenthood [who conducts the most abortions] are the largest care provider that offers free services for women. They get over a billion from the government. Catholic care providers that provide women's services [minus abortions] only total about 7,000 facilities, where as Planned Parenthood has only 820 facilities. By and large the CAtholic facilities are independantly funded and run. If they were given that 1 billion dollars, you'd see many more women be helped and abortion being greatly deminished. Right now, we are bound by law to have our taxes go to planned parenthood, a charity that violates our moral beliefs.

[quote]not really. a govt funded relief system should care for the well being of the country it is based in and funded by first. IE the floods in manitoba should be the concern, primarily, of the canadian govt. It is great when other countries pitch in to help, like when haiti was wrecked by earthquakes, but not as necessary as it is for a country to pitch in to heal itself. Coincidentally, i am fine with my tax money(a portion of it) being used in foreign aid.[/quote] Countries pretended to help with Haiti because they were the reason why Haiti was in that situation. And the majority of the money "pledged" by countries never showed up. Infact less then 10% of it showed up.


[quote]having money saved in a bank doesnt mean jack when your bank is destroyed, and every nearby store where you could spend those savings is destroyed and you need food, water and shelter.[/quote] Obviously you know nothing about FDIC do you?

[quote]that was on an aside, and not directed at you specifically. although i guess there arent that many of you "true" guys in the conservative camp, or at least not until recently, judging by the amount of support for the wars over the past decade.[/quote] Actually the majority are against the wars.

[quote]besides, america isnt the only country involved in wars. Canada joined one of your foolish wars and is still there, and if our current PM had his way we would have jumped right into the festering pile of croutons that was Iraq as well. not to mention we have also had an inordinate amount of money being spent stupidly on very soon to be out dated fighter jets, amongst other things.[/quote] Canada is actually a larger supporter of Israel then America is so what's your point?

[quote]Ron paul isnt a bad dude. he has some good policies, and some truly stupid ones too. im glad he is a congressman, but also kinda glad he isnt president.[/quote] He might be president soon, so you better watch out. In all the polls he is the most likely of any republican to beat Obama and America is not fond of Obama or his support for entitlements.

[quote]well thats just great for him. you have a relatively fringe politician with a good idea. now if a few other people with some weight behind them had the same idea you would have something, but as it is, me saying that in general you pretty much never hear about military programs being seriously cut in the USA is perfectly valid.
and to the last request, make me.
[/quote]


Canada has enough problems, focus on your own.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305524048' post='2242200']
I agree with everything you said in this post.


Yes this was the spring after my we lost virtually everything in a grain elevator explosion. My Father made 7000 dollars a year ( and he graduated with honors from a very highly rated university) and I was seriously ill, causeing massive debt to accrue enough that a few years later my mother calculated she woudlnever, ever pay off the debt if she lived to be 80. My mother could not work because of my illness. Of course that was before the inflasion of the late 70's.
The one thing the auditors found they could get my parents for was they said that they could not count the cloths we had to replace as a loss, becuase cloths had no value.
They directly told my parents that it was not possible to live on the amount of money that we had after the payment of my medical bills.

You don't have to be rich, or even comfortable to reject this.
[/quote]

Wow, talk about hardship.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1305524074' post='2242201']
It doesn't matter weather it's an international aid situation or not. America is an unusually large nation. People in Washington often feel a large disconnect from Alabama because it is so far away. However many people willingly gave to Haiti as if it was part of their country, just as many did with Alabama. The point was cheap and not a good example.
[/quote]

well if america is too large of a nation to expect one side of it to help the other side, maybe thats a problem unto itself. my point is not cheap. the brunt of aid going to alabama is govt. related, without that aid, there simply would not be enough.

[quote]
Well first off, if people weren't paying so much taxes to governments that mismanage so much of the funds, that would allow for more money to be given to charities.
[/quote]

riiiiiight. well your math is correct, it would ALLOW for more money to be given to charity. but in reality i doubt the improvement in funds for charity would be very significant. the former tax payers would find some other bill to spend it on, or the price of gas, or some commodity would go up and fill the gap. to say it straight out, people are greedy. they would not turn around and all of a suden give a lot more money to charities. as it is, when people get tax refunds, they tend to spend them on frivolous stuff.

[quote]
They recieve a tiny franction because the majority of it goes to government charities. In America, Planned Parenthood [who conducts the most abortions] are the largest care provider that offers free services for women. They get over a billion from the government. Catholic care providers that provide women's services [minus abortions] only total about 7,000 facilities, where as Planned Parenthood has only 820 facilities. By and large the CAtholic facilities are independantly funded and run. If they were given that 1 billion dollars, you'd see many more women be helped and abortion being greatly deminished. Right now, we are bound by law to have our taxes go to planned parenthood, a charity that violates our moral beliefs.
[/quote]

I am not about to let you steer this into a discussion on abortion. the fact that PP gets tax money is a thing that can be solved by reforming the system, or simply cutting their funding. you dont have to go full moron and repeal all govt funded programs to get rid of PP.
That is like using a shotgun to shoot the apple off your son's head.

[quote]
Countries pretended to help with Haiti because they were the reason why Haiti was in that situation. And the majority of the money "pledged" by countries never showed up. Infact less then 10% of it showed up.
[/quote]

well that is interesting. irrelevant but interesting.

[quote]
Obviously you know nothing about FDIC do you?
[/quote]

do you seriously think i am enough of a moron to think that the money disappeared along with the banks??? last i checked i didnt have grey matter leaking out my ears. no, it was an example that money in the bank hardly helps you when all the infrastructure around(the stuff that makes money worth anything, and not just an arbitrary piece of paper) is destroyed. you cant eat gold, and you cant buy food from grocery stores that no longer exist, and you cant get to somewhere where there is food and shelter when the car you owned is now upside down in a tree and the roadways look like they just got bombed.

[quote]
Actually the majority are against the wars.
[/quote]

im sure they are now. 9 years later.

[quote]
Canada is actually a larger supporter of Israel then America is so what's your point?
[/quote]

did i actually mention israel?? no i did not. did i mention anything related to israel?? no i did not. dont put your words in my mouth.

[quote]
He might be president soon, so you better watch out. In all the polls he is the most likely of any republican to beat Obama and America is not fond of Obama or his support for entitlements.

Canada has enough problems, focus on your own.
[/quote]

yeah, i better watch out, big bad Ron Paul is gonna eat me while i sleep over a forum comment.

how about i dont? apart from the glaring hypocrisy that is an american telling any one else to keep out of other country's business, i frankly dont feel like it. if you dont like it, thats entirely too bad for you.

Edited May 16, 2011 by Jesus_lol

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1305526294' post='2242206']
well if america is too large of a nation to expect one side of it to help the other side, maybe thats a problem unto itself. my point is not cheap. the brunt of aid going to alabama is govt. related, without that aid, there simply would not be enough.[/quote]

Sorry to say but you have no idea what you're talking about. If people weren't forced to give to government charities, there would be more money for them to give to charities of their choice.

[quote]riiiiiight. well your math is correct, it would ALLOW for more money to be given
to charity. but in reality i doubt the improvement in funds for charity would be
very significant. the former tax payers would find some other bill to spend it
on, or the price of gas, or some commodity would go up and fill the gap. to say
it straight out, people are greedy. they would not turn around and all of a
suden give a lot more money to charities. as it is, when people get tax refunds,
they tend to spend them on frivolous stuff.
[/quote]

You don't know that as a fact but even if you were correct, that's the beauty of freedom, not socialist governments that take money from people by force and under the threat of imprisonment. If it's your money, it should be yours to spend it as your chose.

[quote]I am not about to let you steer this into a discussion on abortion. the fact that PP gets tax money is a thing that can be solved by reforming the system, or simply cutting their funding. you dont have to go full moron and repeal all govt funded programs to get rid of PP.
That is like using a shotgun to shoot the apple off your son's head.[/quote]


First off, you're not in control, second off its not about steering it onto abortion. It's about the facts. It's about the government confinscating money under the threat of imprisonment and giving it to those who did not earn it, to a charity of their choice, nor ours. This including planned parenthood rather then a catholic charity that does not support abortion. And for the record, if you think that the government is better to handle our money then us, you [mod]personal attack- MIKolbe[/mod]
[quote]well that is interesting. irrelevant but interesting.[/quote] It's not irrelevant, it is about the facts that you neglected.

[quote]do you seriously think i am enough of a moron to think that the money disappeared along with the banks??? last i checked i didnt have grey matter leaking out my ears. no, it was an example that money in the bank hardly helps you when all the infrastructure around(the stuff that makes money worth anything, and not just an arbitrary piece of paper) is destroyed. you cant eat gold, and you cant buy food from grocery stores that no longer exist, and you cant get to somewhere where there is food and shelter when the car you owned is now upside down in a tree and the roadways look like they just got bombed.[/quote] [mod]personal attack-MIKolbe[/mod]Here, I'll quote you:

[quote]having money saved in a bank doesnt mean jack when your bank is destroyed, and every nearby store where you could spend those savings is destroyed and you need food, water and shelter.[/quote] It's called FDIC [mod]personal attack-MIKolbe[/mod], its called FDIC. No you can't eat gold but you can use it to rebuild and as a form of insurance to protect your family. What do you suggest, we now buy insurance for everyone. Oh that's right, that is what your country does, it buys health insurance for everyone. What's next? The government seizing the money of the wealthy and middle class to pay for home insurance for everyone? How about care insurance too while you're at it?

[quote]im sure they are now. 9 years later.[/quote] They were against it back in 2007 and for the record, people like me and Ron Paul were against it from the start, so your argument is null and void. Typical Canadian [mod]personal attack - MIKolbe[/mod]
[quote]did i actually mention israel?? no i did not. did i mention anything related to israel?? no i did not. dont put your words in my mouth.[/quote] No you didn't but lsrael is still foriegn intervention for which your country supports. So the US props up the government of Iraq, and your country props up Israel, what's your point.

[quote]yeah, i better watch out, big bad Ron Paul is gonna eat me while i sleep over a forum comment.[/quote]

No but he's going to change american policy to a level that will make you socialists cringe your teeth together.

[quote]how about i dont? apart from the glaring hypocrisy that is an american telling any one else to keep out of other country's business, i frankly dont feel like it. if you dont like it, thats entirely too bad for you.
[/quote] It's not a glaring hypocracy for those of us who do not support the neocon and neoliberal agenda. Bush and Obama are exactly the same, so what's your point? I didn't support either of them and your government also intervenes in other people's affairs. So why don't you quit being a hypocrit and deal with your own countries problems? You obviously have no idea about American politics, maybe you should atleast take a political class online dealing with american politics first?

Last I checked your liberal and socialist healthcare was inadequate and your leaders came to our country for the best healthcare in the world.As a matter of fact, if I'm not mistaken [which I'm not] the majority of the vaccines in the world came from America. When was the last time that Canada's socialist medicine came up with a much needed cure? NOT NEVER... [mod]personal attack- MIKolbe[/mod]

[Jesus_lol]

I dont think i have ever met a poster with[mod]personal attack-MIKolbe[/mod]. Im not going to respond in kind, because i dont feel like being banned for a personal attack.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1305528680' post='2242210']
I dont think i have ever met a poster [mod]personal attack-MIKolbe[/mod] Im not going to respond in kind, because i dont feel like being banned for a personal attack.
[/quote]


Well I wish I could say that [mod]personal attack- MIKolbe[/mod] So stay up in Canada with your free universal healthcare. Your governments telling you what charities to donate to and how much to donate since you can't be trusted with your own money. Your legalized abortion without a national discussion even taking place about it and with your permafrost and I'll continue to stay in my country with freedom. Allowing you to come down here to benefit from the best healthcare in the world, whenever you need it.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1305530315' post='2242213']
[mod]personal attack- MIKolbe[/mod]So stay up in Canada with your free universal healthcare. Your governments telling you what charities to donate to and how much to donate since you can't be trusted with your own money. Your legalized abortion without a national discussion even taking place about it and with your permafrost and I'll continue to stay in my country with freedom. Allowing you to come down here to benefit from the best healthcare in the world, whenever you need it.
[/quote]

well, you are clearly delusional, and nursing a serious grudge against canadians, so have fun with that.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1305531343' post='2242215']
well, you are clearly delusional, and nursing a serious grudge against canadians, so have fun with that.
[/quote]


[mod]personal attack- MIKolbe[/mod]