Catholic Church And Gov. Welfare Programs

[Winchester]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1305381370' post='2241333']
[s]name a time and place in history when only private charity was enough to care for all of the old, injured, weak, poor, homeless. i would reallly like to know when this has ever been possible.[/s] The ends justify the means.
[/quote]
No, they don't.

[CatherineM]

If it makes all of you hard working Americans feel better, I promise that if I am ever in need of charity again, I will just lie in the gutter and die rather than accept government assistance. That will allow you to keep more of your tax money I'm sure. I just don't understand how people who call themselves Christians can complain about having some of their money go to help the poor, the disable, the elderly, etc.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1305385237' post='2241337']
No, they don't.
[/quote]


once again, i do not believe something that is against church teaching. no matter what you keep saying.

you guys keep saying that if all charity was private, then all the sick, hurt, homeless, poor would be taken care of. that keeping charity would eliminate all problems and no one would go without help. so if this is so easily possible, just give me an example where this worked. it the idea is so perfect, then it should have worked somewhere at some point in time.

[havok579257]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1305387272' post='2241343']
If it makes all of you hard working Americans feel better, I promise that if I am ever in need of charity again, I will just lie in the gutter and die rather than accept government assistance. That will allow you to keep more of your tax money I'm sure. I just don't understand how people who call themselves Christians can complain about having some of their money go to help the poor, the disable, the elderly, etc.
[/quote]


fantastic points. being a christian and complaining about money going to the poor doesn't make sense.

[Winchester]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1305387580' post='2241345']
once again, i do not believe something that is against church teaching. no matter what you keep saying.

you guys keep saying that if all charity was private, then all the sick, hurt, homeless, poor would be taken care of. that keeping charity would eliminate all problems and no one would go without help. so if this is so easily possible, just give me an example where this worked. it the idea is so perfect, then it should have worked somewhere at some point in time.
[/quote]
Actually, that's not the argument. The argument is that the government does not have the right to take money from one group to give it to another.

[Winchester]

Of course, screaming about cuts in the first place is based on the idea that the programs really need every dollar they get. Having seen far too many people on government assistance yet able to afford luxuries, I know that's the essence of cow.

[Mr.Cat]

The poor have some advocates, the wealthy have the rest. But there is no one defending or promoting the middle class. Its ultimately the same story, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Ideally I understand someone telling me that families, communities, and businesses will reach out to people in their time of need... But time and time again this method has failed, such as in the era of "Hoovervilles". The problem is "[i]capitalism[/i]" has only one real concern and that is "[i]capital[/i]", there is no concern for people in a good capitalist's mind, its a system that plays off human greed and exploitation. I am not interested in the dogmatic apologetics for any of the former, though I doubt such defenders would take the time to identify themselves as such. As a pragmatist I want a system that works... Communism, Socialism, and Capitalism as pure ideological models have repeatedly failed and showed their weaknesses. But some still want to advance the same banner and same run down arguments from before, worshiping an ideology rather than having a practical system. I suppose it shouldn't surprise me.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1305390382' post='2241357']
Of course, screaming about cuts in the first place is based on the idea that the programs really need every dollar they get. Having seen far too many people on government assistance yet able to afford luxuries, I know that's the essence of cow.
[/quote]


there are abuses all the time. although that does not diminish that there really are people in need of government assistance who do not abuse the system. the best way to do it is keep government assistance but figure out a way to root out the abusers.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1305392872' post='2241378']
The poor have some advocates, the wealthy have the rest. But there is no one defending or promoting the middle class. Its ultimately the same story, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Ideally I understand someone telling me that families, communities, and businesses will reach out to people in their time of need... But time and time again this method has failed, such as in the era of "Hoovervilles". The problem is "[i]capitalism[/i]" has only one real concern and that is "[i]capital[/i]", there is no concern for people in a good capitalist's mind, its a system that plays off human greed and exploitation. I am not interested in the dogmatic apologetics for any of the former, though I doubt such defenders would take the time to identify themselves as such. As a pragmatist I want a system that works... Communism, Socialism, and Capitalism as pure ideological models have repeatedly failed and showed their weaknesses. But some still want to advance the same banner and same run down arguments from before, worshiping an ideology rather than having a practical system. I suppose it shouldn't surprise me.
[/quote]
This country never tried free market capitalism.

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDhcqua3_W8"]Are the poor getting poorer[/url]

And pragmatism is not morally acceptable.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1305395203' post='2241401']And pragmatism is not morally acceptable.[/quote]To be practical is not morally acceptable? Wow... explains so much.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1305388669' post='2241351']
Actually, that's not the argument. The argument is that the government does not have the right to take money from one group to give it to another.
[/quote]


does the government not have a responsibility to give everyone life, liberty and a chance at the pursut of happiness? well without government assiatnce, some people would not be alive. so how is the government supposed to give the people a chance at life?

[Winchester]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1305395244' post='2241402']
To be practical is not morally acceptable? Wow... explains so much.
[/quote]
Once again, your limited knowledge betrays you. You could argue that you're referring to pragmatism distinct from philosophical pragmatism. That your pragmatism is of the political variety (although that's also limited and practicality in politics would demand doing something other than reading Mother Jones and watching MSNBC, repeating poorly garnered statistics and then having an aneurysm about people not wanting you running their personal lives).

So, I'll pretend you made that argument and say "Okay, then join us in the Austrian school and the Libertarian Party."

[Winchester]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1305395874' post='2241406']
does the government not have a responsibility to give everyone life, liberty and a chance at the pursut of happiness? well without government assiatnce, some people would not be alive. so how is the government supposed to give the people a chance at life?
[/quote]
I have the right to keep and bear arms. Does that mean the government must provide me with weapons through a government program?

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1305396026' post='2241407']Once again, your limited knowledge betrays you. You could argue that you're referring to pragmatism distinct from philosophical pragmatism. That your pragmatism is of the political variety (although that's also limited and practicality in politics would demand doing something other than reading Mother Jones and watching MSNBC, repeating poorly garnered statistics and then having an aneurysm about people not wanting you running their personal lives).

So, I'll pretend you made that argument and say "Okay, then join us in the Austrian school and the Libertarian Party."[/quote]Was there a reply in this garbled nonsense? I didn't see one.

But I am sorry you reject pragmatism: "[i]A practical, matter-of-fact way of approaching or assessing situations or of solving problems.[/i]" Why do you reject pragmatism, because an ideology tells you to...

Genius.

Edited May 14, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1305333578' post='2241110']
I'm curious as to what you guys would do if one day you left for the office and then didn't come home? That happened to me. One day you are employed, healthy, active, happy, and the next day you are permanently and totally disabled, unable to move, unable to work, with no one who can take care of you or give a beaver dam. Catholic Charities could offer no help at all. What should I have done besides turning to the government for help? When I hurt my back, I was released from the hospital, and was taken by ambulance and dropped at a hotel that catered to drug users and prostitutes. I didn't move for 7 weeks.
[/quote]

Catherine \,what they are saying is not that in our current situation there are adequate charitible options, they are saying adequate charitable options are not available BECAUSE of our current government enforced welfare state.