Catholic Church And Gov. Welfare Programs

[4588686]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1305397707' post='2241435']
Dear Glen Beck, just because someone subscribes to an idea, doesn't mean they subscribe to every possible ramification of that idea, nor does it mean that their responsible for every conceivable negative consequence of an idea. But we were discussing economics, not morals, not that it's important.

I am going to take my leave from this discussion, I tire of the lack of sincerity. I apologize and please pardon me.
[/quote]


If the ramifications are the logical consequence of that idea, then yes you do. Unless you embrace denial.

[4588686]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1305397737' post='2241436']
Politicians are ALWAYS talking about The Middle Class like it's some sacred caste. Frankly, I wish they would shut up about it. The Middle Class is what makes our silly system work. Get enough people who aren't destitute but who aren't wealthy, and keep them pacified. The middle class is the politician's dream: they're in the middle, not rocking the boat.

One might argue that the middle class is what we aspire to as a society. Maybe, but I have no interest in being part of "The Middle Class" (although I admit it's an easier road in life). At least the poor have a pot of gold at the end of the tunnel. The pot of gold for The Middle Class is behind an HD TV screen.

And, of course, the poor in this country aspire to be middle class. They buy into The Middle Class even more than The Middle Class does. That's unfortunate.
[/quote]


So you've made yourself poor? Not living like you're poor. Actually poor with no other options.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1305404403' post='2241507']
So you've made yourself poor? Not living like you're poor. Actually poor with no other options.
[/quote]
No. I'm much too much of a coward to do that. Although, in this country, there are rarely "no other options" (hence this thread). And, there's a difference between poor and destitute.

Edited May 14, 2011 by Era Might

[4588686]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1305404466' post='2241508']
No. I'm much too much of a coward to do that. Although, in this country, there are rarely "no other options" (hence this thread).
[/quote]


Well, at least your honest. That's respectable.

[4588686]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1305403562' post='2241502']
This is what the American dream is, but why should people who did not invest the initial money, share in the risks, profit from that which they did not help to create? Truth be told, I have mentioned this to many Americans, particularly unemployed college students that also believe in entitlements, and their attitude is, "Mowing Lawns? I have a college degree", yet they're broke. However when they get sick, their attitude is that they are entitled to a doctors services free of charge. That sort of socialism is taking money from landscaping businesses [through taxes] and giving it to those who did not earn it.
[/quote]


Your buisness pays taxes because the buisness operated in an enviorment supported by the state. You didn't have to divert resources to hiring mercinaries because you have a tax payer supported army that ensures that you don't have to deplete the whole of your profits paying off competing warlords. How solid of an entrepreneurial enviorment was Afghanistan in the 90's or Somolia now?

[Era Might]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1305404681' post='2241510']
Well, at least your honest. That's respectable.
[/quote]
Well, that's really all I have to hang on to. I suppose people might get offended when I rail against the system...but if they get offended, they probably don't realize that I'm part of the same system. I can't completely separate myself from the system, I can only be honest about what I see...even though I d[i][/i]amn myself in the process. I'm an idealist in honesty, but not so much in reality. It sure ain't easy living an ideal life, but at least be honest with yourself when you're not living it. Small steps are good for cowards. Then there's giants who take bigger steps (Gandhi, Thoreau, etc). Those are my heroes.

So, to anyone who might be offended by my rants, don't take it personally. Or rather, take it personally, but with the disclaimer that I too take it personally.

Edited May 14, 2011 by Era Might

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1305405089' post='2241511']
Your buisness pays taxes because the buisness operated in an enviorment supported by the state. You didn't have to divert resources to hiring mercinaries because you have a tax payer supported army that ensures that you don't have to deplete the whole of your profits paying off competing warlords. How solid of an entrepreneurial enviorment was Afghanistan in the 90's or Somolia now?
[/quote]

Well if we're talking about taxes to pay for the military, police, fire department, fixing roads and hiways, that's different then money being diverted to pay for entitlement programs.

[4588686]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1305406218' post='2241519']
Well if we're talking about taxes to pay for the military, police, fire department, fixing roads and hiways, that's different then money being diverted to pay for entitlement programs.
[/quote]


Poor people who buy things pay state sales taxes as well. They also help maintain the system that allows you to prosper. For example, when their sales taxes pay for the local police force and help maintain the roads. And their kids disproportionately fill the boots of the army that provides you security. You are part of a society. Individuals don't exist as discrete, atomic units. I support welfare reform to make sure people don't just leach off the system. If you work hard and take risks, you do deserve to keep most of the fruits of your labor. But you don't get to pretend that you have no responsibility to the society that made it possible.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1305408129' post='2241532']
Poor people who buy things pay state sales taxes as well. They also help maintain the system that allows you to prosper. For example, when their sales taxes pay for the local police force and help maintain the roads. And their kids disproportionately fill the boots of the army that provides you security. You are part of a society. Individuals don't exist as discrete, atomic units. I support welfare reform to make sure people don't just leach off the system. If you work hard and take risks, you do deserve to keep most of the fruits of your labor. But you don't get to pretend that you have no responsibility to the society that made it possible.
[/quote]

If they are "buying things" with entitlements or recieving entitlements that allow them to spend their money on "things", who is truly paying those sales taxes? That argument would stand if they were standing on their own two feet, but if they are recieving entitlements, they are not doing that are they? As for the military, not only is your statistic unproved, but it's irrelevant. The Military is an option for all walks of life in this country. The majority of the young men and women that I know in the military [and I was in the military at one time] and have known in the military, were from middle class families, who chose not to go to college, or needed additional funds for college. Most of the young men and women might have come from middle class homes, but their parents still couldn't afford college tuition costs of 13-20 grand a year, and didn't have a high paying employment option, so what did they chose? They chose the military, which was a great option for them.

The way that you talk about it, you talk as if it's slave labor and it's not. It's one option, just as investing $500 in a lawn mowing business is an option. When you say, "individuals don't exist as discrete, atomic units" that is true to a degree but the level that you're taking it is socialism, not our system. If you like that, you should go to another country where that is the direction that the people have chosen to take the country, but that isn't our system. We are a capitalist system, where people make their own opportunities.

Having a responsibility to a society that made it possible is different then entitlements. My great grandparents believed that we all have a responsibility to our society, but still didn't believe in entitlements. They believed in having the opportunity to make their own future, through hard work. My foster father's family came here approx 120 years ago from Germany as indentured servants [willing slaves]. Why did they agree to 16 years of indentured servitude? Because they wanted the opportunity to come to a country like America that offered them the opportunity under a capitalist system to proper. Germany did not offer that. Did they want a hand out? No, that's why they chose a hard life of indentured servitude to get here. It took many years for them to truly proper, infact it didn't happen in the lifetime of the first generation. Throughout the great depression, my uncles often tell me that they often only got to eat a few meals a week, and went through hard struggles. They serves in multiple wars, as poor people, but through hard work and wise investments are medium wealthy. The attitude that they had was different back then, it wasn't about accepting entitlements, they'd rather die then accept entitlements

This country was not founded upon the idea of entitlements. It was founded upon hard labor, with the promise to come up and proper if one so choses.

It was as President Kennedy put it, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country".

[4588686]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1305413033' post='2241548']
If they are "buying things" with entitlements or recieving entitlements that allow them to spend their money on "things", who is truly paying those sales taxes? That argument would stand if they were standing on their own two feet, but if they are recieving entitlements, they are not doing that are they?[/QUOTE]

Somebody get's laid off and get's assistance while he looks for work, he has helped support the state. More importantly, it's not a mere quid pro quo. You live in a republic. That society, which has provided you with security and benefits like public roads and utilities, has decided, through a democratic proccess, that an important goal of that society is to give in need members of that society a lifeline while they get back on their feet. If you don't like that you can campaign to change it or move else where. Either way it's perfectly legitimate. Nobody is forcing you to remain here.

[QUOTE]As for the military, not only is your statistic unproved, but it's irrelevant.[/QUOTE]
[url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/03/AR2005110302528.html"]http://www.washingto...5110302528.html[/url]

[QUOTE]The Military is an option for all walks of life in this country. The majority of the young men and women that I know in the military [and I was in the military at one time] and have known in the military, were from middle class families, who chose not to go to college, or needed additional funds for college. Most of the young men and women might have come from middle class homes, but their parents still couldn't afford college tuition costs of 13-20 grand a year, and didn't have a high paying employment option, so what did they chose? They chose the military, which was a great option for them.

The way that you talk about it, you talk as if it's slave labor and it's not. It's one option, just as investing $500 in a lawn mowing business is an option. [/QUOTE]

I didn't suggust that military was slave labor. My family has fought in every war since the Spanish American war and I'm going into the military after I finish my last semester this fall. But I am sick of people on this thread acting like all poor are some leaches on society. The poor and lower middle class famlies, the people whose jobs are being lost and who are at time dependent on temporary government assistance, disproportionately shoulder the responsibility for the security of the society that makes enrightment and social advancement possible.

[QUOTE]When you say, "individuals don't exist as discrete, atomic units" that is true to a degree but the level that you're taking it is socialism, not our system.[/QUOTE]

What degree is that?

[QUOTE]If you like that, you should go to another country where that is the direction that the people have chosen to take the country, but that isn't our system. We are a capitalist system, where people make their own opportunities.[/QUOTE]

We are a mixed economy which leans more towards capitalism. Which I am perfectly happy with. I'm not diverging from the American tradition. You are. Ayn Rand's Objectivism is not the American tradition. The political philosophy of Austrian Economics and extreme libertarianism is not the mainline American tradition. I'm not departing from the norm, I'm defending it.

[QUOTE]Having a responsibility to a society that made it possible is different then entitlements. My great grandparents believed that we all have a responsibility to our society, but still didn't believe in entitlements. They believed in having the opportunity to make their own future, through hard work. My foster father's family came here approx 120 years ago from Germany as indentured servants [willing slaves]. Why did they agree to 16 years of indentured servitude? Because they wanted the opportunity to come to a country like America that offered them the opportunity under a capitalist system to proper. Germany did not offer that. Did they want a hand out? No, that's why they chose a hard life of indentured servitude to get here. It took many years for them to truly proper, infact it didn't happen in the lifetime of the first generation. Throughout the great depression, my uncles often tell me that they often only got to eat a few meals a week, and went through hard struggles. They serves in multiple wars, as poor people, but through hard work and wise investments are medium wealthy.[/QUOTE]
Ok. That pretty well describes my family. What's the point?
[QUOTE]The attitude that they had was different back then, it wasn't about accepting entitlements, they'd rather die then accept entitlements[/QUOTE]

I guess they burnt their social security checks?

[QUOTE]This country was not founded upon the idea of entitlements. It was founded upon hard labor, with the promise to come up and proper if one so choses. [/QUOTE]

You're creating a straw man. Have I ever said that any able bodied person should not be required to work?

[QUOTE]It was as President Kennedy put it, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country".
[/quote]

And that's why he was an Objectivist, right?

Edited May 14, 2011 by Hasan

[Winchester]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1305403635' post='2241504']
No it's not. I've worked with children born with severe birth defects. They require 24 hour care or they would die. Theist famlies are too poor to afford that care. They esentially have to give their kids to the clinic so they can stay alive. Without public assistance every one of those kids would die. Theoretically, could some wealthy citizens pool their money to provide aid for the rest of their lives (none of them can work. I mean physically they will never be able to work)? Sure. But thus far they haven't and without state aid every one of those kids would be dead. That's the reality.

I'm not saying that a lot of people on public assistance don't just need a kick in the arse. All I'm saying is that the scinario does exist.
[/quote]
The scenario that it's the government or death is false.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1305416391' post='2241569']
Somebody get's laid off and get's assistance while he looks for work, he has helped support the state. More importantly, it's not a mere quid pro quo. You live in a republic. That society, which has provided you with security and benefits like public roads and utilities, has decided, through a democratic proccess, that an important goal of that society is to give in need members of that society a lifeline while they get back on their feet. If you don't like that you can campaign to change it or move else where. Either way it's perfectly legitimate. Nobody is forcing you to remain here.[/quote]

Well unemployement was never designed to cost the state money. It was meant to be a situation of, you get your wages garnished and those funds go into an account for when you need them [in times of unemployment]. Now it's become an entitlement program, which is much different. However, relying upon government in this sort of fashion never works. As for the last comment, that is true, nobody is forcing me to stay here and the system has changed but just as it has changed, it can and will change back. Currently, the system is bankrupt and can't continue down this path, so it will change weather you like it or not.

[quote]I didn't suggust that military was slave labor. My family has fought in every war since the Spanish American war and I'm going into the military after I finish my last semester this fall. But I am sick of people on this thread acting like all poor are some leaches on society. The poor and lower middle class famlies, the people whose jobs are being lost and who are at time dependent on temporary government assistance, disproportionately shoulder the responsibility for the security of the society that makes enrightment and social advancement possible.
[/quote]

Well I think that you're right that many on this thread might have that atttiude but I think that most have the attitude that the poor need to cease with this attitude that somebody owes them something. This idea that if you go to work for walmart, it's not fair if you don't know if you'll have a job one day to the next, is wrong. When you agree to go to work for a corporation, there are no guarentees, neither are there guarentees in life. Before AIG got bailed out, the argument that their 200,000 plus workers were making was, "it's not fair that we might lose our job without options". However, who's responsibility is it to prepare for these events? That is by no means justification for bailing them out.

[quote]What degree is that?
[/quote]

The degree that we all help to maintain the highways, that we maintain the fire department, that we try and work together in our neighborhoods to prevent crime, etc. However saying that "since bob didn't save his money and now is unemployed, so we need to pay for his bills" is ridiculous and goes agaisnt the very foundations of this country.

[quote]We are a mixed economy which leans more towards capitalism. Which I am perfectly happy with. I'm not diverging from the American tradition. You are. Ayn Rand's Objectivism is not the American tradition. The political philosophy of Austrian Economics and extreme libertarianism is not the mainline American tradition. I'm not departing from the norm, I'm defending it.
[/quote]

Sorry but these entitlements [and those proposed by FDR] are a departing from the American Traditions that founded this nation.

[quote]Ok. That pretty well describes my family. What's the point?
[/quote]

The point is very clear, if you can't comprehend it, I can't help you.

[quote]I guess they burnt their social security checks?
[/quote]

They didn't need social security checks since they prepared and like many elderly, sent them back to the government, or filed necessary paper work not to collect. However, if they did chose to recieve, it was only because they put into that system [unwillingly] and got out of it what they put in, which is fair.

[quote]You're creating a straw man. Have I ever said that any able bodied person should not be required to work?
[/quote]

It's not a straw man, the fact of the matter is, that this country was not founded upon the idea that if someone wasn't "able bodied", that the government gave them an entitlement by taking it from those who earned it.

[quote]And that's why he was an Objectivist, right?
[/quote]

I think that he was making a powerful point, weather he lived up to that point is a different story.

[4588686]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1305418061' post='2241582']
Well unemployement was never designed to cost the state money. It was meant to be a situation of, you get your wages garnished and those funds go into an account for when you need them [in times of unemployment]. Now it's become an entitlement program, which is much different. However, relying upon government in this sort of fashion never works. As for the last comment, that is true, nobody is forcing me to stay here and the system has changed but just as it has changed, it can and will change back. Currently, the system is bankrupt and can't continue down this path, so it will change weather you like it or not.[/QUOTE]

I'm not opposed to welfare reform. You've been arguing against wellfare fullstop.



[QUOTE]Well I think that you're right that many on this thread might have that atttiude but I think that most have the attitude that the poor need to cease with this attitude that somebody owes them something. This idea that if you go to work for walmart, it's not fair if you don't know if you'll have a job one day to the next, is wrong. When you agree to go to work for a corporation, there are no guarentees, neither are there guarentees in life. Before AIG got bailed out, the argument that their 200,000 plus workers were making was, "it's not fair that we might lose our job without options". However, who's responsibility is it to prepare for these events? That is by no means justification for bailing them out.[/QUOTE]



[QUOTE]The degree that we all help to maintain the highways, that we maintain the fire department, that we try and work together in our neighborhoods to prevent crime, etc. However saying that "since bob didn't save his money and now is unemployed, so we need to pay for his bills" is ridiculous and goes agaisnt the very foundations of this country.[/QUOTE]

See below.



[QUOTE]Sorry but these entitlements [and those proposed by FDR] are a departing from the American Traditions that founded this nation.[/QUOTE]

I'll counter this point below.



[QUOTE]The point is very clear, if you can't comprehend it, I can't help you.[/QUOTE]

I understand the theme. My family pulled themselves up from nothing and had a rough time. Good for your family. That is a great thing. My family is the same. But what conclusion are you claiming folows from that? We had a tough time so everybody else can go to hell?



[QUOTE]They didn't need social security checks since they prepared and like many elderly, sent them back to the government, or filed necessary paper work not to collect. However, if they did chose to recieve, it was only because they put into that system [unwillingly] and got out of it what they put in, which is fair.[/QUOTE]

First of all, people who collect social security recieve more than they put in. So if they did recieve and accept checks then got out more than they put in. You don't seem to know what they did with the checks, though.



[QUOTE]It's not a straw man, the fact of the matter is, that this country was not founded upon the idea that if someone wasn't "able bodied", that the government gave them an entitlement by taking it from those who earned it.[/QUOTE]

No it' not. Wellfare existed before FDR. England had Poor Laws since medeval times. Our first colonies in the 17th century had Poor Laws. We had laws to provide for the wounded soldiers, widows, and children impacted by the civil war. The term entitlement comes from aid we gave to WWI vets. A FACET of the American tradition is self-sufficiency, but that is not the totality of it. You want to rewrite history and suggest that America was monolithically founded as some sort of Austrian economy libertarian land. That's contrary to the historical record.

[QUOTE]I think that he was making a powerful point, weather he lived up to that point is a different story.
[/quote]

What he said was not contrary to supporting the idea of reasonable wellfare.

Edited May 15, 2011 by Hasan

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1305428173' post='2241641']
I'm not opposed to welfare reform. You've been arguing against wellfare fullstop.[/quote]

No, I'm arguing for cutting it completely off. Not just welfare but all entitlements before they sink the whole country.

[quote]I understand the theme. My family pulled themselves up from nothing and had a rough time. Good for your family. That is a great thing. My family is the same. But what conclusion are you claiming folows from that? We had a tough time so everybody else can go to hell? [/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]First of all, people who collect social security recieve more than they put in. So if they did recieve and accept checks then got out more than they put in. You don't seem to know what they did with the checks, though.
[/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. 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]No it' not. Wellfare existed before FDR. England had Poor Laws since medeval times. Our first colonies in the 17th century had Poor Laws. We had laws to provide for the wounded soldiers, widows, and children impacted by the civil war. The term entitlement comes from aid we gave to WWI vets. A FACET of the American tradition is self-sufficiency, but that is not the totality of it. You want to rewrite history and suggest that America was monolithically founded as some sort of Austrian economy libertarian land. That's contrary to the historical record.
[/quote]

I 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, not the Hasan Socialistic History 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]What he said was not contrary to supporting the idea of reasonable wellfare.
[/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.

[Era Might]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1305430752' post='2241701']I'm living in the American history, not the Hasan Socialistic History 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.

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]
Just because someone needs help doesn't mean they "didn't save their money." Stuff happens. Kids get sick. Cars break down. Rents go up. Food digests and the body requires more food the next day. Fathers get layed off. Mothers have another child.

I was conceived. That earned me the right to what I need to live. The mere fact that I exist means I have a right to what I need to live. That includes the right to work, which is the usual means of providing those things. But sometimes work isn't enough (or isn't available). Am I entitled to help from society? Yes. Not out of charity, but out of justice.

In my opinion, the question is not whether society has an obligation to help its members. That's a given as far as I am concerned (and I am not referring to charity, since charity is not obligatory). The question is how. My problem with how society goes about its obligation to help its members is that instead of strengthening our rights, society requires us to exercise those rights vicariously through institutions, and our rights are effectively abolished. Instead of helping people be free actors in the world, we turn them into dependent clients.

Jimmy Santiago Baca has a poem I like called "So Mexicans Are Taking Jobs From Americans." Here's how it ends:

[quote]The children are dead already. We are killing them,
that is what America should be saying;
on TV, in the streets, in offices, should be saying,
“We aren’t giving the children a chance to live.”

Mexicans are taking our jobs, they say instead.
What they really say is, let them die,
and the children too.[/quote]

Edited May 15, 2011 by Era Might