Catholic Church And Gov. Welfare Programs

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1305513282' post='2242117']
Cars are a luxury for everyone, including the poor. Cars are not a human necessity. We have two legs for a reason. In other countries people get around fine on bikes and horses. But our society decided to cater to the rich by designing streets for cars rather than for people. This had certain advantages to a society that caters to the rich. But it also means that poor are required to adjust themselves to meet this standard of living (which, conveniently, allows the car industry to boom...once society makes cars a necessity, then car manufacturers gain control over this so-called "necessity"). In other words, and quite ironically, our society of cars has immobilized us. Roads are no longer for people, but for cars...people have to adjust their lives to give precedence to machines.
[/quote]

Sorry Era Might but when we were poor, my wife road a bike [while pregnant] over 25 blocks [through hilltop tacoma wa] to work. If one doesn't own a car or choses not to use one it is possible.

And I should note that when I worked at Target in Stillwater MN, I road a motar scooter on the shoulder of the freeway from New Richmond WI [for those of you that know the roadway].

Edited May 16, 2011 by RezaMikhaeil

[Winchester]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1305513282' post='2242117']
Cars are a luxury for everyone, including the poor. Cars are not a human necessity. We have two legs for a reason. In other countries people get around fine on bikes and horses. But our society decided to cater to the rich by designing streets for cars rather than for people. This had certain advantages to a society that caters to the rich. But it also means that the poor are required to adjust themselves to meet this standard of living (which, conveniently, allows the car industry to boom...once society makes cars a necessity, then car manufacturers gain control over this so-called "necessity"). In other words, and quite ironically, our society of cars has immobilized us. Roads are no longer for people, but for cars...people have to adjust their lives to give precedence to machines.
[/quote]
Cars became dominant because they were cheaper, easier to maintain, faster and people wanted them. It wasn't a conspiracy to support the rich.

[Era Might]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1305513424' post='2242118']
Sorry Era Might but when we were poor, my wife road a bike [while pregnant] over 25 blocks [through hilltop tacoma wa] to work. If one doesn't own a car or choses not to use one it is possible.
[/quote]
Yes, it is still possible to ride a bike. That's not my point. Our city planning is not built for bike riding, it is built for expensive machines. It is built for the luxury of being able to drive your privately purchased expensive, air-conditioned machine.

[thessalonian]

"Trying to establish social justice through private charities is like trying to provide for the common defense through private militias,"

Now I have heard it all. The superiority of government welfare programs over private charities. Of course you do not take in to account the excessive burden the welfare state is placing on our economy. Soon we will be broke and when we are you will see the number of poor in this nation grow to never before seen levels, not even those of the great depression will match where this country is headed because of a lack of fiscal responsibility. Our budget is out of control. That is a clear indication that what we have put in place is not what God intends. Just as the vatican document I sited said, government programs take away the responsibility of the individual. Do I say do away with all welfare programs? We cannot at this point though they never should have been started in the past. I would like to see a phasing out but am unsure how this can happen. One thing I do know is we have developed a stale, graceless system and it needs to change.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1305513553' post='2242120']
Yes, it is still possible to ride a bike. That's not my point. Our city planning is not built for bike riding, it is built for expensive machines. It is built for the luxury of being able to drive your privately purchased expensive, air-conditioned machine.
[/quote]

I guess all those bike lanes were for nothing more then to get in my way. [img]http://richmondva.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/bike-lanes.jpg[/img]
[quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1305513585' post='2242121']
"Trying to establish social justice through private charities is like trying to provide for the common defense through private militias,"

Now I have heard it all. The superiority of government welfare programs over private charities. Of course you do not take in to account the excessive burden the welfare state is placing on our economy. Soon we will be broke and when we are you will see the number of poor in this nation grow to never before seen levels, not even those of the great depression will match where this country is headed because of a lack of fiscal responsibility. Our budget is out of control. That is a clear indication that what we have put in place is not what God intends. Just as the vatican document I sited said, government programs take away the responsibility of the individual. Do I say do away with all welfare programs? We cannot at this point though they never should have been started in the past. I would like to see a phasing out but am unsure how this can happen. One thing I do know is we have developed a stale, graceless system and it needs to change.
[/quote]

Yes, when the burden grows higher, jobs are more scarce, the rich have left the country, the entitlements have been cut off and over .50 cents to every dollar is being paid to china in interest alone, many more will be homeless in the streets. However this is a "Catholic obligation" according to some. I'd say that the best anti-poverty "catholic" [or "christian] obligation is to make sure that your country doesn't go bankrupt and jobs are readily available since they are the best anti-poverty program in the world.

Edited May 16, 2011 by RezaMikhaeil

[Era Might]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1305513520' post='2242119']
Cars became dominant because they were cheaper, easier to maintain, faster and people wanted them. It wasn't a conspiracy to support the rich.
[/quote]
It doesn't have to be a conspiracy to accomplish that end. I agree with you that cars became dominant for a variety of reasons. But those reasons all depend on a society that caters to the luxuries of the rich (and I'm using "rich" in the global sense, not just in the American sense). America is the historical leader in cars because America catered to the luxuries of the rich. So-called "third-world countries" that want to be like America don't have the same success, because they don't have America's luxuries...their people (overwhelmingly poor) still depend on other kinds of transportation that do not have the personal luxury of expensive private vehicles. Those other countries are still dominated by the poor, but instead of catering to mass transportation where natural mobility takes precedence, those countries want to cater to expensive, luxurious mobility as America has done. But this immobilizes people, since roads are no longer for people, but for expensive machines. Just as institutions make us dependent on their services, so cars make us dependent on their mobility. Modern institutions and modern transportation are both part of the same social development which has made us incapable of acting with our own minds and our own two feet.

Edited May 16, 2011 by Era Might

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1305513178' post='2242114']
The majority of it will come from the state and local taxes, not national/federal taxes. However, as for saying "I would be surprised", that is not your business, but more importantly, you have already judged people without knowing. However I will say this, I didn't give to that disaster because I [along with most people] cannot afford to give to every local, national or international disaster that takes place. If I asked you, "how many of you gave to help poor people in Morocco without running waters, build wells last summer", I could almost guarentee that almost all of you would answer "no", but that doesn't mean that you didn't give to other charities to the best of your abilities. Therefore this is a strawman argument.



Sorry but I don't watch American Idol, rather I'm busy trying to create jobs, father my children, take care of my wife, etc. [basically more important stuff].

. Your opinion, sorry but the only thing that you should be able to rely upon is G-d and yourself. When people are starving to death in Africa, should they be able to say, "gosh, we should atleast be able to rely upon America and Europe"? Look at Japan. They once were a primative nation in debt but through allowing the people to create jobs in a capitalist way, they created jobs and became an economic powerhouse. Just look at China, during the Great Leap Forward, people were starving to death, now they are where people around the world go for loans.

Charity doesn't create job and economic growth. Rather creating jobs is the best anti-poverty program in the world. Jobs are not created through entitlements, rather it crushes job growth.

Not true, it would lesson taxes, which creates job growth [also known as the best anti-poverty program ever].



When the rich man came to Jesus and said, "how do I get into heaven", Jesus responded with "give all your money to the poor and come follow me", did he not? When the man chose not to do so, did Jesus suggest that it be taken from him by force? No, that was the man's choice and Jesus gave him that choice. If the country is going through major economic problems and people are poor in the streets, the call for those with to give more will increase but it's still their money and their choice. When people in India were starving to death, mother Theresa did not tell rich people that their money should be taken from them by force, rather she asked them to donate and many of them did.

Bottomline is that people should work hard and save hard, and they shall prosper. Read Proverbs, it's all about working hard, not getting caught up in distractions and propering.
[/quote]

i am guessing that you are not an american. i used the example of the alabama tornadoes as a recent and non international tragedy for the majority of the people on this board who are american.
I feel pretty good making those assumptions, because i am pretty dang sure that i am right. Not many people donated to help a local tragedy in the grand scheme of things, and i doubt that would change if government intervention dissappeared.

I wasnt talking about international tragedies. i am gathering that you live in morocco. i dont think it would be reasonable to expect you to send money to alabama. However, as a canadian i did send a bit of money down to alabama, so its not entirely out of the question that i might send some to morocco.

I dont personally care if you watch american idol, that was hardly the point of my post.

but go ahead, tell the people in tuscaloosa that they should have "worked hard and saved hard". im sure that would be appreciated.



on an unrelated note, why do people tend to feel that the government has more of a right to demand your tax money to fund overseas, non defensive wars rather than to use it to keep the people of the country fed, clothed and sheltered? would anyone be opposed to using the trillions of dollars that are being sunk into foreign military actions to further your own countries' education, etc? taxes would not need to increase, in fact could easily decrease and still be used more effectively.
why is the tired line of "government shouldnt steal from the rich to do ______" trotted out only when the topic is about "feeding the poor" rather than "bombing the poor, in other countries"?

excuse me if i make assumptions, but i only ever see concerns about this stuff when social welfare, education, healthcare are being discussed, rrather than military, foreign policy, despite that both are funded in the same way? and that the second group tends to be far more costly?

[havok579257]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1305513178' post='2242114']

When the rich man came to Jesus and said, "how do I get into heaven", Jesus responded with "give all your money to the poor and come follow me", did he not? When the man chose not to do so, did Jesus suggest that it be taken from him by force? No, that was the man's choice and Jesus gave him that choice. If the country is going through major economic problems and people are poor in the streets, the call for those with to give more will increase but it's still their money and their choice. When people in India were starving to death, mother Theresa did not tell rich people that their money should be taken from them by force, rather she asked them to donate and many of them did.

Bottomline is that people should work hard and save hard, and they shall prosper. Read Proverbs, it's all about working hard, not getting caught up in distractions and propering.
[/quote]


how does a child born and unable to survive without a ventilator work hard and save hard? how does a man who is innocently gunned down in a drive by and requires 24-7 care supposed to work hard and save hard?

nice how you avoided my question and instead decided to rant about other things. the question once again is how do we make up the difference is there is no government charity and private charity is not enough? do we just tell everyone who private charity can't help that so sad, you can just die?

[Era Might]

[quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1305513585' post='2242121']Now I have heard it all. The superiority of government welfare programs over private charities.
[/quote]
I have said nothing about "the superiority of government welfare programs over private charities." I question both government programs AND private charities, but not because I don't think society has an obligation in social justice. I want society to foster genuine freedom in community, not to foster institutions that turn us into dependent clients (whether those institutions are public or private). Furthermore, I have said that the government does not dispense "charity," it dispenses justice, so trying to hand over the obligations of the government to private charity cannot be done, because justice and charity are two different endeavors.

Edited May 16, 2011 by Era Might

[Era Might]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1305513856' post='2242123']
I guess all those bike lanes were for nothing more then to get in my way.
[/quote]
Bike lanes are a good practical measure to help alleviate the immobilization of people that modern transportation causes. Bike lanes don't solve the underlying problem, but they help the situation.

Edited May 16, 2011 by Era Might

[Winchester]

Bike lanes are the essence of cow and poorly thought out.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1305515670' post='2242141']
Bike lanes are the essence of cow and poorly thought out.
[/quote]
Be sure to tell 'em Large Marge sent ya.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1305514215' post='2242127']
i am guessing that you are not an american. i used the example of the alabama tornadoes as a recent and non international tragedy for the majority of the people on this board who are american.
I feel pretty good making those assumptions, because i am pretty dang sure that i am right. Not many people donated to help a local tragedy in the grand scheme of things, and i doubt that would change if government intervention dissappeared.[/quote]

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]I wasnt talking about international tragedies. i am gathering that you live in morocco. i dont think it would be reasonable to expect you to send money to alabama. However, as a canadian i did send a bit of money down to alabama, so its not entirely out of the question that i might send some to morocco.
[/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]I dont personally care if you watch american idol, that was hardly the point of my post.
[/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.

[quote]but go ahead, tell the people in tuscaloosa that they should have "worked hard and saved hard". im sure that would be appreciated.
[/quote] Many of them did work hard and save hard, and have a savings to rely on during hard times.

[quote]on an unrelated note, why do people tend to feel that the government has more of a right to demand your tax money to fund overseas, non defensive wars rather than to use it to keep the people of the country fed, clothed and sheltered? would anyone be opposed to using the trillions of dollars that are being sunk into foreign military actions to further your own countries' education, etc? taxes would not need to increase, in fact could easily decrease and still be used more effectively.
why is the tired line of "government shouldnt steal from the rich to do ______" trotted out only when the topic is about "feeding the poor" rather than "bombing the poor, in other countries"?
[/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]excuse me if i make assumptions, but i only ever see concerns about this stuff when social welfare, education, healthcare are being discussed, rrather than military, foreign policy, despite that both are funded in the same way? and that the second group tends to be far more costly?
[/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.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1305514283' post='2242128']
how does a child born and unable to survive without a ventilator work hard and save hard? how does a man who is innocently gunned down in a drive by and requires 24-7 care supposed to work hard and save hard?[/quote]

Who is responsible for a child being born? Then who's responsibility is it to prepare for whatever costs that child might accrue? The parents, that's right - when I had my first daughter, it was my responsibility to pay for the costs, whatever they may have been. It's called responsibility, look it up in the dictionary. As for the "innocent guy", straw argument. Nobody said that he is to work and save hard after being gunned down, rather before he is gunned down would be ideal. However, this is a free country. If I [or anyone else] choses not to take the Catholic Churches advice, we should have the freedom to do so, including not giving to charities if we so chose. Ironically all of the major philantropists of the last 100 years were athiests.

[quote]nice how you avoided my question and instead decided to rant about other things. the question once again is how do we make up the difference is there is no government charity and private charity is not enough? do we just tell everyone who private charity can't help that so sad, you can just die?
[/quote]

I didn't avoid the question, rather I put it into perspective as to how our country functions. Even with government charities, there will always be poor people and the need for more because we don't have enough resources to provide for everyone with a need. Why do you think 500,000 are starving in Ethiopia? You really think that most people in America do not want to help them? Heck no, they want to but we don't have the resources, neither is it morally right to seize the resources of those who chose not to give.

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1305514549' post='2242132']
Bike lanes are a good practical measure to help alleviate the immobilization of people that modern transportation causes. Bike lanes don't solve the underlying problem, but they help the situation.
[/quote]

Even without bike lanes, it's legal to ride a bike on the road. I used it for transportation for a very long time. Most people live in the cities and so therefore bike is always possible and most of the time we have socialized government public transportation. What a concept, so where is the excuse to not hold employment?

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1305515670' post='2242141']
Bike lanes are the essence of cow and poorly thought out.
[/quote]

It was just a way for government to tax the people more and confinscate their money and land.

[havok579257]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1305517251' post='2242161']
Who is responsible for a child being born? Then who's responsibility is it to prepare for whatever costs that child might accrue? The parents, that's right - when I had my first daughter, it was my responsibility to pay for the costs, whatever they may have been. It's called responsibility, look it up in the dictionary. As for the "innocent guy", straw argument. Nobody said that he is to work and save hard after being gunned down, rather before he is gunned down would be ideal. However, this is a free country. If I [or anyone else] choses not to take the Catholic Churches advice, we should have the freedom to do so, including not giving to charities if we so chose. Ironically all of the major philantropists of the last 100 years were athiests.



I didn't avoid the question, rather I put it into perspective as to how our country functions. Even with government charities, there will always be poor people and the need for more because we don't have enough resources to provide for everyone with a need. Why do you think 500,000 are starving in Ethiopia? You really think that most people in America do not want to help them? Heck no, they want to but we don't have the resources, neither is it morally right to seize the resources of those who chose not to give.

[/quote]


what about the baby who's parents abandon them? should we the people also abandon them and let the baby die?

sorry buddy but a guy who needs 24-7 care and only has his savings will not be able to afford 24-7 care for his lifetime if he is shot anytime in the beginning of his working lifetime. so is it just to bad, so sad and we let them die right in front of us?

americans are greedy. to deny this fact is ridiculous. i don't think a lot of american's want to help others. i believe a lot of americans would rather they get everything they want and let people die then part with some of their money to help the less fortunite.