B
Black_Rose
Guest
How about make-work jobs? It gives the poor the illusion of contributing and prevents idleness.
- Status
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
I must apologize to Filius Prodigus if I jumped the gun. But it looked as though that was where the argument was headed.
Private property is a foundation of freedom. If it can be confiscated at the whim of government in order for them to do with what they deem necessary, then what is the point of freedom. If I have something in my possesion and another man has the power to confiscate it, then private property does not truly exist.
I do not believe the federal government should be providing for the general welfare as the liberals tend to interpret it.
Yes, and?
I think Christ could look into a wealthy persons heart and see that this person has either treated those around him with compassion and been personally liberal with his wealth to better the lives of others or he could look into their heart and see that they have been cold and emotionless. I do not however believe that the federal government has that power, unlike some people.
Who defines wealth? If my employer is struggling to pay me a living wage because he is being overtaxed, yet the government considers him wealthy who are the liberals truly hurting? My employer or me? Private property plays a role in the wealth of an individual in this country. Defending what you are supposed to own in a country that was based on personal freedom and individual responsibilty, against people who for the most part have probably never experience true poverty in their lives and therefore attempt to take what an individual has simply because they believe it’s the right thing to do is honorable in my book.
I was speaking to my uncle today, who was raised in poverty. We were talking about the folks in this area who are for the most part too old to do the things they used to do. People who have never taken a dime of government assistance in their life. I could not only feed myself, but the whole neighborhood in a couple days work. Him and some of his brothers still, out of habit, hunt and fish for their own food and work full time jobs and raise a garden. My grandfather used to fish all weekend and spend the week selling the fish he caught on weekends for money. That was until he started pulling oil wells with a team of mules. Times have changed I guess, maybe I’m too old fashioned.
Government, for the most part democrats, have done a good job at creating a zero liability voter in this country who has become so dependent on that safety net it, they would rather fight over it than to learn to fend for themselves.
I
ishii
Guest
Do you really think that the consumerist side is worse than the leftist dismantling of the society? Atleast with the consumerist side, one has the option of not participating in it, or the worse aspects of it (not all of consumer society is bad). On the other hand, the leftist side seems to me to have a coercive, forceful aspect to its anti-family measures - such as public funding of abortion, laws that penalize married couples with extra taxes, and racial and gender quotas, affirmative action, the gay agenda rammed down kids throats in public schools, etc. With that in mind, I would say the leftist cultural leftist side that is backed up by government force is much worse than the consumerist side. And make no mistake, the cultural leftists have more power than ever - as the election of Obama and the selection of Elena Kagan indicate.
Ishii
I
ishii
Guest
I think its fair to discuss the extent to which a government should provide aid to the unemployed. Its not helping anyone to give handouts to the unemployed when to do so discourages them from aggressively searching for work and finding a job. Government handouts tend to encourage the behaviour they are designed to help. Let me give you an analogy: if I had a nineteen year old son who sat around the house all day instead of looking for a job, would increasing his allowance make him more likely to go pound the pavement? Or would he be more likely to take the increased allowance and slack off? Most likely the latter. So is it Christian to encourage people to remain dependent on government aid? How Christian is that? Charity (I’ll stick with the English word) is what you do with your own wallet, not how much you favor taxing the “rich” to pay for endless benefits. Charity is giving to the poor yourself, not robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Ishii
G
Good_News_1
Guest
I do, by far. That is particularly true with young people and teenagers, who are probably the most consumerist sector of society. We have a tremendous entertainment industry that has been aimed at profiting off the unschooled judgment and impetuousness of teenagers for fifty years. It targets kids at their most vulnerable time, when they most need guidance, and divides them from parents, church, every good influence. Our entire consumer society is geared towards making young adults believe their self-worth is tied to designer labels and gadgets, rather than their character. We live in a completely amoral business atmosphere. Banks are charging borrowers 30% interest, profiting off these fees rather than making new loans. They ship American jobs overseas without a moment’s thought. They ignore the suffering of their workers in the third world, and think nothing of supporting an oppressive communist state if it makes them a buck. Not so long ago, that wouldn’t have been done, simply because it was thought to be immoral. Success in this culture is defined exclusively by money, without regard to how it is made. There is no tradition, and no permanence.
What percentage of the population doesn’t participate?
Maybe your kids are different. My kids are more influenced by rock stars and the internet than by teachers. At least I had notice, and understood, and could even opt out of the influence of the system.
But in a sense it doesn’t matter which is worse, does it?
B
Black_Rose
Guest
Why do conservatives have a propensity to blame the unfortunate for an alleged lack of virtue?
My equations show that the unemployment rate can only drop through two ways: hiring (filling job openings) and discouragement.
I assumed that the rate of hiring is directly proportional to job openings. Also, the number of job openings risings due to the number of jobs created/ labor demanded and falls when people fill those openings.
The only way to reduce unemployment is to create job openings and filling them; in other words, individual unemployed people have little control over being employed since they have no control of the number of job openings.
In order for unemployment to fall, the number of jobs created must be greater than the number of people fired/laid off.
I
ishii
Guest
The point is that the ills which are perpetuated by the consumerist society are only as influential and pernicious as families will allow. We have the freedom to “opt out” of the worst aspects of the consumerist society. No one forces our kids to be “divided from parents, churches and every good influence.” The cultural elitist leftists, however, increasingly coerce society to act according to what they deem best for everyone else as they seek to create a society where the state replaces the church and family as the protector of a good society.
It matters a lot which is worse, because we need to address first the side which poses the biggest threat to a society based on Christian principles. In my view the leftist side is the more urgent, immediate threat. That said, the worst aspects of the consumerist society are bad indeed and seem to “dumb down” the masses so that they don’t even notice what the government is doing. As Burke said, " All that’s necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Too many men are too busy watching NFL football on their big screen TV’s in their “man caves” to notice what’s happening to their country. I think I’m getting a bit off topic, though.
Ishii
I
ishii
Guest
I am merely stating a fact that government handouts tend to encourage behavior among individuals receiving the handouts which makes matters worse and encourages dependency. The fact is that if you pay people who are unemployed, you encourage them to stay unemployed rather than encourage them to find a job. Let me give a personal account: I once worked in the tourism industry in Hawaii driving buses. When 9/11 hit, the tourism took a nose dive and so did the jobs, and there were layoffs. Most guys who were laid off went on unemployment. When the bus company called people back as business and tourism picked up (a couple of months later) some of the drivers ***opted to stay on unemployment ***(apparently they didn’t know they were putting their unemployment in jeopardy by doing so). The point, is, some of them were perfectly happy to take it easy while on the dole. Why work when you can get a check from uncle Sam? That mentality is pervasive among those who think that they don’t need to work at all, and that the government owes them something.
Here is what we need to do to get the economy moving again: we need to get rid of the leftist president we have, cut spending, make the Bush tax cuts permanent (the uncertainty as to what Obama is going to do next, what new spending programs he’s going to ram through congress, whether the Republicans are going to be able to stop some of his worst programs or repeal them, etc. is the worse thing for our economy).
People also need to set their sights a little lower. Until the economy picks up, the only jobs might be in the service sector and might not pay as much as previously earned. But its better to have even a low paying job rather than no job at all. Sometimes we have to suck it up and do what we have to do to make ends meet. I didn’t want to drive buses, but that was what job was available then and I did that until I found something better.
People need to exercise more common sense when looking for a job, too. Lose the nose rings, cover the tattoos, and dress professionally. I get regular inquiries from folks looking for a job at my company and they would actually have a better chance if they merely cleaned their act up a bit.
Ishii
H
Holly3278
Guest
This is so sad. I really feel bad for the woman in the article. I’ve never known what it was like to be homeless or whatever. I’ve been very fortunate in my adult life as far as money goes. No, I’m not rich. I’m far from being rich. However, I still have plenty of money to supply my needs and such.
T
TedDC
Guest
For me, the “last straw” on Afghanistan was learning that Chinese companies are now moving in to exploit the country’s mineral wealth. So now we’re risking the lives of our troops and squandering our treasure to make the world safe for China? How many Chinese soldiers have died in Afghanistan?
Let’s do an all-deliberate-speed withdrawal and keep the money at home, where it might help get our economy moving. Will Afghanistan descend into a bloodbath? Probably. But it won’t be our blood. We can’t afford to be the world’s policeman. We have to get smart and begin doing what the rest of the world does: looking out for our own interests.
G
Good_News_1
Guest
You can opt out of either, theoretically. But the messages of consumerist society are everywhere, and the messages of the government fairly limited. Free choice is theoretical at best when society is completely steeped in a philosophy and influence.
Taking the side of modern conservatism and draping it in religious garb does tremendous disservice to religious values, because modern conservatism is as materialistic and amoral as modern liberalism (and less coherent). As you can even see in this thread, liberals make moral claims that are defensible scripturally. Political conservatives preach moral values, but have no social values. In my personal view, a major part of the reason for the failure to make any headway against the erosion of the family is the fact that so many traditionalists made a devils bargain with the Republican party. I understand why this was done, but it was a horrible move.
C
cargau
Guest
Hi Filius,“The social doctrine of the Church has particularly stressed the social function of property, since this is so often forgotten. To the extent that private possessions surpass the owner’s need for a decent standard of living, they must be disposed for the service of others; that is, for the common good. Otherwise, the owner is guilty of an unjust use of wealth. This principle, which is clearly rooted in the Gospel (the parable of the rich man and the poor Lazarus), was especially emphasized by the Fathers of the Church and is a constant theme of Catholic writers.”
-THE PRINCIPLES OF THE SOCIAL DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH (*)
“182. The principle of the universal destination of goods requires that the poor, the marginalized and in all cases those whose living conditions interfere with their proper growth should be the focus of particular concern.”
-“183. …] the poor remain entrusted to us and it is this responsibility upon which we shall be judged at the end of time (cf. Mt 25:31-46): “Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren”[388].”
-COMPENDIUM OF THE SOCIAL DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH (*)
Oops! I did it again! I cited the Roman Catholic Church teaching! I am so embarrassed! Do I know no limits to my audacity, my shamelessness?
First of all I am a he, not a she…
You may have cited the Social Doctrine of the CC, but I am afraid you may have misinterpreted it.
The Church never said that a government has to provide nearly two years of income to anyone because they lost their job. Rather, the teaching has more to do with how we manage our own wealth and resources as it pertains to the poor. “Otherwise, the owner is guilty of an unjust use of wealth.”
The Church’s primary role is to get souls to heaven. That is why Liberation Theology has lost so much steam. I do not mean to suggest that we can ignore our neighbor, indeed, we are to love him. But, perhaps the best way to love him is to encourage him to a labor that gives meaning and dignity to one’s own life rather than handing out a check. Teach a man to fish…
Lastly, the thing I find scariest about your position is that it very closely resembles socialism. The biggest problem with socialism is that after all the money is taken from the few willing to work and handed to those who aren’t, there can be no more socialism. It is a system destined for failure.
C
CatholicGerman
Guest
Yes, good point. I tend to view things in markets myself, but that is tempered by my Christian values. I would posit that those values do not work against free markets, but actually make markets more free than they would be otherwise. Abandoning Christian principles has historically led to an increase in state intervention, as the government is called down to police an increasingly unruly, corrupt, and untrustworthy populace. One of the requirements for a truly free society is for the adults to be morally upright and able to police themselves. Otherwise they are like children, and Father State will have to constantly intervene in their squabbles. So the more personally moral a society’s citizens are, the more free it can become, and the smaller the state can be.
However, I tend to see libertinism as a side-effect of the dismantling of the patriarchal family (something both the liberals and the conservatives have been complicit in), rather than an aspect of market-theory. That they jabber on about “free markets” doesn’t disguise the fact that libertines abhor free markets. That is because in a truly free market, without manipulation by the state, patriarchy would prevail because it is the most efficient system for the successful propogation of the species. In other words, the inherent superiority of patriarchy is a foundation of Natural Law, which even market principles cannot override. Because of this, the primacy of patriarchy is evidence of whether or not a market is free.
Any market in which patriarchy was not ascendant would collapse or be taken over by it’s competitors within a generation or two. This is confirmed by history and tradition (Natural Law), Church teachings (Magisterium), and the New Testament (Scriptura). It is therefore not a question of whether a system which derides and undermines patriarchy will decline, but how long the decline will take, and whether that failing system will be replaced by a sub-class of citizens (such as devout Christians) or by a market competitor.
C
CatholicGerman
Guest
No, you are not wrong. You were wrong to assume that other posters do not share these beliefs, just because they do not share your taste for governmental intervention. My point was that it is perfectly possible for Catholics to discuss the finer aspects of governmental structure, to disagree on those aspects, and to all be debating from a core Christian understanding and belief system. We are not discussing the validity of the ends, but the best means to those ends.
Both welfare and charity provide the unemployed with the means to stay unemployed, which discourages work. Discouraging work leads to dependence upon the givers of welfare and charity, which undermines the patriarchal system (with it’s core of marriage and private property). So protecting the patriarchy is a Christian goal that must be balanced with caritas.
If a welfare system:
- results in taxes so onerous that it depresses the private individual’s drive to create surplus,
- saddles future generations with crushing mountains of debt,
- undermines the father’s role as Head of Family by negating his God-given role as arbiter of property,
- lures people away from the Church by undermining the worth of charity,
- and leads to entrenched multi-generation poverty and the dissolution of the patriarchal family model,
then it is perfectly valid to say that one believes that it is not in keeping with Christian principles, and that public and private alternatives should be discussed.
We can all agree that unemployment *insurance *is a valid form of welfare, because it does not promote laziness, every beneficiary has contributed to the funds being dispersed, it stabilizes the job market, and it prevents the inefficient use of human resources. The discussion is over whether private charity or public welfare is the preferable continuation of such a system, in the event that someone is still unemployed when their insurance money runs out.
America has always been a country that has favored charity over welfare, and it has served us well for quite a long time. One could even argue that it is that preference that has allowed marriage to prosper in our otherwise-decadent times. In every society that has showed a marked preference for welfare over charity, patriarchy inevitably collapses. In every society that has ignored welfare and relied completely upon charity, people starve in the street. Both outcomes signal that welfare and charity are not at odds with each other, but that they are best maintained in a delicate balance.
Furthermore, America has managed to turn welfare into charity, through the use of tax-exempt status for private charities (an enormous give-away of tax income that generally goes ignored in such debates). This creates a diverse and highly-efficient system, in which private charity is protected and promoted by the state. The amount of welfare the state provides is limited to the tax-exempt status, with the core of the funds consisting of charity from private citizens. This tax-exempt status is welfare, at the same time that it creates charitable competition to welfare. Because people naturally prefer to give a gift or volunteer their time, then pay a tax, this leads to increased generosity without grossly infringing upon property rights, or any other negative side-effect of welfare.
In other words, this is a complex system that has many interacting aspects. It is not possible to simply pronounce the one choice as “good” and the other as “bad”, and roundly denounce the other side.
That was rather long-winded, but it explains my personal views on the subject.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I have hired a good number of people in my time, and I would always prefer someone who kept working, even outside his/her field, to someone who sat out because he couldn’t find exactly what he wanted. I would do that, and have done it, even though I had to train the first from scratch.
Not being a biblical scholar, I hesitate to enter into the fever swamps of biblical citation and argument, but it may be observed that this administration and congress are on the cusp of voting a 26 billion benefit for civil servants who already make more than people in the private sector, and propose to pay for it by cutting food stamps. Now, there are those who believe they will restore the food stamp cuts down the road. But if anyone thinks this government is somehow acting consistently with biblical injunctions or the teachings of the Church, that person might want to consider the meaning of “self-delusion”. I note as well that the neediest of all; those on SSI; the disabled needy, are expected somehow to exist on $600/month. That’s after they totally impoverish themselves, of course. Not a dime of “stimulus” goes to them.
And various posters have opined what an engineer might or ought to make and what should satisfy him. It may be observed that government workers already make more, on average, than the highest salary anyone has proposed for our hapless but presumably capable engineer in these posts. Because of government policies and the future threat government overspending presents, the small manufactory isn’t willing to hire the engineer at all. And nobody sees anything out-of-kilter in this picture?
Not being a biblical scholar, I hesitate to enter into the fever swamps of biblical citation and argument, but it may be observed that this administration and congress are on the cusp of voting a 26 billion benefit for civil servants who already make more than people in the private sector, and propose to pay for it by cutting food stamps. Now, there are those who believe they will restore the food stamp cuts down the road. But if anyone thinks this government is somehow acting consistently with biblical injunctions or the teachings of the Church, that person might want to consider the meaning of “self-delusion”. I note as well that the neediest of all; those on SSI; the disabled needy, are expected somehow to exist on $600/month. That’s after they totally impoverish themselves, of course. Not a dime of “stimulus” goes to them.
And various posters have opined what an engineer might or ought to make and what should satisfy him. It may be observed that government workers already make more, on average, than the highest salary anyone has proposed for our hapless but presumably capable engineer in these posts. Because of government policies and the future threat government overspending presents, the small manufactory isn’t willing to hire the engineer at all. And nobody sees anything out-of-kilter in this picture?
C
CatholicGerman
Guest
Socialism is a belief system that is associated with communitarian policies. It is possible to promote those same policies without being a socialist or communist, just as it is possible to promote libertarian policiies without being an objectivist. The difference is a question of intent. Communitarianism and libertarianism are both forms of political idealism that assume that all citizens are rational and moral actors. Because we live in a fallen world, where that cannot be safely assumed, we are all forced to agitate in the center of the spectrum. That is why we need a mix of both welfare and charity. But it is a fair debate to discuss whether the balance is tipped in one direction, or another.
But I must correct you on something else: private property was created by God and is part of the Natural Order. It can be a Christian act to infringe upon the right to private property (through taxation and welfare), but it is something that must be used lightly and weighed carefully. It is true that the right to property is sacred, but so is the right to life. Sometimes the rights of one (to be fed, clothed, and housed, and thereby continue to live) will infringe upon the rights of the other (to use his property as he thinks best).
It is wrong to allow our fellow citizens to starve or sleep in the streets. But it is also wrong to steal one person’s money in order to pay someone else’s mortgage. There is a point where the theft is no longer justifiable. Just as it is justifiable to kill someone else in self-defense (against his right to life), but not justifiable to kill your own child to protect your baby-free lifestyle. There are limits to the extent that each person’s rights can infringe upon those of the others.
C
CatholicGerman
Guest
That was not the point he was making. Rather, he was saying that he does not think that the federal government is always the best distributor of property to the poor. He feels that he is a better distributor of his property through charity, through the Church, or through lower-levels of government. That is a perfectly valid point to make, even if you disagree with him.
Christ admonished us to care for the poor among us. He did not say we had to do it all through the nation-state.
C
CatholicGerman
Guest
Tricky. Such jobs can undermine the private sector by employing the workers at lower rates than private companies pay. It would only work if the jobs were generally useless. And what jobs are useless? Even digging ditches has a monetary worth, so paying people to dig ditches would undermine companies that employ ditch-diggers.
I think removing the minimum wage and abolishing income tax, combined with state-level income transfers, is a better method. The companies could pay people whatever they were worth to the market, with the government’s income-transfer making up the difference by establishing a de facto minimum income. That would also discourage the hiring of illegal workers by making them no cheaper than legal workers. Progressive taxation could be achieved through other means. Through a state-level Fair Tax, for instance.
But it’s complicated, to say the least.
G
Good_News_1
Guest
Well said.
Yes, and there is a fundamental difference between confiscation of property and taxation in a constitutional representative republic. Government is ubiquitious in human experience, and government exists through tax. If tax rates are too high or too low, that is not (in my view) a fundamentally moral issue. The morality of the government isn’t on the tax side as much as the spending side (except to the extent that taxation can create perverse incentives). Which is why I am in hardy agreement with you until:
And I hope that we are in agreement that taxation isn’t theft, and taxation doesn’t become theft because someone disagrees with the rate or the use of the tax. Tax can be used to confiscate property, in a hypothetical case in which a particular industry were targeted and assessed taxes designed to ensure it would die out. But general taxes, levied without a target of destroying a particular group or industry, aren’t confiscation or theft.
G
Good_News_1
Guest
I can’t speak to the point he was making. My point was that Christ Himself was fairly silent on the quesitons of taxation and the benefits of capitalism. There is a certain amount of unjustified mindreading or interpretation to make Christ a champion of the welfare state, but the raw material is there. I personally don’t see the raw material in the gospels to claim that Christ supports capitalism, and certainly none to suggest peculiar sympathy for those opposing taxation and welfare.
- Status