Archbishop Flynn wants higher taxes

[Richardols]

jlw:

These works of mercy…is it necessary that government do it, or did Jesus truly ask US to do it???

Tell me about 1930-1935 and how successful the churches were in providing charity to all the homeless and jobless.

You say, “private charity OR government charity,” I say, “private charity AND government charity.” I believe that the government represents me and can indeed act in my place for many things.

 

[katherine2]

Richardols:

Tell me about 1930-1935 and how successful the churches were in providing charity to all the homeless and jobless.

You say, “private charity OR government charity,” I say, “private charity AND government charity.” I believe that the government represents me and can indeed act in my place for many things.

Amen brother!!!

 

[jlw]

katherine2:

Amen brother!!!

Good to “see” you again k2.

There is already an “and”. More money does not automatically mean “more money well spent” it can also mean “more good money after bad”. As a taxpayer, I would be irresponsible if I didn’t discern between the two.

And it’s so nice of the single priest, whose pay comes from our PRIVATE charity, who doesn’t need to budget for his spouse’s or children’s food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, and education or need to pay property taxes, or worry about a raise in taxes forcing his job to be cut (businesses to close shop, but the Church won’t), or the decrease in usually more effective private charity because that money went to the usually wastful bureaucractic capital instead.

 

[Richardols]

jlw:

And it’s so nice of the single priest, whose pay comes from our PRIVATE charity, who doesn’t need to budget for his spouse’s or children’s food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, and education or need to pay property taxes, or worry about a raise in taxes forcing his job to be cut (businesses to close shop, but the Church won’t), or the decrease in usually more effective private charity because that money went to the usually wastful bureaucractic capital instead.

So a bishop’s opinion doesn’t mean squat because he’s not married with children, eh?

Like the Catholics who mock the bishops’ position on birth control saying, “they don’t play a da game, dey don’t make a da rules.”

 

[jlw]

Richardols:

So a bishop’s opinion doesn’t mean squat because he’s not married with children, eh?

Like the Catholics who mock the bishops’ position on birth control saying, “they don’t play a da game, dey don’t make a da rules.”

You are over simplifying my quote and you know it.

When he speaks of the Magesterial stand on FAITH and MORALS, I listen, I take it as TRUTH. But in regards to economic matters, I discern. He has an OPINION about governmental involvement in our society. I was just pointing out that when he says:

I pay taxes, you know, and my salary is about $2,200 a month plus room and board, so I’m not starving. I wouldn’t mind a tax increase.

I winced.

YOU may not mind a tax increase. But tax increases do not have JUST an upside! In fact, it may not have an upside at all (“more good money bad” argument). But any reasonable person with basic economic understanding can point out the DOWNSIDE of raising taxes on investment, business commerce, jobs, and therefore the working poor.

 

[Lisa_N]

Richardols, if the government’s approach was systemic rather than simply tossing money to the masses, I would be far more sympathetic to your position. Unfortunately the government rewards bad behavior and the worse behavior exhibited the more programs that one is eligible for.

An example, I work with a state authorized agency that assists children who are neglected or abused. The PARENTS of these abused/neglected children are literally showered with services. They get substance abuse treatment, counseling, job skill training, subsidized housing, the free services of attorneys and so on.

Does this help PREVENT child abuse and neglect? Nope. It puts a bandaid on a gaping wound that is getting bigger and bigger. Unfortunately these agencies are like nuclear waste, they have a life of their own. No one steps back and says well why don’t we encourage behavior that leads to POSITIVE results instead of rewarding the NEGATIVE behavior that creats the detrimental results?

Again I would venture to say that 99.999999999% of these abused and neglected children are the result of unwed mothers, irresponsible sperm donors, drugs/drinking and a lack of education. Why don’t we attack the problem instead of the results?

When the collective government gets its collective head out of its collective rear end I will be more positive about their ability to make change. From out here in the cheap seats, very few approaches other than spiritual or religious actually result in life changing behavior.

Lisa N

 

[miguel]

Lisa N:

…Unfortunately the government rewards bad behavior and the worse behavior exhibited the more programs that one is eligible for…

Does subsidizing bad behavior encourage good behavior?

 

[Strider]

If government were a wise provider of charity, I believe most of the resistance to higher taxes – for charity – would evaporate, but it’s not.
The food stamp program is a good example. Requirements for participation are minimal; how much cash do you have right now?
If you qualify, you can be issued food stamps. Lets just use a $50 food stamp as an example.
First, you can sell it for $25 or $30 right out the door, OR you can go to the grocery store, purchase a roll for 50 cents and have $49.50 cash to feed your booze habit or drug habit or whatever else you want.
A smarter way to do that would be the way I bought lunch at the student union in college. Every month I’d pay, say $30 and I’d get a credit card with a $30 limit. And I could only use it for certain food items. But the government isn’t smart enough or capable enough to do that. And, by the way, it can’t cost that much or a college couldn’t afford it.
Smart charity identifies TRUE needs and finds the most effective ways to meet them. Government charity hands out money.
Does the bishop have a Catholic Community Services office in his diocese? I’ll bet they spend the money they have much more wisely.
Nobody objects to helping the truly needy. Americans are the most generous people in the world, but we also work hard resent throwing good money after bad and only getting cultural decay as a result.

 

[Anna_Elizabeth]

Richardols:

It’s very easy in our society, even for Catholics, to be blind to those with whom we have no contact or choose to have to contact.

Richardols,

• How much first-hand experience have you had with the “poorest of the poor” in the US?
• What do you know about the state of welfare spending in Minnesota?
• What gives you the idea that you can pass judgment on how much “contact” the rest of us have had with people who ask for welfare help??

More to come, after you kindly answer my questions.

Anna

 

[oat_soda]

terrible…

i work for the government and we specialize in incompetence and wastefulness. i’m telling people from first hand knowledge, it’s criminal how much money the gov. wastes. Bishop Flynn needs to retire. he’s totally out of touch with what the issues are in our society.

 

[StJeanneDArc]

katherine2:

Amen brother!!!

Hey, katherine2, good to see you back! I hope all is well for you.

I’m glad that Archbishop Flynn is ready and able to pay more taxes. I’ll assume that he contributes to worthy charities with the first fruits of his salary.

The government is a very, very poor provider of philanthropic services. Holy Mother Church is a very good provider of true charity, all done from voluntary contributions. Why would anyone want to force other people to pay for philanthropic services that have such an abysmal record? Let me see…I know, I know–it builds a political constituency among the recipients of such services. And the best part about it is that the government services don’t work, and the poor stay poor and remain constituents of those who create these programs. Sounds like a pretty good gig to me.

 

[Lisa_N]

Strider:

If government were a wise provider of charity, I believe most of the resistance to higher taxes – for charity – would evaporate, but it’s not.

The food stamp program is a good example. Requirements for participation are minimal; how much cash do you have right now?
If you qualify, you can be issued food stamps. Lets just use a $50 food stamp as an example.
First, you can sell it for $25 or $30 right out the door, OR you can go to the grocery store, purchase a roll for 50 cents and have $49.50 cash to feed your booze habit or drug habit or whatever else you want.

Nobody objects to helping the truly needy. Americans are the most generous people in the world, but we also work hard resent throwing good money after bad and only getting cultural decay as a result.

Strider you make several good points, one that the requirements for food stamps are minimal. I have a relative who was living at home, getting TANF, WIC, Medicaid and a home health nurse to teach her to care for her new baby (sperm donor in jail and obviously not supporting the child). Because SHE didn’t have income, she qualified for food stamps as well. So she used the food stamps to buy the household’s food and they paid her back with cash that she could use as she wished.

Fortunately some Food Stamp fraud has been stopped, at least in this state they do get a card that is sort of like a debit card that can only be used for food. I believe the person has to show ID to use the card so they can’t sell them. Sadly there was SO MUCH abuse that they had to go to this method.

Your final good point is that there are very very very few people who begrudge the truly needy in our society. We have a very generous people in this country. OTOH all of us have seen that often our “charity in the form as taxes” goes to further the kind of moral decay that surrounds us.

The “get” mantra": Get married, get a job, get off drugs, get a high school education. You will not be poor in America. How hard is that?

Lisa N

 

[Anna_Elizabeth]

StJeanneDArc:

The government is a very, very poor provider of philanthropic services. Holy Mother Church is a very good provider of true charity, all done from voluntary contributions.

Dear Jeanne,

I’m not sure if you are serious or being sarcastic about Holy Mother Church’s all voluntary donations. Just to leave no stone unturned then, I want to bring to your attention (and everyone else’s if necessary), that nationwide Catholic Charities gets beaucoup government bucks. I have seen figures as high as 65% of their budget.

This, apparently, is contributing to the unfortunate circumstance somewhere in California where governmental dictates violate Catholic moral teaching, landing CC in a big dilemma.

It is also said to be the reason that many religion-based social services that are eligible for some government funding, haven’t applied for it.

(I sure do agree with your first statement, however. The Catholic Church, especially through Catholic Relief Services is, in many situations, the best delivery system there is.)

Anna

 

[otm]

Della:

Paying women to have baby after baby (usually each by a different father) keeps people in poverty much more than anything else.

While I might agree with other parts of your post, you might want to rethink that one. Not paying them, and letting them grind further and further down in poverty will lead to abortions, as they can no longer (literally) feed that mouth. While the alternative might be that she should get a job and support those kids, it is an alternaive in an alternaitve universe. Odds on she did not graduate from high school, nor get a GED. Even McDonalds has enough recruits they would not need to hire her (and by the way, at those wages she most likely could not afford even one child).

So if you insist on not paying, prey tell, how are you avoiding leading more to the abortion mill to “solve” their problems?

 

[otm]

Lisa N:

Precisely. Very few of the poor in this country are poor for the same reasons you see extreme poverty in places like the Sudan. There, people are subject to the whims of nature, the lack of government protection for their rights, and terrorists.

Why are people in America poor? It’s NOT ROCKET SCIENCE.

1. Single mothers and unsupportive fathers
2. Substance abuse
3. Failure to get even a high school diploma
4. Failure to work full time

I have been involved in a number of social services organizations as a volunteer. Virtually 100% of the people who come to our homeless shelter, hot meal program, or substance abuse program have two or even three of the above.

OK how hard is it?

Don’t get pregnant until you are MARRIED
Get a job and keep it
Don’t drug
Get a high school diploma.

All free.

Sheesh!

Lisa N

Wow! What state do you live in? I’m going to recommend that all the folks who are out of work and showing up at our social service agencies go to your state! Life is great! Work for everyone! Great paying jobs!

And these are the folks who didn’t get pregneant til they got married - but they have a couple of kids…

And they couldn’t keep the job because the business downsized and they weren’t needed…

And they didn’t do drugs - in fact, they have no health care whatsoever and can’t get the drugs they need…

And they have a high school diploma… and an Associates Degree… or maybe even a BA or BS.

Sheesh!

Maybe you only worked at the social service agency during the best of times???

 

[otm]

buffalo:

Just wanting the truly needy fed is one thing. What we have now is quite different. BTW, how many are fed by religious food pantries and soup kitchens?

The government has gone way beyond simple charity with their social engineering programs and forced distributution of wealth.

Ah, yes. Forced distribution of wealth.

It has such a nice ring to it!

At least the government is trying to do something morally right; what makes you think the wealthy would do it on their own?

To use your political language - so politically correct for the conservatives - governments have been doing social engineering since the first government collected tax.

Get over it.

 

[otm]

miguel:

If people bring problems on themselves by their own stupidity, how is that anyone else’s responsibility? And if government coerces one of group of citizens to pay for another group’s stupidity, how is that charity?

First question answered: try reading St Paul, particularly his comments about the Body of Christ. Oh, and you might read James’ Epistle.

Second question answered: if you define charity only as free giving, and something taken for another’s benefit as not charity. Charity is also the feeding of others. Or would you say they receive nothing because it was “taken” from you?

Oh, and by the way, the government doesn’t coerce me at all - I vote, along with my fellow citizens, and we send these folks back to Washington to make the laws that regulate the “taking”. I am an active citizen; you sound like a victim, or at least have a victim mentality.

 

[otm]

jlw:

I wish the archbishop (and all the US bishops) would go on the offensive and promote PRIVATE charity!!!

Can you call it chairty if the money is not given of your own free will???

To love thy neighbor,
Feed the hungry
Shelter the homeless
nurse the sick

These works of mercy…is it necessary that government do it, or did Jesus truly ask US to do it???

We do it because it is “we, the People”; this isn’t a government imposed by some dictator; we vote on our Senators and Congressmen.

Oh, and by the way, the Bishops do go on the offensive and promote private charity.

From your comment, it is obvious by your professed ignorance that you have not been giving to the Bishops Appeal, or Catholic Charities, or any of the other groups under the auspices of the bishop.

Shame on you.

 

[otm]

jlw:

Good to “see” you again k2.

There is already an “and”. More money does not automatically mean “more money well spent” it can also mean “more good money after bad”. As a taxpayer, I would be irresponsible if I didn’t discern between the two.

And it’s so nice of the single priest, whose pay comes from our PRIVATE charity, who doesn’t need to budget for his spouse’s or children’s food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, and education or need to pay property taxes, or worry about a raise in taxes forcing his job to be cut (businesses to close shop, but the Church won’t), or the decrease in usually more effective private charity because that money went to the usually wastful bureaucractic capital instead.

OK, I looked at your location. Catholic Charities began their appeal about a month ago in all the parishes - and of course you stepped up to the plate and gave generously, didn’t you.

Didn’t you?

I mean, Vlazny did just what you asked; of course you responded, didn’t you!

And while we are at it, you certainly are not so naieve as to think that some charities don’t suffer from that same bureaucratic overload, do you? It was that bureaucratic government that required charities to publish what part of every dollar they collect actually goes to charitable work.

I think Catholic Charities comes in around 90 %, but you could call Dennis Keenan if you want; it is a local call.

Not too bad a use of the dollars you gave. You did give, didn’t you? Especially after sounding off that “your Archbishop” should start pushing PRIVATE charity…", which he just did…

 

[otm]

Richardols:

So a bishop’s opinion doesn’t mean squat because he’s not married with children, eh?

Like the Catholics who mock the bishops’ position on birth control saying, “they don’t play a da game, dey don’t make a da rules.”

Touche!

The diocesan priests don’t take the vow of poverty, but by and large, they live it.