J
jlw
Guest
![40.png](https://forums.catholic-questions.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/ed655f/40.png)
My thoughts exactlyHmmm-so apparently car models are the way to match voting habits to dollars donated. Keep going–I’m anxious to hear more.
![Roll eyes :rolleyes: :rolleyes:](https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f644.png)
My thoughts exactlyHmmm-so apparently car models are the way to match voting habits to dollars donated. Keep going–I’m anxious to hear more.
I think it’s at least heavily Calvinist, and certainly quite protestant. Have you read Max Weber?I don’t know if it’s a purely Calvinist notion that people with a work ethic tend to be more prosperous. It’s common sense don’t you think?
John Calvin never met Paris Hilton.I don’t know if it’s a purely Calvinist notion that people with a work ethic tend to be more prosperous. It’s common sense don’t you think?
The Quakers have been asking for that for decades.How about this - the government gives us a line item choice of where our money goes on the tax return?
So what are you proposing: from each according to their ability, to each according to their need?I think it’s at least heavily Calvinist, and certainly quite protestant. Have you read Max Weber?
As far as common sense, I think what’s obvious is that people with money tend to be more prosperous. The fact is that social mobility in the U.S. has actually been decreasing. It’s harder, today, for children to meet or exceed their parent’s social and income levels in comparison to earlier years. The decline of the middle class in America is a serious threat. I’d rather we address it now rather than wait until it’s a full-blown crisis.
Going along really nicely Katherine until we came to the word “regulated” in connection with market. Can you show me any economy with a regulated market that ever prospered? Also who determines what is a fair market?a Catholic social vision would recognize the interdependence of various individuals and social organs. the businessman can earn a profit because he can ship his goods by highways or waterways, employ an educated workforce, market his good in a fair and regulated market.
You have made my point. Welfare and other tax supported social programs were meant to be a SAFETY NET, not a way of life. It sounds like you want to throw a pan of spaghetti against the wall and hope a noodle sticks. The people who NEED the help should be getting it. No one begrudges that reality. What we do begrudge is those who game the system, who could make other choices and who could make a contribution to their own support.Lisa, if everyone votes to cut taxes, every time, the end result is that programs are eliminated, yes? And if you agree that many people in our secular society have no understanding of their responsibility toward their fellow human beings, then the result is that donations are not made to charities, and the charities are unable to assist even those everyone agrees are truly deserving.
I don’t have the answers. I would just like people to keep in mind that while all this heated rhetoric about the slothful, substance abusing, willingly uneducated welfare recipients is going on, there really are people who did everything right and still ended up in poverty. If you take the safety net away, you take it from them, too…
We totally agree on that point. I volunteered with a local homeless families’ shelter for a number of years. We realized early on that the shelter needed to address the reasons for homelessness and engage the clients in making lifechanges. That meant job skills, “Ready to Rent” classes, parenting classes, etc."I believe the welfare reform enacted during the Clinton administration was a good start. I have witnessed a very slow and painful adjustment in many women as they learn they can’t just live on welfare forever, but have to work. It’s a bumpy road, but I believe the work ethic is being reinstated. As far as charitable giving, I focus my giving toward shelters which require those living there to engage in education, job training or substance abuse, and toward charities which provide their recipients a means to earn money as opposed to a simple hand out.
Luke seemed to think this was a good idea (Acts 2: 45).So what are you proposing: from each according to their ability, to each according to their need?
Ours, especially since the New Deal. Europe’s since WWII. Compared to the 19th century, western economies are very highly regulated, and much the better for it.Can you show me any economy with a regulated market that ever prospered?
Not the way K2 means regulated. She’s talking wage and price controls and a socialist type state.Ours, especially since the New Deal. Europe’s since WWII. Compared to the 19th century, western economies are very highly regulated, and much the better for it.
Something that works for a small group will not work in a country like the US.Luke seemed to think this was a good idea (Acts 2: 45)…
Actually I think the playing field is a lot more level than you give it credit for. Again we all have the opportunity NOT to take drugs,not to engage in premarital sex and not drop out of high school.What I would like to see is discussions on poverty that admit the fundamental bias of the system and seek to correct it. I don’t want government to provide for everyone, but I DO want to use it to level the playing field. I don’t really see this as a matter of charity, but more of justice. Your income level should not determine the quality of your health care, your schools, your safety, or your enjoyment of a minimally acceptable standard of life…
I wasn’t trying to be sarcastic about *anything. *I have no idea what you mean there. As far as preventing people from making bad decisions – we can’t. We can only decide whether it’s our place to assume that most people are on welfare because they’re slothful and therefore undeserving, or whether our faith calls for us to view things a bit more charitably. I prefer not to make assumptions, but to support programs that offer realistic opportunities to get off welfare and motivation for doing so by limiting welfare time limits.dwc why are you so sarcastic about reality? The reality IS that most people using social services in THIS country are there due to a few bad decisions. It would seem far more productive to support programs that PREVENT people from making these bad decisions, rather than supporting them after they are addicts, uneducated, or have several small children to support without benefit of a spouse.
You have made my point. Welfare and other tax supported social programs were meant to be a SAFETY NET, not a way of life. It sounds like you want to throw a pan of spaghetti against the wall and hope a noodle sticks. The people who NEED the help should be getting it. No one begrudges that reality.
Funny, I thought you made my point. Your vote against taxes doesn’t distinguish between those you find worthy via the safety net or those you find unworthy. As far as the spaghetti analogy … I suppose that’s an insult? That’s ok, I’ve received worse insults this week alone.
I think we disagree more on philosophy than on practice. I’ve been a prosecutor for almost 15 years and I agree with otm that the old style welfare state has misguidedly and unintentionally caused more damage to the population it sought to help than anyone could have anticipated. At the same time, I have seen, from the prosecutor’s table, much human misery and hardship, and far from 100% of it is the result of what you attribute it to. I’m not a softie and I’m not a liberal, but I try to see Christ in those before me, and I try to approach things as I believe He would. If that’s spaghetti on a wall, so be it.
I think it’s less. A wealthy person who abuses drugs and engages in premarital and extramartial sex can still be fabulously successful. And if their personal problems start to impede on their material well-being, money can cover up their problems or help pay for treatment. A poor person who abuses drugs and is sexually irresponsible suffers far more. A poor person who works hard and is sexually responsible is also likely never to be as successful as the wealth drug abusing skirt chaser. That is not an equal playing field.Actually I think the playing field is a lot more level than you give it credit for. Again we all have the opportunity NOT to take drugs,not to engage in premarital sex and not drop out of high school.
I see the minimum wage as helping equalize opportunity. If you work hard, you can earn a living. If you don’t work, you don’t get pay (compare this to pre-minumum wage - if you work hard, you work hard for a pittance until you can’t anymore, and then are tossed aside without a second thought).I think the fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals try to equalize RESULTS through social tinkering, through programs like affirmative action and like the minimum wage.
I can’t speak to what K2 means, but I personally have met very few out and out socialists/communists. I don’t think they really exist in American politics, to be honest, at least not in any real sense. They’re mythological beasts, like the right-wing theocratic fascists the more hysterical liberals are convinced are taking over. Haven’t met too any of those, either.Not the way K2 means regulated. She’s talking wage and price controls and a socialist type state.
A significant part of the debate about welfare reform rests on an underlying philosophical dispute about what it means to be a human being. For example, consider the case of an administrator at a New York homeless shelter who was reprimanded for a memo in which he proposed that male residents at the shelter not be allowed to wear dresses, high-heeled shoes, or wigs. The following response came from an assistant director of the Coalition for the Homeless in New York City: “The memo is evidence of a real misconception of what the shelters are all about. Trying to curtail freedom of expression, trying to shape the behavior of clients is completely inappropriate.”1Actually I think the playing field is a lot more level than you give it credit for. Again we all have the opportunity NOT to take drugs,not to engage in premarital sex and not drop out of high school
How about your comment “slothful, willingly uneducated, drug abusing welfare recipients.” I assume you were being sarcastic. You meant that literally?I wasn’t trying to be sarcastic about *anything. *I have no idea what you mean there. As far as preventing people from making bad decisions – we can’t. We can only decide whether it’s our place to assume that most people are on welfare because they’re slothful and therefore undeserving, or whether our faith calls for us to view things a bit more charitably. I prefer not to make assumptions, but to support programs that offer realistic opportunities to get off welfare and motivation for doing so by limiting welfare time limits…
No it wasn’t an insult. You seem to believe we should spend bazillions of dollars on people who don’t need help because somehow in this bowl of noodles there is one or two who are truly needy and unable to help themselves…i.e. the ONE noodle that sticks to the wall. I do not believe in throwing money at a problem on the off chance it might help someone. I think our money and our effort should be carefully targeted. I have seen in my own family how very easy it is to game the system and get social services when you don’t need them.IFunny, I thought you made my point. Your vote against taxes doesn’t distinguish between those you find worthy via the safety net or those you find unworthy. As far as the spaghetti analogy … I suppose that’s an insult? That’s ok, I’ve received worse insults this week alone…
Sure I think we see Christ in others but is it truly helpful to enable people to continue to engage in self destructive behavior? Frankly I think we disagree more on practice than on philosophy. I think we both believe that the needy deserve help. I just don’t think the “gill net” approach is the right one for taxpayers or consumers of social services.II think we disagree more on philosophy than on practice. I’ve been a prosecutor for almost 15 years and I agree with otm that the old style welfare state has misguidedly and unintentionally caused more damage to the population it sought to help than anyone could have anticipated. At the same time, I have seen, from the prosecutor’s table, much human misery and hardship, and far from 100% of it is the result of what you attribute it to. I’m not a softie and I’m not a liberal, but I try to see Christ in those before me, and I try to approach things as I believe He would. If that’s spaghetti on a wall, so be it.
Education without work ethic is meaningless. It’s all about a degree nowadays and then corporate America has to train/educate all over again. The value of the degree has also been diminished as a result of admitted cheating.
And a work ethic without an education won’t get you too far, either. Everyone deserves a high quality education, so that their success or failure truly depends on their work ethic and not on their socieconomic class (and by extension the education they have access to).Education without work ethic is meaningless. It’s all about a degree nowadays and then corporate America has to train/educate all over again. The value of the degree has also been diminished as a result of admitted cheating.
Deserves? Isn’t a quality education a privelege? And what is your measure of success?And a work ethic without an education won’t get you too far, either. Everyone deserves a high quality education, so that their success or failure truly depends on their work ethic and not on their socieconomic class (and by extension the education they have access to).