Catholic arguments against Universal Basic Income

[JonNC]

You are entitled to your far right opinion of " Let them eat cake " but you are inviting revolution that we are seeing with Trump and Sanders. Don’t think it can’t happen again where the Peasants storm the Bastille. Our economic and political systems are broken. The Congress is broken. The climate is ripe.

Far right? lol
Where did I say let them eat cake? Where did I say deny people in need? All I’ve said, through the entire thread, is government had done a terrible job They’ve spent trillions and trillions of dollars. And there is no improving the poverty rate. The progressive approach has failed.
If there is going to be an uprising, it will come in response to the coming austerity made necessary by tens of trillions of dollars of debt and even more than that in unfunded government promises. It won’t be because of the minimum wage not being $15 / hour
Government has failed because it has tried to do what it shouldn’t do.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

You are entitled to your far right opinion of " Let them eat cake " but you are inviting revolution that we are seeing with Trump and Sanders. Don’t think it can’t happen again where the Peasants storm the Bastille. Our economic and political systems are broken. The Congress is broken. The climate is ripe.

Here’s where we agree. Congress is broken. So is the presidency. It is time to return to the enumerated powers.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Far right? lol
Where did I say let them eat cake? Where did I say deny people in need…

Jon

You had the temerity to disagree with a Leftist. Therefore you are a radical. No amount of defending yourself will convince them that you are not a greedy bigot. That was part of my motive for reading Ayn Rand. I might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb.

 

[Rau]

You had the temerity to disagree with a Leftist. Therefore you are a radical. No amount of defending yourself will convince them that you are not a greedy bigot. That was part of my motive for reading Ayn Rand. I might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb.

But it seems to cut both ways. Dare to disagree with an anarchist, and one must be a…progressive / lefty.

 

[JonNC]

You had the temerity to disagree with a Leftist. Therefore you are a radical. No amount of defending yourself will convince them that you are not a greedy bigot. That was part of my motive for reading Ayn Rand. I might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb.

If one is to take the position that government shouldn’t be involved, particularly at the federal level, in social welfare, one must offer an alternative to care for the least ok God’s children, and do it better than government ( I know, an incredibly low bar). It falls to the churches, and charities, and even local government. To propose this often brings the accusations that one doesn’t care. I’m used to it. But I would contend, in response, that continuing what we are doing now could qualify as not caring, if one actually looks at the outcomes.

 

[PassingSoul]

If one is to take the position that government shouldn’t be involved, particularly at the federal level, in social welfare, one must offer an alternative to care for the least ok God’s children, and do it better than government ( I know, an incredibly low bar). It falls to the churches, and charities, and even local government. To propose this often brings the accusations that one doesn’t care. I’m used to it. But I would contend, in response, that continuing what we are doing now could qualify as not caring, if one actually looks at the outcomes.

Not a real world solution, Churches and Charities could never handle the financial burden of serving the poor without Government Assistance. No real solution other then let it crash and burn and it will rise again from the ashes. President Hoover had a laissez faire approach in governing that led to the Great Depression and a American Communist Party. It took FDR social welfare stimulas programs to jump start the economy and to give people faith in government, of course a war helped too. Governments ignore the needs of its people at its own peril. This is the world we live in. I believe in a fair Capitalistic Economic System not like what we have today.

 

[JonNC]

=PassingSoul;14170537]Not a real world solution, Churches and Charities could never handle the financial burden of serving the poor without Government Assistance.

Nonsense. Read the Book, “Tragedy of American Compassion” by Olasky

There is a better chance of true compassion, true charity, effective welfare done by churches and charities than by government. Compassion and charity do not come under government edict or coercion.

No real solution other then let it crash and burn and it will rise again from the ashes.

Of course there is . Christ tells us the solution. We are called to help the least of His children. The Principle of Subsidiarity is the proper way.

President Hoover had a laissez faire approach in governing that led to the Great Depression and a American Communist Party.

Nonsense. the Great Depression was caused by lousy trade policies…

It took FDR social welfare stimulas programs to jump start the economy and to give people faith in government, of course a war helped too.

and continued unnecessarily by the failed New Deal programs. What ended the Great Depression was World War II.

Governments ignore the needs of its people at its own peril.

and that is what happens under government social policies. the people of America’s inner cities have been ignored for decades under progressive rule. And some of the worst years have been under this current progressive Democratic president.

This is the world we live in. I believe in a fair Capitalistic Economic System not like what we have today.

On this we agree, though I suspect we may disagree on what is “fair”. The crony capitalism currently taking place today is the result of too much power centralized in Washington.

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Nonsense. Read the Book, “Tragedy of American Compassion” by Olasky

There is a better chance of true compassion, true charity, effective welfare done by churches and charities than by government. Compassion and charity do not come under government edict or coercion.

I don’t need to read a book to see that in all of past history, charities of all sorts have never provided as much aid as is currently being provided today by government. Now if you want to argue that too much aid is being provided, that is another argument. But at least be honest about what your argument is. Also it is not necessary that aid be “compassionate” or even “charitable” to be desperately needed, welcomed, and appreciated. You can also argue that charities are more efficient than government, and to that I agree. But inefficient government aid is better than inadequate charitable aid.

 

[JonNC]

I don’t need to read a book to see that in all of past history, charities of all sorts have never provided as much aid as is currently being provided today by government. Now if you want to argue that too much aid is being provided, that is another argument. But at least be honest about what your argument is. Also it is not necessary that aid be “compassionate” or even “charitable” to be desperately needed, welcomed, and appreciated. You can also argue that charities are more efficient than government, and to that I agree. But inefficient government aid is better than inadequate charitable aid.

You don’t need to read a book. The fact is that the percent of administrative costs is so high in government social spending, that the impact of the spending, coupled with requirements that undermine the effects, make government welfare incredibly ineffective . And the costs of the programs hurt the economy in such a way that economic growth is limited. There is more poverty today because of government policies than there was 7 years ago!
I want better care for those who can’t work, more opportunities for those who can, a knowledge based education system that levels the playing field for kids who don’t have the advantage of learning in their homes.

And you’re accusing me of being dishonest?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You don’t need to read a book. The fact is that the percent of administrative costs is so high in government social spending, that the impact of the spending, coupled with requirements that undermine the effects, make government welfare incredibly ineffective.

I’ll agree to “somewhat ineffective”. “Incredibly ineffective” is, well,…,incredible. And as long as we are talking about efficiency, let me remind you that St. Pope John Paul II wrote in Evangelium Vitae about the culture of death, saying that
This culture is actively fostered by powerful cultural, economic and political currents which encourage an idea of society excessively concerned with efficiency.

And the costs of the programs hurt the economy in such a way that economic growth is limited. There is more poverty today because of government policies than there was 7 years ago!

That is cherry-picking to choose 7 years ago, just as many people were suffering from the Great Recession. Why don’t you start in 1993 when the poverty rate peaked (which, incidentally, was at the start of the Clinton presidency).

I want better care for those who can’t work, more opportunities for those who can, a knowledge based education system that levels the playing field for kids who don’t have the advantage of learning in their homes.

I do too. So let’s set that aside since we agree on it.

 

[JonNC]

I’ll agree to “somewhat ineffective”. “Incredibly ineffective” is, well,…,incredible. And as long as we are talking about efficiency, let me remind you that St. Pope John Paul II wrote in Evangelium Vitae about the culture of death, saying that
This culture is actively fostered by powerful cultural, economic and political currents which encourage an idea of society excessively concerned with efficiency.
That is cherry-picking to choose 7 years ago, just as many people were suffering from the Great Recession. Why don’t you start in 1993 when the poverty rate peaked (which, incidentally, was at the start of the Clinton presidency).

I do too. So let’s set that aside since we agree on it.

I don’t doubt that you do, not for a second.

I’m not cherry picking anything. I could go back to 1980 with stag-flation. That was the worst economy The fact is poverty had gotten worse since the recession. Lowest job participation rate since the 1970’s, an increase in those on food stamps, you name it. The reason social spending has continued to go up is because of government policies over the last seven years. GDP around 2% is barely growth at all.
The very idea of welfare is a temporary helping hand, which now has become inter generational dependency. And that is destructive to families and the culture itself.

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I don’t doubt that you do, not for a second.

I’m not cherry picking anything. I could go back to 1980 with stag-flation. That was the worst economy The fact is poverty had gotten worse since the recession. Lowest job participation rate since the 1970’s, an increase in those on food stamps, you name it. The reason social spending has continued to go up is because of government policies over the last seven years. GDP around 2% is barely growth at all.
The very idea of welfare is a temporary helping hand, which now has become inter generational dependency. And that is destructive to families and the culture itself.

Jon

Ah,… so you do believe that too much aid is being given out.

 

[JonNC]

Ah,… so you do believe that too much aid is being given out.

No. I believe far too much money is being wasted, much of it not actually getting out of the bureaucracy. If too much is being given out, it is because other government policies have the effect, whether intentionally or not, of continuing poverty.
It isn’t whether too much is given, the point is too much aid is being required because of progressive policies in big cities, and at the federal level, maintaining the poverty levels.

It has become, interestingly enough, a six voting block for those who promise more and more. Poverty levels grow , more aid promised, reelection assured. Kind of a sweet deal for progressives, intentional or not

 

[LeafByNiggle]

No. I believe far too much money is being wasted, much of it not actually getting out of the bureaucracy.

Then get charities to provide these needs first and there will be no need for government aid. But I think it is irresponsible to risk the welfare of the poor on a social experiment to see if charities will provide all that is needed if government would just stop its aid first. I know you claim that is what will happen if we do that, but you probably would not be betting your own welfare in that experiment.

As an alternative to an experiment, why don’t we just look back at history? If government getting out of the way is a pre-condition for charities doing their part, then there must have been some “golden age” somewhere in history where this actually happened. Can you find it and show me where it is?

 

[PassingSoul]

Nonsense. Read the Book, “Tragedy of American Compassion” by Olasky

There is a better chance of true compassion, true charity, effective welfare done by churches and charities than by government. Compassion and charity do not come under government edict or coercion.

Of course there is . Christ tells us the solution. We are called to help the least of His children. The Principle of Subsidiarity is the proper way.

Nonsense. the Great Depression was caused by lousy trade policies…

and continued unnecessarily by the failed New Deal programs. What ended the Great Depression was World War II.

and that is what happens under government social policies. the people of America’s inner cities have been ignored for decades under progressive rule. And some of the worst years have been under this current progressive Democratic president.

On this we agree, though I suspect we may disagree on what is “fair”. The crony capitalism currently taking place today is the result of too much power centralized in Washington.

Jon

The Tragedy of American Compassion;
Before reading a book, I like to read a little about the author. Marvin Olasky started out as an Atheist joined the American Communist party, read the New Testament and became a Christian. He joined the Presbyterian Church. Now when one says he’s a Presbyterian Christian, you must ask what kind of Presbyterian beliefs do you aspire to. There is Presbyterian (PCA), Presbyterian (USA - Northern), Presbyterian (PCUS-Southern). To add to this list there is Reformed Presbyterians aspiring to Conservative Principals called Evangelical Presbyterian and Associated Reformed Presbyterian. All these Presbyterian Church branches can’t agree from Same Sex Marriages to the Ordination of Women in the Church. I would say Olansky joined a Church that replicates his personal life transformations. I respect what Presbyterian Charity has done to help build our country with Hospitals and Colleges but their current beliefs are all over the place.
Olasky is an Elder in the ultra right Christian Reconstruction wing of the PCA that aspires to Christian Nationalism. Olansky is supported by far right extremists, Howard Ahbranson ( Heir to the Home Savings & Loan Fortune in California) and Lynde & Harry Bradley Foundation. (Harry Bradley and his brother made their fortune in Electronics. Harry Bradley himself was a member of the John Birch Society-wow )
Separation of State and Church is what separates our country from Islamic Countries. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…" , a founding principal of our Constitution.
Olasky has also been funded by the Conservative Republican Heritage Foundation. Olansky book, “The Tragedy of American Compassion” was so loved by Conservatives that the old rascal himself Newt Gingrich gave a copy to every republican congressmen in the 104 Congress as required reading.
Olasky is a writer and a pundit for the far right. His thinking and his books are political text and are not realistic in solving poverty and real world issues. Olasky’s book is a Tragedy of far right propaganda.

 

[JonNC]

=LeafByNiggle;14172280]Then get charities to provide these needs first and there will be no need for government aid. But I think it is irresponsible to risk the welfare of the poor on a social experiment to see if charities will provide all that is needed if government would just stop its aid first. I know you claim that is what will happen if we do that, but you probably would not be betting your own welfare in that experiment.

Get the government out of the way, way money is freed up so charities can do it. Get the government out of the way so taxpayer’s money isn’t wasted. We risked the welfare of those in need for decades, and in fact have failed them by continuing failed programs.

As an alternative to an experiment, why don’t we just look back at history? If government getting out of the way is a pre-condition for charities doing their part, then there must have been some “golden age” somewhere in history where this actually happened. Can you find it and show me where it is?

I offered that perspective, and you said you didn’t need to read the book.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Get the government out of the way, way money is freed up so charities can do it.

For every dollar of tax reduction, I suspect you will get a 5 cent rise in charitable contributions. I know this much: If a family that is currently paying $20,000 in federal taxes were suddenly relieved of that entire tax burden, they would not turn around and donate $20,000 more to charity. It just ain’t gonna happen.

We risked the welfare of those in need for decades, and in fact have failed them by continuing failed programs.

I don’t know how you can call giving people aid “risking their welfare” and denying them that aid is not risking their welfare. It still seems like your route is the risky one.

I offered that perspective, and you said you didn’t need to read the book.

You didn’t tell me the book cites an example of a place and time where charities provided all that was needed. Can you save me some time and just tell me the time and place cited? I shouldn’t need to buy a book to get that one little bit of information. But I suspect that the book does not cite any such time and place, and merely showcases, as you have done, how bad a job government is doing now.

 

[JonNC]

The Tragedy of American Compassion;
Before reading a book, I like to read a little about the author. Marvin Olasky started out as an Atheist joined the American Communist party, read the New Testament and became a Christian. He joined the Presbyterian Church. Now when one says he’s a Presbyterian Christian, you must ask what kind of Presbyterian beliefs do you aspire to. There is Presbyterian (PCA), Presbyterian (USA - Northern), Presbyterian (PCUS-Southern). To add to this list there is Reformed Presbyterians aspiring to Conservative Principals called Evangelical Presbyterian and Associated Reformed Presbyterian. All these Presbyterian Church branches can’t agree from Same Sex Marriages to the Ordination of Women in the Church. I would say Olansky joined a Church that replicates his personal life transformations. I respect what Presbyterian Charity has done to help build our country with Hospitals and Colleges but their current beliefs are all over the place.
Olasky is an Elder in the ultra right Christian Reconstruction wing of the PCA that aspires to Christian Nationalism. Olansky is supported by far right extremists, Howard Ahbranson ( Heir to the Home Savings & Loan Fortune in California) and Lynde & Harry Bradley Foundation. (Harry Bradley and his brother made their fortune in Electronics. Harry Bradley himself was a member of the John Birch Society-wow )
Separation of State and Church is what separates our country from Islamic Countries. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…" , a founding principal of our Constitution.
Olasky has also been funded by the Conservative Republican Heritage Foundation. Olansky book, “The Tragedy of American Compassion” was so loved by Conservatives that the old rascal himself Newt Gingrich gave a copy to every republican congressmen in the 104 Congress as required reading.
.

Surprise surprise! Political questions in a book that is a political text! Imagine that!
If separation of church and state were the law, there would be no government involvement in charity, as that is religious. There would be no government edicts on marriage, as that is religious. There would be no attempts to force Catholics and other Christians to pay for insurance coverage abortion and abortion drugs, and bonus points, we can drive the orthodox Christian churches out of the charity field because they won’t submit to the demands of the HHS Mandate.

Olasky is a writer and a pundit for the far right. His thinking and his books are political text and are not realistic in solving poverty and real world issues. Olasky’s book is a Tragedy of far right propaganda

Typical response from the progressive authoritarian left. You claim to know his thinking without reading it.

So, let’s be blunt. The American welfare state is intended to keep people voting for progressives. Progressive policies keep people dependent so they have no choice, and a rejection of other ideas that upset that condition is often rejected as “far right propaganda”. Far better to continue to spend our children’s and grandchildren’s money on programs that have proven to make the lives of the poor, at best, stagnant. But that’;s okay, even preferable, as it keeps progressives in power.

 

[stinkcat_14]

You don’t need to read a book. The fact is that the percent of administrative costs is so high in government social spending, that the impact of the spending, coupled with requirements that undermine the effects, make government welfare incredibly ineffective . And the costs of the programs hurt the economy in such a way that economic growth is limited. There is more poverty today because of government policies than there was 7 years ago!
I want better care for those who can’t work, more opportunities for those who can, a knowledge based education system that levels the playing field for kids who don’t have the advantage of learning in their homes.

And you’re accusing me of being dishonest?

Would you be in favor of abolishing Medicare and letting charity provide health insurance for those over 65?

 

[JonNC]

Would you be in favor of abolishing Medicare and letting charity provide health insurance for those over 65?

You cannot outright abolish it. Too many people are now on it, and too many others are invested in it, against their will or otherwise. But you can begin to wind it down before it goes bankrupt, giving young people better options than they are faced with in the future.
Beyond that, Catholic hospitals provide incredible care. My wife experienced it years ago.

As a general rule, I would say that the private sector and charity can do a better, more effective job of health care than the central bureaucracy. Better care for the poor and elderly than government does.
The key is that the churches step up to Christ’s call.

Jon