Catholic arguments against Universal Basic Income

[LeafByNiggle]

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

You keep arguing a point that no one is refuting - that charities are more effective with the money they have. So why do you keep repeating it? The question I have been asking - and without any satisfying answer - is what the** extent** of charitable aid is likely to be when government “winds down”. Please don’t avoid that question, because I think it is critical.

 

[stinkcat_14]

You cannot outright abolish it.

You can absolutely abolish it, nobody has a right to demand that others sacrifice for them.

Too many people are now on it, and too many others are invested in it, against their will or otherwise.

Government redistribution programs are not investments.

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

So nobody would be worse off if we ended medicare today. So why does it exist? Why do those who claim to be in favor of small government still support it?

 

[stinkcat_14]

You keep arguing a point that no one is refuting - that charities are more effective with the money they have. So why do you keep repeating it? The question I have been asking - and without any satisfying answer - is what the** extent** of charitable aid is likely to be when government “winds down”. Please don’t avoid that question, because I think it is critical.

Individuals give about $250 billion to charity each year. Medicare alone costs over $600 billion. So will private charity more than double, that is a good question.

 

[Rau]

Individuals give about $250 billion to charity each year. Medicare alone costs over $600 billion. So will private charity more than double, that is a good question.

It would need to do far more than double to replace all government assistance to the less well off. And if charitable gifts are tax deductible in the US, that would need to end too to be consistent with the philosophy proposed. That would have the effect of depressing private charitable giving.

 

[JonNC]

You keep arguing a point that no one is refuting - that charities are more effective with the money they have. So why do you keep repeating it? The question I have been asking - and without any satisfying answer - is what the** extent** of charitable aid is likely to be when government “winds down”. Please don’t avoid that question, because I think it is critical.

I think people here are refuting it. When they say government has to do it, they are claiming Christ’s Church and othe charities can’t or won’t. They are claiming it must be done by government force.
My point is I believe that Americans will take care of their neighbors. But that also means an end to the Washington power structure, which is what some are really opposed to

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I think people here are refuting it. When they say government has to do it, they are claiming Christ’s Church and othe charities can’t or won’t. They are claiming it must be done by government force.
My point is I believe that Americans will take care of their neighbors. But that also means an end to the Washington power structure, which is what some are really opposed to

I told you what you needed to do to prove your point. Tell me when it has ever happened.

 

[JonNC]

You can absolutely abolish it, nobody has a right to demand that others sacrifice for them.

Government redistribution programs are not investments.

So nobody would be worse off if we ended medicare today. So why does it exist? Why do those who claim to be in favor of small government still support it?

First, you and I essentially agree that government redistribution is not investments. But for 40 plus years they’ve taken my investment money- more than 15% of my income every year between Social Security and Medicare. Now, if they are willing to give me my money back with interest, I will happily give up my claim.

It still exists because it wins elections. They still call Social Security the third rail, for good reason. Every four years, the progressives threaten that conservatives will throw grandma off a cliff. It’s a lie, but it works. The people who are getting thrown off a cliff are children and those not born yet, because it is their money being spent in the trillions.

 

[JonNC]

I told you what you needed to do to prove your point. Tell me when it has ever happened.

Read the book. But even if you don’t, why continue programs that have failed, and at the same time are putting future generations into insurmountable debt?

 

[Rau]

I think people here are refuting it. When they say government has to do it, they are claiming Christ’s Church and othe charities can’t or won’t.

The institutions have no resource but the generosity of “the people” realised (through gifts of time and/or money). The claim is not that the institutions “can’t or won’t”, but that in the model envisaged, the gifts are unlikely to be sufficient. Views on this may of course differ.

 

[JonNC]

It would need to do far more than double to replace all government assistance to the less well off. And if charitable gifts are tax deductible in the US, that would need to end too to be consistent with the philosophy proposed. That would have the effect of depressing private charitable giving.

If the money spent by government, including the astonishingly high administrative cost, were available to American charities, organizations like Catholic Charities would have the available money through their members.
The philosophy includes ending the income tax.

 

[stinkcat_14]

First, you and I essentially agree that government redistribution is not investments. But for 40 plus years they’ve taken my investment money- more than 15% of my income every year between Social Security and Medicare. Now, if they are willing to give me my money back with interest, I will happily give up my claim.

Actually, you have no claim on SS or Medicare, unless the government decides you have a claim. The government can discontinue the program tomorrow and you would have no legal recourse. You are not owed anything regarding SS and Medicare because nobody is owed welfare. You have no moral right to demand that working people sacrifice for you.

It still exists because it wins elections. They still call Social Security the third rail, for good reason. Every four years, the progressives threaten that conservatives will throw grandma off a cliff. It’s a lie, but it works. The people who are getting thrown off a cliff are children and those not born yet, because it is their money being spent in the trillions.

Have any of these so called conservatives ever proposed cutting these programs? How can someone be a true conservative and support the existence of either program?

 

[Melissa]

Individuals give about $250 billion to charity each year. Medicare alone costs over $600 billion. So will private charity more than double, that is a good question.

On the other hand, let’s look at Catholic hospitals–when the one where I now work was first founded, it was a particular group of nuns who came out to establish hospitals and care for the sick. Those who could not pay were marked ODL (Our Dear Lord’s) and money was not sought from them.

So charity isn’t just handing out cash, but also forgiving expenses that cannot be borne. The hospital still has charity care, it’s just a little more complicated.

Of course, there are people who will complain about Catholic hospitals being the only hospital in the area and not providing certain “services” which are against Catholic teaching–but oddly enough, the for-profits won’t come to these areas.

 

[Rau]

Read the book. But even if you don’t, why continue programs that have failed, and at the same time are putting future generations into insurmountable debt?

Demonstrably, the US government spends more than it collects in tax. How could that be addressed? Cut programs (Medicare?, farm subsidies?, overseas aid?, defence?) or raise taxes (involves choosing to whom the additional tax falls)?

One might choose which path(s) to follow based on a view that government must strictly avoid certain activities, or based upon what looks likely to produce the best outcome. And if there is a serious conflict?

 

[Rau]

If the money spent by government, including the astonishingly high administrative cost, were available to American charities, organizations like Catholic Charities would have the available money through their members.
The philosophy includes ending the income tax.

Your first word “if” - is rather a huge hurdle don’t you think?

 

[JonNC]

=

stinkcat_14;14172756]Actually, you have no claim on SS or Medicare, unless the government decides you have a claim. The government can discontinue the program tomorrow and you would have no legal recourse. You are not owed anything regarding SS and Medicare because nobody is owed welfare. You have no moral right to demand that working people sacrifice for you.

i recognize that. The SCOTUS has stated so. Morally, if not legally, they have stolen my money to give to others. Morally, if not legally, I have a claim to my money plus interest. Legally, SS and M are not welfare. If you are going to claim the law on the first point, you have to stand by the law on the second. Both programs were legislated as, essentially, insurance programs paid for by "contributions ", not taxes. FICA - Federal INSURANCE CONTRIBUTION Act.

Have any of these so called conservatives ever proposed cutting these programs? How can someone be a true conservative and support the existence of either program?

We can’t. But we also have an obligation to repay that which has been stolen under fraudulent means. Even Bernie Madoff had to.

 

[JonNC]

Your first word “if” - is rather a huge hurdle don’t you think?

I am under no illusions that the progressive movement and bureaucracy will willingly give up their gravy train.

 

[PassingSoul]

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.

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.

Just setting the record strait where Olasky ideas are coming from. Oh by the way the last time I looked the Senate and the House is ruled by Conservatives so who is in Power ? Without Progressive Ideas we would still have slavery, women would not be allowed to vote, Blacks would still be sitting in the back of the bus, Gays and women would be barred from the Military. When Pope Francis came to America he said “the four Americans that I admired the most were Abraham Lincoln, Martian Luther King, Dorthy Day and Thomas Merton” all Progressives thinkers in their time. It must of broke Consevative Hearts that Ronald Regan didn’t make the list. Dorthy Day was a far left liberal in her time and God forbid that she should stand up to Cardinal Spellman for Catholic Worker’s Rights.
You are entitled to your opinion but I consider Olasky ideas to be kind, theoretical, utopian and just not practical in today’s world.

 

[Rau]

I am under no illusions that the progressive movement and bureaucracy will willingly give up their gravy train.

Even were “they” to do so, that would not get us there. “The people” would need to choose to gift a considerable share of their income.

 

[JonNC]

=PassingSoul;14172784]Just setting the record strait where Olasky ideas are coming from. Oh by the way the last time I looked the Senate and the House is ruled by Conservatives so who is in Power ?

I thought it was Obama’s pen and phone.

Without Progressive Ideas we would still have slavery, women would not be allowed to vote, Blacks would still be sitting in the back of the bus,

Umm, no. It was conservatives who fought for the civil rights movement, not progressives. Wilson was a progressive and a racist. FDR, the same. Margaret Sanger, a racist and a eugenist.

Gays and women would be barred from the Military. When Pope Francis came to America he said “the four Americans that I admired the most were Abraham Lincoln, Martian Luther King, Dorthy Day and Thomas Merton” all Progressives thinkers in their time.

Lincoln was anything but a progressive. The civil arts acts of the 1860’s were passed by Republicans. The Civil Rights acts one hundred years later pass over the segregationist Democrat progressives like Fullbright and Gore.

It must of broke Consevative Hearts that Ronald Regan didn’t make the list. Dorthy Day was a far left liberal in her time and God forbid that she should stand up to Cardinal Spellman for Catholic Worker’s Rights

Let me know when the Holy Father denounces Subsidiarity in favor of strong central government, abortion, and forcing Catholics to pay for it.

You are entitled to your opinion but I consider Olasky ideas to be kind, theoretical, utopian and just not practical in today’s world

On the last we can disagree, but I appreciate the first.

 

[starshiptrooper]

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

I am a monarchist. Furthermore, calling you a Leftist is a descriptive statement of your politics, not your character unlike a certain poster’s “Let them eat cake” accusations.

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.

They are entitled to nothing. It sickens me to see the people who think that the mantle of victimhood gives them moral superiority over productive people. I am under no obligation to offer an alternative to theft and extortion.