Do some people need a managerial/welfare state?

[JenDid]

**QUOTE=Leebo;4033532]Jennifer it is hard to take you serouisly when you use such vitriol and hate for the president. You are just parroting leftwing talking points. **

Wow Leebo, talk about making assumptions and “parroting” talking points! *Vitriol: something highly caustic or severe in effect, as criticism.*is. You make the assumption that I hate him because he is rich. Where on earth did you get the notion that I hate the man because he is rich?! I never said anything against him because of his wealth, and I don’t hate him. He makes me angry because, like some (all) of you on this thread, it’s his way or the highway. He’s never wrong and he never apologizes. I wish him a long and happy retirement in Crawford, Texas.
Also, I fail to see how suggesting that somehow Americans who need help ought to be able to get some from the government is “parroting” liberal talking points. (My friends would find it very funny to hear that I’m doing that. )

S*o people like you codemn us that say “Hey maybe we need to try something else besides tax and spend because it obviously doesn’t work” and at the same time accuse us of being judgemental. *

“People like me” just want people like you to understand that not everyone who benefits from social programs is out to scam the system. “People like me” would like people like you to get beyond pigeonholing others : Oh, you received public assistance? Too lazy to work, huh? “People like me” would like people like you to understand that there but for the grace of God, go you! At some point, you, yes you, could find yourself needing some assistance from good ol’ Uncle Sam.

You are obviously one of those people who see all the worlds evil as a product of the USA. **

Wrong again, Leebo. I love my country and I know it has done a lot of good around the world. It’s just hard for the other countries to remember that right now, thanks to your friend in the White House.
*
*I know that as things go down in Europe the next few years because of their Muslim population and past appeasement of Islamist extrmeists, alot of people are going to have a different perspective than they do now. **

This is a lot more complicated than just “appeasement.” But one point I would like to make is that Western Europe’s problems with Muslim extremists has less to do with appeasement and more to do with their (Muslims) isolation within the European culture. They need the immigrants to do the work, (thanks to loss of faith/religion and rampant birth control) but they don’t necessarily want to associate with them. Here in the States, most immigrants, within a generation or two, become Americanized. (You may thank the free public school system for playing a large part in that… )Western Europe tends to be less receptive of other cultures within the mainstream of their society, contrary to what one might assume from some of their government policies. They need the immigrants to do the work, but they don’t necessarily want to associate with them outside of that.

*Sorry you feel that way. Have you considered moving to Europe?
*
No. I’m an American citizen with the right to speak my opinions, just like you. That’s what my boys are defending, isn’t it?

Well, this has been interesting, but I think I’ll leave now with one last quote sure to send all the Pharisees tearing their clothing and gnashing their teeth:

“I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians.” Ghandi

In Christ,
Jennifer

 

[JenDid]

This is a friendly reminder that we expect our posters to be charitable to one another and to *exhibit that same charity to those in public life, *including presidents, other politicians, and members of the Church hierarchy. Name calling, no matter who the target, is prohibited.

I apologize. I lost sight of that while responding to the morally superior members who suggested a mentally impaired young woman would be a good candidate for employment with a “liberal think tank” and the Three Stooges were suggested as being superior to Robert Reich and other public people. You undoubtedly missed that or I’m sure the comment about charity toward all would have come in sooner, right?

I joined this thread because I thought there would be honest caring people who wanted to discuss the pros and cons of the welfare system, not carry on a diatribe against those who don’t agree with them or accept all their statements as Gospel. Obviously, my notion of Social Justice and theirs do not agree.

In Christ,
Jennifer

 

[Leebo]

**QUOTE=Leebo;4033532]Jennifer it is hard to take you serouisly when you use such vitriol and hate for the president. You are just parroting leftwing talking points. **

Wow Leebo, talk about making assumptions and “parroting” talking points! *Vitriol: something highly caustic or severe *in effect, as criticism.is.

You make the assumption that I hate him because he is rich. Where on earth did you get the notion that I hate the man because he is rich?! I never said anything against him because of his wealth, and I don’t hate him. He makes me angry because, like some (all) of you on this thread, it’s his way or the highway. He’s never wrong and he never apologizes. I wish him a long and happy retirement in Crawford, Texas.
Also, I fail to see how suggesting that somehow Americans who need help ought to be able to get some from the government is “parroting” liberal talking points. (My friends would find it very funny to hear that I’m doing that. )

S*o people like you codemn us that say “Hey maybe we need to try something else besides tax and spend because it obviously doesn’t work” and at the same time accuse us of being judgemental. *

“People like me” just want people like you to understand that not everyone who benefits from social programs is out to scam the system. “People like me” would like people like you to get beyond pigeonholing others : Oh, you received public assistance? Too lazy to work, huh? “People like me” would like people like you to understand that there but for the grace of God, go you! At some point, you, yes you, could find yourself needing some assistance from good ol’ Uncle Sam.

You are obviously one of those people who see all the worlds evil as a product of the USA. **

Wrong again, Leebo. I love my country and I know it has done a lot of good around the world. It’s just hard for the other countries to remember that right now, thanks to your friend in the White House.
*
*I know that as things go down in Europe the next few years because of their Muslim population and past appeasement of Islamist extrmeists, alot of people are going to have a different perspective than they do now. **

This is a lot more complicated than just “appeasement.” But one point I would like to make is that Western Europe’s problems with Muslim extremists has less to do with appeasement and more to do with their (Muslims) isolation within the European culture. They need the immigrants to do the work, (thanks to loss of faith/religion and rampant birth control) but they don’t necessarily want to associate with them. Here in the States, most immigrants, within a generation or two, become Americanized. (You may thank the free public school system for playing a large part in that… )Western Europe tends to be less receptive of other cultures within the mainstream of their society, contrary to what one might assume from some of their government policies. They need the immigrants to do the work, but they don’t necessarily want to associate with them outside of that.

*Sorry you feel that way. Have you considered moving to Europe?
*
No. I’m an American citizen with the right to speak my opinions, just like you. That’s what my boys are defending, isn’t it?

Well, this has been interesting, but I think I’ll leave now with one last quote sure to send all the Pharisees tearing their clothing and gnashing their teeth:

“I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians.” Ghandi

In Christ,
Jennifer

I apologize. I lost sight of that while responding to the morally superior members who suggested a mentally impaired young woman would be a good candidate for employment with a “liberal think tank” and the Three Stooges were suggested as being superior to Robert Reich and other public people. You undoubtedly missed that or I’m sure the comment about charity toward all would have come in sooner, right?

I joined this thread because I thought there would be honest caring people who wanted to discuss the pros and cons of the welfare system, not carry on a diatribe against those who don’t agree with them or accept all their statements as Gospel. Obviously, my notion of Social Justice and theirs do not agree.

In Christ,
Jennifer

Yes, so by all means call “those that disagree with you” Pharasees and then declare you are leaving.

You would be a more effective debater if you came close to holding yourself to the standards you set for everyone else.

I thought you made good points about your sons being in harms way and you most certainly have the right to questiion and critisize the president. After all you are making the biggest possible sacrifice by having you sons serve. I will say a prayer for you sons.

I believe the comments about the three stooges were not meant to be taken literally. Just an attempt at humor.

I don’t believe that everyone scams the system, nor did I ever say such a thing. I said that a great majority of the social programs don’t work. Don’t worry though, that money goes down the drain forever because once they get started they don’t go away.

So now I would like to ask you a question (if you didn’t leave yet).

What is your justification for taxing people and causing them to have to work two jobs or causing both spouses to have to hold jobs for a bunch of failed social programs that fail to help and in some instances actually make things worse.

You are going to do better than call me a pharasee because I don’t agree with socializing the US government anymore.

It is possible to have good debates on this forum. They are the best I have found.

Hope you don’t leave, look forward to more debate.

 

[Oscarthecat]

I’m not saying we need a “Nanny State.” But I do believe there is a place for government social programs, and as long as they are administered by and for human beings, they will be imperfect programs. But that is better than saying “Every man, woman and child for themselves!”

I joined this thread because I thought there would be honest caring people who wanted to discuss the pros and cons of the welfare system, not carry on a diatribe against those who don’t agree with them or accept all their statements as Gospel. Obviously, my notion of Social Justice and theirs do not agree.

Getting back to the issue at hand-

This discussion is not about whether we ought to help the sick, or the poor, or those in need.

It is about whether the government ought to be involved in helping them.

I know that there are some people who seem to resent the poor for a variety of reasons, but do you think that the majority of those who oppose government involvement in social services programs really believe in the idea of “Every man, woman and child for themselves!”?

I, for one, do not resent the poor, but I do resent being forced to participate in government programs and policies because they don’t generally reflect my values, and because they are not oriented toward the best interests of those they are supposed to help.

I have worked with government funded social services programs for years and I have seen first hand that there is a great deal of political and financial incentive to keep clients dependent upon the programs for as long as possible- preferably from one generation to the next. In some ways, these programs operate on the same principle as the pest control service that eliminates just enough of the bugs in your yard to make you happy, but not enough of the bugs to keep them from having coming back again before the next billing cycle.

Agencies have to make sure they are “graduating” just enough clients to convince the bureaucrats that their program is the best value for the tax dollar. But they also have to keep convincing those same bureaucrats that, despite their success, the problem is so overwhelming that they need more money each year in order to keep adding staff or services. Third, if the problem isn’t really overwhelming, they just redefine the parameters of those who are “in need” in order to convince the bureaucrats that the problem is still growing.

This same process is repeated at the level of the bureaucrats because they have to convince the politicians that they are doing a good enough job to keep from being fired, while at the same time convincing them that they need more tax dollars expand their department and their salaries.

And finally, the process is repeated at the level of the politicians because they have to convince their constituents that they have made big improvements with their social services programs, but that the problem is still so dire that the sky will fall if they aren’t elected to the next term, and somehow also sell the idea that they need to raise taxes to pay for more social services because, somewhat paradoxically, the problems they claimed to be so good at fixing are always worse than ever.

There aren’t many incentives in government welfare programs to actually help people in any kind of lasting or substantive way because real success cuts into their bottom line

 

[JenDid]

You would be a more effective debater if you came close to holding yourself to the standards you set for everyone else.

Let’s see…I’m on a Catholic forum trying to have a civil discussion and my fellow Catholics respond to my suggestion that some kind of welfare system might possibly be a good and even Christian idea by twisting what I said to suit their argument against government programs, accusing me of “parroting liberal talking points,” informing me that I hate the president because he’s rich,that I’m obviously one of those people who thinks the US is responsible for the evils in the world, and suggesting that maybe I’d be happier living on another continent… And somehow, I’m holding others to a higher standard than myself?!
And the #2 definition of a Pharisee is, drumroll please…
(lowercase) a sanctimonious, self-righteous, or hypocritical person.
However, I did not accuse anyone specifically of being a Pharisee. I was trying to make a point with the quote from Ghandi. He grew up in India when it was under colonial rule by a “Christian” country. He had seen how “Christians” behavior frequently belied their stated beliefs.
I’m not saying that I’m not as guilty as anyone else of falling short as a Christian. But making false accusations about me certainly doesn’t fit the profile either.

As for why we, as tax payers, should subsidize social programs, I leave you with this quote from President Eisenhower, not known for his “parroting of liberal talking points” , who said ,“A strict application… of economic theory, at least as taught by Adam Smith, would be, ‘Let these people take care of themselves; during their active life they are supposed to save enough to take care of themselves.’ In this modern industry, dependent as we are on mass production, and so on, we create conditions where that is no longer possible for everybody. So the active part of the population has to take care of all the population, and if they haven’t been able during the course of their active life to save up enough money, we have these systems.”
Do the systems need some repair? Yes. Can they be more efficient and cost effective? Probably. But they are necessary.
In Christ,
Jennifer

 

[Tonks40]

JenDid:

No one is arguing against what we as Christians should do to help those that are at a disadvantage in their lives. What the OP (original poster) suggested is something so totalitarian and narrow-minded in nature that we object to it.

Freedom is a God-given right. We should not try to stifle that freedom by imposing a “welfare state” on the whole to benefit a few.

 

[Leebo]

You would be a more effective debater if you came close to holding yourself to the standards you set for everyone else.

Let’s see…I’m on a Catholic forum trying to have a civil discussion and my fellow Catholics respond to my suggestion that some kind of welfare system might possibly be a good and even Christian idea by twisting what I said to suit their argument against government programs, accusing me of “parroting liberal talking points,” informing me that I hate the president because he’s rich,that I’m obviously one of those people who thinks the US is responsible for the evils in the world, and suggesting that maybe I’d be happier living on another continent… And somehow, I’m holding others to a higher standard than myself?!
And the #2 definition of a Pharisee is, drumroll please…
(lowercase) a sanctimonious, self-righteous, or hypocritical person.
However, I did not accuse anyone specifically of being a Pharisee. I was trying to make a point with the quote from Ghandi. He grew up in India when it was under colonial rule by a “Christian” country. He had seen how “Christians” behavior frequently belied their stated beliefs.
I’m not saying that I’m not as guilty as anyone else of falling short as a Christian. But making false accusations about me certainly doesn’t fit the profile either.

As for why we, as tax payers, should subsidize social programs, I leave you with this quote from President Eisenhower, not known for his “parroting of liberal talking points” , who said ,“A strict application… of economic theory, at least as taught by Adam Smith, would be, ‘Let these people take care of themselves; during their active life they are supposed to save enough to take care of themselves.’ In this modern industry, dependent as we are on mass production, and so on, we create conditions where that is no longer possible for everybody. So the active part of the population has to take care of all the population, and if they haven’t been able during the course of their active life to save up enough money, we have these systems.”
Do the systems need some repair? Yes. Can they be more efficient and cost effective? Probably. But they are necessary.
In Christ,
Jennifer

I apologize for saying that you hate GWB because he is rich. I went back through your posts and saw that you didn’t say anything about that. Sorry, I must have you mixed up with someone from another thread.

The comment about moving to Europe was meant as a little bit tounge in cheek, I recognize your sacrifice and you had a very appropriate response in talking about your sons defending this country. Of course, just because we disagree on this topic I don’t actually believe that you should be exiled to Europe. So I now apologize for that comment also as I see it was probably over the line. (I promise it wasn’t meant to be as mean a comment as it may have come across)

I am glad you recognize the great country we live in, and how much we already do to help the less fortunate in this country. There are many, many people who live in this country that do blame the US for all the evil in the world. I often wonder why there isn’t a mass exodus to Europe with so many of the left wing type in this country who think Europe is some kind of enlightened Utopia and that we are all a bunch of selfish backwoods racists. I have only heard of a couple of movie stars that have actually moved.

I will say that the Church is not doing even a fraction of what it should be doing to help those in need. I do not blame those in vocation because they are low in number and already do more than their share. I blame the rank and file membership(including myself).

Government distributing wealth and the type of program described by the OP doesn’t work and has never worked. If pointing that out makes me a pharisee then Ok I am one. There is no way that Dwight Eisenhower would support that kind of program.

No one would mind if there was a safety net so that you can only fall so low. We already have this largely in place, but it is ruined by beurocracys as mentioned in the post before this one.

Jen, Im glad you didn’t leave.

 

[ribozyme]

And, that is why your sensibilities are misguided. Where is the evidence for “many?” Also, who doesn’t have “access to health care?” How you pay for it is another matter, but I think it is silly when people talk about others “not having access to healthcare.”

Almost everyone agrees we should have programs for the few (compared to the population as a whole) that are incapable of working a job due to mental or physical impairments. That doesn’t mean that we have, for example, nationalized healthcare for everyone.

Being treated at the emergency room does not count as access to health care.

 

[rlg94086]

Being treated at the emergency room does not count as access to health care.

I didn’t say it was, but out of curiosity why do you think emergency rooms don’t count?

 

[estesbob]

Being treated at the emergency room does not count as access to health care.

Then what does it count as then?

 

[ribozyme]

Then what does it count as then?

Because an emergency room does not have to treat anyone; all they have to do is stabilize the patient.

 

[rlg94086]

Because an emergency room does not have to treat anyone; all they have to do is stabilize the patient.

…which involves treating them…or do you think they use some sort of voodoo technique that doesn’t count as health care?

…anyway, what does this have to do with “access?” They have access to doctors who can help them after they are stabilized.

 

[estesbob]

Because an emergency room does not have to treat anyone; all they have to do is stabilize the patient.

And the stabalize them by…?

 

[JenDid]

And the stabalize them by…?

I think the point the other person was trying to make in differentiating between stabilization and treatment is that what the emergency room staff do is a kind of first step–stabilize the patient, alleviate pain, etc. The patient is then referred back to their doctor for follow-up treatment.
For example, a friend of mine a couple of years ago fell down while going through a corn maze with her grandchildren, dislocated her shoulder and broke her elbow. At the emergency room, they put the shoulder back in place and gave her a sling, but they didn’t do anything for the elbow, telling her she would need to see her doctor and be referred to an orthopedic surgeon. They sent her home with a strong pain killer, which was good because she wasn’t able to get an appointment with her doctor until the following week.

 

[estesbob]

I think the point the other person was trying to make in differentiating between stabilization and treatment is that what the emergency room staff do is a kind of first step–stabilize the patient, alleviate pain, etc. The patient is then referred back to their doctor for follow-up treatment.
For example, a friend of mine a couple of years ago fell down while going through a corn maze with her grandchildren, dislocated her shoulder and broke her elbow. At the emergency room, they put the shoulder back in place and gave her a sling, but they didn’t do anything for the elbow, telling her she would need to see her doctor and be referred to an orthopedic surgeon. They sent her home with a strong pain killer, which was good because she wasn’t able to get an appointment with her doctor until the following week.

So did your friend not have acess to health care?

 

[Tonks40]

Because an emergency room does not have to treat anyone; all they have to do is stabilize the patient.

Contrary to what you think about ER - I pay ER claims for a local HMO - they have copious “treatment notes” attached to them which contains, go figure, “course of treatment” recommendations.

 

[JenDid]

So did your friend not have acess to health care?

Yes, she did. My example was to illustrate what I thought the previous poster meant when saying emergency rooms “stablize” rather than “treat.”

Tonks40-
From what you and others have said, it seems as if emergency room protocol differs from state to state.

 

[Swan]

**QUOTE=Leebo;4033532]Jennifer it is hard to take you serouisly when you use such vitriol and hate for the president. You are just parroting leftwing talking points. **

Wow Leebo, talk about making assumptions and “parroting” talking points! *Vitriol: something highly caustic or severe *in effect, as criticism.is.

You make the assumption that I hate him because he is rich. Where on earth did you get the notion that I hate the man because he is rich?! I never said anything against him because of his wealth, and I don’t hate him. He makes me angry because, like some (all) of you on this thread, it’s his way or the highway. He’s never wrong and he never apologizes. I wish him a long and happy retirement in Crawford, Texas.
Also, I fail to see how suggesting that somehow Americans who need help ought to be able to get some from the government is “parroting” liberal talking points. (My friends would find it very funny to hear that I’m doing that. )

S*o people like you codemn us that say “Hey maybe we need to try something else besides tax and spend because it obviously doesn’t work” and at the same time accuse us of being judgemental. *

“People like me” just want people like you to understand that not everyone who benefits from social programs is out to scam the system. “People like me” would like people like you to get beyond pigeonholing others : Oh, you received public assistance? Too lazy to work, huh? “People like me” would like people like you to understand that there but for the grace of God, go you! At some point, you, yes you, could find yourself needing some assistance from good ol’ Uncle Sam.

You are obviously one of those people who see all the worlds evil as a product of the USA. **

Wrong again, Leebo. I love my country and I know it has done a lot of good around the world. It’s just hard for the other countries to remember that right now, thanks to your friend in the White House.
*
*I know that as things go down in Europe the next few years because of their Muslim population and past appeasement of Islamist extrmeists, alot of people are going to have a different perspective than they do now. **

This is a lot more complicated than just “appeasement.” But one point I would like to make is that Western Europe’s problems with Muslim extremists has less to do with appeasement and more to do with their (Muslims) isolation within the European culture. They need the immigrants to do the work, (thanks to loss of faith/religion and rampant birth control) but they don’t necessarily want to associate with them. Here in the States, most immigrants, within a generation or two, become Americanized. (You may thank the free public school system for playing a large part in that… )Western Europe tends to be less receptive of other cultures within the mainstream of their society, contrary to what one might assume from some of their government policies. They need the immigrants to do the work, but they don’t necessarily want to associate with them outside of that.

*Sorry you feel that way. Have you considered moving to Europe?
*
No. I’m an American citizen with the right to speak my opinions, just like you. That’s what my boys are defending, isn’t it?

Well, this has been interesting, but I think I’ll leave now with one last quote sure to send all the Pharisees tearing their clothing and gnashing their teeth:

“I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians.” Ghandi

In Christ,
Jennifer

Jennifer,

 

[Swan]

So much for the “God is love” nonsense, since he tolerates much suffering in this world.

And I do not understand why would some people want to abolish abortion, yet have little concern whether or not that fetus will receive health care or live in a nice environment after when it is born. What is the point of allowing a fetus to be born if its life will be characterized by lots of suffering? I only advocate a welfare state to relieve suffering, and I believe that is more compassionate the alleged love of the Christian God.

You have an excellent point. I’ve often found that those who are “pro-life” are also “pro-poverty”. They think the government should intervene on the one hand (to ensure birth) but not on the other (to ensure life). I find it to be the ultimate in hypocrisy.

 

[rlg94086]

You have an excellent point. I’ve often found that those who are “pro-life” are also “pro-poverty”. They think the government should intervene on the one hand (to ensure birth) but not on the other (to ensure life). I find it to be the ultimate in hypocrisy.

No one is “pro-poverty.” It is merely a question of how much of a role government should have in our economic lives. However, I don’t see how taking a stance in favor of personal charity over government programs, while at the same time believing that the taking of a life should be illegal, is hypocritical.

On the other hand, pro-choice Catholics (the definition of oxymoron) don’t believe in the fundamental protection of human life. That I don’t understand that at all. I have no problem with pro-life, politically liberal Catholics. I disagree with their economic policies, but we are allowed as Catholics to differ on the application of the Social Doctrine of the Church.