Lisa, I read that and see an argument in favor of state welfare. Europe is more effective at fighting poverty than the US. Individuals simply cannot do it alone.
I don’t know if you are deliberately setting up a strawman or truly believe that ANYONE suggests that private charity ALONE should be depended upon to care for the poor. No one says that do they? If so I’d love to hear about it.
Further comparing the US and America’s fight to relieve poverty is a comparison of apples and oranges. Small, relatively homogeneous states (everyone trots out Sweden for example) are far easier to manage than a huge and diverse population. Further the “War on Poverty” has been ineffective in reducing poverty rates. They are as high or higher than they were prior to the Johnson administration. Worse yet this state interference has created a completely dysfunctional culture in the black and increasingly the Hispanic communities by discouraging marriage and personal responsibility.
The vast majority of the poor in America are there due to poor decision making by themselves or their parents. We do not have the kind of poverty seen in second and third world countries, many of which are socialist. So much for the government’s ability to fight poverty. We’d be far better off to pay people to get married than pay for them not to be married.
Native Americans weren’t wards of the state for hundreds of years. They didn’t fare any better then. In fact, they fared worse. Why do you want to return them to the state they were in in the 19th century?
.
Quite honestly if you compare the living conditions of Native Americans and settlers in the 19th Century, it’s far more similar than comparing the same two populations now after all of this great government “assistance.” I just attended a lecture with chilling statistics regarding Native American poverty. How many of we immigrants have no running water, no electricity, and no source of employment? Further by treating them like incompetent children we’ve created a population that has rampant drug use, violence, alcoholism, and poor health, particularly diabetes.
I think you need to do a little research.
I’m all for subsidiarity but the right too often uses it as an excuse to violate solidarity. Many on the right argued subsidiarity when it came to segregation. William F. Buckley considered it his greatest error. He came to realize that the states weren’t going to voluntarily desegregate. Unjust discrimination had to be stomped out by the feds. One could say the same about health insurance. Granted, it could’ve been designed better but that’s not where the debate is. Too many believe nothing should’ve been done. Few can articulate an alternative that doesn’t allow the sick to become destitute.
Yet another strawman. John surely you can do better than that. As I said, were the government to follow Catholic Social Teaching, its efforts would be far more effective than the current Statist Utopian dreamers that ignores the inherent dignity of every human being (notably the unborn, the aged, and the disabled). Catholic Social Teaching incorporates solidarity AND subsidiarity whereas Utopian Dreamers believe the Great State can do it all from Washington DC.
As to healthcare reform, that’s a whole 'nother subject but Obamacare is certainly the poster child of what goes wrong when a bunch of intellectual statists are in charge. Again solidarity and subsidiarity. Recognizing the inherent dignity in every human person. Not cold hard statism which is as cruel as it is ineffective.
Who believes nothing should have been done? Who wants the ill to be destitute?
Tut tut John, don’t bother to use the strawman approach. Most of the posters are on to that approach.
The only thing Rush Limbaugh strikes fear into is a cheeseburger.
I don’t think you’re giving Pope Francis enough credit. He didn’t condemn a non-existent person who believes the state has no role. He was addressing a real problem: People who believe the state shouldn’t help the needy in the economic sphere because they believe the market will take care of it.
.
Not those people again? The same non-existent people who believe the state has no role? Right…dying to hear about them John. I’m about as far to the Right as you can find and even I don’t believe in every man for himself.
The scope of the government’s role is clear: Whatever is necessary to develop each individual member of society. That encompasses pro-life policies as well as welfare. The debate should be about how better to accomplish that. In other words, the debate should be practical, not ideological.
Right…to each according to his needs, from each according to his ability. Right…that worked well didn’t it?
WHATEVER is necessary? And who decides? And how much development must we demand? And what about people that don’t want to be “developed?” Trust me, there are lots of them.
On the last line, we are in agreement. Let’s focus on where we agree and on what actually works in real life.
Lisa
