Extreme poverty needs to be eradicated from the face of the planet!

[Jozefo]

We can judge as lazy those who, when offered a job which will provide them for their needs, refuse it, and then claim that they are suffering and the government needs to help them. I know many people like this personally, and see them on the street all the time.

In the parable of the prodigal son, the son was repentant. He came to his father to beg for mercy and forgiveness, and only asked that he live as one of his father’s servants. His father graciously forgave him, and reinstated him.

People like those I have mentioned do not repent. They **can **live and **do **live on welfare alone, and are perfectly happy to live their lives doing nothing of value to the society while the government fattens them up and gets their votes.

Such a civilization which has a good running economy in which jobs are in plenty no longer exists in the US today. The government has destroyed small business with massive tax increases and increases in regulation. There is now so much risk in starting new businesses and making new jobs and entrepreneurs are reluctant to do so… and many do not at all.

Where would these “decent paying job” you speak of come from, Robert? Government? Heh. As if the government could “create” jobs without destroying countless others.

It’s happened again and again. If regulations, taxes, and subsidies are not massively eliminated, we will never see prosperity in America again.

It has been quite a few years since I’ve said, “This is a free country!” either in a serious conversation or in jest. I do not expect to say it again.

You may not realize it, and nor do the people on the public dole, but welfare and other governmnt programs are necessary for the present power structure in government to remain intact. These people do perform a valuable service to others in the economy: they cash and spend ther government checks, thus increasing the money supply in circulation.

The present money system could not work without them.

 

[dshix]

You may not realize it, and nor do the people on the public dole, but welfare and other governmnt programs are necessary for the present power structure in government to remain intact. These people do perform a valuable service to others in the economy: they cash and spend ther government checks, thus increasing the money supply in circulation.

The present money system could not work without them.

The crux of the problem.

Why is increasing the money supply necessary? To preserve the bubble which is quickly being blown up by inflation? Should we preserve the bubble, so that it gets bigger and bigger before it pops, resulting in an even greater economic collapse?

I do not deny the purpose of welfare 100%, but the vast majority of those receiving welfare today do not need it; they are simply taking advantage of the free money, which DOES NOT EXIST. It was PRINTED.

 

[Jozefo]

The crux of the problem.

Why is increasing the money supply necessary? To preserve the bubble which is quickly being blown up by inflation? Should we preserve the bubble, so that it gets bigger and bigger before it pops, resulting in an even greater economic collapse?

I do not deny the purpose of welfare 100%, but the vast majority of those receiving welfare today do not need it; they are simply taking advantage of the free money, which DOES NOT EXIST. It was PRINTED.

The money supply must be increased, because as people pay down their debt, the debt currency is destroyed.

 

[dshix]

The money supply must be increased, because as people pay down their debt, the debt currency is destroyed.

What do you mean, “the debt currency is destroyed.”? When a person repays their debt to another person or a bank, the money is destroyed?

 

[Jozefo]

What do you mean, “the debt currency is destroyed.”? When a person repays their debt to another person or a bank, the money is destroyed?

We never repay debt. That is against public policy. Rather we discharge liabilities. So when someone’s liabilities are discharged, the debt is retired. The credit no longer exists. It’s gone. It goes to a purgatory, waiting for the day when all the debts can be settled. Until then, for the money system to work, it requires new debtors.

 

[Jozefo]

I realize that my last reply is kind of cryptic. It’s like this: there is no money in circulation. There are only promises to pay money in circulation. We call these promises money, but they are really debt/credit instruments.

So when someone discharges their liability, their obligation is deemed fulfilled, except they never actually payed the debt. They used credit as a substitute, in place of paying the debt. The actual debt remains, but it’s in a kind of limbo or purgatory, waiting for the day it can be redeemed with lawful money.

In the meanwhile, business goes on using debt/credit instruments instead of money. This is because all the money was taken away in 1933, and replaced with legal tender, which is - as I said at first - the offer to pay money, but not money.

 

[tabycat]

A decent wage would be appx. $15 per hour, as it is in Australia. Poor are those living below the poverty level.

Are you saying that someone who is paying $15 an hour, say at a fast food place, has the right to charge, for their product, the labor cost of that $15 an hour or charge as if the labor cost was $10 an hour? If is the second, are you saying that the owner should not make any money, there for making himself poor?

 

[St_Francis]

I realize that my last reply is kind of cryptic. It’s like this: there is no money in circulation. There are only promises to pay money in circulation. We call these promises money, but they are really debt/credit instruments.

So when someone discharges their liability, their obligation is deemed fulfilled, except they never actually payed the debt. They used credit as a substitute, in place of paying the debt. The actual debt remains, but it’s in a kind of limbo or purgatory, waiting for the day it can be redeemed with lawful money.

In the meanwhile, business goes on using debt/credit instruments instead of money. This is because all the money was taken away in 1933, and replaced with legal tender, which is - as I said at first - the offer to pay money, but not money.

Money is a symbol for value. For example, in a local currency situation, maybe everything would be kept track of in hours–then the hours would be not actual hours but symbols.

Credit is a problem as it has greatly but falsely increased our money supply.

 

[Robert_Sock]

If you can’t judge that “People refusing to work” (Sock) should be denied provided food (St Paul), then yet another teaching is rubbished, for Christ commanded us to:
“Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly.” (Jn 7:24).
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them” (Mt 7:15, 16).
“Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. So by their fruits you will know them.” (Mt 7:19-20).

“The spiritual person, however, can judge everything but is not subject to judgment by anyone.” (1 Cor 2:15).

That is precisely why we judge actions, speech, writing against true teaching as to what is good and what is evil, and we know what is good and what is evil only by following the teaching of His Church – not by our opinions, desires, prejudices, feelings, wants – selfism.

But what we are commanded also is not to judge the guilt of anyone before God.

Christ and His Church do not teach anything concerning the question of acquiring “excessive wealth”, but they do teach on how one should make use of, or assist others, when they acquire riches. The very term “excessive” is dependant on the feeling, prejudice, of the user.

On the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, a preoccupation with wealth obscures the real sins – pride and selfishness are the culprits. St Augustine effectively says “It was not Lazarus’ poverty that saved him, but his humility. Nor was it wealth that kept the rich man from bliss, but his pride and selfishness (Sermon 24,3).

Mt 19:16-21 refers finally to **the rich young man **becoming an Apostle, “come follow Me”. Nowhere does Christ require mankind to give up all their possessions either to be good followers or to be able to enter heaven. If all were poor, how could anyone be helped?

“Catholic tradition has always had a balanced view of the responsibilities, temptations and opportunities of wealth, and it has never sought to canonize the poor or to demonize the rich. Catholic social doctrine, rather, calls all people to responsibility, generosity and holiness.” Inside The Vatican, June 1997].

The Church may not have anything against accumulation of wealth, but neither Christ nor St Paul advocates our sitting back and watching those who refuse to work literally stave to death. Also, there are parables against the accumulation of ‘excessive’ wealth, such as the parable of Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) and the parable of the rich fool (Luke 12:16-21). Greed is never condoned in the bible.

 

[Brendan_64]

Just one quibble about “people refusing to work”: if they are physically, mentally, and emotionally able to work and refuse to, why should they be supported by government, with a computer no less? My brand of liberalism doesn’t go that far.

Which is all well and good in a society that has enough jobs to provide one for all. But that is not the case. Most people who are unemployed desperately want work, but there are not enough jobs to go around.

If you maintain that there are enough jobs for those who want them, then you must also maintain that almost all people who are unemployed are lazy. If you maintain that most (or at least a substantial minority) are not lazy, then you must also maintain that there are just not enough jobs for all who want a job. If the latter is the case then we have to accept that we have an obligation to financially support people who are unemployed.

 

[Abu]

Robert Sock #146
The Church may not have anything against accumulation of wealth,

May? Of course, at last, the FACT acknowledged – obviously the Church is not against the accumulation of wealth. What you distort is the fact that no one can be helped unless there are those who have accumulated enough to provide help to those in real need.

but neither Christ nor St Paul advocates our sitting back and watching those who refuse to work literally stave to death.

Take off the blinkers. You cannot profess ignorance forever – beware of the wolves in sheep’s clothing, who distort Christ’s teaching, and that of St Paul: “If any one will not work, let him not eat” (2 Thess 3:10). Listen, learn and love, and cut the posturing.

More and more will REFUSE to work (your term) as long as they can get fed with no effort from them. Listen to Christ now to His very own Apostles. “whom He loved to the end” (Jn 13:1): “Have you no sense, no wits…” (Mk 6:17).

Also, there are parables against the accumulation of ‘excessive’ wealth, such as the parable of Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) and the parable of the rich fool (Luke 12:16-21).

Listen, learn and love – the parables excoriate those who acquire wealth but misuse it, NOT its accumulation! Your misrepresentations grow and grow. Christ and His Church do not teach anything concerning the question of acquiring “excessive wealth”, but they do teach on how one should make use of it, or assist others, when they acquire riches. The very term “excessive” is dependant on the feeling, prejudice, of the user.

 

[Robert_Sock]

This sounds like utopia and not very realistic. Something to strive for, nonetheless. Just one quibble about “people refusing to work”: if they are physically, mentally, and emotionally able to work and refuse to, why should they be supported by government, with a computer no less? My brand of liberalism doesn’t go that far.

It’s a matter of our living in a civilized society, where the basic need of all individuals are cared for. Again, even hardened criminals have their basic needs cared for, how much more so we ought to provide the basic needs to all law abiding citizens?

 

[Robert_Sock]

May? Of course, at last, the FACT acknowledged – obviously the Church is not against the accumulation of wealth. What you distort is the fact that no one can be helped unless there are those who have accumulated enough to provide help to those in real need.

Take off the blinkers. You cannot profess ignorance forever – beware of the wolves in sheep’s clothing, who distort Christ’s teaching, and that of St Paul: “If any one will not work, let him not eat” (2 Thess 3:10). Listen, learn and love, and cut the posturing.

More and more will REFUSE to work (your term) as long as they can get fed with no effort from them. Listen to Christ now to His very own Apostles. “whom He loved to the end” (Jn 13:1): “Have you no sense, no wits…” (Mk 6:17).
Listen, learn and love – the parables excoriate those who acquire wealth but misuse it, NOT its accumulation! Your misrepresentations grow and grow. Christ and His Church do not teach anything concerning the question of acquiring “excessive wealth”, but they do teach on how one should make use of it, or assist others, when they acquire riches. The very term “excessive” is dependant on the feeling, prejudice, of the user.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11120875&postcount=149

 

[Abu]

Robert Sock #149
Again, even hardened criminals have their basic needs cared for

That is precisely because they are imprisoned for their crimes and thus have to be fed in prison – surely that is not too difficult to understand?
The difficulty in reasoning logically, in assenting to and in following St Paul and the Church is characteristic of one who doesn’t understand Christ, His Church and Her teaching.

 

[Robert_Sock]

That is precisely because they are imprisoned for their crimes and thus have to be fed in prison – surely that is not too difficult to understand?
The difficulty in reasoning logically, in assenting to and in following St Paul and the Church is characteristic of one who doesn’t understand Christ, His Church and Her teaching.

Maybe those who refuse to work ought to become hardened criminals so they do not starve to death and have a roof over their heads! Yes, let us build a society where such behavior is encouraged!

You’re making circular arguments to support your perverted ‘truths’ of the Church; please tell me where Christ explicitly supports our watching those who refuse to work to literally starve to death? “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

 

[St_Francis]

Maybe those who refuse to work ought to become hardened criminals so they do not starve to death and have a roof over their heads! Yes, let us build a society where such behavior is encouraged!

You’re making circular arguments to support your perverted ‘truths’ of the Church; please tell me where Christ explicitly supports our watching those who refuse to work to literally starve to death? “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

It used to be that those who refused to work would at some point realize that their attitude wasn’t working for them *because *they were starving. At that point, they would decide to change. Now there is little incentive to change.

In addition to some of the financial disincentives to getting off welfare I mentioned in another thread, there is now news that welfare benefits are higher than minimum wage in 35 states.

Yes, it would be nice if every government could ensure an economy with full employment. But as jobs have increased in third-world nations, jobs have decreased in the US. What that means is that our jobs are going elsewhere.

The changes need to be made in a different way. In the US, a large portion of those in need can get food, housing, smart phones, health insurance which covers dental and eye as well, etc. *already get *what you propose. They have free access to computers at public libraries if their children don’t get free computers or iPads at school.

But look what all this is doing to our nation’s economy–this costs money and thus we are going deeper into debt every year, *to the tune of one trillion dollars!. *This is why we disagree with your ideas, because they are based on emotion rather than on facts. You say you want your ideas to be based on a better economy and not government funding, but it just doesn’t work that way.

 

[Brendan_64]

It used to be that those who refused to work would at some point realize that their attitude wasn’t working for them *because *they were starving. At that point, they would decide to change. Now there is little incentive to change.

Are you advocating the possibility of starvation as an incentive to get people back to work?

And as there aren’t enough jobs for everyone, would you simply view the difference between the number of jobs available and the number of unemployed people as an unfortunate, but necessary, ‘natural wastage’, as this surplus population starves to death?

 

[hazcompat]

Is

Woe to those who enact unjust statutes
and who write oppressive decrees,
Depriving the needy of judgment
and robbing my people’s poor of their rights,
Making widows their plunder,
and orphans their prey!
What will you do on the day of punishment,
when ruin comes from afar?
To whom will you flee for help?
Where will you leave your wealth,
Lest it sink beneath the captive
or fall beneath the slain?
For all this, his wrath is not turned back,
his hand is still outstretched!

Peace

 

[Robert_Sock]

It used to be that those who refused to work would at some point realize that their attitude wasn’t working for them *because *they were starving. At that point, they would decide to change. Now there is little incentive to change.

And yet extreme poverty flourishes worldwide! Where’s the lack of incentive to work when there simply are no jobs?

In addition to some of the financial disincentives to getting off welfare I mentioned in another thread, there is now news that welfare benefits are higher than minimum wage in 35 states.

What I’m talking about in my original post is getting most people off welfare, where their work efforts becomes a boon for society.

Yes, it would be nice if every government could ensure an economy with full employment. But as jobs have increased in third-world nations, jobs have decreased in the US. What that means is that our jobs are going elsewhere.

Perhaps we need to create new, decent-paying jobs? This is where government incentives should be going. There’s no reason whatsoever why decent-paying jobs should not flourish for those in poverty-stricken areas.

The changes need to be made in a different way. In the US, a large portion of those in need can get food, housing, smart phones, health insurance which covers dental and eye as well, etc. *already get *what you propose. They have free access to computers at public libraries if their children don’t get free computers or iPads at school.

Again, what I’m talking about in my original post is getting most people off welfare, where their work efforts becomes a boon for society.

But look what all this is doing to our nation’s economy–this costs money and thus we are going deeper into debt every year, *to the tune of one trillion dollars!. *This is why we disagree with your ideas, because they are based on emotion rather than on facts. You say you want your ideas to be based on a better economy and not government funding, but it just doesn’t work that way.

Still again, what I’m talking about in my original post is getting most people off welfare, where their work efforts becomes a boon for society.

So, what’s your plan for dealing with extreme poverty worldwide? Do you have a plan, or are you saying that we should simply look the other way and let innocent people suffer and literally rot away?

 

[Jozefo]

Money is a symbol for value. For example, in a local currency situation, maybe everything would be kept track of in hours–then the hours would be not actual hours but symbols.

Credit is a problem as it has greatly but falsely increased our money supply.

I like hours being the standard by which money could be defined. When the US first defined a dollar, it was ‘so many’ grains of silver. I think it was 378 grains, but I don’t remember exactly at the moment. At any rate, most of the world’s currencies are undefined. No one knows what a $ is. It’s whatever you can get at a given time. It would be much better if everyone knew what it was, for obvious reasons.

Now credit has actually eliminated the money supply. We use banking credit exclusively. Even paper dollars represent banking credit. What we have is the illusion of money. It has brought the appearance of wealth, but not the substance. Whatever things we manage to acquire with the credit are never fully ours, because we’ve never actually payed for them.

I realize that sounds like a distinction without a difference, and I suppose it isn’t for many people. But remember, money/credit/debt is always created at interest. There is never enough of it to ever discharge its liabillities. It keeps the lenders empowered at all times, and everyone is subject to them.

This system is intrinsically evil, and forces poverty onto people throughout society. Since scarcity is built into the system, it’s like a gigantic game of musical chairs. When the lenders issue the credit plentifully the music is playing. But when they contract or shrink the credit supply, the music stops and some people are left with nowhere to sit, and they become impoverished.