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

[St_Francis]

But there is such a thing as restructuring values so that greed is eradicated and LOVE reigns supreme. The world will simply fail to sustain itself unless this becomes a reality.

Archbishop Fulton Sheen said this when talking about the change of retreats from being times of self-examination and learning about growing in holiness to “bull sessions” about how best to improve the world: As long as we talk about something we feel as if we are doing something about it… and we’re not concerned about our soul and our relationship to God.

 

[WTSherman]

The US is responsible for crimes against humanity considering the slums we promote in our cities. My advice to Europeans and Brits, mind your own business, you caused the situation with your slave trade here while we were a colony. None of your European cities are all black like ours in America. Its our shame as a nation that we didn’t handle it better.

I think there is a solution, begin by reducing the federal government to a level the citizens can afford. (Including the state and local governments) As long as we have the military, police, schools and roads, what else are we paying for? Why doesn’t it follow that when I have to tighten my belt, the government doesn’t, in fact it expands?

I believe that the reduction of social welfare, to a level that would make sure nobody goes hungry, would promote initiative, rather than poverty.

The idea of individual liberty is gone in this country and with it goes any hope of individual success. Great men are becoming rare.

 

[St_Francis]

The US is responsible for crimes against humanity considering the slums we promote in our cities. My advice to Europeans and Brits, mind your own business, you caused the situation with your slave trade here while we were a colony. None of your European cities are all black like ours in America. Its our shame as a nation that we didn’t handle it better.

I think there is a solution, begin by reducing the federal government to a level the citizens can afford. (Including the state and local governments) As long as we have the military, police, schools and roads, what else are we paying for? Why doesn’t it follow that when I have to tighten my belt, the government doesn’t, in fact it expands?

I believe that the reduction of social welfare, to a level that would make sure nobody goes hungry, would promote initiative, rather than poverty.

The idea of individual liberty is gone in this country and with it goes any hope of individual success. Great men are becoming rare.

The problem with your solution is that some people are incapable of actihg on their initiative, due to health or physical problems.

And that is assuming that one gets rid of barriers to entry for many businesses.

 

[Jozefo]

There is no lack of money in government. Didn’t the banking bailouts teach us anything? Money is unlimited, if they want it to be.

 

[feed_me]

The problem with your solution is that some people are incapable of actihg on their initiative, due to health or physical problems.

And that is assuming that one gets rid of barriers to entry for many businesses.

Dont forget that “we people” also got procrastination, lazyness, a sex drive that produces instant welfare, fear, exe.

 

[tabycat]

Who’s condoning communism, socialism or a welfare state?

You are coming across like you are condoning communism, socialism, and/or a welfare state.

 

[feed_me]

You are coming across like you are condoning communism, socialism, and/or a welfare state.

It looks like our state is headed that way.

 

[Daniel_Lysinger]

No, it just doesn’t work that way.

 

[St_Francis]

Dont forget that “we people” also got procrastination, lazyness, a sex drive that produces instant welfare, fear, exe.

I am not sure I understand what you mean here.

 

[Brendan_64]

Those who realise the utter folly of communism, socialism and the Welfare State, all condemned by the Church

That statement is incorrect. The Church certainly doesn’t condemn a welfare state, and the Church only condemns Socialism so far as it contains an atheistic component. The Church also condemns unregulated free-market Capitalism.

The relevant section of the Catechism is as follows

2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.” She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor.207 Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for "there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market."208 Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.

The Church also supports the right of workers to form Trade Unions in order to balance the inequalities of power between employer and workers (Revum Novarum 1891) and John Paul II (in Laborem Exercens) said that the interests of labour must always take precedence over the interests of capital. The Church also maintains that Trade Unions are “a positive influence for social order and solidarity, and are therefore an indispensable element of social life”. I wonder how this squares with employers and politicians who seem to be in favour of ‘de-unionisation’ of the workplace.

People who try to portray the Church as being essentially right-wing in terms of it’s view of economics are simply incorrect. It is wrong to try to use the Church as a justification for personally held political views.

 

[Robert_Sock]

You are coming across like you are condoning communism, socialism, and/or a welfare state.

Please tell me where I’m coming across as a communist, socialist and or somebody into a welfare state? Again, I’m talking about self-help, self-sufficiency and the creation of decent-paying jobs, all of which are easily available in a largely free-market society. In fact, the implementation of what I’m suggesting would probably cost less in government subsidies than what we are spending today, plus it would be a boon to our economy.

 

[Robert_Sock]

That statement is incorrect. The Church certainly doesn’t condemn a welfare state, and the Church only condemns Socialism so far as it contains an atheistic component. The Church also condemns unregulated free-market Capitalism.

The relevant section of the Catechism is as follows

2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.” She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor.207 Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for "there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market."208 Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.

The Church also supports the right of workers to form Trade Unions in order to balance the inequalities of power between employer and workers (Revum Novarum 1891) and John Paul II (in Laborem Exercens) said that the interests of labour must always take precedence over the interests of capital. The Church also maintains that Trade Unions are “a positive influence for social order and solidarity, and are therefore an indispensable element of social life”. I wonder how this squares with employers and politicians who seem to be in favour of ‘de-unionisation’ of the workplace.

People who try to portray the Church as being essentially right-wing in terms of it’s view of economics are simply incorrect. It is wrong to try to use the Church as a justification for personally held political views.

These are important points that are in need of consideration in this discussion.

 

[Abu]

Brendan 64 #206
The Church certainly doesn’t condemn a welfare state

The Welfare State is condemned clearly as it rubbishes the principle of subsidiarity.

The reality from the acknowledged Saint John Paul II in Centesimus Annus, 1991:
#48. “Another task of the State is that of overseeing and directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector. However, primary responsibility in this area belongs not to the State but to individuals and to the various groups and associations which make up society. The State could not directly ensure the right to work for all its citizens unless it controlled every aspect of economic life and restricted the free initiative of individuals. This does not mean, however, that the State has no competence in this domain, as was claimed by those who argued against any rules in the economic sphere. Rather, the State has a duty to sustain business activities by creating conditions which will ensure job opportunities, by stimulating those activities where they are lacking or by supporting them in moments of crisis."

'In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of **creating a new type of State, the so-called “Welfare State”. **This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the “Social Assistance State”. Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.’ [My emphasis].

 

[Robert_Sock]

This further display of ignorance here is another example of the appalling lack of knowledge of Catholic social doctrine so often exposed, which includes Robert Sock. The Welfare State is condemned clearly as it rubbishes the principle of subsidiarity.

The reality from the acknowledged Saint John Paul II in Centesimus Annus, 1991:
#48. “Another task of the State is that of overseeing and directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector. However, primary responsibility in this area belongs not to the State but to individuals and to the various groups and associations which make up society. The State could not directly ensure the right to work for all its citizens unless it controlled every aspect of economic life and restricted the free initiative of individuals. This does not mean, however, that the State has no competence in this domain, as was claimed by those who argued against any rules in the economic sphere. Rather, the State has a duty to sustain business activities by creating conditions which will ensure job opportunities, by stimulating those activities where they are lacking or by supporting them in moments of crisis."

'In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of **creating a new type of State, the so-called “Welfare State”. **This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the “Social Assistance State”. Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.’ [My emphasis].

Where in any of my posts am I advocating a welfare state? Please, do not make things up and accuse me of things that are simply not true! Provide a full quote. Yes, I’m advocating that those who refuse work to receive food and shelter, but that’s a far cry from my advocating a welfare state.

 

[Abu]

Brendan 64 #206
The Church also condemns unregulated free-market Capitalism.

What he tilts at has never existed in any society or country, only in the minds of a few economists; he is thus unable to point to any unregulated laissez-faire market. There is no such thing as “unregulated capitalism”. “Capitalism” is a derogatory term coined by Karl Marx.

The acknowledged Saint John Paul II dislikes that term, as he makes clear as he affirms free enterprise in Centesimus Annus, 1991:
CA 42. ‘If by “capitalism” is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a “business economy”, “market economy” or simply “free economy”.
‘CA 43. The Church has no models to present;’

Free enterprise is affirmed also here: “Society does not have to protect itself from the market, as if the development of the latter were ipso facto to entail the death of authentically human relations…Therefore it is not the instrument that must be called to account, but individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility.” (Caritas in Veritate, Benedict XVI, 2009, #36).

 

[Abu]

Robert Sock #210
Where in any of my posts am I advocating a welfare state?

The answer:

Robert Sock #208
These are important points that are in need of consideration in this discussion.

Which includes Brendan’s #206 “The Church certainly doesn’t condemn a welfare state”

So Sock, in recommending for consideration that fallacy of a welfare state indicates his lack of knowledge of how Catholic social doctrine is massacred by some here, including his own rant against St Paul.

 

[Robert_Sock]

The answer:
Which includes Brendan’s #206 “The Church certainly doesn’t condemn a welfare state”

So Sock, in recommending for consideration that fallacy of a welfare state indicates his lack of knowledge of how Catholic social doctrine is massacred by some here, including his own rant against St Paul.

Reread my post and see that I’m only stating that the points (he’s making more than one point) are worthy of discussion, but nowhere in the thread do I personally advocate a welfare state.

 

[St_Francis]

That statement is incorrect. The Church certainly doesn’t condemn a welfare state, and the Church only condemns Socialism so far as it contains an atheistic component. The Church also condemns unregulated free-market Capitalism.

The Church does not condemn socialism "only insofar as it contains an atheistic component.
from Rerum Novarum:

{5}…Socialists, therefore, by endeavoring to transfer the possessions of individuals to the community at large, strike at the interests of every wage-earner, since they would deprive him of the liberty of disposing of his wages, and thereby of all hope and possibility of increasing his resources and of bettering his condition in life.
{6} What is of far greater moment, however, is the fact that the remedy they propose is manifestly against justice. For, every man has by nature the right to possess property as his own.​

 

[St_Francis]

Please tell me where I’m coming across as a communist, socialist and or somebody into a welfare state? Again, I’m talking about self-help, self-sufficiency and the creation of decent-paying jobs, all of which are easily available in a largely free-market society. In fact, the implementation of what I’m suggesting would probably cost less in government subsidies than what we are spending today, plus it would be a boon to our economy.

What is the difference between what you are suggesting and what the US has as its basic goal–high employment, with government aid for those those are not working? What specifically do you find in the US system which does not accord with what you are proposing?

Yes, we currently have high unemployment, but we generally have higher rates of employment and lower rates of poverty.

 

[epan]

What is the difference between what you are suggesting and what the US has as its basic goal–high employment, with government aid for those those are not working? What specifically do you find in the US system which does not accord with what you are proposing?

Yes, we currently have high unemployment, but we generally have higher rates of employment and lower rates of poverty.

There is a very serious challenge on the horizon, which our legislators seem to be ignoring. What does a society do with a work force of laborers, when there is an ever decreasing amount of labor intensive jobs? How many fast food restaurants, or service related businesses do we need? How many can the shrinking working class, or the ownership class support?

The fact is that the economic structure of society everywhere is changing. It is true that manufacturing is centric to Asia, now. However, this may change as current trends in robotics continue. Once a robot costs less than a Chinese laborer, then those laborers will be replaced by the cheaper alternative, just as the American factory worker has been replaced by cheaper labor abroad.

The idea of a “Star Trek Utopia” may be coming. Who needs money, when machines do all the work? I am suggesting that we need to think seriously about this changing paradigm. The old rules don’t seem to apply anymore, quite often, and they will apply less and less, going into the future.

Contrary to the trend of declining labor requirements, is the burgeoning population.

I have no idea how we will adapt to these changes, as a society. It is already accepted by even conservative economists that there is a growing percentage of “structural” unemployment in Europe, and I would also say in the US. There is no going back. I believe that it will get worse.

This is a social justice issue, as the other side of this coin is what is going on with the ownership class. The accumulation of wealth is unprecedented in modern times. How do we redress this injustice?