S
St_Francis
Guest
Some Catholics post from their faith, and others from their politics; both sides of the aisle.
- Status
S
St_Francis
Guest
The reason that these programs are under threat is that they are economically unsustainable. You cannot keep handing money over to people without eventually runnng out. You cannot maintain an economy when you reward those who do not work.
Ayn Rand said one thing that I agreed with in discussing Communism: that needs will always outstrip the ability to provide (she said it much better than I).
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
The nature of the economy is morally unsustainable.
Its not a reward; its a human right which is grounded in natural law.
Straw-man and a red herring. I am not talking about communism. I am taking about natural human rights.
You can follow Any Rand if you want to. I am only interested in whats right, and letting people stave to death is morally wrong and thankfully both the Pope and the some states recognize this. This is why the UK has a public health service and a benefit service. This is simply because the value of human life, your brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, is greater than profit margins.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
And the seniors whose Medicare is (we are assured) going to be cut by $500 billion? Who is valuing their lives? And those who wait in vans outside emergency rooms in Britain or can’t get medical services in time? Who is valuing their lives?
And the millions of Americans who don’t have health insurance just because they don’t want it even though they could afford it, why are others going to be obliged to pay more for them? What does that have to do with valuing human lives?
A
Abu
Guest
There need be no trouble with Catholic Social Teaching if the fundamentals were accepted. The selfists want to follow their own prejudices, feelings and desires rather than that teaching.
It is high time that the sloppy repetitive rhetoric routinely pedaled here be replaced by reason and faith. Is complacency and self-deception so strong that the dehumanizing effects of bureaucratic, socialist state programs are not even appreciated?
On the welfare State:
From Centesimus Annus (John Paul II, 1991):
“48. Economic activity, especially the activity of a market economy, cannot be conducted in an institutional, juridical or political vacuum. On the contrary, it presupposes sure guarantees of individual freedom and private property, as well as a stable currency and efficient public services. Hence the principle task of the State is to guarantee this security, so that those who work and produce can enjoy the fruits of their labours and thus feel encouraged to work efficiently and honestly. The absence of stability, together with the corruption of public officials and the spread of improper sources of growing rich and of easy profits deriving from illegal or purely speculative activities, constitutes one of the chief obstacles to development and to the economic order.
“Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State [Welfare 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.100
“By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbours to those in need. It should be added that certain kinds of demands often call for a response which is not simply material but which is capable of perceiving the deeper human need. One thinks of the condition of refugees, immigrants, the elderly, the sick, and all those in circumstances which call for assistance, such as drug abusers: all these people can be helped effectively only by those who offer them genuine fraternal support, in addition to the necessary care.”
“Note
100. Pius XI, Encyclical Letter Quadragesimo Anno, I : loc. cit., 184-186.”
It is high time that the sloppy repetitive rhetoric routinely pedaled here be replaced by reason and faith. Is complacency and self-deception so strong that the dehumanizing effects of bureaucratic, socialist state programs are not even appreciated?
On the welfare State:
From Centesimus Annus (John Paul II, 1991):
“48. Economic activity, especially the activity of a market economy, cannot be conducted in an institutional, juridical or political vacuum. On the contrary, it presupposes sure guarantees of individual freedom and private property, as well as a stable currency and efficient public services. Hence the principle task of the State is to guarantee this security, so that those who work and produce can enjoy the fruits of their labours and thus feel encouraged to work efficiently and honestly. The absence of stability, together with the corruption of public officials and the spread of improper sources of growing rich and of easy profits deriving from illegal or purely speculative activities, constitutes one of the chief obstacles to development and to the economic order.
“Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State [Welfare 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.100
“By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbours to those in need. It should be added that certain kinds of demands often call for a response which is not simply material but which is capable of perceiving the deeper human need. One thinks of the condition of refugees, immigrants, the elderly, the sick, and all those in circumstances which call for assistance, such as drug abusers: all these people can be helped effectively only by those who offer them genuine fraternal support, in addition to the necessary care.”
“Note
100. Pius XI, Encyclical Letter Quadragesimo Anno, I : loc. cit., 184-186.”
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
The Church has recognized a de facto bill of rights for the working class in all countries, rights that are “based on the nature of the human person and on his transcendent dignity.” These rights are drawn from the many social encyclicals that have been written in the last 120 years, and are summarized and listed in paragraph 301 of the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church.
They are:
Code:
*** The right to a just wage.**
* The right to rest.
* The right to a working environment and to manufacturing processes that are not harmful to the workers' physical health or moral integrity.
* The right that one's personality in the workplace should be safeguarded without suffering any affront to one's conscience or personal dignity.
* **The right to appropriate subsidies necessary for the subsistence of unemployed workers and their families.**
* The right to a pension and to insurance for old age, sickness, and in case of work-related accidents.
* The right to social security connected with maternity.
* The right to assemble and form associations.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
The Church has recognized a de facto bill of rights for the working class in all countries, rights that are “based on the nature of the human person and on his transcendent dignity.” These rights are drawn from the many social encyclicals that have been written in the last 120 years, and are summarized and listed in paragraph 301 of the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church.
They are:
Code:
*** The right to a just wage.**
* The right to rest.
* The right to a working environment and to manufacturing processes that are not harmful to the workers' physical health or moral integrity.
* The right that one's personality in the workplace should be safeguarded without suffering any affront to one's conscience or personal dignity.
* **The right to appropriate subsidies necessary for the subsistence of unemployed workers and their families.**
* The right to a pension and to insurance for old age, sickness, and in case of work-related accidents.
* The right to social security connected with maternity.
* The right to assemble and form associations.
S
St_Francis
Guest
I have no idea what you mean by this.
When you give money bureaucratically and impersonally to anyone who has a lack of money without reference to what they are doing, you are rewarding not working on the part of those who show up who could work.
I am not sure how things are in England, btw, I am talking about the US. I do know that the US’s problem with lack of subsidiarity is much great than that of England simply because of the difference in size.
I am not saying that England is communistic, but that Rand’s quote fits in: if you have a situation in which people’s needs are taken care of by the government, then you end up with a situation in which people’s needs expand beyond the ability of the economy to fill them. That seems to be what is happening in England, there is simply not enough money to pay for all of this.
I am only interested in whats right, and letting people stave to death is morally wrong and thankfully both the Pope and the some states recognize this. This is why the UK has a public health service and a benefit service. This is simply because the value of human life, your brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, is greater than profit margins.
Unbelievable as it may sound, there are other ways of helping people than through the government. In fact, in England there was wonderful “social services” provision through the monasteries and convents: nuns and monks cared for the handicapped, the ill, the elderly, the poor, the lepers, and were supported in this by those around them. Then Henry 8th came along and stole all the properties, leaving the needy in destitution.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
The Church says things for a reason. I stand by the following with my life.
The Church has recognized a de facto bill of rights for the working class in all countries, rights that are “based on the nature of the human person and on his transcendent dignity.” These rights are drawn from the many social encyclicals that have been written in the last 120 years, and are summarized and listed in paragraph 301 of the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church.
They are:
Code:
*** The right to a just wage.**
* The right to rest.
* The right to a working environment and to manufacturing processes that are not harmful to the workers' physical health or moral integrity.
* The right that one's personality in the workplace should be safeguarded without suffering any affront to one's conscience or personal dignity.
* **The right to appropriate subsidies necessary for the subsistence of unemployed workers and their families.**
* The right to a pension and to insurance for old age, sickness, and in case of work-related accidents.
* The right to social security connected with maternity.
* The right to assemble and form associations.
A
andyandely1997
Guest
I have no problem helping the helpless, but today, the helpless include many clueless who could help themselves. Pride also keeps many Americans from working, since some work is supposedly beneath them. A living wage is for the necessities of life, and not all the non-essentials, which our entitlement generation believes is due to them.
P
portarica
Guest
Isn’t the 500 billion supposed to come out of the waste in the system? That was part of the deal to eliminate the Medicare and Medicaid fraud that goes on in the system now.
Even the republicans realize there is waste in the present system, doesn’t the drug plan in place now that prevents the govt from negotiating with big Pharma cost tens of billions a year? That is a significant portion of the 500 billion over the ten or twenty year time frame of the plan. Or to put it another way, less than one year of the defense budget, which is as large as 2/3 's of defense budget of the rest of the world.(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
And the millions that don’t have insurance are just rolling the dice and betting that when they make a trip to the hospital, we will pay for it. The valuing of human life comes when the person paying the insurance realizes that it may be better to pay the insurance than to say smoke a pack of butts a day.
S
St_Francis
Guest
Defense is one of the tasks proper to the federal government. And the reason ours is so high and the rest of the world’s is so low is that we have spent 60 years protecting a good part of the world. For example, after WW2, Japan’s military was severely restricted, but was of course still under threat from China and later N Korea. So we have been protecting Japan.
And after WW2, we stayed in West Germany, and worked with the rest of Europe to protect it from the Soviet Union, which had this uncomfortable little habit of gobbling up neighboring nations.
So I think it is very unfair to compare our military spending with that of other nations, which would quite probably have had to pay more for their military over the years, if not now, if we hadn’t contributed what we did.
I agree that these expenses could surely be cut now, 20+ years after the demise of the Soviet Union.
However, our military budget, which *is *an appropriate task for the federal government, is just under 20% of the US annual budget (2010) (apparently *not *including all the stimulus packages).
J
Julian0404
Guest
There is no question that the Industrial Revolution combined with Darwin’s theory contributed to terrible conditions, which was further magnified by the huge wave of immigration into the US. I also think this Darwinian “survival of the fittest” is still part of our Business Schools, but now taught as “profit is the sole goal of any business”. Yes, without the profit, there is no business, but if you are blessed by GOD and your business is successful than at what point does “more” profit exceed the value of providing “more” assistance to your employees - who helped you get the profit.
GOD was not against wealth, as HE created the wealthiest man of his age, being Solomon. But GOD clearly teaches us that “riches” can make it very difficult to pass through the “eye of the needle”. GOD also teaches that charity is of great value in heaven. So if you are a successful business person, than can you have it both ways? Can you be profitable and serve GOD’s desire for charity? The answer is yes and you can do it without socialism or communism provided you are truly a GOD fearing man, or at least a kind man who recognizes your blessing are greater than your own skills or efforts.
And you cannot argue that a “BIG” Corporation cannot do this, and thus excuse yourself for the BIG Corp’s in USA account for 10-20% of all employment. It is the mom & pop’s and small firms that are truly the economic engines of any successful economy to include the USA.
So I still consider “free enterprise” and the “invisible hand” to be the better solution for any economy, and hope that entrepreneurial individuals who are blessed with success will in turn bless those who have helped them for “…by the scales you measure, so shall ye be measured…”.
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
Why didn’t they just do this anyway? Why did it take this huge piece of legislation, that the Speaker of the House jokingly spoke about, “We have to pass this bill so you can find out what’s in it!” There was no need to pass this legislation in order to stop fraud. That was a LIE, and yet another excuse for a department to add to the bureaucracy. More regulation, more restriction, and more money spent to stop money being spent! Ridiculous.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Yes, yes, yes. We read it, read it, read it.
You didn’t quote the part about how one middle class person is supposed to give part of his income to another, marginally less wealthy middle class person who really doesn’t need it, even though it raises the overall costs for both. That’s what I was talking about, and that’s fundamentally what the Obamacare law does. You didn’t quote it because it isn’t there.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
So they tell us. Likely I have an advantage over you in being older. Politicians have been saying this all my adult life, but it never happens. So, either Obama & Co deliberately lied about this in order to cook the numbers and make the health insurance law look less expensive than it really is, or they really do mean to cut 500 billion out of that part of Medicare they actually can manage.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
Money money money, da da, in my tummy, da da, in a rich mans world.
winter: Homeless guy)
P
portarica
Guest
A great portion of the defense budget is just welfare for corporations . And the trillion or so that will be spent on Iraq and Afghanistan to promote Islamic states is just a total waste of $$ and more importantly of lives.
As far as comparing our spending to other countries, why is that unfair? The point is that so much of why we said we were spending so much has been shown to be false .
And the demise of the USSR was because they were spending too much on defense and not investing in their future, and now that is coming to pass here as well.
Peace
S
St_Francis
Guest
My point is that military is an appropriate area for federal spending, altho the funds may in particular areas be misspent, which is a completely separate issue.
And I cannot agree that military spending is welfare for corporations if the corps are building things for military use or providing a service for the military; that is just equivocation.
I don’t know what you mean by saying so much was shown to be false… but as to whether comparing our spending to that of other nations is fair or not, I would say it most certainly is, since because of our spending, they did and do not need to spend so much.
Certainly military spending was one of the major contributions to the demise of the Soviet Union, but the actual (as opposed ot published) amount of military spending in the USSR before its fall was 15% or more of its GDP, while ours is currently less than 4% of GDP, so I think we have a ways to go.
- Status