Sure.
So poor people should not get married? If they get a job at, say for the continuation of this conversation, McDonalds, and they do as you say…work, learn, get promoted, and someday manage the place, they should not get married? Or the person who went to community college and works at an office who got promoted to office manager making, say, $30k. He should never get married? Since when did marriage be a priveledge for only those who make enough money?
Ooops. Hit “send” too soon. Go back to my examples.
She was able to support her children until her husband died. So you’re “don’t get married if you don’t have enough money scenario” doesn’t work here.
He once had health insurance with his job. They made it too costly by raising the premiums and cutting his salary. He’s been searching for a better job, but the economy in our state is terrible, and he has had no luch. So you’re “don’t get married if you don’t have enough money scenario” doesn’t work here.
Again, you’re “don’t get married if you don’t have enough money scenario” doesn’t work here.
Ugh. Sorry for serial posting, but I can’t let this go. I don’t think anyone insinuated that most people are on minimum wage. I think we are saying that enough people are that we shouldn’t let them fall through the cracks.
A person who cannot support a family should defer marriage until he can support them. To do otherwise is to behave irresponsibily.
When they can support a family. Not before.
When they can support a family. Not before.
Marriage is neiter a privilege nor a right. It is a responsibility. If you cannot or will not carry out your responsibility, don’t take the vows.Since when did marriage be a priveledge for only those who make enough money?
I almost mentioned this. About half of “medical” employees are there to interface with the insurance and governmental bodies involved in paying them. Then there are the “clearing houses” the collect the bills and send them to offices, and the insurance companies themselves, which act as litigator, sponge, and profit reducer, and the government which acts as a litigator, sponge, and profit reducer.
You don’t have to worry about me. I may get worked up about some issues, but I am not easily offended. I have been through much worse in my life and everyone at my age has.Okay. Therein lies our confusion here.I mean to say “who continue to make poor financial choices”. I’m sorry. I should have included that. I figured you’d know what I meant because the issue at hand was finances and health insurance. When I re-read my post, I understand your confusion. Sorry!
Other cultures promote this type of activity by requiring dowries of some sort and/or continued support by the male’s parents.
I object. Marriage is a means by which the poor, by means of joining their work and resources, can escape from their condition.
I didn’t say anyone said that here…I’m saying that is what we also need to take into account…that the costs of that does get passed on to all of us. It’s not so much that people are going to doctors and getting in free…as a matter of fact, most doctors have a strict policy of paying at the time of service. But, many people without insurance visit emergency rooms for all types of ailments…ranging from mild to severe…(not just emergencies) and emergency room costs are more than a dr’s visit…so, I’m just pointing this out, that these costs are absorbed by all of us who pay for insurance. I never said anyone here said that…sorry if that was inferred, but that wasn’t my implication.
Everyone doesn’t have the same opportunities. Yes, in some ways, we ‘create’ our own opportunities…what is that saying? Luck happens when we prepare to do the right things? Something like that. But, many people…it’s cyclical…the welfare system is what needs reform. Welfare was never intended to give people a free ride for life…to keep generations dependent on it. I think that one should be on welfare for two years…that’s it. Like unemployment…when my husband was laid off many years ago…he was only allowed unemployment for a year…and thankfully, he found work before that, but the point is, that welfare should have the same stipulations. Not just…here’s your meal ticket for life, and you don’t need to ever go find work…or work that supports your family. If you give too many handouts, some (many) people will take advantage. Yes, welfare is necessary for those who truly need it…but many stay on it, and it just gets passed on as a ‘way of life’ for many generations.
Right. I was doing that on purpose because it should not matter if the “victim” is sympathetic or not. that’s what I was trying to say. We are so judgemental of others…of who is deserving of our sympathy and our tax dollars, that we often don’t look at the big picture. WHY is that woman a single mother? Maybe she’s divorced, Maybe we was never married. Maybe she is a widow. We don’t know her story, therefore we should not judge her out of hand when she picks up her welfare check or is in need of government-subsidized health care.
That is a fundamental problem with any governmental system, you give out aid too freely it can set itself up to be abused, and possibly more than that, it can systematically encourage conditions that causes those who are victims to stay “victims.” On the other end of the spectrum if aid given is too restrictive, it causes those who people actually think ought to receive the aid not receive it.
Ah, but her circumstances do matter. Government is not giving away its own money. It is giving away money taken from the people who earned it. Government may have the duty to be a good steward, but the track record on that score is miserable.
The problem is, then, who’s morality do we judge her by? As Catholics, we obviously belive that morality should never be relative, however, not everyone in the US is Catholic. Do we judge her by the athiest’s moral values? The Christian’s? Do you judge her by whether or not she’s broken any laws?
No I am not saying that we judge her at all. I am saying that we judge each case by objective criteria. The duty to support your children is not just Catholic teaching, it is enshrined in the statutes of our civil government. That is the very same government that you want to dispense other people’s money without determining whether or not the law has been followed. Is that your position or not?
I’m not sure I understand what you are asking me. Do I think people should commit fraud to obtain benefits? Absolutely not. I’m not sure where fraud entered our conversation.
We should do what we can to help the poor – but bear in mind Saint Paul’s cautions about excessive charity and its negative effect on the recipients.
Okay, then. Based on my examples of real people, specifically, how do we help them?