Is fiscal conservatism not Christian?

[EphelDuath]

Wouldn’t supporting government policies that help the sick and the poor the most – such as universal health care, accident insurance and minimum wage – be the most Christly thing to do? The argument against that is that it means we have less economic freedom, though our primary concern is to help the poor, which charity simply cannot account for by itself.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Wouldn’t supporting government policies that help the sick and the poor the most – such as universal health care, accident insurance and minimum wage – be the most Christly thing to do? The argument against that is that it means we have less economic freedom, though our primary concern is to help the poor, which charity simply cannot account for by itself.

You’re right.

Unfortunately the liberals, who are more likely to support such policies, also aren’t very orthodox.

 

[bilop]

Wouldn’t supporting government policies that help the sick and the poor the most – such as universal health care, accident insurance and minimum wage – be the most Christly thing to do? The argument against that is that it means we have less economic freedom, though our primary concern is to help the poor, which charity simply cannot account for by itself.

No.

The responsibility to help the poor and sick lies with the individual and voluntary organizations through charity.

Charity has 5 major advantages over government programs: 1) It give graces to the donor 2) It is more efficient/less waste and bureaucracy 3) the government can’t impose its ideology on the programs (i.e. funding for planned parenthood). 4) Taxes have a distortionary effect and make the economy less efficient, while charity does not, 5) charities can screen out those who are not truly in need, but are only taking advantage.

God Bless

 

[soma]

Many Charities are scams. The government is accountable to the people. It is sad when Christians make up excuses for not helping the poor.

 

[bilop]

Many Charities are scams. The government is accountable to the people. It is sad when Christians make up excuses for not helping the poor.

Pardon me? Who are you to make such accusations?

Many goverment programs are scams. Do you have any idea the extent of fraud in Medicaid and Medicare and Welfare programs?

Not to mention the fact that every $1 in taxes costs $2 to raise through economic distortion.

And the massive bureaucracy in government that eats up most of the spending.

Example from education. In my town the Catholic School costs $5500 per student, and breaks even. The public schools cost $21,000 per student. Yet, many highly educated people choose the Catholic School (this is a rich town) and voluntarily pay tuition in addition to school tax. This indicates, to me, that the Catholic school is better, at 1/4 the cost.

It is the donors responsibility to make sure they give to legitimate charities, as I do. It’s not hard, Catholic Charities is a fine choice,

God Bless

 

[stinkyweed]

Be very careful what you give government control over. Socialized medicine for example decides who gets care. A friend in a country with this type of health system was denied treatment due to cost. The cost of her treatment for one month they could do several gallbladder surgery and an MRI, so a panel allowed her to die rather than treat. When a nation must balance who gets care with a budget medical is not for all. The chronically ill are first to be denied because after all they are not going to be cured,we can spend the money on one who will, then there is that treatment that cost so much and might not work, better to use on prevention. Be careful who you ask to pay for the free lunch there is never enough food if governments are providing.

 

[EphelDuath]

No.

The responsibility to help the poor and sick lies with the individual and voluntary organizations through charity.

I don’t see who gets to decide whose responsibility is whose. If the power to help the poor is right within our grasp and we simply refuse to because of squabbles over political theory, the only people we’re hurting is the poor.

Charity has 5 major advantages over government programs: 1) It give graces to the donor

Choosing to help the poor is better than being forced to, I agree. Though a society that does not help the poor because its citizens are uncharitable is an injustice.

1. It is more efficient/less waste and bureaucracy

Debatable. For things such as social security, certainly. Not for something like universal health care, though.

1. the government can’t impose its ideology on the programs (i.e. funding for planned parenthood).

True, though I don’t see how that applies to something like minimum wage or accident insurance.

1. Taxes have a distortionary effect and make the economy less efficient, while charity does not,

A lot of poor people are stuck in the position they are because they cannot afford mandatory operations. Free health care would solve that, charity does not.

1. charities can screen out those who are not truly in need, but are only taking advantage.

People take advantage of charities, too. More importantly, many people will not donate freely if given the chance; the only way to get enough money to help the poor is progressive taxation.

 

[EphelDuath]

Be very careful what you give government control over. Socialized medicine for example decides who gets care. A friend in a country with this type of health system was denied treatment due to cost.

That’s tragic, but equally tragic to people who simply die because they cannot afford the expensive treatments. We have to consider everybody in this issue.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

No.

The responsibility to help the poor and sick lies with the individual and voluntary organizations through charity.

Charity has 5 major advantages over government programs: 1) It give graces to the donor 2) It is more efficient/less waste and bureaucracy 3) the government can’t impose its ideology on the programs (i.e. funding for planned parenthood). 4) Taxes have a distortionary effect and make the economy less efficient, while charity does not, 5) charities can screen out those who are not truly in need, but are only taking advantage.

God Bless

If you are talking about what is most helpful to the person in need: 1) does not apply. 2) this may be true, but so far private charity of course has not even made a serious dent in any of our most pressing social issues. 3) planned parenthood is not a govt program and is not designed to help the needy. Please use a valid example. What proof do you have of this beyond the bold statement? What govt ideology are you opposed to? 4) explain why charity doesn’t burden the economy like taxes, assuming both amounst were equal? 5) why cannot govt screen out those who are not “truly” in need as you claim? They screen out lots of people it seems to me. What statistics have you to establish that people are taking advantage. It’s been my experience in Catholic charities that few are asked anything. Help is given mostly when asked for.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Pardon me? Who are you to make such accusations?

Many goverment programs are scams. Do you have any idea the extent of fraud in Medicaid and Medicare and Welfare programs?

Not to mention the fact that every $1 in taxes costs $2 to raise through economic distortion.

And the massive bureaucracy in government that eats up most of the spending.

Example from education. In my town the Catholic School costs $5500 per student, and breaks even. The public schools cost $21,000 per student. Yet, many highly educated people choose the Catholic School (this is a rich town) and voluntarily pay tuition in addition to school tax. This indicates, to me, that the Catholic school is better, at 1/4 the cost.

It is the donors responsibility to make sure they give to legitimate charities, as I do. It’s not hard, Catholic Charities is a fine choice,

God Bless

Unfortunately the ones who reap the benefits from fraud in health care are doctors and hospitals and other caregivers. NOT the receivers.

And who are you to make such claims? What is economic distortion? and where are your proofs?

 

[BlaineTog]

Wouldn’t supporting government policies that help the sick and the poor the most – such as universal health care, accident insurance and minimum wage – be the most Christly thing to do? The argument against that is that it means we have less economic freedom, though our primary concern is to help the poor, which charity simply cannot account for by itself.

One argument might be from a practical standpoint, that the government wouldn’t be able to do all that very well, if at all. Socialized healthcare, for example, could cause the entire health care system to collapse. Or maybe not, I dunno, I’m just throwing out potentialities.

 

[puzzleannie]

Wouldn’t supporting government policies that help the sick and the poor the most – such as universal health care, accident insurance and minimum wage – be the most Christly thing to do? .

supporting fiscal and social policy that assure the greatest good to the greatest number, with a preferential option to help those least able to help themselves, would be the Christian approach. However it is entirely sound to analyze the options proposed and conclude that a conservative fiscal policy is more likely to help the most people in the long run. Which policy will have the desired effect is a matter of opinion, not doctrine.

 

[Cajetan]

Fiscal “liberalism” – in the contemporary sense, which means socialism – is merely putting a Band-Aid on an axe-wound. It is a cheap fix. It ultimately causes more evils that it seeks to cure.

Fiscal “conservatism” – in the contemporary sense, meaning classical liberalism – leaves human beings the freedom to sort out evils in a genuine way. That is, through a free giving of love. (This presupposes that we are not forced by some government entity to “do the right thing,” which politicians tend to have erroneous notions of.)

I firmly believe that the latter is the more Christian option. The former may appear to be the more Christian, but this is a superficial examination. It is the road of Marxist liberation theology.

 

[bilop]

If you are talking about what is most helpful to the person in need: 1) does not apply. 2) this may be true, but so far private charity of course has not even made a serious dent in any of our most pressing social issues. 3) planned parenthood is not a govt program and is not designed to help the needy. Please use a valid example. What proof do you have of this beyond the bold statement? What govt ideology are you opposed to? 4) explain why charity doesn’t burden the economy like taxes, assuming both amounst were equal? 5) why cannot govt screen out those who are not “truly” in need as you claim? They screen out lots of people it seems to me. What statistics have you to establish that people are taking advantage. It’s been my experience in Catholic charities that few are asked anything. Help is given mostly when asked for.

1. I’m talking about what is most helpful to society in general. The graces gained by to donor are the major reason for the Christian emphasis on charity.
2. Private charity helps millions of people each year. Take a look at what Catholic Charities or the Salvation Army achieves. Or all the Catholic and not-for-profit hospitals.

Before 1930, almost all help for the sick and poor in the U.S. was private Charity, and there was a lot of it. Benevolent societies, burial and insurance socities, orphanages, hospitals, settlement houses, etc.

1. Planned Parenthood gets government money in most states and counties. You can bet that if we get socialized medicine abortion on demand will be covered, along with sterilization, sex changes, in vitro, etc. A person who morally opposes these things will have no choice but to fund it.
2. Taxes distort incentives to work, save, invest, etc. For example, if you could take a 2nd job at $10 per hour you might, but if you only get $6 after taxes, you’re less likely to work, lowering economic output. Likewise, taxes lower returns on invetsments, so people don’t invest in new businesses, or move their businesses overseas. Voluntary charity, just like any voluntary spending, can’t distort behavior b/c it is voluntary.
3. Government aid is set up as “entitlements”. The bureaucracy gets more money the more “clients” it has. They have no incentive to screen people out. Bureaucracies love to grow.

God Bless

 

[Swan]

I don’t see who gets to decide whose responsibility is whose. If the power to help the poor is right within our grasp and we simply refuse to because of squabbles over political theory, the only people we’re hurting is the poor.

Choosing to help the poor is better than being forced to, I agree. Though a society that does not help the poor because its citizens are uncharitable is an injustice.

Debatable. For things such as social security, certainly. Not for something like universal health care, though.

True, though I don’t see how that applies to something like minimum wage or accident insurance.

A lot of poor people are stuck in the position they are because they cannot afford mandatory operations. Free health care would solve that, charity does not.

People take advantage of charities, too. More importantly, many people will not donate freely if given the chance; the only way to get enough money to help the poor is progressive taxation.

Excellent response! I think one of the reason we should let government take care of thes things is because governement is, by its very nature, a non-profit organization. It also has the infrastructure and the control on taxation and spending. There are abuses everywhere. Government could be made to work in a much more efficient manner. Also, private charity just doesn’t come close to meeting the needs, bascially because most people, when given the choice, look out for number one. As for what is best for society, when the lowest are rasied we all benefit. I see so many folks on this forum complaining about how individulaistic people are and how this leads to social ills (divorce, abortion, homosexuality, etc) but these same folks have no problem with individualism when it comes to fiscal (not sexual) issues. Seems a little like hypocrisy to me.

 

[bilop]

Excellent response! I think one of the reason we should let government take care of thes things is because governement is, by its very nature, a non-profit organization. It also has the infrastructure and the control on taxation and spending. There are abuses everywhere. Government could be made to work in a much more efficient manner. Also, private charity just doesn’t come close to meeting the needs, bascially because most people, when given the choice, look out for number one. As for what is best for society, when the lowest are rasied we all benefit. I see so many folks on this forum complaining about how individulaistic people are and how this leads to social ills (divorce, abortion, homosexuality, etc) but these same folks have no problem with individualism when it comes to fiscal (not sexual) issues. Seems a little like hypocrisy to me.

The government is an organizational nightmare. Bureaucracy and waste are rampant. High levels of taxation destroy economic growth.

The Church and Christianity is individualistic. We will be judged as individuals. We sin and do good as indiviuals. We give charity as individuals.

Giving the government control over large areas of the economy has never worked, anywhere.

God Bless

 

[Flopfoot]

Has anyone read Pope Benedict XVI’s first encyclical “Dei Caritas Est” (God is love)? There is a section where he sort of addresses this issue, talking about charity and justice, refuting some marxist claims etc. It’s been a while since I read it and I don’t remember exactly what he said but I think he’s on the side of “more important to be charitable than to try and change the government”. Someone else might want to quote it or link to it.

 

[soma]

1. Why doesn’t the United States have universal health care as a right of citizenship? The United States is the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee access to health care as a right of citizenship. 28 industrialized nations have single payer universal health care systems, while 1 (Germany) has a multipayer universal health care system like President Clinton proposed for the United States.
2. Myth One: The United States has the best health care system in the world.
   • Fact One: The United States ranks 23rd in infant mortality, down from 12th in 1960 and 21st in 1990
   • Fact Two: The United States ranks 20th in life expectancy for women down from 1st in 1945 and 13th in 1960
   • Fact Three: The United States ranks 21st in life expectancy for men down from 1st in 1945 and 17th in 1960.
   • Fact Four: The United States ranks between 50th and 100th in immunizations depending on the immunization. Overall US is 67th, right behind Botswana
   • Fact Five: Outcome studies on a variety of diseases, such as coronary artery disease, and renal failure show the United States to rank below Canada and a wide variety of industrialized nations.
   • Conclusion: The United States ranks poorly relative to other industrialized nations in health care despite having the best trained health care providers and the best medical infrastructure of any industrialized nation
3. Myth Two: Universal Health Care Would Be Too Expensive
   • Fact One: The United States spends at least 40% more per capita on health care than any other industrialized country with universal health care
   • Fact Two: Federal studies by the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting office show that single payer universal health care would save 100 to 200 Billion dollars per year despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits.
   • Fact Three: State studies by Massachusetts and Connecticut have shown that single payer universal health care would save 1 to 2 Billion dollars per year from the total medical expenses in those states despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits
   • Fact Four: The costs of health care in Canada as a % of GNP, which were identical to the United States when Canada changed to a single payer, universal health care system in 1971, have increased at a rate much lower than the United States, despite the US economy being much stronger than Canada’s.
   • Conclusion: Single payer universal health care costs would be lower than the current US system due to lower administrative costs. The United States spends 50 to 100% more on administration than single payer systems. By lowering these administrative costs the United States would have the ability to provide universal health care, without managed care, increase benefits and still save money
4. Myth Three: Universal Health Care Would Deprive Citizens of Needed Services
   • Fact One: Studies reveal that citizens in universal health care systems have more doctor visits and more hospital days than in the US
   • Fact Two: Around 30% of Americans have problem accessing health care due to payment problems or access to care, far more than any other industrialized country. About 17% of our population is without health insurance. About 75% of ill uninsured people have trouble accessing/paying for health care.
   • Fact Three: Comparisons of Difficulties Accessing Care Are Shown To Be Greater In The US Than Canada (see graph)
   • Fact Four: Access to health care is directly related to income and race in the United States. As a result the poor and minorities have poorer health than the wealthy and the whites.
   • Fact Five: There would be no lines under a universal health care system in the United States because we have about a 30% oversupply of medical equipment and surgeons, whereas demand would increase about 15%
   • Conclusion: The US denies access to health care based on the ability to pay. Under a universal health care system all would access care. There would be no lines as in other industrialized countries due to the oversupply in our providers and infrastructure, and the willingness/ability of the United States to spend more on health care than other industrialized nations.

cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for_universal_health_care_in_the_united_states.htm

 

[SpiritMeadow]

1. I’m talking about what is most helpful to society in general. The graces gained by to donor are the major reason for the Christian emphasis on charity.

That may well be. It is still selfish and not at all an argument for why private charity is better than public funded care. That is an argument to make to an individual I guess to induce them to act, although it would seem that any Christian should do so without an expectation of grace.

1. Private charity helps millions of people each year. Take a look at what Catholic Charities or the Salvation Army achieves. Or all the Catholic and not-for-profit hospitals.

If it helped millions each year, we would not have 45 millions of Americans either under insured or not insured at all. That is only ONE social problem. The fact that Catholic charities help is not in dispute. They have not solved the problem to date, and there is no reasonable expectation that they will or can.

1. Planned Parenthood gets government money in most states and counties. You can bet that if we get socialized medicine abortion on demand will be covered, along with sterilization, sex changes, in vitro, etc. A person who morally opposes these things will have no choice but to fund it.

Now we see your true agenda. Your argument is simply that you don’t feel that abortion or contraception (which by the way prevents more abortions than any abstinence program ever has)can be excluded and on that basis alone you would opt to deny millions of others from getting care.

1. Taxes distort incentives to work, save, invest, etc. For example, if you could take a 2nd job at $10 per hour you might, but if you only get $6 after taxes, you’re less likely to work, lowering economic output. Likewise, taxes lower returns on invetsments, so people don’t invest in new businesses, or move their businesses overseas. Voluntary charity, just like any voluntary spending, can’t distort behavior b/c it is voluntary.

You prove nothing. this is fine rhetoric but hardly hard facts. I have not heard a single person say that they would work but their income would be taxed. Taxation is something we were all born to. No job comes without taxes. It’s a part of life. Try again.

1. Government aid is set up as “entitlements”. The bureaucracy gets more money the more “clients” it has. They have no incentive to screen people out. Bureaucracies love to grow.

Please attempt to get Medicaid if you are not within the perameters of those who are eligible. I cannot get VA benefits for the asking either without proof that I meet their requirements. Generalities are not facts. Again, the biggest fraudulant actions are on the part of Hospitals and doctors who charge for services not needed or done.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The government is an organizational nightmare. Bureaucracy and waste are rampant. High levels of taxation destroy economic growth.

The Church and Christianity is individualistic. We will be judged as individuals. We sin and do good as indiviuals. We give charity as individuals.

Giving the government control over large areas of the economy has never worked, anywhere.

God Bless

Excellent platitudes. Tell it to the poor who have no health care. They will undoubtedly ask for health care first and you can work on your Christian salvation later. Also look at ACTS…the early church evangelists were socialist in their behavior, with their own funds and in caring for the needy.

Prove it doesn’t work anywhere. It seems to work in a number of countries who have much better numbers in terms of life expectancy, mortality rates and any number of such statistics. Provide facts if you can to the contrary.