Is supporting a "Welfare State" moral? Does it have limits?

[melensdad]

Just curious, but as Catholics we are supposed to support the poor and, in fact, go out of our way to do so. We are to give freely and openly.

But is there a limit to this when we apply it to government and modern society?

For example, most Catholics have no problem with some of our taxes going to Aid to Mothers with Dependent Children, Food Stamps for the poor, etc. But what do we define as POOR and what is a reasonable share of taxes to give?

Is it reasonable to apply a “means” test to the poor?

For example, President Bush recently ‘vetoed’ a piece of legislation that was supposed to have paid for health care for children in poverty. The bill ACTUALLY would have expanded health care to cover many children well above the poverty line and would have reached up into the middle class families. This would have been a real and dramatic increase in the expansion of the welfare state and the beginning of society paying for medical treatment, but not in a socialized medicine system.

Is it reasonable to oppose such things and place limits on what government “charity” is provided to us, by us?

 

[BobP123]

I think we should be worried about whether the U.S. currency is worth anything anymore, whether you’re pro or con welfare. These types of questions don’t really look at the big picture. But this gets quite complicated for most. They see as long as everyone eats well and has a roof over their heads, everything is ok.

 

[blessedtoo]

Just curious, but as Catholics we are supposed to support the poor and, in fact, go out of our way to do so. We are to give freely and openly.

I agree. WE are to give of ourselves to our less fortunate brethren. We are obligated to share our gifts, whether through our Church or other charitable organizations, in the spirit of Christian love.

But is there a limit to this when we apply it to government and modern society?

Absolutely.

For example, most Catholics have no problem with some of our taxes going to Aid to Mothers with Dependent Children, Food Stamps for the poor, etc. But what do we define as POOR and what is a reasonable share of taxes to give?

I have a serious problem with giving money to the government to disperse as it sees fit. The state is not guided by the same Christian principals as my Church. It is not interested in helping the downtrodden spiritually as well as monetarily. In addition, when the people are taxed to the extreme in order to provide for those the state deems “needy” they will not feel compelled, nor may they be capable, of giving to their Churches or other organizations which are designed specifically for lifting up those who need help.

Seattle built a new housing complex several years ago for alcoholic and drug addicted indigents. To be eligible for this free housing, these folks must have 6 or more arrests on their records. They must have tried and failed rehab at least 7 times. They must be chronic alcoholics and are not required to attend any recovery program in order to receive this free housing. Yet, in the three years since this complex was built, the apartments have yet to be filled. In fact, the homeless alcoholics are still sleeping on the streets, sometimes just a few blocks away from this tax-payer provided “solution”. IMO, the government is not capable, nor should it be empowered, to define a charitable cause.

Is it reasonable to apply a “means” test to the poor?

The Cathedral in Seattle has “rules” that apply to those receiving assistance. The homeless shelter requires them to arrive at a certain hour, remain on the premises, refrain from drinking alcohol or taking drugs, refrain from abusive behavior, etc. The low income housing options provided by the Church also require proof that applicants are earning 50% less than the median income level.

For example, President Bush recently ‘vetoed’ a piece of legislation that was supposed to have paid for health care for children in poverty. The bill ACTUALLY would have expanded health care to cover many children well above the poverty line and would have reached up into the middle class families. This would have been a real and dramatic increase in the expansion of the welfare state and the beginning of society paying for medical treatment, but not in a socialized medicine system.

The legislation that you are referring to would have had taxpayers providing health care (which, BTW, is not a “right”) to children from families earning 60 to 80 thousand dollars a year. That is how the state understands “charitable” giving.

Is it reasonable to oppose such things and place limits on what government “charity” is provided to us, by us?

Absolutely. As Christians especially, we should understand that the state will never be competent at charitable giving because it is missing the most important component: that such hopelessness can only be filled with the Gospel message.

 

[Newbie2]

It’s sometimes difficult to balance being OK to give to a government that diddles away tax money wastefully and the Lord’s command to “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s”, isn’t it?

 

[dafalax]

I am toying with a division of labor philosophy between a moral person’s obligations and a moral government’s obligations. It seems people often ask the wrong questions. They are outraged that women and children are going hungry. “Why doesn’t the government do something?” Wrong. Why don’t YOU do something? Direct them to your church’s food pantry. Reach out to them any way you can to help. Buy them warm clothes. The government’s duty to it’s people is to protect them from other nations who would do them harm and some degree of infrastructure, like roads, etc. What else they owe their people, I haven’t figured out yet. My mom used food stamps. Student loans are a pretty good idea. I think the problem with government getting involved is that their solutions are thrown together so hastily to please an angry mob (that often should be doing this stuff themselves) that it ends up being a bigger problem. Once you start welfare, it’s hard to stop because as soon as you try to get a job, they cut your benefits so drastically you have to either quit or get a second job. With kids, that’s rough. That’s why i think the Church needs to be doing this and soliciting the help of parishioners to carry out Christ’s work. I don’t think it’s Christian to pay the government to be doing “good” for me and it removes you from a personal relationship with the poor.

 

[kim3260]

It goes back to give a man a fish he eats for a day, teach him to fish and he eats for life.
With that said, of course we are to help our fellowman but a line must be drawn when said man refuses to help himself.

 

[SoCalRC]

I sometimes wonder if this question is even relevant. In the US, our social safety net for those within 200% of the poverty level is relatively miniscule. It is handy to think of social security and medicare as programs for the ‘poor’, but both programs principally benefit 300% of the poverty level and up.

On the flip side, we spend massive amounts of money on corporate welfare. The corporations, in turn, have lots of money to spend on the political process. Which seems to perpetuate the system of aide.

To keep things in perspective, remember that the ‘fiscal responsibility’ of vetoing s-chip, is that we killed a program that helps millions all for a savings which both the GAO and OIG agree is a fraction of the known waste and corruption in the rebuilding/occupying Iraq (we could cover the cost with just the waste documented in two(!) no bid contracts).

The sad part is that we have plenty of evidence to suggest that making a real investment in our weakest members actually does often largely pay for itself (unlike tax cuts for the wealthiest). Just pick a prison inmate at random and compare what we invested, as a society, in him/her from 0-17. Then compare that with the cost of long term incarceration.

 

[melensdad]

On the flip side, we spend massive amounts of money on corporate welfare. The corporations, in turn, have lots of money to spend on the political process. Which seems to perpetuate the system of aide.

Just curious, but do we** “spend massive amounts of money on corporate welfare”** or do we simply allow tax breaks/tax credits for corporations that do specific things that the government is using the tax code to entice them to do?

There is a HUGE difference between the two. One (tax breaks) is allowing them to keep the income they actually earned, but only if they spend it in specific ways the government wants them to spend it toward. The other* (welfare)* is cutting them checks and paying them.

What I am far more concerned about is the morality of the government expanding social programs** beyond those in real need**. The reason I am concerned about this is that it creates a situation where people begin to make choices that make them dependent upon the government by making life choices to turn over their own responsibilities to the state.

For example, the recent child health care bill that President Bush vetoed would have expanded health care beyond children in need. It would have expanded it so that families earning over $60,000 up to nearly $80,000 per year would qualify for “free public health care” for their children. Further it would have also included some adults in the health coverage.

Now a family of 4 making $60,000+ per year or more is not living the life of leisure but it is clearly not poverty either. By shifting the cost of health care to the government, it simply allows people to spend more money on “want” items like cable TV, eating out, etc. It clearly takes SOME of the responsibilities of making “right decisions” away from people and transfers that responsibility to the government.

At what point is it moral to turn over to the government our responsibility to care for ourselves?

For the record, the bill vetoed is one the President opposes in principle and he would like to abolish the program and exchange it for a completely different type of program.

 

[ricmat]

To keep things in perspective, remember that the ‘fiscal responsibility’ of vetoing s-chip, is that we killed a program that helps millions all for a savings which both the GAO and OIG agree is a fraction of the known waste and corruption in the rebuilding/occupying Iraq (we could cover the cost with just the waste documented in two(!) no bid contracts).

Schip wasn’t killed. It remains in effect helping the same group of people that it originally was intended for. An expansion of schip was killed that would have expanded the program to families making $83K per year, and “kids” up to 25 years old. Bush still wanted a 5 billion increase, the dems wanted much more. That’s what was vetoed.

BTW - when will the “war on poverty” be over? We’ve spent a gazillion dollars on that, and just the waste and corruption in that program could have paid for the war in Iraq many times over

 

[SoCalRC]

For the record, the bill vetoed is one the President opposes in principle and he would like to abolish the program and exchange it for a completely different type of program.

Absolutely agreed. I just wish we could have an honest ideological debate. President Bush says that he does not want funds going to people who are not poor and who already have insurance - but his alternative would give more than half the money to families making over $75,000 a year and nearly twice as many families with existing private insurance as the current s-chip revision proposed by congress.

This seems to be a reasonable extension of the sort if ideology that drove the spectacularly expensive and seemingly ineffective Plan D extension to Medicare (proposed by Bush and passed by a GOP Congress) - which expressly prohibits using the economics of scale to contain costs. But that does not match the rhetoric.

As far as the ‘big difference’, where would you like me to begin? Tax incentives which encourage the outsourcing of white collar jobs would seem to be corporate welfare at the expense of the common good. As would massive abuses in no-bid contracting with one’s political donors. Massive credits and incentives to oil companies, in a period where a multi trillion dollar adventure into the middle east is helping to drive a period of record profits for thme also seems like a poor use of public resources…

Schip wasn’t killed. It remains in effect helping the same group of people that it originally was intended for. An expansion of schip was killed that would have expanded the program to families making $83K per year, and “kids” up to 25 years old. Bush still wanted a 5 billion increase, the dems wanted much more. That’s what was vetoed.

BTW - when will the “war on poverty” be over? We’ve spent a gazillion dollars on that, and just the waste and corruption in that program could have paid for the war in Iraq many times over

S-chip is set to expire. The program will end unless new legislation is passed.

The 83K and 25 year old stats are demonstrably false. They were requested as waivers from govs (including two GOP presidential hopefuls), but never in the legislation. Nor were benefits for illegals.

False talking points are useful in today’s political arena. Thankfully, groups we can trust, like Catholic Charities USA and Catholic Heathcare America, headed by a priest and nun respectively, have done a good job of seperating truth from lies. I would encourage all fellow Catholics to read what they have to say on s-chip.

As far as the “war on poverty” ending, what are you asking? Jesus did seemingly give us a time limit of sorts on our Christian obligation - up to the point the Son of Man returns and judges all nations on social justice criteria. If you mean “New Deal” and “Great Society” type political initiatives, we have significantly scaled back those policies in the last 25 years. But again, rural electification, highway systems, social security, the post WW-II GI bill, etc. are principally a benefit to the middle class. So it should be no surprise that when that spending was at its highest, we had a large middle class and our highest level of financial mobility in US history. Now that we have increasingly turned to other priorities, it seems perfectly reasonable that the middle class is shrinking and financial mobility is greatly diminished.

 

[dafalax]

For the record, i know of a family of 5 (2 adults, 3 small babies)subsisting on one income of about $30,000 per year. They are eligible for public healthcare benefits, which they use, and many other welfare programs which they don’t. They are still able to afford two car payments and basic cable. They’re also fortunate enough to live in an area with a super low cost of living. The problem with most people isn’t how little they make, it’s how much they spend. The fact that rent-a-center is fluorishing and that 1/3 of the people of childbearing age in this area smoke tells me that. We don’t need to expand government healthcare, we need parents teaching their children the value of working toward possessions instead of going into debt to have them immediately. Is there a government program for that?

 

[melensdad]

We don’t need to expand government healthcare, we need parents teaching their children the value of working toward possessions instead of going into debt to have them immediately.** Is there a government program for that?**

My wife is a high school teacher and teaches classes like accounting, business, etc. Many of the classes she teaches are “advanced placement” level classes. She said that her kids, which again are some of the more advanced kids in the school, do not understand how to budget, balance a check book, etc. She also said that she is not allowed to teach home budgets!!! It crosses the line on intruding into the Church/State issue because it allows for “value” judgements when determining budgets

 

[Alphonsus_John]

I generally don’t like government charity because the gov’t can’t give someone $1 without taking $2+ from you and me. The overhead between private/church charities and gov’t social welfare programs is unbelievable.

I did some math once where if someone made $18,000 a year and took what he was taxed for S.S. and put in safe investments earning 6% a year. Assuming he never earned a raise in his life (highly unlikely), he would earn more money then he made working drawing down the interest from his investment without having to touch the principal.

Someone on this board once said “Social Justice doesn’t have to equal social-ism”. Let me give to the poor. Don’t force me to give money to you under threat of imprisonment and then tell me it’s going to help the poor.

 

[SoCalRC]

We don’t need to expand government healthcare, we need parents teaching their children the value of working toward possessions instead of going into debt to have them immediately. Is there a government program for that?

Actually, a fair number of government policies have exactly the opposite effect. We discourage savings and encourage financed spending as official policy. This shouldn’t be surprising, since we currently are putting increasing trust in ‘free markets’, which are driven by quarterly profits. Long term societal costs are simply not factored in.

There are plenty of examples, though anyone with a college bound teenager can tell you about the absurd predatory lending practices that are used in targetting and marketing this youth. One could point to values, etc., but the reality is that all young people make mistakes, by allowing absurdly irresponsible lending practices, we permit the normal learning and maturing process to turn catastrophic. This is all in a background of public college educations costing $10K or more a year (basically what a private college education cost just a decade or so ago).

When we let the same industry write new bankrupcy legislation that does not even really allow catastrophic medical tragedy to be factored in, it is hard to say that we are not complicant. Remember what we were told to do after 9/11 - go out and spend…

I generally don’t like government charity because the gov’t can’t give someone $1 without taking $2+ from you and me. The overhead between private/church charities and gov’t social welfare programs is unbelievable.

I’m sorry, but I can’t find any evidence that is anything but a myth. Look at Medicare, it’s overhead is 3%, less than 1/2 (and typically 1/3) that of any private health insurer - and it universally takes the most expensive cases for those most in need of medical care.

I did some math once where if someone made $18,000 a year and took what he was taxed for S.S. and put in safe investments earning 6% a year. Assuming he never earned a raise in his life (highly unlikely), he would earn more money then he made working drawing down the interest from his investment without having to touch the principal.

Wow, there is an idea. A money market account with less than a $20K balance is now paying what, .75% interest?

A Universal Savings Account with $100,000+ is currently paying about 3.3%.

But even if we ignore returns without high reliance on the stock market, 3 years of static and declining wages for most Americans, and legitimate inflation on energy and food, this ignores the basic purpose of Social Security - namely it is a form of insurance. If you are unexpectedly killed or disabled early in your work career, there are still benefits. If you live longer than expected, benefits don’t just stop

Someone on this board once said “Social Justice doesn’t have to equal social-ism”. Let me give to the poor. Don’t force me to give money to you under threat of imprisonment and then tell me it’s going to help the poor.

Poverty becomes a collective problem. If a society loses interest either in the common good or care for its weakest members, it has not moral right to existance.

We have policies for the common good that effect the poor. For example, we used monetary policy to dampen economic cycles and control inflation. Similiarly, we divert public funds to keep food prices from fluctuating wildly - yet our sense of collective obligation seems to be dying out.

When the greatest generation came back from WW-II we recognized a debt and basically created a new middle class with a generous GI bill. Now, we send an all volunteer service in country for years, and rotate them a day short of getting a one year ride at a community college, all while slashing VA budgets.

Ignoring our Christain obligations is just one aspect. A democracy cannot survive Mariannas’ style capitalism. Anyone who doubts this should look at just how popular socialism became in the US prior to the “New Deal”. From the perspective of most Americans, greed and capitalism had failed utterly.

 

[ricmat]

S-chip is set to expire. The program will end unless new legislation is passed.

Ok - but nobody is suggesting that it not be renewed, as you imply above. The veto that everybody is talking about is not a veto of the program as it exists now, or even a veto of the program with a 5 billion increase. It was a veto of a grossly expanded program. We can argue about the details of just how much an expansion it was.

As far as the “war on poverty” ending, what are you asking? Jesus did seemingly give us a time limit of sorts on our Christian obligation - up to the point the Son of Man returns and judges all nations on social justice criteria. If you mean “New Deal” and “Great Society” type political initiatives, we have significantly scaled back those policies in the last 25 years.

I’m not talking about New Deal. Mainly the Great Society. That’s when the term War on Poverty originated. We’ve probably spent 100 trillion dollars since the program started. And we have more “poor” than when we started. Surprise, surprise.

If the government decides to give out free money, then don’t be surprised if lines form. And don’t be surprised if the lines get longer, and longer. And don’t be surprised if a certain political party tries to get EVERYBODY in line, so everybody can be indebted to them when election time comes around. How is having everybody on the government dole supposed to expand the middle class? Is it charity to encourage laziness? Didn’t Paul say that those who do not work should not eat?

And won’t the nations be judged based on the actions of the citizens of those nations…and not just “the government?” That’s certainly how the prophets saw things in the Old Testament. It wasn’t just the High Council of Sodom that brought down God’s wrath - it was the actions of the people themselves.

“The government” is an excuse for many not to do anything. "Tax the rich (where rich is defined as everyone who has more than I do) and help the poor. Hooray for me!

Private charities can control (and do control abuses) better than the government. There is no incentive for them to add more and more people to the dole regardless of actual circumstances. And I have yet to see a private charity demand payment at the point of a gun.

The sad part is that we have plenty of evidence to suggest that making a real investment in our weakest members actually does often largely pay for itself (unlike tax cuts for the wealthiest). Just pick a prison inmate at random and compare what we invested, as a society, in him/her from 0-17. Then compare that with the cost of long term incarceration.

Perhaps we should not be looking at people as “investments.” That leads to things like…the culture of death. Too many people in the world - we could all be better off if there were fewer people. Kill embryos so that we can get their stem cells - I calculate that keeping me alive longer is a better investment than some “unknown” not-yet-human being. Kill off all the mental defectives, or people likely to get sick before they reproduce - that’s a good investment looking to the future. etc.

Bad idea.

 

[ricmat]

Wow, there is an idea. A money market account with less than a $20K balance is now paying what, .75% interest?

A Universal Savings Account with $100,000+ is currently paying about 3.3%.

You need to do a bit of research here. There are on-line money market accounts paying 5% with any balance greater than 0. I just opened one last week.

Not that this is of particular interest (no pun intended) to everybody.

 

[JimG]

My wife is a high school teacher and teaches classes like accounting, business, etc. Many of the classes she teaches are “advanced placement” level classes. She said that her kids, which again are some of the more advanced kids in the school, do not understand how to budget, balance a check book, etc. She also said that she is not allowed to teach home budgets!!! It crosses the line on intruding into the Church/State issue because it allows for “value” judgements when determining budgets

Good grief. Home budgeting is now a Church-State issue?

I guess there is nothing intrisically wrong with income redistribution programs–of which Medicare and Social Security are the largest. But just as those and other Great Society programs were getting started, the boomers forgot to have enough children to fund them. They must be funded by future workers–today’s children–and somehow we have forgotten that children are a necessary future economic resource.

 

[SoCalRC]

Ok - but nobody is suggesting that it not be renewed, as you imply above. The veto that everybody is talking about is not a veto of the program as it exists now, or even a veto of the program with a 5 billion increase. It was a veto of a grossly expanded program. We can argue about the details of just how much an expansion it was.

The president offered a contraction, in constant dollars dropping about 1,000,000 children out of the program over the span of the extension.

How is having everybody on the government dole supposed to expand the middle class?

The point is, it has, repeatedly. We expanded the country with land grants (conservatives wanted to auction the land and pay down the national debt). Result, huge amount of wealth created.

We gave basiclly every WW-II GI a free four year college education. End result, another explosion in weath.

Look at Social Security and Medicare. Lot’s of even ‘upper middle class’ families would be hard pressed to pay for Mom and Dad’s care. Now that money gets used for things like private schooling for the next generation, helping to perpetuate a middle class lifestyle.

Is it charity to encourage laziness?

There are 47,000,000 uninsured Americans, and millions of under insured Americans. The majority of them are working poor. Two jobs, back breaking labor, no basic health services…

Didn’t Paul say that those who do not work should not eat?

Paul also said to choose abstinace over marriage, unless you are too spiritually weak. But let’s follow this point.

What about the developmentally disabled, the physically disabled? What should they do, live on the street and hope that you are feeling charitable on the off chance you are driving by?

Private charities can control (and do control abuses) better than the government. There is no incentive for them to add more and more people to the dole regardless of actual circumstances. And I have yet to see a private charity demand payment at the point of a gun.

Actually, the largest private charities still rely a great deal on Federal Funding. The biggest difference with Bush’s ‘Faith Based’ program is that the standards and criteria for funds was lowered. The GAO reports that waste, corruption, and ineffectiveness run higher among such programs.

Perhaps we should not be looking at people as “investments.”…

Kill off all the mental defectives, or people likely to get sick before they reproduce - that’s a good investment looking to the future. etc.

I’m sorry, that does not seem logical. The “mental defectives” would simply die under your system. Families dealing with severe disabilities rely almost exclussively on Federal programs like IDEA and Social Security. Catholic Schools even have to exclude such students because of the high costs involved.

Parent activists have raised millions of dollars for research and lobbying, but to imagine that the absense of coordinated societal support would lead to anything but a cruel and indirect form of euthanasia seems pretty far fetched.

P.S. I would bet the 5% is not Federally insured, or has some other interesting fine print. I did not note such things because the comment was ‘safe’ investment

 

[strngrnrth]

Corporate welfare is more than tax breaks. It also means cash subsidies and price supports to industries seen as central to the economy.

 

[SoCalRC]

Good grief. Home budgeting is now a Church-State issue?

I guess there is nothing intrisically wrong with income redistribution programs–of which Medicare and Social Security are the largest. But just as those and other Great Society programs were getting started, the boomers forgot to have enough children to fund them. They must be funded by future workers–today’s children–and somehow we have forgotten that children are a necessary future economic resource.

To be accurate, Social Security is effectively solvent. We are forced to use truly pathetic growth and project to “infinity”(!) to get the program to look insolvent at all.

Medicare is a looming disaster, but so is our overall health care system. We’ve reached the point where about a nickel of every dollar in the GDP goes to someone pushing health care paper, which is seriously hurting our competitiveness in the global economy.