S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
Obama gutted Section 407 of the welfare reform act (the requirement to work)
- Status
S
simple_soul
Guest
Ok since Ayn Rand has been brought up, I have had a nagging question in my head….
My husband had this quote when I first meat him that has always got me thinking, "You can’t help others if you do not take care of yourself first.“ I believe it helped me understand some of what I had liked about Ayn Rand’s Philosophy. I believe too often we go around trying to help others, whether it is physically, spiritually, or mentally we seem to have this “idea” or “want” to help others, without having anything to give. I believe it is in our nature to want to help. The one thing we have to realize is that in order for us to be able to help others we first have to make sure we have the capacity to do this.
I do not know if Ayn Rand ever discovered God or if she ever came to understand the love of neighbor as one self, but I do believe she understood that life did go on, but I believe what she also understood was if we did not learn to take care of ourselves first, in as much as we are able to, before we try to help others, we ourselves will more than likely become a burden to society. In other words, if we do not learn to take care of ourselves and just focus on what others should be doing we then ourselves become a burden to society and even worse stand the chance of loosing our soul because we are so focused on others instead of keeping our own house in order first.
It seemed to me after I had read her two novels that she seemed to understand not only this concept but also how those who are so focused on taking care of others becomes themselves the elite burdens of society. They try to get others who have taken care of themselves to take care of them by telling others they have to give back to society even if they do not make the effort to take care of themselves. We, as Christians, all know that St. Paul tells us that those who are able to work should work.
What I believe is that her philosophy just may not have gone deep enough.
So my question is, if this is a correct understanding of what I got out of her two novels then could one say that in order to understand true Christianly brotherly love one has to first understand the concepts she puts forth in her philosophy of taking care of ones self and what she missed in her philosophy is that it is our Christian duty to then give back to others?
I believe what she missed is that the ones who do take care of themselves and are successful is not just because of their hard work but because God graced them with the gifts He gave them to be hardworking and successful. It is our Christian responsibility to then be good stewards of what God has given us by not hogging or keeping our gifts all to ourselves. Like storing up treasures here on earth…. It is our duty to ensure that we share our gifts. St. Paul also says to give to those who can not take care of themselves according to their needs.
I am not trying to derail the thread just trying to understand if this understanding would help anyone or if it even makes sense.
Peace and God Bless…
My husband had this quote when I first meat him that has always got me thinking, "You can’t help others if you do not take care of yourself first.“ I believe it helped me understand some of what I had liked about Ayn Rand’s Philosophy. I believe too often we go around trying to help others, whether it is physically, spiritually, or mentally we seem to have this “idea” or “want” to help others, without having anything to give. I believe it is in our nature to want to help. The one thing we have to realize is that in order for us to be able to help others we first have to make sure we have the capacity to do this.
I do not know if Ayn Rand ever discovered God or if she ever came to understand the love of neighbor as one self, but I do believe she understood that life did go on, but I believe what she also understood was if we did not learn to take care of ourselves first, in as much as we are able to, before we try to help others, we ourselves will more than likely become a burden to society. In other words, if we do not learn to take care of ourselves and just focus on what others should be doing we then ourselves become a burden to society and even worse stand the chance of loosing our soul because we are so focused on others instead of keeping our own house in order first.
It seemed to me after I had read her two novels that she seemed to understand not only this concept but also how those who are so focused on taking care of others becomes themselves the elite burdens of society. They try to get others who have taken care of themselves to take care of them by telling others they have to give back to society even if they do not make the effort to take care of themselves. We, as Christians, all know that St. Paul tells us that those who are able to work should work.
What I believe is that her philosophy just may not have gone deep enough.
So my question is, if this is a correct understanding of what I got out of her two novels then could one say that in order to understand true Christianly brotherly love one has to first understand the concepts she puts forth in her philosophy of taking care of ones self and what she missed in her philosophy is that it is our Christian duty to then give back to others?
I believe what she missed is that the ones who do take care of themselves and are successful is not just because of their hard work but because God graced them with the gifts He gave them to be hardworking and successful. It is our Christian responsibility to then be good stewards of what God has given us by not hogging or keeping our gifts all to ourselves. Like storing up treasures here on earth…. It is our duty to ensure that we share our gifts. St. Paul also says to give to those who can not take care of themselves according to their needs.
I am not trying to derail the thread just trying to understand if this understanding would help anyone or if it even makes sense.
Peace and God Bless…
S
simple_soul
Guest
*Ok since Ayn Rand has been brought up, I have had a nagging question in my head….
My husband had this quote when I first meat him that has always got me thinking, "You can’t help others if you do not take care of yourself first.“ I believe it helped me understand some of what I had liked about Ayn Rand’s Philosophy. I believe too often we go around trying to help others, whether it is physically, spiritually, or mentally we seem to have this “idea” or “want” to help others, without having anything to give. I believe it is in our nature to want to help. The one thing we have to realize is that in order for us to be able to help others we first have to make sure we have the capacity to do this.
I do not know if Ayn Rand ever discovered God or if she ever came to understand the love of neighbor as one self, but I do believe she understood that life did go on, but I believe what she also understood was if we did not learn to take care of ourselves first, in as much as we are able to, before we try to help others, we ourselves will more than likely become a burden to society. In other words, if we do not learn to take care of ourselves and just focus on what others should be doing we then ourselves become a burden to society and even worse stand the chance of loosing our soul because we are so focused on others instead of keeping our own house in order first.
It seemed to me after I had read her two novels that she seemed to understand not only this concept but also how those who are so focused on taking care of others becomes themselves the elite burdens of society. They try to get others who have taken care of themselves to take care of them by telling others they have to give back to society even if they do not make the effort to take care of themselves. We, as Christians, all know that St. Paul tells us that those who are able to work should work.
What I believe is that her philosophy just may not have gone deep enough.
So my question is, if this is a correct understanding of what I got out of her two novels then could one say that in order to understand true Christianly brotherly love one has to first understand the concepts she puts forth in her philosophy of taking care of ones self and what she missed in her philosophy is that it is our Christian duty to then give back to others?
I believe what she missed is that the ones who do take care of themselves and are successful is not just because of their hard work but because God graced them with the gifts He gave them to be hardworking and successful. It is our Christian responsibility to then be good stewards of what God has given us by not hogging or keeping our gifts all to ourselves. Like storing up treasures here on earth…. It is our duty to ensure that we share our gifts. St. Paul also says to give to those who can not take care of themselves according to their needs.
I am not trying to derail the thread just trying to understand if this understanding would help anyone or if it even makes sense.
Peace and God Bless…*
My husband had this quote when I first meat him that has always got me thinking, "You can’t help others if you do not take care of yourself first.“ I believe it helped me understand some of what I had liked about Ayn Rand’s Philosophy. I believe too often we go around trying to help others, whether it is physically, spiritually, or mentally we seem to have this “idea” or “want” to help others, without having anything to give. I believe it is in our nature to want to help. The one thing we have to realize is that in order for us to be able to help others we first have to make sure we have the capacity to do this.
I do not know if Ayn Rand ever discovered God or if she ever came to understand the love of neighbor as one self, but I do believe she understood that life did go on, but I believe what she also understood was if we did not learn to take care of ourselves first, in as much as we are able to, before we try to help others, we ourselves will more than likely become a burden to society. In other words, if we do not learn to take care of ourselves and just focus on what others should be doing we then ourselves become a burden to society and even worse stand the chance of loosing our soul because we are so focused on others instead of keeping our own house in order first.
It seemed to me after I had read her two novels that she seemed to understand not only this concept but also how those who are so focused on taking care of others becomes themselves the elite burdens of society. They try to get others who have taken care of themselves to take care of them by telling others they have to give back to society even if they do not make the effort to take care of themselves. We, as Christians, all know that St. Paul tells us that those who are able to work should work.
What I believe is that her philosophy just may not have gone deep enough.
So my question is, if this is a correct understanding of what I got out of her two novels then could one say that in order to understand true Christianly brotherly love one has to first understand the concepts she puts forth in her philosophy of taking care of ones self and what she missed in her philosophy is that it is our Christian duty to then give back to others?
I believe what she missed is that the ones who do take care of themselves and are successful is not just because of their hard work but because God graced them with the gifts He gave them to be hardworking and successful. It is our Christian responsibility to then be good stewards of what God has given us by not hogging or keeping our gifts all to ourselves. Like storing up treasures here on earth…. It is our duty to ensure that we share our gifts. St. Paul also says to give to those who can not take care of themselves according to their needs.
I am not trying to derail the thread just trying to understand if this understanding would help anyone or if it even makes sense.
Peace and God Bless…*
B
bellasbane
Guest
"Paul Ryan is a Catholic, but he does not represent the traditions of the Church that have been part of Catholic culture for generations. Don’t let him fool you. He wants to sound smart and Catholic by throwing out the name of Thomas Aquinas - but words are cheap. Not matter what he says, his is budget plan is Randian - not Catholic." - Me
I stand by my words. I do not “spew out information” the “left” gave me. I quote Paul Ryan directly. The fact that your favored media sources fail to cover such stories just shows how biased they really are.
Paul Ryan is a Catholic. He represents the views of many Catholics on this forum and perhaps some Bishops. The flurry of responses to my initial post is typical of what you get here. The problem is that claiming these views are based on traditional Catholic social teaching is false - these views represent an innovation.
“I suppose there are some Catholics who for a long time have thought they had a monopoly of sorts, not exactly on heaven, but on the social teaching of our Church,” Ryan said. “Of course there can be differences among faithful Catholics on this.”
uscatholic.org/blog/2012/04/can-we-really-just-agree-disagree-catholic-social-teaching
Differences yes - but not much among Catholic scholars. Only someone who grossly misunderstands the economic and political philosophy of Thomas Aquinas would agree with Ryan. Aquinas was never a Bishop. He said most people (including Bishops) don’t have the time to devote themselves to theology, which is why we need scholars. Thomas Aquinas was a University guy and Catholic scholars who follow in his footsteps reject Paul Ryan’s new interpretation of Catholic social teachings. These scholars aren’t liberal - they’re smart.
Thomas Aquinas did not invent Aristotle. He synthesized the philosophy of Aristotle with Catholic doctrine. He did the same with medieval social & economic structures such as the guild system. He was a genius and his work continues to guide the Church and remains the backbone of Catholic political and economic philosophy to this day.
Paul Ryan may wish he was a Thomas Aquinas - someone who can take the atheist philosophy of Ayn Rand and synthesize it with Catholic social teaching. What he fails to realize is that unlike Aristotle, Ayn Rand rejected Christ. For that reason, there is no power on this earth that can save her or her world view.
E
estesbob
Guest
And that generation will have the option of signing up for medicare just as exists today.
E
estesbob
Guest
And what tax loopholes are those? I have some clients who could really use some.
E
Ecoclimber
Guest
Vouchers funded by Congress will be subject to future reduction at any time!
Sanders debunked the Romney lie about preserving Medicare, “Well everybody understands that they are destroying Medicare as it is currently constituted. What they intend to do is convert Medicare over a period of years into a voucher program. So what they’re going to say to a 70 year old senior who is dealing with cancer or heart disease here is a check for eight thousand dollars, go out and get the best private insurance that you can, and lots of luck. Now you tell me, Ed if somebody is dealing with cancer or heart disease, or a serious illness what eight thousand dollars is going to do. Everybody knows what it means is that a). Seniors are going to have to come up with more money out of their own pocket, or their kids are going to have to help them, or worse, they’re not going to get the care they need.”
http://www.politicususa.com/bernie-sanders-rips-masks-billionaire-oligarch-puppets-romney-ryan.html
meltzerboy
New member
How do we know that the Medicare plan as it exists today will remain after the Ryan modifications take place? Ryan’s and Romney, the weather vane’s, word on it?
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
How about the double irish arrangement?
bloomberg.com/news/2010-05-13/american-companies-dodge-60-billion-in-taxes-even-tea-party-would-condemn.html
S
SamH
Guest
Paule Ryan said he doesn’t represent the traditions of the Catholic Church?
Source for that?
C
ComputerGeek25
Guest
Romney/Ryan won’t do away with food stamps. They are only limiting the year over year increases, and this is an across the board thing.
47% of people do not pay federal income taxes.
Many of these people get back a check, for more than they put in.
S
SamH
Guest
We do know it won’t exist as it does today under the Obama “plan”. Not that hoping no one will notice its going bankrupt is a “plan”.
C
ComputerGeek25
Guest
Nancy Pelosi also throws around the name of Thomas Aquinas. Many would argue that she isn’t following in the Catholic tradition.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
I think Ryan has a great plan that attempts to deal with a medicare going in to bankruptcy. But that plan and Romney’s plan have their differences, it is important to know that
E
estesbob
Guest
Congress can cut funding for anything it wants anytime. So what?
He didn’t debunk anything. Let me repeat. Ryan grows medicare at the same rate Obama does. Future seniors can enroll in Medicare if they do not want to go the voucher route. Your hypothetical senior could have enrolled in Medicare who (under Obamacare() would probably tell him he is too old for the surgery but they will make sure he has a nice funeral
Personally I hope that the Obama Campaign makes Sanders the point man in this debate. At least Sanders admits he is a socialist
E
estesbob
Guest
We know it wont exist if with continue with the way it is now.
L
LisaA
Guest
Boy you completely mistinterpreted my post. I have read through your response three times and it makes no sense at all but maybe that’s the point.
Will you answer my question? Do you think the people on this forum would withhold support from the truly needy?
You somehow equate our reluctance to pay for bloated and inefficient, ineffective and wasteful government programs as a lack of CHARITY. You have completely mixed up the two concepts. Taxation and government assistance is not CHARITY. Please re-read Scott’s most excellent explanation of the difference.
Mitt Romney apparently does not pay in any more taxes than he is required to pay. Neither does Warren Buffet and neither do you. So what? That just proves you are following the law and taking advantage of its provisions regarding your income and deductions.
This is in no way equivalent to the waste and fraud in government programs. It is in no way equivalent to those who feel they are owed yours and my tax dollars and thus will game the system to get support rather than make an effort themselves. As I said, both from statistical evidence and from years and years of volunteering at various homeless shelters, drug rehab, youth centers, child services organizations, what I see is a lot of people who intentionally game the system and take money they neither earned nor deserve. You can’t seem to distinguish between someone keeping money they earned and someone else taking money they are not entitled to by either effort or true need.
There is a difference. Do you see it or are you simply assuming every person on government assistance has good intentions and wants to be self reliant and responsible?
Lisa
D
DeSanto
Guest
you mean people who lost their jobs to no fault of their own should not be eligible for assistance? I get it people. There may be some that can work but do not. Did you ever consider that is because they would be worse off if they did work. Check this out: Say a person wants to work and is willing to give up the food assistance money and pay additional money for child care on top of that. Even if their job paid only enough to cover that amount. Why don’t they? It is not the food money people are applying for, it is health insurance for their children. The reason they don’t leave the assistance program is because they will put their children as risk with no health insurance. Most jobs do not provide health insurance anymore. Especially entry level jobs for people without college educations. And even if the job did provide insurance we all know the cost of that, let’s add that to the bill. People are applying for Medicaid for their children, the food stamps is just a bonus if your bad enough off. My father, before he died in 2008, was living alone, unemployed, no retirement, and was going to some run down health clinic with his medicaid and just enough ss to provide a run down efficiency apartment, he barely got enough food stamp money to survive. He would have to get food from the church to supplement. I hardley think that is living large on food stamps. You all have a misunderstanding about food stamps. It is not meant to provide you with all your food cost requirements…it is meant to HELP with the cost. Most people make it stretch as much as possible to make it last the entire month but it is not supposed to cover an entire months worth of food. Now you all can make the case all day long how you’re tax money is wasted but you’re the ones that are being deceived. I can assure you I am very thankful for the assistance my father received from your tax dollars. THANK YOU FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART. I wish I could do something to prove to yours and my tax money is not wasted.
E
Ecoclimber
Guest
One has to choose between infanticide on one side and genocide of the sick, the elderly, the poor and the infirm on the other.Biden and Pelosi calling themselves Catholic is a joke considering they worship infanticide!
Fux News inform yourself about Murdoch’s Empire and his abuses concerning wire tapping of ordinary citizens for the purpose of blackmail.
**cbc.ca/doczone/episode/scandal-inside-the-murdoch-empire.html
pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/murdochs-scandal/**
I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat but a Catholic/Christian American
L
LisaA
Guest
The funding source for the vouchers is the same funding source that currently pays the Medicare providers…tax dollars. Right now we employed persons pay Medicare tax on every dollar of wages & salary. The government then takes that money and through non government clearing houses that process claims, pays the money directly to providers.
Imagine the voucher plan. The dollars collected on the working people are then transmitted to the SENIOR who makes decisions regarding his or her own healthcare insurance. Those who are lower income get more money, those with higher incomes get less support.
The beauty of this system is that it puts people in charge of their healthcare and when they are spending their own money, trust me they are far more careful. One person might want a higher deductible “bare bones” plan while another would prefer very low copayments and deductibles.
You’re right we can’t protect everyone from making bad decisions but they make bad decisions now. This will never change. Human nature is human nature. But the Ryan plan lets people make their own decisions whereas Obamacare takes this away from both the payers and more importantly the patients.
Lisa
- Status