P
ProVobis
Guest
So what’s the lesson here? It is no secret that those who die before reaching 62 were never intended to benefit from SS, 65 for Medicare. They were only slapped with a tax. What’s the debate?
- Status
H
HarryStotle
Guest
The assumption appears inbuilt into a system where more individuals are in need of receiving from that system than contribute to it, further demonstrated by majority support for such a system.HarryStotle:
Do you have that assumption? I don’t. If not you and not I, then how can this assumption be presented as some sort of axiom. The only thing that is needed for need is need itself.
Shouldn’t we be asking why there is apparently majority support for a system that pays out more to the majority than it takes from the majority?
It would appear that one formerly well-practiced Christian principle of “Better to give than receive,” has been turned on its head such that a majority now practice the opposite: Better to receive than to give or (more like) Better to give until you have no more to give, then you can quickly move to the receiving line, where you will have no guilt for having little and the unearned moral virtue of being one of the needy.
Something just seems off, here.
Last edited:
P
ProVobis
Guest
The volatility is deafening.
P
pnewton
Guest
Assuming the assumption? Or am I just assuming a presumption?
I don’t meant to poke fun, but rather to point out the short coming of political postures. It is hard to back away and see a problem objectively. Most here will agree on the same principles, that the able-bodied should work in order to eat; that those in need should be provided for; that the life of all has intrinsic value. Also, most (though fewer) would agree with Catholic Social Doctrine in the government has a responsibility to provide for those in need a sort of safety net; not economic equality (socialism), but basic life.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Sure. I am just pointing out that something is seriously amiss when the numbers of takers have grown to a majority in a system where the majority dictates public policy. The “political posture” there would seem to be bending over backwards to create more of “those in need,” especially when the definition of “in need” has been trampled under foot in the stampede for the benefits provided by the social safety net.HarryStotle:
Assuming the assumption? Or am I just assuming a presumption?
I don’t meant to poke fun, but rather to point out the short coming of political postures. It is hard to back away and see a problem objectively. Most here will agree on the same principles, that the able-bodied should work in order to eat; that those in need should be provided for; that the life of all has intrinsic value. Also, most (though fewer) would agree with Catholic Social Doctrine in the government has a responsibility to provide for those in need a sort of safety net; not economic equality (socialism), but basic life.
O
o_mlly
Guest
“Means testing” is used now to limit benefits. Why not impose a reverse “means testing” before voting? As long as one is presently a “taker” then the state suspends voting rights. If promulgated, the politicians would no longer benefit through legislation that creates more of “those in need.” The “givers” would have a proportionate control of how their giving is distributed. (Expect big blowback from liberals.)
O
o_mlly
Guest
Cite the teaching, please.
D
DENNYINMI
Guest
I would expect a large blowback from across the political board if you’re suggesting this for those accepting social security. ( assuming you are discussing social security).
Quite a few big “givers” collect social security themselves. Anyone is entitled to it having paid into it.
Over 14 billion dollars in the last data shown in 2010 was social security paid out to millionaires/billionaires that collected it. A lot of these are large political donors as well. hahahaha
Regardless, I wouldn’t dream that anything like loosing voting rights could happen in America to our retired elderly. But then again, 2016 happened.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Was Ayn Rand a liberal for letting Medicare pay for her surgeries?
O
o_mlly
Guest
Conservatives think insurance is good, if not forced by government. But when participation and payment is forced, is it only the liberals who can justly make claims?
P
ProVobis
Guest
I’ll bet that there are more than a few who had paid taxes collecting some type of welfare now. Food stamps, housing, etc. They can make the same claim.
Last edited:
O
o_mlly
Guest
Unemployment insurance has a defined benefit. Other welfare programs, which constitute the vast majority of the states budgets, are not insurance schemes.
O
o_mlly
Guest
This citation says nothing about voting rights.
The citation says nothing about who should have right to vote but rather the duty of those who do to do so.
Again, no teaching as to who should have the right to vote. The passage, as the one before, is about duties of citizens, not rights.
Please do.
Under duties of civil authorities, the CCC teaches:
The citation says nothing about who should have right to vote but rather the duty of those who do to do so.
Again, no teaching as to who should have the right to vote. The passage, as the one before, is about duties of citizens, not rights.
Please do.
Under duties of civil authorities, the CCC teaches:
The requirements of the common good are a matter of prudence, not doctrine.
Last edited:
C
Convert3
Guest
Congressional pensions/benefits are the same as the Federal workforce. They’re not as generous as some people think.
T
TheOldColonel
Guest
P
ProVobis
Guest
So insurance such as flood insurance run by the government is not a liberal idea?
O
o_mlly
Guest
Neither did I.
You infer into my post that which was never expressed or implied. Any restriction on the right to vote does not translate into an immediate restriction on the level of welfare provided by the state. The right to vote is not absolute and has never been an unconditional right. If you read the next lines in paragraph 38 of Rerum Novarum you will better appreciate the teaching; it is one of balancing rights within society. The measure is always the betterment of the common good.:
You infer into my post that which was never expressed or implied. Any restriction on the right to vote does not translate into an immediate restriction on the level of welfare provided by the state. The right to vote is not absolute and has never been an unconditional right. If you read the next lines in paragraph 38 of Rerum Novarum you will better appreciate the teaching; it is one of balancing rights within society. The measure is always the betterment of the common good.:
Last edited:
O
o_mlly
Guest
Is that an argument?
The important point is contrary to your claim, the church does not teach that anyone has an absolute right to vote. Authority may grant the right to vote conditionally and has done so in this country from its inception. You put up a strawman to suggest that doing so is identical to eliminating the care of the poor.
The important point is contrary to your claim, the church does not teach that anyone has an absolute right to vote. Authority may grant the right to vote conditionally and has done so in this country from its inception. You put up a strawman to suggest that doing so is identical to eliminating the care of the poor.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Please run that by me again as I cannot make sense of what you are trying to say.
Sure.
Sure.
O
o_mlly
Guest
If you mean the quotation from Rerum Novarum, that is the very point: the encyclical teaches nothing about voting rights.; it doesn’t contain the word “vote” once.
- Status