Poke holes in my Social Welfare Idea

[Bradski]

You are creating a straw man. I never said that the poor should not be able to vote, I simply questioned the morality of voting to take money from someone else for your benefit.

So you are saying that someone who is poor who votes for an increase in taxes on the rich is acting immorally? Well, one would assume you’d want to stop this immoral behaviour. I’m not exactly how you’d do this except by preventing them voting in the first place.

I also assume that you’d want to prevent rich people voting in a way which decreases their fiscal responsibility to the common good.

It is you, falsely attributing to me, something I did not say (“hey, no vote for you buddy”). I think everybody should have the right to vote…I do think though, there are moral issues with intentional voting yourself a greater share of what is in someone else’s wallet.

So if a politician suggests that you can pay less tax then you don’t vote, because someone else will have to take up the slack. You are effectively taking their money. And if someone suggests that corporations should pay more, you again don’t vote because you effectively have access to a greater share of what is someone else’s wallet.

Do you mind telling me if you vote Democrat or Republican? Maybe we can see how your vote affects your finances.

 

[shockerfan]

So you are saying that someone who is poor who votes for an increase in taxes on the rich is acting immorally?

Not necessarily. The Catholic Church has guidelines on morality, and what you find as a common thread to the various moral guidelines as to whether or not an act is morally wrong is “intent”.

Mind you, our federal government is a republic, not a democracy, so we don’t get to vote for specific issues on a federal level. We do, many times, get to vote on tax issues at the local and/or state level.

I would say that if you are voting for the sole purpose of getting more free stuff, then yes, that would be immoral. I would say a rich person who also votes without the common good in mind would also have moral issues.

one would assume you’d want to stop this immoral behaviour. I’m not exactly how you’d do this except by preventing them voting in the first place.

I think it is better to educate people before they vote. I also am an advocate of telling people “if you don’t know the issues, then don’t vote”. I support the “right” to vote, I would ask some people who refuse to educate themselves on the issues, to not exercise that right. For example, if you don’t know who the vice president is, or you don’t know the difference between debt and deficit, or if you actually believe the government provides “free stuff”, etc., you should not vote. I support your right to do so, but I would ask you don’t.

I also assume that you’d want to prevent rich people voting in a way which decreases their fiscal responsibility to the common good.

Again, I think education is a better route.

So if a politician suggests that you can pay less tax then you don’t vote, because someone else will have to take up the slack. You are effectively taking their money. And if someone suggests that corporations should pay more, you again don’t vote because you effectively have access to a greater share of what is someone else’s wallet.

Since we are a republic, we are forced to vote for representatives. I can’t name a candidate who I agree with 100% of the time, so to some degree, voting is a case of “choosing the lesser of two evils” (a Catholic moral principle). Financial issues don’t rank as high on the list as other issues (like life issues), so I have to choose between candidates who are close on the life issues, and then see where they are on the financial issues. Our bishop wrote the following about prioritizing issues:
prolifedallas.org/voting
(I would love to know your thoughts about it if you have time to read it)

All people (rich and poor) are subject to the same moral principles. Specifically to financial issues, and assuming all candidates are on the correct side of the life issues, then the morality of supporting one bill or another needs to take into account the common good, not just “what is good for me”. Also, since no one candidate lines up 100%, then it is possible to support a candidate who is wrong on one issue, but right on more issues.
In general, I think the principle of subsidiarity is important regarding financial issues. I think the federal government does NOTHING cost effectively, so I typically would want to limit their intake of tax dollars, especially given that we are $20T in debt, and are screwing over our children (that seems to be immoral). I do think we need to have a safety net for those who cannot provide for themselves, but I don’t consider cell phones and internet to be part of that (as examples). Hopefully you get where I’m coming from.

Do you mind telling me if you vote Democrat or Republican? Maybe we can see how your vote affects your finances.

Not on this forum, but you can go to others to figure it out.

 

[Bradski]

Not necessarily. The Catholic Church has guidelines on morality, and what you find as a common thread to the various moral guidelines as to whether or not an act is morally wrong is “intent”.

It beats me how in heaven’s name you are going to find that out. And in passing, I’ll also mention that it only seemed a problem to you for the less well-off voting themselves more money as opposed to those who are much better placed financially.

So how do you know that people are voting purely to line their own pockets. As you went on to say, there are many and varied platforms that parties stand on and it would be impossible to say why someone voted for one over the other. If you voted for one party and it turned out that you were better off, then what’s to stop someone using your complaint against you?

Again, I think education is a better route.

So we have to educate the rich as well as the poor. And if all the rich people know who the VP is, can we then trust them to vote morally? Maybe the poor want to support a pro-life candidate who also wants to tax the rich.

I would love to know your thoughts about it if you have time to read it.

I think that the Bishops are saying don’t vote for someone who supports women’s rights (out go the Democrats) and vote someone in who will change Roe v Wade (which the Republicans have never attempted to do, so forget them). Maybe vote independent, I guess (as long as they don’t give any more financial aid to those internet browsing poor people).

I do think we need to have a safety net for those who cannot provide for themselves, but I don’t consider cell phones and internet to be part of that (as examples). Hopefully you get where I’m coming from.

No problem there, I can assure you.

 

[shockerfan]

It beats me how in heaven’s name you are going to find that out. And in passing, I’ll also mention that it only seemed a problem to you for the less well-off voting themselves more money as opposed to those who are much better placed financially.

My apologies for not noticing sooner that you list yourself as an atheist. Certainly a discussion on Catholic moral guidelines / teachings won’t resonate much with you.

As it relates to our current budget woes, our problem is one of spending, not of revenue. The federal government just experienced record tax revenues this last year, yet we still have a significant budget shortfall. Now we have candidates proposing vast new entitlement programs (like “free” college), with no plan on how to pay for it, and address our other serious budget shortfalls, including the unfunded liabilities associated with SS and medicare. So it begs the question, “Is it moral to vote for more “free” stuff, and continue to run up the federal deficit / debt and thrust this catastrophe on our children?” It also begs the question, “In order to pay for “free” stuff, just how much of other people’s money do we want the federal government to confiscate? 50%? 60%? 90%?”

So yes, because we have a spending issue, the point of my questions revolve around the morality of voting yourself more of other people’s money.

However, at no time did I ever say that rich people have no moral questions of their own. It just wasn’t the point of my posts.

So how do you know that people are voting purely to line their own pockets.

To some degree I am extrapolating. When people continue to vote for candidates that promise more benefits without any realistic way to pay for said benefits, it hints of selfishness.

As you went on to say, there are many and varied platforms that parties stand on and it would be impossible to say why someone voted for one over the other. If you voted for one party and it turned out that you were better off, then what’s to stop someone using your complaint against you?

I suppose they can, but just because a person becomes better off due to a candidate, does not mean they voted in a selfish way. “A rising tide lifts all boats”.

So we have to educate the rich as well as the poor.

Of course

And if all the rich people know who the VP is, can we then trust them to vote morally? Maybe the poor want to support a pro-life candidate who also wants to tax the rich.

My point, that you might have missed, is that a person should educate themselves on the issues before voting. Do you agree or disagree?

Do you think our country benefits when a person (rich or poor) votes in ignorance?

I think that the Bishops are saying don’t vote for someone who supports women’s rights (out go the Democrats) and vote someone in who will change Roe v Wade (which the Republicans have never attempted to do, so forget them). Maybe vote independent, I guess (as long as they don’t give any more financial aid to those internet browsing poor people).

Again, my bad for not realizing you are atheist. Perhaps though, you can get insight as to my perspective about applying morality to voting (even though you might share the same moral code I have). Catholic moral teaching places a heavy emphasis on the conscience of the person, and the necessity of the person to have a well formed conscience.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I think what you are advocating is a socialist government and they don’t work well. We are already on that road and things are not going well. How about bringing back some of the incentives from the depression days, but not make them long term. A lot of good came out of those programs Free enterprise is really the best way to move a country forward and we don’t have it anymore as everything is so over-regulated. My opinion only.

Well, there’s a couple of things:

1. The culture was VERY different back then. It was MUCH less about entitlement and getting people dependent on government. I think people back then WANTED to work, but just couldn’t because the economy was do bad.
2. There really isn’t evidence of ulterior motives behind the programs—they were straight shots designed to help. For instance, SS was designed for “widows and orphans” as Jason Lewis notes, not as racket for public employees to retire at 55 and get 90% of their salary until they pass on.
3. However, regardless of intention, big federal government programs are not a good solution. There’s usually some visible short-term “good” whenever capital is injected into a starving market, but long-term it’s unsustainable if the government picks winners and losers.
4. The Depression ended not because of government help, but because of World War II.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I don’t think you have an understanding of what taxes are meant to achieve. Everyone should pay? Whether they can afford it or not? You must chip in to show that you’re part of the team? Otherwise…hey, no vote for you buddy.

Remind me again how unions work.

If everyone pays, then they will actually have an incentive to not be a part of the low-information crowd and sit there trying to figure out (it isn’t hard today) which politician will give them the most benefits.

We probably shouldn’t have to do that, but it’s not a bad idea given how America has devolved into the nanny state.

 

[SuperLuigi]

If they couldn’t vote, the politicians would not be falling all over themselves to bring new freebies to them in order to get their votes.

I didn’t say I liked the idea of taking away anybody’s rights. Having said that, I also don’t care for people abusing their right to vote to take away anybody else’s hard earned money.

As I said in my next post, we need to have a serious discussion about the definition of poverty. The church should be in the charity business NOT the government. And people should be turning to charity as a last resort not as a way of life.

If one is talking about the USA in terms of poverty, it depends on how assets are factored. Most people “in poverty” in America have cell phones and DVD players.

What’s amazing is how little it actually takes to get some voters to betray all of their fundamental principles.

That would be the folks who come on here and elsewhere angrily wrestling with their consciences and looking for us to approve of them/make an exception/pat them on the back for voting for whatever selfish benefit they can reap at the expense of the unborn, elderly, religious freedom and marriage.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If one is talking about the USA in terms of poverty, it depends on how assets are factored. Most people “in poverty” in America have cell phones and DVD players.

What is your implication? That if they would just sell their cell phones and DVD players they would not be in poverty anymore? Or that if they had not bought a cell phone in the first place they would not be in poverty now? That just doesn’t make sense.

 

[57classic]

Perhaps it doesn’t make sense to you because you have never seen real poverty.

Imagine people being happy to be alive and have a roof over their head, even though it leaks when it rains which is often. Imagine having very little choices in what to eat just being glad to have the same beans and rice as earlier today and yesterday and the day before that. Imagine having only one set of clothes to wear while the other is being cleaned and one thing to wear to church. Imagine all that.

We are all STUFF poor! We have no idea how to be happy with what we have, we always want more as though God promised us a Golden Corral buffet for life.

This desire for stuff has robbed families of rent/mortgage, food and utility and insurance money. Those are the things that should be paid first, (well after giving to those even less fortunate because you know God won’t be out given) NOT the cell phone, NOT the cable bill, NOT this weekend’s sporting event or concert, NOT the coolest car, hottest prom dress, 14 pairs of shoes, nail polish, music…ad infinium, ad nauseum.

Add to this, substance abuse costs money! Tobacco costs money, a lot of money! Tattoos cost money!!

I am disgusted with people who spend all their money on stuff that benefits them not in the least then rely on taxpayer dollars so they and their children can survive because they are “poor”.

My mother told me many stories about what they had to do during the depression, she then married an alcoholic and had to keep those same skills honed to get us by from paycheck to paycheck. I also read a lot of history about the pioneers who settled this great land and the lives and hardships they left behind only to struggle to survive here. They did this so their children would have a chance to have a great life. We have squandered their dreams.

This country needs to understand what poverty really is before we all have to experience it again by our own doing.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Perhaps it doesn’t make sense to you because you have never seen real poverty.
…
This desire for stuff has robbed families of rent/mortgage, food and utility and insurance money. Those are the things that should be paid first, (well after giving to those even less fortunate because you know God won’t be out given) NOT the cell phone, NOT the cable bill, NOT this weekend’s sporting event or concert, NOT the coolest car, hottest prom dress, 14 pairs of shoes, nail polish, music…ad infinium, ad nauseum.

Add to this, substance abuse costs money! Tobacco costs money, a lot of money! Tattoos cost money!!

I am disgusted with people who spend all their money on stuff that benefits them not in the least then rely on taxpayer dollars so they and their children can survive because they are “poor”.

Oh, so now we are claiming that most of those in poverty in America are wasting their money on cable TV, too many shoes, nail polish, tobacco, etc.? It sounds like nothing more than an excuse not to be charitable until we find Tiny Tim’s family. I see no moral basis for requiring that a person live like a Dickensian pauper before he can be deemed worthy of charity. Instead of comparing the impoverished with their historical counterparts, how about comparing them with the fabulously wealthy of today? Consider that someone working a full time minimum wage job would have to work for over 5 million years to earn as much as Bill Gates has right now.

 

[57classic]

Why is an adult still in a minimum wage job? Those are entry level jobs. Why isn’t this person moving up the job ladder? Minimum wage jobs are for teenagers, adults returning to the workforce with no skills and for those who need part time work to work around college schedules or children’s school schedules.

Adults are not supposed to stay in a dead end or a minimum wage job.

Please do not tell me there are no jobs. The newspapers here are full of higher than minimum wage jobs, many requiring hard physical labor, or the work is outside in whatever weather. Other jobs require a 2 year degree, which I have proven can be obtained while working and raising kids alone. I started at minimum wage at a discount store like Walmart and worked my way up to department head then service desk while I was attending college. After a couple more jobs, each paying better than the one before, I was working at a top 500 accounting firm and got off all government benefits. It can be done with determination and a firm grip on personal responsibility.

As for my charitable contributions, I give as much as I can and I volunteer, how much do you give?

And what is wrong with expecting, or even requiring that grown ups live a lifestyle that they can support all by themselves?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Why is an adult still in a minimum wage job?

Quite obviously because this person, like all poor people, is just lazy and morally deficient, and squanders what little he does have.:nope:

Other jobs require a 2 year degree, which I have proven can be obtained while working and raising kids alone. I started at minimum wage at a discount store like Walmart and worked my way up to department head then service desk while I was attending college. After a couple more jobs, each paying better than the one before, I was working at a top 500 accounting firm and got off all government benefits. It can be done with determination and a firm grip on personal responsibility.

Of course this was all due to your own efforts and not to, say, any totally unmerited blessings from God, right?

 

[57classic]

Quite obviously because this person, like all poor people, is just lazy and morally deficient, and squanders what little he does have.:nope:

Of course this was all your own efforts and not to, say, any totally unmerited blessings from God, right?

That was totally uncalled for, stop putting words in my mouth. I depended on God every minute of every day, still do. We aren’t debating the spirituality of the poor or my own for that matter. Personal attacks are unwarranted and unproductive to the goal of understanding.

What is wrong with wanting able bodied adults to support themselves? I observed a 30ish married man with children who is paid $15 an hour telling an upper 40ish single man how he should get on benefits, that the younger man would show the older man how it was done. Both have jobs but neither want to work enough hours to support themselves because they can get benefits at the taxpayers’ expense.

My husband was resting because his back hurt him at a big gun show, a complete stranger struck up a conversation and told him he should be on disability, and he could show him how it is done.

For crying out loud! How long can this country go on with fewer and fewer people working and more people taking advantage of “benefits”?

What if we all just spent as much as we wanted on ourselves and counted on the government to take care of our responsibilities, namely our children with free breakfasts, lunches, summer meals, low rent housing, utility grants, foodstamps, cell phones, cash assistance. The Christmas catalogs are starting to arrive, there are a LOT of things I would love to have but, I can’t afford them period.

What if we all spent only what we could afford after taking care of our responsibilities? What is so bad about having the self respect that comes from earning a living by working at an honest job for an honest wage, working hard for a promotion or a raise or taking the skills learned from all prior jobs and getting a better job. It is a great feeling.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

That was totally uncalled for, stop putting words in my mouth. I depended on God every minute of every day, still do. We aren’t debating the spirituality of the poor or my own for that matter. Personal attacks are unwarranted and unproductive to the goal of understanding.

I did not mean it as a personal attack, but as a reminder of what you just freely acknowledged right here - that we all depend on the graces of God every minute of every day. (I like your way of putting it!) And in recognizing that fact, we must recognize that what we accomplish in life is not solely a product of our own good efforts (although our efforts certainly matter too.) Those accomplishments are also a product of God’s graces, which for His own good reasons He does not grant equally to everyone. Do you think everyone could be as good a violinist as Joshua Bell if he just worked hard at it? Do you think everyone could be the founder of multi-billion dollar company like Bill Gate if he was just more ambitious? By the same token, we cannot assume that our own modest accomplishments, like the ones you mentioned in rising through adversity, are things that anyone can do if they just tried. We cannot say “I did it, so you can too.” For maybe you did what you did with the help of graces from God that God did not grant to me.

But getting back to the original social welfare policy question, let me pose a personal scaled-down version of that question. Suppose you had a poor neighbor - a young disabled widow with a 19-year old healthy but good for nothing and lazy son, whom she loves dearly. And suppose you felt moved to help her out. But you know that if you give her assistance, she is likely to give a good portion of it to her son. Would you do it anyway? Or would you try to talk to her to convince her that her son should go out and get a job? Or what would you do?

This is the dilemma with public policy of this sort. We can try to avoid enabling abuse, but there will always be some. Should we neglect an opportunity to help someone who is needy just because in so doing, someone else may unfairly benefit?

 

[shockerfan]

This is the dilemma with public policy of this sort. We can try to avoid enabling abuse, but there will always be some. Should we neglect an opportunity to help someone who is needy just because in so doing, someone else may unfairly benefit?

But, why is trying to avoid abuse always seem to have nefarious motives attached to it?

It appeared as if you tried to attach nefarious motives to 57’s comments by trying to put them in the worst possible context with these comments:

“Quite obviously because this person, like all poor people, is just lazy and morally deficient, and squanders what little he does have.”

“Of course this was all due to your own efforts and not to, say, any totally unmerited blessings from God, right?”

Most, if not all, conservatives I know want to both help the needy AND limit abuse. I don’t think they are mutually exclusive.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

But, why is trying to avoid abuse always seem to have nefarious motives attached to it?

It appeared as if you tried to attach nefarious motives to 57’s comments by trying to put them in the worst possible context with these comments:

My comment which you quoted did no more to attribute nefarious motives than did 57’s original examples of abuse.

Most, if not all, conservatives I know want to both help the needy AND limit abuse. I don’t think they are mutually exclusive.

I am making no comment about “conservatives” or any other group as far as what they believe. I am only commenting on policies, and whoever happens to hold those policies.

 

[57classic]

I did not mean it as a personal attack, but as a reminder of what you just freely acknowledged right here - that we all depend on the graces of God every minute of every day. And in recognizing that fact, we must recognize that what we accomplish in life is not solely a product of our own good efforts (although our efforts certainly matter too.) Those accomplishments are also a product of God’s graces, which for His own good reasons He does not grant equally to everyone.

But getting back to the original social welfare policy question, let me pose a personal scaled-down version of that question. Suppose you had a poor neighbor - a young disabled widow with a 19-year old healthy but good for nothing and lazy son, whom she loves dearly. And suppose you felt moved to help her out. But you know that if you give her assistance, she is likely to give a good portion of it to her son. Would you do it anyway? Or would you try to talk to her to convince her that her son should go out and get a job? Or what would you do?

I don’t need to be reminded by anyone of how blessed I am. I was also blessed then because every job I had, every experience good and bad has given me tools to use in the here and now. I may not have appreciated acquiring the experience at the time but I knew, because the Sisters said, God does not give any person more than they can handle.

Do you believe God gives anyone more than they can handle? Do you think God intends for able bodied persons to receive more benefits by having more children? Yes it does too happen, I personally know families of generation-ally dependent people. If God does not give people more than they can handle, then dependency should be temporary for most people receiving benefits. Most should be able to graduate to self sufficiency within a few years. I know there are single mothers and I would not require mothers of infants to work. And I am not advocating the government use any kind of population control coercion, is it too much to ask that young people stop making babies before they grow up themselves.

I am advocating personal responsibility, the government can’t mandate that, it has to be taught at home, in churches and schools.

I also believe bad things happen to good people in order to let other good people have an opportunity to practice the corporal works of mercy first hand, not just throw money at the collection plate or worse yet, allow government to distribute benefits–they really are not good at it at all.

As for your example, you forgot, my father was an alcoholic, I know how these games are played. One does not give money to the widow. I would make meals to take to them, arrange for a handy man to do home repairs, if I could do it anonymously, I would pay off some bill or prepay a utility bill for her. This benefits both but does not give the son access to money.

The government cannot carry on this kind of one on one casework that is why it is the churches that should be doing all the charity work and people should be going to church anyway. I will not believe God would ignore people who earnestly prayed for help to be able to help themselves. Jesus said we would always have the poor with us but I am not sure He meant the same people would be poor all their lives. Poor because one refuses to better oneself is not the same as poor because one is mentally or physically unable to get an education, either a formal education or work up from the bottom.

Please read this from Davy Crockett’s time in Congress:
constitution.org/cons/crockett.htm

It is too long to copy and paste here but it sums up how I feel about government benefits.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Do you believe God gives anyone more than they can handle?

God does not subject anyone to more of a trial than they can handle. But “handle” means something quite different from “succeed materially”. God gives us the means to avoid sin and be with Him in heaven. That is all. He does not guarantee that some people might not be given a trial from which there is no material success, such as the early martyrs of the Church. They did avoid sin and are now in heaven. But they did not succeed materially. They were horribly killed. Thus they did “handle” their trial as God gave them the grace to do so.

But it is wrong to take that principle and take it to mean that God gives everyone the material graces to succeed economically or in other worldly ways. In this area there is a lot of inequity. That is why I deny the claim “If I can do it so can you”, which was implicit in your arguments about what we should expect of those in poverty.

Do you think God intends for able bodied persons to receive more benefits by having more children?

This I find very troubling. Although you are not explicitly advocating birth control, you are coming pretty close. And implicit in your question is the implication that those in poverty are not as worthy to have children as those with means.

I also believe bad things happen to good people in order to let other good people have an opportunity to practice the corporal works of mercy first hand, not just throw money at the collection plate or worse yet, allow government to distribute benefits–they really are not good at it at all.

Having a government social welfare program does not prevent anyone from exercising corporal works of mercy. But I find it troubling to think that we should refrain from a social welfare program merely to ensure a good supply of poor people so that others may more easily practice their works of charity. That is troubling because it shows more concern for the opportunities for the givers than concern for those in need themselves.

I will not believe God would ignore people who earnestly prayed for help to be able to help themselves.

As I said above, the help from God may not be of the sort that gives the person the material help you are thinking of. God answers prayer in the way that is best for our souls, not necessarily best for our pocketbooks.

Poor because one refuses to better oneself is not the same as poor because one is mentally or physically unable to get an education, either a formal education or work up from the bottom.

I have not addressed this case because I refuse to accept that most of the poor fall into the first category and not the second.

 

[57classic]

God does not subject anyone to more of a trial than they can handle. But “handle” means something quite different from “succeed materially”. God gives us the means to avoid sin and be with Him in heaven. That is all. He does not guarantee that some people might not be given a trial from which there is no material success, such as the early martyrs of the Church. They did avoid sin and are now in heaven. But they did not succeed materially. They were horribly killed. Thus they did “handle” their trial as God gave them the grace to do so.

Our Lord does grant petitions for financial help, that is the specialty of The Infant of Prague, and Our Lady of Prompt Succor and there are several saints who will pray on behalf of needed material help. Here is an example: “St. Jude, please assist me in these difficult financial circumstances. I beg you to shine the light on the resources that I need to help meet my debts and satisfy my pressing obligations.”

But it is wrong to take that principle and take it to mean that God gives everyone the material graces to succeed economically or in other worldly ways. In this area there is a lot of inequity. That is why I deny the claim “If I can do it so can you”, which was implicit in your arguments about what we should expect of those in poverty.

This I find very troubling. Although you are not explicitly advocating birth control, you are coming pretty close. And implicit in your question is the implication that those in poverty are not as worthy to have children as those with means.

You seem to find me very troubling. I find your ideas equally disturbing. I do not advocate birth control, I advocate self control. I know how hard it is and I also know society advocates instant gratification and I know society will remain civilized only to the extent that we practice self control and self discipline.

Having a government social welfare program does not prevent anyone from exercising corporal works of mercy. But I find it troubling to think that we should refrain from a social welfare program merely to ensure a good supply of poor people so that others may more easily practice their works of charity. That is troubling because it shows more concern for the opportunities for the givers than concern for those in need themselves.

You are twisting my words, again. I never said, nor did I imply that I wanted a good supply of poor people. If government stepped out of the picture, people would step in, as it is, so many people think that the government will take care of the situation so they do nothing or send their missionaries and their money to foreign countries instead of helping out right here at home. Have you seen South Dakota? Appalachia? Detroit? There are American people who could use the missionaries, doctors and dentists who regularly travel outside the country to do good works.

As I said above, the help from God may not be of the sort that gives the person the material help you are thinking of. God answers prayer in the way that is best for our souls, not necessarily best for our pocketbooks.

Countless novenas over hundreds of years have been answered with material blessings proving you wrong. Farmers have always prayed for favorable weather for crops and livestock, Catholic farmers have St. Isidore to pray with them and The Rural Life Commission to support them spiritually in their vocation. Each avocation has several patron saints who pray for them and their success lest they lose heart. If you have been getting by without God’s help for your finances all this time, no wonder you are bitter toward those you believe to be unfairly wealthy.
Our Lord knows what our troubles are, He is waiting to be asked, He wants to be asked so that we will then be properly grateful to Him. If He just gave as needed without being asked, humans feel ENTITLED…hummmmm that brings to mind, Government Entitlements. We do not deserve what we will not, I am not saying cannot, work for. Even St. Paul said those who will not work, neither shall they eat.

I have not addressed this case because I refuse to accept that most of the poor fall into the first category and not the second.

40% of the unemployed have given up looking for work, how are these able bodied people feeding themselves and their families? If there are no jobs, why are the illegal aliens still coming here?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Our Lord does grant petitions for financial help, that is the specialty of The Infant of Prague, and Our Lady of Prompt Succor and there are several saints who will pray on behalf of needed material help. Here is an example: “St. Jude, please assist me in these difficult financial circumstances. I beg you to shine the light on the resources that I need to help meet my debts and satisfy my pressing obligations.”

The way you apply this truth to the social welfare question has a logic fault. While it is true that prayer for material help can sometimes bring about material help, you cannot assume that someone who does not seem to be getting material help is not praying for it, and trying for it on their own in every other way as well. But that is exactly the conclusion you would need to reach your point that those who are not achieving material success are somehow necessarily personally responsible for that failure to succeed, which allows you to justify denying social welfare in the first place.

I advocate self control. I know how hard it is and I also know society advocates instant gratification and I know society will remain civilized only to the extent that we practice self control and self discipline.

OK, so poor people just need to abstain from sex. But that does not answer the question of why the poor should be considered less worthy to have children than the rich.

I never said, nor did I imply that I wanted a good supply of poor people. If government stepped out of the picture, people would step in, as it is, so many people think that the government will take care of the situation so they do nothing or send their missionaries and their money to foreign countries instead of helping out right here at home.

First, I don’t think that if government stepped out of the picture, charitable people would step in with an equal amount of help. To see that all you have to do is look at historical periods and even present day places where there is no government welfare. In none of those places and times has private charity ever provided the level of support that is anywhere near what government provides now.

Second, you just admitted that many people are waiting for government to step out of the picture before they will become more charitable. In other words, there aren’t enough poor people right now to encourage private charity. Since you obviously consider private charity a good and desirable thing, and the only way to achieve it is to create more poor people, you are essentially contradicting your first sentence where you said you did not want to make more people poor.

Have you seen South Dakota? Appalachia? Detroit? There are American people who could use the missionaries, doctors and dentists who regularly travel outside the country to do good works.

What is the point of that? That we should cut back on foreign missionaries, doctors and dentists so we could serve those in the US instead?

Countless novenas over hundreds of years have been answered with material blessings proving you wrong. Farmers have always prayed for favorable weather for crops and livestock, Catholic farmers have St. Isidore to pray with them and The Rural Life Commission to support them spiritually in their vocation. Each avocation has several patron saints who pray for them and their success lest they lose heart. If you have been getting by without God’s help for your finances all this time, no wonder you are bitter toward those you believe to be unfairly wealthy.

I am not bitter towards anyone, including the unfairly wealthy. But this is another example of the logic fault I mentioned about. Yes, there are many forms of prayer for material blessings, and it is always good to pray for our needs, both spiritual and temporal. But you cannot assume someone has not prayed just because they don’t seem to be getting richer.

40% of the unemployed have given up looking for work, how are these able bodied people feeding themselves and their families?

I assume that you are implying that these 40% could get a job if they wanted to. Couldn’t it also be that they have given up because they know no one will hire them right now?