Pope attacks mega-salaries and wealth gap in peace message

[LisaA]

What I do maintain is that capitalism inexorably tends toward greater concentration of wealth and power in fewer and fewer hands. This is undoubtedly what has happened and is happening now in the United States, whose government was set up from the beginning to favor the interests of the creditor (read: usurer) class at the expense of the debtor (read: labor) class.
.

Yes but so does every other system, and for other systems, it’s the misery that is shared. Tell me there is a greater concentration of power in fewer hands in America or other (sort of these days ) free market based economic system than in the government controlled socialist, communist or fascist societies…or as the famous saying goes capitalism is the worst economic system…except for all of the others. The disparity between the elite in communist/socialist/fascist countries is far greater and the opportunities to move out of the mire are less available. There are no Dr Ben Carsons in Cuba or Justice Clarence Thomas’s in North Korea.

Further in an odd twist of irony, while you seem (and correct me if I’m wrong) to favor more regulation, more control of the economy to “equalize” income, the reality is that the government is the CAUSE of much of this inequality. Giving more power to the government is NOT going to help the situation. It’s failed miserably in virtually every endeavor, particularly in the social realm. More freedom,which is what our country was founded upon puts more power in the individual’s hands and less in that of these behemoths in charge of our lives.

I think we agree that were our country operated on Catholic Social Teaching, it would be far more just, far more kind and far more prosperous than our current mishmash of crony capitalism, massive federal government control, and renegade cultural norms.

In a system of state sponsored usury (capitalism), in which the government is given the power to enforce usurious contracts, the distinction between “government” and “the private sector” becomes murky indeed, because often the interests of one or the other are the same.
.

I heard a very interesting lecture that posited the very credible theory that it’s not the politicians who are controlled by corporations but that corporations are increasingly controlled by politicians. Legislation is proposed to strike fear in the heart of some industry or other…remember Maxine Waters suggesting we nationalize oil companies? In reality such legislation has ZERO chance of passing but it’s a convenient shakedown tactic to obtain large corporate donations. As the speaker noted, politicians have become the nation’s Squeegee Men, blackmailing corporations and benefitting financially. Washington DC has become the highest income area in the country surpassing Silicon Valley and other previous title holders. Nothing is being manufactured in Washington DC, it’s just favor trading, blackmail, and legal robbery. Further many retired or failed Congressmen end up in the very corporations or lobbying agencies that were targets of their own shakedowns allowing them to benefit from both sides of the spectrum.

How else do congressmen whose salaries are less than $200000 a year end up as multimillionaires after a few terms in office? Talk about income disparity and wealth disparity…So attacking corporations is getting at only one of a number of elements creating wealth disparity. As long as we have Congressmen using their office to benefit personally we will have an increasing gap between them and their constituants.

Lisa

 

[markomalley]

The average worker makes just under $20/hr in the US. The top 100 CEO’s average around $20,000 per hour. Personally, I can’t think of anything that the CEO of Pier One Imports does which would warrant compensation just under $20 million

This is an incredibly arrogant statement.

Note: I am not calling **you **arrogant. I am calling your statement arrogant.

It is also a violation of Catholic Social Teaching:*Rerum Novarum: *45. Let the working man and the employer make free agreements, and in particular let them agree freely as to the wages; nevertheless, there underlies a dictate of natural justice more imperious and ancient than any bargain between man and man, namely, that wages ought not to be insufficient to support a frugal and well behaved wage-earner.
Those CEOs are employees of the corporation Board of Directors. If they are able to negotiate a salary of $3,000,000 per annum, $10,000,000 per annum, or $100,000,000 per annum, then God bless them.

(You will note that I posted the entire statement from Rerum Novarum…because it sets a moral lower limit, not a moral upper limit)

The key question is not how much somebody makes. The question is what they do with it after they’ve got it. Do they practice consumerism in their lives? The acquisition of an untoward amount of goods that far exceed any possible need? Then it is their bad that they do not steward their goods in accordance with the social teaching of the Church. The amount they are compensated is rather irrelevant. What they do with that compensation is EXTREMELY relevant.

Consider this for a minute.

Assume I make $100,000 a year as an electrical engineer (that is not my job and that is not my salary, but I am trying to keep the math fairly easy and in an amount that most of us can comprehend). With that, I contribute to the Church, I pay my taxes, pay my mortgage, pay for my childrens’ education, and put a reasonable amount away for my wife and my retirement.

After a couple of decades, my children graduate from college, my mortgage is paid off, my retirement is well funded, and so on. In other words, as I get older, my expenses drop off considerably. My wife and I could live comfortably now on $60,000 per year.

Do I have an obligation in those circumstances to go to my employer and request a salary cut? If I was to do so, what would my employer then do with it? Would he take that $40,000 and distribute it to 10,000 other people in the company? (that would be a whopping $4 a person per year, by the way)

I would submit that my responsibility would be to re-evaluate my giving and perhaps practice additional liberality.

But if you can come up with some quotes from the Papal Magisterium that mandate that I go to my employer and demand a pay cut, please let me know (I will be in that situation in a couple of years, so it would be pertinent).

Now if the obligation for liberality is appropriate for me, why would it not be appropriate for a Fortune 100 CEO?

The incredible envy that is expressed in the statement, I can’t think of anything the CEO of ______ does to warrant ______ is mind-blowing.

Who makes the determination of who should earn what? Should everybody earn the same thing? Should some government board make determinations on what salaries are appropriate for what job?

If so, what’s going to prevent certain groups from lobbying the person responsible for setting wages so that their clients’ special interest is appropriately accommodated?

Go back to that quote from John Paul II that I cited above:

From John Paul II, Sollicitudo rei socialis

It should be noted that in today’s world, among other rights, the right of economic initiative is often suppressed. Yet it is a right which is important not only for the individual but also for the common good. **Experience shows us that the denial of this right, or its limitation in the name of an alleged “equality” of everyone in society, diminishes, or in practice absolutely destroys the spirit of initiative, that is to say the creative subjectivity of the citizen. As a consequence, there arises, not so much a true equality as a “leveling down.” **In the place of creative initiative there appears passivity, dependence and submission to the bureaucratic apparatus which, as the only “ordering” and “decision-making” body - if not also the “owner”- of the entire totality of goods and the means of production, puts everyone in a position of almost absolute dependence, which is similar to the traditional dependence of the worker-proletarian in capitalism. This provokes a sense of frustration or desperation and predisposes people to opt out of national life, impelling many to emigrate and also favoring a form of “psychological” emigration.
​

If there is no economic benefit to hard work, hard study, and so on, then people will not bother wasting their time with hard work, hard study, and so on. Sure, some might. Most won’t.

The real solution to the problem is for those who have more than they need to be liberal with their giving, as in Acts 4:

[bibledrb]Acts 4:32[/bibledrb]

Again (as I said in post 141, above), I am not trying to justify immoral behavior on the part of an employer. I also fully subscribe to the denunciation of consumerism. But the bottom line is that the solution to consumerism is for people to change their hearts. And some government action in a misguided attempt to force that change will only result in different forms of consumerism appearing.

 

[markomalley]

I’d like to thank you for your response to what I said. It is clear to me that what I said is not accurate and not what I actually intended to say. I was posting in haste and when one does that, one is prone to make mistakes.

The Popes and the Church, as you have so thoroughly pointed out, long recognized that wealth inequality is a part of the human condition, irrespective of the economic system in which it occurs. Wealth inequality is clearly not something unique to the capitalist system, and I was mistaken to imply that it is.

What I do maintain is that capitalism inexorably tends toward greater concentration of wealth and power in fewer and fewer hands. This is undoubtedly what has happened and is happening now in the United States, whose government was set up from the beginning to favor the interests of the creditor (read: usurer) class at the expense of the debtor (read: labor) class.

In a system of state sponsored usury (capitalism), in which the government is given the power to enforce usurious contracts, the distinction between “government” and “the private sector” becomes murky indeed, because often the interests of one or the other are the same.

I think you’re missing the point. Historically, the popes have not only said that inequality is the norm. They have also said that, in of itself, it is not a bad thing. As I stated in post #181, the issue is not the condition of “equality.” The issue is what does a person who has wealth do with that wealth once he/she has got it?

For example, the CEO of Boeing makes about $27,000,000 a year. Based upon what I have seen with most CEOs I’ve dealt with, he probably works about 80 hours a week or so. That’s about $6,500 per hour.

Let us say that we had a government mandate that stated that each and every Fortune 100 CEO in this country would make $20 per hour and be subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act. So, with the above, he would $41,600 per year in straight time and $62,400 in overtime per year for a total of $104,000 per year. What would happen to the other $26,896,000 per year? Should that be distributed to the workers in Boeing? Boeing has 172,000 employees. That would mean that every pay period, each of the other 171,999 Boeing employees would get $6 extra in their paychecks. I guess that means they could buy a six pack of beer or a couple of cups of Starbucks or something. In other words, it’s not going to make a big difference in their lives.

And if you were to do the same analysis on Walmart’s CEO, you’d find that the reducing his salary to the same level would earn each Walmart employee about 36 cents a pay period. And, while I haven’t done so for each and every Fortune 100 company, you’d find the same basic trend if you divided the CEO’s salary by the number of employees in the company (I’m sure there are exceptions…like law firms, for example).

The point is that inequality is not the real issue here…the question is, how do you get people to treat each other with the dignity that they are due as being created in the image and likeness of God? How do you get people to regard people as first (true fraternity) and stuff as a distant third or fourth?

It disturbs me when I see a company cut salaries or do layoffs (not because of the bad economy, but because they want to increase profits). It also disturbs me when I see fights over “tickle me Elmo” or the latest flat screen TV in Wal Mart. And it even more disturbs me when I see a kid get mugged because his assailant desires his latest Nike Air Jordans (or whatever they’re called now). But it’s all the same thing: consumerism.

How do we as individuals and as a society change from our current materialistic, narcissistic reality into a society that resembles Acts 4:32? It ain’t through socialism or through any other government program. The only way that this will happen is the same way it did in the book of Acts: through a movement of the Holy Spirit.

 

[LisaA]

Go back to that quote from John Paul II that I cited above:

From John Paul II, Sollicitudo rei socialis

It should be noted that in today’s world, among other rights, the right of economic initiative is often suppressed. Yet it is a right which is important not only for the individual but also for the common good. **Experience shows us that the denial of this right, or its limitation in the name of an alleged “equality” of everyone in society, diminishes, or in practice absolutely destroys the spirit of initiative, that is to say the creative subjectivity of the citizen. As a consequence, there arises, not so much a true equality as a “leveling down.” **In the place of creative initiative there appears passivity, dependence and submission to the bureaucratic apparatus which, as the only “ordering” and “decision-making” body - if not also the “owner”- of the entire totality of goods and the means of production, puts everyone in a position of almost absolute dependence, which is similar to the traditional dependence of the worker-proletarian in capitalism. This provokes a sense of frustration or desperation and predisposes people to opt out of national life, impelling many to emigrate and also favoring a form of “psychological” emigration.
​

If there is no economic benefit to hard work, hard study, and so on, then people will not bother wasting their time with hard work, hard study, and so on. Sure, some might. Most won’t.

The real solution to the problem is for those who have more than they need to be liberal with their giving, as in Acts 4:

Again (as I said in post 141, above), I am not trying to justify immoral behavior on the part of an employer. I also fully subscribe to the denunciation of consumerism. But the bottom line is that the solution to consumerism is for people to change their hearts. And some government action in a misguided attempt to force that change will only result in different forms of consumerism appearing.

Wonderful post and only the interest of space makes me focus on Blessed John Paul II’s statement particularly. The beauty of our Catholic faith is that it KNOWS human nature rather than denying it as do the Utopian dreamers who think regulation and sharing misery is the way to achieve the god of equality that they so worship. You cannot change something unless you understand it. Our faith understands our fallen nature, knows we are not perfectable but we are improvable! Changing hearts, helping those who do not see the humanity in the poor, weak, unborn, or challenged to see them as brothers and sisters worthy of our concern, our love and sharing of whatever resources we have (time and talent as well as treasure!) would create a far more just and compassionate society than a top down government confiscation of our resources to distribute amongst the government’s favored causes or groups. That leads to tyranny not justice. And what does the Lord ask of us instead?

Do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with the Lord (Micah 6:8)

Lisa

 

[seekerz]

Do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with the Lord (Micah 6:8)

Lisa

I love that Lisa. None of us have all the answers and striving for perfection is the duty of all Christians. If we treat our fellowmen justly, show mercy in our relations with them and humbly remember that we all have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory…the world would be a better place.

And btw, equality is neither a god nor the contemporary misguided insistence that everyone have the same amount of material things. Equality, whether we recognize it or not is simply a fact of life which many of us spend our whole lives fighting either to have recognized or to have erased. From the day we come screaming from the womb, till the day we are placed in the grave, there is nothing we can do (or not do) to change our intrinsic equality as human beings. And yes, we all have equal right to that justice and mercy you mention. Utopian no, Christian yes.

 

[seekerz]

Really? What about 2 Thessolonians 3:10? If you don’t work, you don’t eat. In our system, you have a right to 12 years of education, and all the opportunities you can take advantage of. Many have worked hard and moved up. Indeed the bible says to protect the weak. Don’t remember the bible saying that government should take care of that, or that individuals are left off the hook.

I work for a large corporation that I guarantee you is concerned about its bottom line. It also pays a good wage - especially for those who are willing to work hard and stick it out - things get better. I recall when I worked in the retail side of the business I used to see people come in and fill out a resume - just to fulfill the requirements of staying on unemployment. They had no intention of getting hired. Not all the poor are saints, Seekerz. And some are probably more greedy than the CEO of Walmart. YOu should try to be more objective and move beyond ideology.

Ishii

You could do with a dose of your own advice. The poor are not saints, neither are they demons. I commented on one specific sort of behavior I have observed - ideology had nothing to do with my observations, unless you consider Christianity an ideology. In which case, guilty as charged.

Oh, and as for the “he who does not work shall not eat” part, I was unaware that the poor are all (or even mostly) unemployed. So thanks for adding that he who works deserves to eat…which is implied by the verse of scripture you allude to.

 

[seekerz]

Neither do I. But turning the discussion back to demonizing the messenger is a convenient way to shut down the discussion. Hate Obama’s policies? You’re a racist. Support traditional marriage. You’re a homophobe. Point out the reality that having children out of wedlock is a major driver of poverty in this country. You must hate poor single mothers! Yeah right…

It is not blaming the victim to point out the reality that is supported by every statistic, every study, and frankly your own two eyes. Volunteer for any kind of social services organization and you see fractured or unformed families, single mothers and uninvolved fathers as a major component of those receiving services. Add to that a lack of education or training and often substance abuse and you have the cascade of bad decision making that puts and keeps people in poverty.

That being said, while the decisions are often counterproductive, our multi generational dependence on government largesse, the sheer size of our country and government and the lack of subsidiarity in these policies means that those born into these situations have little chance to move out of them. Not because anyone is stopping them from getting a high school diploma (or additional education/training), forcing them to have babies before marriage or start drinking or drugging, but because they have precious few models of a more productive way of life. One charity that works with inner city youth to try to get them to be abstinent and avoid drugs and stay in school noted that fewer than 10% of the children have ever seen a traditional American family situation…a father and mother married to each other, a father who provides for his family and takes responsibilty for his wife and children. Children learn what they live.

But hey it’s so much easier to pick on Bill Gates or Jeffrey Immelt than to address and attack the real drivers of poverty.

Lisa

Thanks for reminding me that I still (perhaps I missed it) am waiting on your stats regarding “the vast majority of the poor” being poor because of bad decision-making…as opposed to say, the inability to find a job that pays a just/living wage. It’s nice to have opinions, but when they are about other people and voiced in public, it’s also nice to be able to back up opinions with facts.

But maybe we can discuss traditional families. By that I understand not just the composition, but the way it functions. If I remember correctly traditional families used to mean Dad going out to work and Mom staying home and tending the kids (at least that was the historical standard for those who could afford it). Now you seem to be saying that poor families need both parents working (full time maybe?) in order not to be poor. How is that traditional? Shouldn’t a family of average size be able to survive on the wages of a single breadwinner?

 

[seekerz]

I think a big difference is that the effects of sloth are more noticeable with the poor and have more practical effect. I have a friend who makes about $500k per year and his kids are bums. He complains about the fact that they don’t work, yet he buys them cars, lets them stay for free in his rental housing, etc. A poor person who does the same thing we see on the street as a street bum.

I agree, to an extent based on the example you gave. However a lot of the common assumptions I see about the poor are simply a result of superficial analysis. For example, fraud raises costs for all of us and/or robs us by providing outcomes/products of inferior quality. Yet, there seems to be more concern over food stamp fraud than about fraud in the private sphere. In reality, we pay for both (and perhaps pay substantially more for the more lucrative fraud).

 

[LisaA]

Thanks for reminding me that I still (perhaps I missed it) am waiting on your stats regarding “the vast majority of the poor” being poor because of bad decision-making…as opposed to say, the inability to find a job that pays a just/living wage. It’s nice to have opinions, but when they are about other people and voiced in public, it’s also nice to be able to back up opinions with facts.

But maybe we can discuss traditional families. By that I understand not just the composition, but the way it functions. If I remember correctly traditional families used to mean Dad going out to work and Mom staying home and tending the kids (at least that was the historical standard for those who could afford it). Now you seem to be saying that poor families need both parents working (full time maybe?) in order not to be poor. How is that traditional? Shouldn’t a family of average size be able to survive on the wages of a single breadwinner?

With respect to your first comment, Mary and others have provided links and quotes from studies that demonstrate the causes of poverty in this country. As I told you, I don’t bother with the Tom Sawyer challenges. Believe what you’ve seen on this forum or do your own research to find something to dispute it.

I spoke to traditional families in that it used to be children were born to a married couple (male and female). This is the traditional family structure that provides not only better financial footing but also emotional and physical support for family endeavors. It’s irrelevant whether Dad does the lawn and Mom does the dishes, it’s just easier to have two people who can help with household chores and raising children than a single parent who’s struggling to do everything on her own; work, child care, errands, household chores, helping with homework, providing emotional support etc. Further whether or not Mom works outside the home, she brings financial benefit to the family. Expenses of childcare, food preparation, child taxi service are either avoided or reduced with a stay at home parent (usually Mom).

Whether both parents are working is a personal decision to be made by the parents. With a single parent it’s not nearly as easy is it?

I don’t know why you keep arguing against the obvious as well as the documented reality that single parenting is a struggle and the poor decision making by both bio mom and bio dad is instrumental in the socioeconomic level of both them and their children.

Quit beating a dead horse or give him an adrenalin shot in the heart with some evidence this is not the case.

Lisa

 

[Darryl1958]

By way of analogy, then would you also say that a teenage girl who wears tight jeans deserves to be sexually molested? I can’t say that I am a fan of the practice of “blaming the victim.”

No. I wouldn’t say that either.
Nobody on this forum, and very few people in America, would say that a girl in tight jeans would deserve to be molested.

Taking a stand with the Church that strong families and the fraternal relationships that strong families engender are the best antidote against poverty, and thinking that girls in tight jeans deserve to be raped, are not related in any way.

Your analogy and the conclusions that your draw from it, describe no one’s position here.

 

[SuperLuigi]

No. I wouldn’t say that either.
Nobody on this forum, and very few people in America, would say that a girl in tight jeans would deserve to be molested.

Taking a stand with the Church that strong families and the fraternal relationships that strong families engender are the best antidote against poverty, and thinking that girls in tight jeans deserve to be raped, are not related in any way.

Your analogy and the conclusions that your draw from it, describe no one’s position here.

This whole “blaming the victim” nonsense is a card played by progressives over and over like a broken record. It allows people to slide out from under personal responsibility.

It would be a mistake to assume that just because someone is poor, they get a bye into heaven.

 

[SuperLuigi]

=seekerz;11496543]You could do with a dose of your own advice. The poor are not saints, neither are they demons. I commented on one specific sort of behavior I have observed - ideology had nothing to do with my observations, unless you consider Christianity an ideology. In which case, guilty as charged.

It would do you well not to speak in such general terms about a group of people.

 

[SuperLuigi]

When did I say that the government should legislate economic morality?

If you didn’t, that’s fine. I was just adding to the discussion.

 

[LisaA]

This whole “blaming the victim” nonsense is a card played by progressives over and over like a broken record. It allows people to slide out from under personal responsibility.

It would be a mistake to assume that just because someone is poor, they get a bye into heaven.

I thought I’d pull out Catholic Social Teaching which sort of juxtaposes rights & responsibilities vis a vis the special option for the poor.

**Rights and Responsibilities

The Catholic tradition teaches that human dignity can be protected and a healthy community can be achieved only if human rights are protected and responsibilities are met. Therefore, every person has a fundamental right to life and a right to those things required for human decency. Corresponding to these rights are duties and responsibilities–to one another, to our families, and to the larger society.

Option for the Poor and Vulnerable

A basic moral test is how our most vulnerable members are faring. In a society marred by deepening divisions between rich and poor, our tradition recalls the story of the Last Judgment (Mt 25:31-46) and instructs us to put the needs of the poor and vulnerable first.**

As noted, being poor doesn’t mean you can abrogate all responsibility for your life or your actions. As Scripture states, justice is to be blind, and one is not to give someone a pass when wrong is committed even if the person has limited resources.

But in addition, we as Catholics (and hopefully all of society) should consider the needs of the poor. While I don’t see any tension between the two provisions, too often the Left/Progressives use the latter as a cudgel to claim their right to alter compensation or confiscate wealth which they will then bestow upon those favored at that time. Further any suggestion of demonstrating responsibility…drug testing before receiving benefits, ID to vote, “Work-fare” requirements are met with howls and screams about how those requests are outrageous or hateful or bigoted. It is not but is in fact evidence of respecting the human dignity of the person, treating him or her as a capable human being, not an incompent idiot. I’ve always held that the comment “soft bigotry of low expectations” has a great impact keeping people down. People tend to achieve what is expected of them and if the bar is low, many are willing to comply.

Lisa

 

[seekerz]

With respect to your first comment, Mary and others have provided links and quotes from studies that demonstrate the causes of poverty in this country. As I told you, I don’t bother with the Tom Sawyer challenges. Believe what you’ve seen on this forum or do your own research to find something to dispute it.

I spoke to traditional families in that it used to be children were born to a married couple (male and female). This is the traditional family structure that provides not only better financial footing but also emotional and physical support for family endeavors. It’s irrelevant whether Dad does the lawn and Mom does the dishes, it’s just easier to have two people who can help with household chores and raising children than a single parent who’s struggling to do everything on her own; work, child care, errands, household chores, helping with homework, providing emotional support etc. Further whether or not Mom works outside the home, she brings financial benefit to the family. Expenses of childcare, food preparation, child taxi service are either avoided or reduced with a stay at home parent (usually Mom).

Whether both parents are working is a personal decision to be made by the parents. With a single parent it’s not nearly as easy is it?

I don’t know why you keep arguing against the obvious as well as the documented reality that single parenting is a struggle and the poor decision making by both bio mom and bio dad is instrumental in the socioeconomic level of both them and their children.

Quit beating a dead horse or give him an adrenalin shot in the heart with some evidence this is not the case.

Lisa

No, your provided (to my knowledge) evidence of statistical associations between family type and poverty. Another poster provided a 2009 publication of factors that place people at risk for poverty. Nowhere have I seen, and forgive me if I missed it, a breakdown of causes of poverty by percentages of poor people so affected, which is what your statement dealt with.

I asked a simple question: what percentage of the poor corresponds to the “vast majority” that you alluded to, and what are the corresponding causes which you attribute to their “bad decisions”? Still waiting for an answer.

We can deal with facts or we can deal with opinions - we just need to declare when our statements fall in one or the other category.

While we are on the topic of facts, l just had to respond to a post (not sure if it was yours Lisa, so please don’t interpret this as directed at you) I came across on the thread this morning, that claimed: “Cuba does not have a Ben Carson”. At the risk of taking that comment out of context, I take issue with the assumption being made here. If I am correct in deducing that this is an attempt to show that in our system, a poor minority person can rise to the peak of medicine (or any career), I would just like to state for the record that Cuba (despite its well known violations of human rights) has a special program for making doctors out of poor Third World kids. These doctors might not rise to become world-renowned, but I know for a fact that they perform their own ‘miracles’, making bricks without straw is all sorts of deprived corners of the globe. Moral of the story, one can assume or one can actually find out and know for sure, what is happening in the world around us.

 

[seekerz]

I thought I’d pull out Catholic Social Teaching which sort of juxtaposes rights & responsibilities vis a vis the special option for the poor.

**Rights and Responsibilities

The Catholic tradition teaches that human dignity can be protected and a healthy community can be achieved only if human rights are protected and responsibilities are met. Therefore, every person has a fundamental right to life and a right to those things required for human decency. Corresponding to these rights are duties and responsibilities–to one another, to our families, and to the larger society.

Option for the Poor and Vulnerable

A basic moral test is how our most vulnerable members are faring. In a society marred by deepening divisions between rich and poor, our tradition recalls the story of the Last Judgment (Mt 25:31-46) and instructs us to put the needs of the poor and vulnerable first.**

As noted, being poor doesn’t mean you can abrogate all responsibility for your life or your actions. As Scripture states, justice is to be blind, and one is not to give someone a pass when wrong is committed even if the person has limited resources.

But in addition, we as Catholics (and hopefully all of society) should consider the needs of the poor. While I don’t see any tension between the two provisions, too often the Left/Progressives use the latter as a cudgel to claim their right to alter compensation or confiscate wealth which they will then bestow upon those favored at that time. Further any suggestion of demonstrating responsibility…drug testing before receiving benefits, ID to vote, “Work-fare” requirements are met with howls and screams about how those requests are outrageous or hateful or bigoted. It is not but is in fact evidence of respecting the human dignity of the person, treating him or her as a capable human being, not an incompent idiot. I’ve always held that the comment “soft bigotry of low expectations” has a great impact keeping people down. People tend to achieve what is expected of them and if the bar is low, many are willing to comply.

Lisa

I’m glad you brought up the drug testing before receiving benefits, because I didn’t hear many “howls” when a politician recently went to drug rehab (basically at taxpayer expense, since it was reported that he will be receiving a salary). On the single thread I saw here about the incident, most people were respectful and sympathetic and I remember no complaints about his ‘benefits’. So I guess the question is, should drug usage disqualify people form receiving taxpayer money?

 

[seekerz]

No, your provided (to my knowledge) evidence of statistical associations between family type and poverty. Another poster provided a 2009 publication of factors that place people at risk for poverty. Nowhere have I seen, and forgive me if I missed it, a breakdown of causes of poverty by percentages of poor people so affected, which is what your statement dealt with.

I asked a simple question: what percentage of the poor corresponds to the “vast majority” that you alluded to, and what are the corresponding causes which you attribute to their “bad decisions”? Still waiting for an answer.

We can deal with facts or we can deal with opinions - we just need to declare when our statements fall in one or the other category.

While we are on the topic of facts, l just had to respond to a post (not sure if it was yours Lisa, so please don’t interpret this as directed at you) I came across on the thread this morning, that claimed: “Cuba does not have a Ben Carson”. At the risk of taking that comment out of context, I take issue with the assumption being made here. If I am correct in deducing that this is an attempt to show that in our system, a poor minority person can rise to the peak of medicine (or any career), I would just like to state for the record that Cuba (despite its well known violations of human rights) has a special program for making doctors out of Third World kids. These doctors might not rise to become world-renowned, but I know for a fact that they perform their own ‘miracles’, making bricks without straw is all sorts of deprived corners of the globe. Moral of the story, one can assume or one can actually find out and know for sure, what is happening in the world around us.

 

[Darryl1958]

Is it a good use of taxpayers money to have it spent on alcohol and heroin?

A wage from the government is not taxpayers money, as long as it is earned through the worker providing a service. As someone with libertarian tendencies, I tend to often look the other way as to what that worker is doing with that wage, as long as it is not interfering with the service that he/she provides.

A social safety net is a desirable thing to provide the people of a land through taxes, given the havoc that the rise and fall of the business cycle can wreak on people, especially in a state of weakened family and church structures.

However, it is contingent on the taxpayer to not perpetuate self-destructive tendencies. That is not a safety net. That is not charity.

That is enabling.

 

[seekerz]

A wage from the government IS taxpayers money (a quite a bit of it too) if the person is sitting in rehab or is carrying out his daily duties under the influence of illegal substances; but my point is not to single out that one person. It’s more the principle of the thing: why should only those on assistance get tested, why not everybody receiving taxpayer money?

 

[seekerz]

No, your provided (to my knowledge) evidence of statistical associations between family type and poverty. Another poster provided a 2009 publication of factors that place people at risk for poverty. Nowhere have I seen, and forgive me if I missed it, a breakdown of causes of poverty by percentages of poor people so affected, which is what your statement dealt with.

I asked a simple question: what percentage of the poor corresponds to the “vast majority” that you alluded to, and what are the corresponding causes which you attribute to their “bad decisions”? Still waiting for an answer.

We can deal with facts or we can deal with opinions - we just need to declare when our statements fall in one or the other category.

While we are on the topic of facts, l just had to respond to a post (not sure if it was yours Lisa, so please don’t interpret this as directed at you) I came across on the thread this morning, that claimed: “Cuba does not have a Ben Carson”. At the risk of taking that comment out of context, I take issue with the assumption being made here. If I am correct in deducing that this is an attempt to show that in our system, a poor minority person can rise to the peak of medicine (or any career), I would just like to state for the record that Cuba (despite its well known violations of human rights) has a special scholarship program for making doctors out of Third World kids. These doctors might not rise to become world-renowned, but I know for a fact that they perform their own ‘miracles’, making bricks without straw is all sorts of deprived corners of the globe. Moral of the story, one can assume or one can actually find out and know for sure, what is happening in the world around us.