Sharron Angle: Down With Maternity, Autism Coverage

[StTommyMore]

Yes, I see the problem…and it has nothing to do with my understanding of what God has given me in life.

You should bite your tongue.

Insults duly noted.

 

[St_Francis]

Let me get this straight: the governmnet is NOT supposed to help provide for its citizens?

As I understand your meaning, no.

But before you go ballistic, I do believe that society should be set up to help the poor and that the government should be suppprtive of that, including being more involved in times of emergency.

What used to exist before the Protestant Revolt was a social safety net as provided through the Church through monasteries and convents. All of this was destroyed by the princes who turned their people away from the Church and destroyed the religious institutions which had previously cared for the poor, and cared for them out of love.

I cqn see local government involvememt, and 8 can see the entry if a higher level of government to coordinate when a local government is overwhelmed. What I have trouble with is the federal government’s involvement, and the idea that all that is needed is money. All these problems should be handled on a community level, with government involvement only if necessary.

After 9/11, I saw Pred. Bush make a huge mistake. He told the American people to go on with their loves as normal. No one had to make any sacrificesmexceptnthe brave members of our militariesmand their families. That wasn’t right, and it lowered us.

Some time ago, I heard about a soup kitchen which wanted to encourage the recipients of the meals to come in and volunteer, as they were able. This plan was refused, but what did that really say to those who come to the soup kitchen?

When we take care of things on a community level, peoplw can help in ways other than handing over a few bucks. An elderly woman can come for an hour after school to help the children of an immigrant woman with their schoolwork. High school kids can make and deliver meals to shut-ins. But we just hand everything over to the government, and we are ***all *** poorer because of it.

 

[StTommyMore]

As I understand your meaning, no.

But before you go ballistic, I do believe that society should be set up to help the poor and that the government should be suppprtive of that, including being more involved in times of emergency.

What used to exist before the Protestant Revolt was a social safety net as provided through the Church through monasteries and convents. All of this was destroyed by the princes who turned their people away from the Church and destroyed the religious institutions which had previously cared for the poor, and cared for them out of love.

I cqn see local government involvememt, and 8 can see the entry if a higher level of government to coordinate when a local government is overwhelmed. What I have trouble with is the federal government’s involvement, and the idea that all that is needed is money. All these problems should be handled on a community level, with government involvement only if necessary.

After 9/11, I saw Pred. Bush make a huge mistake. He told the American people to go on with their loves as normal. No one had to make any sacrificesmexceptnthe brave members of our militariesmand their families. That wasn’t right, and it lowered us.

Some time ago, I heard about a soup kitchen which wanted to encourage the recipients of the meals to come in and volunteer, as they were able. This plan was refused, but what did that really say to those who come to the soup kitchen?

When we take care of things on a community level, peoplw can help in ways other than handing over a few bucks. An elderly woman can come for an hour after school to help the children of an immigrant woman with their schoolwork. High school kids can make and deliver meals to shut-ins. But we just hand everything over to the government, and we are ***all *** poorer because of it.

As I have said before, the system I envision is one where the government provides funding. The decisions on how this funding is to be allocated is handled on a more local level, but it allows for lucrative areas of the country to help support those areas more adversely affected by the economy. For example, tourist areas, though depressed, are not as adversely effected right now as manufacturing centers. Factories close, but the Yankees are still selling out their stadium. Tax revenue is distributed to areas of the most need, and local government determines what programs are in most need. At no point have I called fore wholesale collectivization. (Despite the accusations of some on this board). I do advocate government oversight of industry to maintain the rights of the employee as well as a corporate tax to assist those who do not have means of support for whatever reason.

 

[estesbob]

Enough of the sarcasm. The problem here is your obstinate refusal to accept that control of your life belongs not to you, but to God. All that we have is God’s. All of our achievements are only through God. God created us, and bestowed our talents upon us. Every good thing is from God. Our worldly possessions, our talents, our health, our faith…all comes from God, and none is of our own doing. Remember with your disregard for the poor, that it only by the grace of God that you are blessed with plenty.

If everything comes from God why are you so anxious to turn it all over to the Govt? Do you really think the only choices we have is to blindly support Govt programs OR disregard the poor???

 

[StTommyMore]

If everything comes from God why are you so anxious to turn it all over to the Govt? Do you really think the only choices we have is to blindly support Govt programs OR disregard the poor???

If people with wealth did their sacred duty, the government would not have to step in. If the government does not step in you have the Gilded Age.

 

[St_Francis]

I posted myast post before seeing the moderator’s note about our having wandered from the topic. Maybe it would be better to move this over to the social justice forum. I am interested in discovering your reasoning, altho somewhat frustrated when you hone in on onemaspect of what Is written to the exclusion of other parts of our points.

So, shall we move on over there?

 

[St_Francis]

It is true thqt in cases of dire necessity people have the right to take what they need if the owner is being unreasonable in not sharing his excess.

St Thomas Aquinas writes this upon this subject:* Since, however, there are many who are in need, while it is impossible for all to be succored by means of the same thing,** each one is entrusted with the stewardship of his own things, so that out of them he may come to the aid of those who are in need. \b]Nevertheless, if the need be so manifest and urgent, that it is evident that the present need must be remedied by whatever means be at hand (for instance when a person is in some imminent danger, and there is no other possible remedy), then it is lawful for a man to succor his own need by means of another’s property, by taking it either openly or secretly: nor is this properly speaking theft or robbery.*** Part 2 of 2, Q 66.

St Thomas goes on to say in [Reply to] Obj 3 Art 8 of the same question that it is all right for princes , ie, governments, to take what is needed for the common good, bot that to go beyond that is “robbery even as burglary is.” In !] Obj 3, Qrt. 7, St Thomas quotes St Augustine that it is wrong to stel from one’s neighbor to give alms to another.
Oops, having confused my objections and replies thereto, I see that I made an error in what I have said, and need to go a consider this some more.