The Welfare System & Catholic Social Teaching

[Abu]

Swiss Guy #30
a good article about the welfare state imho.

This is the bishop’s assertion:
ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/bishop-named-marx-takes-neo-cons-capitalism
A bishop named Marx takes on neo-cons, capitalism
by John L Allen Jr on Nov. 09, 2009
“…what he calls “turbo-capitalism,” meaning an essentially unregulated form of capitalism with limited social protections, has been a bad deal for a substantial majority of the world’s population. He cited the eclipse of trade unions, the erosion of the real value of wages, the disappearance of retail trade, and the yawning gap between a super-rich elite and the vast pools of “working poor.”

1. “Limited social protections” in law tend to be the case in countries which do not have the laws which Western countries have, which tend to be based on Catholic Social Teaching.
2. Not only has free enterprise raised the welfare of untold millions out of poverty, since its inception in the ninth century through Catholic Monasteries and the principles developed by the Catholic late Scholastics later, but it is emphatically affirmed by Bl John Paul II in Centesimus Annus, 42, 1991 and as part of strong democratic system of law and order.
3. Whether **trade unions **flourish depends on the law and their service to their members and the industry in which they are required to cooperate.
4. The real value of wages will continue to be a problem as long as governments continue to intervene to distort the money supply and exchange rates globally.
5. The “gap” between rich and “working poor” is another area of economics which is a minefield – where? And where are the facts?

Distortions abound in citing the case of the U.S.A.
visionandvalues.org/2011/12/the-rich-are-getting-richer-so-are-the-poor/
**The Rich Are Getting Richer; So Are the Poor
December 12, 2011 | by Jarrett Skorup **
For the U.S.A., for instance, using the Congressional Budget Office analysis "While the ‘top 1 percent’ had the highest growth of income, if broadened to include the top 20 percent (the usual way of analyzing such figures), the growth rate was a far less stratospheric 65 percent. This contrasts with about 40-percent growth for the middle three-fifths of all wage earners, and 18 percent for the lowest one-fifth.

“Statistically, the lowest 20 percent of households are poor for one main reason: They don’t work as much. Among the causes are medical issues, disability, and bad incentives. Not surprisingly, households in the top 20 percent are far more likely to include people with jobs.”

 

[Swiss_Guy]

This is the bishop’s assertion:
ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/bishop-named-marx-takes-neo-cons-capitalism
A bishop named Marx takes on neo-cons, capitalism
by John L Allen Jr on Nov. 09, 2009
“…what he calls “turbo-capitalism,” meaning an essentially unregulated form of capitalism with limited social protections, has been a bad deal for a substantial majority of the world’s population. He cited the eclipse of trade unions, the erosion of the real value of wages, the disappearance of retail trade, and the yawning gap between a super-rich elite and the vast pools of “working poor.”

1. “Limited social protections” in law tend to be the case in countries which do not have the laws which Western countries have, which tend to be based on Catholic Social Teaching.
2. Not only has free enterprise raised the welfare of untold millions out of poverty, since its inception in the ninth century through Catholic Monasteries and the principles developed by the Catholic late Scholastics later, but it is emphatically affirmed by Bl John Paul II in Centesimus Annus, 42, 1991 and as part of strong democratic system of law and order.
3. Whether **trade unions **flourish depends on the law and their service to their members and the industry in which they are required to cooperate.
4. The real value of wages will continue to be a problem as long as governments continue to intervene to distort the money supply and exchange rates globally.
5. The “gap” between rich and “working poor” is another area of economics which is a minefield – where? And where are the facts?

Distortions abound in citing the case of the U.S.A.
visionandvalues.org/2011/12/the-rich-are-getting-richer-so-are-the-poor/
**The Rich Are Getting Richer; So Are the Poor
December 12, 2011 | by Jarrett Skorup **
For the U.S.A., for instance, using the Congressional Budget Office analysis "While the ‘top 1 percent’ had the highest growth of income, if broadened to include the top 20 percent (the usual way of analyzing such figures), the growth rate was a far less stratospheric 65 percent. This contrasts with about 40-percent growth for the middle three-fifths of all wage earners, and 18 percent for the lowest one-fifth.

“Statistically, the lowest 20 percent of households are poor for one main reason: They don’t work as much. Among the causes are medical issues, disability, and bad incentives. Not surprisingly, households in the top 20 percent are far more likely to include people with jobs.”

While I don’t disagree with you, you left out the archbishop’s quote about, "a welfare state that works: insurance for the unemployed, benefits for those laid off, support for those with odd jobs, public health care.”

I believe unless there is some disability holding someone back from working, a person on welfare should have to work if they want welfare. But I don’t think a welfare state is condemned, but a social assistance state that is very bureaucratic, like Sweden or any Scandinavian country. Those governments are so intrusive that there is practically no need for the Church or private groups to do anything, which is the problem. I don’t think the problem is having any government action, but too much government action like in Scandinavia.

 

[Abu]

Swiss Guy #41
I don’t think a welfare state is condemned, but a social assistance state that is very bureaucratic

Think again – Certainly Bl JPII is very clear in Centesimus Annus, 1991, #48 in condemning the Welfare State:
“In recent years the range of **such intervention has vastly expanded, to **the point of creating **a new type of State, the so-called “Welfare State”. **This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of **the Welfare State, dubbed the “Social Assistance State”. **Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.100”
“Note
100. Pius XI, Encyclical Letter Quadragesimo Anno, I : loc. cit., 184-186.”

Note that the Welfare State is “dubbed the ‘Social Assistance State’. Since “dubbed” = nicknamed, there is no distinction-- they are one and the same.

I don’t think the problem is having any government action, but too much government action like in Scandinavia.

Correct.

 

[essie7777]

snipped for space …
Note that the Welfare State is “dubbed the ‘Social Assistance State’. Since “dubbed” = nicknamed, there is no distinction-- they are one and the same.

You misquote again cutting the full sentence off to try and force your political opinion… the welfare state is not dubbed as social assistance state - the excess and abuses of a welfare state are described as the social assistance state.

The reference to full state intervention is to prevent economic monopolies controlling the economy…

CA#48 "These general observations also apply to the role of the State in the economic sector. Economic activity, especially the activity of a market economy, cannot be conducted in an institutional, juridical or political vacuum. On the contrary, it presupposes sure guarantees of individual freedom and private property, as well as a stable currency and** efficient public services.** Hence the principle task of the State is to guarantee this security, so that those who work and produce can enjoy the fruits of their labours and thus feel encouraged to work efficiently and honestly. The absence of stability, together with the corruption of public officials and the spread of improper sources of growing rich and of easy profits deriving from illegal or purely speculative activities, constitutes one of the chief obstacles to development and to the economic order.

Another task of the State is that of overseeing and directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector.

However, primary responsibility in this area belongs not to the State but to individuals and to the various groups and associations which make up society. The State could not directly ensure the right to work for all its citizens unless it controlled every aspect of economic life and restricted the free initiative of individuals. **This does not mean, however, that the State has no competence in this domain, as was claimed by those who argued against any rules in the economic sphere. **Rather, the State has a duty to sustain business activities by creating conditions which will ensure job opportunities, by stimulating those activities where they are lacking or by supporting them in moments of crisis.

The State has the further right to intervene when particular monopolies create delays or obstacles to development. In addition to the tasks of harmonizing and guiding development, in exceptional circumstances the State can also exercise a substitute function, when social sectors or business systems are too weak or are just getting under way, and are not equal to the task at hand. Such supplementary interventions, which are justified by urgent reasons touching the common good, must be as brief as possible, so as to avoid removing permanently from society and business systems the functions which are properly theirs, and so as to avoid enlarging excessively the sphere of State intervention to the detriment of both economic and civil freedom.

In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of State, the so-called “Welfare State”. This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the “Social Assistance State”. Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.100"

You have still failed to respond to the complete picture of Catholic Social Teaching which firmly advocates welfare, taxes to pay for it and defines political entities common good as upholding these rights. The Church tempers its position with balance, advocating fair treatment and just policies but NEVER condemns a welfare state, the Church is conscious that abuses to a system produce extremely negative consequences, but does not suggest that these abuses should be used to condemn the whole concept of welfare.

Can you not simply respond to the other parts of Catholic Social teaching that demonstrate this balance, or do you believe ignoring them makes them go away?

If your position is so secure you should have no problem dispelling the Compendium of Catholic Social Teaching and its direct instruction on these issues …if i remember correctly i even posted some of these for you back on #25 to answer to.

 

[Abu]

essie7777 #43
the welfare state is not dubbed as social assistance state - the excess and abuses of a welfare state are described as the social assistance state.

The Welfare State is emphatically condemned by the Church precisely because the “excesses and abuses” are endemic to a Welfare State, it denigrates subsidiarity, degrades human nature, and no where do any encyclicals approve of a Welfare State precisely because the “malfunctions and defects” of such a State are “the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.”

Note that the Welfare State is “dubbed the ‘Social Assistance State’. Since “dubbed” = nicknamed, there is no distinction-- they are one and the same.

From A brief summary of Catholic Social Doctrine
Submitted by Fr Larry on Wed, 10/27/2010
3. The Principle of Subsidiarity: Concern for subsidiarity arises from the dignity of the human person in his or her natural family and social relationships. Governmental structure and law must be established to honor these relationships by according them priority in autonomy and responsibility. Thus, according to the principle of subsidiarity, “all societies of a superior order must adopt attitudes of help (‘subsidium’) — therefore of support, promotion, development — with respect to lower-order societies. In this way, intermediate social entities can properly perform the functions that fall to them without being required to hand them over unjustly to other social entities of a higher level, by which they would end up being absorbed and substituted, in the end seeing themselves denied their dignity and essential place.” Violation of the principle of subsidiarity is the primary means by which society introduces moral hazard into its functioning. That is, when responsibility and authority (or autonomy) is removed from its rightful place, chaos follows. This is the main reason, for example, that the so-called “welfare state” is fundamentally counter-productive and why foreign aid that isn’t sensitive to local needs and structures is also counter-productive. Above all, avoid the temptation to place responsibility in the hands of the federal government.
Fr. Larry
eyesoffaith.info/?q=content/brief-summary-catholic-social-doctrine

 

[essie7777]

The Welfare State is emphatically condemned by the Church precisely because the “excesses and abuses” are endemic to a Welfare State,…sniped for space…

You are again reading a critical commentary of excesses and abuses as therefore meaning a complete condemnation of welfare.

This conclusion is not supported in any Church writing. You are trying to twist the content of Papal writings to your own benefit. I’d argue that you don’t have the authority to make such changes to the Pop’s work.

The beneficial balance that the Church promotes through Social Doctrine is evident in the totality of its words. The Church goes to great lengths to fully explain every angle of it’s position. When you ignore the total picture, you are doing an injustice to both the Pope’s writings and The Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church.

I’ll point you AGAIN to post #25 which you have constantly refused to comment on these points.

The Doctrine of the Catholic Church that clearly states clearly how a political entity should should employ itself as a welfare state.

301.The Church’s social Magisterium has seen fit to list some of these rights, in the hope that they will be recognized in juridical systems: the right to a just wage; the right to rest; the right “to a working environment and to manufacturing processes which are not harmful to the workers’ physical health or to their moral integrity”; the right that one’s personality in the workplace should be safeguarded “without suffering any affront to one’s conscience or personal dignity”; the right to appropriate subsidies that are necessary for the subsistence of unemployed workers and their families; [655] the right to a pension and to insurance for old age, sickness, and in case of work-related accidents; [656] the right to social security connected with maternity; [657] the right to assemble and form associations.[658] These rights are often infringed, as is confirmed by the sad fact of workers who are underpaid and without protection or adequate representation. It often happens that work conditions for men, women and children, especially in developing countries, are so inhumane that they are an offence to their dignity and compromise their health.

This list certainly seems to suggest that the Catholic Church firmly advocates the welfare system??

1. Authentic economic well-being is pursued also by means of suitable social policies for the redistribution of income which, taking general conditions into account, look at merit as well as at the need of each citizen.

1. Public spending is directed to the common good when certain fundamental principles are observed: the payment of taxes as part of the duty of solidarity; a reasonable and fair application of taxes;[740] precision and integrity in administering and distributing public resources.[741] In the redistribution of resources, public spending must observe the principles of solidarity, equality and making use of talents. It must also pay greater attention to families, designating an adequate amount of resources for this purpose.[742]

Again it seems that the Catholic teaching is DIRECTLY advocating public spending focused on families. Income derived from taxes to be used for solidarity and equality for all, or do you think this is not part of a welfare state?

1. The political community pursues the common good when it seeks to create a human environment that offers citizens the possibility of truly exercising their human rights and of fulfilling completely their corresponding duties. “Experience has taught us that, unless these authorities take suitable action with regard to economic, political and cultural matters, inequalities between citizens tend to become more and more widespread, especially in the modern world, and as a result human rights are rendered totally ineffective and the fulfilment of duties is compromised”.[788]
   The full attainment of the common good requires that the political community develop a twofold and complementary action that defends and promotes human rights. “It should not happen that certain individuals or social groups derive special advantage from the fact that their rights have received preferential protection. Nor should it happen that governments in seeking to protect these rights, become obstacles to their full expression and free use”.[789]

Notice again the Church teaches balance and no where here does it suggest that only a worker is entitled to human rights and equality. As the Doctrine discuses in its totality these vulnerable members are PROVIDED for – this is a welfare state.

Note that the Welfare State is “dubbed the ‘Social Assistance State’. Since “dubbed” = nicknamed, there is no distinction-- they are one and the same.

This is nothing more than your own attempt to rewrite the Pope’s thought in a way that YOU agree with, not the context it was written!

From A brief summary of Catholic Social Doctrine
Submitted by Fr Larry on Wed, 10/27/2010

The Catholic Church Teachings speak well enough for themselves!!!

Your clear disapproval of welfare states needs to be tempered as the Church teachings are in reality. Your POV shows no balance, it’s simply a political ideology; not something something supported by the Church at all.

Condemnation of abuses and excesses which take away from human rights would be valid, your position is simply against welfare at all.

But you have yet to respond to the Doctrine which points out the falseness of your POV, so us readers wait for you to discount the CSDCC, it’ll certainly be entertaining reading!

 

[Abu]

essie7777 #45
You are again reading a critical commentary of excesses and abuses as therefore meaning a complete condemnation of welfare.

This repeated canard is the petard on which this poster endemically hoists himself, through a persistent inability to understand Catholic Social Teaching, despite the repeated condemnation of the Ayn Rand type rubbish:
“Hardly useful as her definition and meaning of “uncontrolled and unregulated” is quite unacceptable as the State has the right and duty to make wise laws, and that’s why we have laws to seek and punish those who steal, cheat, swindle, and against monopolies as people can, and some do, undermine the common good, and the primary role of government is to support families in solidarity, and the role of the Church in subsidiarity and, yes, the common good.”

And further, taken with the above, as welfare is the promotion of well-being – a contented state of being happy and healthy and prosperous, it is the height of stupidity to pretend that “welfare” is condemned by anyone here.

While the Church has consistently condemned the Welfare State (CA #48), and the enormity of the meltdown of Welfare States also points to Her wisdom, many are striving to shackle the monster and the Church has always, naturally, insisted on the State living up to its legitimate obligations.

These obligations and restraints are mandated in CA #48, by BL JPII:
“The principle task of the State is to guarantee….this security of individual freedom and private property, as well as a stable currency and efficient public services.”
The State “should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good….the State has a duty to sustain business activities by creating conditions which will ensure job opportunities, by stimulating those activities where they are lacking or by supporting them in moments of crisis.”

As Frank Morriss sees clearly, from Catholic Culture:
tinyurl.com/75pvfmb
“But only free economics by its very own premise allows for the existence of subsidiarity, which demands not governmental indifference, but proper governmental restraint — the greatest amount of noninterference in economics in keeping with the common good. Welfare programs heedless of need, applied generally and replacing the desire and ability of the vast majority to govern their own lives and families, financed by taxation imposed on the basis of economic success, clearly give no weight to subsidiarity.”

The charade of maligning papal teaching as supporting a Welfare State, by constantly misrepresenting it, has no business anywhere much less on a Catholic DB.

 

[essie7777]

This repeated canard is the petard on which this poster endemically hoists himself, through a persistent inability to understand Catholic Social Teaching, despite the repeated condemnation of the Ayn Rand type rubbish:

:tsktsk: Never once have i advocated Ayn Rand --i have simply asked you to respond to the Compendium of Catholic Social Doctrine points now put forward to you in both post #25 and #45.

Or are you suggesting you know better that the published, accepted Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church?:bigyikes: You hadn’t identified yourself as a Church leader with the authority to dismiss and withdraw teaching from the Compendium when it doesn’t suit you—must have missed that!

… as welfare is the promotion of well-being – a contented state of being happy and healthy and prosperous, it is the height of stupidity to pretend that “welfare” is condemned by anyone here.

Ahhh Abu i thank you for your petty nature – clearly being as everywhere else i used the phrase welfare state and ALL my arguments have been positioned on the welfare state this is OBVIOUSLY an unseen error in my typing skills. if this ONE ERROR confused you from all my post i clearly apologize, however i suggest you are simply using it to ignore the questions put to you.

Now you have brought it up though, for someone so ADAMANT the welfare state is condemned … define acceptable welfare from your POV then? And how this wont be a welfare state?

I have the sneaking suspicion that you actually have NO IDEA what a welfare state stands for and does, it is simply a target for your political posturing. You seem to have a very American perception of welfare with no real idea of what it means in reality.

Let me ask you this, it is accepted that the US doesn’t have a welfare state and the UK does… working with those two examples in your esteemed opinion which delivers better the Church definition of a political state’s role on common good? Which offers all of the financial supports advocated by the Catholic Church? And which is more effective in relation to cost?

The charade of maligning papal teaching as supporting a Welfare State, by constantly misrepresenting it, has no business anywhere much less on a Catholic DB.

:ehh: How am i maligning the Papal writings by asking you to respond to the sections of the Compendium of Catholic Social Teaching which advocate financing services for people which are universally accepted (though clearly with complete misunderstanding here in the US) to be what makes up a welfare state???

Stop ducking … answer the questions raised.

The more you run and hide from constructive, reasonable questions and observations the more absurd you POV is seen to be. Surely you aren’t afraid to ACTUALLY ANSWER DIRECTLY those things put forward by little old me???

 

[Abu]

essie7777 #47
it is accepted that the US doesn’t have a welfare state

This indicates the complete lack of understanding of the Welfare State as defined and condemned by Bl JPII in Centesimus Annus, 48, and an unparalleled inability to accept facts by essie7777.

In post #33 this was specifically included to help readers understand the reality and enormity of the Welfare State debacle:
investorsfreshnews.com/?p=2891
**Wednesday, January 04, 2012 By Alan Greenspan in the FT
The Tea Party tsunami and the welfare showdown **
Extract:
“The emerging fight over the future of the welfare state, a paradigm without serious political challenge in eight decades, is accentuating the centre’s decline. The welfare state has run up against a brick wall of economic reality and fiscal book-keeping. Congress, having enacted increases in entitlements without visible means of funding them, is on the brink of stalemate. As studies by the International Monetary Fund have demonstrated, trying to solve significant budget deficits mainly by raising taxes has tended to foster decline. Contractions have also occurred where spending was cut as well, but to a far smaller extent.

“We have created a level of entitlements that will require a greater share of real resources to fulfil than the economy seems likely to be able to supply.”

So Coolidge’s, Hoover’s and Roosevelt’s frightful finagling from the late 1920’s which started the U.S. Welfare State (eight decades ago) is acknowledged and judged as having reached an irretrievable impasse, by no less than Alan Greenspan.

Yet the poster doesn’t even know of the U.S. Welfare State, what happened and why, and why the meltdown is so serious.

 

[essie7777]

This indicates the complete lack of understanding of the Welfare State as defined and condemned by Bl JPII in Centesimus Annus, 48, and an unparalleled inability to accept facts by essie7777. …sniped for space… Yet the poster doesn’t even know of the U.S. Welfare State, what happened and why, and why the meltdown is so serious.

:tsktsk: Abu , distract distract distract,

If you honestly believe the US has a welfare state you need some serious education on what a welfare state is… as suggested in my post which as usual you ignore, don’t fully quote and obviously ignored the questions i asked in it as well!!! LOL

And people wonder why America can find its way out of a paper bag as the phrase goes when its own citizens can not understand basic political terminology. I questioned your perception of what a welfare state is you simply choose to half quote me. This suggests again you either can’t or won’t answer direct questions as then your POV resembles a colander! Lots of holes in it.

The US manipulation of the phrase welfare state to be used as a pummel against political viewpoints that advocate social care in any format - does not make it the right use of this phrase. Compare it to the word Socialism. The US political arena had hijacked this word again to pummel those who feel the state should support the weak and needy. The US use of this is incorrect as usual. This is the same issue with welfare state.

Let me demonstrate, by comparing and contrasting a globally recognized welfare state - the UK with the US attempt at providing welfare programs.

Shall we start with definitions:
A Welfare State is a term globally accepted to mean that a country provides comprehensive legal protection and financial benefits for it’s people to ensure every citizen has access to education, healthcare, housing, livable financial amounts, promotes and supports the family units, especially children, as well as working to get people being productive and contributing to society. Most of these “Welfare States” judge themselves on how they treat the most vulnerable person, be them sick, old, unemployed…whatever. Its available to all who need it.

A welfare program, is a implemented support benefit that is usually put into place to solve a particular problem, not as a part of a fully encompassing social welfare program. It does not represent a fabric of programs encompassing all elements as detailed above. Usually very stringently managed and not available to everybody. Heavily limited and rarely successful.
[NOTE ALL FIGURES ARE FROM RELEVANT GOVERNMENT AND AGENCY SITES ALL FOR THE YR 2010 - i will post links later]

Health in the US:
NO free universal healthcare – US healthcare programs support less than 24% of the US population. Even then this support doesn’t cover full costs of health issues for nearly 90% of those covered in these US healthcare provisions – most people still have to pay out of pocket expenses that they may not be able to afford.

Programs offered are not even available if people are poor enough to receive it, the qualifications are so strict and limited.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) itself acknowledges this shortfall: “Medicaid does not provide medical assistance for all poor persons. Even under the broadest provisions of the Federal statute (except for emergency services for certain persons), the Medicaid program does not provide health care services, even for very poor persons, unless they are in one of the designated eligibility groups.”

The % of the population in the US who have dual eligibility for the medicaid and medicare --offering a fuller but not complete program of healthcare is just 0.02%.
(NOTE ALL STATISTICS FROM US GOV’T STATISTICS)
Stunning public healthcare system there – truly a welfare program for the masses …(note that is sarcasm)

And if you have to pay for your healthcare then the cost is horrific. cost of health care co-pays, hidden employer costs etcReal
Health in a welfare state like the UK:
FREE NO COST healthcare for all … no co pay, no discrimination of care based on money at all. Have a headache go to a doctor, need cancer treatment go to a hospital!
Pretty sure that a welfare state’s interpretation of healthcare!

CONT NEXT POST

 

[essie7777]

Vulnerable people protection - old, permantly long term sick/disabled etc, carers of these people – US
US benefits - SSI/ SSDI etc: financial payments ranging up to $1332 for an individual and $1,911 for a couple, if they manage to have multiple agencies paying for their issues. Although it is usual in 90% cases that receiving one benefit impacts on the amount received dollar for dollar in another. This is supposed to cover all living costs - housing, food clothing, additional healthcare.

Application is denied to 74% of applicants immediately after a average wait of 101 days. However, in the following 800 days (average time to appeals decisions) -81% of refused applications are awarded on appeal … It looks like something is very wrong with a system that takes 900 days on AVERAGE to help someone, for example a person may be mentally ill and unable to work. A lot can happen in nearly 2.5 yrs it takes for application. How do these people survive with any dignity and hope?
No state support for a family member that cares for someone in this position, unless they are a child with a very narrow list of disorders/health issues and then there is an additional few hundred dollars depending on the individual state.

Vulnerable people protection - old, permantly long term sick/disabled etc, carers of these people – UK
Housing benefit available to all these people to ensure every person has a safe environment to live in.
Additional benefit to ensure person has a solid financial base for any living costs -food, clothes,transport etc. Provided through the benefits agency but there are lots of different types of classifications
No utilities such as heat and water can be turned off in homes of vulnerable people EVER
Caregivers allowance, based on the average salary in the UK is provided for full time carers of people who need it, caring for a loved one should not mean choosing between food and heat!
Immediate emergency funds for all applicant whilst waiting for decisions, average wait time for final decision is 16 weeks.
Appeal over decision overturned less than 5%. Unlike the 81% of overturned denials in the US.

Again --not sure how fully inclusive comprehensive care versus the joke of the US system even suggests that the US system is representing a welfare state of any accepted definition.

Unemployment -US
Limited programs, partial financial support. Was extended to 99 weeks in the recession but after which nothing available by the government.
The average weekly payment is 36 percent of the individual’s average weekly wage. (hardly a living wage)
The unemployed must also meet state requirements for wages earned or time worked during an established period of time (referred to as a “base period”) to be eligible for benefits. (In most States, the base period is usually the first four out of the last five completed calendar quarters prior to the time that the claim is filed.) A person may be a little “up the creek” in the current economic climate if they find a job and it last only 10 months -then they’re entitled to nothing!
Unemployment benefits are based on reported covered quarterly earnings. The amount of earnings and the number of quarters worked are used to determine the length and value of the unemployment benefit.
Hardly a program to write home about --it does not protect the dignity of anyone --simply drives desperate people into more desperate circumstances.
Unemployment -UK
Paid a living wage -lower than the average but survivable amount of around $18,000(depending on Xhange rate).
Government paid training, re-qualification courses and back to work schemes
Based on proof of job hunting and interviewing - so not just a freebie!
Additional benefits such as housing and child care expenses covered as need to ensure the person’s dignity is protected.

From this it looks like the UK system actually wants to help and support rather than leave someone to drown in desperation.
Child rearing Benefits -US
No child benefit paid to families to support parenting
Tax Credits payable based on income
No paid maternity at full wage rate – can get coverage as outlined above at 36% of woman’s average earnings as a short term disability- hardly a livable amount especially with an added mouth in the household.
No paid paternity leave
No paid adoption leave
No paid fostering leave
No law in the US to allow mandatory parental leave paid for by any company
Only federal employees have their job guaranteed under law if on parental leave.
Healthcare only through insurance premiums otherwise average cost of pregnancy and birth $7-10k out of pocket

Child rearing Benefits -UK
Child benefit paid to every family with children to support them
Every child born receives a monetary amount from the government to be invested for their future use - parents can not just spend it.
Companies mandated to provide parental care in line with state paid parental care:
All female employees are entitled to 52 weeks of maternity (or adoption) leave, all of which is paid. First six weeks paid at 90% of full pay and the remainder at a fixed rate. Most employers offer a more generous policy of 90% for 6 months then the state minimum which is average of $18,000.
If employed the mother’s Annual leave continues to accrue throughout the maternity leave period.
Paternity leave is two weeks paid (if employed at rate of full pay if not at a fixed rate)
No one can be sacked while on any form of parental leave.
Medical expenses covered as above in healthcare.
Child care vouchers for back to work

CONT NEXT POST

 

[essie7777]

From this i’m pretty sure most women would chose to be pregnant in the UK rather than the US. Most women rarely have pregnancy covered on insurance as premium hikes can be around $200 per month. If they don’t then they may not have a job to go back to, may not be able to afford to be without a livable wage, may not afford to have more than a handful of weeks with their child … hmmm again the welfare state certainly seems to be looking after the dignity of people and caring for children more than the US interpretation of welfare.

And lets’s not forget the other areas where if you want i’m happy to continue the compare and contrast; education costs, employer benefits, no tax for people in full time education, minimum wages staggered for age of recipient, legal protections for EVERY worker, legal requirements for every person to have minimum levels of holidays, days of sick paid at full wages, accidental wage coverage mandatory at full pay for 12 months in the case of serious situations etc, etc, etc. Surely you can see a difference between a program that is instigated to solve a narrow social issue, ineffectively i might add, and a fully comprehensive Welfare State that provides a parachute for any person who needs help.

And all of this before you even consider the efficiency and effectiveness of the two systems. Maybe you need to focus your attention where it needs to be against your own government not in a political rampage against welfare states as a whole. allow me to explain before you berate me:

• The US health programs which as explained above cover FULLY 0.02% of the US population and less than 24% of the population PARTIALLY (still accruing extensive costs for the recipient) cost the Us governement 17.4% of GDP
  The FULLY encompassing National Health Service of the UK costs just 9.8% GDP.
• The US provisions for all other welfare benefits incorporating unemployment etc cost 19.5%GDP
  The Complete FULLY ENCOMPASSING UK welfare state incorporating housing, sickness, workers benefits, parental, unemployment, accident etc costs just 24.3%GDP

This certainly suggests that the issue is not about the welfare state ( as i think i have proven this is distinct to the US model of occasional and flawed programs) but how well a government can implement them. These figures alone prove that the US is failing fiscally as the total % GDP spent on these ad hoc unconnected programs is more than the full cost of a true welfare state in the UK.

Whilst you may have issues with a welfare state based on your political beliefs, before you condemn it maybe take a moment to see how many of those listed under the UK’s model are openly advocated by the Church.

There may well be room for improvement but none of these programs in the UK are designed to take away the role of the individual, rather to help buoy them up in times of need. The monies given under these do no more than provide a livable income to provide food, clothing and basic needs, Homes are not mansions under the housing benefit. But every person is entitled to human dignity and opportunity. A true welfare state like the UK provides this.

Your political bias is preventing you from seeing what is in from of you. You clearly don’t understand what a welfare state does for its people, nor do you consider all Catholic Teaching when you try and convince people that the Church condemn it.

In more than two posts now i have asked you to comment on the Compendium of Catholic Social Doctrine (posts #25,#45) instead you have opted to distract, insult and play “smoke and mirrors”.

This is becoming circular --asking you to explain how Catholic teaching is against your POV and how you can ignore it does not make my comment maligning of the Pope’s words.

Just answer the questions put to you. How do you expect anyone to listen to your POV if you are unprepared to respond to reasonable requests.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Might want to look up Cloward-Piven.

 

[essie7777]

Might want to look up Cloward-Piven.

I am aware of the strategy – however it doesn’t detract from the idea that Americans confuse a welfare state in it’s true definition, accepted by the rest of the world, with the ad hoc, incomplete, pretty flawed programs offered here under that “title”.

Let’s at least be honest here, can you not see that as a collection of provisions for protecting the social status of ALL people there is no comparison between the two examples? Can you honestly see a valid real world practical comparison with the examples of the UK welfare state and the US programs??

It’s like comparing apples and shoes … they have nothing in common with each other at all. They may both be green but that’s about it.

The issue is the American political system makes great headlines and appeals to people’s biggest fears by re-coining phrases for maximum impact. It doesn’t seem to matter if the definition fits or not.

Look at the use of socialism used against liberals. That is the most insulting misuse of the word, it makes a mockery of the true countries who suffered under a true socialist rule which is nothing like advocating for welfare!

 

[FightingFat]

Just for the record, I agree with essie7777, Abu, I don’t know why you would try and distort the facts so much! I’m all up for lively debate, but simply reasserting the same point isn’t moving the discussion on at all!

 

[Abu]

While Welfare States have variations, the rot is pervasive and attempts to cover it up useless.

1. Bl JPII in his watershed Encyclical *Centesimus Annus *condemns the Welfare State.
   What papal encyclicals approve of a Welfare State? NONE.
   No one has offered, or can offer, any papal teaching that supports a Welfare State.
2. The crisis of Welfare States, considerably self-inflicted due to that folly, has shown the efforts to cut back which strive to unravel the monster.

Those who are faithful and knowledgeable understand that, and for Europe:
campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/europe-canary-welfare-state-coal-mine/332636
**Europe: the canary in the welfare-state coal mine
by Conn Carroll Senior Editorial Writer posted 23/1/12 **
In 2006, the European Commission produced a report on the impact the continent’s aging population would have on the economy. The study found that due to Europe’s expansive pension, health care and unemployment obligations, its productive capacity would begin to fall once the working-age population reached its peak.

Europe reached that tipping point right on schedule in 2010.

catholicity.com/commentary/mnovak/08815.html
Catholic Social Teaching and These Changing Times
by Michael Novak - March 8, 2011
Extracts
"3. The ‘economic miracle’ of 1965 has given way to ‘the crisis of the welfare state.’ Practically all the welfare states are in crisis – both budgetary, because they cannot pay for all the social promises they have made; and moral, because of the damage done to the family, and because of the perverse incentives encouraged by unwisely designed welfare programs, leading to much dishonesty and dependency.

“Pope John Paul II always stressed the changing temporal dimension of Catholic social thought. He opened *Centesimus Annus *by discussing the changes in the world since Rerum Novarum (1891); and took account of the period of the 1930s, the world of 1945, the high-water mark of the welfare state (1965), and the fall of communism in 1989.”

 

[jonbhorton]

While Welfare States have variations, the rot is pervasive and attempts to cover it up useless.

1. Bl JPII in his watershed Encyclical *Centesimus Annus *condemns the Welfare State.
   What papal encyclicals approve of a Welfare State? NONE.
   No one has offered, or can offer, any papal teaching that supports a Welfare State.
2. The crisis of Welfare States, considerably self-inflicted due to that folly, has shown the efforts to cut back which strive to unravel the monster.

Those who are faithful and knowledgeable understand that, and for Europe:
campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/europe-canary-welfare-state-coal-mine/332636
**Europe: the canary in the welfare-state coal mine
by Conn Carroll Senior Editorial Writer posted 23/1/12 **
In 2006, the European Commission produced a report on the impact the continent’s aging population would have on the economy. The study found that due to Europe’s expansive pension, health care and unemployment obligations, its productive capacity would begin to fall once the working-age population reached its peak.

Europe reached that tipping point right on schedule in 2010.

catholicity.com/commentary/mnovak/08815.html
Catholic Social Teaching and These Changing Times
by Michael Novak - March 8, 2011
Extracts
"3. The ‘economic miracle’ of 1965 has given way to ‘the crisis of the welfare state.’ Practically all the welfare states are in crisis – both budgetary, because they cannot pay for all the social promises they have made; and moral, because of the damage done to the family, and because of the perverse incentives encouraged by unwisely designed welfare programs, leading to much dishonesty and dependency.

“Pope John Paul II always stressed the changing temporal dimension of Catholic social thought. He opened *Centesimus Annus *by discussing the changes in the world since Rerum Novarum (1891); and took account of the period of the 1930s, the world of 1945, the high-water mark of the welfare state (1965), and the fall of communism in 1989.”

Abu,

I’m having a similar problem with Essie7777 not understanding basic critical thinking and reading skills in a different thread. The same sort of tactics. The same sort of refusal to address facts to find the solution. The same blood-pressure-boiling inability to even acknowledge what is actually being said, and merely engaging in sock-hop dancing around the issue. Even the music doesn’t match.

My suspicion is that due to both Essie7777 and FightingFat being from the UK, they have been inculcated with the typical socialized education that disallows them from seeing the folly of their critique. Coupled with undoubtedly liberal interpretations of such things from the British pulpits, and Europe being a cesspool of the socialist scourge, it’s all but pointless to continue.

The only thing accomplished at this point with Essie, I feel, is to use her as a springboard with which to formulate contingency posts for other readers with similar misunderstanding, but the faculties to work out your position logically- if not to understand and agree, to at least better understand that which they have not understood prior.

 

[Abu]

jonbhorton
What the deniers of reality too often try to do is to personally try to harass with volume. It is a shame that any DB is so misused.

Never paying any attention to personal attacks and insisting on facts, exposes many others to reality who might otherwise be confused.

I appreciate your comments.

 

[essie7777]

…to harass with volume. …

LOL – asking you to explain how the Compendium of Catholic Social Doctrine, based and quoted for you on the Papal papers that support the provisions PROVIDED by state in a welfare state is harassment … seriously i think you to need to simply answer the questions posed to in numerous comments (and threads)!!!

You aren’t ignoring personal attacks as you aren’t being personally attacked … your POV is being questioned, you are ignoring those questions which as has been pointed out to you not just by me, is counter productive, THAT’s whats being questioned your inability to respond to reasonable requests for explanation.

 

[essie7777]

I’m having a similar problem with Essie7777 not understanding basic critical thinking and reading skills in a different thread. The same sort of tactics. The same sort of refusal to address facts to find the solution. …

I’m pretty sure if you have read this thread even you can see that i have only continuously asked a question as to why Abu is ignoring Catholic Social Doctrine in his political rampage for free enterprise.

That’s hardly being guilty of not critically thinking, as unlike yourself or Abu all i want is an explanation for how thw TOTALITY of Catholic Teaching does not support his POV, rather than relying on one often misquoted part of sentences and third party interpretations which are not from the very respected authoritativeness of the Catholic Church itself.

My suspicion is that due to both Essie7777 and FightingFat being from the UK, they have been inculcated with the typical socialized education that disallows them from seeing the folly of their critique. Coupled with undoubtedly liberal interpretations of such things from the British pulpits, and Europe being a cesspool of the socialist scourge, it’s all but pointless to continue.

And here we see the standard basic misunderstanding of Europe and the UK especially. You insult people who have lived under Socialism when you make sweeping statements about Europe being the cesspool of socialism. You have no idea what you’re talking about clearly.

And FYI attacking my education is a little pathetic; The fact i refuse to be led blindly like a sheep without asking questions demonstrates not socialist tendency but educated thought processes!

… to formulate contingency posts for other readers with similar misunderstanding, but the faculties to work out your position logically- if not to understand and agree, to at least better understand that which they have not understood prior.

Ahh congratulations you have nailed the situation exactly, a good contingency post to better understand Abu’s position would be him SIMPLY ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS POSED!

That would save his constantly being critized for not doing so, as has been stated more than once to him, how can his POV be examined and “understood” when Abu ignores ALL Catholic Teachings that disagree with his POV and FAILS to answer the reasonable questions???