Top 5 Lame Excuses Not to Support Extreme-Poverty Alleviation Work

[markomalley]

huffingtonpost.com/nick-pearson/extreme-poverty-alleviation-work_b_4855656.html

The reasons, along with my commentary:

ROBERT, YOU MAY WANT TO SIT DOWN AND GET YOURSELF A STIFF DRINK BEFORE READING THE FOLLOWING. YOU’VE BEEN WARNED!

1) International aid doesn’t work.

That is absolutely correct. We can see the classic example of this with the Marshall Plan post WWII.

2) Governments in poor countries are corrupt.

True, and this is a very legitimate argument against government-to-government assistance like that which is provided by agencies like USAID or the UN, or efforts like the “Oil for Food” scam that was done in Iraq during the 90s.

However, there are private agencies, like Caritas, where the aid can bypass the corrupt government and get to the people who actually need it.

One other point: rogue, utterly corrupt regimes simply cannot survive in environments where the people are educated and capable. Getting rid of corruption is a side-effect of elevation of the people (After all, the current corrupt regime in that third world country known as the USA could not have ever been elected had there been an educated and non-dependent populace).

3) People need a hand-up not a hand-out.

In the international sphere, they actually need both in many cases. Where there are people literally starving to death, they need food aid to help avoid the senseless loss of life. However, they also need assistance in forming both the material and educational infrastructure so that they can generate economic activity where they can eventually participate in trade so that their own people can take care of themselves.

Therefore, I personally believe that it is vital to find and support efforts that will help build that infrastructure (both material and human) so that they can eventually become self-sufficient.

4) There’s plenty of need here in my own country.

When allegedly poor people in this country have cable TV, Internet connections, government housing projects, food stamps, WIC, AFDC, and other programs…that argument is utterly lame. Compared to countries in South Asia or Sub-Sahara Africa, poverty is virtually non-existent in this country. That is an utterly unacceptable excuse.

5) I can’t afford it.

You may not be able to afford to contribute enough to get the invites to the exclusive donor dinner parties or to be able to afford to get a “brick” on the “walk of fame”, but if you can skip your Starbucks once a week, you can afford enough to make a small amount of difference. Clean out your pocket change every night and put it in a jar…you’ll be surprised with the amount you gather at the end of the month.

---

None of the above should be, in any way, considered an endorsement of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which I believe is one of the most evil organizations on the planet today (it ranks up there with International Planned Parenthood as being a major force for evil).

But that is no reason not to support our brethren in areas where there is ACTUAL need.

---

Robert, did you break your jaw when it hit the floor?

 

[Tigg]

So, why do we still have extreme poverty?

I just heard yesterday at a bishop’s ordination that the greatest form of poverty is spiritual. I understand that is not the slant of this thread, but it is a valid statement and Catholics need to remember this. As far as the Gates Foundation, why do we need to partner with the devil? Or even Catholic Relief Services, who, if you’ve been noticing lately, has come under extreme fire for their giving to organizations who may provide clean water to a third world country while passing out condoms at the same time.

I agree we should give a portion to international charities. I also think we have an obligation to look closely at those we write our checks to. We refuse to give to CRS and have made it a mission to ensure our money will not work against the Church. It’s tiresome to do the homework, but essential in order to stay faithful to life issues.

 

[Robert_Sock]

The reasons, along with my commentary:

ROBERT, YOU MAY WANT TO SIT DOWN AND GET YOURSELF A STIFF DRINK BEFORE READING THE FOLLOWING. YOU’VE BEEN WARNED!

1) International aid doesn’t work.

That is absolutely correct. We can see the classic example of this with the Marshall Plan post WWII.

2) Governments in poor countries are corrupt.

True, and this is a very legitimate argument against government-to-government assistance like that which is provided by agencies like USAID or the UN, or efforts like the “Oil for Food” scam that was done in Iraq during the 90s.

However, there are private agencies, like Caritas, where the aid can bypass the corrupt government and get to the people who actually need it.

One other point: rogue, utterly corrupt regimes simply cannot survive in environments where the people are educated and capable. Getting rid of corruption is a side-effect of elevation of the people (After all, the current corrupt regime in that third world country known as the USA could not have ever been elected had there been an educated and non-dependent populace).

3) People need a hand-up not a hand-out.

In the international sphere, they actually need both in many cases. Where there are people literally starving to death, they need food aid to help avoid the senseless loss of life. However, they also need assistance in forming both the material and educational infrastructure so that they can generate economic activity where they can eventually participate in trade so that their own people can take care of themselves.

Therefore, I personally believe that it is vital to find and support efforts that will help build that infrastructure (both material and human) so that they can eventually become self-sufficient.

4) There’s plenty of need here in my own country.

When allegedly poor people in this country have cable TV, Internet connections, government housing projects, food stamps, WIC, AFDC, and other programs…that argument is utterly lame. Compared to countries in South Asia or Sub-Sahara Africa, poverty is virtually non-existent in this country. That is an utterly unacceptable excuse.

5) I can’t afford it.

You may not be able to afford to contribute enough to get the invites to the exclusive donor dinner parties or to be able to afford to get a “brick” on the “walk of fame”, but if you can skip your Starbucks once a week, you can afford enough to make a small amount of difference. Clean out your pocket change every night and put it in a jar…you’ll be surprised with the amount you gather at the end of the month.

---

None of the above should be, in any way, considered an endorsement of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which I believe is one of the most evil organizations on the planet today (it ranks up there with International Planned Parenthood as being a major force for evil).

But that is no reason not to support our brethren in areas where there is ACTUAL need.

---

Robert, did you break your jaw when it hit the floor?

Typical conservative response that denies the facts. I would rather trust the ‘experts’ who actually work in the field.

LOVE!!!

 

[freeRadical]

Typical conservative response that denies the facts. I would rather trust the ‘experts’ who actually work in the field.

LOVE!!!

It seems to me that you are they one that consistently denies facts. Who are these “experts” and why should we trust them?

 

[markomalley]

Typical conservative response that denies the facts. I would rather trust the ‘experts’ who actually work in the field.

LOVE!!!

Let me see if I have this right.

I agree with the basic premise of the article.

Since I’m conservative I can’t be correct.

Therefore, you now disavow the article that you originally posted…because you dare not agree with me.

 

[TMC]

Do you agree with Bill Gates’ assertions? This is what the thread was supposed to be about.

Yes, not only are they correct, they are completely consistent with what Pope Francis has been teaching. Unfortunately, many Catholics have adopted Capitalism as their religion, an approach denounced quite severely in Evangelii Gaudium.

 

[pnewton]

The problem with the Huffington rag is that their editorials are so incredibly ignorant. The truth is, there are not good excuses not to support helping the poor. Their list has nothing to do with excuses to avoid helping the poor. The list is composed of reasons people use to avoid contributing to certain organizations that rely on dubious methods of alleviating poverty. Throwing money at a problem does not always work. Good intentions feed no one. On the other hand, inaction will also do nothing to help poverty.

Instead of judging the charity level of each other, we should take the advice of Jesus and remove the plank from our own eye before trying to remove the speck from another, or in the case of HuffPo, the lumber yard from our eye.

 

[Inisfallen]

The best way to bring people out of poverty is Capitalism, free markets, free enterprise, economic freedom, and political freedom.

Let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that a pure laissez-faire, unregulated economy would, in some unknown number of years, bring about peace, prosperity and security for everyone.

What about all those people who will starve before that comes to pass? What about those children who will die of diarhea from the lack of clean water? What about those who will die because they don’t have access to a vaccine costing less than one dollar?

What about the children who will suffer from developmental delays because of childhood malnutrition, so that they are unable to take part in the coming free-market paradise? Or who are illiterate, which will lock them out of this wonderful Eden to come?

They say “give a man a fish, and he eats today, but teach him how to fish, and he eats forever.” Sure. Absolutely. But he needs something to eat while he’s learning how to fish.

 

[freeRadical]

Let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that a pure laissez-faire, unregulated economy would, in some unknown number of years, bring about peace, prosperity and security for everyone.

What about all those people who will starve before that comes to pass? What about those children who will die of diarhea from the lack of clean water? What about those who will die because they don’t have access to a vaccine costing less than one dollar?

What about the children who will suffer from developmental delays because of childhood malnutrition, so that they are unable to take part in the coming free-market paradise? Or who are illiterate, which will lock them out of this wonderful Eden to come?

They say “give a man a fish, and he eats today, but teach him how to fish, and he eats forever.” Sure. Absolutely. But he needs something to eat while he’s learning how to fish.

Where are the people who are starving, who don’t have access to clean water, who don’t have access to low cost vaccines, where are the children that are suffering form childhood malnutrition, where are the illiterate people? They aren’t in Capitalistic countries.

You’re assuming by unregulated Capitalism that I mean that there wouldn’t be a government. That’s not what I mean. There would still be a government. There would still be taxes to provide for public goods. There would still be infrastructure, roads, schools, hospitals, libraries, etc. There would still be laws. There would still be enforcement of contracts.

There would just be no government interference in the market place. No price and wage controls, no interference with the right of people to contract, no barriers to free enterprise, etc.

We have been fighting the War on Poverty for over 50 years, what has it gained us? Government can not solve the ills of mankind and, by trying to do so by interfering in markets, they often make things worse.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Yes, not only are they correct, they are completely consistent with what Pope Francis has been teaching. Unfortunately, many Catholics have adopted Capitalism as their religion, an approach denounced quite severely in Evangelii Gaudium.

 

[tabycat]

Perhaps because the very far right may not care about easing poverty at all? Or are concerned about chasing the almighty dollar and profit for those already obscently rich that that could likely be their primary raisond’etre.

Last time I checked Bill Gates was was both ‘obscently rich’ and far right. I could name others that are overly rich and far left. Can you name at least one on the right that is both overly rich and far right?

 

[tabycat]

Typical conservative response that denies the facts. I would rather trust the ‘experts’ who actually work in the field.

LOVE!!!/QUO

Tipical liberl response when faced facts that disagree with their mindset.

 

[dshix]

The best way to bring people out of poverty is Capitalism, free markets, free enterprise, economic freedom, and political freedom.

 

[markomalley]

The problem with the Huffington rag is that their editorials are so incredibly ignorant. ** The truth is, there are not good excuses not to support helping the poor. ** Their list has nothing to do with excuses to avoid helping the poor. The list is composed of reasons people use to avoid contributing to certain organizations that rely on dubious methods of alleviating poverty. Throwing money at a problem does not always work. Good intentions feed no one. On the other hand, inaction will also do nothing to help poverty.

Instead of judging the charity level of each other, we should take the advice of Jesus and remove the plank from our own eye before trying to remove the speck from another, or in the case of HuffPo, the lumber yard from our eye.

True statement. (particularly the part that I editorially bolded above)

But the 5 points raised by the article (as I highlighted in my response, above) are all excuses that I’ve heard…and they are all invalid reasons not to find a charity that actually does work in accordance with Catholic Social Teaching (to include the importance of private property emphasized in Rerum Novarum and the limits placed on the proper role of the State discussed in Centessimus Annus) and then support that charity.

Sadly, though, if an unabashed conservative and an unapologetic free-market supporter such as myself supports the premise discussed in those 5 points, a socialist is unable to find it within himself to support those points.

It is such a shame when ideology is so important to some people where it blinds them and impairs solidarity.

 

[pnewton]

It is such a shame when ideology is so important to some people where it blinds them and impairs solidarity.

I sometimes get the impression these threads are more about politics than helping the poor. I know I have sometimes said conservatives put party over principles in the past, but in this area, I think it is the* anti*-conservatives that put ideology over charity. One does not need to help promote abortion or contraceptives to also help the poor. I think it should be taken for granted that Catholics here are doing what they are called to do in response to the poor. Those that aren’t, then simply exhort them of our duty to God. There is no need for accusations and holding one’s own programs and priorities as superior.

 

[pnewton]

FYI - Appeal to nebulous experts is a logical fallacy used in a vacuum of facts or ability to reason.

 

[Tigg]

I sometimes get the impression these threads are more about politics than helping the poor.

Something I can agree with. And as capitalism is attacked as being denounced by Pope Francis, nothing is said about the condemnation of socialism by several popes. Another glaring point about threads like this is the huge chasm seen between pro-life and social justice Catholics. Some major charities (including Gates) think the ultimate answer to poverty is to disallow the poor to even be born.

 

[Robert_Sock]

CCC 2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.”

This appears to bolster my claim that it’s the atheism and dictatorships within socialism that are being targeted, and not socialism per se.

 

[seaton2005]

Huffington Post is very far left, so why use it for a source???

Regardless of the source, this makes sense. It’s in line with Catholic teaching. Remember the beatitudes?

 

[seaton2005]

Something I can agree with. And as capitalism is attacked as being denounced by Pope Francis, nothing is said about the condemnation of socialism by several popes. Another glaring point about threads like this is the huge chasm seen between pro-life and social justice Catholics. Some major charities (including Gates) think the ultimate answer to poverty is to disallow the poor to even be born.

It’s all a matter of your personal lens. There are some good things about socialism, and good things (probably a few more) about capitalism. Just as the reverse is also true.