When God said...

[Darkbloom]

… [BIBLEDRB]Genesis 3:19[/BIBLEDRB] was He kidding?

How about when St. Paul wrote [BIBLEDRB]2 Thessalonians 3:10[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[adv1sor]

Ok, I’m a bit thick sometimes and I did take a sudafed today, but I’m not seeing any real difference here.

Genesis 3:19 says we sweat for our bread and 2 Thessalonians 3:10 says we must work to eat.

So, no free lunch?

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

It seems to me that God has made it clear that if you own’t work (rather than can’t) then you are also choosing that you won’t eat.

 

[Darkbloom]

Ok, I’m a bit thick sometimes and I did take a sudafed today, but I’m not seeing any real difference here.

Genesis 3:19 says we sweat for our bread and 2 Thessalonians 3:10 says we must work to eat.

So, no free lunch?

I’m not suggesting the two conflict. Quite to the contrary. I just was curious how something that seems to grow out of Original Sin - laboring for one’s keep - is such an abhorrent to so many professed Catholics.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

I’m not suggesting the two conflict. Quite to the contrary. I just was curious how something that seems to grow out of Original Sin - laboring for one’s keep - is such an abhorrent to so many professed Catholics.

I don’t think that’s necessarily true. Catholics are typically more involved in social programs, and supporting candidates who believe the government should be supplying those social programs. I don’t think anyone who supports that believes that people should never work out of sloth (after all, sloth is a sin), and still eat off the sweat of another’s borw. I think they believe that there are those amoung us who cannot work for whatever reason that may be outside their control, but they need to have their basic needs met. Such as food, shelter, water, and in some cases - basic health care.

 

[royal_archer]

I don’t think that’s necessarily true. Catholics are typically more involved in social programs, and supporting candidates who believe the government should be supplying those social programs. I don’t think anyone who supports that believes that people should never work out of sloth (after all, sloth is a sin), and still eat off the sweat of another’s borw. I think they believe that there are those amoung us who cannot work for whatever reason that may be outside their control, but they need to have their basic needs met. Such as food, shelter, water, and in some cases - basic health care.

Can and can not is not a black and white issue. There are many people who are very generous to themselves with the deffinition of can’t. There are three major groupings of the miss use of can’t. (does not include those who flat out refuse to work.)

1. Over sensativity to every minor ache and pain. Those who could work but at personal distress. on the two extremes are in a hospital with an IV and under sedation at one end and in a bad mood on the other. We all have days where we do not feel up to working but still have to do it.
2. Lack of effort to find opportunity. There are some who just don’t make a serious effort to find a job. They only fill out a few applications a day or a week, do not prepare for interviews, or are over picky in what they are looking for. This is essentially negligence in the job search effort.
3. Sins of the past. These are the people who made a choice in their past lives that makes them unemployable now. Maybe they did drugs or jail time, or wasted the educational opportunities they were given, or got fired or developed a reputation as a poor worker. These are the people who painted themselves into a corner. There condition was totally within their control and they have to accept their situation until they can rehabilitate themselves and work their way back into the good graces of potential employeers. As a society, we can not reward such behavior and then expect others to not repeat it.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

Can and can not is not a black and white issue. There are many people who are very generous to themselves with the deffinition of can’t. There are three major groupings of the miss use of can’t. (does not include those who flat out refuse to work.)

1. Over sensativity to every minor ache and pain. Those who could work but at personal distress. on the two extremes are in a hospital with an IV and under sedation at one end and in a bad mood on the other. We all have days where we do not feel up to working but still have to do it.

I think this is why we have disability, though. If someone truly cannot work they are eligible for this. Their disablity is decided by medical professionals.

This is a good example of “won’t work.” I do think there needs to be more done to weed these people out of the system, and get something to light a fire in them to start working.

1. Sins of the past. These are the people who made a choice in their past lives that makes them unemployable now. Maybe they did drugs or jail time, or wasted the educational opportunities they were given, or got fired or developed a reputation as a poor worker. These are the people who painted themselves into a corner. There condition was totally within their control and they have to accept their situation until they can rehabilitate themselves and work their way back into the good graces of potential employeers. As a society, we can not reward such behavior and then expect others to not repeat it.

This is a hard one. I know of too many cases where people were arrested for overreacting to a situation, were in the wrong place at the wrong time, or made genuine mistakes when they were kids. These people are unemployable at the best of times, and in times like these, they are completely down and out. However, does this mean that because of a mistake they made, we shouldn’t help them and their families? I think that the very message of forgiveness in Christ says we should help these people, regardless of the mistakes they made. The punishment of being socially unacceptable, or “useless” is punishment enough. We don’t need to make it worse by allowing them and their families to starve.

I personally don’t believe the government has any role in charity. I think the government already does too much, and uses tax money to do things that a government is NOT set up to do. I think the government needs to get out of the charity business, and allow churches to do their job. We are supposed to be reaching out to these people and helping them, not the system.

[/QUOTE]

 

[royal_archer]

I think this is why we have disability, though. If someone truly cannot work they are eligible for this. Their disablity is decided by medical professionals.

but look at Steve Hawking who is still working and can barely move his facial features. There are other people who are physically disabled as it relates to one carreer but not as it relates to others. I believe there are opportunities to get these people back to work.

This is a good example of “won’t work.” I do think there needs to be more done to weed these people out of the system, and get something to light a fire in them to start working.

Get rid of welfare type programs and replace them with work programs. No work - No eat

This is a hard one. I know of too many cases where people were arrested for overreacting to a situation, were in the wrong place at the wrong time, or made genuine mistakes when they were kids. These people are unemployable at the best of times, and in times like these, they are completely down and out. However, does this mean that because of a mistake they made, we shouldn’t help them and their families? I think that the very message of forgiveness in Christ says we should help these people, regardless of the mistakes they made. The punishment of being socially unacceptable, or “useless” is punishment enough. We don’t need to make it worse by allowing them and their families to starve.

That stirs up a few issues. one, why did they start a family if they can’t find a job. two, why can’t parrents who played by the rules, but for some twist of fate were not able to have kids, adopt the children? three, government mandated work even if it is just medial labor. This could also be contracted out to temporary agencies where other companies can come in looking for workers and if they refuse to work they don’t get paid.

I personally don’t believe the government has any role in charity. I think the government already does too much, and uses tax money to do things that a government is NOT set up to do. I think the government needs to get out of the charity business, and allow churches to do their job. We are supposed to be reaching out to these people and helping them, not the system.

Agreed although there are some things the government can do in it’s normal course of work that will bennefit the less employable. The government is a big agency and hires a lot of people. with that sheer size and buying power they can do things that are within the limmited constitutional authority that help out. For instance: the disabled quadropallegics could be hired to monitor video surveilance of the borders and alert agents when they see something that can not be detected by automated sensors. Able bodied people who won’t work or are unhireable due to past transgressions, can be put on road crews fixing pot holes or other non skilled labor.

There is also the option for the government to subcontract out those laborers to private entities and if they refuse to do the work, they just don’t get any money.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

but look at Steve Hawking who is still working and can barely move his facial features. There are other people who are physically disabled as it relates to one carreer but not as it relates to others. I believe there are opportunities to get these people back to work.

This is very true. In the case of Stephen Hawking though, he has a career that allows him to continue his work despite the loss of so much. My husband could keep his job if he were in a wheelchair. This is not true of all jobs though. If someone is trained as a construction worker, they can’t keep working if they lose their legs. They certainly can be retrained to do another job, but this takes time and money that he may or may not have.

Get rid of welfare type programs and replace them with work programs. No work - No eat

I would support this. However, I also feel that doing such a think could take state jobs away from people who worked hard to get where they are. Imagine being a construction worker who loses his job so people who can’t get work can do his job.

That stirs up a few issues.

I’ll address them one at a time!

one, why did they start a family if they can’t find a job.

Many people who face criminal issues already had a family and a job before they messed up. I have a very close friend who was in this situation. He was trying to protect his family and he misidentified the people he thought were theives. He lost his job, his home, and he has a family with newborns. When he gets out of prison, he will be likely unable to find a job. Why should his family starve because of a hasty decision on his part when he was thinking that he was protecting them?

two, why can’t parrents who played by the rules, but for some twist of fate were not able to have kids, adopt the children?

Because studies repeatedly show that kids almost never do as well as those who are raised by their biological parents. I also think it’s even worse to split up families because someone made a mistake. How would you feel if you were married and your spouse made a mistake that landed him or her in prison (sorry, I don’t know your gender) then in a cruel twist the state takes your kids away and gives them to someone else.

We need very serious reason to forcibly deprive a child from his or her birth parents.

three, government mandated work even if it is just medial labor. This could also be contracted out to temporary agencies where other companies can come in looking for workers and if they refuse to work they don’t get paid.

There are actually a lot of programs already in place for this. In this economic climate, however, these agencies are getting tapped out. There just aren’t enough jobs unless we take them away from the employed.

Agreed although there are some things the government can do in it’s normal course of work that will bennefit the less employable. The government is a big agency and hires a lot of people. with that sheer size and buying power they can do things that are within the limmited constitutional authority that help out. For instance: the disabled quadropallegics could be hired to monitor video surveilance of the borders and alert agents when they see something that can not be detected by automated sensors. Able bodied people who won’t work or are unhireable due to past transgressions, can be put on road crews fixing pot holes or other non skilled labor.

There is also the option for the government to subcontract out those laborers to private entities and if they refuse to do the work, they just don’t get any money.

This would be ideal; but as I mentioned above, these jobs are already held by employed people. Taking these jobs away from the employed is not a good idea, and grossly unfair.

Right now, the reason so many are unemployed is that there just is not enough work. There is no where for them to go to work. It’s just not there. I speak from experience

 

[royal_archer]

This is very true. In the case of Stephen Hawking though, he has a career that allows him to continue his work despite the loss of so much. My husband could keep his job if he were in a wheelchair. This is not true of all jobs though. If someone is trained as a construction worker, they can’t keep working if they lose their legs. They certainly can be retrained to do another job, but this takes time and money that he may or may not have.

I would support this. However, I also feel that doing such a think could take state jobs away from people who worked hard to get where they are. Imagine being a construction worker who loses his job so people who can’t get work can do his job.

I’ll address them one at a time!

Many people who face criminal issues already had a family and a job before they messed up. I have a very close friend who was in this situation. He was trying to protect his family and he misidentified the people he thought were theives. He lost his job, his home, and he has a family with newborns. When he gets out of prison, he will be likely unable to find a job. Why should his family starve because of a hasty decision on his part when he was thinking that he was protecting them?

Because studies repeatedly show that kids almost never do as well as those who are raised by their biological parents. I also think it’s even worse to split up families because someone made a mistake. How would you feel if you were married and your spouse made a mistake that landed him or her in prison (sorry, I don’t know your gender) then in a cruel twist the state takes your kids away and gives them to someone else.

We need very serious reason to forcibly deprive a child from his or her birth parents.

There are actually a lot of programs already in place for this. In this economic climate, however, these agencies are getting tapped out. There just aren’t enough jobs unless we take them away from the employed.

This would be ideal; but as I mentioned above, these jobs are already held by employed people. Taking these jobs away from the employed is not a good idea, and grossly unfair.

Right now, the reason so many are unemployed is that there just is not enough work. There is no where for them to go to work. It’s just not there. I speak from experience

An injured construction worker could be easily retrained to be an inspector, supervisor, estimater, etc.

If one parrent goes to jail but the other is capable of raising them, it is different than if neither parrent is capable, which is what I was talking about. Also I agree that all things being equal, the children are better off with their parrents, but when neither is capable of raising them and at least one is a criminal, the kids may be better off with other parrents who are capable of raising them.

The money would not come from taking jobs from the currently employed, it would come from the elimination of welfare.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

An injured construction worker could be easily retrained to be an inspector, supervisor, estimater, etc.

This is true, but what happens when you run into a person who can’t master the skills necessary? Maybe they had poor schooling, or just don’t do well with “book smarts.” I run into all kinds of people in my dealings, and I know a great many people who can handle entry-level (usually labor intensive) jobs, but couldn’t manage a position higher up in the company. To make them be in such a situation could cause problems for the organization. The main issue here is time off work for retraining. We have to make sure their basic needs are met.

If one parrent goes to jail but the other is capable of raising them, it is different than if neither parrent is capable, which is what I was talking about. Also I agree that all things being equal, the children are better off with their parrents, but when neither is capable of raising them and at least one is a criminal, the kids may be better off with other parrents who are capable of raising them.

This issue that is frequently run into with a spouse going to jail is that it is the breadwinner and (typically) the wife has made a career out of being a stay-at-home mom. She has no skills to speak of, and with little ones at home, she hardly has the ability to spend 6-8 hours a day going back to school. Not to mention daycare. She would have to find a job right off the bad that can pay her bills on top of the costly daycare. If she has more than one child, this may prove impossible.

We just can’t break up a home where the parents are loving and attentive, and there is no record of abuse or neglect. Even if they are living in poverty, or one of the parents was arrested. We have to do everything we can to help this family get back on track. Counselling for the convict, financial support enough to meet basic needs, and help to get the mother working as soon as she is able (such as when the kids are in elementary school and gone for 6 hours). We should support them, not further the attack on the family that has been going on for the past several decades.

The money would not come from taking jobs from the currently employed, it would come from the elimination of welfare.

Such a system could work…the problem is, I just don’t see how. There are only so many resources available to the goverment. Actually creating jobs would cost more money than cutting a check to them, or giving food stamps. Besides, if we get the private sector involved, who is going to hire someone and pay taxes, benefits, etc. when they can get government money to subsidize workers?

The basic idea is, to get these people into jobs, there has to be something for them to do. State projects cost not just labor, but resources. Such a program would cost more money than welfare.

Personally, I think the whole issue is on us because churches aren’t doing their jobs. I mean, they aren’t being given the support they need (financial) to meet the need. The churches need to step up, and the government needs to get their butts out of the charity business. They never belonged there in the first place.

 

[royal_archer]

This is true, but what happens when you run into a person who can’t master the skills necessary? Maybe they had poor schooling, or just don’t do well with “book smarts.” I run into all kinds of people in my dealings, and I know a great many people who can handle entry-level (usually labor intensive) jobs, but couldn’t manage a position higher up in the company. To make them be in such a situation could cause problems for the organization. The main issue here is time off work for retraining. We have to make sure their basic needs are met.

This issue that is frequently run into with a spouse going to jail is that it is the breadwinner and (typically) the wife has made a career out of being a stay-at-home mom. She has no skills to speak of, and with little ones at home, she hardly has the ability to spend 6-8 hours a day going back to school. Not to mention daycare. She would have to find a job right off the bad that can pay her bills on top of the costly daycare. If she has more than one child, this may prove impossible.

We just can’t break up a home where the parents are loving and attentive, and there is no record of abuse or neglect. Even if they are living in poverty, or one of the parents was arrested. We have to do everything we can to help this family get back on track. Counselling for the convict, financial support enough to meet basic needs, and help to get the mother working as soon as she is able (such as when the kids are in elementary school and gone for 6 hours). We should support them, not further the attack on the family that has been going on for the past several decades.

Such a system could work…the problem is, I just don’t see how. There are only so many resources available to the goverment. Actually creating jobs would cost more money than cutting a check to them, or giving food stamps. Besides, if we get the private sector involved, who is going to hire someone and pay taxes, benefits, etc. when they can get government money to subsidize workers?

The basic idea is, to get these people into jobs, there has to be something for them to do. State projects cost not just labor, but resources. Such a program would cost more money than welfare.

Personally, I think the whole issue is on us because churches aren’t doing their jobs. I mean, they aren’t being given the support they need (financial) to meet the need. The churches need to step up, and the government needs to get their butts out of the charity business. They never belonged there in the first place.

If people have to work to get money, even if it is less than productive work, it will provide people an incentive to work. This will get the free loaders off the couch. once they accept that they have to put in a 40+ hour week then they may realize that getting a job with a private company will pay more than a government subsistance job.

Also, with the premise that companies can go to the work program and get employees, the companies would pay the employees.