Why do some Catholics lean politically conservative?

[Aquinas11]

DENNYINMI: “Can the fire departments of Rhode Island attend to the wildfires of California? To understand it correctly, The Church does not exclude the federal government from assisting the members of a country if that country cannot handle a difficulty on a local level.”

All irrelevant to the question and answer I provided. You asked for a Conservative policy to help the poor. I provided one. How that relates to wildfires in California or Church exclusion of federal government assistance is anyone’s guess.

DENNYINMI: “Charity can and does assist in immediate need for many, but we have millions (millions) within the category of working poor that are in need of health care, child care, clothing, nutritious food and the list of fundamental items that the normal man, woman and child need, including housing and heat.”

Precisely my point. We have millions and the Government has proven itself incapable of helping them. Proof? In 1964 the poverty rate in U.S. was 14.5%. After spending $22 trillion on the “war on poverty”, the poverty rate 50 years later is…14.5%. Zero improvement in poverty and mere wasting of $22 trillion. Hence just like the Post Office v. Fed Ex, the Private Sector will be far more efficient. Government needs to stop wasting money and give it to Private Charities who can help far more people far more efficiently.

DENNYINMI: “Charity isn’t dismissed, it’s simply not recognized as a sustainable solution to move persons into their own”

Not recognized by who? My definition of an unsustainable solution is wasting $22 trillion over 50 years with NO CHANGE in poverty rate , which is what Government Charity does. It begs the question - are progressives more worried about the POOR or more worried about GOVERNMENT? Because if it was solely about the poor, they’d be screaming to try something different.

 

[DENNYINMI]

This pretty much excludes the entire conservative approach, which is to create a society with incentives for people to benefit themselves.

Then HOW are they (conservative policy) creating that type of societal incentive for people to benefit themselves if not putting money within their pocket? Specifically, the working poor.
We have to exclude federal taxes as a benefit because it doesn’t apply to the working poor, but persons DO work to provide for themselves more than they work to demonstrate how wonderful the current climate is for the small business and large corporations due to tax cuts.
That may seem harsh…but I too work to make a living…I have to pay bills, money must be a concern. Charity is not meant as a means to an end, if that were the case there would be no concern that the pan-handler or homeless man/woman is “without” simply leave him to charity.

 

[DENNYINMI]

All irrelevant to the question and answer I provided. You asked for a Conservative policy to help the poor. I provided one. How that relates to wildfires in California or Church exclusion of federal government assistance is anyone’s guess.

This is in direct response to your “policy” called private charity. It is demonstrative of what the Catholic teaching of subsidiarity is. When a local problem cannot be handled on a local level a “larger” approach is necessary, Catholic social teaching does NOT dismiss the government from assisting those in need when the need is wide scale. Charity was and is NOT meant to be obtained by persons day in, day out for years on end.
To move persons above and beyond the chase of the need and want what is your response to move those within the category of the working poor to self sufficiency??

 

[Aquinas11]

This is in direct response to your “policy” called private charity. It is demonstrative of what the Catholic teaching of subsidiarity is. When a local problem cannot be handled on a local level a “larger” approach is necessary, Catholic social teaching does NOT dismiss the government from assisting those in need when the need is wide scale. Charity was and is NOT meant to be obtained by persons day in, day out for years on end.
To move persons above and beyond the chase of the need and want what is your response to move those within the category of the working poor to self sufficiency??

No its not in response to my answer regarding Private Charity. Where did I assert Catholic Social teaching DOES dismiss government assistance? Quote me. Where did I assert Charity WAS meant to be obtained day in, day out? Quote me.

 

[DENNYINMI]

No its not in response to my answer regarding Private Charity. Where did I assert Catholic Social teaching DOES dismiss government assistance? Quote me. Where did I assert Charity WAS meant to be obtained day in, day out? Quote me.

It was the only thing you could provide regarding policy on the working poor over a sustainable measure to move them out of their condition, so pardon please. Have a wonderful day. But I must add I do not believe charity is remotely close to policy, and since we seem to agree its not sustainable the question still begs.

 

[Aquinas11]

It was the only thing you could provide regarding policy on the working poor over a sustainable measure to move them out of their condition, so pardon please. Have a wonderful day. But I must add I do not believe charity is remotely close to policy, and since we seem to agree its not sustainable the question still begs.

That’s another strawman that we agree something is “not sustainable”, where did I say Private Charity is “not sustainable”? You misrepresented two other views I took above (that I asserted Catholic teaching dismisses government assistance when I never did and that I asserted Charity is meant to be day in/day out, which I never did) and now misrepresented a third view.

I can’t continue this dialogue due to these repeated misrepresentations, which is unfortunate. Have a nice day.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Ah, LifeHouse. My part of the country. I donate to it regularly. It’s starting another, similar home at Cape Girardeau.

I might add that prolife causes are very much cooperative in this part of the country between Catholics and Evangelicals/Fundamentalists. Despite the bad press they often get, including from Catholics, I think well of the latter.

 

[TheLittleLady]

create an environment in which they can better help themselves.

Back to bootstrapping.

 

[Elkcreek]

wow you did not read scripture did you? In Acts it is the community not personal contributions for the greater good. All gave what they had and the organization (elders and presbyters) distributed it according to the needs of the people. Like what governments should do.

This personal stuff is BS. Chrysostom was not advocating that government abandon any responsibility for the less fortunate. Just equity by force.

Any an American saint said that she helped the poor with no expectations of thanks or gratitude. from the poor. She said they were not grateful but were still needy. I believe our founder said what you do for them would still count with him anyway. Your are twisting what these guys are talking about. Remember the only guys Jesus whipped were affluent businessmen.

Ya wanna pay taxes for H-Bombs or to care for unwed mothers so we can avoid abortions. Me I/m for the latter.

 

[Brendan]

wow you did not read scripture did you? In Acts it is the community not personal contributions for the greater good. All gave what they had and the organization (elders and presbyters) distributed it according to the needs of the people. Like what governments should do.

Yes, personal giving. Conservatives fully agree with that. But the giving in Acts was done TO THE CHURCH. Again, conservatices have zero disagreement with that.

Which part of Acts involved the Christians giving their goods to the civil authorities instead.

The Golden Tongue Doctors words still ring very true. All compelled charity is not charity at all. It simply brings about resentment on the part of those whose money is taken, and no gratitude on the part of the recipients.

Yes, you are correct, it is not to the rich to receive gratitude. But it is a virtue on those who receive assistance to express it Virtue is called for on both parties, not just to one. The gratitude is not the goal, but it is not to be withheld either.

That is all moral harm and no moral benefit. There is no change of hearts done by either party.

 

[Ender]

Back to bootstrapping.

There appear to be two alternatives: provide for someone, or establish conditions where he can provide for himself. Why are you so opposed to helping people help themselves.

 

[Ender]

Then HOW are they (conservative policy) creating that type of societal incentive for people to benefit themselves if not putting money within their pocket? Specifically, the working poor.

Earlier you supported the idea of 14 years of free education as a way of helping the poor. That didn’t put money in their pockets either, so how do you justify your policies that offer a hand up instead of a handout, and reject mine which have the same intent? TheLittleLady disparages all such approaches as “bootstrapping”, yet you recognize the value of such an approach. Yes, we disagree on what educational approach is best, but at least you seem to acknowledge the value of enabling individuals to provide for their own needs.

 

[RCIAGraduate]

Who do you think I learned this organization from?

 

[CatholicGirl1]

I am a conservative catholic.

The poor: we will help, but many are taking advantage of the system. My mom grew up and saw first hand. She started working at 14 to help her family of 8. She saw how many people abused it. The Bible says: give a man a fish he eats for a day, teach him and he eats for days. The Bible also condones people taking from others. We should not be forced to give to people if we don’t want to.

Environment: we take care of it, but if it is between evicting a family to save a rare slug- the family definitely should. We also don’t believe people should be forced to but electric cars (with some research, they actually polute the environment more). Look into Steven crowder and why global warmists are against people. He walks around and shows people who were impacted by the forced laws.

Immigration: we want immigrants. LEGAL ones. Would you let people in your house near our kids without knowing who they are? Would you like to higher someone for your business without knowing if they will be beneficial to your business (economy). My grandmother is an immigrant (el Salvador) but she came legally- why are these other people special enough to break the law? If you went to Spain illegally, would it be right for them to make you a citizen automatically and all these privileges that others had to earn without them knowing anything about you other than you showing up demanding it?

Those are the main points, I can go more in depth, but I feel a question like this should be (name removed by moderator)erson, so no misconceptions are made.

Also, heads up that if you reply I may not get to reply back for awhile- but I’ll try!!

 

[midori]

I don’t know about formal programs that deal with “life skills,” because it’s sort of like Sunday school. If kids don’t see that behavior modeled at home, you can teach them all you want in a classroom setting---- but it’s not going to sink in well because it’s not part of their daily life.

I’ve tried to mentor people one-on-one… and it’s always ended up in a flaming failure, because I was more interested in their success than they were.

So-- for example, in the news recently, you had the NASA intern who lost her internship. She tweeted out a vulgarity to celebrate her internship. Homer Hickam gently reminded her to watch her language. Rather than saying, “Sorry, I was excited,” she spouted off anatomically-impossible crudities for Homer Hickam to perform. So even though she was smart enough to get a NASA internship, she wasn’t smart enough to (a) recognize Homer Hickam when he’s tweeting at her; (b) smart enough to know how to modify her attitude when dealing with other people; or (c) smart enough not to tag her future employer when she’s misbehaving on the Internet.

(Hint: Homer Hickam is currently on the National Space Council that oversees NASA, and was an aerospace engineer for almost 2 decades, and was involved in things like Skylab, the Shuttle Program, and the Hubble Telescope. He was famous for writing Rocket Boys, which the movie October Sky was based upon.)

So, here you have a person showing poor judgment. Who knows about her financial resources, her spiritual resources, her physical resources. Her emotional resources, however, were severely lacking: when gently criticized, rather than stepping back and analyzing her behavior, she exploded— and it just so happened that the person she exploded against was not only a very respected member of the industry she desired to enter, but was actually in a position of power of oversight. She obviously has mental/cognitive resources, if she could get one of the most coveted internships in her field— but her support system didn’t exactly help (a twitterstorm of friends to heap abuse on Homer Hickam) and her role models weren’t that stellar, either (if she [a] doesn’t recognize a famous and distinguished member of her field, and if she hasn’t learned how to speak to her elders by now). Her knowledge of hidden rules was absolutely nil— that’s not how you act in public, whether on the internet or not. Her knowledge of how to use language formally was absolutely nil— if you want to be taken seriously in your field, that’s not how a professional expresses herself or celebrates in public.

As it turned out, Homer Hickam didn’t bear her a grudge for her poor choices. He took her under his wing and is looking for a new position for her at NASA, after her initial internship was revoked.

And that’s what it really comes down to. We can use our energy to be helpful— but ultimately, you can’t help someone against their will. So hopefully this person will learn something from the situation and grow— but they have to want success just as much as the wanna-be role model/mentor wants them to succeed.

 

[DENNYINMI]

Earlier you supported the idea of 14 years of free education as a way of helping the poor. That didn’t put money in their pockets either, so how do you justify your policies that offer a hand up instead of a handout, and reject mine which have the same intent?

Oy. I support 2 additional years post an already free 12th grade which could include technical or vocational training, such as nursing or IT training ,welding, or what have you. These things offer higher paying jobs than fast food restaurants that can indeed move persons into self sufficiency.
The tax advantage idea is not advantageous for the working poor simply because they do not pay federal income tax now, the bi-partisan plan recognized this was one plan for them to best utilize poverty line income.

Those that are best served by tax decreases are those that make a lower/mid to mid, or moderate to high income. The more you make the better you fare through a tax decrease, especially corporations i.e. more money in their pockets which right now is most advantageous to share holders (vs laborer wage increases) and I doubt the poor have much money in the stock market.

I hope that clarifies, but I do like the above Chinese proverb from a conservative about teaching a man to fish…I always did.

 

[TheLittleLady]

The “pull yourself up by your own bootstraps” plan is workable for a small segment. There are people who have no straps on their boots, others who don’t have boots and a subset who do not even have legs. Complex societal issues need to be approached at many levels.

 

[TheLittleLady]

The Bible says: give a man a fish he eats for a day, teach him and he eats for days.

This is not in the Bible, it was said by Lao Tzu, founder of Taoism in China.

 

[meltzerboy2]

I base potential on actuality which I see from day to day in the classroom. There are already too many students who should not be in college. And, might I add, they are not limited to the poor: I see plenty of middle- and upper-middle class students who are not benefiting from a liberal arts education. The nursing field does indeed have its shortages; however, the problem is that in many or most community colleges, a liberal-arts education is required before entrance to the nursing program. Too many students flunk out because of this requirement. In other words, they never gain admittance to the nursing program (or veterinary program or computer science program) despite their possible talent in this area.

 

[midori]

That’s interesting-- ie, needing to have a liberal arts education prior to entering the nursing school. It seems like they would put more of a priority on hard science, like biology.

I know around here, a CNA can be earned with around 8-12 weeks’ training, which includes a certain amount of hands-on clinical training. In my area, they have 60 hours’ worth of classroom time and 40 hours of training.

It’s essentially the next step up from burger-flipping, and gets a bad reputation from the number of druggies/flakes who are in the program, but it’s a low-cost path ($500-$1,000 plus the cost of the exam) with few educational prerequisites (high school diploma!), and is pretty much guaranteed income/job security if you’re a competent human being.

I know things like RN’s are much harder to obtain— not only are the programs longer and more costly, but you have a series of extremely tough classes (like anatomy) which are specifically designed to force failures early on. Or so I hear from my friends who went through nursing school.