Catholic Church And Gov. Welfare Programs

[thessalonian]

On CNN and other places there are articles about 70 catholic educators, priests, and nuns ripping the house speaker, Bohner, for governement cuts of social programs.

for example:

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/05/12/catholic-academics-blast-boehner-over-budget.html

They site a document by the vatican that speaks of caring for the poor but forget to read the whole document. Here is the part they miss.

Funny, the people who wrote this letter didn't even read the whole document they sited as support for their position:

The principle of subsidiarity is OPPOSED to certain forms of centralization, bureaucratization, and WELFARE ASSISTANCE and to the unjustified and excessive presence of the State in public mechanisms. “By intervening directly and DEPRIVING SOCIETY OF IT'S RESONSIBILITY the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are DOMINATED MORE BY BUREAUCRATIC WAYS OF THINKING THAN BY CONCERN FOR SERVING THEIR CLIENTS, and which are ACCOMPANIED BY AN ENORMOUS INCREASE IN SPENDING”[400]. An absent or insufficient recognition of private initiative — in economic matters also — and the failure to recognize its public function, contribute to the undermining of the principle of subsidiarity, as monopolies do as well.

Edited May 13, 2011 by thessalonian

[Winchester]

I am against it, as I am against private individuals stealing property to give it to others.

[thessalonian]

I am pretty sick of the social justice crowd doing their "charity" through government as well. It's nonsense. Such "charity" is not the charity of scripture. It is stale, lacks grace, and in my view is a demonic counterfit.

[CatherineM]

But it is there. Private charities couldn't and wouldn't be able to help even a fraction of the people in our society who are disabled. In another era, charity was to leave all that responsibility on the family, and if the family didn't take care of you, you died. That would be a good way to get rid of the surplus population.

[4588686]

[quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1305320647' post='2241016']
I am pretty sick of the social justice crowd doing their "charity" through government as well. It's nonsense. Such "charity" is not the charity of scripture. It is stale, lacks grace, and in my view is a demonic counterfit.
[/quote]


Too bad the charity of scripture has thus far proved insufficient.

Edited May 13, 2011 by Hasan

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1305326111' post='2241045']
Yeah. floopy the poor.
[/quote]


Thank you for your dizzying display of illogic.

[4588686]

[quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1305326376' post='2241049']
Thank you for your dizzying display of illogic.
[/quote]

I had already edited my post. But I will note the irony of your response here given that your argument to which I was responding, pretty much consisted of you saying that welfare is bad because it is, in your oppinion, demonic.

[Era Might]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1305323534' post='2241027']
But it is there. Private charities couldn't and wouldn't be able to help even a fraction of the people in our society who are disabled. In another era, charity was to leave all that responsibility on the family, and if the family didn't take care of you, you died. That would be a good way to get rid of the surplus population.
[/quote]
America has created an empire. You don't sustain an empire through charity. The conservative appeals to private charity replacing everything, if actually put into practice, would be the downfall of the American empire. Trying to govern America as though it were an 18th century society of farmers and small communities ignores the reality of the empire we live in. The government HAS to have its hand in everything in order for America to keep up what it has become. In creating an empire, America has also created the inequities and injustices that conservatives want private charities (rather than the government) to address. Private charity will not solve systemic problems that the system creates and sustains.

The fact is that if America were really to live by a model of "subsidiarity," it would be America's downfall as a world power. That's why people who create alternative communities (e.g., Gandhi in India, Dorothy Day in America) are dangerous to empire. Of necessity, small communities and empires operate according to different principles. Certainly, America was never intended to be an empire, but that is what it has become. Conservatives can't have it both ways. If they want to return to what America was originally, then they are going to have to give up what it has become, and that will be the downfall of America as we know it. But conservatives are even more committed to the empire than liberals are. Liberals and conservatives just emphasize two different halves of the empire: liberals emphasize the government's social support, while conservatives emphasize the government's violent support (military, police, prisons, etc).

Edited May 13, 2011 by Era Might

[Winchester]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1305323534' post='2241027']
But it is there. Private charities couldn't and wouldn't be able to help even a fraction of the people in our society who are disabled. In another era, charity was to leave all that responsibility on the family, and if the family didn't take care of you, you died. That would be a good way to get rid of the surplus population.
[/quote]
Private charity is more efficient, so dollar for dollar it would be able to help more people.

Which era would that be?

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1305327903' post='2241061']
Private charity is more efficient, so dollar for dollar it would be able to help more people.

Which era would that be?
[/quote]

Exactly. The private sector is much more efficient and often doesn't get swindled like the government does with our tax dollars. Bottomline is that we can't keep up this charity state, financially.

[Nihil Obstat]

Government taxes create deadweight loss. This is an economic law, and there is literally no way to circumvent it. Deadweight loss is money that just simply disappears. That is an enormous amount of potential wealth that we do not have because of the rather hefty tax burdens we're all used to.
[img] https://static.flatworldknowledge.com/sites/all/files/imagecache/book/29467/fwk-mcafee-fig05_004.jpg[/img]

ETA: This deadweight loss occurs even before the enormous inefficiency of government programs eats up tax revenue. All that revenue goes into the government, and then most of it is wasted on padded salaries, expenses, and corruption. Only a fraction of that actually goes towards anything vaguely useful.

Edited May 13, 2011 by Nihil Obstat

[CatherineM]

I'm curious as to what you guys would do if one day you left for the office and then didn't come home? That happened to me. One day you are employed, healthy, active, happy, and the next day you are permanently and totally disabled, unable to move, unable to work, with no one who can take care of you or give a beaver dam. Catholic Charities could offer no help at all. What should I have done besides turning to the government for help? When I hurt my back, I was released from the hospital, and was taken by ambulance and dropped at a hotel that catered to drug users and prostitutes. I didn't move for 7 weeks.

[4588686]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1305318319' post='2240999']
I am against it, as I am against private individuals stealing property to give it to others.
[/quote]


But you're not opposed to private individuals stealing property tofund a fire department?

Edited May 14, 2011 by Hasan

[havok579257]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1305333578' post='2241110']
I'm curious as to what you guys would do if one day you left for the office and then didn't come home? That happened to me. One day you are employed, healthy, active, happy, and the next day you are permanently and totally disabled, unable to move, unable to work, with no one who can take care of you or give a beaver dam. Catholic Charities could offer no help at all. What should I have done besides turning to the government for help? When I hurt my back, I was released from the hospital, and was taken by ambulance and dropped at a hotel that catered to drug users and prostitutes. I didn't move for 7 weeks.
[/quote]


the problem with the theory that government should not be involved in any charity is your example. had the government been the ideal way other posters on here want, then you would be dead now.

[Laudate_Dominum]

I hope we invent replicators in spite of the impact this might have on charitable giving. phasers and transporters would be sweet too.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1305345699' post='2241226']
the problem with the theory that government should not be involved in any charity is your example. had the government been the ideal way other posters on here want, then you would be dead now.
[/quote]

Not true, if we didn't have the government forcing people to give to their charities, we'd have more people giving to private charities, such as those supported by Catholics. Truth be told the Catholic Church would spend those dollars much more efficiently and would probably have extended to her particular circumstance. If we really want to get down to it, if we truly lived under a free market, jobs and money would be in abundance and so would giving. Right now, our government steals our money and gives it to whatever charity they chose, including those outside of our own country.


Right now, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and all others are draining the economy dry. What happens when all the money is gone and we have run out debt limit with China, Japan, etc. to it's maximum limit? Those programs are eventually going to get cut, if not now, then later. The best thing that they government can do is to cut them now and let the free market create opportunity.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1305323534' post='2241027']
But it is there. Private charities couldn't and wouldn't be able to help even a fraction of the people in our society who are disabled. In another era, charity was to leave all that responsibility on the family, and if the family didn't take care of you, you died. That would be a good way to get rid of the surplus population.
[/quote]

First I will say that it wasn't wrong of you to take advantage of what you had available to survive. Nobody would blame you for such but I wouldn't say that is ideal either. Sure there are a limited among of charities at the moment and a limit to what they can do but that is because of the government themselves creating this problem. If they got their hand out of cookie jar, you'd find that private organizations can manage that money much better, that more money in the pocket of private companies, means more money in the pockets of private charities.


When Peter Schiff had Johnsonville brat Morris on his show, Johnsonville brat proposed that we drug test all people going to college with loans. Peter Schiff responded with, "how about we get rid of the loan system all together" and Johnsonville brat Morris responded with, "that's crazy, students have to be able to get loans to go to college". Peter responsed with, "my father didn't, he was busing tables at a restraunt and never got loans", in which Johnsonville brat hung up the phone. It might seem radical, but if the free market was allowed to work, there would be a surplus in jobs and giving. Right now, the government is making it worse and the money is going to run out.


You might have been helped, G-d bless you, but many more are not going to be helped if the government goes bankrupt to the point that it's debt is more then it can pay. The current debt is so bad that in a few years, we're going to be paying .40 cents to every 1. dollar to China in interest alone. This is not sustainable so it's either we cut off the entitlements now and fix the situation, or we cut it off later and have a much larger mess to deal with in the long run. Either way, the entitlements are going to cease to be eventually.

[Nihil Obstat]

Government action also crowds out public alternatives. We can't know the extent of private programs, were they allowed to operate unhindered, simply because we've never seen anything approaching a free market in modern times.

[CatherineM]

You guys are dreaming if you think that private charities could or would replace government programs. In countries where private charity is the only option, people simply die in the streets. I vaguely remember that is what Mother Theresa started her ministry to do--minister to those dying in the street.

[4588686]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1305349527' post='2241250']
You guys are dreaming if you think that private charities could or would replace government programs. In countries where private charity is the only option, people simply die in the streets. I vaguely remember that is what Mother Theresa started her ministry to do--minister to those dying in the street.
[/quote]


Well. To be fair, India wasn't and isn't a free market system. particularly when Mother Theresa started. But I agree with your point.