Would a Basic Minimum Income dramatically reduce abortions?

[fides' Jack]

On 2/14/2022 at 4:29 PM, Peace said:

It is a debt that the wealthy owe to the poor.

That's a serious misreading of the catechism.

On 2/14/2022 at 11:34 AM, Peace said:

That means that if there are poor people who cannot provide basic goods for themselves to live, those who have great wealth steal from them by not giving to them out of their excess. Since the wealthy owe the poor out of their excess as a debt of justice, the State, being a primary instrument of justice, has the power to redistribute wealth from the wealthy to the poor.

Nonsense.

Edited February 17, 2022 by fides' Jack

[Peace]

3 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

That's a serious misreading of the catechism.

Nonsense.

Of course, because nobody gets to tell you what to do with your money, no?

A debt is owed. Sorry to break the bad news to you.

And that concept I taught by numerous church fathers and authorities that you can reference here:

http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2010/07/stealing-from-poor.html?m=1

St. Basil: “Are not thou then a robber, for counting as thine own what thou hast receivest to distribute? It is the bread of the famished which thou receivest, the garment of the naked which thou hoardest in they chest, the shoe of the barefooted which rots in they possessions, the money of the pennyless which thou hast buried in the earth. Wherefore then dost thou injure so many to whom thou mightiest be a benefactor.”

Now if you don’t like that, you’ll have to find a new religion.

[fides' Jack]

15 hours ago, Peace said:

Now if you don’t like that, you’ll have to find a new religion.

No, I absolutely like the quote from St. Basil.  Finally you're quoting people who actually contributed to Church tradition and not someone from the last 50 years who doesn't know what he's talking about.

And you've failed to understand what they're actually saying.  You've misapplied it to try to fit your own socialist narrative.  In that way, you're dead wrong.

Edited February 18, 2022 by fides' Jack

[Peace]

35 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

No, I absolutely like the quote from St. Basil. 

No, you do not.

35 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

Finally you're quoting people who actually contributed to Church tradition and not someone from the last 50 years who doesn't know what he's talking about.

I could not care less who you think I should quote.

35 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

And you've failed to understand what they're actually saying.  You've misapplied it to try to fit your own socialist narrative.  In that way, you're dead wrong.

No, it is you who refuses to believe what the Church teaches, because you are a right-wing ideologue who puts his  politics before his faith.

Have a nice day. 

[fides' Jack]

26 minutes ago, Peace said:

No, you do not.

I could not care less who you think I should quote.

No, it is you who refuses to believe what the Church teaches, because you are a right-wing ideologue who puts his  politics before his faith.

Have a nice day. 

OK, Cathy:

Why don't you tell me about the lobster!

Or you can just tell me some more what I believe in, and what my intentions are.

[fides' Jack]

On 2/13/2022 at 9:47 PM, Nihil Obstat said:

As I said, happy to share. To debate, not so much. At the moment I am studying full time for my second degree, working 25 hours a week, and raising my two children. That is not one of those measuring contests the internet likes; just letting you know I am at my own limit. 2010 Nihil would have been happy to debate all day every day for weeks on end.

I am still slowly recovering from my reflexive distrust of everything post-1960. I try to keep it at a polite raised eyebrow these days. But I will always gravitate to Leo because of his effect on my life. Even gave my son Leo as a middle name in his honour.

Clearly you are a better man than I.

Good luck on your degree!

[Peace]

52 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

Or you can just tell me some more what I believe in, and what my intentions are.

Oh I'll be more than happy to, the next time you insinuate that I am a socialist. 

Have a nice day. 

[little2add]

On 12/30/2021 at 8:08 AM, Dennis Tate said:

Would a Basic Minimum Income dramatically reduce abortions?"

I don’t think  it works that way

 

[Vernon]

Quote

That means that if there are poor people who cannot provide basic goods for themselves to live, those who have great wealth steal from them by not giving to them out of their excess. Since the wealthy owe the poor out of their excess as a debt of justice, the State, being a primary instrument of justice, has the power to redistribute wealth from the wealthy to the poor.

St. Basil was preaching to the rich and not to encourage bureaucrats to force them to pay up. Christian giving is to be voluntary.

Since the state is the instrument of justice and since adultery is an injustice, then the state should pass and enforce laws against adultery. Likewise for fornication. 

[fides' Jack]

43 minutes ago, Vernon said:

Since the state is the instrument of justice and since adultery is an injustice, then the state should pass and enforce laws against adultery. Likewise for fornication. 

Absolutely.  I think most states do have laws against adultery still.  They are just not enforced.

[ArciMoto]

On 12/30/2021 at 5:08 AM, Dennis Tate said:

I have written this up in a way that could increase cooperation between many in the pro-life movement with those in the political left who believe a BMI is the only way to respond to Artificial Intelligence and robotics taking over more and more in the world economy!

 

FWIW,... a few years ago had an invite to a breakfast meeting where I actually asked Jason Furmn (Obama's chair of economic advisors) about his thoughts on handing out a "basic minimum income" 

 

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/administration/eop/cea/about/members

 

basically he told me he doesn't think BMI is a good idea (because this country could not afford it)

 

I'm not an economist BUT I do find the topic interesting AND as I see things BMI only creates inflation and accelerated the issue of "tiffins paradox"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triffin_dilemma

 

 

 

 

 

[Dennis Tate]

11 hours ago, little2add said:

I don’t think  it works that way

 

It would not work that way in all cases that lead to an abortion....

but it would certainly play a significant role in at least thirty percent of abortions, (perhaps in more than fifty percent of cases that lead to an abortion).

Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative PerspectivesLawrence B. FinerLori F. Frohwirth,Guttmacher InstituteLindsay A. DauphineeSusheela Singh,Guttmacher InstituteAnn M. Moore,Guttmacher Institute

 

Quote

 

RESULTS

The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents' or partners' desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents.

CONCLUSIONS

The decision to have an abortion is typically motivated by multiple, diverse and interrelated reasons. The themes of responsibility to others and resource limitations, such as financial constraints and lack of partner support, recurred throughout the study.

 

 

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, ArciMoto said:

 

FWIW,... a few years ago had an invite to a breakfast meeting where I actually asked Jason Furmn (Obama's chair of economic advisors) about his thoughts on handing out a "basic minimum income" 

 

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/administration/eop/cea/about/members

 

basically he told me he doesn't think BMI is a good idea (because this country could not afford it)

 

I'm not an economist BUT I do find the topic interesting AND as I see things BMI only creates inflation and accelerated the issue of "tiffins paradox"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triffin_dilemma

 

 

 

 

 

But... if a B.M.I. was financed in the manner accomplished by President Lincoln and attempted by JFK then a BMI financed in this manner could actually lead to the paying off of the national debt of the USA...... because the national debt of the USA is largely a practical joke played on three hundred and thirty million Americans..... but some very bright people who know how to sell really bad ideas on economics.

 

https://www.michaeljournal.org/articles/politics/item/abraham-lincoln-and-john-f-kennedy

Quote

 

During the Civil War (1861-1865), President Lincoln needed money to finance the War from the North. The Bankers were going to charge him 24% to 36% interest. Lincoln was horrified and went away greatly distressed, for he was a man of principle and would not think of plunging his beloved country into a debt that the country would find impossible to pay back.

Eventually President Lincoln was advised to get Congress to pass a law authorizing the printing of full legal tender Treasury notes to pay for the War effort. Lincoln recognized the great benefits of this issue. At one point he wrote:

“... (we) gave the people of this Republic the greatest blessing they have ever had – their own paper money to pay their own debts...”

The Treasury notes were printed with green ink on the back, so the people called them “Greenbacks”.

Lincoln printed 400 million dollars worth of Greenbacks (the exact amount being $449,338,902), money that he delegated to be created, a debt-free and interest-free money to finance the War. It served as legal tender for all debts, public and private. He printed it, paid it to the soldiers, to the U.S. Civil Service employees, and bought supplies for war.

In 1972, the United States Treasury Department was asked to compute the amount of interest that would have been paid if that 400 million dollars would have been borrowed at interest instead of being issued by Abraham Lincoln. They did some computations, and a few weeks later, the United States Treasury Department said the United States Government saved 4 billion dollars in interest because Lincoln had created his own money. So you can about imagine how much the Government has paid and how much we owe solely on the basis of interest." (Melvin Sickler,Lincoln, Kennedy)

 

 

Edited February 20, 2022 by Dennis Tate
grammar

[fides' Jack]

4 minutes ago, Dennis Tate said:

It would not work that way in all cases that lead to an abortion....

but it would certainly play a significant role in at least thirty percent of abortions, (perhaps in more than fifty percent of cases that lead to an abortion).

I agree it would play a significant role.  It would encourage more abortions.

[Dennis Tate]

Just now, fides' Jack said:

I agree it would play a significant role.  It would encourage more abortions.

If eighty percent of young people who received their B.M.I. invested in drinking more alcohol and smoking more marijuana.... then your prediction could turn out to be true?????  But I really am expecting a positive spiritual awakening to happen in all the world over the coming years and decades.  

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Vernon said:

St. Basil was preaching to the rich and not to encourage bureaucrats to force them to pay up. Christian giving is to be voluntary.

No, the Church has clearly taught that the imposition of taxes is proper, and not only on the rich.

What do you think taxes are? It is politicians forcing you to pay up. It is them taking your money and giving it to someone else, or spending it on public infrastructure used by all (including those who haven’t paid any taxes).

1 hour ago, Vernon said:

Since the state is the instrument of justice and since adultery is an injustice, then the state should pass and enforce laws against adultery. Likewise for fornication. 

Do you think that people have a right to sin? Are you elevating libertarian ideas of freedom above the Catholic faith?

Yes, the state should enforce laws against those things (as it has in the past), unless the principle of tolerance is applicable.

Edited February 20, 2022 by Peace

[fides' Jack]

Just now, Dennis Tate said:

But I really am expecting a positive spiritual awakening to happen in all the world over the coming years and decades.  

I am, too.  And it will be so spectacular an event and so sudden that all of this will be moot, anyway.  Money won't exist in the same format.  BMI won't even be a question on anyone's mind.

Instituting a BMI right now will put almost everyone INTO poverty who is not already.  It would pop the bubble that the entire world is currently in, and many millions would be encouraged not to work anymore.  The economy would simply stop.  It would destroy much.

But things being how they are, the government would keep planned parenthood afloat, because satan has much power in the world right now.

5 minutes ago, Peace said:

No, the Church has clearly taught that the imposition of taxes is proper, and not only on the rich.

But the Church has not clearly taught that taxes should be used to give money directly to the poor.  The racist government programs that encourage single motherhood have devastated not just families, not just communities, but whole cultures.

Tax money should be used, as you said, to pay for public infrastructure used by all (including those who haven't paid any taxes), including military.  Under the right conditions, I would even support a tax to fund medical care for all.

[Peace]

1 hour ago, fides' Jack said:

But the Church has not clearly taught that taxes should be used to give money directly to the poor. 

The racist government programs that encourage single motherhood have devastated not just families, not just communities, but whole cultures.

What specific government programs are racist?

I agree that the effect of certain government policies (such as the infamous "no man in the house rule") has been to incentivize families to separate and that it is worth reviewing and modifying welfare laws in this regard. But if we are talking about the breakdown of the black family, for example, I'd have put at least as much, and likely more, blame for that on de-industrialization, poor inner-city schools that have not given men the skills that they need to work in the modern economy, employment discrimination, the prison-industrial complex and racism in the criminal justice system. Welfare laws are also a cause, but the reasons are much more complex than a simplistic right-wing talking point along the lines of "welfare has caused families to separate". But that's a whole new thread.

1 hour ago, fides' Jack said:

But the Church has not clearly taught that taxes should be used to give money directly to the poor. 

Tax money should be used, as you said, to pay for public infrastructure used by all (including those who haven't paid any taxes), including military.  Under the right conditions, I would even support a tax to fund medical care for all.

Well this idea of yours that poor people should not be given special consideration, that tax dollars should only be spent in a matter in which all people benefit equally from the expenditure, appears to contradict the pope's teaching here:

https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum.html

37. Rights must be religiously respected wherever they exist, and it is the duty of the public authority to prevent and to punish injury, and to protect every one in the possession of his own. Still, when there is question of defending the rights of individuals, the poor and badly off have a claim to especial consideration. The richer class have many ways of shielding themselves, and stand less in need of help from the State; whereas the mass of the poor have no resources of their own to fall back upon, and must chiefly depend upon the assistance of the State. And it is for this reason that wage-earners, since they mostly belong in the mass of the needy, should be specially cared for and protected by the government. 

Now, obviously there is no special care of poor people by the government, if all laws and tax expenditures must be doled out equally regardless of class, as you suggest above.

Now, in an ideal world there would be no need for the State to intervene and give special consideration to the needs of the poor. In an ideal world we would not need the State to take anyone's money and give it to the poor. Every man would look out for the other families in his community, voluntarily give out of his excess, and the needs of everyone would be met by voluntary action. This is the ideal, but it is pie in the Sky. It is Heaven on Earth. The reality is simply that most of us are affected by this sin called greed. Many of us do not do that at all. Most do not do it to the extent that justice demands. This being the case, the State has the power to step in and do what justice demands.

Let's say we have orphans, or starving children. Sure, rich people can take care of them. But what if the rich people refuse to do so? Is your position that the State, in principle, should have no power to take money from the stingy rich person, and use it to buy food specifically for the starving child? The state has to set up a generic food pantry that is open to everyone, poor, middle class, and rich, alike?

Why, exactly, would it be wrong to give a special preference to the poor?

Again, it is coming back to "I don't like the government taking my money and giving it to someone else" right? The idea seems to be "it is my money and I should have the right to do whatever I please with it. If I want to give money to the poor, I can. If I don't want to give a penny to the poor, that's my right too. I might have to answer to God for that, but the state can't take my money or force me to use my money for something that does not benefit me, or something that I do not approve of".

I think that type of view of "freedom" is inconsistent with what the Church teaches with respect to the universal destination of goods, if that is your view.

Edited February 20, 2022 by Peace

[little2add]

8 hours ago, Dennis Tate said:

But I really am expecting a positive spiritual awakening to happen in all the world over the coming years and decades.  

 B.M.I., money, God given talents explained:

The Parable of the Talents 

One of Jesus’ most significant parables regarding work is set in the context of investments (Matt. 25:14-30). A rich man delegates the management of his wealth to his servants, much as investors in today’s markets do. He gives five talents (a large unit of money)[1] to the first servant, two talents to the second, and one talent to the third. Two of the servants earn 100 percent returns by trading with the funds, but the third servant hides the money in the ground and earns nothing. The rich man returns, rewards the two who made money, but severely punishes the servant who did nothing.

 

The meaning of the parable extends far beyond financial investments. God has given each person a wide variety of gifts, and he expects us to employ those gifts in his service. It is not acceptable merely to put those gifts on a closet shelf and ignore them. Like the three servants, we do not have gifts of the same degree. The return God expects of us is commensurate with the gifts we have been given. The servant who received one talent was not condemned for failing to reach the five-talent goal; he was condemned because he did nothing with what he was given. The gifts we receive from God include skills, abilities, family connections, social positions, education, experiences, and more.

The point of the parable is that we are to use whatever we have been given for God’s purposes. The severe consequences to the unproductive servant, far beyond anything triggered by mere business mediocrity, tell us that we are to invest our lives, not waste them.

 

B.M.I. , Would only hinder a positive spiritual awakening from happening in all the world over the coming years and decades, I’m afraid…

[Dennis Tate]

On 2/20/2022 at 5:21 AM, little2add said:

 B.M.I., money, God given talents explained:

The Parable of the Talents 

One of Jesus’ most significant parables regarding work is set in the context of investments (Matt. 25:14-30). A rich man delegates the management of his wealth to his servants, much as investors in today’s markets do. He gives five talents (a large unit of money)[1] to the first servant, two talents to the second, and one talent to the third. Two of the servants earn 100 percent returns by trading with the funds, but the third servant hides the money in the ground and earns nothing. The rich man returns, rewards the two who made money, but severely punishes the servant who did nothing.

 

The meaning of the parable extends far beyond financial investments. God has given each person a wide variety of gifts, and he expects us to employ those gifts in his service. It is not acceptable merely to put those gifts on a closet shelf and ignore them. Like the three servants, we do not have gifts of the same degree. The return God expects of us is commensurate with the gifts we have been given. The servant who received one talent was not condemned for failing to reach the five-talent goal; he was condemned because he did nothing with what he was given. The gifts we receive from God include skills, abilities, family connections, social positions, education, experiences, and more.

The point of the parable is that we are to use whatever we have been given for God’s purposes. The severe consequences to the unproductive servant, far beyond anything triggered by mere business mediocrity, tell us that we are to invest our lives, not waste them.

 

B.M.I. , Would only hinder a positive spiritual awakening from happening in all the world over the coming years and decades, I’m afraid…

I  actually feel that an UNCONDITIONAL BUT TAXABLE B. M. I. of five hundred dollars per month can make Canadians, Americans, Israelis and Australians MORE PRODUCTIVE IF IT IS financed in the manner done by President Lincoln and attempted by J.F.K. and done again in Canada through our Bank of Canada from 1938 to 1974.  

I believe that several Roman Catholic Economists have explained that the problem is that COMPOUND INTEREST OVER TIME creates far, far, far, far ,far more DEBT than money so........

since very few political leaders will explain this amazingly simple mathematical problem to ordinary people...... the Big Money Investors who control the media can continue to deceive the ordinary people into a situation that can be compared to our being like Gerbils running on a treadmill of debt......

I explained this the best that I could do back in 2006 when I campaigned for public office at the provincial level as an independent...... (independent candidates always lose... but I was attempting to educate Canadians to important aspects of our history so losing another election was a good way to get the point across that I wanted to make).

 

http://bankingsystemflaws.blogspot.com

 

Quote

When well trained workers have high quality technology to work with then the total of all wages and benefits paid out to employees is only a fraction of the retail value of the products they produce. As a result of this fact the only way to move products out of warehouses is to extend higher and higher levels of credit.  One problem with an abundance of red ink is that compound interest on all this government, business and personal debt over a period of decades will grow to astronomical levels.  At this time there is approximately TEN TIMES as much debt in Canada as there is money. A simple explanation for how this happened can be seen here:
http://www.michaeljournal.org/plenty34.htm
In my opinion this rather simple mathematical problem is perhaps the number one cause of inflation in the Canadian economy over the past three decades. This is also perhaps the number one reason why our costs of production are so high and Canadian products cannot compete on the world markets as well as they could under better conditions.  

From 1940 to 1970 the Government of Canada put roughly half of the total money supply into the economy through loans issued through the federally owned Bank of Canada. Provincial and municipal governments could borrow the money to build roads, schools, hospitals and sewage treatment facilities at zero or one percent interest. In 1970 we changed our system and since that time a higher and higher percentage of all government debt is financed through loans issued through privately owned banks. At this time it is ninety eight percent. This policy may be great for our banking sector but it was estimated that in the one year of 1995 alone our federal government could have saved roughly SIXTY FIVE BILLION DOLLARS in interest payments if we had gone back to creating half the total money supply through these low interest rate loans issued through the bank that is OWNED BY ALL CANADIANS.  

Considering that our deficit was approximately thirty billion dollars for that year, simply by changing back to an already proven monetary and banking system, we could theoretically have had a FEDERAL BUDGET SURPLUS OF THIRTY FIVE BILLION DOLLARS in 1995.

The massive cutbacks in the Canadian military, in health care, highway construction, social programs and education were profoundly affected by these accounting practices?  

So what can you and I do about this problem?
1. If we will do our homework and study this question we can put pressure on our provincial level politicians to create a provincially owned bank. A true Bank of Nova Scotia owned by all Nova Scotians could be used to finance town and municipal government projects at zero or one percent interest just as The Bank of Canada used to do.  

2. Town and municipal government officials in New Glasgow, Stellarton and Trenton should seriously consider creating a local currency unit such as has been done in Ithaca, New York.  
http://www.
ithacahours.
org/directory.php
This is a great way to promote local businesses and help sustain rural economies.

3. It is also possible for groups of concerned individuals to get together and organize a local barter exchange as a cooperative. Mr. Rob Assels has been instrumental in just such an initiative in the Tatamagouche and River John area so surely we can get similar organizations up and running here in New Glasgow, Pictou, Stellarton, Trenton and Westville. Here is a link into the Halifax LETS system:
http://
halifaxlets.com/

Back in 2009 and 2010 I tried my best to convince Pope Benedict to do something with this basic concept.

 

http://greendesertstoreducecarbon.blogspot.com

[little2add]

who would receive this  B.M.I money, everyone?

Or would only be only for low income/underprivileged people.   If so, what would be the cutoff threshold to receive benifits?

would this B.M.I be provided to adults only?

would non-citizens receive it too?

what about convics in prison?

In order for this to prevent abortions wouldn't the B.M.I have to be extended to newborn babies?

 

just asking for a friend