Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Catholic Living in the Modern World => Topic started by: Traditional Guy 20 on May 26, 2013, 05:59:26 PM
-
If you ever get welfare I hate it how those who know you look down on you and consider you a bum because you (*GASP*) actually need help to live because your employer does not pay you enough to live descently. I hate it that everyone looks down on you because you have to go to the Church to ask for relief.
Let me say another thing, women and old people, who are very liberal and capitalist in their thinking are the worst when it comes to being snobbish towards you, as if you are a parasite for needing help to pay your bills. They act as if everyone should be able to pay everything and that everyone has the opportunity to become rich.
Once we entered our modern godless liberal and capitalist society however it was bound to happen that compassion towards your fellow man (and no I do not mean compassion for laziness or those who break the law and are not citizens) would become the norm.
-
Whoops it should have been "compassion for your fellow man would NOT become the norm."
-
If you ever get welfare I hate it how those who know you look down on you and consider you a bum because you (*GASP*) actually need help to live because your employer does not pay you enough to live descently. I hate it that everyone looks down on you because you have to go to the Church to ask for relief.
Let me say another thing, women and old people, who are very liberal and capitalist in their thinking are the worst when it comes to being snobbish towards you, as if you are a parasite for needing help to pay your bills. They act as if everyone should be able to pay everything and that everyone has the opportunity to become rich.
Once we entered our modern godless liberal and capitalist society however it was bound to happen that compassion towards your fellow man (and no I do not mean compassion for laziness or those who break the law and are not citizens) would NOT become the norm.
I've noticed that you have spoken antagonistically regarding capitalism numerous times, especially in the recent past. May I assume, from those comments, that you espouse the crypto-Marxism of Belloc and Chesterton known as distributism?
-
I've noticed that you have spoken antagonistically regarding capitalism numerous times, especially in the recent past. May I assume, from those comments, that you espouse the crypto-Marxism of Belloc and Chesterton known as distributism?
If you know of my posting history you also know of my antagonistic views towards Marxism as well. I support the Catholic theory of social justice.
-
If you know of my posting history you also know of my antagonistic views towards Marxism as well. I support the Catholic theory of social justice.
And how do you define the Catholic theory of social justice?
-
And how do you define the Catholic theory of social justice?
Well for one thing a business should pay a man a wage high enough to support his family.
I also have my own economic policies favoring a market controlled by morality, not market forces, and I also am a protectionist.
Marxism does not support private property and I do; therefore I am not a Marxist. However I am against the liberal and capitalist views that emerged out of the Enlightenment which put the self-interest of the individaul over what is good for the nation.
I am a nationalist therefore private property and business rights receed before what is good for the national interests.
-
If you ever get welfare I hate it how those who know you look down on you and consider you a bum because you (*GASP*) actually need help to live because your employer does not pay you enough to live descently. I hate it that everyone looks down on you because you have to go to the Church to ask for relief.
Let me say another thing, women and old people, who are very liberal and capitalist in their thinking are the worst when it comes to being snobbish towards you, as if you are a parasite for needing help to pay your bills. They act as if everyone should be able to pay everything and that everyone has the opportunity to become rich.
Once we entered our modern godless liberal and capitalist society however it was bound to happen that compassion towards your fellow man (and no I do not mean compassion for laziness or those who break the law and are not citizens) would become the norm.
Why would anyone know that someone else is on welfare?
And why would the recipient care what others think about it?
Only those who are heartless would look down on someone who genuinely needs help due to circuмstances beyond their control and why would someone care what a heartless b****rd thinks?
To me it is a non-issue. If a recipient cares what others think of him/her for receiving welfare they have a pride issue.
That said, I think that everyone who receives public assistance should be required to attend a financial skills/budgeting workshop and check in w/a budget mentor on a quarterly basis. Having volunteered with SVdP for years I saw first hand the disasters that befall people who have no clue how to handle money.
-
Here is what that vile libertarian Murray Rothbard thinks of Catholic social justice. :wink:
"Catholic social justice is virulently anti-capitalist and, in fact, pro-fascist. This fascist tendency is revealed by the trend of European Catholicism between the wars toward the adoption of the corporate state as their ideal."
-
Well for one thing a business should pay a man a wage high enough to support his family.
How high is that? Who decides the amount?
Some jobs are not meant to be held by grown men. Working at McDonalds or blowing leaves and weeding is not work for a man but for a boy. That is unskilled labor and a person should not expect much pay for unskilled labor.
Marsha
-
Well for one thing a business should pay a man a wage high enough to support his family.
"From each according to his ability; to each according to his need." This is a slogan popularized by Karl Marx, and it is central to the concept of all forms of Statism. The wage for a job is rightly determined by the time and effort required to execute that job, compounded by the degree of that job's specialization, which is determined by the number of individuals available to do it competently. There is a reason that a mechanic specializing in GM cars is paid less than a doctor.
I also have my own economic policies favoring a market controlled by morality, not market forces, and I also am a protectionist.
Marxism does not support private property and I do; therefore I am not a Marxist. However I am against the liberal and capitalist views that emerged out of the Enlightenment which put the self-interest of the individaul over what is good for the nation.
That's where you have it wrong, and consequently what makes you a Marxist. Marxism recognizes the difference between property of a consumable nature and property of a real nature, that is property whose utilization allows for the creation of wealth. Marxism, in the abstract, permits the former but not the latter.
There can be, in practice, no limited form of private property. Either you own something or you do not. If you do, then no one should be able to take it from you except that you trade it, freely and without duress, for like value, in good or currency, or that it be taken from you in payment for the commission of a crime. The fact of the matter is that the practice of charity is a work of corporal mercy and therefore has no relation to virtue of justice. Indeed, justice is properly understood as the compact, between citizens and between citizen and State, that the rights of either shall be inviolate so long as the rights of the other are not infringed. Welfare, or any other term for the disbursement of material goods for payment has not been given, is not an work of justice, but one of mercy. Therein lay that essential distinction which makes such efforts outside the province of the civil state. The justice of the State, understood in the context of the Catholic religion is thus:
1.) The foundation of government is establishment of Christ the King as the center of law and order, through the public and irrevocable establishment of the Christian religion, specifically and exclusively the Roman Catholic Church, and cooperation with the same through the legislation of laws that are in absolute accord with divine and natural law.
2.) Pursuant to first point, that the State exercises its power in that it acts punitively against those that violate the compact of civil justice, and that the purpose of established order is to preserve the life and property of the citizens over which it holds civil power. Moreover, the exercise of civil jurisprudence, in proceeding from just law and extension unassailable moral authority, must be exercised dispassionately.
3.) To exercise, where necessary and always in accord with the precepts of just war, martial power for the safety and freedom of its citizens.
Now, no doubt you and others would argued that welfare, monetary assistance for the poor, et cetera, would fall under the purview of maintaining order, in that it prevents civil disturbance through alleviating class inequality. In fact, it does nothing but exacerbate those tensions. The redistribution of wealth in the form of welfare violates civil justice in two main ways:
1.) It legitimizes the right of one class of people to effectively ransom another class of people at gunpoint
2.) The undermines the entire basis of civil law and moral authority with regard to the government in that, by accepting that crime and other civil disturbance will be the inevitable outcome of not redistributing wealth, in is effectively paying its own citizens to not engage in criminal activity, thereby implicitly stating that its law is neither objective nor enforceable depending on one's state in life.
I am a nationalist therefore private property and business rights receed before what is good for the national interests.
Then you're a Marxist, whatever label you apply to yourself. The only difference is that the gunpoint theft that you encourage politically is done in the name of God instead of the State.
-
How high is that? Who decides the amount?
Some jobs are not meant to be held by grown men. Working at McDonalds or blowing leaves and weeding is not work for a man but for a boy. That is unskilled labor and a person should not expect much pay for unskilled labor.
Marsha
Obviously the man who is supporting his family should be paid higher than those who are single.
-
How high is that? Who decides the amount?
Some jobs are not meant to be held by grown men. Working at McDonalds or blowing leaves and weeding is not work for a man but for a boy. That is unskilled labor and a person should not expect much pay for unskilled labor.
Marsha
Obviously the man who is supporting his family should be paid higher than those who are single.
"From each according to his ability; to each according to his need." - Karl Marx
I'll post it as many times as necessary till it sinks in.
-
"From each according to his ability; to each according to his need." This is a slogan popularized by Karl Marx, and it is central to the concept of all forms of Statism. The wage for a job is rightly determined by the time and effort required to execute that job, compounded by the degree of that job's specialization, which is determined by the number of individuals available to do it competently. There is a reason that a mechanic specializing in GM cars is paid less than a doctor.
Since you obsess over Karl Marx here are some famous liberals to quote right back at you:
"If goods do not cross borders armies will." Frederic Bastiat
"All nations are but accidents of battle, negotiations, and border disputes." David Hume
"I see Free Trade as the way, the truth, and the life...of drawing men together, to breaking down the antagonism of race, creed, and language, and bringing us all to world peace." Richard Cobden
Obviously within the nation there should be no class antagonism, which Marxism supports, however class peace and harmony can only be done when social justice is put in its place. Your form of "Statism" would make every government from Athens to the France of the Sun King to be "unsuccessful socities."
where you have it wrong, and consequently what makes you a Marxist. Marxism recognizes the difference between property of a consumable nature and property of a real nature, that is property whose utilization allows for the creation of wealth. Marxism, in the abstract, permits the former but not the latter.
There can be, in practice, no limited form of private property. Either you own something or you do not. If you do, then no one should be able to take it from you except that you trade it, freely and without duress, for like value, in good or currency, or that it be taken from you in payment for the commission of a crime. The fact of the matter is that the practice of charity is a work of corporal mercy and therefore has no relation to virtue of justice. Indeed, justice is properly understood as the compact, between citizens and between citizen and State, that the rights of either shall be inviolate so long as the rights of the other are not infringed. Welfare, or any other term for the disbursement of material goods for payment has not been given, is not an work of justice, but one of mercy. Therein lay that essential distinction which makes such efforts outside the province of the civil state. The justice of the State, understood in the context of the Catholic religion is thus:
1.) The foundation of government is establishment of Christ the King as the center of law and order, through the public and irrevocable establishment of the Christian religion, specifically and exclusively the Roman Catholic Church, and cooperation with the same through the legislation of laws that are in absolute accord with divine and natural law.
2.) Pursuant to first point, that the State exercises its power in that it acts punitively against those that violate the compact of civil justice, and that the purpose of established order is to preserve the life and property of the citizens over which it holds civil power. Moreover, the exercise of civil jurisprudence, in proceeding from just law and extension unassailable moral authority, must be exercised dispassionately.
3.) To exercise, where necessary and always in accord with the precepts of just war, martial power for the safety and freedom of its citizens.
Now, no doubt you and others would argued that welfare, monetary assistance for the poor, et cetera, would fall under the purview of maintaining order, in that it prevents civil disturbance through alleviating class inequality. In fact, it does nothing but exacerbate those tensions. The redistribution of wealth in the form of welfare violates civil justice in two main ways:
1.) It legitimizes the right of one class of people to effectively ransom another class of people at gunpoint
2.) The undermines the entire basis of civil law and moral authority with regard to the government in that, by accepting that crime and other civil disturbance will be the inevitable outcome of not redistributing wealth, in is effectively paying its own citizens to not engage in criminal activity, thereby implicitly stating that its law is neither objective nor enforceable depending on one's state in life.
Catholic social justice permits welfare to the poor from the Church and state because it unites social order within society instead of societal antagonism. If one would follow the liberal doctrine the worker would live in misery under it because for one thing, liberalism denies nation and race, and instead promotes a global marketplace where the businessman can get labor wherever he wants. Global capitalism promotes women in the labor force and other anti-family policies, destroying the family. Now obviously property rights must be protected however that does not mean a market should be dominated by huge corporations.
re a Marxist, whatever label you apply to yourself. The only difference is that the gunpoint theft that you encourage politically is done in the name of God instead of the State.
If I am a Marxist you are a liberal and capitalist. Marxism denies the reality of nation and race and supports an international workers' movement. Marxism is international and hates nationalism. So does liberalism as well.
-
"From each according to his ability; to each according to his need." - Karl Marx
I'll post it as many times as necessary till it sinks in.
Sorry to spoil your liberal mindset of feminism but the State has the duty and obligation to promote the family. Marxism is also anti-family. The State has the duty to encourage businesses to pay a higher wage.
-
Since you obsess over Karl Marx here are some famous liberals to quote right back at you:
Nothing that I'm saying echoes the statements of those people that you quoted. Your assertion that your station in life, rather than your ability and specialization, should determine what you're paid for a job is directly correlative to Marx's doctrine. But, naturally, you don't concern yourself with denying my assertion.
Obviously within the nation there should be no class antagonism, which Marxism supports, however class peace and harmony can only be done when social justice is put in its place. Your form of "Statism" would make every government from Athens to the France of the Sun King to be "unsuccessful socities."
The fact that neither exists should be a fairly strong indication that they were, as a matter of historical fact, unsuccessful. The creation of direct democracy among the Greek city-states is the progenitor of the godless republic in which we currently live, in that it tacitly accepts that civil morality, and by extension individual morality, is subordinate to the will of people at a given time and is therefore subjective. Likewise, the profligate spending of Louis XIV set the tone for the State expenditures that would inflame the people to such a degree that they would follow madmen like Robespierre. His expenditures to the relief of French poverty were not for the virtue of charity but for the political expedience in avoiding cινιℓ ωαr.
Catholic social justice permits welfare to the poor from the Church and state because it unites social order within society instead of societal antagonism. If one would follow the liberal doctrine the worker would live in misery under it because for one thing, liberalism denioes nation and race, and instead promotes a global marketplace where the businessman can get labor wherever he wants. Global capitalism promotes women in the labor force and other anti-family policies, destroying the family. Now obviously property rightsd must be protected however that does not mean a market should be dominated by huge corporations.
The enforcement of largesse in the form of charity, cannot justly, and must not as a matter of policy or practice, become the province of the civil state, and most especially where that civil state suffers the tyranny of democracy. The inevitable outcome is a class of professional voters and the establishment of a welfare state that strangles all right of personal property and every ounce of productivity. Which is, incidentally, what has happened to this godless nation.
If I am a Marxist you are a liberal and capitalist. Marxism denies the reality of nation and race and supports an international workers' movement. Marxism is international and hates nationalism. So does liberalism as well.
In calling me a liberal and a capitalist, you're certainly half-right. Which is less than the twice-correct broken clock, but one must be grateful for what one can get.
-
Sorry to spoil your liberal mindset of feminism but the State has the duty and obligation to promote the family.
Goodness, I'm really racking up titles. First I was just a liberal and a capitalist. Now I'm a feminist as well. Of course, if you've ever read any of my posts regarding men, women and their roles in society, you would know that I haven't an ounce of feminism in me.
Marxism is also anti-family.
So, am I Marxist now? I'm having difficulty keeping track of your aspersions.
The State has the duty to encourage businesses to pay a higher wage.
The State has those duties which I've enumerated in my previous post. Nor have you been espousing "encouragement". You've stated openly that were the needs of one are concerned, you feel justified in taking, or having the government, take from one without permission and giving it to another. However friendly or holy a practice you wish to paint it, that's still theft and still crypto-Marxism. The encouragement to charity must come from the Church, else it legitimizes institutionalized theft. Period.
-
Goodness, I'm really racking up titles. First I was just a liberal and a capitalist. Now I'm a feminist as well. Of course, if you've ever read any of my posts regarding men, women and their roles in society, you would know that I haven't an ounce of feminism in me.
You see what you want to see in my posts. I never called you a feminist. I said liberalism supports feminism.
So, am I Marxist now? I'm having difficulty keeping track of your aspersions.
Again I never called you a Marxist, I said Marxism supports feminism.
The State has those duties which I've enumerated in my previous post. Nor have you been espousing "encouragement". You've stated openly that were the needs of one are concerned, you feel justified in taking, or having the government, take from one without permission and giving it to another. However friendly or holy a practice you wish to paint it, that's still theft and still crypto-Marxism. The encouragement to charity must come from the Church, else it legitimizes institutionalized theft. Period.
What I said was that if the needs of the nation were in danger than the government has to duty to take over the business. That is not the same as "taking it from one person and giving it to another."
I must ask you does that same theft of property also apply to Wall Street and corporations which "take away" the profit and expenditures of family farms and small businesses?
-
{{Tradguy}}
Many have lived sheltered lives and they take for granted what has been given to them, they have no clue what others experience, apart from what FOX, CBS, and GOP politicians tell them. Remember public assistance is the great scapegoat of the GOP.
They really don't know. Most conservative people here are comfortable if not affluent, and if you want your kids to do activities with some moral guidelines you have to sit and listen to it, and can only smile. I do understand and it's hard to listen to though. D i c k e n s novels really hit the nail on the head with this, he shows their wrong views on the poor.
-
Nothing that I'm saying echoes the statements of those people that you quoted. Your assertion that your station in life, rather than your ability and specialization, should determine what you're paid for a job is directly correlative to Marx's doctrine. But, naturally, you don't concern yourself with denying my assertion.
No I do not support a classless society, I support a society where those on top are because of talent and virtue. However that means that the worker does not have the right to be "left behind."
The fact that neither exists should be a fairly strong indication that they were, as a matter of historical fact, unsuccessful. The creation of direct democracy among the Greek city-states is the progenitor of the godless republic in which we currently live, in that it tacitly accepts that civil morality, and by extension individual morality, is subordinate to the will of people at a given time and is therefore subjective. Likewise, the profligate spending of Louis XIV set the tone for the State expenditures that would inflame the people to such a degree that they would follow madmen like Robespierre. His expenditures to the relief of French poverty were not for the virtue of charity but for the political expedience in avoiding cινιℓ ωαr.
Whether they were successful or not liberal democracy and free-market capitalism is not the key to success in the Western world. If it was God sure has taken a long time to make mankind see that (over 2000 years). Also to borrow from the conservative Joseph de Maistre the monarchy's fault was not in spending but in the refusal to silence the supporters of liberty and freedom embodied in the eighteenth-century philosophes, and instead encouraged France in listening to them. "The books did it all!"
The enforcement of largesse in the form of charity, cannot justly, and must not as a matter of policy or practice, become the province of the civil state, and most especially where that civil state suffers the tyranny of democracy. The inevitable outcome is a class of professional voters and the establishment of a welfare state that strangles all right of personal property and every ounce of productivity. Which is, incidentally, what has happened to this godless nation.
I do not support democracy nor your term of the welfare state. I said that the state and Church has to have relief services for those in need. Speaking of godless capitalism is godless.
In calling me a liberal and a capitalist, you're certainly half-right. Which is less than the twice-correct broken clock, but one must be grateful for what one can get.
Capitalism, liberalism, Communism, socialism, etc. have all been condemned by the Catholic Church.
-
You see what you want to see in my posts. I never called you a feminist. I said liberalism supports feminism.
Sorry to spoil your liberal mindset of feminism...
No, I'm not reading anything into them. You accused me of having a mindset of liberal feminism, or at the very least of being a liberal, which you have just said supports feminism. Don't write it if you aren't going to stand behind it.
Again I never called you a Marxist, I said Marxism supports feminism.
So, you were not by implication suggesting that, in not supporting your notion of "social justice", I was anti-family, which incidentally is indicative of Marxism?
What I said was that if the needs of the nation were in danger than the government has to duty to take over the business. That is not the same as "taking it from one person and giving it to another."
Ownership, whether of property or means of production must be inviolate. Just to be clear, so that there isn't any confusion for anyone reading this thread, I want to confirm that you believe the concept of private property is not absolute, and that such notions are subordinate to the needs of one individual or group of individuals? No equivocations, please, just a yes or no will suffice.
I must ask you does that same theft of property also apply to Wall Street and corporations which "take away" the profit and expenditures of family farms and small businesses?
If those businesses are able to conduct their operation with greater efficiency and savings of cost, in essence if their product and productivity are greater, and are not protected, either overtly or covertly, by political action, then I have no issues with its success or the failure of others. I do object to plutocracy, and the protection by government of one class or group of citizen against another, regardless of who that group is or how wealthy they are. I believe that either the rule of law is objective, and ownership absolute, or what we have and what we can do is purely a function of who we know, whom we can bribe and from whom we can still.
-
{{Tradguy}}
Many have lived sheltered lives and they take for granted what has been given to them, they have no clue what others experience, apart from what FOX, CBS, and GOP politicians tell them. Remember public assistance is the great scapegoat of the GOP.
They really don't know. Most conservative people here are comfortable if not affluent, and if you want your kids to do activities with some moral guidelines you have to sit and listen to it, and can only smile. I do understand and it's hard to listen to though. D i c k e n s novels really hit the nail on the head with this, he shows their wrong views on the poor.
I'm really going to have to stop you right there. Before my parents worked to educate themselves so that they had better opportunities I grew up poor. I knew privation and hunger. When I went to university, it was understood that I'd pay my own way. Everything that I now possess I purchased through the occupation that I enjoy by virtue of my education. I have never pled poverty, borrowed money or expected the charity of another human being, nor have I, or my parents, ever considered it the place of the government to rob another to feed us, clothe us or house us.
And just for the record, I'm not a Republican in any way, shape, or form; those who have read my posts know that I'm against the entire form of democratic governance, in each and every particular.
-
No, I'm not reading anything into them. You accused me of having a mindset of liberal feminism, or at the very least of being a liberal, which you have just said supports feminism. Don't write it if you aren't going to stand behind it.
I said you were a liberal and liberalism supports feminism yes.
So, you were not by implication suggesting that, in not supporting your notion of "social justice", I was anti-family, which incidentally is indicative of Marxism?
I said your liberal economics were anti-family yes.
Ownership, whether of property or means of production must be inviolate. Just to be clear, so that there isn't any confusion for anyone reading this thread, I want to confirm that you believe the concept of private property is not absolute, and that such notions are subordinate to the needs of one individual or group of individuals? No equivocations, please, just a yes or no will suffice.
If national interests are in jeopardy business rights are receeded yes. Anti-trust legislation was created to deter the dominance of Big Business choking out small businesses.
If those businesses are able to conduct their operation with greater efficiency and savings of cost, in essence if their product and productivity are greater, and are not protected, either overtly or covertly, by political action, then I have no issues with its success or the failure of others. I do object to plutocracy, and the protection by government of one class or group of citizen against another, regardless of who that group is or how wealthy they are. I believe that either the rule of law is objective, and ownership absolute, or what we have and what we can do is purely a function of who we know, whom we can bribe and from whom we can still.
Sorry but I do not believe in unregulated capitalism. There must be regulations and taxes on businesses, though I would cut it for small businesses. Wall Street has done evil things in its history such as its choking out of small businesses, its choking out of the family farm, and Wall Street supporting World War II, etc.
-
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/05/30/opinion/5302012wage/5302012wage-blog480.jpg)
-
When I went to university, it was understood that I'd pay my own way. Everything that I now possess I purchased through the occupation that I enjoy by virtue of my education.
Well let me tell you this: I despise intellectualism and intellectuals so you going to a university means nothing to me.
-
No I do not support a classless society, I support a society where those on top are because of talent and virtue. However that means that the worker does not have the right to be "left behind."
So you support a society in which the best is expected from each, and their own sure reward will be the adulation of others? Well, I've never known anyone to go to bed with a stomach full of congratulations. If a man cannot expect reward commensurate with his expenditure then what incentive has he to do anything for any reason?
Whether they were successful or not liberal democracy and free-market capitalism is not the key to success in the Western world. If it was God sure has taken a long time to make mankind see that (over 2000 years).
God took between 4,000 and 50,000 years (depending on who you talk to) to take on flesh and redeem mankind. Are you suggesting that His plan for man's salvation was slow and inefficient?
Also to borrow from the conservative Joseph de Maistre the monarchy's fault was not in spending but in the refusal to silence the supporters of liberty and freedom embodied in the eighteenth-century philosophes, and instead encouraged France in listening to them. "The books did it all!"
And I suppose it was the principle of equal representation, rather than heavy taxation, that ignited the American Revolution. All political movement has its true motive in the economic. If anyone say any differently, he's trying to sell you something.
I do not support democracy nor your term of the welfare state. I said that the state and Church has to have relief services for those in need. Speaking of godless capitalism is godless.
That's a distinction without a difference. You can't be a raped within reason. It's a binary condition, either you have something stolen, whether means or innocence, or you don't.
Capitalism, liberalism, Communism, socialism, etc. have all been condemned by the Catholic Church.
Capitalism has never been condemned.
-
Well let me tell you this: I despise intellectualism and intellectuals so you going to a university means nothing to me.
I'm glad you've made your feelings on the matter known. Conversely, while I do not despise pseudo-intellectuals who spout nonsense, I do pity them for their own lack of understanding.
-
You are taking for granted though that you had two parents who did their best to provide, and I assume gave you some guidance into your adult life, and most likely had a floor to sleep on if you ever had a real crisis in your older teen years.
BTW John Grey I wasn't referring to you, but the people that Tradguy are hearing this from. Also if you did experience hunger I'm sure you would not say the things we hear from the GOP types.
-
Catholicism created the university system, practically all science, art,lilibraries, and pretty much everything else with regards to culture. To despise someone who wants to learn is not Catholic. Certainly, we need to be careful of the modernistic agenda, but we should expect to be leading every field of study. Running into a shell and hating the world is not catholic.
-
Catholicism created the university system, practically all science, art,lilibraries, and pretty much everything else with regards to culture. To despise someone who wants to learn is not Catholic. Certainly, we need to be careful of the modernistic agenda, but we should expect to be leading every field of study. Running into a shell and hating the world is not catholic.
Common sense is much more important in today's world. Besides the university system has been a hotbed for liberalism for many years.
-
An unchecked usury system will press remorselessly against wages and inexorably push up rents.
-
You are taking for granted though that you had two parents who did their best to provide, and I assume gave you some guidance into your adult life, and most likely had a floor to sleep on if you ever had a real crisis in your older teen years.
You argument being that because we were never indigent, by virtue of my parents frugal and restrained materialistic nature, that I'm unqualified to speak on economic matters. By that rationale, it's a bad idea for a virgin priest to ever counsel someone on conquering the temptation of the flesh.
-
Common sense is much more important in today's world. Besides the university system has been a hotbed for liberalism for many years.
I'm sure common sense was a great treasure to the many millions in history that were crippled by polio, maimed by smallpox, and shuttered in leper colonies as living refuse.
-
I really get the impression that many people in the professional classes speak as though they prefer that wages for common people are low.
Many give the impression of being jealous that those they consider lesser than themselves have access to anything like similar social status.
(having a nice home, a traditional family, a position of being treated as being more than white proletarians)
They give the impression of wanting the worst for others.
Certain people are regarded as degraded: and there seems (at least among most Catholics) hardly any desire to see them lifted up.
-
So you support a society in which the best is expected from each, and their own sure reward will be the adulation of others? Well, I've never known anyone to go to bed with a stomach full of congratulations. If a man cannot expect reward commensurate with his expenditure then what incentive has he to do anything for any reason?
Obviously a man should be rewarded with talent and virtue. I despise the school system's method of raising test scores to meet minority standards and I also despise affirmative action.
God took between 4,000 and 50,000 years (depending on who you talk to) to take on flesh and redeem mankind. Are you suggesting that His plan for man's salvation was slow and inefficient?
Liberalism and capitalism has been a curse, not a blessing, for the worker of today.
And I suppose it was the principle of equal representation, rather than heavy taxation, that ignited the American Revolution. All political movement has its true motive in the economic. If anyone say any differently, he's trying to sell you something.
An obsession with economics is very liberal. The phiosophes argued that king, queen, parasite aristocracy, bishops, priests, etc. would all have to be eradicated else the people would never be set free.
That's a distinction without a difference. You can't be a raped within reason. It's a binary condition, either you have something stolen, whether means or innocence, or you don't.
Who is stealing anything? A man's greatness is called for the service of the nation, not his own self-centered individualism.
Capitalism has never been condemned.
Usury has been condemned. Free, unfettered markets have been condemned. Free trade has been condemned.
-
I really get the impression that many people in the professional classes speak as though they prefer that wages for common people are low.
Many give the impression of being jealous that those they can consider lesser than them have access to anything like similar social status.
They give the impression of wanting the worst for others.
Conversely, many people of lesser means, wish for those that have greater means to lose them, disparage them because they feel that those people owe them something, and deride the efforts that put forth to provide themselves better opportunity as elitism.
Certainly I want good things for people, but only as much as they are willing to get for themselves, or get through charitable donation by the Church according to the precept of Christian charity, not by the government at the point of a gun.
-
I'm sure common sense was a great treasure to the many millions in history that were crippled by polio, maimed by smallpox, and shuttered in leper colonies as living refuse.
I'm sure intellectualism has been a great treasure for those Darwinian evolutionists, those Enlightenment philosophers, for those economists who love free trade, etc. :wink:
Since you despise my views I also despise the intellectual attitude of being snobby, elitist, and arrogant towards the common man.
-
Obviously a man should be rewarded with talent and virtue. I despise the school system's method of raising test scores to meet minority standards and I also despise affirmative action.
You can't have it both ways, sir. Either a man is rewarded commensurate to his expended effort, and is the owner of that reward, or he is not and does not. One will always create a society in which the best and brightest are productive, the other will always create a society where those men ignore their gifts, having no incentive to exercise them.
Liberalism and capitalism has been a curse, not a blessing, for the worker of today.
That wasn't my question. You argued that if capitalism were a better, more efficient form of economics, why did it take so long to develop. I contrasted that with the long period between the fall of man and the arrival of his Redeemer. I notice that you did not respond to that. I'm not surprised.
An obsession with economics is very liberal. The philosophies argued that king, queen, parasite aristocracy, bishops, priests, etc. would all have to be eradicated else the people would never be set free.
Show me a man that does not eat, nor sleep, nor suffer at the hands of the elements. Then I'll believe that preoccupation with economics is unnecessary.
Who is stealing anything? A man's greatness is called for the service of the nation, not his own self-centered individualism.
It is not your place, nor the place of the State, to put a price on the fruit of a man's mind.
Capitalism has never been condemned.
As I said, capitalism has never been condemned.
-
I added a BTW to my first post to you.
That isn't it at all. My point his having parents who care and who try their best, for your whole growing up, even if they are poor, is really huge advantage over a person who did not have parents who care or who only cared at certain times.
I'm very frugal too, and I've often argued that many of the poor could be more frugal is some ways. Where I disagree with the GOP types is thinking those changes = out of poverty. For example many run out of food stamps (even those who get a full allotment) before the next allotment. A good solution is to buy shelf stable low cost protein like peanut butter and tuna, and just put it up for three weeks. Making popcorn in a pot is cheaper than buying chips for a snack. Whole chicken is more bang for your buck as far as protein than hot dogs.
-
You can't have it both ways, sir. Either a man is rewarded commensurate to his expended effort, and is the owner of that reward, or he is not and does not. One will always create a society in which the best and brightest are productive, the other will always create a society where those men ignore their gifts, having no incentive to exercise them.
A man should be rewarded for his effort, but should not be rewarded if his ideas harm others.
But again that does not matter. Capitalism is not better but horrible and neither does America have the right to force its ideals on others.
Show me a man that does not eat, nor sleep, nor suffer at the hands of the elements. Then I'll believe that preoccupation with economics is unnecessary.
I find America's morality more a concern than economics such as America's support for abortion, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, and condoms.
It is not your place, nor the place of the State, to put a price on the fruit of a man's mind.
Nonsense, the mind of the man is not for his own self-centered benefit but for the benefit of the nation, to show its greatness.
As I said, capitalism has never been condemned.
Again the elements of capitalism has been condemned so yes it is condemned.
-
Conversely, many people of lesser means, wish for those that have greater means to lose them
I've never felt any desire to see the rich despoiled. (except such groups as the Jews, who as St. Thomas Aquinas said are to be kept in perpetual servitude, should not be allowed to keep the money they earn by usury) I don't have a problem with rich people having their money. I have a problem when they use their money to attempt to oppress those poorer than themselves. After all, if they have the perqs of money, and are bored with luxuries, they often have nothing better to do than to find weaker people to exploit or otherwise harm by the influence of their money.
The Popes do say that a more just distribution of wealth is necessary.
How one goes about it is a delicate matter. What is certain is that the current system is totally corrupt and is designed to destroy the family life of gentiles who are not middle class or above, by economic pressure and other techniques of manipulation.
What is discouraging is the attitude of the upper middle class - supposed Catholics, towards those of lesser means who wish to maintain Catholic family life. It is appalling.
-
A man should be rewarded for his effort, but should not be rewarded if his ideas harm others.
But again that does not matter. Capitalism is not better but horrible and neither does America have the right to force its ideals on others.
We weren't talking about the validity of his ideas, but whether he has a right to earn and keep his reward for them. You've dodged the question a number of times. And I still wait for an unequivocal answer. Do you account private ownership to be limited, and afford the right of the State to take and redistribute the fruits of labor to others without consent of, or remuneration to, the owner. Again, a yes or no will suffice.
I find America's morality more a concern than economics such as America's support for abortion, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, and condoms.
Then start a thread on morality, not on economics.
Nonsense, the mind of the man is not for his own self-centered benefit but for the benefit of the nation, to show its greatness.
So a man must martyr his mind so that you can eat? Good like finding a willing victim.
Again the elements of capitalism has been condemned so yes it is condemned.
Oh, perversions of capitalism have been condemned but never capitalism itself.
-
Conversely, many people of lesser means, wish for those that have greater means to lose them
I've never felt any desire to see the rich despoiled. (except such groups as the Jews, who as St. Thomas Aquinas said are to be kept in perpetual servitude, should not be allowed to keep the money they earn by usury) I don't have a problem with rich people having their money. I have a problem when they use their money to attempt to oppress those poorer than themselves. After all, if they have the perqs of money, and are bored with luxuries, they often have nothing better to do than to find weaker people to exploit or otherwise harm by the influence of their money.
The Popes do say that a more just distribution of wealth is necessary.
How one goes about it is a delicate matter. What is certain is that the current system is totally corrupt and is designed to destroy the family life of gentiles who are not middle class or above, by economic pressure and other techniques of manipulation.
What is discouraging is the attitude of the upper middle class - supposed Catholics, towards those of lesser means who wish to maintain Catholic family life. It is appalling.
:applause:
-
We weren't talking about the validity of his ideas, but whether he has a right to earn and keep his reward for them. You've dodged the question a number of times. And I still wait for an unequivocal answer. Do you account private ownership to be limited, and afford the right of the State to take and redistribute the fruits of labor to others without consent of, or remuneration to, the owner. Again, a yes or no will suffice.
A yes or no will not do because it is a complex question. Again as I said if the nation is in jeopardy over national interests then yes private ownership can be curtailled.
So a man must martyr his mind so that you can eat? Good like finding a willing victim.
What on earth are you going on about? If the man creates a great idea his name will be remembered as a source of national pride.
Oh, perversions of capitalism have been condemned but never capitalism itself.
Liberalism and capitalism comes out of the individualistic ideas of the Enlightenment and again it's elements have been condemned such as no regulation, free trade, usury, and unfettered, free markets.
-
Well for one thing a business should pay a man a wage high enough to support his family.
"From each according to his ability; to each according to his need." This is a slogan popularized by Karl Marx, and it is central to the concept of all forms of Statism. The wage for a job is rightly determined by the time and effort required to execute that job, compounded by the degree of that job's specialization, which is determined by the number of individuals available to do it competently. There is a reason that a mechanic specializing in GM cars is paid less than a doctor.
I also have my own economic policies favoring a market controlled by morality, not market forces, and I also am a protectionist.
Marxism does not support private property and I do; therefore I am not a Marxist. However I am against the liberal and capitalist views that emerged out of the Enlightenment which put the self-interest of the individaul over what is good for the nation.
That's where you have it wrong, and consequently what makes you a Marxist. Marxism recognizes the difference between property of a consumable nature and property of a real nature, that is property whose utilization allows for the creation of wealth. Marxism, in the abstract, permits the former but not the latter.
There can be, in practice, no limited form of private property. Either you own something or you do not. If you do, then no one should be able to take it from you except that you trade it, freely and without duress, for like value, in good or currency, or that it be taken from you in payment for the commission of a crime. The fact of the matter is that the practice of charity is a work of corporal mercy and therefore has no relation to virtue of justice. Indeed, justice is properly understood as the compact, between citizens and between citizen and State, that the rights of either shall be inviolate so long as the rights of the other are not infringed. Welfare, or any other term for the disbursement of material goods for payment has not been given, is not an work of justice, but one of mercy. Therein lay that essential distinction which makes such efforts outside the province of the civil state. The justice of the State, understood in the context of the Catholic religion is thus:
1.) The foundation of government is establishment of Christ the King as the center of law and order, through the public and irrevocable establishment of the Christian religion, specifically and exclusively the Roman Catholic Church, and cooperation with the same through the legislation of laws that are in absolute accord with divine and natural law.
2.) Pursuant to first point, that the State exercises its power in that it acts punitively against those that violate the compact of civil justice, and that the purpose of established order is to preserve the life and property of the citizens over which it holds civil power. Moreover, the exercise of civil jurisprudence, in proceeding from just law and extension unassailable moral authority, must be exercised dispassionately.
3.) To exercise, where necessary and always in accord with the precepts of just war, martial power for the safety and freedom of its citizens.
Now, no doubt you and others would argued that welfare, monetary assistance for the poor, et cetera, would fall under the purview of maintaining order, in that it prevents civil disturbance through alleviating class inequality. In fact, it does nothing but exacerbate those tensions. The redistribution of wealth in the form of welfare violates civil justice in two main ways:
1.) It legitimizes the right of one class of people to effectively ransom another class of people at gunpoint
2.) The undermines the entire basis of civil law and moral authority with regard to the government in that, by accepting that crime and other civil disturbance will be the inevitable outcome of not redistributing wealth, in is effectively paying its own citizens to not engage in criminal activity, thereby implicitly stating that its law is neither objective nor enforceable depending on one's state in life.
I am a nationalist therefore private property and business rights receed before what is good for the national interests.
Then you're a Marxist, whatever label you apply to yourself. The only difference is that the gunpoint theft that you encourage politically is done in the name of God instead of the State.
Look, yes, we know what the Church teaches in this regard. This country is horrible because the banks are sucking us dry for everything we have, no matter WHAT income bracket you're in. This has been the policy of the US for a century: Money from Debt. It's bad, and it's going to fail.
Real wages have FALLEN because of this destructive policy, combined with policies that masquerade as "free trade areas" but are instead the deliberate consolidation of power segmented into five large zones to control the populations of those countries.
The de-industrialization of the US has caused there to be an influx of workers. When you have an excess of workers, that means an employer can choose from a huge sea of workers, and can pay them the absolute LEAST he can get by with paying them. How is a family man to survive these days, constantly worrying about getting fired, and the employer opting for a just out of college kid who has more stamina, and less liability? Can you tell us that John Grey?
I don't think you can begin to understand the hardship that family men go through now. You obviously don't have any children.
-
Look, yes, we know what the Church teaches in this regard. This country is horrible because the banks are sucking us dry for everything we have, no matter WHAT income bracket you're in. This has been the policy of the US for a century: Money from Debt. It's bad, and it's going to fail.
Real wages have FALLEN because of this destructive policy, combined with policies that masquerade as "free trade areas" but are instead the deliberate consolidation of power segmented into five large zones to control the populations of those countries.
The de-industrialization of the US has caused there to be an influx of workers. When you have an excess of workers, that means an employer can choose from a huge sea of workers, and can pay them the absolute LEAST he can get by with paying them. How is a family man to survive these days, constantly worrying about getting fired, and the employer opting for a just out of college kid who has more stamina, and less liability? Can you tell us that John Grey?
I don't think you can begin to understand the hardship that family men go through now. You obviously don't have any children.
I do not have any children, nor am I likely to for precisely the reasons that you mention. I will not have a woman and children suffer the current political and economic climate when I know that supporting them effectively would be increasingly difficult. My current salary would probably afford me the opportunity to do so for the foreseeable future, but when it comes to matters actuarial I'm a Sicilian: "why take a chance?"
If you're asking my to fix the problem, PoT, I can't. But ignoring the problem, or creating other problems to address one is neither just nor prudent. Theft, however well-meaning, is still theft. The Church, by means of her sacraments and provided that she is afforded her proper place by virtue of the civil establishment of Christ the King, already possesses the means to foster charity for poor and to correct those that will not give judiciously of their excess, and I harbor her no ill will in this matter. My point throughout all of these discussion, and for which I have been demonized, is that it is a point of prudence and justice that we must not permit this correction to become the province of the State; the inevitable, inescapable outcome is systematized robbery. Moreover, the current situation is merely the chastisement we face for allowing the tyranny of democracy to reign over the affairs of men.
-
So to heck with the families that have followed their vocation and ended up in this rotten system. YOU are prudent, and at least you admit that you're too cowardly to be able to support a family under this current system. Fine, and good. The rest of us will continue to suffer with our large God given families, and God will straighten this mess out. In the meantime, legalized theft exists, and families that take advantage of how the laws are written, all the while getting stolen from themselves, that receive a mere pittance of the actual theft, will continue to be verbally abused for the fact that they are playing the government's own game.
Look, yes, we know what the Church teaches in this regard. This country is horrible because the banks are sucking us dry for everything we have, no matter WHAT income bracket you're in. This has been the policy of the US for a century: Money from Debt. It's bad, and it's going to fail.
Real wages have FALLEN because of this destructive policy, combined with policies that masquerade as "free trade areas" but are instead the deliberate consolidation of power segmented into five large zones to control the populations of those countries.
The de-industrialization of the US has caused there to be an influx of workers. When you have an excess of workers, that means an employer can choose from a huge sea of workers, and can pay them the absolute LEAST he can get by with paying them. How is a family man to survive these days, constantly worrying about getting fired, and the employer opting for a just out of college kid who has more stamina, and less liability? Can you tell us that John Grey?
I don't think you can begin to understand the hardship that family men go through now. You obviously don't have any children.
I do not have any children, nor am I likely to for precisely the reasons that you mention. I will not have a woman and children suffer the current political and economic climate when I know that supporting them effectively would be increasingly difficult. My current salary would probably afford me the opportunity to do so for the foreseeable future, but when it comes to matters actuarial I'm a Sicilian: "why take a chance?"
If you're asking my to fix the problem, PoT, I can't. But ignoring the problem, or creating other problems to address one is neither just nor prudent. Theft, however well-meaning, is still theft. The Church, by means of her sacraments and provided that she is afforded her proper place by virtue of the civil establishment of Christ the King, already possesses the means to foster charity for poor and to correct those that will not give judiciously of their excess, and I harbor her no ill will in this matter. My point throughout all of these discussion, and for which I have been demonized, is that it is a point of prudence and justice that we must not permit this correction to become the province of the State; the inevitable, inescapable outcome is systematized robbery. Moreover, the current situation is merely the chastisement we face for allowing the tyranny of democracy to reign over the affairs of men.
-
So to heck with the families that have followed their vocation and ended up in this rotten system. YOU are prudent, and at least you admit that you're too cowardly to be able to support a family under this current system.
With a single breath you call me prudent and then cowardly. Which is it?
Fine, and good. The rest of us will continue to suffer with our large God given families, and God will straighten this mess out. In the meantime, legalized theft exists, and families that take advantage of how the laws are written, all the while getting stolen from themselves, that receive a mere pittance of the actual theft, will continue to be verbally abused for the fact that they are playing the government's own game.
That's your prerogative. But you shouldn't be defensive when someone rightly calls you a hypocrite for damning the system out of the corner of your mouth while suborning those activities of theft from which you and others directly benefit. At least have the honesty and good grace to accept that charge as accurate when it's levelled.
-
So to heck with the families that have followed their vocation and ended up in this rotten system. YOU are prudent, and at least you admit that you're too cowardly to be able to support a family under this current system.
With a single breath you call me prudent and then cowardly. Which is it?
Fine, and good. The rest of us will continue to suffer with our large God given families, and God will straighten this mess out. In the meantime, legalized theft exists, and families that take advantage of how the laws are written, all the while getting stolen from themselves, that receive a mere pittance of the actual theft, will continue to be verbally abused for the fact that they are playing the government's own game.
That's your prerogative. But you shouldn't be defensive when someone rightly calls you a hypocrite for damning the system out of the corner of your mouth while suborning those activities of theft from which you and others directly benefit. At least have the honesty and good grace to accept that charge as accurate when it's levelled.
Both. Depends on which way you want to look at it. You likely just consider yourself prudent. Why aren't you a priest or a brother? That at least would have meant that you actually were doing something instead of merely supporting your own self in this life, with no strings attached. Must be a dream for you.
If I hadn't taken the vocation God gave me, I'd be working in some congressman's office right now. I still could be doing that, but then I'd be derided by you for not taking care of the children. Which is it? I could a) either stay in the current situation I'm in, or b) neglect my duty as a mother.
Either way, you'd put yourself above me. I'm totally capable of "more" in terms of making money. Is it PRUDENT for me though? No, it's not, not according to God. Maybe the world, but not God. Who is more important? God, of course. And so, we do what we must do, all while the government is stealing from everyone, especially with the "Free trade" policies. Do you realize that every time a manufacturing job is lost, 3 SERVICE JOBS go with it? So you're not only using 1 job, you're losing 4. And HOW many manufacturing jobs have left the US in the last 15 years? MILLIONS? Multiply that by four, and it's MANY MILLIONS! But let's get mad at everyone that can't find a "living wage." Oh, going to college makes one SO MUCH SMARTER than someone who hasn't. It makes one, from the trads I've talked to that went, a narcissist.
You single people are horribly judgmental.
-
So to heck with the families that have followed their vocation and ended up in this rotten system. YOU are prudent, and at least you admit that you're too cowardly to be able to support a family under this current system. Fine, and good. The rest of us will continue to suffer with our large God given families, and God will straighten this mess out. In the meantime, legalized theft exists, and families that take advantage of how the laws are written, all the while getting stolen from themselves, that receive a mere pittance of the actual theft, will continue to be verbally abused for the fact that they are playing the government's own game.
How are families receiving assistance are being stolen from? A family on food stamps and medicaid would receive the earned income credit.
-
Obviously the man who is supporting his family should be paid higher than those who are single.
I'm sorry it is not obvious to me. Why should remuneration for labor be tied to marital status? A person is paid for his labor, not paid for getting married.
Marsha
-
Both. Depends on which way you want to look at it. You likely just consider yourself prudent. Why aren't you a priest or a brother? That at least would have meant that you actually were doing something instead of merely supporting your own self in this life, with no strings attached. Must be a dream for you.
Do I consider myself prudent? Absolutely. Incredibly blessed, yes, but prudent with those blessings as well. I'm not a priest or a brother because I have the grace to know my limitations, but it's altogether unfair to say that because I'm neither a religious nor a family man that I'm "doing nothing". Is it a dream for me? Perhaps. As I said, I'm grateful for my blessings, gratified by my faculties and I'm using them to the fullest extent I can commensurate with my time and station. I guess who you are would determine if you'd want to be me. From your remarks, I'd gather that you wouldn't.
If I hadn't taken the vocation God gave me, I'd be working in some congressman's office right now. I still could be doing that, but then I'd be derided by you for not taking care of the children. Which is it? I could a) either stay in the current situation I'm in, or b) neglect my duty as a mother.
And I congratulate you for putting your family above matters of material wealth. But at the same time, don't demand that I co-sign on the choices that you've made in your life.
Either way, you'd put yourself above me. I'm totally capable of "more" in terms of making money. Is it PRUDENT for me though? No, it's not, not according to God. Maybe the world, but not God. Who is more important? God, of course. And so, we do what we must do, all while the government is stealing from everyone, especially with the "Free trade" policies.Do you realize that every time a manufacturing job is lost, 3 SERVICE JOBS go with it? So you're not only using 1 job, you're losing 4. And HOW many manufacturing jobs have left the US in the last 15 years? MILLIONS? Multiply that by four, and it's MANY MILLIONS! But let's get mad at everyone that can't find a "living wage." Oh, going to college makes one SO MUCH SMARTER than someone who hasn't. It makes one, from the trads I've talked to that went, a narcissist.
One could just as likely argue that it saddles those that didn't going to college with an inferiority complex. My education is nothing but a piece of paper; I learned nothing of import there that I didn't know going in, or couldn't learn on my own. Still, I managed to do it "their" way, thrive doing it, and not rely on anyone else to do so. I'm not going to feel bad for having a sense of pride in that accomplishment. I'm not saying that you have to do it, that my doing it makes me better or that someone else not doing it makes them worse. I'm painfully aware that, whatever their education or circuмstances, there are millions of individuals of greater intelligence, accomplishment, and piety than me. The fact of the matter is that we're not discussing the worth of individual's as human beings. What we're debating is whether a person has a right to something that is not theirs and is not freely given and, now, whether it's just for a person to complain about a system from whom they receive largesse.
You single people are horribly judgmental.
So are you married folk with children, who feel that because we do not follow your vocation, and likewise do not deal with the same set of difficulties, that we're somehow "cheating".
-
Let me give you an example of REAL theft.
Many wealthy members of the government own millions of acres of land. Don't farm it at all. But it gets flooded, and they claim the flood benefit, and get paid from farm relief bills, MILLIONS of taxpayer dollars. All for what? Because they're smarter? They're voting this stuff in.
I don't think most people realize how many taxes the poor have to pay.
Here's an example.
The fee for securing a title of a car went up to $69.25, JUST FOR TRANSFER of title from the DMV. That is a TAX. Poor people have to buy cheap cars to live. They don't get loans for their vehicles. They have to pay cash if they're smart WHEN they have the money. How many times have I had to do that this year? Twice. Oh, but the EIC pays for that? Let's examine this further.
Everytime I buy a non food item, I get taxes 5.5%. But that doesn't count, see. We have to pay for gas. That's $1.30+ per gallon. My husband drives for a living, and gets taxed on his tips. But noo, that doesn't count either.
I have to pay property tax. I live in a crappy neighborhood, but I pay $2000 a year to have this house. But that doesn't count, either.
They've just raised fees from $0, to $70 per -5 cubic yards, for garbage beyond what garbage they will pick up, which is 3 cans a week. Well, a family of 3 has a lot less garbage than a family of 8-9. So, if my kids wreck my couch, I have to pay $70 just to put the freaking thing out there, and that gets added onto my property tax bill. Does my husband get paid more because we have more garbage? No.
I don't buy anything new, but I get charged the same amount of tax as if it were new.
Look at these taxes, and tell me we don't pay enough. We're getting STOLEN from too, and we get a mere pittance of what was taken.
I will quote Matthew's eloquent post all the way back to 2007.
"Tax his land, Tax his bed, Tax the table At which he's fed.
Tax his tractor, Tax his mule, Teach him taxes Are the rule.
Tax his cow, Tax his goat, Tax his pants, Tax his coat.
Tax his ties, Tax his shirt, Tax his work, Tax his dirt.
Tax his tobacco, Tax his drink, Tax him if he Tries to think.
Tax his cigars, Tax his beers, If he cries, then Tax his tears.
Tax his car, Tax his gas, Find other ways To tax his ass
Tax all he has Then let him know That you won't be done Till he has no dough.
When he screams and hollers, Then tax him some more, Tax him till He's good and sore.
Then tax his coffin, Tax his grave, Tax the sod in Which he's laid.
Put these words upon his tomb, "Taxes drove me to my doom..."
When he's gone, Do not relax, Its time to apply The inheritance tax.
Accounts Receivable Tax Building Permit Tax CDL license Tax Cigarette Tax Corporate Income Tax Dog License Tax Excise Taxes Federal Income Tax Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA) Fishing License Tax Food License Tax, Fuel permit tax Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon) Gross Receipts Tax Hunting License Tax Inheritance Tax Interest expense Inventory tax IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax) Liquor Tax Luxury Taxes Marriage License Tax Medicare Tax Personal Property Tax Property Tax Real Estate Tax Service charge taxes Social Security Tax Road usage taxes Sales Tax Recreational Vehicle Tax School Tax State Income Tax State Unemployment Tax (SUTA) Telephone federal excise tax Telephone federal universal service fee tax Telephone federal, state and local surcharge taxes Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax Telephone state and local tax Telephone usage charge tax Utility Taxes Vehicle License Registration Tax Vehicle Sales Tax Watercraft registration Tax Well Permit Tax Workers Compensation Tax
COMMENTS: Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
What the hell happened? Can you spell "politicians!"
And I still have to "press 1" for English."
But nope, we don't pay any taxes, and the EIC makes up for everything.
-
Obviously the man who is supporting his family should be paid higher than those who are single.
I'm sorry it is not obvious to me. Why should remuneration for labor be tied to marital status? A person is paid for his labor, not paid for getting married.
Marsha
Because it seems apparent that a great many here feel that one's remuneration should be determined by their spiritual vocation, independent of their effort of work or degree of specialization.
-
Let me run an old post by you. This is considered a living wage in Arizona.
Let me run some numbers by you.
Yearly salary: $89,856.00 (Clue: How much the employer is paying)
Which breaks down to:
Monthly: $7,488.00
Weekly: $1,728.00
Hourly: $57.60
This is based on a 30 hour workweek.
Rent should be no more than one third of post tax income. A 4-bedroom house or apartment can be had for around $1,500 per month.
The tax rate for a man with this income in Arizona:
Social Security: 6.2%
Medicare: 1.45%
Federal income tax: 28%
Effective AZ income tax: 4.24%
for a total effective tax rate of 39.89%
100 - 39.89 = 60.11 so
89,856.00 x 0.6011 = 54,012.44 (Clue: HOW MUCH THE POOR SAP FATHER IS ACTUALLY RECEIVING)
54,012.44 / 12 = 4,501.04
4,501.04 / 3 = 1,500.35
This is, theoretically, a just and living wage in Arizona.
Thoughts?
So, in the situation we're in (must be John Gray's business since I'm a hypocrite stealing from his pocket) if my husband went up a bracket of income, IT WOULD BE STOLEN ANYWAY. WHAT IS THE ACTUAL POINT?
-
Let me give you an example of REAL theft.
Many wealthy members of the government own millions of acres of land. Don't farm it at all. But it gets flooded, and they claim the flood benefit, and get paid from farm relief bills, MILLIONS of taxpayer dollars. All for what? Because they're smarter? They're voting this stuff in.
I don't think most people realize how many taxes the poor have to pay.
Here's an example.
The fee for securing a title of a car went up to $69.25, JUST FOR TRANSFER of title from the DMV. That is a TAX. Poor people have to buy cheap cars to live. They don't get loans for their vehicles. They have to pay cash if they're smart WHEN they have the money. How many times have I had to do that this year? Twice. Oh, but the EIC pays for that? Let's examine this further.
Everytime I buy a non food item, I get taxes 5.5%. But that doesn't count, see. We have to pay for gas. That's $1.30+ per gallon. My husband drives for a living, and gets taxed on his tips. But noo, that doesn't count either.
I have to pay property tax. I live in a crappy neighborhood, but I pay $2000 a year to have this house. But that doesn't count, either.
They've just raised fees from $0, to $70 per -5 cubic yards, for garbage beyond what garbage they will pick up, which is 3 cans a week. Well, a family of 3 has a lot less garbage than a family of 8-9. So, if my kids wreck my couch, I have to pay $70 just to put the freaking thing out there, and that gets added onto my property tax bill. Does my husband get paid more because we have more garbage? No.
I don't buy anything new, but I get charged the same amount of tax as if it were new.
Look at these taxes, and tell me we don't pay enough. We're getting STOLEN from too, and we get a mere pittance of what was taken.
I will quote Matthew's eloquent post all the way back to 2007.
"Tax his land, Tax his bed, Tax the table At which he's fed.
Tax his tractor, Tax his mule, Teach him taxes Are the rule.
Tax his cow, Tax his goat, Tax his pants, Tax his coat.
Tax his ties, Tax his shirt, Tax his work, Tax his dirt.
Tax his tobacco, Tax his drink, Tax him if he Tries to think.
Tax his cigars, Tax his beers, If he cries, then Tax his tears.
Tax his car, Tax his gas, Find other ways To tax his ass
Tax all he has Then let him know That you won't be done Till he has no dough.
When he screams and hollers, Then tax him some more, Tax him till He's good and sore.
Then tax his coffin, Tax his grave, Tax the sod in Which he's laid.
Put these words upon his tomb, "Taxes drove me to my doom..."
When he's gone, Do not relax, Its time to apply The inheritance tax.
Accounts Receivable Tax Building Permit Tax CDL license Tax Cigarette Tax Corporate Income Tax Dog License Tax Excise Taxes Federal Income Tax Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA) Fishing License Tax Food License Tax, Fuel permit tax Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon) Gross Receipts Tax Hunting License Tax Inheritance Tax Interest expense Inventory tax IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax) Liquor Tax Luxury Taxes Marriage License Tax Medicare Tax Personal Property Tax Property Tax Real Estate Tax Service charge taxes Social Security Tax Road usage taxes Sales Tax Recreational Vehicle Tax School Tax State Income Tax State Unemployment Tax (SUTA) Telephone federal excise tax Telephone federal universal service fee tax Telephone federal, state and local surcharge taxes Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax Telephone state and local tax Telephone usage charge tax Utility Taxes Vehicle License Registration Tax Vehicle Sales Tax Watercraft registration Tax Well Permit Tax Workers Compensation Tax
COMMENTS: Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
What the hell happened? Can you spell "politicians!"
And I still have to "press 1" for English."
But nope, we don't pay any taxes, and the EIC makes up for everything.
If your husband drives for a living, is his gas not reimbursed?
Are the tips not part of his wages?
$138.50 for the car titles. What you pay for a car is not tax.
With garbage you are paying for a service. You could also arrange for an alternative service.
How much sales tax have you paid? If you bought $10,000 worth used of goods, that would be $550 in sales tax? I'm tired so please correct my math.
$2000 for property tax
I would be surprised if the refundable tax credits like ETIC didn't mostly even things out for most families who qualify for food stamps and medicaid and have a full-time working husband. If you counted in food stamps, and even part of what medicaid paid for, it would more than even out.
-
I really get the impression that many people in the professional classes speak as though they prefer that wages for common people are low.
Many give the impression of being jealous that those they can consider lesser than them have access to anything like similar social status.
They give the impression of wanting the worst for others.
Conversely, many people of lesser means, wish for those that have greater means to lose them, disparage them because they feel that those people owe them something, and deride the efforts that put forth to provide themselves better opportunity as elitism.
Certainly I want good things for people, but only as much as they are willing to get for themselves, or get through charitable donation by the Church according to the precept of Christian charity, not by the government at the point of a gun.
I know you are speaking of a Catholic culture but right now there is very little organized private help out there. The big ones are in a racket with different areas of government, like Catholic Charities and Salvation Army. The small ones expect people to go for government aid and are only in an emergency basis and usually the demand is far greater than their resources.
-
If you ever get welfare I hate it how those who know you look down on you and consider you a bum because you (*GASP*) actually need help to live because your employer does not pay you enough to live descently. I hate it that everyone looks down on you because you have to go to the Church to ask for relief.
Let me say another thing, women and old people, who are very liberal and capitalist in their thinking are the worst when it comes to being snobbish towards you, as if you are a parasite for needing help to pay your bills. They act as if everyone should be able to pay everything and that everyone has the opportunity to become rich.
Once we entered our modern godless liberal and capitalist society however it was bound to happen that compassion towards your fellow man (and no I do not mean compassion for laziness or those who break the law and are not citizens) would become the norm.
Why would anyone know that someone else is on welfare?
And why would the recipient care what others think about it?
Only those who are heartless would look down on someone who genuinely needs help due to circuмstances beyond their control and why would someone care what a heartless b****rd thinks?
To me it is a non-issue. If a recipient cares what others think of him/her for receiving welfare they have a pride issue.
That said, I think that everyone who receives public assistance should be required to attend a financial skills/budgeting workshop and check in w/a budget mentor on a quarterly basis. Having volunteered with SVdP for years I saw first hand the disasters that befall people who have no clue how to handle money.
:stare: Yes it's not a lack of income that is a problem but that they are too stupid.
-
Well for one thing a business should pay a man a wage high enough to support his family.
How high is that? Who decides the amount?
Some jobs are not meant to be held by grown men. Working at McDonalds or blowing leaves and weeding is not work for a man but for a boy. That is unskilled labor and a person should not expect much pay for unskilled labor.
Marsha
What about the business having to pay a decent wage instead of blaming the "unskilled" who are sometimes doing most if not all of the work. The job for teenage kids line is just something used to justify their abhorrent practices.
-
Yes it's not a lack of income that is a problem but that they are too stupid.
No they are not "stupid", but having worked w/people who need assistance I know first hand that many do NOT know how to budget or set priorities. Most were just never taught how to do it since our schools no longer teach these skills. Financial illiteracy is rampant in the US regardless of whether you have 15K to manage or 150K. It is however just a side issue to the main discussion of this thread of a "family wage".
Marsha
-
What about the business having to pay a decent wage instead of blaming the "unskilled" who are sometimes doing most if not all of the work. The job for teenage kids line is just something used to justify their abhorrent practices.
The issue is not "blame", although a person can just as easily say that the unskilled should stop "blaming" business for their low wages and learn a skill leaving the unskilled labor to the young so they have a place to start. The door swings both ways and both sides bear responsibility.
I firmly believe that entry level/unskilled work is just that - an entrance into the work place, not a place to stay for a lifetime.
Marsha
-
Obviously the man who is supporting his family should be paid higher than those who are single.
I'm sorry it is not obvious to me. Why should remuneration for labor be tied to marital status? A person is paid for his labor, not paid for getting married.
Marsha
Because it seems apparent that a great many here feel that one's remuneration should be determined by their spiritual vocation, independent of their effort of work or degree of specialization.
You are both wrong. I don't have the books in front of me for an exact quote but more than one Catholic moral theology manual that I have read on this topic does state a married man should be paid more than a single man.
Also, in regards to the use of the word "theft" if someone is taking government assistance, is it still "theft" when a person has been paying into the system for 20 years and finds that one day he is in a position where he needs to make use of such assistance?
-
What about the business having to pay a decent wage instead of blaming the "unskilled" who are sometimes doing most if not all of the work. The job for teenage kids line is just something used to justify their abhorrent practices.
The issue is not "blame", although a person can just as easily say that the unskilled should stop "blaming" business for their low wages and learn a skill leaving the unskilled labor to the young so they have a place to start. The door swings both ways and both sides bear responsibility.
I firmly believe that entry level/unskilled work is just that - an entrance into the work place, not a place to stay for a lifetime.
Marsha
The business is based on these unskilled positions though.
-
Yes it's not a lack of income that is a problem but that they are too stupid.
No they are not "stupid", but having worked w/people who need assistance I know first hand that many do NOT know how to budget or set priorities. Most were just never taught how to do it since our schools no longer teach these skills. Financial illiteracy is rampant in the US regardless of whether you have 15K to manage or 150K. It is however just a side issue to the main discussion of this thread of a "family wage".
Marsha
The reason they need assistance is that they lack enough income for basic necessities. Financial literacy or budget classes do not make money appear. It's based on consistently having enough income for the basics.
-
Let me give you an example of REAL theft.
Many wealthy members of the government own millions of acres of land. Don't farm it at all. But it gets flooded, and they claim the flood benefit, and get paid from farm relief bills, MILLIONS of taxpayer dollars. All for what? Because they're smarter? They're voting this stuff in.
Because others take more does not mean those taking less are not taking.
That said I think it's ridiculous how assistance to the low-income is scapegoated by the GOP.
-
Obviously the man who is supporting his family should be paid higher than those who are single.
I'm sorry it is not obvious to me. Why should remuneration for labor be tied to marital status? A person is paid for his labor, not paid for getting married.
Marsha
Because it seems apparent that a great many here feel that one's remuneration should be determined by their spiritual vocation, independent of their effort of work or degree of specialization.
You are both wrong. I don't have the books in front of me for an exact quote but more than one Catholic moral theology manual that I have read on this topic does state a married man should be paid more than a single man.
Also, in regards to the use of the word "theft" if someone is taking government assistance, is it still "theft" when a person has been paying into the system for 20 years and finds that one day he is in a position where he needs to make use of such assistance?
If it is theft, then two wrongs don't make a right.
I for one know I haven't paid in close to what I've received.
Some of it is like life insurance, I sure don't want to beat it, like on emergency services.
-
For those against forced taxation, what is the solution to military funding? The US pays huge amounts for active duty military and military retirements.
-
For those against forced taxation, what is the solution to military funding? The US pays huge amounts for active duty military and military retirements.
I think the U.S. should "rethink" it's entire military structure.
-
I can see education and assistance done through the Church but I don't understand how it would be with military.
-
We're really stuck. Because most of us here are in complete agreement with Pope Leo XIII but I think he would absolutely despise what the U.S. is in the process of becoming and has really been for a very long time now.
The State, our U.S. government in all it's levels, is an atheist organization with near Darwinian tendencies and it uses welfare payments not to help the needy but for payouts to voters. Those who think they need aid are voting for candidates who promise to take from the rich and give them their just due. This means those "needy" voters are voting with a contempt for others in their hearts.
But, I don't entirely blame those evil (are they evil? They wish to do harm to others by using the force of government to confiscate goods for their own benefit. We're not talking about a scene from a Mary Pickford movie.) people because that is what they are promised if they vote democrat.
The other side is fast becoming extinct (the GOP) so I really can't spend any time discussing them. I have a sneaking suspicion that they have been lying to their constituents for many decades now. I can't, in good conscience, support them. They used a lot of good issues as mere slogans to trick the unwary.
But, back to the premise of what I'm trying to get at here. Our government is an atheist organization (it allows people to hold religious views but doesn't make any effort to support the one true faith, which is the Roman Catholic Faith). Our government allows and even funds abortion and all kinds of other evils. Once you are technically atheist, then really almost all bets are off as to whether you will gravitate toward the lowest prurient desires of man.
I could completely support a very large government if the edicts of Leo XIII (His encyclical Rerun Novarum does not exist in a vacuum but perfectly complements a Catholic nation) were adhered to and we lived in a Catholic monarchy or even a Catholic republic. But we don't. We live in an atheistic Darwinian environment where women openly choose to have two children only and were men shirk their responsibilities flagrantly and these practices are encouraged by society at large and not just the government.
I'm speaking primarily about the U.S. but this also applies to just about every other country out there, more or less.
-
Does anyone else think strings/control that is a problem government assistance, and not just where the money comes from? I know for me that is the scariest part about it.
I was very surprised the first time a private Christian charity was pushing me to apply for food stamps and even went so far to call a supervisor they knew to speak with me. I had thought Christians would not be promoting using public assistance for that reason.
-
Does anyone else think strings/control that is a problem government assistance, and not just where the money comes from? I know for me that is the scariest part about it.
I was very surprised the first time a private Christian charity was pushing me to apply for food stamps and even went so far to call a supervisor they knew to speak with me. I had thought Christians would not be promoting using public assistance for that reason.
Today's protestant christians and the novus ordo see themselves as social workers who also happen to believe in a "higher power" and it's part of the problem. Our Lord and Savior is Christ the King and it's part and parcel of Catholic theology that He rules all aspects of our life (including the ones that are primarily operated by the State). I wanted to include it in my post above but didn't want to become too long winded.
-
Obviously the man who is supporting his family should be paid higher than those who are single.
I'm sorry it is not obvious to me. Why should remuneration for labor be tied to marital status? A person is paid for his labor, not paid for getting married.
Marsha
Because it seems apparent that a great many here feel that one's remuneration should be determined by their spiritual vocation, independent of their effort of work or degree of specialization.
You are both wrong. I don't have the books in front of me for an exact quote but more than one Catholic moral theology manual that I have read on this topic does state a married man should be paid more than a single man.
Also, in regards to the use of the word "theft" if someone is taking government assistance, is it still "theft" when a person has been paying into the system for 20 years and finds that one day he is in a position where he needs to make use of such assistance?
Will a critic please answer this question? My husband worked at a cheese factory for a bunch of years, and was never without employment since he was 16 years old, and was being paid way above average when he worked at the plant. So what does that make him now? A common thief when he was being taken from for 20+ years with no help at all?
-
If your husband drives for a living, is his gas not reimbursed?
Are the tips not part of his wages?
$138.50 for the car titles. What you pay for a car is not tax.
With garbage you are paying for a service. You could also arrange for an alternative service.
How much sales tax have you paid? If you bought $10,000 worth used of goods, that would be $550 in sales tax? I'm tired so please correct my math.
$2000 for property tax
I would be surprised if the refundable tax credits like ETIC didn't mostly even things out for most families who qualify for food stamps and medicaid and have a full-time working husband. If you counted in food stamps, and even part of what medicaid paid for, it would more than even out.
He only gets partially reimbursed per delivery. Tips are part of wages, however, here's an example.
About a month ago, he took $1000+ order to a business. They didn't pay the bill right then and there, but since it was a delivery, and they paid with a credit card, he was automatically taxed 10% on their bill, as if he received a tip for that delivery, which he got not a red cent from. Now, it's a month later, and still nothing. This is the law:
Everytime someone uses a credit card to pay for their good/service, no matter what, the server/waiter/delivery driver providing that service gets taxed 10% automatically, even if he received more/less tip than that.
I believe it's absolutely wrong to tax tips. It's immoral. Tips are basically given out of the goodness of the heart of the person giving them. It's not for the government to regulate these tips. It's just another way to suck the poor dry. But, since it is taxable, you'll probably claim it's totally fine and just to do that.
An alternative service for garbage. Let's see here. I pay property taxes, that has thus taken care of all the garbage in the city for under $300,000 a year. That's NOTHING in an $80 million budget. (I checked with my county board member.) This got ramroded through, and the people didn't want it. But we still have to pay for it. Most poor don't have a big truck. Lots of poor have little tiny vehicles just to get them from point a to point b.
They'd have to put their need to get rid of the refuse on someone they know with a truck or large vehicle, to transfer their stuff, when we have garbage trucks to do that, which we pay more than enough for through the millions in property taxes that are collected. You really think I would have written any of these things if I didn't have a good reason to do so?
It's not JUST the sales tax. If it were just the sales tax, people wouldn't have so much to complain about, but it's NOT.
Yes, $2000 for property tax. Look at the south. Some of those people don't even have that expense, and there are people in nicer neighborhoods than mine that pay less taxes on their houses than I do, but those people have an extra $500 sitting around for reappraisal, to get their house reassessed. We don't. There are houses way nicer than mine that are being assessed for way lower than my house is, and there's absolutely no doubt that someone could come in here, take a look around, and lower the assessment value of the house. It's over 100 years old. That's one thing we weren't stupid doing.... trying to pay for a house that was more than we could afford. We are very frugal.
You know how many children count for the EITC? 3. That's it. We have 6, going on 7. And they lowered the amount for what you get per child. They're talking about eliminating it altogether. Apparently kids don't cost anything to raise.
Oh, that's right. Because the "village" does it.
-
Obviously the man who is supporting his family should be paid higher than those who are single.
I'm sorry it is not obvious to me. Why should remuneration for labor be tied to marital status? A person is paid for his labor, not paid for getting married.
Marsha
Because it seems apparent that a great many here feel that one's remuneration should be determined by their spiritual vocation, independent of their effort of work or degree of specialization.
You are both wrong. I don't have the books in front of me for an exact quote but more than one Catholic moral theology manual that I have read on this topic does state a married man should be paid more than a single man.
Also, in regards to the use of the word "theft" if someone is taking government assistance, is it still "theft" when a person has been paying into the system for 20 years and finds that one day he is in a position where he needs to make use of such assistance?
Will a critic please answer this question? My husband worked at a cheese factory for a bunch of years, and was never without employment since he was 16 years old, and was being paid way above average when he worked at the plant. So what does that make him now? A common thief when he was being taken from for 20+ years with no help at all?
POT there is a huge disconnect in this country about "socialism." TANF, SNAP, and UE is scapegoated, but those receiving salaries from public funds are not. SOOOO much is based on public funds here, healthcare, education from early childhood -universities, community colleges, state offices, county/city offices, transportation, many charities, military. Many cities in the South would basically shrivel up if it was not for the military and state or county jobs there. In the Northeast healthcare is huge in the big cities and much of that is funded by Medicaid, Medicare, and federal or state grants. The whole system is based on forced taxation.
-
I also have another quick point.
You trads, especially single ones, lament about welfare, and all this. When a traditional Catholic family *gasp*actually benefits from it to assist them because they're being squished by a vice grip because prices are going down, and wages aren't going up, you complain. But the ones sucking you dry, like the women in the ghetto that purposely have babies, to get on welfare, with no husband, who knows who the father is, they don't hear your disdain. But people who actually are trying to make ends meet, and believe as you do, are subject to ridicule. Think long and hard about that for a while.
:stare:
Really.
-
Obviously the man who is supporting his family should be paid higher than those who are single.
I'm sorry it is not obvious to me. Why should remuneration for labor be tied to marital status? A person is paid for his labor, not paid for getting married.
Marsha
Because it seems apparent that a great many here feel that one's remuneration should be determined by their spiritual vocation, independent of their effort of work or degree of specialization.
You are both wrong. I don't have the books in front of me for an exact quote but more than one Catholic moral theology manual that I have read on this topic does state a married man should be paid more than a single man.
Also, in regards to the use of the word "theft" if someone is taking government assistance, is it still "theft" when a person has been paying into the system for 20 years and finds that one day he is in a position where he needs to make use of such assistance?
Will a critic please answer this question? My husband worked at a cheese factory for a bunch of years, and was never without employment since he was 16 years old, and was being paid way above average when he worked at the plant. So what does that make him now? A common thief when he was being taken from for 20+ years with no help at all?
POT there is a huge disconnect in this country about "socialism." TANF, SNAP, and UE is scapegoated, but those receiving salaries from public funds are not. SOOOO much is based on public funds here, healthcare, education from early childhood -universities, community colleges, state offices, county/city offices, transportation, many charities, military. Many cities in the South would basically shrivel up if it was not for the military and state or county jobs there. In the Northeast healthcare is huge in the big cities and much of that is funded by Medicaid, Medicare, and federal or state grants. The whole system is based on forced taxation.
Yeah, I mean Oshkosh Truck is laying off tons of people up here. It'll have a ripple effect, guaranteed. They are funded by the military industrial complex.
That didn't really answer the concern in my post though. I wanted JohnGrey or someone to answer how it's theft when he was stolen from for more than 20 years, and he decides to take some of it back so his family doesn't starve.
-
The ETIC is a refundable tax credit. So you want a higher credit for each child? The EITC when refundable is other people's money plain and simple. I get it, it pays my self employment tax, and I get some back, but I know what it is. My neighbor who already paid a ton to the IRS writes another check to the IRS and I who paid nothing or very little, get one back.
-
The ETIC is a refundable tax credit. So you want a higher credit for each child? The EITC when refundable is other people's money plain and simple. I get it, it pays my self employment tax, and I get some back, but I know what it is. My neighbor who already paid a ton to the IRS writes another check to the IRS and I who paid nothing or very little, get one back.
Yes, and my husband paid it for at least 13 years, writing out that same check to the IRS. Singin' to the choir. But it's theft for taking it, according to some.
-
Obviously the man who is supporting his family should be paid higher than those who are single.
I'm sorry it is not obvious to me. Why should remuneration for labor be tied to marital status? A person is paid for his labor, not paid for getting married.
Marsha
Because it seems apparent that a great many here feel that one's remuneration should be determined by their spiritual vocation, independent of their effort of work or degree of specialization.
You are both wrong. I don't have the books in front of me for an exact quote but more than one Catholic moral theology manual that I have read on this topic does state a married man should be paid more than a single man.
Also, in regards to the use of the word "theft" if someone is taking government assistance, is it still "theft" when a person has been paying into the system for 20 years and finds that one day he is in a position where he needs to make use of such assistance?
Will a critic please answer this question? My husband worked at a cheese factory for a bunch of years, and was never without employment since he was 16 years old, and was being paid way above average when he worked at the plant. So what does that make him now? A common thief when he was being taken from for 20+ years with no help at all?
POT there is a huge disconnect in this country about "socialism." TANF, SNAP, and UE is scapegoated, but those receiving salaries from public funds are not. SOOOO much is based on public funds here, healthcare, education from early childhood -universities, community colleges, state offices, county/city offices, transportation, many charities, military. Many cities in the South would basically shrivel up if it was not for the military and state or county jobs there. In the Northeast healthcare is huge in the big cities and much of that is funded by Medicaid, Medicare, and federal or state grants. The whole system is based on forced taxation.
Yeah, I mean Oshkosh Truck is laying off tons of people up here. It'll have a ripple effect, guaranteed. They are funded by the military industrial complex.
That didn't really answer the concern in my post though. I wanted JohnGrey or someone to answer how it's theft when he was stolen from for more than 20 years, and he decides to take some of it back so his family doesn't starve.
POT What I'm trying to say is the whole system is based on this theft. I think most take part of it and in some ways the law forces us too.
-
I also have another quick point.
You trads, especially single ones, lament about welfare, and all this. When a traditional Catholic family *gasp*actually benefits from it to assist them because they're being squished by a vice grip because prices are going down, and wages aren't going up, you complain. But the ones sucking you dry, like the women in the ghetto that purposely have babies, to get on welfare, with no husband, who knows who the father is, they don't hear your disdain. But people who actually are trying to make ends meet, and believe as you do, are subject to ridicule. Think long and hard about that for a while.
:stare:
Really.
If you receive assistance, had a child out of wedlock, you should be the last person to scapegoat an unmarried woman who lives in poverty because she didn't relinquish her parental rights. You stereotype the poor women in the ghetto.. they aren't trying to make ends meet or live an honest life, like your family who is entitled to assistance and you think you should be given even more ETIC.
-
I also have another quick point.
You trads, especially single ones, lament about welfare, and all this. When a traditional Catholic family *gasp*actually benefits from it to assist them because they're being squished by a vice grip because prices are going down, and wages aren't going up, you complain. But the ones sucking you dry, like the women in the ghetto that purposely have babies, to get on welfare, with no husband, who knows who the father is, they don't hear your disdain. But people who actually are trying to make ends meet, and believe as you do, are subject to ridicule. Think long and hard about that for a while.
:stare:
Really.
If you receive assistance, had a child out of wedlock, you should be the last person to scapegoat an unmarried woman who lives in poverty because she didn't relinquish her parental rights. You stereotype the poor women in the ghetto.. they aren't trying to make ends meet or live an honest life, like your family who is entitled to assistance and you think you should be given even more ETIC.
Also even if they were to marry their child's father, they would most likely still be on assistance. You yourself have made the case in this thread how difficult it is for a father to support his family.
Apart from employment there is a huge penal system out there with tons of resources being poured into it, and many poor men end up in it. I was speaking with two electricians the other day asking their two cents on the community college electrical program. At the end I thanked them and said I had a teen and was trying to find a place for him. He applauded me and said if not there are places for him - he was speaking of the prisons. The whole way the penal system is set up, that profits from poor young men entering is not something that can be ignored when we talk about mothers living in ghettos.
-
POT What I'm trying to say is the whole system is based on this theft. I think most take part of it and in some ways the law forces us too.
And this is the exact point I was trying to make. Thank you.
-
I also have another quick point.
You trads, especially single ones, lament about welfare, and all this. When a traditional Catholic family *gasp*actually benefits from it to assist them because they're being squished by a vice grip because prices are going down, and wages aren't going up, you complain. But the ones sucking you dry, like the women in the ghetto that purposely have babies, to get on welfare, with no husband, who knows who the father is, they don't hear your disdain. But people who actually are trying to make ends meet, and believe as you do, are subject to ridicule. Think long and hard about that for a while.
:stare:
Really.
If you receive assistance, had a child out of wedlock, you should be the last person to scapegoat an unmarried woman who lives in poverty because she didn't relinquish her parental rights. You stereotype the poor women in the ghetto.. they aren't trying to make ends meet or live an honest life, like your family who is entitled to assistance and you think you should be given even more ETIC.
These women that don't have any form of income at all, no father to even go to work to give any amount of "child support," they don't go to work either, and having a bunch of children from other fathers... it just seems really wrong for a traditionalist Catholic to berate a large family where the husband has legitimately paid into the system for years, and is working 42+ hours a week to support his family, to now take from the system because things are impossible to pay for.
We paid into the state's medical care for people taking their kids in for a cold to get them on antibiotics, pay for their Ritalin, and such, but it's wrong for US to take a kid into the doctor when they need stitches or some other occurrence because my husband can't afford for his entire paycheck to be taken to pay for the private health insurance from his employer.
We all know the system is messed up. I'm asking for people to have a little compassion, and understand that the large families are getting soaked. To live up to the expectations of JohnGrey here, my husband would have to be working more than 80 hours a week, and would make the same amount after taxes he's making now. I really don't think he would expect that if he mathematically figured out how bad this situation really is.
If he were to increase his income by much more, he would be in another bracket, and we would be worse off than we are now, with him busting his rearend even more than he is now.
-
I also have another quick point.
You trads, especially single ones, lament about welfare, and all this. When a traditional Catholic family *gasp*actually benefits from it to assist them because they're being squished by a vice grip because prices are going down, and wages aren't going up, you complain. But the ones sucking you dry, like the women in the ghetto that purposely have babies, to get on welfare, with no husband, who knows who the father is, they don't hear your disdain. But people who actually are trying to make ends meet, and believe as you do, are subject to ridicule. Think long and hard about that for a while.
:stare:
Really.
If you receive assistance, had a child out of wedlock, you should be the last person to scapegoat an unmarried woman who lives in poverty because she didn't relinquish her parental rights. You stereotype the poor women in the ghetto.. they aren't trying to make ends meet or live an honest life, like your family who is entitled to assistance and you think you should be given even more ETIC.
I don't believe that we are entitled to more EITC. That's the mistake here. All I'm trying to say is that traditionalist Catholics, knowing how messed up the system is, should not be berating traditional Catholic large families, for taking some assistance when eligible for it and when they actually NEED it.
-
I began reading this thread last night.
I notice there is an assortment of opinions not based in Catholic teaching. Our debate on this important moral topic should absolutely exclude the heresy of americanism (see Pope Leo XIII 'Testem Benevolentiae' (1899) ).
What is it about the topic of economics that convolutes the mind of otherwise faithful traditional Catholics, and talk of libertarian philosophy or who deserves charity, etc. permeates?
Capt McQuigg summed it up best in his posts - thank you sir for returning the discussion to the big picture, and PaxRomanum18's reminder of scriptural teachings: Ecclesiasticus 4:1-4, Jeremias 22:13, James 5:1-4.
As a quick aside, John Steven is correct - moral theology has always taught that a married man should receive higher wages (of course it was implicit that women did not work outside the home). I'm quite surprised many are unaware of this and actually argue this basic Catholic philosophy! This also ties into the sins that cry out to Heaven for Justice.
Bottom line: Do your own due diligence. Take the time to research (traditional) Catholic teaching on this topic. Root out americanism from your heart and mind. And always remember, our opinions are often wrong - the Faith is always right.
God bless you all for your civility - it's easy to let pride and passion reign in these types of discussions.
-
...I think it's ridiculous how assistance to the low-income is scapegoated by the GOP.
Welfare and HUD (section 8 housing/housing projects) amount to a very small percentage of the government's budget. The big programs are (in descending order) Military, Medicare, Social Security and The Public Debt. The rest of the federal government amounts to the size of the smallest of those four programs.
Property taxes, as onerous as they are for most americans, actually produce a surprisingly small amount of income for local governments, considering the size of OUR economy.
The federal government is currently underfunded by about 1.3 trillion dollars per year. Its revenues amount to about 15% of the economy.
Average wages in America are around 50k per year, but nearly 100 "wage" earners in america are paid more than 500 million dollars per year, while 50% of americans earn less than 25 thousand dollars per year. So, "average wages" is a meaningless term. Median wages is a much more meaningful term, than average wages. The median wage in america is 25k per year (50% of full time workers in america earn less than 25k and 50% earn more than 25k per year). So, 25k per year should be enough to support a large family, if america has a just economy and a prosperous economy.
America has a 16 trillion dollar a year economy. In terms of wages for those earning less than 100 or 200k per year (nearly all workers), their wages amount to less than 4 trillion dollars a year. Thus, nearly all full time workers in america receive less than 25% of the countries economic output. The federal government receives less than 15% of the countries economic output. The Catholic Church no longer controls a vast portion of the economy in european countries and their colonies. So, it would appear that big business receives over 60% of america's economy. I think that explains why america is a very wealthy country, yet does not seem to pay its workers a living wage, let alone a family wage and why it can't afford to fund its government, without going into massive debt.
-
I disagree about the poor women not working, that is another stereotype.
I don't think anyone was berating but to be honest that public assistance is taking and benefiting from forced taxation.
There seems to be this idea even with those who are against public assistance that if it's used for "real needs" it's OK. If I buy a year of canned food with my ETIC or if I blow it on new electronics to play a computer game, it's still from forced taxation or debt to China.
I do think with many in my generation, a sense of not trying not to use public assistance is lost. It's more like if you qualify it, get it, and don't do anything to penalize you. People look down on this for things like food stamps, but nobody bats at eye when parents do this with FAFSA.
-
...I think it's ridiculous how assistance to the low-income is scapegoated by the GOP.
Welfare and HUD (section 8 housing/housing projects) amount to a very small percentage of the government's budget. The big programs are (in descending order) Military, Medicare, Social Security and The Public Debt. The rest of the federal government amounts to the size of the smallest of those four programs.
Property taxes, as onerous as they are for most americans, actually produce a surprisingly small amount of income for local governments, considering the size of OUR economy.
The federal government is currently underfunded by about 1.3 trillion dollars per year. Its revenues amount to about 15% of the economy.
Average wages in America are around 50k per year, but nearly 100 "wage" earners in america are paid more than 500 million dollars per year, while 50% of americans earn less than 25 thousand dollars per year. So, "average wages" is a meaningless term. Median wages is a much more meaningful term, than average wages. The median wage in america is 25k per year (50% of full time workers in america earn less than 25k and 50% earn more than 25k per year). So, 25k per year should be enough to support a large family, if america has a just economy and a prosperous economy.
America has a 16 trillion dollar a year economy. In terms of wages for those earning less than 100 or 200k per year (nearly all workers), their wages amount to less than 4 trillion dollars a year. Thus, nearly all full time workers in america receive less than 25% of the countries economic output. The federal government receives less than 15% of the countries economic output. The Catholic Church no longer controls a vast portion of the economy in european countries and their colonies. So, it would appear that big business receives over 60% of america's economy. I think that explains why america is a very wealthy country, yet does not seem to pay its workers a living wage, let alone a family wage and why it can't afford to fund its government, without going into massive debt.
Yup it's the mother who has frozen pizza in her cart paid for with food stamps that is the cause of it all. Military retirements are *huge* but it is never brought up.
-
I disagree about the poor women not working, that is another stereotype.
I don't think anyone was berating but to be honest that public assistance is taking and benefiting from forced taxation.
There seems to be this idea even with those who are against public assistance that if it's used for "real needs" it's OK. If I buy a year of canned food with my ETIC or if I blow it on new electronics to play a computer game, it's still from forced taxation or debt to China.
I do think with many in my generation, a sense of not trying not to use public assistance is lost. It's more like if you qualify it, get it, and don't do anything to penalize you. People look down on this for things like food stamps, but nobody bats at eye when parents do this with FAFSA.
The FAFSA bubble is bound to burst at some point. When 18 year old kids turn 22, they're in the hole for nearly $200,000, and their payments are going to be $1600 a month, just to make those oh-so generous "LOAN" payments. They basically are signing up, when they are eligible for the loans from the federal government, to become indentured servants for 20+ years after they're done with college, and then they have to be lucky to find themselves a job, make that $1600 a month loan payment without defaulting, all while paying their own way. This is disastrous.
-
I began reading this thread last night.
I notice there is an assortment of opinions not based in Catholic teaching. Our debate on this important moral topic should absolutely exclude the heresy of americanism (see Pope Leo XIII 'Testem Benevolentiae' (1899) ).
What is it about the topic of economics that convolutes the mind of otherwise faithful traditional Catholics, and talk of libertarian philosophy or who deserves charity, etc. permeates?
Capt McQuigg summed it up best in his posts - thank you sir for returning the discussion to the big picture, and PaxRomanum18's reminder of scriptural teachings: Ecclesiasticus 4:1-4, Jeremias 22:13, James 5:1-4.
As a quick aside, John Steven is correct - moral theology has always taught that a married man should receive higher wages (of course it was implicit that women did not work outside the home). I'm quite surprised many are unaware of this and actually argue this basic Catholic philosophy! This also ties into the sins that cry out to Heaven for Justice.
Bottom line: Do your own due diligence. Take the time to research (traditional) Catholic teaching on this topic. Root out americanism from your heart and mind. And always remember, our opinions are often wrong - the Faith is always right.
God bless you all for your civility - it's easy to let pride and passion reign in these types of discussions.
:applause:
Also, there's a section on Catholic Social Justice in, "My Catholic Faith." (an illustrated catechism, sold at angelus press, from the 1950s).
-
That seems to negate the traditional family situation of sons helping their parents and a son living in his parent's home with his parents. Also an unmarried man might have to be support his sisters , mother, other female relatives, late brother's family, who knows.
-
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/05/30/opinion/5302012wage/5302012wage-blog480.jpg)
This was an interesting post.
So that figure is how many hours PER WEEK a person (or COUPLE!) would have to work to afford that 2-bedroom apartment.
One can see the conspiracy at work to make the women go to work. Not all of them go to work because they are filled with feminism like an overfilled balloon ready to pop. Who knows what percentage of women would stay at home if they could.
Some people are bad at money, usually the husband or the wife (sometimes both!) are horrible with money, and/or is a "spender" rather than a "saver".
So even if the husband makes more than minimum wage, it wouldn't take much to wipe out that difference (the $5 more that John Doe makes, over and above Minimum Wage). If one/both of them has student loans, car payments, past credit card debt, slightly higher cost of living area, below-average skill at money/shopping/grocery shopping, etc. the couple would still need to work 70 - 90 hours to afford their total expenses, just like in this chart.
So the husband earning more than minimum wage doesn't necessarily fix the underlying problem. Unless he makes WAY more than minimum wage.
I bet this chart looked a lot different in the 1970s, when the Baby Boomers were getting married and "starting out". Things are objectively more difficult today, I'll give you that.
The US Dollar had more value back then.
-
So, I skimmed through a few pages of this and my only question is how does Parents For Truth get shortened to POT? :thinking:
:jester:
-
So, I skimmed through a few pages of this and my only question is how does Parents For Truth get shortened to POT? :thinking:
:jester:
typing without caffeine :D
-
I don't feel like I have much to add in this thread, but I am cheering Telesphorus and Trad Guy on. Yes, I am a bit surprised too. :wink:
-
Trad Guy (and any others),
The social stigma is a perfectly good thing to have in place.
Social welfare programs aren't meant to be a main staple of any persons income and the purpose of these, particularly when run by the U.S. government is for the subsistence of a constantly grieved, dependency class that can be counted on to vote for the Democratic party.
I can almost guarantee, like 97.5%, that Pope Leo XIII would be disgusted by the contemporary United States of America.
-
Social stigma or not, it's a very bad thing for trads to start depending on the government.
-
Trad Guy (and any others),
The social stigma is a perfectly good thing to have in place.
Social welfare programs aren't meant to be a main staple of any persons income and the purpose of these, particularly when run by the U.S. government is for the subsistence of a constantly grieved, dependency class that can be counted on to vote for the Democratic party.
I can almost guarantee, like 97.5%, that Pope Leo XIII would be disgusted by the contemporary United States of America.
We're talking about simple charity for those who need relief, we're not talking about supporting laziness here and that charity is meant for the citizens, not foreign looters.
I just really despise the whole rich mentality of looking down on others and thinking you are better than them and don't need them.
You know for being called a Communist I've noticed a lot of liberals here need to realize that the liberal FDR collaborated with the Communist Stalin before even World War II.
Libertarianism supports a godless society of economic and social liberalism.
-
Social stigma or not, it's a very bad thing for trads to start depending on the government.
The biggest dependers on the government are immigrants, and well we all know liberals and libertarians support open borders and more immigration.
-
Social welfare programs aren't meant to be a main staple of any persons income and the purpose of these, particularly when run by the U.S. government is for the subsistence of a constantly grieved, dependency class that can be counted on to vote for the Democratic party.
And we know the corporate welfare, free trade, bailouts of the banks, support of corporations, ending anti-trust laws, immigration, etc. that the Republicans have supported has to do with a class of people (corporations and Wall Street) that can always be counted on to vote for the Republican Party.
-
Social welfare programs aren't meant to be a main staple of any persons income and the purpose of these, particularly when run by the U.S. government is for the subsistence of a constantly grieved, dependency class that can be counted on to vote for the Democratic party.
And we know the corporate welfare, free trade, bailouts of the banks, support of corporations, ending anti-trust laws, immigration, etc. that the Republicans have supported has to do with a class of people (corporations and Wall Street) that can always be counted on to vote for the Republican Party.
Yes, and no.
The voters are blended. Many of the destitute don't vote at all. Many Wall Streeters and corporate type are part of the revolving door between K Street, J Street and the government.
-
Trad Guy (and any others),
The social stigma is a perfectly good thing to have in place.
Social welfare programs aren't meant to be a main staple of any persons income and the purpose of these, particularly when run by the U.S. government is for the subsistence of a constantly grieved, dependency class that can be counted on to vote for the Democratic party.
I can almost guarantee, like 97.5%, that Pope Leo XIII would be disgusted by the contemporary United States of America.
We're talking about simple charity for those who need relief, we're not talking about supporting laziness here and that charity is meant for the citizens, not foreign looters.
I just really despise the whole rich mentality of looking down on others and thinking you are better than them and don't need them.
You know for being called a Communist I've noticed a lot of liberals here need to realize that the liberal FDR collaborated with the Communist Stalin before even World War II.
Libertarianism supports a godless society of economic and social liberalism.
Trad Guy,
Just for the record, I have never been one who called you a communist nor did I ever think you were.
I did use the word collectivist but that was in an apolitical style and unrelated to "leftist political thinking".
For the record, I'm completely on board with Leo XIII's concept of Catholic social theory.
-
The voters are blended. Many of the destitute don't vote at all. Many Wall Streeters and corporate type are part of the revolving door between K Street, J Street and the government.
If you mean the government policy of supporting free trade, then you are correct. :wink:
However government has a role in the economy (yes I did say that) such as the anti-trust laws to make sure corporations don't get dominance over small businesses, prosecuting those businesses that hire illegal immigrants, a protectionist policy, encouraging businesses to pay hire wages, cutting taxes and regulation on small businesses and family farms, etc.
Lest we forget a major part of FDR's New Deal damning Smoot-Hawley and the implementation of our modern liberal free trade policy. :wink:
-
Trad Guy,
Just for the record, I have never been one who called you a communist nor did I ever think you were.
I did use the word collectivist but that was in an apolitical style and unrelated to "leftist political thinking".
For the record, I'm completely on board with Leo XIII's concept of Catholic social theory.
I never said you called me a Communist, and for the record I agree that our modern welfare state is out of control, but my point is for all of those who try to make liberalism sounds like it is the anti-thesis of Communism when the liberal FDR and the Communist Stalin were slobbering all over eachother during World War II. :wink:
-
I would up thumb the last two Trad Guy posts, but I have apparently reached my recommended daily allowance of Trad Guy up thumbs.
-
Social stigma or not, it's a very bad thing for trads to start depending on the government.
We had better hurry up and look at what the Mennonites do then as far as helping one another and helping their older teen boys be employed or start their own business.
One thing I don't get about the stigma about being poor/admiring job success is so often moving up or just maintaining your job requires sin. Everything from fornication or adultery with a man or joining in the gossip clique with women or just appearing more worldly.
-
We had better hurry up and look at what the Mennonites do then as far as helping one another and helping their older teen boys be employed or start their own business.
One thing I don't get about the stigma about being poor/admiring job success is so often moving up or just maintaining your job requires sin. Everything from fornication or adultery with a man or joining in the gossip clique with women or just appearing more worldly.
It really depends on what kind of person you are, regardless of social class standing.
I know small-business owners who are the nicest people you can ever meet, and then I know people who make my income who brag about looking at pornography and brag about promuscuity.
-
Social stigma or not, it's a very bad thing for trads to start depending on the government.
We had better hurry up and look at what the Mennonites do then as far as helping one another and helping their older teen boys be employed or start their own business.
One thing I don't get about the stigma about being poor/admiring job success is so often moving up or just maintaining your job requires sin. Everything from fornication or adultery with a man or joining in the gossip clique with women or just appearing more worldly.
We could do far worse than looking at Mennonites or Amish for that.
-
Social stigma or not, it's a very bad thing for trads to start depending on the government.
We had better hurry up and look at what the Mennonites do then as far as helping one another and helping their older teen boys be employed or start their own business.
One thing I don't get about the stigma about being poor/admiring job success is so often moving up or just maintaining your job requires sin. Everything from fornication or adultery with a man or joining in the gossip clique with women or just appearing more worldly.
We could do far worse than looking at Mennonites or Amish for that.
I missed it, do you mean they aren't a good example?
-
Quite the opposite. On these things, they set a very good example.
-
I think this is related to the topic and I'm not trying to offend anyone, but I think it's a lot harder and hence much more undesirable, than it used to be to be "poor," since our ethnic/racial neighborhoods have been broken up (of course, that's not the only reason, but I think it is a big one). They blame freeways and cars for the flight to suburbia and "exurbia," but I think the real driving force was "white flight." In any case, it has made it a lot more expensive, than it used to be to live in a decent, clean and safe neighborhood. Hence, I think, creating a greater social stigma for poverty, particularly among "whites." That may have something to do with the negative attitude towards welfare recipients, particularly those who are white.
There also appears to be some hardening class lines among whites, that I don't think were as noticeable in the past. Of course, that's probably because the middle class is shrinking and there's some resentment there and some gloating.
-
Call me a pessimist, but I don't think the welfare system in the US is going to last much longer. There are just too many.. I am afraid that for many the future is going to look like something from Dickensonian London.
-
Why hate welfare? It's a great opportunity to parasitize the Leviathan and bleed it dry. How else can we put down the beast? The more we drain from the government, the better...at this point. Wasn't always like this, but it is now.
-
Pius XI wrote the encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, where he reiterated the Church’s insistence of social justice in the realm of economics:
- "Every effort must therefore be made that fathers of families receive a wage large enough to meet ordinary family needs adequately. But if this cannot always be done under existing circuмstances, social justice demands that changes be introduced as soon as possible whereby such a wage will be assured to every adult workingman."
- "The riches that economic-social developments constantly increase ought to be so distributed among individual persons and classes that ... the common good of all society will be kept inviolate."
- It follows from the twofold character of ownership, which we have termed individual and social, that men must take into account in this matter not only their own advantage but also the common good."
-
How high is that? Who decides the amount?
Some jobs are not meant to be held by grown men. Working at McDonalds or blowing leaves and weeding is not work for a man but for a boy. That is unskilled labor and a person should not expect much pay for unskilled labor.
Marsha
The business should be encouraged by the government to pay a higher wage, which would include enough for a man and his family to live comfortably.
People also wonder why there is this call for universal health care when businesses have cut a worker's benefits which includes his health care benefits. I think it should be pretty obvious.
-
You are only 21 years old, why don't you get off your backside and learn a valuable skill? You have a once in a lifetime opportunity. No kids, no commitments. Go west young man and learn and grow.
Then you won't need any welfare and people will stop treating you like a mooch.
You have youth and energy. Find someone 30 years older than you who has succeeded in life and ask them to help you or show you the way. Show humility, don't assume you know how the world should work because, lets face it, you cannot even earn enough money to survive without welfare.
The last thing a mentor wants is you being a cocky little bastard. You have not earned the right to be cocky.
If you tell successful people that they are wrong to be successful and they should give their money away then naturally they are going to find someone else to help.
-
Why hate welfare? It's a great opportunity to parasitize the Leviathan and bleed it dry. How else can we put down the beast? The more we drain from the government, the better...at this point. Wasn't always like this, but it is now.
You cannot bleed it dry since it can print its own blood. Since it spends the blood first, it suffers the least from inflation.
-
You are only 21 years old, why don't you get off your backside and learn a valuable skill?
Pompous jerk
Are you going to give him 20K for tuition and another 12K to live off for x 2 years? Make sure you find a circle willing to give him a job once he finishes?
-
Pompous jerk
Are you going to give him 20K for tuition and another 12K to live off for x 2 years? Make sure you find a circle willing to give him a job once he finishes?
I am sure according to ggreg manual labor is not a "worthy skill."
-
You are only 21 years old, why don't you get off your backside and learn a valuable skill?
How about carpentry like Our Lord?
-
Why hate welfare? It's a great opportunity to parasitize the Leviathan and bleed it dry. How else can we put down the beast? The more we drain from the government, the better...at this point. Wasn't always like this, but it is now.
You cannot bleed it dry since it can print its own blood. Since it spends the blood first, it suffers the least from inflation.
:laugh1: :laugh2: :laugh1:
True! Oh, so true! So pathetically and horiffyingly true! No escape, really! Don't mind me, I'm just going mad! :laugh2:
-
You are only 21 years old, why don't you get off your backside and learn a valuable skill?
Pompous jerk
Are you going to give him 20K for tuition and another 12K to live off for x 2 years? Make sure you find a circle willing to give him a job once he finishes?
Nobody gave me a leg up. I think giving him stuff is part of his problem. He does not really want to be given stuff and he certainly does not need it.
Why does a healthy 21 year old, single white male need to be given anything? He is in the PRIME position in life to take risks, learn, experiment and discover a way to make a decent living. I help to buy and sell businesses that are crying out for decent, hardworking young employees who don't expect the world delivered on a plate. I deal with the investors and VC funds and capital behind start-up businesses. I know what they want and what they don't want.
Sure there is a trade. In exchange for you being taught how to operate in the business world they expect some work from you. Let's face it, for the first year or two nearly everyone is more trouble than they are worth. If they leave after six months to a year it really was a net loss to that business to take them on and train them.
They certainly don't want some know-it-all who thinks he knows how to solve the world's problems at 21. Or someone who tells them how to run their business, despite the fact he has been taken on as an apprentice. What they most certainly want is a person who solves problems, cleans up messes and uses his initiative to make himself useful.
WALK into any one of 10 million US companies and I will bet you that the CRM system is a mess, with bad customer data, records out of date, email addresses wrong, customers listed as prospects, prospects listed as customers, no-hopers listed as hot sales opportunities and hot sales opportunities not listed at all. Each firm is paying good money to operate that CRM system but because all the workers cannot be bothered to us it properly it never delivers any value.
So write to the President and offer to do that job for free on a one month trial. I will guarantee you that you will be taken up on the offer after less than 50 letters since it is a problem for all firms. Learn the data in their CRM, check, verify, Google, make telephone calls, highlight wasted opportunities and point out untapped opportunities, where salespeople wrote that their was an opportunity but then no follow up happened because the ball was dropped. There will be several.
You will probably add several hundred thousand dollars if not several million dollars of new sales opportunities to their pipeline. You don't even need to know anything about sales. All you need to do is read each entry and find out whether the status of the account is the true and current status.
Since you are not being paid, ask for 10 minutes with the President of Head of Department at the end of every week to summarise where you have added value. At the end of the month you will have a job offer. Moreover the head of the dept and President will appreciate your initiative and realise you are worth investing in, they will train you for a sales or marketing role.
At 21 I took on a commission only sales job. I either sold (computer software) or earned no money. I had little to lose and everything to gain. To succeed was very simple. I looked at what the successful people, 10 years older than me did and I did at least as much if not more than them. I contacted more businesses, made more phone calls, sent more letters. To keep the wolf from the door I bought cheap second hand cars at auction, cleaned them up and resold them in the classified section of the newspaper.
The OP seems to be complaining that the world has changed and he cannot earn enough money anymore under the new rules. So my advice is to learn the new rules and work out what you need to do to earn a decent living. Obviously when the computer industry comes along you don't want to be making or repairing typewriters.
We are talking about a white 21 year old male American with the right to work in any of the 50 states of one of the largest economies in the world. He speaks and writes good English. I have a feeling he lives in Connecticut, which it not exactly Detroit or Alabama.
If one need feel deep sympathy for him, then what of disabled, Hispanic, Black Americans who will find doors closed in their face because the white folks with the money don't want to deal with them?
What of the poor populations of China, Brazil, Mexico, India, Cuba, North Korea. Their 21 year olds would kill to be in his shoes.
Plenty of people make a good living doing all manner of jobs morally acceptable to Catholics. And many of them don't have an education. They nearly all have drive, ambition, determination and a good grasp of reality. They deal with the world how it is, not the way they would like it to be.
-
I will tell you the secret sauce to being a 21 year old who is going to get places.
Don't think you know it all. You don't. You are only just out of school and apart from reading and writing and arithmetic most of what you learned there is worthless to a business. You are starting again at the bottom. Accept that and learn the new skills.
Don't think your ideas will overcome human politick in the commercial world. They won't. You have to learn how to deal with people with all of their problems.
Don't think that ideas have much value and never think they are more valuable than execution of those ideas. They aren't. Ideas are ten a penny. Execution is valuable. Businesses want people who can get stuff done, sales made, invoices paid. It is really that simple.
Show humility, a willingness to learn, use that youthful energy to get hard unpleasant jobs done that the middle aged folks don't want to do and believe me you'll succeed at the office simply for the reason that most 20 somethings are a complete and utter waste of space.
Your generation are so spoiled and expect so much handholding and mollycoddling and handouts and special treatment that it is really easy to stand head and shoulders above them just by standing on your own two feet and behaving like your grandfathers generation would have. If your boss wishes that his son had the same drive and ambition and maturity that you do then you are going to succeed. People like that are rewarding to mentor.
-
You are only 21 years old, why don't you get off your backside and learn a valuable skill? You have a once in a lifetime opportunity. No kids, no commitments. Go west young man and learn and grow.
Then you won't need any welfare and people will stop treating you like a mooch.
You have youth and energy. Find someone 30 years older than you who has succeeded in life and ask them to help you or show you the way. Show humility, don't assume you know how the world should work because, lets face it, you cannot even earn enough money to survive without welfare.
The last thing a mentor wants is you being a cocky little bastard. You have not earned the right to be cocky.
If you tell successful people that they are wrong to be successful and they should give their money away then naturally they are going to find someone else to help.
Good thing people like you help society to be a better place....for other people like you. :rolleyes:
At 21.5 I was paying income taxes, to pay for people on welfare.
I've sold technology for most of my career, helped build, buy, sell, merge companies that have employed people. Admittedly some of that software has meant people got laid off too because a computer could do that job faster, cheaper and with less griping but overall the US economy has done very well from the technology sector. It has been a huge earner for America. If you had not wasted it all on welfare, military spending and other stuff you'd still be a rich country.
The world has never stood still. Smart people understand this and seeing the direction of economic change align themselves with it.
A healthy, white 21 year old living in CT has no excuse.
-
If you ever get welfare I hate it how those who know you look down on you and consider you a bum because you (*GASP*) actually need help to live because your employer does not pay you enough to live descently. I hate it that everyone looks down on you because you have to go to the Church to ask for relief.
The FACT that your employer is committing an injustice in not paying you a living wage makes no impression on these "Catholics" (the kind of people who for more than twenty years - since they were your age - have believed Constantine determined Christianity - the sort of people who speak in the same manner about Christianity as a Freemason would speak).
You are to blame for the employer not paying enough to live. That is shamelessness.
The general standard of living, employment and wages continue to decline: this person speaks of it as though it were progress. Seriously.
This person is hostile. I can only think the reason he comes onto this forum to troll is some way of dealing with shame for the manner in which he has acquired his wealth. In any event, it's amazing to me, and it shows how little fulfillment money brings, that such a person has little better to do than to troll a forum when the economic welfare of common people in western society continues to decline.
-
Trad Guy (and any others),
The social stigma is a perfectly good thing to have in place.
Social welfare programs aren't meant to be a main staple of any persons income and the purpose of these, particularly when run by the U.S. government is for the subsistence of a constantly grieved, dependency class that can be counted on to vote for the Democratic party.
I can almost guarantee, like 97.5%, that Pope Leo XIII would be disgusted by the contemporary United States of America.
We're talking about simple charity for those who need relief, we're not talking about supporting laziness here and that charity is meant for the citizens, not foreign looters.
I just really despise the whole rich mentality of looking down on others and thinking you are better than them and don't need them.
You know for being called a Communist I've noticed a lot of liberals here need to realize that the liberal FDR collaborated with the Communist Stalin before even World War II.
Libertarianism supports a godless society of economic and social liberalism.
The rich are better in some sense of that word. If being rich did not make you in some sense better then why would anyone work hard to be rich?
The rich also stick their money back into the system through investment. They start new businesses, drill for more oil, build aircraft and get the ball rolling on all sorts of industries. Look at communist Russia to see what happens when you don't have the rich doing that. No restaurants, no decent cars, no nice cafes to sit in with your lady love.
I don't think the rich think they don't need plumbers, firemen, nurses, maids, air hostesses. It's obvious they do. But those people are generally speaking not on welfare.
What the rich object to is paying 50 percent or more of their income in taxes. Most would be fine with 20 percent but 50 percent or more is nuts.
-
seful.
WALK into any one of 10 million US companies and I will bet you that the CRM system is a mess, with bad customer data, records out of date, email addresses wrong, customers listed as prospects, prospects listed as customers, no-hopers listed as hot sales opportunities and hot sales opportunities not listed at all. Each firm is paying good money to operate that CRM system but because all the workers cannot be bothered to us it properly it never delivers any value.
You are so arrogant, I was too overwhelmed to reply initially.
Workers can't be bothered? I can run circles around any CRM system. The companies do not train workers to use it properly. Secondly when they are using it, the focus from management is what they call efficiency.
The management spends money on efficiency experts to say each contact should be .11th of a second shorter. Those who do a half job quickly are rewarded by keeping their job. They demand you do a bad job to be fast.
It is how it is, but it's extremely arrogant to say the workers can't be bothered, you are totally full of it. If you know that much about CRM systems, you should know about the pressure for efficiency.
-
So write to the President and offer to do that job for free on a one month trial. I will guarantee you that you will be taken up on the offer after less than 50 letters since it is a problem for all firms. .
Ggreg they aren't just going to hand over their database to someone who writes them a letter..seriously!!!
-
Moreover the head of the dept and President will appreciate your initiative and realise you are worth investing in, they will train you for a sales or marketing role.
Ggreg this is a HUGE joke!!! People advance their friends, who they are sleeping with, someone's wife, the incompetent person they refuse to fire, not people who are bright and solve issues. Management usually has the attitude that the workers are idiots, and they don't even let a worker finish a complete sentence never mind take the suggestion and move them on up! Even half human managers are required to write so many workers up on every evaluation period. It's ridiculous.
-
A healthy, white 21 year old living in CT has no excuse.
If you had read my posts you would know I don't live in Connecticut but South Carolina. Worker's rights are pretty limited down here (in other words businesses are given free reign mostly).
You would also know that trying to better myself requires money by either moving up the ladder or finding a technical skill and let's face it most of the technical skills, as the H1-B program shows will be given to Asian immigrants.
I think it shows a lack of social justice when a business or corporation is so greedy that they can't even have the decency to support their workers when they rake in the billions. It shows how greedy they really are.
-
"Your generation are so spoiled and expect so much handholding and mollycoddling and handouts and special treatment that it is really easy to stand head and shoulders above them just by standing on your own two feet and behaving like your grandfathers generation would have."
My grandfather's generation was the baby boomers, who created the counterculture; my great-grandfather's generation got us into World War II, two events that have destroyed our world so I'm not so sure you should be bragging about those generations.
And as for me I've never had a handout or special treatment or whatever else, which by the way you cannot presume to know that I have since you don't know my life. And as for spoiled I think the rich are spoiled in that it's not enough for them to have taxes cut for them, but then they have to outsource jobs and insource a massive amount of immigrants as well, along with raking in the billions while their workers' incomes continue to fall. We live in a society of dazzling riches and loathsome poverty because of the massive gap between the rich and poor.
And yet if there was talk of government interfering with business the rich would cry and moan like some spoiled trust fund babay whose father just cut off his credit cards.
-
Fortunately my supply of Trad Guy up thumbs seems to have been refilled.
-
It's tough in today's job market. We have challenges that past generations did not. Consequently, it's easier now then ever to forget the real reason we are all on this planet. I would never judge someone for being on welfare unless they resigned themselves to that state.
Pax
-
So write to the President and offer to do that job for free on a one month trial. I will guarantee you that you will be taken up on the offer after less than 50 letters since it is a problem for all firms. .
Ggreg they aren't just going to hand over their database to someone who writes them a letter..seriously!!!
Why not? They are not handing over their database. You are going into their office to work and are subject to the same security controls as any other employee in sales, marketing or customer service. It's not like you can steal the data without that being audited.
The fact you are 22 and inexperienced makes you a safer bet. It's the top salesperson stealing all the data you have to worry about. Pretty much everyone else cannot do much with it.
Besides, I know I am right, as I commonly use this exact method to get young people their first opportunities in b2b firms.
-
The management spends money on efficiency experts to say each contact should be .11th of a second shorter. Those who do a half job quickly are rewarded by keeping their job. They demand you do a bad job to be fast.
It is how it is, but it's extremely arrogant to say the workers can't be bothered, you are totally full of it. If you know that much about CRM systems, you should know about the pressure for efficiency.
Maybe if you are selling commodity items at low margin in a call centre it is like that, but in the b2b sales world for large deals, over $100k per sale, I can assure you that "workers" are not working anything like that hard nor very concerned with efficiency. In many offices they are updating their Facebook page, reading the online news and doing all manner of things. They chase the low hanging fruit and don't bother to update the prospects they don't believe are short to medium term prospects.
Those salespeople cannot easily be fired and replaced as they have specialised knowledge they have picked up within their industry sector.
At 100k per sale, or more, it does not take many rediscovered opportunities to justify to the President or head of that business unit why you are worth a decent salary and a full time position.
-
It's tough in today's job market. We have challenges that past generations did not. Consequently, it's easier now then ever to forget the real reason we are all on this planet. I would never judge someone for being on welfare unless they resigned themselves to that state.
Pax
You also have opportunities they did not, such as a global real time communication system, free (or so cheap that they might as well be free) telephone calls and low cost international jet travel, plus an on line library about every conceivable topic which offers you a free education and the ability to quickly find and seek help from a large number of people globally.
This coming week I am working for clients' companies based in Kiev, London, San Francisco, Moscow and New York. It would have been impossible to do all that in a week 50 years ago.
Telephone calls to the USA in the mid 1980 used to cost over $1 per minute. Today I spend at least two hours per day on the phone or Skype to the USA at zero cost.
-
So write to the President and offer to do that job for free on a one month trial. I will guarantee you that you will be taken up on the offer after less than 50 letters since it is a problem for all firms. .
Ggreg they aren't just going to hand over their database to someone who writes them a letter..seriously!!!
Why not? They are not handing over their database. You are going into their office to work and are subject to the same security controls as any other employee in sales, marketing or customer service. It's not like you can steal the data without that being audited.
The fact you are 22 and inexperienced makes you a safer bet. It's the top salesperson stealing all the data you have to worry about. Pretty much everyone else cannot do much with it.
Besides, I know I am right, as I commonly use this exact method to get young people their first opportunities in b2b firms.
Perhaps this is true on the planet you are from....