www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Ethics Puzzle

For me, the critical issue is how the government uses the peoples' money. They should be good stewards, and in most cases, they do a very good job. Apropos the Medicare/Medicaid thing, I'm on the receiving end (kinda sorta) since my Mom had a stroke and needs 24/7 care that I in no way could afford. Her savings disappeared within a year and a half (a nursing home costs approximately $6,000 a month; medications are extra; therapy is extra; personal items --toothpaste, Depends, ointments, bed-sore prevention mattresses, etc. are all extra.) If the Medicaid program did not exist, I would have to quit my job to stay home to take care of her. And I would end up on welfare. My salary could in NO way support both me and my mom's needs. So, I'm extremely grateful that our nation has decided to take care of it most vulnerable citizens. Wow: sounds like Christian principles to me! (If you doubt this, just go to your nearest nursing/rehab facility as a volunteer for ONE day and see the folks who are there. Many of these folks have no family or loved ones and just lie in their beds.)

I talk with all the folks on Mom's corridor (about 32 people). I thought one lady 4 rooms up (stroke victim) was just beyond the pale. She jabbered every time I stopped in the hall to say "HI!" while she was being nourished through a tube in her stomach. (My Mom has one too.) Just last week, I realized that the woman was not speaking jibberish, but was speaking POLISH! I'm going to call the local parish with a large Polish community and ask them to send a Polish speaking person from the Caritas group to visit with this lady.

So, this government money: In my opinion at the front lines of the fragile and vulnerable elderly, our government does a good job in caring for these folks with "our money". (But family MUST be there all the time to make sure that the staff can be informed about what is going on. They oftentimes just follow the MD orders, and sometimes don't react to signs and symptoms that should signal a specific response.

I see the same with welfare and ADC programs. And Head Start. And medical research. And TANF programs. And WIC (women, infants and children) food supplement programs.

The absolute root principle is: Preserve and enhance life, no matter what. Can any Christian American be perplexed about the use of our tax-dollars to preserve life, and enhance it? I would hope not.

There are those who would have this done by outside agencies like the Salvation Army (they have my utmost respect and financial support), but it is clear that they don't have the resources to both help and 'administer' city/county/state-wide programs. Although (as the song says: I love a man in a uniform -who did that song!?!?!), I don't think we should shift the burden to the wonderful folks in the SA or the Red Cross or the St. Vincent de Paul Society. It's a governmental, i.e., societal function. It is ALL of our responsibilities to provide for those in need. My cousin's daughter has Down Syndrome; her parents rely heavily upon public support and education.

What should those folks do who have either a family member with a severe disability or who themselves live with severe disability or illness? Should we just tell them: "You're on your own. You have our best wishes and our prayers" and we hope that a charitable organization can help you, IF (and it's a big 'If') people contribute to the charity.

The old American spirit of 'pulling yourself up by your bootstraps' is OK (thanks, Nancy Reagan), but sometimes there ain't no way it can happen. And I am the poster child for that.

So, let's encourage the government (with all its weaknesses) to continue to find ways to support and defend the LIFE of each individual citizen who is in danger of death because of illness, disability, poverty or neglect. Yeah, it costs money, and yeah, some of the money gets diverted; but the solution is NOT to dismantle the program and 'save the money', but rather to provide oversight so that there is minimal waste that should be going to the needy.

As Christians, we should be in the forefront of those who are trying to ensure that our government uses our collective resources to both preserve and enhance the lives of the most vulnerable of our people.

Blessings!

Amen. And I say it again, amen!

K.

Dr. John,

Can tax dollars solve social problems or remedy dysfunctional families or those who wham-bam and leave others the bill to raise their kiddies?

There is a difference between helping those "in need" (for you will always have the poor among your, according to Jesus) but another thing to reward those who are allowed to remit themselves of any iota of responsibility.

I would think it be grand to engage in irresponsible behavior while knowing that society will cough up money to pay for my misdeeds, but I don't because I am of the old school who believes in being responsible for those things I do.

Had a wonderful time being with three unfortunate toddlers over the holidays. Their mommmy and daddy are always drunk (dumb twenty-somethings) and can't hold a job. Mommy sleeps with her boyfriend while daddy sacks out on the couch. Instead of kicking these jerks in the you-know-what, society and family has to pick up the pieces (society with tax dollars and family with free day-care). Another little mommy didn't know that the money the government sends to her originated from taxpayers. She thought it was just printed and sent to her free of cost. A classmate of mine also got a college education free while the state took care of her babies while she attended classes - while daddy wasn't owing up to his responsibilities. Again, all three are using YOUR taxdollars to pay for them raising their "family" while their fathers are running around getting other dumb-bunny girls pregnant.

I'm not against helping out the needy, but take offense that I must pay for the screwed up lives of others. Call it un-Christian if you like. It is also uncharitable to continue supporting a system of "safety nets" while those who rely on it are not playing it safe or leading virtuous lives. In fact, it is a scandal and almost demonic.

I am sure if Edwin would reflect and pray on this issues, he would agree with me that:


[ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: Kurt ]

Kurt,

I read in your posts: class-warfare, struggle of the proletariat, socialism, unions versus big business, us-versus-them, welfare, and every other stereotypical dichotomy that has split people and turned them against each other. They tried doing this in the former Soviet Union. Didn't work. I work with a number of former Russian citizens. Their only escape from the state you described was in coming to America.

You wrote: "the state has the duty and obligation to enforce this human right."

Sorry, Kurt, this is still a democracy. Our government can only "protect" our rights. What happened to the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in your lexicon? Happiness is also in our "God grant him/her/them many years!" Yet, you come off as a judge and jury with a verdict to execute without a vote. It is also how the pro-choice/anti-life brigade got abortion passed; they avoided the people's vote and had a "right" to choose enforced via the judiciary. Your cold and grey society is not the reason why our nation is a nation of immigrants. Such a society is the reason why many citizens of formerly socialist/communist countries want to leave it behind.

[ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: Edwin ]

[ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: Edwin ]

Edwin,

My apologies. In my haste, I failed to give attribution to the comments I posted. I have since amended them. Sorry we all can't be together on this.

K.

[ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: Kurt ]

Kurt,

It's the "how" that the government goes about its programs. Christian communism is different than democratic-socialism. Charity is the backing of the Christian form, not a police state that exists primarily to re-allocate funds based on some ideology. And what are those needs? I am sure the Holy Father would not agree that a forced contribution and redistribution of wealth for the prime purpose of allowing abortion on demand or supporting a lifestyle of zero responsibility is a great example of enforcing rights.

The problem with the American "how" is that those whose monies are taken from to re-distribute to those "in need" (however defined) have no say-so in the process and allows a lot of poverty situations to continue. There are other ways to instruct our youth from bed-hopping to have more babies for you and I to take care of via our tax-dollars. When the government takes control of the welfare and grants funds to support such a dysfunctional culture without our say-so administered by those who "know better", then it actually promotes it at the expense of those who are responsible. Supporting someone's abortion and/or lifestyle of getting banged every time the urge is there is not the Christian response to charity and caring for the needy. These are not needy people; they made their bed - they should sleep in it like all the rest. Where is modesty, chastity, and responsibility? The last I knew, the Holy Father was still pro-life and is against the culture of death. Marriage is still venerable and not an embarassing institution. Our society has tried so desperately to make dysfunctionality a norm and acceptable whether in the movies, in sitcoms, in the arts, and in legislation, including tax penalties for those trying to do a good job and live an honorable life.

There is a difference between those who are "truly poor" and those who opt for induced poverty; between being charitable and being a Santa Claus; between what someone "needs" and what someone doesn't need. Your inadvertant slip not to give credit to the Holy Father's statement was a cute trick (a union tactic?), but its similar to the proof-texter who uses scripture out of context. You do the Holy Father no good by confusing his words with another failed version of the "war on poverty." You still don't answer the question about the factor of human responsibility and whether the Holy Father and other Christians would think it is necessary to support and foster a dysfunctional society and its bad habits in the name of "enforcing rights."

Wouldn't it be grand if the government can enforce "responsibility" for a change? A foreign concept? It's less costly to instruct our children to say "No" than to assume they are a bunch of uncontrollable rabbits so they must distribute condoms at the schools so they can play "safe." But then again, a surge in responsibility might put those people who administer the monies of redistribution out of work. No more "job for life" for them. Maybe more money can then be directed to the "truly poor" if responsibility was enforced? It is true that there are those who know how to work the "system". I've personally seen it in the inner-cities, the dysfunctional sub- and ex-urbias, as well as third-world nations AND my own family. So much has been wasted in sweeping up the p**p of those who refuse to wear underwear.

I will tell you how self-induced poverty works. A friend of mine takes care of a half-dozen little children for a number of nieces. She doesn't get paid for it because the monies her nieces collect go for cigarettes and booze. One niece has three children each from a different father; neither of which contributes a dime to suppor their own "product of conception" - they do have fond memories though. The poor woman taking care of her nieces' mishaps of behavior can't take on a job of her own because she is running an unplanned day-care facility at her home. She is spending what little she has to feed and clothe these children (some who don't have underwear on at times) with no compensation from the girls or their multiple lovers - who are too busy checking out the next piece of stupid and gullible flesh at the local bar. None of these nieces come from poverty-stricken homes; they grew up in peaceful, suburbia.

Who is "truly poor" in the above case? Who do you think gets the government checks? Who will get "rewarded" for their efforts? Who would get out of poverty if they had a chance? Who is being "responsible?" Who doesn't have a clue? Who has to pay for this welfare? How can this be "prevented?" Will grabbing the necks of the absentee fathers and giving them a few quick kicks in the *rse do the trick? What is your answer to solving this poverty case, Kurt? What do you think would be the Pope's recommendation? Is the Pope "together with you" on any of your solutions?

[ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: Edwin ]

Kurt and Edwin,

I am a welfare caseworker. I deal daily on a firsthand basis with every situation you describe. My clients cover a broad spectrum, elderly living only on Social Security, disabled living on SSI, single mothers, grandparents raising their grandkids, intact families with both parents working that just don't make alot of money, intact families with parent's who can't or won't keep a job.

Many times I feel like I've helped somebody. Other times I feel like I've helped a thief pick the pockets of America. Many things about system work, many need desperate fixing. Is anyone aware the system currently punishes married couples with childern. Let me give an example. Household A and Household B be have the same income and number of members a man and woman with two children. Household A qualifies for medical assistance, Household B does not. Why? The couple in Household B is married and because of that everyone's income counts against the program limit. In Household A, where the couple isn't married the father's income isn't counted against the limit. This is shamefull discrimination and it needs to stop.

I agree with Pope John Paul's statement 100%. However, we need to define true poverty and needs vs wants. Many people do not understand either.

In Christ,
Lance, deacon candidate

Lance wrote: "The couple in Household B is married and because of that everyone's income counts against the program limit. In Household A, where the couple isn't married the father's income isn't counted against the limit. This is shamefull discrimination and it needs to stop."


Lance,

Good point. I guess this is what I have been trying to say all along. This chicanery goes on in the account for the "uninsured." We heard a lot about 30,000,000 uninsured in our country a few years back. This was a lie by those having dubious agendas. In the count for the "uninsured" it doesn't matter if a married person has declined his/her company's health benefits in favor of being an independent on their spouse's insurance plan. That person was still considered "uninsured" because THEIR employer wasn't giving them the benefits (whether that person is insured or not on someone else's plan). What the racketeers and politico-social planners wish us to ignore is that when folks are allowed to decide what is best for themselves they seek after the "better" medical program under their spouse's plan. They ARE covered.

Having worked in Third World countries with the "poor" I have seen the true faces of poverty. Much of it though was induced not by Big Business (to which our friend Kurt likes to point his finger at) but also to hurtful government programs and directives that considers their citizens as "numbers." The last thing poor people need is a top-down Socialist solution to their woes.

[ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: Edwin ]

I wrote earlier to Kurt:

“forget that Social Security was originally a savings plan, but was switched to a program where money from one pool of people (working people) was transferred to another pool of people (elderly/retired) when President FDR realized that his constituents were not getting money as was promised. Elections were coming up and SS was socialized to get the money into the voters' pockets quicker. Again, the common good was a particular pool of voters, not all the people.”


Kurt responded:
“Interesting. Social Security and social insurance programs are my field of experise. I've written monographs,testified before Congress, etc. and never heard of this switcharoo. Could you name the legislation which authorized this or the Executive Order of FDR?”

My answer:

"The Social Security Act of 1935 set up a funded system. It was projected that by 1980, 40 percent of Social Security's revenues would be interest on trust-fund assets. That promise was scrapped in 1939 with the passage of the Federal Insurance Contributions Act. FICA was pay-as-you-go.” (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, October 13, 1999; by Bruce Ramsey)

I hope this helps you understand how the once 'funded system' was switcharooed to 'pay-as-you-go' one in 1939.

[ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: Edwin ]

edwin,

You certainly cannot be faulted for depending on what was written in a reputable paper like the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

However, in this particular case, they are mistaken or at least misleading.

The 1939 amendments to the Social Security Act consisted of the extention of social insurance to dependents and survirors of qualified participants.

I would guess the reporter is refering to the 1937 FIC Act. The 1935 Act had set OAI taxes at a gradually increased rate of 1%, then 2% in 1937 and 3% in 1940. The 1937 act postponed the increase from 2% to 3% until after the war.

Looking backwards, I suppose some enimies of Social Security such as the pro-abortion Cato Institute might twist this to suggest the start of pay-as-you go. But in fact the program has always been funded out of currrent revenues. A common myth exists that OASDI has "personal accounts" and another myth has FDR saying it is good people have this misimpression because it creates confidence in the system.

Personal accounts never existed, even before 1937. It is simply a demostratable fact.

And while the 1937 made changes in OAI financing, it made no change in the benefits formula. The first recipinet of OAI was a lovely woman in Vermont named Ida Mae. She clearly was not part of a 'savings plan' in nay traditional sense of it, but a social insurance plan, as by the time she recieved her second check, she had received back more than she put in. I wonder how the Seattle Post-Intelligencer explains this!!!

K.

FYI:

Kurt,

Just a few quotes from non-Cator sources (you seem to be infatuated with these folks). I can get the references later if you like. I don't have them on me right now.

---

SOCIAL SECURITY GOES PONZI AFTER ONLY TWO YEARS

Social Security was enacted in 1935 as a government savings vehicle, in which workers and their employers would be taxed to make deposits to their own accounts and withdraw them after retirement. The Social Security program was broadly similar to a private insurance system. During their working lives, individuals deposited some portion of their salaries into a fund. Over time, the fund would accumulate interest, and on retirement, the principal and accrued interest would be used to pay benefits. Such a scheme is characterized as “fully funded.”

The theory behind it was that the greater part of the relief problem was that people did not save in their working years, and so, when they were too old to work, they found themselves without resources. This problem could be solved, it was thought, if they were compelled to insure themselves, with employers also compelled to contribute half the necessary premiums, so that they would have a pension sufficient to retire on at age sixty-five or over.

The tax started in 1937 at a rate of 2 percent of the first $3,000 of annual earnings – 1 percent paid by the worker and 1 percent paid by the employer. The original U.S. Social Security plan also had a welfare component, intended to pay minimum benefits to people who had not really earned them.

Social Security was to be entirely a self-financed insurance plan based on strict actuarial principles. A reserve fund was to be set up sufficient to meet future claims and payments as they fell due. It never worked out that way. The reserve fund existed mainly on paper. The government spent the Social Security tax receipts, as they came in, either to meet its ordinary expenses or to pay out benefits.

The insurance-savings plan was scrapped almost immediately. Social Security was transformed into a “pay-as-you-go” system in 1939 (with extended coverage, more generous benefits, and easier eligibility), meaning that the benefits paid to current retirees come from payments made by those who are presently working. Each generation of retirees is supported by payments made by the current generation of workers, not by drawing down an accumulated fund.

An important reason for the switch to pay-as-you-go was the perception that the savings of many of the elderly had been wiped out by the Great Depression, and they deserved to be supported at a level higher than that possible with only a few years of contributions. But the real motives for the switch was that in 1939 the Great Depression seemed to be coming back – the economy had sunk into a tailspin in 1938 – and economists believed that savings and investment did not stimulate the economy as much as consumer spending. Some of them even blamed the downturn of 1938 on the imposition of the Social Security tax. Also, the Democratic Party faced the election of 1940. It was politically imperative that people begin to benefit from the new program right away.

The name for a system that uses receipts to pay off early investors, while leaving little or nothing for later investors, is a Ponzi scheme. Social Security is an enormous intergenerational Ponzi scheme, set in motion to pay early benefits with massive tax receipts from those who were promised benefits later. Those benefits were decoupled from the amounts people had paid in, so that low-wage workers received a greater share of their former income while high-wage workers received a lesser share.

Edwin,

I am looking at the original law right now. Nothing in it indicates private accounts. Expect for some balck helicoper conspiracy types, I can't believe anyone thinks the government can hide the existance of millions of personal accounts. The benefit formula is right in the law. And you still haven't explained Ida Mae.

K.

Kurt,

Black helicopters? Are you smokin' some funny stuff? What do black helicopters have to do with social security laws?

Nothing, they no more exist than personal OAI aacoutns did in 1935.

K.