I think the "Is the Bush Administration Catholic" thread was getting too far afield, so why don't we bring the rich/poor discussion here. (This is in Ethics/Philosophy for now, unless someone moves it).

How do you define poor? Where do you draw the line between true poverty and "if they chose to pull themselves up by their bootstraps...."? How do you decide to help one person over another?

My first contention is that in the US, there is no true poverty--not like we see in other parts of the world. If you're begging in the US, mostly it's because:

1) you want to (no taxes paid on the income, for one thing), no rent to pay, etc.;

2) you are very ill with mental issues (other than drug/alcohol issues), and unless you were closely monitored/forcibly kept in an institution, won't get help. That has become a difficult issue involving civil rights.

3) you made choices (yes, I said that awful word, choices) in regards to drugs and alcohol. If you offer to give someone money for food, or offer them food, and they say no, well, sorry, I'm not going to help someone get drugs or alcohol.

I don't know about you, but most of the kids I see out on the sidewalk are really just "hanging out". I have also seen women on the street with their children, and feel that they should be prosecuted for child endangerment and the children taken into protective custody--if they were running away from a bad domestic situation there are places to go, you don't have to beg on the street.

So, I am of the opinion that there is enough to go around, and enough to help the truly needy (for example, much of the third and fourth world), but in the US at least, if you want to get out of a bad situation, you can, and there are plenty of places to get help from.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), August 12, 2004

Answers

I disagree, and feel that you are ignorant of the mental anquish and problems that *do* arise.

ref: http://groups.google.com/groups?group=alt.callahans and search for CEPT. (callahans e. prayer team)

While the US as a whole does have huge resources, and is eating the worlds resources at an irresponsible pace, individuals in the US can be caught badly.

One way is for someone to lose their job, and find no social support. Since the goverment has had to strongly cut back basic support (at federal, state, county, and city levels) a person can find that they must take to the streets, find that on the streets they do not have a mailing addr / phone number, so that they can not find a job, and without a job they can not get the things needed to get a job. Familys can be caught this way, and often are. A single (white?) male may be able to get by, but a family need more to live. But your statement is just ignorance, not ment as anything else. Some choices can be as simple as taking a vacation after many years, only to find that the company fires you. Or being a few months away from being pensioned by the non-union company. Or many other things, some of which are beyond your control. And do not look to the goverment (at least in CAlif) to re-train you when your industry is outsourced, obsoleted, or otherwise killed as far as you getting a job.

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), August 12, 2004.

While the US as a whole does have huge resources, and is eating the worlds resources at an irresponsible pace

How is the US "eating the world's resources at an irresponsible pace? What do you consider a responsible pace? How do you determine this? I don't agree with your statement.

Timber is a renewable resource. There is more timber in the US now than 100 years ago. Actually, restrictions on its use have created great fire hazards especially in the Western US.

Oil exploration continues to evolve. We are finding oil in places never dreamed of 50 years ago and extracting it ever more efficiently (when allowed to do so).

Farmland is being encroached upon by urban sprawl, yet US farmland is more productive and efficient than ever. For example in the 1950's, a farmer worked 10-14 hours on two acres of land to produce 100 bushels of corn while today only 2 ½ hours and one acre of land is needed.

God put these resources on earth for us to use. Yes, we should use them wisely, and for the most part we do. But, IMHO, for the most part restrictions on using natural resources end up economically benefitting those higher on the socioeconomic scale and hurting those less fortunate.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), August 12, 2004.

If a person is one paycheck, or a vacation away from disaster, then they have made some wrong choices. I have more sympathy for someone with severe medical issues that are out of the blue, than I do for someone who deliberately chose to drink, smoke, do drugs, etc.

Sean, from what I understand, you can get a PO box and still be homeless (which I think is unfair because normally you have to provide a street address to get one), and there are cell phones now--prepaid ones even, or pay-as-you-go. I can afford one, but I choose not to have it. I grew up without a regular phone--my parent's choice. Didn't hurt me, and I didn't consider myself "deprived", either.

Please read this, before saying most people are poor:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), August 12, 2004.

Lets see if I’ve got this straight, GT. If your daddy’s a millionaire, you can drink, smoke and abuse drugs all you like, and all you have to suffer are the direct consequences of doing that - and maybe not even that because you get the best detox and medical treatment etc.

But if your parents haven’t got 2c to give you, then if you choose to smoke, drink and do drugs, you not only have all the direct consequences, you must also be punished by being denied food, shelter, clothing and medical care. Somehow, I just can’t imagine Our Lord taking that attitude to the “undeserving” poor!

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 12, 2004.

Well let's see, if you're poor, you can qualify for free medical care.

It is actually the middle class that's really hurting these days--too poor to pay, too rich to get free care.... And even the best care doesn't work if you don't hold up your end of the bargain and follow the instructions.

Also, not everyone's parents will keep throwing money at a lost cause--sometimes the best you can do is give them "tough love", even when it hurts. Look at all the people who've taken the drastic and expensive step of raising their grandkids.

I'm just saying that most of the poor in the Bible were in situations they couldn't control-- no equal rights for women, leprosy seen as a curse instead of a disease, etc.--I cannot remember offhand, where any of the stories were concerning someone who actually could get out of their situation. It's different today, at least in the states. In the third and fourth world, you do have the cultural issues that get in the way.

Sure, losing a job is bad, but I know people for whom it turned out to be a blessing in disguise. God gives us all opportunities, even in the bad things that happen in life. They help us to grow as people.

And as far as helping people, I don't think it is wrong to choose between helping say a child over an adult--individually, we do have finite resources. Or, before giving money to someone in a parking lot, observe and see what they do with the money someone else has given them first.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), August 12, 2004.

“It is actually the middle class that's really hurting these days-- too poor to pay, too rich to get free care” Yeah, ironic, isn’t it. Capitalism is supposed to create a wonderland for the middle class. Of course socialised medical care would solve this problem. (pace Joe)

Do you really think the USA has no “cultural” problems keeping people poor? Yes you’re right that even the poorest class in the USA are better off than huge numbers of people in the Third World. And that it’s risky giving money to someone begging in a parking lot. That’s why I give nearly all my charitable contributions to Catholic charities which have low overheads and concentrate on helping the poorest in the Third World. But if we claim to be a Christian country which believes in "justice for all", it's not good enough to say to people, "well you had your chance to escape poverty and you blew it, so don't ask for anything".

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 12, 2004.

GT why don't you look beyond your own self interest. The American Dream is a nightmare for those without means. Poor people don't have choices. They can't decide to spend wisely and save money because they barely have enough to live hand to mouth. There are people who work multiple jobs in the hope that one day they can give their kids a better future. There are people who have worked hard all their lives and have been the victims of circumstances beyond their control. Yes, of course, their are people who have abused the system or made bad choices - but does that really mean that the better off have a right to starve them? Most people who find themselves on the street just want a hand up - a way to make their own living - not handouts and charity. Don't be so pig ignorant and dismissive of the needs of PEOPLE, yes, that's right GT these are human beings who should be protected under the Bill of Rights and the American Constitution. Boy, you well off Americans make me sick.

-- Anglican Christian (sharon.guy@ntu.ac.uk), August 13, 2004.

Brian,

That is a horrible thing for you to say. Obviously you never read EPA reports or anything on the environment for that matter. Sure timber is renewable but do you think we really renew it? And just because a "tree" is renewable does not mean the ecosystem which those trees provide is renewable. There are millions of species per acre in a forest and most of which can not and will not come back. To think of all the animals we have no living within a few miles of wooded area because we are such greed driven users makes me sick. No we should not use what God gave us just because we can. We should protect what God gave us so we can share it with future generations and to be able to enjoy it ourselves. GT, I grew up "poor" by the governments standards. My mother raised my two siblings and I, by herself, making less than 10 thousand a year and never ever asked for help from any organization. So I know that yes, anything is possible if given the proper will power and determination. But if you have your will stripped from you than sometimes you don't feel the need to do anything with you life and you waste away. These people are not the ones you should be worrying about because in general they aren't given money by our government. If they do receive some form of charity it is from private organizations or religiously affiliated ones. These are people that choose to help because they want to not because they feel they have to. As far as them being able to shake it off and ask for help you are forgetting that human nature is stubborn. But if you don't want to give them money, don't and feel confident that you probably aren't. Welfare is not well monitored so sadly people abuse it. But you have to hope it does help someone who really does need it, and that makes it worth all the people who abuse the system. ~ Emelyn

-- Emelyn (Emyland@yahoo.com), August 13, 2004.

Steve, please explain to me the phenomenon of the dirt-poor Vietnamese boat people who arrived to this country in the early 1980's and are now - a mere 20 years later, largely in the middle- class. How was it possible? (Hint, hard work and family-orientation as opposed to individualism helps).

Emily, the timber companies OWN most of the land they harvest - and thus have a vested interest in planting trees quicker than they cut them... there are lots of techniques which don't include clear cutting and many finer specimens are left untouched.

Yes many poor people exist in the US but what you are all missing are the OPPORTUNITIES for them to escape their condition which don't require massive federal taxation and bureaucracy! (sp). Churches, non-profits, and family, relatives, and friends abound with the aim to help people get back on their feet. Private people can declare bankrupcy... housing and food and clothing are all available for single women and for dirt-poor men, there's always the military option.... in short, a person could only starve in the USA if they wanted to!

I have SEEN REAL POVERTY IN MEXICO AND ELSEWHERE. BELIEVE ME PEOPLE, NOWHERE IN THE US ARE THERE POOR PEOPLE LIKE IN THE 3RD WORLD.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), August 13, 2004.

Emily has hit the nail on the head in her reflection about some people abusing the system and others not taking advantage of the things given to them. But a socialist won't solve that problem! A good neighbor, a brother, sister, or parent, a good friend MIGHT stand a better chance.

After all, don't we all need family and friends PRIOR to faceless government? Family and friends are the FIRST society and first "mediating" structures. Social Security used to be sons taking in their parents in their old age - so the folks don't have to buy their own home, pay their mortgage, get separate cars, etc. Instead they'd reap the rewards of having children and their children in turn wouldn't have to hire baby sitters because mom and dad would watch their grandkids. That's how society held together and children grew up respecting elders because their sitters and teachers were their grandparents.

Yet the socialists didn't like this arrangement because it made people too independent of the state - and too uppity.But if you are an atom, isolated individual with no mediating structure between you and the moster state then guess who wins always and in every arena? Big Brother.

For Catholics to politically urge the state to grow at the expense of these mediating structures is to surrender to the spirit of the world and also reject our personal and parochial responsibilities to build up the kingdom rather than let the pagans run everything.

When faced with 5000 hungry people Jesus didn't preach a sermon on the evil rich who owned all the means of production and food supplies. Instead he told the apostles "you give them to eat" - and then took the entreprenuerial offering of a boy, blessed it, and gave it to the apostles (who had divided the 5000 into groups of 50) and they distributed the multiplied bread and fish.

A socialist would have fuliminated about how few resources there are and how there's too many people. Jesus instead just multiplied the resouces and found a better system to distribute it!

Capitalism creates wealth. Socialism only distributes it - thus capitalist societies (based on freedom and personal initiative) GROW the pie to be shared whereas socialist states like North Korea or other 3rd world regimes don't grow anything. They hinder freedom and initiative and eventually make everyone EQUALLY WRETCHED.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), August 13, 2004.

Actually, socialism and communism doesn't make everyone equally wretched--some are more equal than others, you know. Remember "Animal Farm," by George Orwell? Even in those systems there were wealthy people.

And of course the reason people don't have children to help them in their old age is because many chose not to have them....

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), August 13, 2004.

Brian, that is a horrible thing for you to say

Horrible?

Sure timber is renewable but do you think we really renew it?

Yes, I'm quite certain of it, in the US anyway.

And just because a "tree" is renewable does not mean the ecosystem which those trees provide is renewable. There are millions of species per acre in a forest and most of which can not and will not come back.

Wrong!

To think of all the animals we have no living within a few miles of wooded area because we are such greed driven users makes me sick. No we should not use what God gave us just because we can.

I think you're worrying too much. There is alot of land for these critters to live in. Even around a logging area, animals adapt remarkably well. God gave us resources for many things. We can use them, renew them, and preserve them all at the same time. There is alot of land called wilderness areas, locked up so to speak, never to be touched by a saw or motorized vehicle. That way you can be content with your Disneyfied vision of the forest while at the same time we can build some homes. In case you didn't know, most poor people in the US live in wood structured dwellings, be they apartments, or mobile homes, or shelters. And when they eventually get a few bucks, they might want to build a better home, or fix up the one they have. Is this greedy? No!

We should protect what God gave us so we can share it with future generations and to be able to enjoy it ourselves.

We should wisely use what God gave us so we can share it with future generations--so they can build homes, make toilet paper, go hunting, fishing, camping, snowmobiling, grow marijuana illegally ;-) etc. These things benefit all socioeconomic classes. Locking up our resources benefits the elite, those who can afford higher priced housing and real estate.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), August 13, 2004.

...but does that really mean that the better off have a right to starve them? Most people who find themselves on the street just want a hand up - a way to make their own living - not handouts and charity. Don't be so pig ignorant and dismissive of the needs of PEOPLE, yes, that's right GT these are human beings who should be protected under the Bill of Rights and the American Constitution. Boy, you well off Americans make me sick.

Well off Americans starving people. LOL! Such venom from the UK. Lay off the Michael Moore. Besides, I thought everyone across the pond thought we were FAT. Or maybe that's just the well off Americans. I'm not sure Anglican, where in the Bill of Rights or US Constitution it states that people have the right to have their material needs met. Or where it says that the government must compel people to contribute to the welfare of other people. I don't think you will find such clauses, but if you do I will stand corrected.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), August 13, 2004.

Brian,

And just because a "tree" is renewable does not mean the ecosystem which those trees provide is renewable. There are millions of species per acre in a forest and most of which can not and will not come back.

Wrong!

I'd disagree with you here, there's a difference in the ecosystem supported by an old-growth forest and a tree farm. OTOH, I completely agree that it's in the best interests of the loggers to renew their property as best they can.

Anglican,

Most American poor aren't really "poor" like one thinks of in a 3rd world country. Here our poor are often obese, most have homes with electricity and running water, and a sewer system, and a phone is considered a necessity to be paid by the state if you have any kind of health problem. Contrast that to Tijuana where (some) poor people are rail thin and living in shacks with no water, light, or most importantly, any kind of waste disposal or sewage. As much as I'd like to wring my hands about the state of America's poor, I think getting the rest of the world up *to* the level of America's poor would be a better first step. Are there *some* places in America where there is crushing poverty? Yes, but not that many.

Also, being from England, there's another issue with America's poor that you may be unaware of, and that is that in the 70's people concerned with "rights" for the mentally ill pretty much made it illegal to institutionalize anyone that wasn't an immediate threat to themselves or others. In Philadelphia for example, you can't even get someone who's a known paranoid schizophrenic hospitalized for threatening someone! you have to have *evidence* they pose a threat like if they swing a chair or knife at someone, then you can say they really are a danger. Therefore, we have "homeless" people on the streets that really aren't "poor", but are mentally ill, and belong in a facility that can care for them. Ironically, the same people that insist they be allowed to live on the streets insist that we aren't doing enough for them, but the point is, one can't just look at "the homeless" in America and say they are our poor, they aren't, really, they are a special class of the down and out that the leftist elite wants out there.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), August 13, 2004.

A word on ecosystems... nature - without any human intervention at all, has suffered catastrophies on a regular basis... Ice-ages and meteors have wiped out entire ecosystems without any involvement of evil capitalists! In pre-Columbus North America, lightning occured and set forests ablaze. But whereas today we can put them out, back then nothing but rain would stop the whole west from going up in smoke - taking all the animals with it.

In New England, all the land used for farming in the 1700s has largely become forest again as the productive farms moved west... and thus you can find old growth forests all over the place. Wild turkey, fox, deer, and all the rest of them can be found wandering around New Haven! Only the aggressive critters like Wolverines, Bear and wolves have been chased out of their original ecosystems - but even so they're not extinct.

Nature adapts! But you wouldn't know that from reading the horror stories from the deep ecologists who worship the planet while despising the people who live on it (all while paradoxically loving the poor...because they're poor and hating the rich because they're rich instead of loving both because they're people!)

WARNING WARNING WARNING. The following is a patriotic outburst.

The United States of America is the best country on earth - the best in the history of the world. We are not the wealthiest because we have all the oil but because we have a system which respects certain fundamental freedoms and truths about the human person - and thus at least up to now has allowed people to do what is right. Oil and all other natural resources are riches - not wealth. They only become wealth when people discover uses for them. Without the internal combustion engine the Middle East would only have dates, figs, horses, and perfumes to trade with - they wouldn't have "riches" or wealth at all!

Thanks to US and our inventions and capitalism, the world has wealth.

But of course, those who are blest also are tempted and so we have our problems too. Yet before throwing stones tell me what other nation on earth has as many active people doing something positive as we do. (Mexico excluded)

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), August 13, 2004.

Correction. The Middle east would have riches, not wealth. God makes riches, people make wealth.

Africa is a land flowing with natural resources and natural riches, but the political systems there are such that wealth cannot be easily created or maintained. Famines break out because of failed political/social factors - not because evil white men steal resources.

Yes, some white men are evil and thieves too...but that doesn't come anywhere near to explaining the disaster Africa is - but if you want to play the "America is to blame for all the problems in the world" game, then you'll have to admit that we're also responsible for all the good that happens too.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), August 13, 2004.

Joe,

Emelyn (Emyland@yahoo.com) posted above, and you referred to this person as "Emily." I just wanted to clear up any possible confusion. I am not that person. To my knowledge, I am the only regular here named "Emily."

God bless,

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), August 13, 2004.

Joe,

and thus you can find old growth forests all over the place.

We were in Boston last year and went to the Plimouth Plantation, one of the colony-reconstruction-type places. On the Indian part, they showed the houses they would build by stripping the bark from a single tree (which would kill the tree, but the guy said the Indians knew that too), but the part that struck me was you'd need a tree with a HUGE circumference! We don't have those trees "all over the place" anymore in the East, not that I've seen. Cape cod was orinally forested, but the early settlers cut down all the timber near Provincetown, it has never grown back, and that area's desert. It's too bad someone doesn't put up some wind or dust breaks and replant it somehow. On the other hand, some areas used to be just filthy and are now much nicer. Certainly the air quality in Los Angeles is MUCH better now than it was in the 70's, and that's with a lot more people living there.

Ice-ages and meteors have wiped out entire ecosystems without any involvement of evil capitalists!

This is true. There are no more dinosaurs. Why use this as an excuse to electively kill off MORE of God's creatures? We don't say that accidents kill many people so it's o.k. to shoot someone in the head. If we cut down all the willow trees, we never would have discovered aspirin. If we killed off all the foxglove, no digitalis. Having species around means more chance of finding some use for them. I don't see myself as a rabid environmentalist, and would put the lives of loggers over those of tree spikers, but I try not to take a cavalier attitude to the environment either. Once something's gone, it's gone for good.

One other thing that destroys the environment is houses. Why don't you ask some rich tree-hugger why they destroy new ground making their mansion when they could have moved into an already-built place instead? That's what always got me, that and developers' habits of razing every tree for miles to plant grass, but I digress...

The United States of America is the best country on earth

I agree with this. There's always work that needs to be done here, but no place better to be a citizen!

Africa is a land flowing with natural resources and natural riches, but the political systems there are such that wealth cannot be easily created or maintained.

I was in college as an undergraduate some time ago, LOL, but at the time they told us that part of Africa's problem producing crops was that there was an extremely high evaporation rate causing the higher amount of salts that exist under the surface of the land to leach up and poison the ground much faster than would happen here. I don't know if this is true or not, it's certainly outdated!, but it might be an explanation for some of the famines. Certainly having the next local strongman chase you out of your home with rifle fire would do the same thing. Overall, I'd say the environment is a multifactorial problem, but it's always better IMO to NOT destroy something than to break it and try and fix it later.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), August 13, 2004.

Brian,

Wrong!? Oh are you suddenly the environmental expert? I am not wrong. You destroy 1 acre of rainforest you destroy a million species, dead and gone forever. They will not come back. And you can't replant a rainforest because by getting rid of the trees you get rid of the rain and turn the land into a desert in which nothing will grow. A tree is renewable but not the environment it creates. The reason people are drilling for oil everywhere is because the HAVE to. We've used up so much of it they are getting desperate. My uncle is a geologist and works for an oil company in Texas and is now over in Uzbeckistan trying to find oil. You should not be proud of the fact that they have to look in new places for oil, you should be ashamed. But I'm not going to waste my time arguing with a republican about the environment. It's useless. Think what you want to think, you're gonna die before everything is gone anyway, so what do you care right?

-- Emelyn (Emyland@yahoo.com), August 13, 2004.

Boy, you well off Americans make me sick.

AMEN to that!

-- jr (foo@bar.com), August 13, 2004.

Oh are you suddenly the environmental expert?

No, but neither are you apparently. You said You destroy 1 acre of rainforest you destroy a million species, dead and gone forever. They will not come back.

First of all, I wasn't talking about rainforests. You may know more about rainforests than me. I don't live in Brazil. I referenced "US" timber, the poor in the "US," "US" farmland, and timber renewed in the "US." But since you brought it up; if 10 acres of rainforest a day get destroyed, we are losing, forever, 10 million species a day, 36 billion species a year? 100 acres a day, 100 million species a day, 360 billion a year? Call me skeptical, to say the least.

A tree is renewable but not the environment it creates.

Fine, but are you saying that a replanted forest doesn't have an environment? What does it have then?

The reason people are drilling for oil everywhere is because the HAVE to. We've used up so much of it they are getting desperate. My uncle is a geologist and works for an oil company in Texas and is now over in Uzbeckistan trying to find oil. You should not be proud of the fact that they have to look in new places for oil, you should be ashamed.

I am ashamed your uncle has to go to Uzbekistan when he could probably drill right here in the US if not for enviro restrictions. What do you advocate anyway? Outlawing the combustion engine? I'm sure you're doing your part by walking or riding a bike wherever you go. Maybe you're Amish. I'm all for finding new energy sources. We will find them, don't fret. God will provide.

But I'm not going to waste my time arguing with a republican about the environment. It's useless. Think what you want to think, you're gonna die before everything is gone anyway, so what do you care right?

You're right, I will die before everything is gone, so will you. So will my kids, and their kids, and their kids... All that matters is that they're ready for the kingdom of heaven when the time comes. We should have concern for our environment, but lets keep it in perspective. God put these resources on earth for us to use. We, God's people, have been using these resources since the beginning of time. Since the beginning of time, forests have been leveled, streams polluted, and soil eroded, yet we're still around. Cheer up Emelyn!

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), August 13, 2004.

Emelyn, your uncle is probably making a really good living overseas, as well.

And, as others have said, we are talking about US poverty, or lack thereof. In the US, if you're low-income, you can still get a phone, courtesy of the taxpayers (via steep discounts).

When you have other people in the world who have no food, no clothing, no shelter, the so-called "poor" in the States look quite wealthy.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), August 13, 2004.

GT,

I'm sorry you think that our poor are better off than other poor people in third world countries. But our country enforces things like education, freedom, and justice for everyone not just the wealthy. If you have a problem with where your income taxes go take it up with your congressman or senator, or move to a country that you think does a better job with their tax money like Canada or England. Our government makes mistakes but its merely an adolescent in the time scale of countries in the world and perhaps we too will go through phases all the older countries have gone through. My definition of poor is someone who cannot afford to provide for themselves and their familes on their own. In whatever country, for whatever lifestyle. If you have to support your family through credit card debt, you are poor. If you have to beg on the streets you are poor, and if you have to eat insects to survive you are poor. They all feel the same sadness, self-pity, and loss of pride, so to me they are all in need of help be it from God or from others around them.

-- Emelyn (Emyland@yahoo.com), August 13, 2004.

Hello!

How did this turn into rain forests and oil drilling? Btw, I was over in Japan last year in the countryside(Shikoku). I loved the little mini pickup trucks they have, or is super golf carts a better term? Checked out several models mostly with little 600cc engines! They're supposed to do 50 with a light load. On a morning stroll, alone, I saw a farmer with a ton of stuff in the back of one and his wife was riding behind in a scooter(who was waving to me)!! They looked to be in their 70s!! Told my fiance's family and they just glazed over. Apparently, it's normal where they live.

GT, can you tell me if cows give milk when they're pregnant? I assumed they don't but my fiance who grew up in the countryside just not from a dairy family keeps on telling me, she's not so sure about it. My father's side kept cattle, but only for work so I don't know any better.

Thanks..

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), August 13, 2004.

Vincent,

Cows only give milk when they are pregnant. I worked on a dairy farm for two years. Once their calf is born they are put out in the field with the bull, get pregnant again and come back into the barn to be milked.

-- Emelyn (Emyland@yahoo.com), August 13, 2004.

Vincent,

To be more clear, any mammal only produces milk when their is a child to be fed. So if the cows do not have a calf to feed they will not give milk, so they are kept pregnant to keep having babies, to keep producing milk. They overlap each other so they produce milk as much as possible, but there are times when the cow can be pregnant and not producing milk, it all depends on the hormone level, age of their calf, etc. Sorry I wasnt very clear before.

-- Emelyn (Emyland@yahoo.com), August 13, 2004.

Ugh I hate that you can't edit these things.

Sorry Vincent, no they can't. It's late and I'm tired and not thinking clearly. Yes they are kept pregnant so they lactate when the calf is born but they are kept lactating as long as possible, and then are sent out to get pregnant again. While they are producing milk they cannot get pregnant because lactating prevents an egg from being produced. Women can use breast feeding to space out pregnancies. Sorry about that.

-- Emelyn (Emyland@yahoo.com), August 14, 2004.

Emelyn, you miss the point. It is doubtful that anyone starves in the US, but it is a fact that elsewhere in the world, people do, not necessarily because there is no food to be had, but that others in their own country keep it from them, and/or prevent relief organizations from bringing it in.

That is of greater priority than someone not having a phone, or maxing out on credit cards they shouldn't have had in the first place. As to killing off the rainforest, it's the particular country's choice to make, just like growing opium instead of other crops.

Although I think the US should replace tobacco with industrial hemp--you can use it for paper products, clothing (hemp yarn actually has to be imported from other countries, how stupid is that?), soapmaking, etc.--that would save tons of trees. I do agree that we need to preserve the few "old growth" forests we have left in this country. Tree farms are just not the same.

I'm sure there are a lot of people mistaken for being rich (one paycheck away from disaster) because they always live above their means, and a lot of people mistaken for being poor because they practice thrift (if you get a chance, go to your library and read The Tightwad Gazette by Amy Daczycyn (I think I spelled it right)) and frugality and always live below their means.

In the States, if you tell someone, "gee, cut off the cable TV or move to a smaller place or move in with relatives to save money (like many of the immigrants did and still do), for a while until you can save some money, the answer is often "No!"--many people unfortunately think they're entitled to this or that, sad to say. Sorry, not when people are going hungry, or innocent babies are being aborted on a whim.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), August 14, 2004.

Hi, Emelyn. We were having difficulty because she remembered reading somewhere and I vaguely do too, that not all mammals need to stop lactating before ovulating. That combined with the fact that you can keep a cow milking a long time and not just until the calf is full- grown and butchered, consumed, and recent past memory made us wonder if the lactating cow could actually ovulate, conceive and continue to produce milk while in the early stages of gestation. Sorry about the vague question. It seems from your response that the lactating cow must stop lactating first before ovulating. I take it you know that as fact. So, then the question is already answered.

thanks..

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), August 14, 2004.

There are levels of poverty in any country. And in America, it is possible to be homeless and not be from drinking or drugs. It can be from having a job that got exported or obsoleted. In America the ability to be anything, and not to be tied to the industry that your parents worked in is also tied to the ability to not to be able to work. And to get into a situation where the needs of getting a job are beyond your means. Some folk do not have family near by, some situations hit entire communities, and there can be too much problems hitting folks for them to bear.

Cell phones and PO boxes do not work for those who have no money. And some employers do not work with folk that have PO boxes as their only means of contact.

There is something of a support net, but in the last bundle of years, there has been a lot of holes in it. I do have on line friends that have had to go off line due to loss of job followed by loss of home. The posters who in the past who have said that the Church should not be Left or Right, but Christian are cool: the left would work for social justice and ways of taking care of those homeless people who want to get out of their trap.

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), August 14, 2004.

Joe I think you'll find that it was the Germans, not the USA, who invented and developed the internal combustion engine. And I think there is more oil produced in the USA (despite the environmental restrictions)than in just about any other country - just that our thirst for it is so insatiable we have to buy more huge quantities of it from countries like Saudi Arabia, while propping up their horrifically oppressive governments.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 14, 2004.

Yes Steve, you're right the ICE was invented elsewhere, but the Model T and assembly line were American and got the automobile to the masses thus making oil an essential commodity rather than a luxury for the toys of the rich.

It seems alot of people on this site believe that it is possible to create enough wealth to give every person on the planet an equitable income and level of comfort without the freedom to invent and reap the rewards of invention and commerce in a capitalist system.

Yet every time some massively powerful and invasive government tries to redistribute income and share wealth equally, all it ends up doing is sharing misery and polluting the environment even more!

I think we ought to remember that sin is real and that systems will always be less than perfect because people are less than perfect! No matter what political-economic system man devises, it will always have winners and loosers, the haves and have-nots...because of our fallen human nature.

Justice will never suffice - mercy and charity will always be required. Some systems (marxism/socialism) is high on justice and low on mercy. Other systems have some type of balance - what is the right balance between respecting a pristine environment and feeding the poor or giving them dignity through meaningful work? To provide work for the poor, they have to produce some goods that people need and want...there has to be some profit margin so R&D can be done... competition has to exist to spur people to improve products...

Different systems have different outcomes...some countries have huge military-industrial complexes just to keep their poor people employed! But work and food rationing along won't cut it.

Maybe anti-Bush, Steve, Kiwi, et. al. will give us a look at their favorite system and explain how it will work wonders rather than just keep lobbing bombs (figuratively) at the US system.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), August 16, 2004.

Unfettered capitalism and doctrinaire communism are not the only two alternatives. I follow the Church’s lead and prefer a system of regulated capitalism, (as seen in most Western democracies) where there is some government control to limit the social evils which unbridled capitalism has produced in the USA.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 16, 2004.

Reverend Robert J. Vitillo

Robert J. Vitillo is a Roman Catholic priest of the Diocese of Paterson, N.J and holds a master's degree in social work from Rutgers University, where he also pursued doctoral studies in the same field. In 1997, Fr. Vitillo was appointed to the post of executive director of the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD) at the United States Catholic Conference, now the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The Campaign was founded in 1970 by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. It is the largest private funding source for organizations that empower the poor and work to eliminate poverty and injustice in the United States.

Fr. Vitillo has worked with Catholic Charities on both diocesan and national levels as well as with Caritas Internationalis, the worldwide confederation of Catholic Church-sponsored social service and development organizations that is based in Vatican City.

Since 1987, Fr. Vitillo also has been engaged in education of church leaders and development of church-based programs in response to the pandemic of HIV/AIDS in Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America and North America. He has also served as consultant to UNICEF in Eastern and Central Europe on the development of family-centered programs to benefit children in need.

Fr. Vitillo serves as president of the National Catholic AIDS Network board of directors, as co-chairperson of the Caritas Internationalis Task Force on HIV/AIDS, as a member of the Board of Directors of the National Council for Adoption, and as a member of the Board of Directors of the Council on Accreditation for Children and Family Services.

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), August 17, 2004.

I'm sure the good priest is a fine person but every time I hear the line "empower the poor and work to eliminate poverty and injustice" I feel like a marxist is right around the corner.

What in the world does "empower" mean?

I thought education and evangelization, the promotion of personal virtue and thrift along with a strong family life was what lifts dirt poor immigrants out of their temporary state of economic poverty.

Poverty isn't a disease, it's not a metaphysical state or condition. It's merely a passing status of want, it doesn't confer moral superiority on a person (Marxists never explained why exactly the "poor" were superior to the capitalists).

As a virtue, poverty can liberate people from materialism and free them to be generous with their time and talents - and insofar as it is an attitude, the world's richest man could be truly poor - so long as he was willing to use those riches generously for others (ala Joseph of the Old Testament whose "riches" helped feed the entire Egyptian world).

Every single generation of immigrant to this country have started out economically and socially at the bottom - but those whose family culture was strong, who worked together, who put a prime interest in education and virtue, were able to climb out of poverty within a generation or two. They didn't seek power; they sought holiness and family, virtue, and values.

And how many vietnamese or irish activists have you known who demanded "justice"? How many Poles or Italians are complaining that it's racism that keeps them poor?

My Irish grandfather was discriminated against repeatedly by his masonic WASP neighbors - who even refused to give him a house loan. Did he protest and demand power? No. He drove to Bangor and got a loan from a favorable (Catholic) bank. Then he worked hard and was thrifty, cooperated with fellow parishoners and climbed from hard scabble life to a fairly decent farmer and graduated 40 years later as a mildly successful small town businessman who helped send his children to college.

Economic poverty is nothing compared with intellectual, cultural and spiritual poverty (which is why many of our ancestors risked economic poverty to flee to the USA in the first place because they valued religious liberty more than economic stability and social status in the old country!)

You'll be amazed how much the poor can do when evangelized and educated rather than "empowered" - as though they're not free to associate and free to worship here!

I've been poor and I've lived among poor people - but the worst poverty is not economic but intellectual/cultural and spiritual.

That's the problem in the inner cities: people who could otherwise climb out of economic misery can't because they lack the personal and familial skills/culture, don't have virtue (hard work, perseverance, fortitude, charity, counsel, etc), don't have the values which make virtue possible (God, family, community), tend to waste their time on trivial pursuits (hobbies, sports, TV) and waste their money on less than essential things (TV, car, cable, intenet, cell phones, eating out, etc.) living beyond their means.

Or people give up - the Iron factory shuts down and they just freak out - no job, and no hope for a job. Well goodness sakes man, MOVE!

My fatherin law lost his professional job right after moving the whole family half-way across the country. He immediately took 3 part time jobs, worked like a Trojan 18 hours a day to pay the bills and kept sending out resumes. This lasted about 2 years until he found a better job. He didn't go to pieces.

No one helped him with "empowerment" and "justice". His faith, family, and virtues kept him going. He didn't spend money on frivolities, bad habits (smoking, drinking, etc). He kept the big picture in mind at all times, keeping his 6 children in school, everyone helping out with small jobs, etc.

Instead of decending from the low middle class into poverty, he held on to "low middle class"... burdened with debt, but holding his own...

Think of it this way: most middle class people have mortgages to worry about - whereas most dirt poor people DON'T. In a sense, they're financially better off because they don't have that legal burden. It's a matter of attitude - to see what you have and how to skin the cat of economic need while not losing what's more important: love of God, family, neighbor.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), August 17, 2004.

Oh and ask yourselves.... rather than some massive federal bloated bureaucracy providing public education, public housing, subsidized food and clothing... all paid for thanks to crushing taxation on the middle and upper classes... how much more cost-effective and humanly dignified it would be if every single poor family had relatives and neighbors (ahem, us) helping them out.

Oh yeah, but that would require work... yeah, can't have that. Far better to let someone else do it, and someone else pay for it, like a socialist government perhaps. That way we can all be isolated and not really involved in our social milieu (ie. neighbors).

I wonder how many wretchedly poor people live among the Amish?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), August 17, 2004.

Joe,

Depends how you made the study. I favor the Frank Elecricity Poverty Indicator or "FEPI" that measures how many electrical applicances are owned by each household as a measure of wealth. From my pilot studies, it seems as if ALL the Amish live in crushing poverty and are in need of government subsidies. Of course the Frank corporation will volunteer to redistribute wealth to these folks for a tiny percentage of the dispersements.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), August 17, 2004.

You might be on to something there Frank. I think we ought to calculate how many TVs and video games people have, add some points for expensive hobbies or habits (drugs or alcohol, sports, high- priced tennis shoes or hubcaps etc.).

We might conclude that lots of the "ethnic" poor booh hooing are actually low middle class whereas many of us middle class folk are technically "poor".

Then we'd also have to factor in how many "poor" people don't actually have any debt load at all (no mortgages, no car payments, no life/home/HOA/fire/car/health insurance payments to make, as well as no student loans to pay back). Their cost of living wouldn't include education (free public schools), or food (lots of free food in this country).

Let's see...if I didn't have to pay rent/mortgage, or insurance, and didn't have to worry about food and education expenses, I might be able to support a family on something less than $30,000 which would be pretty much what an fairly industrious guy could make in a year.

Of course if the guy isn't industriuous and has alot of expensive bad habits then no amount of government largess will be enough to pull him out of "poverty". Add in a mental illness or deep seated vice (or both) and you get an arguement for institutionalization - but who will pay for it? Where are his folks? Where are his siblings?

More and more it looks like our whole approach ought to be prevention of vice and illness rather than PC public support of them!

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), August 17, 2004.

Frank and Joe, if you cut and paste the link I posted to the Heritage Foundation Study of "the poor" (it's about the 4th or 5th post down), they address such things as 47% of "the poor" own their own homes.... here it is again....

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), August 17, 2004.

Well, Joe, you had better put your actions where your mouth is and give away all your money, sell your house, pay off your mortgage so you won’t be “burdened” by it, and give away anything you have left. That way you’ll be “financially better off “ than the middle class, and can feast on all of the “free food” that you think is so plentiful in the USA.

The Church has a preferential option for the poor and insists that we "empower the poor and work to eliminate poverty and injustice". Yes empowering them is necessary. Your father and grandfather were empowered, otherwise they would have never had the ability to do what they did. Yes reforming unjust structures which perpetuate poverty is essential. Just giving a handout is not enough.

Yes GT it is true that poverty is relative, and even the lower class of the USA are relatively well off by third world standards. That's why we must also do a lot more to encourage our government to increase our criminally low level of foreign aid - and to direct it more to help the poor rather than propping up dictators and giving aid with strings attached requiring it to be used to buy US weapons and other products.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 17, 2004.

Steve,

Isn't, "empower the poor," the language of liberation theology, which the Holy Father has proclaimed to be in error?

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), August 17, 2004.

Your father and grandfather were empowered, otherwise they would have never had the ability to do what they did. Yes reforming unjust structures which perpetuate poverty is essential. Just giving a handout is not enough.

It sounds to me like they were empowered with FAITH. I would imagine they offered up their hardships to God, and looked to Him for guidance and help rather than the state. (Many people will not like what I'm about to say---deep breath, here goes) Phrases like "empower the poor" and "social justice" serve to create class envy and create a restlessness with one's lot in life. How many people think they "deserve" help? How many people think it is an "injustice" that they have little while their neighbor has alot. We are so infused with this type of thinking that today, it seems harsh to say that one should be satisfied with one's lot in life. But indeed that has been the teaching of the Church. This from Pope Leo XIII encyclical on socialism:

...the Church, with much greater wisdom and good sense, recognizes the inequality among men, who are born with different powers of body and mind, inequality in actual possession, also, and holds that the right of property and of ownership, which springs from nature itself, must not be touched and stands inviolate. For she knows that stealing and robbery were forbidden in so special a manner by God, the Author and Defender of right, that He would not allow man even to desire what belonged to another, and that thieves and despoilers, no less than adulterers and idolaters, are shut out from the Kingdom of Heaven...

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), August 17, 2004.

"Isn't, "empower the poor," the language of liberation theology, which the Holy Father has proclaimed to be in error?" (Brian)

It seems the US Bishops are also deeply mired in this “error”! –

“ Economic Justice for All

Pastoral Letter on Catholic Social Teaching and the U.S. Economy

U. S. Catholic Bishops, 1986

76. The concentration of privilege that exists today results far more from institutional relationships which distribute power and wealth inequitably than from differences in talent or lack of desire to work. These institutional patterns must be examined and revised if we are to meet the demands of basic justice.

122. For this reason, it is all the more significant that the teachings of the Church insist that government has a moral function: protecting human rights and securing basic justice for all members of the commonwealth. Society as a whole and in all its diversity is responsible for building up the common good. But it is the government's role to guarantee the minimum conditions that make this rich social activity possible, namely, human rights and justice. This obligation also falls on individual citizens as they choose their representatives and participate in shaping public opinion.

123. More specifically, it is the responsibility of all citizens, acting through their government, to assist and empower the poor, the disadvantaged, the handicapped, and the unemployed. Government should assume a positive role in generating employment and establishing fair labor practices, in guaranteeing the provision and maintenance of the economy's infrastructure, such as roads, bridges, harbors, public means of communication, and transport. It should regulate trade and commerce in the interest of fairness. Government may levy the taxes necessary to meet these responsibilities, and citizens have a moral obligation to pay those taxes. The way society responds to the needs of the poor through its public policies is the litmus test of its justice or injustice.

124. The primary norm for determining the scope and limits of governmental intervention is the "principle of subsidiarity" cited above. … Government should not replace or destroy smaller communities and individual initiative. Rather it should help them contribute more effectively to social well-being and supplement their activity when the demands of justice exceed their capacities. This does not mean, however, that the government that governs least, governs best. Rather it defines good government intervention as that which truly "helps" other social groups contribute to the common good by directing, urging, restraining, and regulating economic activity as "the occasion requires and necessity demands". This calls for cooperation and consensus building among the diverse agents in our economic life, including government."

“Phrases like "empower the poor" and "social justice" serve to create class envy and create a restlessness with one's lot in life. How many people think they "deserve" help? How many people think it is an "injustice" that they have little while their neighbor has alot. We are so infused with this type of thinking that today, it seems harsh to say that one should be satisfied with one's lot in life. But indeed that has been the teaching of the Church.”

That certainly has NOT been the teaching of the Church:

"On the eve of the third millennium of the Christian era, the Holy Father John Paul II calls the entire Church to "lay greater emphasis on the ... preferential option for the poor and the outcast," John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Tertio Millennio Adveniente, 1994, no. 51.

"When a person is in extreme necessity he has the right to supply himself with what he needs out of the riches of others." Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Gaudium et Spes, no. 69.

"the world is given to all, and not only to the rich," so that "no one is justified in keeping for his exclusive use what he does not need, when others lack necessities." Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio, 1967, no. 23.

"St. John Chrysostom vigorously recalls this: "Not to enable the poor to share in our goods is to steal from them and deprive them of life. The goods we possess are not ours, but theirs." "The demands of justice must be satisfied first of all; that which is already due in justice is not to be offered as a gift of charity": When we attend to the needs of those in want, we give them what is theirs, not ours. More than performing works of mercy, we are paying a debt of justice." Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2446

The encyclical you quote from Leo XIII (Rerum Novarum) says that private property may not be abolished or stolen. It also demands that the poor be provided for, and condemns exploitation of the poor and the working class. You turn Leo’s argument on its head and claim this great Pope (the father of Catholic social justice) is condemning any attempt at social justice!

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 18, 2004.

Steve are you a marxist or socialist?

Do you believe that the poor can only be helped by a government or that it's possible that their family, friends, neighbors, fellow parishoners have some role in helping them?

What "structure" are you talking about? Economic systems like capitalism or ideological ones like socialism?

NOWHERE do you see the Bishops or Popes calling for socialist government policies.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), August 18, 2004.

It seems the US Bishops are also deeply mired in this “error”!

That is a distinct possibility!

That certainly has NOT been the teaching of the Church

You've got a point. That has NOT been the teaching of the Church for the last 40 years. Maybe I'm wrong, but I still say "empower the poor," is code for forced income redistribution (ie. socialism). Not in every instance it is used, but in too many instances. When St. John Chrysostum says "enable the poor," I don't think he is advancing some socialist agenda. He is speaking about those who are deprived and oppressed, who are not allowed to share in the goods we possess. Undoubtedly this happens throughout the world and as such we should take his words to heart. But in the US, I don't see this oppression. Everyone is allowed to share in the goods we possess. Now that does not mean everyone will share equally in those goods, even though I fear that is what the "empower the poor" proponents desire. This is an impossibility. There cannot be equality on earth. There is not even equality in heaven.

In Mater et Magistra, Pope John XXIII decries socialism:

34. Pope Pius XI further emphasized the fundamental opposition between Communism and Christianity, and made it clear that no Catholic could subscribe even to moderate Socialism

57. Experience has shown that where personal initiative is lacking, political tyranny ensues and, in addition, economic stagnation in the production of a wide range of consumer goods and of services of the material and spiritual order—those, namely, which are in a great measure dependent upon the exercise and stimulus of individual creative talent.

He points out the extremes of economic/social systems to reiterate the balance that previous popes declared as essential to Catholic social teaching:

Unrestricted competition in the liberal sense, and the Marxist creed of class warfare, are clearly contrary to Christian teaching and the nature of man ....

Now you, Steve, may fear more the "unrestricted competition" but I fear more the "Marxist creed of class warfare," (again, speaking about the US) because I believe many religious and laypeople adhere to this mode of thought, even though it is contrary to Christian teaching as the Good Pope says. I think we all agree, that we should always extend a hand to our Brothers and Sisters. I think we all agree that there is crushing poverty in certain parts of the world. I think we all agree that there is oppression in certain parts of the world. We disagree (at least by degrees) on how to deal with it. There is no easy answer. Even Pope John XXIII seems to contradict himself in some of his writings. This is why we must never forget to put our trust in God. To offer up our sorrows. True liberation theology is to love and believe in Him and be freed from the shackles of sin.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), August 18, 2004.

Hello!

I have some opinions on the term "empowerment", the poor and the underclass.

No one should be suggesting that we shouldn't empower the poor. In fact, I don't see anyone suggesting it. Poor Americans are empowered as are all Americans. My father...started out as a 39-year-old bus boy...war, imprisonment, disease, malnutrition, refugee camps blah blah blah...now just another American success story.

Uncle Sam gives all Americans who need the means for food when they are hungry, shelter when they are homeless, clothes to keep them warm. He also keeps some semblance of civil order. These things give security to the insecure. They are means meant to facilitate. Yes, that's what empowerment is. Facility. To those of us to took advantage of it, it facilitates the inititiative. So, now we're able to get by on our own and fulfill our social responsibilities.

There's a difference between the poor and the "underclass".

Having lived and worked in various parts of inner city Philadelphia, I find it no surprise mention of the underclass evokes resentment.

They get as much empowerment as anyone else who is needy. But what do we see so often? Is empowerment for buying baubles and ornamental footwear? Is it to satisfy the thirst with 40-ouncers or scratch-and- win lotto? Yet, this is what I have seen. I know, having lived in particular neighborhoods as a student and after graduation, the underclass, the overwhelming majority of inhabitants there, never seem to lack for these "amenities".

They don't take initiative. That's the difference between someone who has been poor and someone who is still among the underclass.

The outward signs are obvious. If you're spending all your "empowerment" in pursuit of superficial pleasure, and you're not taking the initiative. If your marginal propensity to save is less than zero. If you end up in the same condition after half a lifetime of "empowerment", and you have nothing but "the white man" keeping you down, then empowerment is wasted.

I see people(Joe!) alluding to family values, faith, etc. Family values and moralitity do empower, but can't be forced on someone, is not as easily transferred as say an Access Card. It can be observed and mimicked, marketed to be observed and mimicked. But these attempts to educate wither against the mob-mentality and PC defense - poorly defined personal dignity is to blame...a real stumper since we do believe in the dignity of all human life. But, we're not talking about the same dignity here.

Perhaps, what really needs a reckoning is PCness. When we get that out of the way, maybe, just maybe we'll truly be able to empower the "underclass".

If the system of "empowerment" is not to facilitate initiative, then as it turns out, it's about free-handouts...not even socialism, just exploitation of the rest of America.

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), August 18, 2004.

Joe, I am neither a Marxist nor a socialist. I endorse the statements of the popes and bishops quoted above.

Brian, “forced income redistribution” (i.e.taxing the rich at a higher rate than the poor and giving more of the tax money to the poor than to the rich) is not "socialism" but simple justice and repeatedly called for by the Church. As I said, the two extremes (forcing everyone to have exactly the same wealth; and unfettered capitalism) are not the only possibilities. The poor must be given all that they need, not made as rich as the rich. You must be living in a very peculiar part of the USA if you see “Marxist class warfare” as more of a threat in the USA than unrestricted capitalism.

Vincent, I only wish it were true that “Uncle Sam gives all Americans who need the means for food when they are hungry, shelter when they are homeless, clothes to keep them warm.” But you know as well as I do that that’s just empty rhetoric.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 18, 2004.

Steve have you never heard of the phrase "Tax cuts for the rich"? And who got those tax rebate checks in the mail... gazillionares? The Gates' and Kerry's of this world? No. The little middle-classer people like me and others got those little checks...cause we pay federal tax!

When the top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of all Federal tax and the top 80% pay 98%, you see a whole lot of people getting lumped into the mix as "rich". No question is asked about what fairness principle is invoked in making only one class pay more than others and why if taxes are cut they shouldn't be cut for ALL AMERICANS.

No. Just constant bickering and complaining about all us evil "rich" people who don't deserve our money - simply because some others are less well off.

No, Marxist class warfare is alive and well. Check out DNC.org and it's all over.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), August 19, 2004.

Vincent, I only wish it were true that “Uncle Sam gives all Americans who need the means for food when they are hungry, shelter when they are homeless, clothes to keep them warm.” But you know as well as I do that that’s just empty rhetoric

How is this empty rhetoric? I know you think I live in a peculiar part of the USA, but I see food banks, food stamps, afdc, wic, homeless shelters, battered women shelters, halfway houses, medicare, medicaid, lenient bankruptcy laws etc. Those charitable organizations that are private are still encouraged by the state with tax-exempt status.

No, Marxist class warfare is alive and well. Check out DNC.org and it's all over.

You beat me to it Joe.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), August 19, 2004.

“No question is asked about what fairness principle is invoked in making only one class pay more than others”. The Pope has answered your question: taxation must NOT be shared equally but be based on each person’s ability to pay. No I don’t think its unfair to the rest of us that the poorest 20% of the population pay “only” 2% of the tax. These people should pay NO tax! I don’t believe I have been “bickering”. I’ve just been pointing out the Church’s teachings. And if you think I’m tough on the rich, check out what Jesus says in the gospels!

Yeah I combed through DNC.com and I certainly couldn’t find any “Marxism”! In just about any other country, a party pushing the US Democrats’ platform would be regarded as a right-wing pro-business party. But Brain and Joe equate them with Marx!

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 20, 2004.

Taxes - 'Pay unto Ceaser that which is Ceasers - Pay unto God that which is His'.

-- Anglican Christian (sharon.guy@ntu.ac.uk), August 20, 2004.

If you make any income at all, you ought to pay taxes. But how fair is it to allow those who DON'T PAY FEDERAL TAX to VOTE for federal elections when their vote stands a chance to help them score free money from the public trough?

Shouldn't being a citizen have SOME responsibilities? That's what welfare reform is all about: if you can work or learn the skills needed to work and thus become economically independent, then you SHOULD work/get trained.... and NOT just stay locked in the welfare mode for life.

It's NOT FAIR to the rest of us who do work for a whole underclass to just stay locked in perpetual federal subsidies, while not doing much to make use of all the opportunities they thus have.

It's not FAIR for those who get subsidized by those of us who work and pay taxes to vote on tax issues when in essence they're voting themselves raises!

In other words, if you don't work, (when you can) is it fair to expect everyone else to subsidize you?

A marxist isn't a matter of names - the DNC doesn't say "yeah we believe in totalitarianism" but their actions and platforms lead inexorably towards state control of virtually every area and level of social life: womb to tomb.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), August 20, 2004.

First amendment rights: the DNC believes in freedom FROM religion - and don't believe that ALL groups have the right to freedom of association (such as the Boy Scouts). In other words, when a freedom suits them, they're for it...but not when their enemies enjoy it. Don't ask for the logic.

They believe its right for the Left to errect speech codes at universities and colleges but not for the Right. In other words, when some private entity refuses to publish their screed it's "censorship" but when their University (ahem, Yale, Berkeley, etc) forbids students from talking about opposing view points it's "speech codes".

When their 527's like Moveon.org accuse Bush of being Hitler, that's "free speech" when a 527 like Swiftboat veterans for truth accuse Kerry of being a fake, that's considered "illegal".

They believe in freedom of the press - to print and promote pornography, but not in the right of people to condemn it in advertisements 60 days prior to an election!

This is just the beginning of their one-sided interpretation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights which inexorably lead to totalitarianism - the total control of society by one party.

The Second Amendment: the DNC wants to disarm all law abiding citizens while arming the police (the BATF and other federal agencies grew during the Clinton years) with automatic weapons, tanks, etc...all because of two instances where criminals used AK- 47's in bank robberies.

Now in EVERY case in world history when a genocide occured it happened with an UNARMED populace at the mercy of an ARMED state which should have protected the people but didn't and thus let a relatively small number of nuts to wipe out millions: Armenians (French troops pulled out letting the Turks masacre them all), Jews, Cambodians, Ruwandans (UN "peacekeepers" pulled 5,000 Belgian troops out of Kigali thereby letting the massacre continue), Bosnians (UN "peacekeepers" stood by and let the Serbs kill thousands of dis-armed Muslims) and now Black Sudanese.

And the DNC is on record supporting repressive and confiscatory gun laws... with the dream of one day disarming American citizens while arming the police to the teeth.

In Washington DC virtually no citizen is allowed to own a firearm - no pistol, no rifle, no shotgun. Only the Police are allowed to do so. But DC has had on average over 200 gun deaths PER YEAR for the last 20 years. Some months more men were gunned down in DC by criminals than US soldiers were in the whole of Iraq.

Plus, the police are not obliged to protect every citizen - as proven in court. Thus the people are not allowed to protect themselves, the police have all the legal weapons and the criminals have all the illegal ones...

Not something the Founders would have dreamed possible in the USA especially when the 2nd amendment exists protecting a right that exists prior to the Constitution (the supreme law of the land didn't GRANT people their rights, the Bill of Rights are there to ensure that the government doesn't take these pre-existing rights away).

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), August 20, 2004.

Joe,

But how fair is it to allow those who DON'T PAY FEDERAL TAX to VOTE for federal elections when their vote stands a chance to help them score free money from the public trough?

I know what you're saying here, but the way you are saying would imply that a woman who stays at home to raise a family isn't worthy of a vote. I'd much rather have children raised by their mothers than have them in day cares so their parents were eligible to vote.

On the Second Amendment, you're on the money. Arm and train every citizen.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), August 20, 2004.

Good point about wives and dependents. Since my wife isn't getting federal subsidies rather than being my dependent, it's not the same thing. Being independent is what being a citizen is all about. Depending on the government for everything is what being a "subject" is all about. If you WORK for the government then you earn that money. If you get money for NOT WORKING then how fair is it to get all the rights while handling none of the responsibilities?

Freedom and rights are two way streets. The right to vote has responsibilities! But the welfare state mentality dumbs people down and numbs them to the idea that they can do something on their own while numbing their immediate neighbors, parish, etc. to the idea that perhaps the LOCAL community could possibly solve the LOCAL problem!

I'm all in favor of helping the poor...but it's the HOW that I disagree with in Steve's case. I think the local community ought to be primarily responsible, starting with the poor person him/herself.

Only when the family, relatives, parish, neighbors, town, and state can't solve a problem should the Federal government step in.

But the DNC and socialists see it the other way around: huge tax burden to pay for "professionals" to come in and minister to an ever growing population of disarmed and undereducated subjects who are passive in their own right.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), August 20, 2004.

Joe you seem to have turned the rallying cry of our founding fathers on its head. Instead of “No taxation without representation”, you want “No representation without taxation”.

“Since my wife isn't getting federal subsidies rather than being my dependent, it's not the same thing.” What, you don’t claim any deduction for your dependents?

I’m afraid I totally fail to understand the relevance of free speech and association, freedom of religion, gun control laws, or genocides to a discussion of how we should help the poor.

And for all the Donkey-Dems’ faults, I really can’t see them instituting “state control of virtually every area and level of social life from womb to tomb” if they ruled for the next 4 years or even the next 40 years.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 20, 2004.

Frank and Joe, you are apparently unfamiliar with the old wifely saying, "What's mine is mine, what's yours is mine, and what's ours is mine!" lolololololol.

Actually, those of us in community property states are joint owners of all property and income acquired during marriage, whether we work outside the home or not. And any intelligent DH wherever he lives would recognize his DW as a full partner in her job of raising the children and keeping things on an even keel at home so that he CAN go out to work without worrying about things.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), August 21, 2004.