Archbishop Flynn wants higher taxes

[JW10631]

Oh, great - more libs who want to shove off on everybody the guilt trip about government services to the "poor".

Lisa N is right.

[Lisa N]

otm did someone p*e in your wheaties this moring? You are sounding so out of sorts.

Originally Posted by otm

Wow! What state do you live in????

Same one as you.

Originally Posted by otm

I'm going to recommend that all the folks who are out of work and showing up at our social service agencies go to your state! Life is great! Work for everyone! Great paying jobs!???

No one has said 'work for everyone' or 'great paying jobs' but the reality is that IF someone works, even if it's minimum wage, they will not starve to death or live in a cardboard box. Poverty in America is incredible wealth when you compare it to much of the world.

The point of this thread is that people do not begrudge the truly needy. But many of us see our tax dollars going to people who simply will not take responsibility for themselves BECAUSE they know that they do not have to do so.

Originally Posted by otm

And these are the folks who didn't get pregneant til they got married - but they have a couple of kids...???

And your point would be? Even divorced people can still support their children. But it is almost impossible for an uneducated single mother to support her children when the sperm donor is no where to be found. IF a woman gets married before pregnancy, the statistical chance of her children living in poverty are very very low. The vast majority of children in poverty are the product of uninvolved fathers and unmarried mothers. Please check the statistics. You will find I am right.

Originally Posted by otm

And they couldn't keep the job because the business downsized and they weren't needed...

There are two major kinds of poverty, situational poverty and generational poverty. The former, caused by job loss, illness or other event tends to be temporary. The majority of those using social services in this country are not the first generation to do so.

Originally Posted by otm

And they didn't do drugs - in fact, they have no health care whatsoever and can't get the drugs they need...

And they have a high school diploma... and an Associates Degree... or maybe even a BA or BS.???

Please show me where the food stamp recipients are made up of well educated, clean and sober hard working people. They are not.

Originally Posted by otm

Maybe you only worked at the social service agency during the best of times???

I have never worked (for pay ) for any social services agency. I have volunteered, served on boards, consulted, helped and supported a number of such agencies including substance abuse treatment, homeless shelter, abused and neglected children, soup kitchen, reading programs,adult literacy...my hobby is volunteering and I spend probably 30 to 40 hours a month trying to help.

That I have compassion for the folks in dire straits does not mean I am so blind as to not understand how they got there. I literally have never seen a well educated, hard working, clean and sober, healthy adult be in such desperate circumstances that they required long term intensive services. Again, it is not hard to avoid poverty in this country. But extracting money from the productive to hand off at the government's discretion is short sighted and will not produce any systemic benefits.

Lisa N

[Philip P]

Originally Posted by Lisa N

The point of this thread is that people do not begrudge the truly needy. But many of us see our tax dollars going to people who simply will not take responsibility for themselves BECAUSE they know that they do not have to do so.

I see a lot of these folks. They live in places like Williamsburg and Midtown, in expensive high rises supported by their parents trust funds or by all the money they inherited from daddy, and get all sorts of giveaways from the city. They're always jetting off on vacation to places like the Hamptons or Europe or somewhere while those of us riding the subways save up for an occassional trip to the local beach.

There are two major kinds of poverty, situational poverty and generational poverty. The former, caused by job loss, illness or other event tends to be temporary. The majority of those using social services in this country are not the first generation to do so.

I think that depends on where you live. In an immigrant heavy city like NY, social services are heavily used by the first generation. Meanwhile, it's generally third and fourth generation families who have moved out to the sububurbs that want to pull up the ladders and cut services.

Please show me where the food stamp recipients are made up of well educated, clean and sober hard working people. They are not.

Education is definitely key. That's why we should be focusing far more on it - not just childhood, but all the way through college, too. These days, a B.A. gets you about what a high school degree did in years past, but college is becoming increasingly unaffordable.

I have never worked (for pay ) for any social services agency. I have volunteered, served on boards, consulted, helped and supported a number of such agencies including substance abuse treatment, homeless shelter, abused and neglected children, soup kitchen, reading programs,adult literacy...my hobby is volunteering and I spend probably 30 to 40 hours a month trying to help.

Truly commendable; would that more followed your example in this.

[StJeanneDArc]

Originally Posted by otm

Since you bring it up, the Church does not consider tithing to be a rule, but rather a goal. Given the ratio of giving that Catholics exhibit (there are studies available), I would say that doubling our giving would be a good place to start., that, added to what portion of taxes we pay would be a good place to start looking.

I wasn't referring to the Church, but to you. But since you bring up how much Catholics give, I will also mention how Catholics vote: generally for big government liberals. Perhaps they expect the government to take care of things, rather than step up themselves. The last couple of elections are exceptions. Also, the Catholics that faithfully attend Mass tend to vote more conservatively. I submit that the faithful Catholics are the ones who give more. It's certainly true in my parish.

[Anna Elizabeth]

Originally Posted by Philip P

I

Education is definitely key. That's why we should be focusing far more on it - not just childhood, but all the way through college, too. These days, a B.A. gets you about what a high school degree did in years past, but college is becoming increasingly unaffordable.

Dear Philip,

I couldn't agree with you more! Now would you please be more specific about the "focusing?" Exactly what would you have us do that we haven't done...and done....and done.

Or tried....and tried.... and tried?

And with your specific suggestions, would you refer us to those districts, or even individual schools if necessary, where those suggestions have resulted in better quantitatively measured results?

On behalf of America's teachers, God's blessings to you,

Anna

[Lisa N]

Originally Posted by Anna Elizabeth

Dear Philip,

I couldn't agree with you more! Now would you please be more specific about the "focusing?" Exactly what would you have us do that we haven't done...and done....and done.

Or tried....and tried.... and tried?

And with your specific suggestions, would you refer us to those districts, or even individual schools if necessary, where those suggestions have resulted in better quantitatively measured results?

On behalf of America's teachers, God's blessings to you,

Anna

Anna a real problem is again lack of responsibility, on the part of the parents though. Kids arrive at first grade not even knowing ABC's or the numbers or days of the week. They can't tell time. They don't know how to use a pencil. It's really tough for them and for the teacher who has 25-30 kids. Lots of the kids aren't well disciplined and teachers are so limited as to what they can do now.

Honestly I applaud any teacher today but I think they need more help than they are getting.

What do you think about "learning style" theory as a way to teach kids? IOW some kids learn visually, some hearing things and others by touching/moving (I think called kinesthetic?). If this works and they catch kids early on so they can relate to them in the best way it would seem to help get them off the ground.

I also agree with Philip that intervention through high school is important. If you drop out, you are toast in this society.

Lisa N

[Philip P]

I wish I knew a lot more about the public education system than I do - I've gone through Catholic schools all the way through, so my knowledge of the public system is mainly second-hand. For that reason, my attitude toward education reform tends to be one of openness, listening to those who have more experience and expertise here. I'm cautiously optimistic about NCLB - the idea of regular benchmarks to identify specific areas in need of attention, and then directing resources there, seems like a good way to go.

Something I DO have firsthand experience with, though, is college-level education. I am very supportive of any measure that will make a university education more affordable and accessible. I come from a middle-income family and have always had good grades, and I could not have afforded college without programs such as Pell grants and Perkins loans. I worry about those who have not had the same advantages as I. Lately in many states the tuition in state schools has been going up, while the dollar amount federal aid to students has been eroding.

One thing that was floated in the last election cycle was the idea of national service - guaranteed college education in exchange for two year commitment to national service. It was most prominently pushed by the Kerry campaign, but I believe others have put forward similar proposals as well (I think I recall McCain talking about a national service program). It seems like something worth exploring.

[Philip P]

Also, I do know that, at the grade school and high school level, there are public schools that do very well. Here in NYC, for instance, if you're lucky enough to live in the right neighborhood, or if you are lucky enough to win admission, they have some excellent public schools (the admissions system is very complicated, you have to apply, and then it's a lottery for those who qualify...I don't entirely understand it). Anyway, the point is that some public schools have tried things that work very well, so there are models out there. At the same time, there are also schools here that are very poor quality.

They just overhauled the entire system a few years back, and results so far are inconclusive. One thing they've done is have more charter schools, and breaking large schools into smaller schools. Again, mixed results - some have done very well, some of the schools have not improved much, and some have actually declined.

[dwc]

Why are people in America poor? It's NOT ROCKET SCIENCE.

1) Single mothers and unsupportive fathers
2) Substance abuse
3) Failure to get even a high school diploma
4) Failure to work full time

I'm sure this is true for many. I also work in the child welfare arena and the criminal justice system, and I see much of this.

However, it's far from 100%, although I'm sure it's much easier on the conscience to believe that. Take my sister:
1) married first, then 2 kids
2) never abused any substance
3)graduated high school
4)she and her husband worked full time at minimum wage jobs

He had a psychotic episode which went on and on. He became violent and was noncompliant with treatment, as many mentally ill are. My sister was still employed full time, but now solely financially responsible, and they were squeaking by with both salaries. She had to get food stamps and medical cards for her kids.

So, tell me her great moral failures which led her to this.

Or, how about a paralegal in my office?
1) married first, then 2 daughters
2)never abused any substance
3)graduated high school
4)she and her husband worked full time. She worked 3rd shift as a pharmacy tech in a hospital and he worked days in a factory.

Turns out, he was sexually abusing her daughters while he babysat them during the day. She turned him in, cooperated with the authorities, he went to jail. There went his salary, she couldn't find child care for 3rd shift, couldn't get on first shift, she had to go on welfare to survive while she went back to school.

A lot of the posters here make excellent points, but I just cringe at some of the morally superior attitudes and assumptions about the people who end up needing assistance.

[Lisa N]

Originally Posted by dwc

I'm sure this is true for many. I also work in the child welfare arena and the criminal justice system, and I see much of this.

However, it's far from 100%, although I'm sure it's much easier on the conscience to believe that. Take my sister:
1) married first, then 2 kids
2) never abused any substance
3)graduated high school
4)she and her husband worked full time at minimum wage jobs

He had a psychotic episode which went on and on. He became violent and was noncompliant with treatment, as many mentally ill are. My sister was still employed full time, but now solely financially responsible, and they were squeaking by with both salaries.

So, tell me her great moral failures which led her to this.

Or, how about a paralegal in my office?
1) married first, then 2 daughters
2)never abused any substance
3)graduated high school

Ya know I did NOT say every single person in this country who struggled financially did so as a result of bad choices. What I did say is that you can look at ANY social services organization, profile the clients and you will find a majority who have one or more of the four factors mentioned. There are exceptions to every rule. There are kids who come from *good* families who turn into seriel killers and there are kids who grew up in extreme poverty without good parental guidance who grow up to be supreme court judges.

But the POINT of this discussion is to suggest that simply throwing money at a problem (Archbishop wants higher taxes) will not have any positive effect. Again if you look waaaaaaaaaaayyyyy back to one of the early posts I pointed out how the huge expansion in social programs have created an entitlement mentality amongst some. Our 'war on poverty' destroyed the black family and has not reduced poverty just as our 'war on drugs' hasn't done much to reduce drugs. The government has not proven itself very effective in dealing with these issues and I do not have much faith that if I dole out more to Uncle Sam and Governor Tax and Gouge Me, that suddenly all will be well in my fair state.

Do you suggest that the majority of people utilizing social services are clean and sober, hard working, married folks with good educations? I don't think that is the profile of the average recipient of Food Stamps, Medicaid, or DHS intervention.

Your BIL is an example of situational, not generational poverty. His family is struggling due to problems BEYOND their control. I do maintain though that many folks' problems are within their control and our goal should be to figure out how to point them in the right direction, not just pay them to keep doing what got them into a pickle in the first place.
Lisa N

[Anna Elizabeth]

Dear Lisa and Philip,

I will be back to you re both schools and Archbishop
Flynn's welfare project when I get my act together. I've written three responses, all of which ran to about a million words, and all of which I deleted. Tomorrow, I'll try to condense.



Anna

[miguel]

Originally Posted by otm

No, it is not coercion unless you are an anarchist, or close to one.

Do we have a choice about whether or not to pay taxes? If I don't pay them, will they just say "OK Miguel, since we like you, you don't have to pay." I think not. I think they would throw me into the deepest, most hellish pit of a prison they could find. And that's because government, by its nature, is coercive. And it doesn't take an anarchist to see that (there you go judging me again). I don't see government as an evil. I see it as a force necessary to secure the life and property of its citizens. But given its undeniable historical propensity to trample on the very rights it exists to protect, I also see it as a force to be very tightly controlled. If anything, that makes me an American, not an anarchist.

Originally Posted by otm

There is probably no person in the United States who doesn't have a bone to pick about some government program. And given the ratio of voting - particularly in local elections, the larger majority of people can't even be bothered to vote about the people they bellyache are spending their money, and the programs they complain so loudly about.

Given that money is one of the biggest contentions in families - those that stay together and those that don't - I see no reason that anyone is going to agree on much of anything economically.

But coercion? Many would call it participatory democracy. Unless you want to live on an island as a hermit, or start your own dictatorship, you are going to find that whether it is our country or another one, you are going to pay taxes which will be used in ways you don't agree with At least in the United States, you have some input through the political process if you choose to use it.

I have lived long enough to see what happens when certian people decide that others are not going to have a fair shake.

Which brings me back to my original question. Do you think unborn babies are getting a fair shake? And do you like paying for other people's abortions?

Originally Posted by otm

I remember the marches, the police with the batons, the dogs, the beatings, the water cannon, the killings, the bombings - all because some poor kids (and they were poor, as well as disenfranchised) wanted a better opportunity. Because their skin was black, they had to take second pickings. It was the government - federal - which stepped in and said that system doesn't cut it.

And rightfully so. And, as a first step, Congress and the President stepped in to curtail partial birth abortions. But these criminal judges are thwarting an act of Congress, our elected representatives. All in the name of a supposed Constitutional right to abortion which doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by otm

I do not suggest that where we have ended up today in civil rights is a good place, or that it works, or that it does not have injustices. But memories are short about where we were before the civil rights upheaval, and what was said about the blacks is pretty similar to what has been alluded to, if not outright said, in some of these posts.

Oh, and by the way, your allusion to my being liberal is hilarious to those who know me. If I am liberal, that has to make you an arch consevative.

Oops. I guess I'm the one doing the judging here.

Originally Posted by otm

Complain all you want about what the government does. Given the parsimonious attitude that most Catholics exhibit...

All right, I'll cut you some slack on that one.

Originally Posted by otm

...if the government were to cut out the programs you seem to detest, there would literally be people starving to death; Catholic Charities and the other groups the Church has are barely able to keep even with the demand now with all the government programs in place.

And why do you suppose that is? Could it be the government has its hands so deeply in all of our pockets for its dubious programs, that we can barely afford to donate to these worthy groups?

[dwc]

Do you suggest that the majority of people utilizing social services are clean and sober, hard working, married folks with good educations?

No, if you read my post, you'll see I didn't see that. What I was responding to are sentiments such as:

Virtually 100% of the people who come to our homeless shelter, hot meal program, or substance abuse program have two or even three of the above.

and:

The "get" mantra": Get married, get a job, get off drugs, get a high school education. You will not be poor in America. How hard is that?

and:

Why should the rest of us have to help people who insist on shooting themselves in the foot

.


No one has addressed 2 points made earlier in the thread;
1) The New Deal started during the depression because private charities could not address the needs of the poor, and;
2) Why don't those so opposed to the government programs devote energy to correcting the abuses instead of arguing for the abolition of the programs?

To this, I'll add my own question. The thought seems to be that if government social welfare programs were eliminated and taxes reduced accordingly, then people would have more money and donate that money to private charities, which would then replace the government programs. On what is this belief based? How do you have any reasonable expectation that a sufficient number of people would donate sufficient amounts of this newly available money to charities, instead of buying a new SUV, bigger house, whatever?

[miguel]

Originally Posted by Philip P

I see a lot of these folks. They live in places like Williamsburg and Midtown, in expensive high rises supported by their parents trust funds or by all the money they inherited from daddy, and get all sorts of giveaways from the city. They're always jetting off on vacation to places like the Hamptons or Europe or somewhere while those of us riding the subways save up for an occassional trip to the local beach.

I really don't like your tone here, Philip. It sounds envious. Envy is one of the 7 deadlies. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods. If people worked hard, creating their businesses, AND JOBS, can't their children benefit from that?

[miguel]

Originally Posted by Lisa N

Ya know I did NOT say every single person in this country who struggled financially did so as a result of bad choices. What I did say is that you can look at ANY social services organization, profile the clients and you will find a majority who have one or more of the four factors mentioned. There are exceptions to every rule. There are kids who come from *good* families who turn into seriel killers and there are kids who grew up in extreme poverty without good parental guidance who grow up to be supreme court judges.

But the POINT of this discussion is to suggest that simply throwing money at a problem (Archbishop wants higher taxes) will not have any positive effect. Again if you look waaaaaaaaaaayyyyy back to one of the early posts I pointed out how the huge expansion in social programs have created an entitlement mentality amongst some. Our 'war on poverty' destroyed the black family and has not reduced poverty just as our 'war on drugs' hasn't done much to reduce drugs. The government has not proven itself very effective in dealing with these issues and I do not have much faith that if I dole out more to Uncle Sam and Governor Tax and Gouge Me, that suddenly all will be well in my fair state.

Do you suggest that the majority of people utilizing social services are clean and sober, hard working, married folks with good educations? I don't think that is the profile of the average recipient of Food Stamps, Medicaid, or DHS intervention.

Your BIL is an example of situational, not generational poverty. His family is struggling due to problems BEYOND their control. I do maintain though that many folks' problems are within their control and our goal should be to figure out how to point them in the right direction, not just pay them to keep doing what got them into a pickle in the first place.
Lisa N

Lisa, you go girl.