After more than a year since the kerry campaign began, kerry conceded to President Bush this morning. Bush and kerry both agreed that the country's long divided status must come to an end and that unity is needed under the chosen leadership.

Tom Daschle, likewise, lost in a close vote against now republican senator Thume, which is the first time in more than 50 years that a democratic party leader (such as the minority leader) has lost in a reelection campain.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 03, 2004

Answers

Amen Paul!

I am so glad that excomunicated Catholic didn't get voted in. Any Catholic that voted for him needs to repent or risk the chance of going straight to hell just were Kerry is going unless he repents.

-- - (David@excite.com), November 03, 2004.

Because Bush is such a wonderful guy.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), November 03, 2004.

-it is ironic for many that the party that opposes the pro-abortion and homosexual agenda has a man date...

;)

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), November 03, 2004.

Thats because Liberty is a ladt and needs to be treated as such...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 03, 2004.

I was extremely offended by the fact that 25% of Bush voters cited "moral values" as there main reason for voting for Bush. Mroal values? Since when did gay marriage and abortion become the only moral values that mattered worth a damn??? How moral is it to let big buisiness destroy the environment? How moral is it to lie about the reasons for going to war and get 1,200 American kids killed? How moral is it to dole out tax cuts for the wealthy and ignore the people who need the most help? How moral is it to attempt to overthrow a democraticaly elected government (Chavev in Venezuela)? How moral is it to give government contracts to companies that move out of the country, giving them an incentive to leave the country, exploit the third world, and put more Americans in jeopardy? How moral is to spend $200 billion in Iraq when 44 million people don't have healthcare? I've been watching the news for the past four years and I still have yet to figure out what, if any, moral values this Presisent does possess.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), November 04, 2004.

Sounds like your taking the Bush victory hard anti. :-)

-- - (David@excite.com), November 04, 2004.

Who said gay marriage and abortion become the only moral values that matter? You yourself name it only a 25% factor in the voting. Isn't another 75% being represented? That's where ostensibly your opinions matter. Don't try to crowd out anyone who supports moral vaues.

Abortion is far from something merely about ''values.'' Many atheists are opposed to it. --It's killing a baby in the womb; OK??????

Gay marriage was only on the ballot in 11 states. Were all the other states which went to Bush in FAVOR of it? And who said the war in Iraq had to be repudiated? Just because Bush is our president? You have to come to your senses, Boy. 'Extremely offended,'' because you LOST.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 04, 2004.

How moral is it to let big buisiness destroy the environment?

i think i know what you're refering to... alaska, right? so lets talk about alaska. Alot of residents actually WANT the oil pipeline, or the right to cut timber and make a profit. alaska has natural resources that it is coming into the ability to use and desires to do so in order to improve its standing and economy. Alot of people down here like to talk about how alaska has been preserved, but they live in states that have already exploited their natural resources. heres a free nation idea for you, how about we let ALASKA decide what it wants to do with its wilderness.

How moral is it to lie about the reasons for going to war and get 1,200 American kids killed?

first of all, i'm in the military, im not a kid (and im not even eligable to deploy at this time), anyone who has seen combat in a foreign nation can safely be regarded as no longer a "kid." Our soldiers (not kids) are doing their duty. they are fighting for the freedom of a repressed people. I could care less if Bush's reason for going to iraq was to squash out a competetor in the fried chicken market... I PERSONALLY believe that ultimately the war was a GOOD thing for the world and the iraqi people. the administrations reasons for going are irrelevant to me if the action meets my standard of right.

How moral is it to dole out tax cuts for the wealthy and ignore the people who need the most help?

let me respond to this one with a question... How moral is it to discriminate against the upper class and charge them as much as 20% more in taxes than anyone else? How moral is it to force people to pay into a retirement plan they will never benefit from? how moral is it to FORCE people to pay other people who dont want to work? taxing the rich more heavily than everyone else simply isnt the answer. you dont have to be rich to see that that kind of discrimination is wrong.

How moral is it to attempt to overthrow a democraticaly elected government (Chavev in Venezuela)?

america didnt attempt to overthrow anyone. the people of the country overthrew him and america, to curtail the violence and loss of life, ASKED the president to stand down for the good of his people.

How moral is it to give government contracts to companies that move out of the country, giving them an incentive to leave the country, exploit the third world, and put more Americans in jeopardy?

How moral is it to FORCE a company to hire from a certain job market? How moral is it to deny foreign economies exploitation of one of the only major resources they have (human labor)? How moral is it to waste taxpayer dollars on a company that charges too much and can't move enough product?

How moral is to spend $200 billion in Iraq when 44 million people don't have healthcare?

how moral is it to allow a fascist dictator who murders 100,000 plus people a year to remain in power?

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 04, 2004.

“How moral is it to discriminate against the upper class and charge them as much as 20% more in taxes than anyone else? ....taxing the rich more heavily than everyone else simply isnt the answer. you dont have to be rich to see that that kind of discrimination is wrong.” (paul h)

That sound you heard was my jaw hitting the floor. I’ve seen some twisted versions of “morality” but this one just takes the cake. How in Heaven’s name could anyone say that it’s moral NOT to tax the rich more than the poor – and a LOT more than “20% more”!

“how moral is it to allow a fascist dictator who murders 100,000 plus people a year to remain in power?”

This always threadbare “we saved more than we killed” argument has now worn through completely. Saddam maybe killed tens of thousands per year in some years prior to 1991, but as the sanctions and no-fly- zones gripped ever tighter he killed no more than maybe a couple thousand a year. Yes I know even one death is a tragedy, but if you want to balance numbers of deaths against each other, “balance” that against the 100,000+ killed since “peace” and “democracy” came to Iraq, at arate which shows no signs of decreasing in future years, and the untold thousands who will be killed in future by the massive expansion of Al-Quaida and various other terrorist groups directly caused by the crazy war on Iraq.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 04, 2004.

Your idea of God's Will is, then, Steve: The rich must subject themselves to as much confiscation as the poor demand.

Why stop at 20% rates? If it's moral to steal from the one who earned that wealth, I would expect God to allow 85% or 99% taxation on him. It seems immoral to let him spend a nickel while the poor exist in his country. On your terms; not God's.

Poverty isn't shameful. Our Lord was entitled to the world's entire treasure. But He identified Himself with ME-- I'm poor. Relatively. It didn't bother Jesus.

Yet He asserted something undeniable. ''The poor you will always have with you.'' But we are told He loved charity, not taxation of every rich man. Giving is blessed. Taking away from one man to give more to others is merely injustice. The proper action is to exhort the rich to give from their hearts. That's charity.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 04, 2004.

I actually prefer the "feed a man a fish, feed him for a day, but teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime" and "God helps those who help themselves" attitudes.

It is not "charity" to keep others dependent, as sadly, a lot of the Democratic platform and the union mentality does to people. Charity should nearly always be in the form of "a hand up, not a handout", except in times of emergencies, such as natural/manmade disasters. So while poverty, for example is a sad situation in this country, it is not an emergency for most people.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), November 05, 2004.

"Sounds like your taking the Bush victory hard anti. :-)"

Yes many are saddened by the the re-election and mandate...

Regarding 'values' -the democrats are shocked that voters thought less of the 'morally relative' issues the democratic party touted paramount...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), November 05, 2004.

It would see more of an issue about which candidate to believe in. Each can do the talk about "moral values"; it's the walk that wins the vote.

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 05, 2004.

I might add that the quote above "44 million don't have healthcare" is not accurate. They may not have insurance, but they do get healthcare, from free clinics, emergency rooms, etc. Is it perfect healthcare? No, but even people with insurance don't get that, for all sorts of reasons. Quite a few people don't believe in vaccinations for example, and choose not to get them--having insurance does not matter in that case one bit.

And, may I remind some of you that it is within the power of everyone to help the less fortunate among us, we certainly do not need the government to do so, nor should we expect it to, except in the most extreme cases. I think for a lot of the poor, what has failed is the family unit. Some of course have no family, but others do, and the family should be helped to help them. I can see not wanting to have a drug-addicted person in your home around young children, but certainly you can help to pay for a spot at the local drug rehab where your family member is.

As to health insurance, perhapsl it needs to be taken out of the employee benefit package altogether, and handled more like car insurance. You should not have to work to be able to get a fair price for it. Also, there should be no health profiling/discrimination--we cannot choose our parents, after all. The alcohol and tobacco companies should pay for all the health and other problems (like paying the survivors of someone killed in a drunk driving accident) caused by their products directly, instead of those people being in the general insurance pool.

Neither was a perfect candidate.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), November 05, 2004.

Well Steve, it looks like your wish is coming true in CA....

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/10106149.htm

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), November 05, 2004.

Unless you inherit or marry into it, you don't obtain wealth by being stupid. How long will it take before California millionaires start becoming Texas residents, or putting all their income into corporations or trusts, and only tapping off what they need?

The return will in reality be lower than expected, and new laws will be passed, and more Californians will see the writing on the wall, and bolt.

Frank

-- Someone` (ChimignIn@twocents.cam), November 05, 2004.

Hi Frank,

I wouldn't be surprised if there were a court challenge to it, based on it unfairly going after one small group to pay for something of a general concern to all. It's not like part of the lottery monies going towards problem gambler programs, for example, that makes sense.

The other issue is that it may also have the unintended purpose of telling people that they will be punished for working hard and living frugally. So look to more people also deliberately trying to live "officially" under the poverty level just to continue to leech off the government....

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), November 05, 2004.

Bush is in for a long long battle as the battle between life vs. death continues. Check this out, Arlen Specter claims he will squash any pro-life nominee put forth! And he's REPUBLICAN!

http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editors200411050752.asp

Anti-Bush, surely you don't think the Democratic party is anti-big business . . . ? They are as much in the pocket of big corporate lobbies as the Republic party. TRIAL LAWYERS -- ever hear of them? They have HUGE lobbies that thwart any attempts made to revamp medical malpractice and put caps on frivolous lawsuits. They are why health care in this country is collapsing.

Moral issues are important, Anti-Bush. Do you really want our country to look like the Netherlands where INCEST IS LEGAL? Because that's exactly what will happen if we lose the battle on "virtue." What about stem-cell research on conceived children? (Which is like something out of a Stephen King novel). Don't you see how repulsive that is? Science fiction, but it's not, it's here along with cloning, euthanasia, and yes, and it all started with ABORTION!

I know that you are decent person, Anti-Bush, because I have read many of your posts. I can't believe that you would want to live in a country that has completely submerged itself in every sort of perverted vice imaginable.

That is why folks came out in abundance and voted for "virtue." Where we are headed CHILLS TO THE BONE!

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), November 05, 2004.

He's Young and inex[erienced... I was a lot liek him when younger... so I see where he is coming form...He beleives the rhetoric, and doesnt knwo the full ramificatiosn yet. He sees the ieal set before him, btu doesnt relaise yet the background reality of such things, or the Long Term consewuences of such...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 05, 2004.

i have to say, anti, that i have a strong hope for you. being merely a few years older than you, it was not long ago that i felt that people SHOULD have the legal freedom to engage in certain moral wrongs, grave or no. it was only recently through my ethics classes and participation here at this board that i discovered that certain moral wrongdoings SHOULD be protected against in the law. You will arrive at this conclusion soon enough, hopefully, because you have shown yourself to be a person of values and principle.

let me iterate this one question to you, however... If you truly believe in something as right and good and true, then why would you want to allow people continue to do that which is contrary?

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 06, 2004.

"Anti-Bush, surely you don't think the Democratic party is anti- big business . . . ? They are as much in the pocket of big corporate lobbies as the Republic party."

That's very true. I am really fed up with both parties, and it was by a VERY narrow margin that I saw Kerry as the lesser of two evils. I was with a heavy heart that I volunteered for the Kerry campaign this year. Howard Dean is a pretty good guy though. I could have really gotten behind him. We need a candidate who takes a strong stand against big buisiness. That's why when I turn 18 I'm joining the Green Party.

"Moral issues are important, Anti-Bush. Do you really want our country to look like the Netherlands where INCEST IS LEGAL? "

There is a big difference between allowing gay CIVIL UNIONS and legalizing incest. Niether seem like they should be federal issues. I'm perfectly happy leaving them up to the states. Bush can't have it both ways. He can't say that he is for a smaller federal government and then decide that the federal government gets to decide the definition of marriage. As I've said a million times, if a couple of homos want to go down to the courthouse and get hitched, HOW DOES THAT HURT YOU? It doesn't, so STOP WHINING. Don't like it? Work within your state to ban it. Leave the federal government out of it.

"What about stem-cell research on conceived children? (Which is like something out of a Stephen King novel)."

I'm against it.

"I know that you are decent person, Anti-Bush, because I have read many of your posts. I can't believe that you would want to live in a country that has completely submerged itself in every sort of perverted vice imaginable."

I know you are a decent person as well, Gail, and I can't beleive that you would want to live in a nation where are civil liberties are being taken away and we are controlled by a government that thrives on fear and lies to keep us at bay. I can't beleive you would want to live in a country where thirty years of environmental progress are systematicaly rolled back. I can't beleive you would want your children to live in a country where they are forced to pay off the President's historic deficit. Want to hear something REALLY perverted? The infant mortality rate of Washington DC is higher than that of Cuba. Our nation's capital lets more babies die every year per capita than Cuba-- an "evil" nation, our government tells us. Do you really want to live in a nation where this is allowed to happen?

As they say, "take away our playstations, and we're a third-world nation"...

"That is why folks came out in abundance and voted for "virtue." Where we are headed CHILLS TO THE BONE!"

Bush is many things. Virtuous is not one of them. I agree that the direction our country is headed in is downright scary, although probably not for the same reasons you would put forth.

"let me iterate this one question to you, however... If you truly believe in something as right and good and true, then why would you want to allow people continue to do that which is contrary?"

Because no one has the right to impose their morality on others. What homosexuals are doing does not hurt you or me. Let them be. Live and let live, man. History has shown us that forcing your worldview on everyone else never turns out well.

I have a question for you, Paul: If you firmly believe that what you beleive is right, why do you need to impose it on others? Surely if it is the absolute truth it doesn't need to legislated, right?

Render unto God what is God's, and unto Caesar what it Caesar's...

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), November 07, 2004.

''Want to hear something REALLY perverted? The infant mortality rate of Washington DC is higher than that of Cuba. Our nation's capital lets more babies die every year per capita than Cuba-- an "evil" nation, our government tells us. Do you really want to live in a nation where this is allowed to happen?'' Our nation's capital; Wow! Who leads you into these ridiculous wacko protests? In the first place, this is a Catholic faith forum. Not your personal soap-box, Lenin.

If Cuba strikes you more up to par than DC, just migrate over there. On your way you'll be passing plenty of rafts coming over here, for sure. Lol!

Secondly, what are babies per capita? Explain that.

How is it our ''capital'' LETS babies die? Are these babies running out on the DC freeways, without a baby-sitter? Did the government fall down on the job of saving babies from per capita death? We can put all you really know about government in a shot-glass and still have room for all my pocket change. Eighty-eight cents, in case you're interested.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 09, 2004.

If what you say about DC and babies is true, it is no doubt due to drug use, which is an individual choice, when it comes right down to it.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), November 09, 2004.

GT--
Would such a statement be true, especially coming from this biased source? How is anti-bush given accurate information about Cuba and infant mortality there? Next he/she will be giving us a rundown on Cuban inventions and Cuban hangovers every Sunday morning.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 09, 2004.

Eugene,

A google search leads to Workers World, your friendly neighborhood magazine of the Workers World (Socialist)Party.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), November 09, 2004.

Want to hear something REALLY perverted? The infant mortality rate of Washington DC is higher than that of Cuba.

Extreme liberals, have controlled DC forever. Do you suppose they'll put this in their next campaign commercial?

That's why when I turn 18 I'm joining the Green Party.

I am stunned. Are you sure you'll fit in? Next you're going to tell us you want to attend Cal-Berkeley. ;-)

As they say, "take away our playstations, and we're a third-world nation"...

It's more like "take away our economic freedom, and we're a third- world country"...or "let lefties control our education system and we'll become a third world country"... Just a guess, but these are probably not slogans that Green party candidates will be reciting.

What homosexuals are doing does not hurt you or me. Let them be. Live and let live, man. History has shown us that forcing your worldview on everyone else never turns out well.

Let me get this straight: Not wanting homosexuals to be allowed to marry is "forcing your worldview on everyone else," but wanting to let them live and let live, marry and divorce, is NOT "forcing your worldview on everyone else." Once again, you and the Green party--a great fit.

Actually, you have it backwards. History has shown that embracing anti-family behavior never turns out well Once societies, civilizations, or nations embrace homosexuality, as well as divorce, contraception, and abortion they have begun their own death march. These four things are assaults on the family and a society cannot survive without strong families. Its a fact. Western nations are already dying. Muslims will take over Europe in the not too distant future. Christian Europeans are averaging about 1.2 to 2 kids per family while their Muslim neighbors average about six kids per family. The situation is not as severe in the US but US women are still giving birth at below the 2.1 replacement level while our neighbors to the South in Mexico are well above replacement level. Unless Mexicans suddenly come to embrace decadent lifesytles, the US will be a spanish speaking country in about 50 years.

Anti-,

Just curious. Do your parents share your views? Do they know what you are writing on these forums?

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), November 09, 2004.

I see. Small wonder anti-bush comes here touting freedom and democracy. He can surely tell us how many parents in Havana are denounced to the police by their children, per capita.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 09, 2004.

Yes, GT, it’s reassuring to know that the voters of California are finally beginning to come to their senses and stop voting for lower taxes AND more government services, which is bankrupting their State.

Poor old “relatively poor” Eugene. I don’t know you, but judging from the fact that you live in 21st century California and own a computer and have plenty of time to spend on it, you are “relatively” RICH compared to 99% of the current population and 99.99% of all who have lived up til now.

So “taxing the rich” is equal to “stealing”? Jesus said the poor will always be with us, so it’s “immoral” to tax the rich to help the poor? - Just in case we might succeed and then Jesus’ prediction would be wrong! – how tragic! We mustn’t tax the rich, just “exhort them to give from their hearts” -!?! I thought paul h had taken the cake, but you have lowered the bar still further in reversing the usual standards of morality.

I suggest you junk your perverted twisting of Christian moral principles and look at what Christianity really says: – Giving to the poor is not charity, it’s simply RETURNING to them what they rightfully OWN. Refusing to give it to them is STEALING from the poor. Jesus most definitely did NOT identify with your attitude, he saved his harshest words for rich hypocrites like you.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 09, 2004.

11. For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.

Jesus said this to the Apostles, when Judas complaiuned that Oil was poured on Jesus's feet, rather than sold. He spoke ot them direclty... If we elemenated Poverty yen years form now, Jesus's words would still be true, since the Aposltes died and the poor remained for 2000 years afterward...

That said, Aiding the poor is a good thing, but unjust taxation si not.

My tax idea is simple. Tebn percent. If you make 100 dolalrs, you opay Uncle Sam 10, if you make 1000, you pay 100, of you make 10000, you pay 1000... simple...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 09, 2004.

Dear Steve:
I have trouble recalling what it is you think you're refuting now. I mean it.

I guess it's your vendetta again, that's what drives you to dispute all that I write. It can't be your great grasp of theological truths. You've never been capable of an intellectually honest rebuttal of my thoughts. After all, we only leave here some evidence of our thinking. Why all the competition?

Your thinking suffers badly from your feuding compulsion, Steve. It's a long time since you were able to interest me. I get no pleasure out of these fencing matches. I'll gladly hand over the prize to you if only I can be allowed to continue posting for these others. Take the gold medal. Get out of my face.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 09, 2004.

Steve, exactly what do you think of as rich? I know that in many places in CA that there are people who have managed to hang onto property now worth hundreds of thousands of dollars (that they bought for a mere pittance years ago), but pay next to nothing in taxes compared people who bought next door to them this year, thanks to Prop. 13. Is that fair?

Look at the alternative minimum tax (AMT). With inflation, a lot of people are paying taxes that wouldn't otherwise.... Is that fair?

If everyone had the entitlement mentality, this country would be a shambles.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), November 09, 2004.

"If Cuba strikes you more up to par than DC, just migrate over there. On your way you'll be passing plenty of rafts coming over here, for sure. Lol"

Congadulations on another post without thinking. I did not say at any point in time that I planned to move to Cuba. Or that I wanted to. I said that the infant mortality rate of Washington DC is higher than that of Cuba, and this is just wrong. Cuba is a third-world country. Cuba sucks. How badly have we screwed up that more babies die in our nation's capitol than in said sucky third-world country?

"How is it our ''capital'' LETS babies die? Are these babies running out on the DC freeways, without a baby-sitter? Did the government fall down on the job of saving babies from per capita death? We can put all you really know about government in a shot- glass and still have room for all my pocket change. Eighty-eight cents, in case you're interested."

I take it you've never been to southeast DC. Can't say I blame you. If I were you, I would probably poverty doesn't exist too. Otherwise I don't see how you could sleep at night. I take a drive into southeast whenever I need a reminder of just how lucky I am. Parts of it look like a war zone. No joke. When I see places like that I realize that our government has failed us. No other western democracy has this kind of poverty. The UK just doesn't have it. Ireland just doesn't have it. Germany just doesn't have it. Why? Why is that? Because they beleive that their poor deserve a helping hand instead of a slap in the face.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), November 10, 2004.

Cut and pasted from another Workers World issue, (?) and brought to us by the (Socialist) Party; fellow travellers with a defunct Communist International Movement?

OK, not quite defunct. There's still Cuba, North Korea and China. Where of course, infant mortality will never happen . . . Yeah. Only here, per capita, and all that.

And-- DC. We know from your sources there has never been a War on Poverty, has there? About 5 Trillion dollars spent spreading money on everybody's standard of living. Money, however, is insufficient. Poverty won the war! (Unless Americans get a job.)

Socialism didn't work. That's why Cubans risk death on an open sea trying to reach the U.S. where ''our government has failed us''. Why do they leave for the U.S., anti? Are they hypnotized?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 10, 2004.

anti,

i agree with alot of your statement, helping the poor in DC SHOULD be more of a goal. However, there are some innacuracies in your posts...

Parts of it look like a war zone. No joke.

you havent really ever seen a war zone have you? take a gander at pictures of dresdan sometime, or maybe consider what the capital of N. Vietnam looked like after linebacker II. Maybe what the fields of korea looked like after battles... have you ever seen 3,000 bodies of chinese and koreans strewn about a hillside? What about serbia? Does every member of SE DC carry an RPG, SMG, or Klashnikov and shoot anyone not of the faction loyal to their warlord?

If you think for one second that ANY inhabited place in america looks like those locations, you are dead wrong. In many ways, war is alot cleaner than the media portrays it... in other ways, it is much more senseless and ugly as well. If you dont understand the nature of war, please, dont compare american ghettos with it.

No other western democracy has this kind of poverty. The UK just doesn't have it. Ireland just doesn't have it. Germany just doesn't have it.

can't speak to ireland or the UK yet, as i havent been there, but from someone who lives in germany during the summer and has travelled in itally, i can tell you that, again, you are wrong. I know, i've seen them with my own eyes. oh, they dont have ghettos in the normal sense, but then again, they dont take care of immigrants AT ALL. East Germany has ghettos as bad as any in the states. In fact, ALOT of germany is poor simply because their economy isnt as strong as ours. Beggars litter the streets of rome because they can't get enough money from the government to afford basic housing. Cities in itally have buildings abandonned and in ruin after many families left them more than 50 years ago during WWII. In paris, the metro isnt safe to travel alone late at night, and you have to guard your wallet non stop to keep pickpockets and impovershed gypsies from robbing you. You say there isnt a poverty issue in any other western democracy... i tell you there isnt a country in this world without a poverty issue.

Even the poor in our country live by a standard UNKNOWN in the third and fourth world nations. There are countries out there where the general populace NEVER has access to meat in their entire lives, where a bowl of rice and some lentils only twice a day is a significant amount of food. anti, you havent travelled enough to know what poverty truly is. does that mean we don't help our own poor... no. but dont condemn america based on false information.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 10, 2004.

Paul,

Guess I was exagerating a bit on the war zone remark...just trying to get my point across. You're right about Italy, that's why I made sure not to include it in my list of countries. I've been to Rome, I've seen the things you talked about.

I may not have as much experience as you or Eugene, but when I see rampant poverty in the world's richest nation it makes me sick. And the "screw you" attitude Eugene is displaying toward the poor is just about the most unchristian thing I've ever seen.

"Cut and pasted from another Workers World issue, (?) and brought to us by the (Socialist) Party; fellow travellers with a defunct Communist International Movement?"

HOW DARE YOU accuse me of plagiarism? It might interest you to know that I am not a regular reader of the Worker's World. I'm also not a big fan of any of the Communist or Socialist parties in the US (including all those take-offs on "the worker's party"). They're just a bunch of hacks who still think it's the cold war, obeying orders from soviet masters that no longer exist. No, in the next few years, if they reogranize their leadership and dust themselves off and actualy bring something relevant into the political arena, I may just a throw a few votes their way. But not as they are now. I'm more of a fan of the Green Party, although I do like some of the more liberal democrats and even a few republicans. I could see myself voting for McCain in 2008.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), November 10, 2004.

Eugene – “feuding”? “vendetta”? “what drives you to dispute all I write”? “Get out of my face”???

What the devil are you talking about Eugene? I have either supported or refrained from comment on virtually everything you have said. As I have done with many other post-ers, I have occasionally refuted some things you have said which were absurd. I was referring to your amazing post of Nov. 4, where you stood Christian morality on its head.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 10, 2004.

italics off

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 10, 2004.

Sorry, Steve,
There's never been a post from my side stand Christian morality up-side, down or anyway. I've spoken for myself. Not for the Pope or for anybody but me. You THINK you speak for the Church and the Pope. But you haven't. Now, I'll accept the fact we disagree. Why not; you're a free man. Think as you please. I'm not very interested in your opinions. That's why I said Get out of my face. Your opinions do not reflect the Church's teachings (at points where we disagree) or morality at all. The Church doesn't teach morbid over-reactions, and this pathological irritation you're leveling at your neighbor.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 10, 2004.

Dear anti-bush /
You're ridiculous.''the --attitude [OH?] Eugene is displaying toward the poor is just about the most unchristian thing I've ever seen.''

I haven't been addressing the POOR, Sir! Why do you say ''screw you''--? putting words in my mouth? You really have a nerve! I've been addressing you.

But you're upset at my referring to that diatribe as cut and paste? How about me; a Catholic who's given an ''unchristian'' brand by a 15 year-old boy? Why am I not saying How dare you!-??? Excuse me, but you've been tolerated around here how long now? You get away with insolent and egotistical posts as if the world was your oyster. Well, your posts are juvenile and not worth the reading. Is it unchristian to tell you the truth about your babbling?

Don't tell me about poverty, young man. I was born dirt poor. I still have little; but I require even less, FYI. And I'll die a faithful Christian, thank you. Furthermore, don't tell me anything about America or our government. You don't qualify to force your views on me or this forum. You are merely TOLERATED, not appreciated.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 10, 2004.

Eugene, you don't own this forum and it's not up to you to decide whose views will be "tolerated".

I hate to let the facts get in the way of your story, but it was YOU who attacked ME (not vice versa) over what I said to paul h. It was only six days later that I commented on your attack on me. Scroll up and look if you don’t remember.

Whose opinions “don’t reflect the Church’s teachings”?

The Church teaches that taxes should be levied according to each individual’s ability to pay. That is, (Zarove too), the rich must pay proportionately more tax than the poor. If it takes a minimum of $X a week to support yourself, someone who earns $2X a week can pay no more than $X tax, while someone who earns $10X has the ability to pay up to $9X and still support himself.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 10, 2004.

thats not what the church meant and you know it steve. the difference is this... what the church is driving at is that someone who earns 10k per year is taxed, say, 1,000 dollars, while someone who earns 100k per year is taxed 10k. THAT is proportional taxing. Taxing someone who earns 80k a total of 30k, and then turning around and taxing someone who earns 100k half of their wages isnt just discrimination, its remeniscent of red communism. Proportional taxes is based on percentage of income, not different percentages, which is merely vieled discrimination and a pinkening of our red white and blue system.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 10, 2004.

Of course you haven't tolerated me. I'm the thorn in your side. We DO tolerate a young man bereft of reason and tact here. Anti-bush. Or is he the kind you're in step with?

As for tax structure, it's not a doctrinal matter. Nor is it even the Church's business. All Christians have responsibilities with or without any levee by the state. It's called Christian charity; VOLUNTARY, not enforced under threat of imprisonment. You're a confused man, Steve.

What you would like the Church to teach us is involuntary surrender of our private property to the IRS. The IRS isn't a Christian charity at all, My Friend

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 10, 2004.

VOLUNTARY, not enforced under threat of imprisonment

agreed, as according to Kant's principle ethics, forced charity isnt even considered a moral action.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 11, 2004.

Steve, My tax plan was based on proportinal wage. It woidl be fair since proportionally everyone owes the same amount.

The man who makes 1000 dollars a month pays 100 of that to tax, a man who makes only 800 a month pays 80.

Mine is also not considered "Charity tot he poor" but "Fair taxation".

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 11, 2004.

Dear Zarove and Paul, Dear Steve:
The morality taught by the church with regard to fair taxation is clearly menat for states. It's not admonishing those who have to pay. Long ago our Popes and prelates undertook the solemn duty of exhorting RULERS, who might abuse power crushing the lower classes. The questions all of you bring up about my tax, his tax, rich vs. poor--

. . . aren't even addressed by the Church. We are admonished to comply with the laws, do our duty as citizens. It's implausible to infer that Catholic teaching orders us to donate unjustly into socialist welfare programs.

The President is correct to assign more of that good work to faith-based givers. Or at least he WANTS that to become a norm. Naturally, the ones who derive most of their power from tax and spend activity can't take the President seriously. They perpetuate themselves in Congress by confiscating wealth and redistributing it. They fire back at Bush: No way! ''Separation of Church and State! No-no-NO!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 11, 2004.

DC has one of the most draconian anti-gun policies in the nation, whereby virtually no citizen is allowed to own a firearm - of any type - unless they are police officers. And yet, surprise, surprise, criminals have guns and use them in SE DC producing more American deaths by gunshot wounds per year than all the terrorists in Iraq have this past year!

Meanwhile across the river, northern Virginia has one of the most liberal, open minded gun policies in the world - allowing law abiding citizens to purchase most types of firearms - including semi- automatic rifles like AR-15s...and yet has one of the LOWEST per capita counts of gun violence in the nation.

Now how do you account for this? Easy, those who are criminals avoid Virginia like the plague knowing full well that they have a far higher chance of being gunned down (and outgunned) by any random law abiding citizen than they do in DC where the only person who could fight back is a uniformed police officer!

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), November 11, 2004.

Very true joe.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), November 11, 2004.

One thing, Joe. Although we don't get a lot of gun violence in northern VA, gang violence in general has been on the rise for the past few years. Although this probably didn't make national headlines, a student just a few schools over from me had his hand chopped off with a machete this summer for wearing the wrong colors on somebody else's "turf". We've got our own problems across the river.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), November 11, 2004.

Zarove and paul h, "according to ability to pay" plainly does NOT mean "everyone from a homeless bum to Bill Gates should pay the same flat percentage of their income". I'll put it another way so you can understand. Clearly someone who has barely enough to provide minimal food and shelter would be severely pressed by a tax of even 1% of his income. But Bill Gates wouldn't even notice a change in his lifestyle even if he was taxed 99% of his income.

Let's see who's "confused" about the Church's teachings:

“ 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... 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.”

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

Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio, 1967, no. 23: "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."

John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Tertio Millennio Adveniente, 1994, no. 51: "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"

Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2446: "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."

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 11, 2004.

Steve:
That isn't a license for a state to misappropriate the earnings of any individual, except when just law is brought to bear on individuals. Not when they earn their wealth honestly. Citizens have the obligation of paying only what's lawful. They should have every right to reductions of taxes as the opportunity arises. They aren't stealing or denying their share. Neither the clergy nor the state can arbitrarily decide what proportion of the tax burden any individual should owe in taxes. This is completely within reason, since taxes aren't collected and divided equitably among the needy. These are simply accumulated in the state's treasury. What portion the poor receive is left up to bureaucrats and lobbyists.

Charities don't stand guard over a treasury, and the catechism can't determine what is a just tax schedule.

The Church merely appeals to the consciences of her faithful. The banality of having our Church demand higher taxes from one party than from the other is obvious. You interpret her teachings altogether wrong.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 11, 2004.

And Steve, your view seems to assume that everyone utilizes their capabilities to earn the most money they can. Don't you know people who are underemployed compared with their skill sets? What about people who have deliberately chosen to live simply, and have said bye-bye to their big bucks/high stress jobs? Are you going to take more money from them just because?

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), November 11, 2004.

Yes anti-bush (here's for four more years for your name!) the gangs are a problem - especially the el Salvadoran gangs. It's a sad situation for them - they do most of the menial work and construction, landscaping etc. around the area. I've met quite a few of them and have a certain soft spot for Salvadorans ever since my involvement with humanitarian relief during their earthquakes.

But they are tough - and need alot of evangelization. The machete attacks are indeed typical for them. Kind of a perverse spin on those Crocidile Dundee movie lines "that's not a knife, here, THIS is a knife!"

But I think the fact that an amazing number N.VA people are packing glocks and 1911's at any given moment keeps them from welding those "farm implements" in public.

Of course, the minor detail that many Marines, FBI, and other military people live in this neck of the woods probably explains why they don't go roving beyond their own population...yet.

I wish there was a way we could evangelize them and use all their manly passions for good. Still thinking on it.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), November 12, 2004.

Hooray for George Bush, the pro life president. No sooner is he elected than he puts an abortionist in the Attorney General position. He campaigns for Spector last April, and Toomey the pro lifer loses by a whisker. Now spector will run the excuse mode for pro life canditates not being allowed on the court. Bush may not l ook smart, but skull and bones is not for dummies. The religious folks have been taken, and taken real good.

-- Need some water. (outcast@desert.com), November 14, 2004.

name one thing bush has done which has helped the pro-abortion cause... appointed someone attorney general? so what, they dont make the laws. Spector is a problem, but i suspect that if he doesnt get in line soon that he may not have a political party affiliation in the next elections. what has bush done? he's cancelled partial birth abortions, which are horrid in the eyes of God and even most pro-aborts. The man wants to put pro-life judges in the supreme court... permanent positions, if you havent noticed. The supreme court is where the whole abortion fiasco began, and thats where a heavy portion of the battle is thought. Bush needs good politics to win, including supporting a few pro-aborts here and there, but where it matters he is doing the right thing. it makes no sense to throw away an election because you're unwilling to bend on an issue where the person in question has little or no influence.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 14, 2004.

Paul;

You have to follow the Bush paper trail. When he was governor of Texas he appointed four pro abort judges to the court. Sure he has thrown a crumb at us for partial birth, and not funding the m ilitary for abortions, but he knows that if and when he puts up a pro lifer, Spector will not let it get out of committee. Bush said that he would not have a litmus test for judges, and that the hearts of the people would have to change. That will not happen for a long time, if ever. And Spector will be there for 6 years, Bush for 4.

-- need some water (outcast@desert.com),), November 14, 2004.

spector talks a good game, but lets be honest, he has a leash around his neck as much as any other republican senator out there... and the difference between him and several other notables, is that the democrats are courting spector to join them, so if he alienates the republican party, he's going to be alone in the next elections with no financial backing. Ultimately, yes, spector will be there for six and bush for only four, but if spector bites the hand that feeds him, which is a political party around for alot longer than him, then six years is all he's going to see in congress.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 14, 2004.

When Ginsberg and Breyer were approved by the senate, only 3 republicans voted against them. Nichols of oklahoma, Helms of NC, and Bob Smith of NH. Some right to life party. Paul, don't hold your breath waiting for them to do anything.

-- Still thirsty (outcast@desert.com),),), November 14, 2004.

“Steve, your view seems to assume that everyone utilizes their capabilities to earn the most money they can.Don't you know people who are underemployed compared with their skill sets? What about people who have deliberately chosen to live simply, and have said bye- bye to their big bucks/high stress jobs? Are you going to take more money from them just because? “-- GT

How on earth do you figure that? I never mentioned “capabilities” or "skill sets". I talked only about taxing people's actual INCOME, not their "capabilities" or "skill sets" or "just because".

“Neither the clergy nor the state can arbitrarily decide what proportion of the tax burden any individual should owe in taxes. This is completely within reason, since taxes aren't collected and divided equitably among the needy. “ (Eugene)

The absurdity of this statement is so self-evident that any comment from me would be superfluous. Eugene I have disagreed with you on other subjects but at least you had remained rational. Your rationality now appears to have deserted you.

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

Thanks, Steve.
Coming from you that's a compliment. Let's go ahead and disagree.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 14, 2004.

I absolutly believe in redistribution of income. Why should you drive a Lincoln while I take the bus. Can't we both drive Yugos?

-- Gimme (Whats yours@ismine.com), November 14, 2004.

This past sunday's readings from St Paul addresses the problem with redistribution: those who don't work should not eat. Throughout the old and new testaments, in Acts and in the epistles there were many occasions for Christians to take up collections on behalf of the poor. There were many occasions for Christians to sell their possessions to help the poor.... but no where was there at tax specifically designed to make everyone equally poor!

There is a difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcomes. Those in favor of state-mandated socialist schemes want equality of income - but even there some people would be more thrifty and thus save more than others. In a generation those people would be hated by their envious neighbors with just as much passion as some here seem to hate the "rich" who are being taxed at higher rates than they are merely because they make more.

So there is really no solution except Catholic virtue. This is a Catholic thread, let's try to come up with Catholic solutions - why not let your parents move in with you thus saving on 2 mortgages and 4 car payments and other budgets? You'd save on child care too and the grandparents would be the best teachers of your k-5th grade children who would never forget the wonderful times they had with their grandparents.

If every Catholic family did this, we'd instantly leave the low- middle class and enter the upper middle class, just by default - and then have that much left over to help the truly poor.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), November 15, 2004.

Steve, ever hear about "voluntary simplicity"? Do you know people who have left corporate jobs making 6-figure incomes to go live out in the country, making perhaps a third of what they did before? What if everyone did that, or even a substantial number of people? Gee, less money to tax them out of. Look at the panhandlers--no one is taxing their income....

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), November 15, 2004.

Sorry GT you’ve lost me. I don’t know what the point is that you’re driving at.

Joe, if any of our fundy friends said what you said, that we can’t have progressive income tax because it’s not specifically mentioned in the Bible, you would be the first to jump on him for distorting and reducing Christian principles.

You seem to think the only alternative to the current US tax scheme massively biased in favor of the rich, is a confiscatory socialist regime making everyone equally poor. Rather, I prefer a middle path with a moderately progressive income tax, which would be in line with the Church’s teachings. This would not make the rich poor. A middle- income person taxed at say 20% still has a middle income after tax, while a billionaire taxed at say 60% would still be very very rich. It’s nothing to do with “hating the rich”, but merely meeting the demands of Christian justice.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 15, 2004.

Steve, what I'm trying to say is what happens if everyone decided to sit back and collect welfare, for instance? If you're poor, taxes are not really an issue, and if you're really wealthy, they're not an issue, but what about the upper middle class? The ones who make too much for welfare, scholarships, etc., but can't afford decent lawyers or to send their kids to private or Catholic schools?

I don't know what the "magic number" is, where you're wealthy instead of upper middle class. To me, as long as you have to make choices (I can afford this or that, but not both), you're not wealthy.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), November 15, 2004.

GT, obviously if everyone decided to collect welfare the economy would collapse and there wouldn’t be any welfare or anything else provided by the govt. But that would happen regardless of what the tax scales were.

The fact that our govts let lawyers' fees hit the stratosphere, and refuse to provide a cent to Catholic schools, are wrongs that must be righted, but they are separate issues from how the tax scales should be set.

Now let’s see, “I’d like to have a Porsche AND a Ferrari, but I can’t afford both, I have to make a choice, so that means I’m not wealthy.”

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 15, 2004.

No other western democracy has this kind of poverty. The UK just doesn't have it. Ireland just doesn't have it. Germany just doesn't have it. -- Anti-Bush

Belfast in Northern Ireland has some terrible ghettos and slums. People are fighting amongst themselves there all the time. The streets are not safe, especially at night. Dublin, in the Republic, has slums and ghettos that are just as bad as any I have ever seen. And you think people there do not live in poverty? Ireland has a huge amount of poverty.

Thanks and glory be to God!

-- Suzanne (james-betsy@sbcglobal.net), November 15, 2004.

You've got a point about Northern Ireland. I didn't really consider that when I mentioned the UK. Dublin has some bad slums, but I've been there and I wouldn't say it's as bad as some of the ghettos we've got across the pond.

Joe,

You seem to think that the only reason someone can be poor is because they choose not to work. Many people genuinely can't find work. In places like Flint, where the big auto manufacturers just up and left, thousands were left unemployed. The area is so poor now that there just aren't that many buisinesses that want to move there, and there simply aren't that many jobs. Meanwhile, the middle class has been getting the shaft from big buisiness for twenty years. The world's largest and wealthiest corporations have been laying more and more people off every year. Interesting how their profits have been steadily increasing and yet they still have to "downsize". Some of the jobs that we think of as "middle-class" pay slightly above minimum wage. The salary of an airline pilot with several years under his belt is low enough to qualify him for food stamps. Of course most big airlines forbid their pilots from recieving them. People would start to talk, and it would be bad for buisiness. The average CEO makes over 200 times more than the average worker earns. How is that right? Want to talk welfare? The government gives out billions of dollars a year in subsidies to big corporations, while they move offshore, pay next to nothing in taxes, and lay off thousands of people so they can move to Guatemala and pay twelve cents and hour. How is that right? Lockheed Martin actualy recieves government money to cover the cost of shutting down it's factories here in the states so they can move jobs overseas! They get $20,000 a year in government subsidies to cover the cost of golf balls for their executives! How is that right? When Orange County went bankrupt in '94, after losing all the county's money because they invested it in high-risk derivitives, what do you think they did? Use their own money to clean up their own mess? No, that's commie talk! They went to Washington and got a big, fat bailout. They stole our tax dollars because theyw ere irresponsible with their own money. How is that right? When LTV Steel was going bankrupt, they convinced their workers to give up most of their benefits to save money. What's good for the company, theyw ere told, was good for them. So they did it, and it saved the company from bankrupcy. What was the first thing they did when they were back on their feet? They laid everybody off. How is that right?

Joe, you seem to be under the impression that, if given the chance, big corporations would choose not to pollute the hell out of our environment, exploit their workers, and screw over everybody they needed to to make a profit. Are you insane? Corporations do that now and there are laws prohibiting what they do (we don't enforce them, but they are there). What would they do if they weren't regulated at all? Maybe you want to return to the simpler days of the 1870's, but I sure don't.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), November 16, 2004.

Steve, since we both agree that the Bible and Church Fathers have been mum on the actual magic number of the tax rate, we are arguing over guesses as to what would be better. You assume that a high rate of 60% would be " in tune with Church teaching" whereas I think a high rate of 30% ought to work provided bureaucracy is trimmed and the poor better served through education and above all, moral development led on the local and family level.

Your solution seems - seems - to be big government deciding who are the economic winners and loosers, whereas my solution is for people to be more empowered and thus dignified than they currently are.

I don't know about you, but I do have real life experience working with and for the poor and success in helping them leave wretched poverty to enter the low middle class.

Anti-bush, you have simply not done your homework on big business. I think you read the Greenpeace propaganda and take it as gospel when the EPA and lots of other on-line sources would prove to you that companies are not eager to pollute, and indeed aren't spewing toxic chemicals with wild abandon. In our litigous nation, the lawyers would have a field day sueing industry out of existence if that were the case.

As for why people are poor... most of it has to do with education and culture, as well as morals. If I lost my autoworker job in Flint, I'd NOT STAY IN FLINT! i'D MOVE.

I lost my job in June 2002, a month before getting married. Did I stay put, go on welfare and accuse the rich of being evil? No. I sent out resumes, and cut my honeymoon short so we could move a thousand miles away to start a new job in a new career field.

We actually bought food in quarters and dimes (from a piggy bank) the last week before my first pay check came in... that's how poor we were. But frugality, hard work, making use of the bountiful free- lunches provided in America allowed us to get ahead.

Later, when the twins were on their way, we cut costs by moving in with some friends - renting out their basement with half our stuff in storage. That move allowed us to save 60% off rent (most people's single largest monthly expense) which in turn allowed us financial security to purchase a home a year later.

That's how educated and culturally frugal people keep themselves from falling into poverty: family, friends, and frugality. I work 2 jobs. We shop at Costco. I don't have any hobbies. I sold off my paint-ball gun and other toys. We got cheap furniture and baby stuff from baby showers, garage sales, etc.

But what do the folk in Flint do? Opportunities for jobs abound in Michigan - if you are willing to work hard and relocate. I think most of the trouble is thus a moral and intellectual one.

As a boy I spent Saturdays working in soup kitchens in Detroit - among some seriously poor people. They got free food - and clothing! But were still poor while their Polish neighbors in Hamtramick were immeasurably better off in the middle class enclave. Why? Because the Poles didn't squander the little they had on drugs, alcohol, women, and sneakers.

I have Vietnamese friends who arrived to the USA in 1985, dirt poor, didn't speak the language, culture shock, etc. but now they're all in the upper middle class - family culture, morality, friends, family, frugality.... they pooled resources and sent their kids to public schools then enforced them to do their homework...the kids got scholarships and then landed great jobs, and then sent money back home to keep the whole cycle going.

I know Salvadoran people here who do the same - work hard and long and send money back to their families in El Salvador. The men rent apartments - 6 or 8 room together to lower the rent burden...they don't waste money each buying cars and toys...

In short, the solution to poverty isn't solely from heavy handed federal government intervention via welfare and subsidized housing (paid for by taxing some one else at 20, 30, 60%) but by people making better use of their resouces and talents.

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

I agree with Joe--Anti-Bush, there are a lot of people who are just sitting around waiting for the clock to turn back, and that isn't going to happen. If they have any gripe, it should be with the unions, who took their money promising them the moon and not delivering much.

It is all a matter of looking for a need and filling it. There is plenty of money to be made, as well as the satisfaction of helping out someone, in the eldercare field, and that is just one example. Learn to be handy and you can be one of those "rent-a-husbands". Yes, you're in business for yourself and will have to pay your own taxes (if you want to be able to claim those business deductions) and insurance, but you can make as much money in proportion to how much work you want to do. Know computers? Be a tutor. There is a shortage of nurses in lots of places.

Accept that the jobs/careers available are constantly changing. Adapt. If the jobs hadn't gone overseas, those that could be done with machines would be automated. Also accept that foreign companies here employ people.

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

I suppose I ought to point out that for the all doom and gloom the MSM tries to claim the economy is suffering, the unemployment rate today is LOWER than it was under BILL CLINTON in 1996!

I suppose it ought also be pointed out that not all high-paying jobs are outsourced - indeed, relatively few are! Telemarketers or programmers in India or Russia aren't robbing autoworkers in Flint!

Every year of my life I have seen the classified ads full of help wanted ads - there have always been jobs available - for those willing to relocate and learn a new career field or skill. But if you want to stay put and maintain your current level of spending... sure, a grant you, life is hard.

But since when did the Church or socialism promise anyone a womb to tomb halcyon existence free of sweat and tears? Jesus promised us persecution, the cross, and even death as a price to be paid in following him.

Suddenly worried about whether my union job is safe making $27/hr on an assembly line in Flint when Koreans are doing the same or better work for $7/hr in Seoul - while enjoying a better standard of life... only confirms that the union guy is out of touch, not that the big car company or US Government are failing to apply Catholic social teaching by artificially propping up an industry with tax hikes on other citizens!

Think of all the wagon wheel hoopers and saddle and carriage makers put out of business by the car and train companies! Should the government have insisted people not buy cars to save those jobs?

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

Suzanne, I don’t know how long ago you saw Ireland, but there is very little poverty there now. The shame is that the world’s wealthiest country has such huge numbers of desperately poor people, far more than any other developed country.

Joe, you’ve got a real talent for missing my point. I’m not arguing for any particular percentage of tax to be paid by any particular person. All I’m saying, along with the Church, is that tax scales should be progressive, that is that people should be taxed according to their ability to pay, not on a flat percentage for all. What the actual rates should be, and thus how “big” or “small” the government should be, is a separate issue. The Church though does reject the argument that “that government is best which governs least”.

Yes I too have experience working with the poor and helping them get qualifications and jobs. That too is a separate issue. I was talking about comparative income tax rates between individuals of different wealth. And you needn’t worry, I’m sure even the best efforts of Church and State will never achieve anything like “a womb to tomb halcyon existence free of sweat and tears”. But we are required to help the poor through our tax systems.

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

In the US, "poor" is really more of a function of attitude more than anything else--if you can't handle money (it is a learnable skill, just like reading and math), you will always be poor, no matter how much or how little money you actually have. Look at bankruptcies these days. Yes, some are due to unforseen medical bills, but most of them are due to simply living beyond one's means. Even lottery winners have managed to lose their fortunes through mismanagement.

So, just throwing money out to people to waste it when there are people actually starving, and lacking basic medical in the rest of the world is just wrong.

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

GT, some people just CAN'T learn to read, or to do math, no matter how good their “attitude” is. And the same goes for learning to handle money.

Yes we should do a LOT more to help those starving and lacking basic medical care in the rest of the world. But charity begins at home. We have no excuse for ignoring or not helping the poor who are right under our noses. When the rich in our country spend millions on their own medical treatment, (much of it totally unnecessary like so- called “alternative medicine” and cosmetic surgery), while the poor have such a lack of basic medical care that rates of preventable illness and infant mortality are at third-world levels, something is terribly wrong in our own country.

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

If people can learn to apply for welfare, they can learn to handle money, read and do other things, except in extreme cases, and most people on welfare don't fall into the "extreme" category.

Are you saying all "alternative medicine" is quack? I hate to say this, but alternative medicine includes common sense things like chicken soup for a cold instead of drugs, as well as other, expensive things. Cosmetic surgery isn't even covered by insurance, unless it is purely reconstructive in nature, so that is something most people (including the middle class) can't afford anyway, because you have to pay the full cost of it.

I don't know what you consider "basic" medical care. Immunizations? Well, there are lots of people (well-educated, too) who plain refuse to get them, if they can. I think kids are always able to get them through clinics with proof of income simply because the K-12 daycare known as "public school" won't let them in without them. How often "should" one go to the doctor? I don't know--some people go all the time, others never.

Should we make people take intelligence tests before they marry and/or have kids? Good luck. Should we make family members by law responsible for their deadbeat relatives? Is that fair? Although if people looked out for their immediate relatives (parents, siblings, children, not your 2nd cousin twice removed on the distaff side that you've never met), there'd be a lot fewer people on the dole.

No, people shouldn't starve in this country and they should have access to basic medical care. But does that mean also that they should be able to live in brand new government housing with free cable TV? What about 3 hot meals and a cot in a homeless shelter (properly segregated to keep families together)? You could help more people that way.

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

Hmm, I guess I missed that story about governments in the US giving away new houses with free cable TV.

I must say I get heartily sick of people in the US complaining about “people on welfare who don’t need it”. The US spends far, far less on welfare than any other developed country. And yet those in the US who are rich enough not to need welfare begrudge even the little that is spent!

Yes, quite a big proportion of the population just can’t care for themselves, and their families can’t care for them either (due to mental illness, sexual or physical abuse, drug abuse, alcoholism, etc.) In the old days most of these people would be put in institutions where they would at least receive food, clothing, shelter, medical care and protection from loan sharks, pimps, get- rich-quick scheme sellers, “alternative medicine” sellers etc. Nowadays they are thrown on the streets to fend for themselves.

And yes 99% of so-called “alternative medicine” is quackery. In the case of chicken soup, there is some evidence that just possibly it may be of some benefit for a cold, so it’s not quackery if your mother makes it for you, but it is quackery if some charlatan puts it in cans and touts it as a cure for colds. However it is not an “alternative” treatment for a cold. A true “alternative” treatment is one which is likely to be equally effective (eg two different drugs both of which will relieve symptoms of a cold.) That is why I say “so-called alternative”.

“Cosmetic surgery … is something most people (including the middle class) can't afford anyway”. Yes, that’s my point.

Some of the best and most devoted parents I have seen are people who would score very low on intelligence tests.

“Should we make family members by law responsible for their deadbeat relatives? Is that fair?” No, except for parents of kids under 18.

“if people looked out for their immediate relatives (parents, siblings, children …), there'd be a lot fewer people on the dole.”

My brother in law is 40 and has never been able to hold down a job for any length of time. His many “relationships” have left several former de-factos behind with several children. We help him when we can and have given him plenty of “loans” without any hope of getting any of it back. He’s an adult, we can’t control where he lives, who he associates with and what he spends money on. Yes I think it would be most unfair for the government to say, “he’s not getting the dole, his parents, siblings and children can support him”.

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

If the housing is low-income apartments, basic cable is often included in the rent. I do not begrudge aid to those who truly need it, like the handicapped, however, when people turn up their noses at dried beans (they want convenience foods) from the food bank, and instead of buying healthy food waste their food stamps on junk food (and I do believe that there are classes given in how to use your food stamps wisely), sorry, those people are not needy.

So you have two choices for cold medicine--if they both work and the cost is the same, so what if you choose Sudafed over Echinacea, or vice versa? What does it matter? I don't use chiropractors myself, but other people I know swear by them.

As to loan sharks, well, maybe the relatives do get tired of loaning (giving) money. No one forces anyone to go to them. Nor do I feel sorry for companies who loan money to known bad risks and get stiffed, however, it is wrong to pass the losses onto those who do pay their bills on time.

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

Hmm and what do they see all the time on those TVs? Highly persuasive ads for “convenience” and “unhealthy” foods! Yeah I know, if only “those people” had enough willpower etc. etc., but the junk food companies spend billions on advertising because they know it works. I don’t think people are asking too much when they ask for the basic dignity of being allowed to decide for themselves what they want to eat.

As for the medicines, I won’t go on about this, because it’s nothing to do with the subject, but Echinacea and chiropractors do NOT “work”. As far as scientific proof of efficacy is concerned, “People I know swear by them” means nothing. Some people swear that the incantations of a voodoo priest cured their ills. They’re mistaken.

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

Steve please show me the authoritative document (*as opposed to some study of the USCCB) claiming that the Catholic Church teaches as moral the sliding scale of taxation, while calling the current system or a flat tax immoral.

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

Steve, insurances wouldn't cover chiropractic if they didn't think it was effective in some way. Comparing it with a voodoo doctor is absurd. It is also absurd for you to dismiss out of hand "folk medicine". And by the way, the "poor" do not have a monopoly on being gullible.

You seem to think that Joe and I don't care, that is not so. But wanting to continue to keep people dependent and helpless (as welfare does when the particular person involved does not need it) is wrong. We do not need more welfare or social workers.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), November 18, 2004.

Joe, see eg, Encyclical Mater et Magistra, Pope John XXIII:

"132. In a system of taxation based on justice and equity it is fundamental that the burdens be proportioned to the capacity of the people contributing."

GT, insurance companies sell products which their customers demand. The fact that chiropractic doesn’t work makes no difference to the insurance company. You can put blind trust in “folk medicine” if you want to risk it. But when it comes to treatments for myself and my family, I’m certainly not going to buy anything that hasn’t been PROVEN to be safe and effective. Yes voodoo, chiropractic and “folk medicine” ARE in essence all the same. They rely for their “success” only on the spieling ability of their salespeople, rather than any inherent property of the product being sold. You will heaps of excellent reliable info on all forms of quackery at Quackwatch, http://www.quackwatch.org/

I never suggested the poor have a monopoly on being gullible. But if a gullible rich person chooses to pay for astrologers, “folk medicine” etc etc, they’re only wasting a fraction of their own money which they can afford to lose. If a poor person does so it could ruin him. And of course poor people can only borrow from loan sharks at massive interest rates, whereas moneylenders fall over themselves to stuff even more money into the pockets of the rich on very generous borrowing terms. Similarly, poor people get sick more often, and in some cases it has only been discovered after the death of a poor person that he died of a serious but treatable disease which was never properly investigated because he was "treating" the symptoms for years with so-called "alternative therapies", because he either couldn't afford proper medical treatment, or was sold on the spiel of the quacker.

I certainly never suggested paying welfare to people who don’t need it. Where we differ is that you and Joe seem to think that practically no-one needs it.

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

Suzanne, I don’t know how long ago you saw Ireland, but there is very little poverty there now. The shame is that the world’s wealthiest country has such huge numbers of desperately poor people, far more than any other developed country. --Steve

Steve, I was born there and came here with my parents when I was little bitty. I haven't been over since I was 12. (Hoping to get to g back this spring !!!) I still have a grandda and aunts and uncles and cousins there. While the poverty isn't as bad now there are still some horrible areas especially in Dublin and many people are living in abject poverty. Northern Ireland is even worse, but that is part of the UK and not the Republic. The same holds true here. As a whole country we are not impoverished, but we have people and areas of our country that are. Now, I have mixed emotions about the welfare system. On one hand, welfare is EASY to get. You don't have to even be able to read or write. I mean it is easy to get. And we pay taxes on our hard earned money. And I get the idea sometimes that the system is being horribly abused and I think, "Why should that guy get all that money from these welfare programs and sit on his ablebodied but lazy butt while I have to go out everyday, miss spending time with my children and husband, not get to have hardly any leasure time for this guy to live ?!?!?" It makes me angry to see people who are perfectly able to work and absolutely intelligent enough to get a good paying job, sit at home drinking beer and smoking ciggerrettes and drawing checks and foodstamps. But......On the other hand, I also see a real need in some cases. I see people who are physically or mentally unstable and can't hold a job. I see young girls who (by their own faults in most cases) are pregnant and trying to finish school to make a better life for themselves and their baby. I see some who got laid off at his job and has a wife and children. Bless her she is working doing all she can, but it isn't enought to pay all the bills and buy food. The cost of living today is so high that it takes BOTH parents working to make ends meet. Unless you were fortunate enough to be born into a wealthy family and inherit money. Which most of us aren't that fortunate. Anyway back to my point. I can see both sides of the welfare issue. I too get mad at deadbeats living off the system, but I also see a real need for the welfar programs. My thoughts are this, we need reform in the worst way. Not just a bunch of "talk" about it, but true reform. It needs to be a bit harder to get and there needs to be timelimits set as to how long certain people (not mentally or physically handicapped or elderly) can draw benifits. A woman shouldn't be allowed to keep having children on the medicade program. Ablebodied people should be made to get jobs. Get them into training programs (I know we "supposedly" have them, but I don't see them much being enforced.). Give these people a hand up and help them out of their current situations instead of a hand out allowing them to live out their lives on the tax payers hardearned dollars. As a final note.....There should be NO REASON at all for a person to be homeless and hungry in America. Government programs are too easy to get on for anyone in America to be hungry. As far as slums and ghettos and the dangers found there. The problems are mostly moral problems in these areas. Drugs, gangs, prostitution....People go into these places and see crumbling housing and dirty streets and unkempt people and think, "Oh these poor people! They must have no money." Not nessessarly true. Alot of these people have "blood money" from gang and drug activity or from prostitution. A person chooses to be involved in crime. A person chooses to try drugs. A person chooses to live an immoral life. These slums and ghettos DON'T have to look like they do. Even if every person there was in desperate poverty, they don't have to be dirty or nasty. They can pick up their trash and clean their yards. Keep their neighborhoods looking neat. My momma always had a saying, "You can be poor, Suzanne, but you don't have to be dirty." I guess you could say I am poor. We work and do our best to earn a living for our family. My house isn't the largest or grandest on the block and I don't wear the finest clothes or jewels. My kids have all they need and a little of the things they want. They are dressed appropriately and are clean and neat. We don't have much but are thankful for what we do have and take care of it. I will get off my soap box now. I hope you all have a great day !

Thanks and glory be to God!

-- Suzanne (james-betsy@sbcglobal.net), November 19, 2004.

Suzanne, I agree with most of what you say, except for both parents having to work. That is not true in many cases, especially if there is the commitment to have one parent (I don't think it has to always be the mother) home. If you go to a lot of the homeschooling boards and homesteading boards, lots of people are single-earner families, with fairly low incomes. Also, even if both parents need to work (one job brings in the money, but the other one has benefits), it is still possible to avoid the day care corral by working different shifts.

Also, as Suzanne points out, there are plenty of aid programs. A lot of people get kicked out for drugs, alcohol and so forth. That is not the fault of the program.

Steve, I hope you're not on Vioxx, since you have such faith, apparently, in "better living through chemistry". It's been in the news lately.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), November 19, 2004.

You are right to a point GT. I stay home with mine right now. we homeschool our children and have for many years. I used to work and homeschool and the burden was just too great, but it is almost impossible to make it on my husband's salery alone. He makes good money, but we have a large family and will be having a new addition soon. The children have the things they need to live and with help of family and friends they get things they want from time to time, but there are still needs that should be met that aren't. All of them need new shoes for instance. I don't buy the highest price shoes but when you talk about $15 or $20 each for 4 pair, that can run into some serious cash for a one income family. And shoes aren't an article of clothing that can usually be passed down from the older kids to the younger.....mine wear them out before they outgrow them LOL ! Let me put it this way, we survive. We pay our house note, pay our utilities, buy gas for him to drive back and forth to work and me to places I need to go, and we eat. Anything else like clothes and such are usually given to us or I might grab something on clearance or at the consignment shop occasionally. But nevertheless it is still a struggle, but with the help and grace of God we manage it ok. My point about the parents both working was this; sometimes it DOES take both parents to suppily the needs of the family. When one loses their job it makes survival almost impossible. That is one instance where our welfare programs are at their greatest need. To help in case of emergency when the family is in danger of losing everything or even going hungry. I believe in giving help to those who want to help themselves. You know I remember one time I was driving with a friend of mine and our kids. It was Christmas season and it was cold and spitting snow and ice. As we neared the red light I saw a dirty man (ohhh 40ish) standing there with a sign....Will work for food. I prayed, "God please let the light stay green till I get past it....PLEASE! I don't want to pull up next to that beggar." Well, God din't answer that prayer, and he pecked on the glass and I rolled it down. He asked if he could have some money to buy food with. I said to him, "I notice you wish to work to earn money to eat. Well, we have a farm and there is an empty house that we can fix for you and we will pay you a fair wage, If you want to wait here I can go get my husband to drive back over and pick you up." He refused me. He said he just wanted some money to go buy something to eat. Well, I didn't give it to him. Instead I went to McDonald's and bought him a burger, fries, a salad, a pie and a hot coffee. He did take the food, but not a word of thanks past his lips. This man didn't want a better life or he could have had one. He could have worked and made himself respectable living and gotten off the streets. Now I didn't know his story or why he had gotten to the point where he was, but he had a chance to change all of that and he refused it ! I made sure he ate that day, but I wasn't about to support any "habits". I still think about that man. That night we had the worse icestorm we had had in ages. We were without power for 12 days. We had propane everything and wood heat, so as my husband brought 2 cotton trailors full of people from town (mostly elderly)pulled by the tractor to stay with us, I thought about that man. I wondered if he was warm or if he had food, and I prayed for him to find truth.

As a side note we spent Christmas with 27 of the people from town. It was indeed an old fashioned Christmas as we had no electricity. We lived by lamplight and warmed ourselves by a roaring fire and all of us "kids" including the ones that were really children got to hear stories from the older generation about Christmas growing up for them! Best Christmas I ever had !

Thanks and glory be to God!

-- Suzanne (james-betsy@sbcglobal.net), November 19, 2004.

I agree Suzanne, that if we focused on building better families - ie ones where everyone (relatives especially) participated, we could solve alot of the poverty issues in the USA, along the same lines as the Vietnamese-Americans have.

It's by insisting on individualism ala modern pop-culture america where most of the troubles start. If stay-at home moms had neighbors and grandmothers, retired aunts around to help with the kids (babysitting for free, homeschooling, extra pair of hands to help with the house work, shopping, etc.) the poor wouldn't have to spend what little they have on child-care, transportation etc.

Instead, families grow up and out and move apart. No one helps out. Individuals are lost and the smallest units are forced to pay for mortgages on cars and homes when past generations just moved in with their folks or helped each other build homes...

But there is no law forcing Catholics to live like materialistic pagans! No one forces us to buy into the Halloween, Thanksgiving, Christmas, Valentine's, St Patrick's, Easter PAGAN celebrations (with lots of expensive cards and yard inflatables... yet lots do.

No one forces us to buy new toys like Plasma screen TVs, cable, DSL, cell phones, etc. all at $40/month or more... yet we do.

Think about the thousands of dollars of savings per month and year a typical lower middle income family could reap if they had the inlaws or grandparents living with them, adding their SS money to the family income column?

Instead of paying for 2 homes and 4 cars, you could get by with 1 home and 2 cars... it wouldn't take long for a family to get ahead...

As for taxation - the question is not just some arbitrary idea of fairness (those with more, pay more) but also of economic LAWs (as opposed to political laws). In every single case it has been tried, cutting tax rates has produced an explosion of wealth creation.

Taxation merely shifts money (not wealth) from one set of hands to another in a highly inefficient way (because the government is the middle man who has to pay the bureaucracy which runs at a far higher cost per dollar than ANY non-profit agency does.)

Thus, if you really wanted to help the poor, you'd not take from the rich, pay off alot of .gov people and then hand over 30 cents on the dollar to the poor via some form of subsidy.

No, you'd create an economic situation where people could create companies that HIRE the poor thus making them not poor!

Of course as long as the scale of what is poor is sliding, we'll never achieve equality of outcomes - already the "poor" in this country are better off than most "middle income" people in 3rd world countries INCLUDING EUROPE! Sure the European's claim to have great medical care...unless you try to access it. Ever wonder why if their system is so great they keep sending their top people to Houston or the Mayo clinic? And if their system was such a success, why does the US continue to lead the world in inventions?

Many people think erroneously that wealth is static - zero sum game. But it's not. Wealth is created by the private sector when people add value to raw materials through their physical or mental work.

Thus oil had zero value until someone invented the internal combustion engine... now it has use, and thus value...

If you tax the rich at 60 or 70% you will actually reduce the overall creation of wealth by making it less and less cost-effective for the rich to invest in things that are risky but have high payoff potential.

For example - if I was taxed at 70% of income, I'd not have bought a new car. Which means Dodge wouldn't have sold one... Firestone wouldn't have sold 4 tires... Exxon wouldn't have sold gasoline... etc. Because the dollars left over after tax were so low, I'd have not risked the expense and this would have a ripple effect across the economy.

But thanks to the tax cuts, I have spent more - with the idea that I can live with less savings because I can resupply it as I go...

Psychology 101 my friends. Unfortunately churchmen don't study economics - that's a fact, not an accusation. See the Acton Institute for more info.

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

We recently lived in NE Alabama..many of the folks there constantly complained about the economy and how "poor" they were..how they couldn't afford health care insurance, how they had no money to purchase a home of their own, etc. etc. etc. My husband and I would listen in amazement. These same men were driving brand new quad-cab pick ups with sticker prices starting at $35K.

They said there was "no work". NE Alabama has several sock factories..these men won't work there..because they pay minimum wage. They'd rather work part-time union jobs and wait for the full time jobs to "come back." My husband pointed out to them that immigrants work in these factories, buy used cars, live frugally for 4 years with family members pooling their money and buy a home together..why don't THEY do that? Answer? "Ain't going to work for no miniumum wage." My husband showed them on paper how two brothers, each working minimum wage jobs and pooling their income could in 4 years purchase a home in Alabama..nope, fell on deaf ears. They'd prefer to work part-time and pay $500/month truck payments and complain how they had it "bad'. In the same breath, these folks thought it was simply awful how the "rich got richer" and that the government ought to "DO something." This kind of attitude is very troubling. I grew up poor in the inner city. We didn't look to anyone for a hand out..it never occured to us to do so..nor did we waste time blaming our poverty on rich people. We were poor because we were poor. I went to work when I was 12 years old after school and on week-ends. I washed dishes at the convent. In high school I worked every day after school and every week-end as a nurse's aide. I don't consider myself to have been ill-used. You take what the good Lord gives you and say "Thank you." If He gives you two strong arms and legs you get out there and use them. And what you have left over, you help somebody else who doesn't have ANYTHING.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), November 20, 2004.

You take what the good Lord gives you and say "Thank you." If He gives you two strong arms and legs you get out there and use them. And what you have left over, you help somebody else who doesn't have ANYTHING. ---Lesley

Lesley, great post, especially this last statement. During the Thanksgiving season (and all year long) it is important for us to remember our blessing and be thankful for them rather than worry about the things we DON'T have. Remember, folks, there is always someone out there worse off than you are! Have a great day and God bless!

Thanks and glory be to God!

-- Suzanne (james-betsy@sbcglobal.net), November 20, 2004.

You have helped to elect a man that has little regard for human life. He has no intention of trying to reverse Rowe v Wade. Abortion has gone up dramaticly under his administration, after going down under President Clintion. He has cut the programs that help unwed mothers and their families. He has cut many programs that help the poor and elderly. He has sent our young people into a war based on lies. Thousands of people have died because of him. He excuted one hundred and fifty people in Texas while not even taking the time to really look at their pleas for clemency. He never took more than a half hour to review there pleas. I think this was such an unethical move on your part. The Catholic Church cannot even take care of there own sins, they sweep them under the carpet. Ralph Nader is a good man, he did not deserve what you did to him. He would have been a good President. Now God help us with this arogant man, that could care less. You should be ashamed of your self. I was born and raised a Catholic and I have not seen anything as shamefull as what you have done.This is purely political on your part because there was not the same attack on past presidents that support abotion. Now there are many more poor children in this country, and it is going to get even worse for them. Because this president while is very good at acting compassionate his actions are anything but. So when you see people struggling without enough food and without health insurance without the proper shelter not able to find a job, you can blame yourself for helping to elect such a heartless person.

i also want to say that if j. kerry was elected there wouldn't be much difference,they both only care about their own profits and their political programs suck,american mainstream politics just blind the ppl and makes them focus on irrelevant things like abortion and gay-marriage,make them scared of terrorists that don't exist,the only guy here that seems ok was ralph nader

i think the majority of the american ppl can't see the truth because the truth is just too unbelieveble to believe,they're being influenced by the media,influenced by their religion and the fear of the treats of "terrorists",people don't see that the real problem lies in mass manipulation and is leading to a totalitarian society where the gouvernement controlles everyone and everything

people still don't see that we don't live in a democracy,ppl still think if they have their jobs,their house,their family that they have a life,that they are free and that this country is good

and how can you vote for a man who's against abortion against killing unborn babies that don't know nothing,that aren't aware of anything,who's life hasen't even started yet,when he kills grown up people and children that know everything,that have a life,that are aware that can feel real pain,that have to die only because this man and everyone who's behind him just want their money,just want to have an oil monopoly and rule the world economically and politically

you've passed the test,they know now on which things they can catch you,they know how you respond to fear,they know what they have to tell you to make you believe their lies

-- penny;nathan (----@----.com), November 20, 2004.

american mainstream politics just blind the ppl and makes them focus on irrelevant things like abortion and gay-marriage,make them scared of terrorists that don't exist, -- penny;nathan

Abortion and gay-marriage are not irrelivant issues. They are very important to the health of our society. If we as a people condone these sorts of sortid behavior then we are no better than the ones who DO the actions themselves. And to say we are scared of terrorists that do not exist???? WHERE IN THE NAME OF PETE WHERE YOU WHEN OUR COUNTRY WAS ATTACKED ON 911?????? YOU SIT THERE AT YOUR DESK AT HOME OR WORK AND SAY THAT TERRORISTS DO NOT EXIST???? EITHER YOU BELIEVE THAT SADDAM AND OSAMA AND THEIR KIND ARE GOOD OLE BOYS THAT YOU CAN SIT DOWN WITH AND HAVE A BEER AND WATCH THE GAME WITH OR ELSE YOU ARE FOR THEM AND WHAT THEY DID AND STAND FOR!!! EITHER WAY YOU ARE IN NEED OF SERIOUS HELP!!!

people still don't see that we don't live in a democracy,ppl still think if they have their jobs,their house,their family that they have a life,that they are free and that this country is good -- penny;nathan

Actually we DON'T live in a democracy. We live in a republic. And yes, we are free or else you wouldn't be able to type your opinions on a forum such as this. Yes, you are free or else you wouldn't have the choice of what religion you were. Yes, you are free or else you would not have had the choice to vote for Nader or any other President of choice. Yes, you are free or else you couldn't pack up your family and go anywhere in the world and still have the choice of coming back to America. Yes, you are free or else you wouldn't have the right to own a firearm. Yes, you are free or else you wouldn't have the right to free enterprise and the freedom to earn as much money as you wanted, to start business ect.... Yes, you are free or else you wouldn't be considered equal to all Americans with the right to liberty and justice. You have a job, a home, a family, and a life BECAUSE you are free, and THAT my, friend, is what is good about this country that we live in ! Have a good day !

Thanks and glory be to God !

-- Suzanne (james-betsy@sbcglobal.net), November 20, 2004.

penny,

You do not speak for me or the real majority that gave our President an overwhelming real mandate!

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), November 20, 2004.

osama never attacked the usa

the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were part of the governemnt's agenda so that they get you scared,so that you support their war policies,so that they have a reason to invade afghanistan and iraq,control the oil supplies,and yes rule the world economically and politically ;fear has always been the best tool to manipulate with

yes the truth is too unbelieveble to believe

i agree with everything penny and nathan said

and no we aren't free

cos we don't decide what happens with our country but that bunch of losers in the governement do

and our country is a supposed to be a democracy,a republic only refers that it has a president,if it's not a democracy then it's a dictature and it is going very much that way...

-- Anonymous (anonymous@anonymous.com), November 20, 2004.

Someone passed this on to me the other day, and I had also been gullible, saying hooray for Bush's election. I wish I had seenthis a few weeks ago. My vote would have been to stay home.

Not to be outdone by his predecessors in the evil department, The Man from Hope rose to office through the University of Evil itself, Yale, (as did both Bushmasters). Smoother than Lucifer and twice as seductive, Bill Clinton had his femme fatales, Janet Reno and Madeline Albright, make many of the diabolical decisions that led to the death of not hundreds but hundreds of thousands. Waco, Texas was small scale compared to the genocide of health sanctions against the regime of former Reagan/Bush partner-in-crime, Saddam Hussein. When asked if an estimated 500,000 deaths of Iraqi children under the age of five wasn't a steep price to pay in sanctions, Albright replied, "We think the price is worth it."

Thus we come to the George W. Bush era. Surrounded by Reagan/Bush henchmen Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bolton, et al, this minion of evil may yet outshine them all. Not content to allow a terrorist attack on New York City, the Bush/Cheney diabolical duo decided to launch pre- emptive terrorist attacks on Baghdad and surrounding urban areas, resulting in an estimated 100,000 Iraqi deaths and 16,000 US casualties. With four more years of unlimited power, the potential evil--destruction, death and moral decay--may yet surpass that of fellow Texan, LBJ.

-- Ann Non (Anonymous2@anonalso.com), November 20, 2004.

osama never attacked the usa...the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were part of the governemnt's agenda

But I thought the Jews did it? Oh yeah, the Jews control Bush, so they got him to plan it. Brilliant! But wait, Bush is too stupid. It must have been Cheney and Karl Rove. Yeah, that's the ticket. I have to wonder though, why Osama took credit for the attacks. He must be a secret Jewish intelligence agent, who just pretends to want to drive Jews into the sea.

i agree with everything penny and nathan said

What a shock!

resulting in an estimated 100,000 Iraqi deaths

This is a crock

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), November 20, 2004.

yeah bush is just a pawn,so when ppl get sick of his policy after another 4 years they can just put all the blame on him and find someone else that can even be worse

everyone who supported his campain,his stolen election,his wars and the rest of his political actions is to blame for 9/11

-- Anonymous (anonymous@a.com), November 20, 2004.

osama is probably just a product of hollywood;and all this was planned years before george w. bush

who's behind it?

i don't really know

but the world is going to hell and the most are not aware,or not aware enough and the rest simply don't care

-- An*NyM**S (a@a.com), November 20, 2004.

Very convenient for Osama to show up just at election time. Hollywood could never stage this. This is even more professional.

-- Queen Anna (Anna Nonny@yohoho.com), November 20, 2004.

Suzanne, re Ireland, just that I see the other day a list of countries in order of “quality of life of the population” put Ireland (apparently the whole island) at No. 1 and the USA at no.13. See http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/1117/economist.html

“welfare is EASY to get. You don't have to even be able to read or write. I mean it is easy to get.” Call me crazy, but I thought being illiterate (and thus disqualified from nearly all jobs) is a very good reason why someone SHOULD get welfare.

“there needs to be timelimits set as to how long certain people (not mentally or physically handicapped or elderly) can draw benifits.” Why, for Heaven’s sake? If they still qualify for welfare according to their needs and abilities, what difference does it make how long they have been in that condition?

“A woman shouldn't be allowed to keep having children on the medicade program.” Yeah that’s a real Catholic view, NOT. Forcibly sterilize the poor or tell them to abort their babies or they’ll be taken from them - just great!

“Ablebodied people should be made to get jobs.” I thought the whole point of welfare is that you can’t get it unless and until you prove that you CAN’T get a job.

“sit at home drinking beer and smoking ciggerrettes” – so you want to ban them from drinking and smoking, as well as from having babies?

GT, Vioxx illustrates my case perfectly. As soon as there was a large enough patient-years sample size to scientifically prove the existence of a rare side effect, Vioxx was withdrawn, even though 99.99% of those who took it never had the side-effect. But in the case of adverse effects from so-called “alternative medicine”, as there’s no scientific basis for or oversight over its use, there's no way to even discover the existence of rare adverse effects. And before you tell me about some magic treatments which supposedly have NO side effects, there is a good reason for that. They don’t have ANY effects at all. Any medicine which has good effects also has adverse effects.

“Taxation merely shifts money (not wealth) from one set of hands to another in a highly inefficient way (because the government is the middle man who has to pay the bureaucracy which runs at a far higher cost per dollar than ANY non-profit agency does.)” (Joe) You forgot to mention that profit-making enterprizes run at a far higher cost per dollar than govt bureaucracies, and only a tiny proportion (sometimes) reaches the poor through the much- vaunted ‘trickle-down effect”.

“the "poor" in this country are better off than most "middle income" people in 3rd world countries INCLUDING EUROPE!” Norway, France, Germany, Switzerland etc are all “3rd world countries”? Hmm the country you inhabit seems to be Cloud-Cuckoo-Land.

“Sure the European's claim to have great medical care...unless you try to access it.” Well of course they have to stop Americans from freeloading on it, otherwise they wouldn’t be able to afford it for their own citizens. I recall another survey found France was no.1. in the world in medical care, with every country in W and N Europe (except Britain, since Thatcher half-demolished its health system) ranked very highly.

“Ever wonder why if their system is so great they keep sending their top people to Houston or the Mayo clinic?” That's certainly news to me. On the contrary, there is a major problem with Americans pretending to be Canadians or Europeans in order to get better and cheaper health care.

“ And if their system was such a success, why does the US continue to lead the world in inventions?” You were talking about health care, Joey boy, not “inventions”.

“if I was taxed at 70% of income, I'd not have bought a new car” Proving that YOU should not be taxed that high. It certainly doesn’t prove that NO-ONE should be taxed that high, including those on far greater incomes whom a 70% tax rate would not deter in the least from buying a new car.

“Psychology 101 my friends. Unfortunately churchmen don't study economics.” I’m pretty sure some of them study economics and psychology as well, and advise the Holy See and the bishops’ conferences accordingly.

“they couldn't afford health care insurance, how they had no money to purchase a home of their own, etc. etc. etc. My husband and I would listen in amazement. These same men were driving brand new quad-cab pick ups with sticker prices starting at $35K.” (Lesley)

Priorities, Lesley. Some choose to put as much as they can into bricks and mortar. Others want the car of their dreams. Everyone’s free to spend their money on what they want to, that’s the beauty of the capitalist system.

“NE Alabama has several sock factories..these men won't work there..because they pay minimum wage. They'd rather work part-time union jobs and wait for the full time jobs to come back."(Lesley)

Instead of blaming the workers who show some community spirit and are loyal to their union for the sake of improving things for all, why don’t you blame the sweat-shop owners who discriminate against union members? Freedom of association Les, that’s another great thing about our system.

Penny, don’t blame us Catholics for Bush’s election. The proportion of Catholics who voted for Bush was exactly the same as the proportion of non-Catholics who voted for him. Most of Bush's supporters were non-Catholics, while most of the States with a larger than average proportion of Catholics in their populations voted for Kerry.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 21, 2004.

Steve..blame? I'm not assigning blame..merely pointing out the obvious. Of course people have the opportunity to select priorities in life. And after one has opted to pay a $500/month truck payment and to work part-time, turning down full-time employment , one can hardly complain that one "has it bad". People make their own choices and then when things do not go as planned they expect the government to step in and rescue them from themselves? My position is that as long as they have the capability of making OTHER choices to better their own situation, then the government funding can be best directed towards folks who do NOT have that capability. When I worked in NJ's social service system in 1995 I encountered families who had 5 generations on State Aid..did they need it? No. It was a way of life, perpetuated by a flawed system. Teen-aged mothers with babies living with THEIR mothers who were in their late 20's who lived with THEIR mothers in their late 40's, etc. One household alone received over $3000/month in welfare checks.

On the other hand, people in their 80's and 90's exist on less than $400/month from Social security income since when they worked in their younger years a good day's wages brought $50 and bread was a quarter a loaf.

There are "poor" among us and there are "poor". Some think they are poor because they have no second car and no health insurance coverage. Some think they are poor because they cannot make their mortgage payments on their house on time. And some folks have no food until the soup kitchens open..and some folks have no food until the social security check comes next week..and some folks sleep on the cold floor so the children can have the one blamket on the mattress. There are "poor" and there are "poor".

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), November 21, 2004.

“welfare is EASY to get. You don't have to even be able to read or write. I mean it is easy to get.” Call me crazy, but I thought being illiterate (and thus disqualified from nearly all jobs) is a very good reason why someone SHOULD get welfare. -- Steve

Being literate is not a requirement for all jobs. even people who are uneducated can work. We have a man who has worked on our farm for years and years (since I was a child) who can not read a word and my father-in-law had to teach to write his name. He drives a truck for us, meaning he has his CDL (It was given orally.) that man is also as good a mechanic as anybody I have ever seen. The tractor, combine, or one of the trucks breaks down, John L. will have it fixed and ready to go before you say BOO! Other than mental or physical disability, lazyness is the reason people won't work.

there needs to be timelimits set as to how long certain people (not mentally or physically handicapped or elderly) can draw benifits.” Why, for Heaven’s sake? If they still qualify for welfare according to their needs and abilities, what difference does it make how long they have been in that condition? --Steve

I wasn't including people with disabilities in this. I was saying in this statement that able bodied people should not be allowed to live out their lives on the welfare system. If a person is perfectly capable of working he or she should work instead of living off of the tax dollars of working Americans.

“A woman shouldn't be allowed to keep having children on the medicade program.” Yeah that’s a real Catholic view, NOT. Forcibly sterilize the poor or tell them to abort their babies or they’ll be taken from them - just great! -- Steve

Now you put words into my mouth. I didn't say to sterilize them or to ask them to abort their children, but they should not be allowed to be given medicaide to have their children. Get these people into the work place and off of the welfare system. Make them take some responsibility for their actions, their lives and the lives of these kids they are bringing into the world.

Ablebodied people should be made to get jobs.” I thought the whole point of welfare is that you can’t get it unless and until you prove that you CAN’T get a job. --Steve

Actually this is false. A person does not have to prove a disability preventing him or her from working to get on the welfare system. Disability is a different matter....a disability must be proven, but to recieve foodstamps, medicaide, TEA, ect.....all you have to show is that you have no job and or a bank statement showing that you have no money. MOST....not all mind you, people on our welfare system are simply too lazy to work and instead play the system. Even disability is abused (not as often, but it happens).....ever heard of crazy checks? People lie about conditions and enlist doctors to lie to get these checks. The welfare system is abused weather you like to hear it or not. It was never meant to be used as a means of living on for life. It was formed to help people out of bad situations and to get them back on their feet again.

“sit at home drinking beer and smoking ciggerrettes” – so you want to ban them from drinking and smoking, as well as from having babies? -- Steve

Nope....you put words into my mouth again. I drink an occasional beer or glass of wine. I do not smoke at all and I definately do not buy booze and ciggerettes when I need to be paying bills and buying groceries for my children and family. Alot of these people trade foodstamps for money to buy liquor, drugs, or ciggerettes. You need to get out a little more often and see the real world around you. The poor today aren't a desolate as they once were and we have a different kind of poor today than we did in the past. Poor years ago was usually through no fault of the person who was poor. Now days people choose not to work and support themselves and their families. Instead they choose to live off of the welfare system.

Now, don't quote me then put words in my mouth ever again and make it look as if I am saying something I am not. I care about people. I try to help people where ever and whenever I can. But my idea of helping the poor is not to put them on the system and keep them there, my idea of helping the poor is to give them the tools they need to be successful in life. Have a good day!

Thanks and glory be to God!

-- Suzanne (james-betsy@sbcglobal.net), November 21, 2004.

Suzanne, I’m sorry you feel I put words in your mouth, I was only trying to draw out and understand what you said. I assure you I do “get out” quite a lot and I see a lot of drug addicts and other poor people. I know their situation.

It’s great that your father-in-law gave an illiterate man a job, but the fact is that today virtually all employers demand that even totally unskilled laborers be able to read. (So the employer won’t get sued because an employee injured himself because he couldn’t read safety notices etc.)

“they should not be allowed to be given medicaide to have their children.” Isn’t that punishing children for the (real or imagined)sins of their parents?

“to get on the welfare system......all you have to show is that you have no job and/or a bank statement showing that you have no money.” I’m sorry but I find this incredible. If it was true, most of the population would be on welfare. Whereas in fact, even though every other developed country has a vastly more generous welfare system than the USA, even the great majority of the populations of those countries choose not to use welfare.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 21, 2004.

"It’s great that your father-in-law gave an illiterate man a job, but the fact is that today virtually all employers demand that even totally unskilled laborers be able to read. (So the employer won’t get sued because an employee injured himself because he couldn’t read safety notices etc.)"

Steve, apparently you do not live in any of the states that border Mexico, or any states that employ migrant workers during the growing season. Believe me, they do not come into those jobs already able to read and write English....

And that also applies to jobs "requiring" college degrees and so forth. It's not what you know, it's who you know. Requirements like those are broken all the time if you have what it takes to get the job done for your employer. Obviously, Suzanne's FIL looked past what are often superficial "qualifications" (ever hear the expression "book smart, life dumb"?) and saw a real person who could do the job required and do it well.

Vioxx was approved by the FDA, which should have known better. And if the FDA did its job, we wouldn't be seeing any diet pill ads on TV.

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

I’m sorry but I find this incredible. If it was true, most of the population would be on welfare.-- Steve

Let me tell you, girls and women come into the clinic everyday on medicaid. Most of them are perfectly capable of holding a job and don't and if you ask them why.....I'll lose my benifits. I have counseled a great deal of women and girls who are on the welfare system and they will all tell you the same thing.

No, I don't want to punish women or children. Let me put it this way and from the voice of experience.....I was 15 when I had my oldest daughter. I had her on medicaid.....Yes, welfare. It was (and don't take this wrong, I love my children very very much and would never trade them for anything) a mistake to go out at 15 and get myself pregnant. It was wrong and it never should have happened. But after I had Meg I got myself back in highschool and on to higher education, the guy I married (still married to) worked hard, and we got off the welfare system. I can tell you from experience that it is easy to get on welfare. My husband and I did it and we both came from good upper middleclass famlies. All that was required was proof of income and assets, and being two teenagers that had moved out of the parents homes we could show virtually nothing in income and assets. We were able to get medicaid, foodstamps, TEA, and WIC. This went on for a little under a year and both of us realized we were never going to get out of the system if we didn't do something. First we got out of the trailor we were renting and moved in with my momma and daddy. My husband started working at a fulltime job and I finished highschool and then went on to college. We are living proof that people do not have to get on welfare and stay on it. Welfare is a tool meant to help people out of difficult situations. It isn't meant to be a means of living for the rest of your life. People have a choice. And I simply do not feel it is right for a woman to keep on getting pregnant and having baby after baby at the tax payers expense. A good program the government might try is educate women on NOT having children that they can not afford. Of course the answer they will have is to steralize them or artificial contraceptives. I honestly do not know all the answers but I do know that it is wrong to keep rewarding people for irresponsibility.

Thanks and glory be to God!

-- Suzanne (james-betsy@sbcglobal.net), November 21, 2004.

I would buy a hundred lottery tickets for all the folks on welfare. My taxes wuld be well spent.

Then when one of them hits the lottery for 90 million, they would haave to pay millions in taxes, and then I could stay home and get welfare.

Easy solution, just take some thought.

-- Snore (Dreamer@cloud9.com), November 21, 2004.

“they do not come into those jobs already able to read and write English....” (GT) They can read and write Spanish, though. But I’ve already had that discussion with those here who want to “send back” all the “aliens” who won’t speak English.

“Vioxx was approved by the FDA, which should have known better.” Rubbish. The FDA had absolutely solid grounds for approving Vioxx. As I said, a rare effect is not seen until the drug has been used in a large population for many years. And it was the manufacturer, not the FDA, which pulled Vioxx off the market. They were worried about lawsuits, in our society where anyone who has a bit of bad luck (who in other countries would get adequate welfare) is instead forced to sue the person with the deepest pockets (eg a drug company) who could possibly be “blamed” for his condition.

“ And if the FDA did its job, we wouldn't be seeing any diet pill ads on TV.” Agreed those ads shouldn’t be there. But the FDA can’t take them off. It can only act within the law. The pharmaceutical companies paid legislators to legalize direct to consumer drug advertising. Not to mention the innumerable ads for so- called “alternative” medicines, which have NO regulation of any kind, over advertising, supply, quality, content, safety, “efficacy” or anything else - thanks to lobbying by their manufacturers, paying off the legislators so they can peddle their products with totally false claims, without any encumbrance from governments.

“I simply do not feel it is right for a woman to keep on getting pregnant and having baby after baby at the tax payers expense. A good program the government might try is educate women on NOT having children that they can not afford.” Be very very careful Suzanne. If we went down that road, it would only be a small step for the government to “educate” and financially punish all parents who have “too many” children, as is happening in China.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 21, 2004.

Just as not everyone in this country is literate in English (for any number of reasons), the name would be true of people in other countries in regards to their own native language. That (and only that) is what I'm referring to. I'm sure there are school dropouts in all countries, not just ours.

I'm sorry, I put "folk medicine" in a different category than the new alternative treatments.

Steve and Suzanne, if people did not have children until they felt they could "afford" them, no one would have any children....

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), November 22, 2004.

GT, I have children I can not afford; I am sure we all do. I don't depend on the government or anyone else to make sure they are housed and fed. I am also not talking, Steve, about limiting the number of children a woman has. It is a womans right to have children. I am simply stating that the government should not be forced to be responsible for people's irresponsibility. Sure there are truly poor people in this world and I wish to help them, but let's face it, our government welfare system is grossly abused and needs reform. There is a girl, actually a woman, in our town who has 9 children by 9 different men. She is on every immaginable welfare program there is and every one of those children were born on the taxpayer's dime while this woman sits in a house (payed for by you and me), eating food (payed for by you and me), with heat and air and lights (paid for by you and me), and she is a big, strong woman, same age as me, who is perfectly capable of holding a job. She went to and graduated from the same highschool as me. She had fairly good grades, an A/B student, she can read and write and has a brain for learning skills to succeede if only she would. Ask her why she doesn't and you get the same old retoric....I'll lose my benifits.

I still stick with my statement that if you are on any welfare program for a certain ammount of time, let's say a year for example, that you aught to be required to take a job training course or go to a technical or trade school and get a job (paid for by the government). The benifits should end in a reasonable amount of time after that person has completed training and has gotten a job. If the said person refuses to get a job then he loses his benifits. I have the same sort of system at home....The kids work, they get paid. No work, they don't, there by not having the money to buy that great new CD or pair of really cool jeans. And while the government shouldn't say to a woman, "You can't have but 3 .2 kids!" I think they should be able to say how many a woman is allowed to have paid for my medicaid. After that you are responsible for paying for your own child or children.

I feel how I feel about it and you think that I am a total grinch who is uncharitable and mean, and that's ok, because I know who and how I am. I know I care about people and I love people. I am just tired of seeing the system be abused. You feel how you feel about it as well, and I think you are just as wrong as you think I am.And we aren't getting anywhere with this. None of us are able to budge the other on issues, so I agree to disagree and move on......Have a great day today ! God bless!

Thanks and glory be to God!

-- Suzanne (james-betsy@sbcglobal.net), November 22, 2004.

Steve just isn't satisfied with stories of people who have made it in the USA without massive FEDERAl WELFARE handouts, paid for by confiscatory taxation in excess of 30% of "the rich". You see, in his universe, the rich are evil BECAUSE they're better off than the poor who are virtuous because they're less well off than the rich.

The idea that people have dignity irrespective of their level of income and rights irrespective of income - that the rich don't forfeit rights after making over a certain amount... doesn't enter the equation because that would be a reciept for social cohesian and unity instead of the marxist dialectic of class warfare wherein the poor hate and envy the rich as a virtue and use the government to even the score.

Of course, Steve can't point to a single country on the planet wherein the "poor" are better off, with more opportunities for advancement and a future than the big bad USA. But no matter. Because we're not a socialist regime governed by a committee that plans the economy and decides who wins and who loses... we're bad.

-- economics anonymous (anonymous@yahoo.com), November 22, 2004.

"Steve and Suzanne, if people did not have children until they felt they could "afford" them, no one would have any children.... "

I had put "(grin)" after the above phrase when I originally posted it, and it didn't show up. My computer was running out of battery juice at the time.

One option is to just take the children and place them up for foster care/adoption, most of those mothers on welfare in the case Suzanne brings up don't love their children anyway except for the money they bring in. No paying them for the children either. This is strictly an issue of placing the children in a better home.

I don't think children are a "right"--they are a responsibility. If you won't take care of them properly, you shouldn't be allowed to have them.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), November 22, 2004.

This is a Catholic site so here goes... if a woman gets pregnant than the whole "she shouldn't be allowed" argument goes out the door. That new life makes her a mother and thus, by right, the guardian of that new life... regardless of her economic or political standing.

That's the Church's first position. The second is that such a mother can not morally destroy that life because of feared consequences after birth - such as poverty, etc. Consequentialism is a heresy.

But this doesn't mean she can't USE HER MIND and send the kid to her parents, an aunt, or put the child up for adoption! Why are so many peopeople stuck in the box of either/or thinking? "either the Federal government subsidizes me or I starve" (and what about your neighbor, a fellow parishoner? A relative or friend? Why is the local township or state not involved? Why must all answers involve the federal bureaucracy and taxation "of the evilllllll rich"???

Or people think "either I abort the kid or I give the kid up in adoption resulting in a horrible life of abuse and illness?" Again, no thought that life is better than death and that while the death is assured in abortion, by no means is it a certainty that adoption will be a torturous existence!

I am continually amazed that we Catholics on this site have, as de facto position the idea that we can't solve our own problems via the CHURCH and thus must depend on the government (a secular system) for our basic needs.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), November 22, 2004.

So then the father has no rights at all? And what of the child's right to be brought up by someone better if the biological parents are unfit (and getting welfare puts you well on that road, imho, unless you have bona fide serious issues)?

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), November 22, 2004.

“There is a girl, actually a woman, in our town who has 9 children …and she is a big, strong woman, same age as me, who is perfectly capable of holding a job.”(Suzanne) I’d say with 9 kids she already has more than a full-time job!

No I’m sure you’re not a total grinch. I’ve never met an Irish colleen who was. But GT's sweeping statement that "most of those mothers on welfare in the case Suzanne brings up don't love their children anyway except for the money they bring in" seems pretty grinchy.

Econ Anon, you think anything more than 30% income tax on Bill Gates’ income is “confiscatory”?? I repeat, socialism and totally unbridled capitalism are not the only two alternatives. What I and the Church argue for is a middle way of economic justice which is fair to all.

Joe and Econ Anon, I’ve certainly never suggested the rich are evil, so why do you put “the evil rich” in quotes as if quoting from me? But if you think I’m tough on the rich, check out what Jesus had to say in the Gospels.

No Joe, I don’t think we should look to the govt to solve all our problems. I was merely refuting the idea that the govt MUST NOT be involved at all in correcting economic injustices. Plainly it must be, as the Church has pointed out.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 22, 2004.

"I put "folk medicine" in a different category than the new alternative treatments. "(GT)

Why? Just because it’s older? An ineffective treatment is an ineffective treatment, whether it was invented centuries ago or just this minute. Just because some people have been fooled by it for centuries doesn’t mean there must be something to it. Astrology has been around for at least 3000 years.

Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism and Hinduism are all a lot older than Christianity too. That doesn’t make them better.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 23, 2004.

Governments ought to exist for the good of the people - including all sectors of society, not just the poor.

And I for one haven't clamored for unrestricted capitalism and libertarianism. There is a place and role for government - just as there is a place and role for the Church. Ideally, education would be ENTIRELY in the hands of the Church, funded on the Parish level, not via taxation. After all, the Church has long taught that parents are the primary educators of their children, NOT "the state".

That's how it worked before the rise of the atheistic nation-states.

Given the Church's stance on subsidiarity, the local political structure ought to be tapped first, not jettisoned in favor of the leviathan of federal control (and thus taxation) as the locals can be presumed to be more concerned and responsible for their own goods than strangers.

This is how the Church runs it's own internal affairs too - local authorities are respected and only when out of their league are diocesan or global powers brought to bear on a given situation.

In the 13th century the peasants were actually better off economically than the poor were in the 17th century - and guess what? taxation was limited to 10% (the tithe).

Scour the offical documents of the Pope as you will, you will never find a magic number stating that 30% is too little a rate for the government to tax the rich.

The rate only matters in function of the results. If a given society can function on 10% taxation, then hurrah! But there are limits built into the economic laws of mankind - supply and demand are nearly like physical laws - you can pass political measures ala Soviet centralized planning but that only spreads poverty. It's a fact that capitalism has produced more wealth (enlarged the economic pie to be shared) than any other system.

That doesn't make it perfect and it doesn't mean it ought to be untethered from moral constraint or Church influence, but it does mean that socialism is a big no-no.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), November 23, 2004.