Agree pretty much 100%.

And this puts voters like me in a quandary. I have followed things pretty closely, and thus far, I don't feel like I can support either candidate in good conscience, and I have done a lot of thinking and soul-searching about both of them (and now Ryan, too).

(I think you meant anti lack of dignity for the aged)

One should dislike someone's good reputation being attacked by one-sided reporting as the case of Rep Paul Ryan. I just saw this article reporting on the comments of Rep Ryan's bishop and I post it to bring balance to the conversation:

In his column, Bishop Morlino sought to tamp down the rhetoric and encourage the kind of civil discourse that assumes the good intentions of a Catholic in good standing who is arguing about matters on which people of good will are free to disagree.
“Where intrinsic evils are not involved, specific policy choices and political strategies are the province of Catholic lay mission,” he states in a column that emphasizes the distinction between intrinsically evil choices that must always be opposed and policy positions shaped by prudential judgments, which should be guided by the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity with regards to those most in need.
“Vice-presidential candidate Ryan is aware of Catholic social teaching and is very careful to fashion and form his conclusions in accord with the principles mentioned above. Of that I have no doubt,” Bishop Morlino asserted, providing an unusually explicit defense of the candidate.
http://krestaintheafternoon.blogspot.com/2012/08/paul-ryans-bishop-defends-him-amid.html

It is also stated in the article that the "USCCB criticism of the Ryan budget proposal was voiced by ishop Stephen Blaire of Stockton, Calif., the chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development. I don't think the USCCB took a position as a whole. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. The fact that the chief committee person of the Peace and Justice committed recently resigned may give us a hint of what's ahead.

Although I fall into the category of "gentlewoman" rather than "gentleman," I'll say a few words on this. I've spent a good part of my adult life (and I'm now 60) working in social services with frail, low-income elders. Most of my clients have nothing but their monthly Social Security check, usually ranging from $700-1200/month. That's it. There simply is nothing else: no pension, no savings (it's long gone, if there ever was any), nothing. They depend on that monthly government check, and most of them also depend on subsidized housing, energy assistance, and food stamps. Some also depend on the home-delivered meals program, funded by the federal Older Americans Act. Those with $900/month or less normally have Medicaid to supplement their Medicare. Those in the $900-1200 range generally have some kind of no- or low-cost Medicare supplement plan. Some get extra help through the federal government with their prescriptions.

It's a delicate balancing act for many of them already. Even with programs at the level they are at now, I have had clients who skip meals so they can buy their prescriptions, or skip taking some of their meds so as to have enough money for food. I have also had clients who don't heat or cool (it reaches 110 here in the summer) their apartments or homes sufficiently because they don't have the money, and because of their age and poor health, it sometimes leads to a medical emergency. Cutting all the various social programs will absolutely put more low-income elders at risk in a myriad of ways, and decrease their ability to live out their final years with dignity.

In my years in social services, I have definitely worked with individuals who fit the stereotype of those who are unwilling to work, but quite willing to sponge off the government. However, I would say these people only account for about 5% of my caseload. Another 10% or so became physically or mentally disabled prior to being elderly, and, due to the nature of their disability, have not been able to adequately support themselves, or manage their lives. The majority of my clients, however, worked hard all their lives, raised a family, and paid their taxes, but because they worked at low-paying jobs, they now find themselves struggling to live on very little. More of them are women than men, in my experience.

People who have lived all their lives with enough income to be comfortable, with the prospect of a pension to supplement their Social Security when they retire, and perhaps even with some savings or investments to help cushion their old age, often cannot comprehend that that there are people who also worked hard all their lives but have none of those things. They also sometimes really, genuinely, do not understand what it is like to struggle like this. The majority of my clients, as I said, were honest, hard-working, contributing citizens, who never had to take a "handout" until they retired. For many of them, it is humiliating to find themselves in this position.

From my perspective, in a civilized Christian society, we have an obligation to see that no individual without sufficient resources should have to live out their retirement years without at least basic nutrition, health care, and housing. Can't we at least do that in a country as rich as ours?

It was exciting and amazing to look at the photos of Mars sent back by Curiosity, yet at the same time, I couldn't help but think that the problems we have here on the ground in this country (and in this world) in terms of poverty, hunger, lack of access to affordable health care, child abuse, etc, are far more deserving of the millions (or billions) of dollars spent on that space mission, for these problems compromise the ability of people to meet their basic needs, and to live out their lives with dignity.

As David said, our current social programs need a lot of fixing, but let's fix them, not decimate them. I understand the desire for smaller government, but as David also said, without the government meeting some of these needs in society, the reality is, they will never be adequately met. And I also agree with his statement that without addressing some of the more underlying issues such as materialism, we aren't going to make much progress.

I also worked in Social Services in the legal division as did Jaya and her observations are spot on the money.

The USCCB official letter:

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/h...-2012-03-06.pdf

At least you have one choice, which is not to vote for any of the options available. In Australia, we have compulsory voting.

*A bunch of stuff about how compulsory welfare is good*

I would like to make a plug for Capitalism

Capitalism has lifted more of the poor out of the quagmire of poverty than any form of welfare ever - combined alltogether - in the entire history of man.

The Space program has yielded technology (computers being one) which our world and we benefit from. I would not trade what we have achieved in technology advancement from the space program for all the $$$ we could have paid in welfare and reparations type payments.

Never before has the world been able to communicate as fast as now - and never before has there been so many wealthy people (anyone who has enough food to eat = historically wealthy).

I realize that there are poor people -

I also realize what Ronald Reagan called "the faceless masses waiting in line for a government handout"

The fraud and waste in our welfare system is staggering.
I've seen many many poor people who buy Meth with money they get from the government and most of them had computers, cell phones, and big screen HDMI 1080p flat screen tv's - hardly poor by the rest of the worlds standards.

John Haydukovich

p.s. don't get me wrong - I want to help the poor
The REAL POOR - not the fraudulent cheaters who sap the system and make it even harder for people in need to get assistence.
(SEE Social Security Fraud, Medicare Fraud, etc. etc.)

Finally, remember that not all regulations thwart small business, drag down investment and growth etc....

Anyone living in North East PA can tell you how the impact of the unregulated anthracite coal extractions in the 19th and early 20th centuries are still raising hell with the environment.

Here in New York the impact of unregulated disposal of tanning wastes from the shoe factories which once employed fifteen thousand here still contributes to cancer rates above the norm in neighborhoods nearby the old dumps.

Ayn Rand relates mightily to Paul Ryan because he has spoken quite intensely about how much he admires her writing and her philosophy. And if ever there were a spokesman for anti-Christian thought, it was she.

To start with -- and what I am about to say will be very unpopular on this forum -- if Paul Ryan (and those who agree with him) had his way, my nephew's 29YO wife would be dead, because Ryan would ban all abortions, even to save the mother's life, and her ectopic pregnancy (a pregnancy she desperately wanted) would have killed her.

Technically, it is an abortion, as is an unintentional miscarriage. But you are correct as to it being proper and justified.

Sane regulation of fracking today will prevent a wasteland of poisoned water and lands in the future.

It is interesting to note that anti-regulation fervor only extends as far as one's backyard.