Also, we have not even begun to address the destructive force welfare has been on minority families. Fatherhood has been relegated to a low level of importance, since the federal government can provide the assistance you need!
Not everything can be blamed on welfare, but it certainly bears a large part of the responsibility. As one of my favorite conservative authors, economist Thomas Sowell, observes:
Quote
The assumption that spending more of the taxpayers� money will make things better has survived all kinds of evidence that it has made things worse. The black family�which survived slavery, discrimination, poverty, wars and depressions�began to come apart as the federal government moved in with its well-financed programs to �help.�
This all strikes very close to home for me, since I live on a social security disability income. It is a poor living if that is all there is, and that is all there is. However, I know that I am not alone and there is not enough private charity to keep those predictable checks coming in month to month. Just would not happen locally.
So it is not an either or proposition.
People in my position put everything we have back into the system every month. A constant cycling of ready cash.
That has a very positive impact on the system.
My life is not anything near that which anyone in this topic would choose to replicate in their own lives, but were it not for my work over several decades and the work of others unknown to me, I would be on the street, in an institution, in a hovel or dead.
No. It is not an either or proposition.
Mary
Mary,
Although I have not lived in your circumstances like yours, I have worked both professionally and on a volunteer basis with those who have. I have worked with a variety of populations, with people who have mental illness, substance addictions, physical and mental disabilities.
I do not believe that private charity would be effective in providing security for citizens such as yourself. I therefore agree with you that a life affirming society should provide a strong social safety net for vulnerable citizens.
As Gordon suggests, there should be more private-public partnerships with government, faith-based institutions and private charity. But I think with all due respect to those who differ with me, that it is naive to think that private charity could address the needs of all of our vulnerable populations.
I used to manage group homes for people with developmental disabilities, and have an idea of the per diem cost of supporting adults with developmental disabilities, including their health care. It is a lot.
I value the concept of sharing of burdens in our society, both in the private and public sphere. We are a very wealth society. We should be able to take care of our people.
Gordo: Do you think anyone can even explain to us what purpose the U.S. Dept. of Education serves? Even with my leanings towards a significant role for the federal government, I would be in favor of getting rid of it. What good purpose does it fulfill? I believe in the right of parents to a strong voice in the way in which their children are educated. Also, challenges and opportunities in public education can vary greatly from one locale to the next. There is no need for the federal government to get involved, except possibly in a supporting, but not regulatory role, where particularly schools may face economic or staffing challenges that are beyond the ability of the local authorities to handle. Ryan
I often wonder what his presidency might have been like had there been no 9/11 (and subsequently no war with Iraq). Truly this was the definitive event of his presdiency and virtually everything else in his presidency (for good or for ill) has been predicated on his firm commitment to ensure that this never happens again (or at least not on his watch). It is a burden no leader would ever want, at least not a leader with all of his marbles in play.
God bless,
Gordo
Gordo,
I personally believe that the current administration would have tried to go into Iraq anyway, without 9-11. I think that this had been in the works since the early 1990s. But that is another subject.
Even with 9-11 happening. I think that President Bush could have taken us in a different direction. Instead of going into Iraq, all resources could have been focused on finding Osama Bin Laden. I think it was right and good that we overthrew the Taliban in Afganistan. Now, I can imagine one possible picture of things had we not gone into Iraq
1) All military resources would be focused on Al Queda 2) More time and resources could have been put toward more effective border control 3) the President could have straightened out and refurbished the CIA and FBI so that they would do their jobs correctly 4) We would not have near the national debt that we have and the President would have had more authority to continue with his domestic agenda 5) President Bush would be regarded as a wise leader. Our reputation with our European allies would have increased greatly and we would likely get more cooperation on intelligence and on other issues. 6) The bulk of our armed forces would not be stuck in Iraq, away from their homeland, making us an easy target of attack. After all, what would we do if one or two more conflicts broke out in other parts of the world that we thought we should be involved in. 7) The Republicans probably would not have lost congress in 2006 and President Bush would have the popularity and moral authority to push a strongly prolife agenda, including more restrictions to abortion and more challenges to Roe v. Wade. Without the popularity and moral authority, the best that the President can do is veto any bill that would overturn restrictions on abortion and hope that his veto is sustained. And, by the way. Suppose justice Ginsberg or John Paul Stevens were to suddenly retire. What chance would the president have of getting a pro-life judge through the senate judiciary committee?
So, I personally believe that President Bush has done tremendous damage, even to the prolife movement. Just my two cents.
Joe
Last edited by JSMelkiteOrthodoxy; 05/08/0702:24 AM.
Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, who barely registers in public opinion polls of the Republican presidential field, won last Thursday night's debate.
That was the unmistakable conclusion of the online poll posted by debate sponsor MSNBC, which registered Paul with higher positive ratings and lower negative numbers than any of the other nine candidates on the stage. Editor's Picks
ABC's post-debate Internet survey showed an even clearer victory for Paul, with the congressman taking more than 9,400 of 11,000 votes as of 12:30 p.m. Monday. (Rudy Giuliani is the next ranked candidate, with barely 150 votes.)
Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, who barely registers in public opinion polls of the Republican presidential field, won last Thursday night's debate.
That was the unmistakable conclusion of the online poll posted by debate sponsor MSNBC, which registered Paul with higher positive ratings and lower negative numbers than any of the other nine candidates on the stage. Editor's Picks
ABC's post-debate Internet survey showed an even clearer victory for Paul, with the congressman taking more than 9,400 of 11,000 votes as of 12:30 p.m. Monday. (Rudy Giuliani is the next ranked candidate, with barely 150 votes.)
PJB agrees with that assessment. If you scroll down on his page, you will see Congressman Paul's stellar moments. Taken in aggregate, truly he is the most conservative!
Ron Paul is looking better to me all the time. I just scanned his website. I think I agree with everything so far. I like Guilliani's decisiveness but not his facile attitude toward Life. I like McCain's pro-Life and pro military stands but find his view on the First Amendment troubling and he's too physically frail. Mitt Romney might be acceptable but I'm always a little suspicious when one is a bit too slick. Most of the rest have too many downsides. Maybe Paul is worth getting behind.
My life is not anything near that which anyone in this topic would choose to replicate in their own lives, but were it not for my work over several decades and the work of others unknown to me, I would be on the street, in an institution, in a hovel or dead.
No. It is not an either or proposition.
Mary
Mary,
Although I have not lived in your circumstances like yours, I have worked both professionally and on a volunteer basis with those who have. I have worked with a variety of populations, with people who have mental illness, substance addictions, physical and mental disabilities.
I do not believe that private charity would be effective in providing security for citizens such as yourself. I therefore agree with you that a life affirming society should provide a strong social safety net for vulnerable citizens.
As Gordon suggests, there should be more private-public partnerships with government, faith-based institutions and private charity. But I think with all due respect to those who differ with me, that it is naive to think that private charity could address the needs of all of our vulnerable populations.
I used to manage group homes for people with developmental disabilities, and have an idea of the per diem cost of supporting adults with developmental disabilities, including their health care. It is a lot.
I value the concept of sharing of burdens in our society, both in the private and public sphere. We are a very wealth society. We should be able to take care of our people.
I, too will have to give Dr. Paul a second look, who knows even my dad may vote for him. The last Republican he voted for was Nixon (to his shame he says.)
The Byzantine Forum provides
message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though
discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are
those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the
Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the
www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial,
have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as
a source for official information for any Church. All posts become
property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2022 (Forum 1998-2022). All rights
reserved.
