Can this market be saved?
Thursday, February 5, 2009
By goodwink
Comments (10)
ShareThis
A Catholic view of the market just may be what’s needed to rescue our economy from its moral recession.
The editors interview Daniel Finn
If anything good comes out of the current economic crisis, it might be a more urgent discussion of morality in the marketplace, theologian and economist Daniel Finn says.
Finn, a professor at St. John’s University in Collegeville, Minnesota and president of the Society of Christian Ethics, has attended separate meetings of theologians and economists on back-to-back weekends for 30 years.
This incongruous experience has left him with a goal. “I’ve constantly been struck by how differently people think about these issues,” Finn says. “Both within economics and Christian ethics, people on the left and right often don’t talk to each other. They just think the other side is wrong.”
Finn wants to bring all sides to the same table to discuss morality’s role in the market. Even in exclusively Catholic circles, though, solutions won’t be easy to come by. “You shouldn’t say, ‘What’s Catholic social teaching’s recipe for fixing this crisis?’ There are several options within the general Catholic frame,” says Finn, who also co-directs The True Wealth of Nations research project studying the relation of economics and Catholic social teaching.
Still, the discussion is worthwhile for religious folk. “There needs to be a sense that we’re in this together as a church and as a society, even if we don’t agree with each other,” Finn says. “This way we’d live a fuller, more integrated spiritual life.”
What brought about the current economic crisis?
There are several contributing causes, but the reigning philosophy that led to this crisis is the ideology of the free market. It says that people know their own interests better than anyone else and therefore are the best situated to act on those interests and decide what risks they’re going to take.
Housing was a big part of the problem. Interest rates on mortgages were lowered so low-income families could afford to own a house, but many middle-income individuals also bought a second or third house to rent out. Everyone expected home values to keep rising. Even if a family fell on hard times, they could always sell the home for a profit, though now this is no longer the case.
At the same time, new financial instruments were invented that gave investors more confidence to take financial risks. The investments weren’t based on real underlying assets like homes or factories but were derived from other financial instruments, hence the name derivative.
These new instruments were not subject to the usual financial regulation, and they got so complicated that nobody really knew what would happen if investments on which they were based were to fail.
London’s Financial Times estimates there were $3 trillion to $4 trillion worth of bonds with real assets behind them and between $30 and $50 trillion worth of these derived instruments. So when something went wrong in the world of real assets, such as people being unable to keep up their mortgage payments, the effect in the financial markets was magnified by 10. That’s what has made the current crisis so catastrophic.
How does Catholicism respond to free-market philosophy?
One of the biggest things Catholicism says about the economy is that it should be oriented toward the common good. Virgil Michel, a long-deceased Benedictine who taught at St. John’s University, had one of the best definitions of the common good. He said it had two aspects: the common conditions of social life and the attainment of the good life by all.
Common conditions are the things that we all depend on but that no one person generates: schools, museums, parks, police forces, peace, and so forth. The good life means that there should be a minimum quality of life for everyone. It doesn’t mean economic equality, but it does mean nobody can be left out. If you want plastic surgery and can afford it, I’m not going to stop you, but first everyone else has to have basic health and dental care.
For The True Wealth of Nations research project I co-direct, we’ve made the bold statement that if a country were to implement what Catholic social thought recommends, it would be on the path to sustainable prosperity for all. In essence that’s the Catholic view of where we have to be going.
Our current system has been devised without much concern for the common good or with the naive presumption that a free market would somehow serve the common good, but it doesn’t work that way. When you leave economic life to the free market, some people get left out. Our culture’s views of the market and of the human person are quite constrictive.
How so?
Economists understand the human person as a rational individual trying to maximize his or her own interests. You have certain things you enjoy and value in life, and everything you do is to obtain those goals.
This model was thought to be accurate back in the 1830s. Psychologists have dismissed it for 140 years, but it has been kept in economics for mathematical reasons. It is useful within limits, but it doesn’t explain everything.
Economists have used this model to explain the actions of both a felon stealing from folks in Calcutta and Mother Teresa helping them. She had a different set of interests, but according to an economic perspective, they both were pursuing their self-interest. In a moral conversation, however, you want to distinguish between Mother Teresa and the thief.
Daniel Finn is a Professor of Theology and William E. and Virginia Clemens Professor of Economics, St. John’s University, Collegeville, Minnesota
Co-director, The True Wealth of Nations, Institute for Advanced Catholic Studies
Author, The Moral Ecology of Markets: Assessing Claims about Markets and Justice (Cambridge University Press, 2006)
This article originally appeared in the March 2009 issue (Vol. 74, No. 3, page 12) of U.S. Catholic.
Can this market be saved?
By Jim (not verified) on Thursday, February 12, 2009Very strong words on the subject of income redistribution, from Pope Benedict XVI:
"Works of charity...are in effect a way for the rich to shirk their obligation to work for justice and (are) a means of soothing their consciences while preserving their own status and robbing the poor of their rights. Instead of contributing through individual works of charity to maintaining the status quo, we need to build a just social order in which all receive their share of the world's goods and no longer have to depend on charity."
-- From his first encyclical, "God Is Love." Earlier, in 1937, Pope Pius XI said in "Divinia Redemptoris:" "Charity will never be true charity unless it takes justice into account."
These quotes come from the article, "Steps Toward Justice," in the September 15, 2008 America magazine.
Waiting for and counting on the human-made market to distribute goods is idolatry. It's skewed toward the haves, reluctant to allow workers any rights, such as organizing. So if some are inept workers, they should get little or nothing?
On a semi-related issue, welfare cuts. So what if there were some women who had babies to get benefits? How is this a problem from a pro-life perspective? They were having babies, not abortions, and the babies had health care and a degree of financial security. Now poor, marginalized women have the highest rate of abortions. In welfare reform (cuts), money trumped life.
Jim, why I don't trust liberal magazines like America
By Jerry (not verified) on Thursday, February 12, 2009I suppose you quoted accurately from America Magazine; I originally was going to ask you if you made a mistake or were a typical dishonest liberal until I reread that you did not get the quote directly from the encyclical. The quote from Benedict was his definition of Marxism; then he went on to disagree with Marxism, not endorse it as church doctrine.
At least the distortion wasn't by removing a sentence in the middle. I've read a Fr. McBrian column and then found the full quotation which McBrian edited out the middle to completely distort someone's quote.
Here is the non-distorted complete quotation from "God is Love":
26. Since the nineteenth century, an objection has been raised to the Church's charitable activity, subsequently developed with particular insistence by Marxism: the poor, it is claimed, do not need charity but justice. Works of charity—almsgiving—are in effect a way for the rich to shirk their obligation to work for justice and a means of soothing their consciences, while preserving their own status and robbing the poor of their rights. Instead of contributing through individual works of charity to maintaining the status quo, we need to build a just social order in which all receive their share of the world's goods and no longer have to depend on charity. There is admittedly some truth to this argument, but also much that is mistaken. (It's easy to find, you can read on from there.)
Your quote regarding welfare cuts:
"So what if there are some women who had babies to get benefits?"
You make it seem like its a handful. Frankly I don't think most had the babies to get the benefits but rather engaged in destructive behavior because they knew that someone else would have to pay if their birth control failed.
The reality is the out-of-wedlock birth rate has skyrocketed since welfare and was reduced a little with welfare reform. The rate is so high it challenges the foundation of any healthy society which is the nuclear family. If abortions increase, it is not the fault of the taxpayer. Saying the taxpayer is responsible for a woman aborting her out-of-wedock baby is like saying you are responsible unless you pay a kidnapper not to kill a hostage. I believe that the rate of out of wedlock pregancies would decrease with the elimination of welfare for out of wedlock babies. In fact, it is entirely possible that abortions could decrease as lifestyles are changed to the new reality.
You would do some good to read some Thomas Sowell. The belief in a bloated beauracracy or a political messiah is idolotry not the free market. The free market ensures the most efficient distribution of goods. No one is smart enough to determine all the intricacies of billions of transactions and determine that he is some god who can figure out what is best for hundreds millions of people. The proof is in the pudding. Capitalism has generated the a better standard of living than anyone could have imagined. Average people of the past would envy the living standard of our poor of today. There is no way that would have happened if Socialism, not Capitalism, was the economic model since the 1700's.
The other important point is the free market is the basis of our freedom. Not having some government worker making decisions for every facet of my life is freedom. Socialism promises freedom for worry but it stifles the individual and leads to the implosion of society.
I'm all for just wages, but who am I to hold a gun to someone's head and tell him he must pay or receive in wages I, not he, determines is just? Obviously, some companies can pay more than other to do essentially the same job. Am I to force the more profitable company to subsidize less profitable companies so the wages can be equal? Should the government run everything?
I completely agree with your quote of Piux XI: "Charity will never be true charity unless it takes justice into account." However, Pius XI was not calling for Marxism.
A response
By Jeff (not verified) on Tuesday, February 10, 2009Though I respect Jerry's opinion and his personal experience with the downsides of our current social welfare system, I think the U.S. COnference of Catholic Bishops might have something to say about his assertion that we have no right to food:
http://www.usccb.org/bishops/agricultural.shtml#14
In my experience, for every person who takes advantage of the welfare system to live well with little if any effort, there are those hard-working, morally upright individuals who despite their best efforts simply cannot get by in our society without the often little help that our welfare system brings. It is tempting to blame their woes on our free-market, winner-take-all capitalistic system, but the truth is that the issues facing us are waaaay too complex to blame on any one political or economic ideology. Socialism and capitalism, republican and Democrat - all have their pros and cons, and simply balming one or the other takes the focus off of the reality of our fallen nature. It is not by our works or by our rights but by God's grace that we have food, clothing, and shelter, and we have both the right and responsibility to use these gifts properly and generously share them with others.
Study of Economics
By Jerry (not verified) on Tuesday, February 10, 2009Your comment :
"Socialism and capitalism, republican and Democrat - all have their pros and cons, and simply balming one or the other takes the focus off of the reality of our fallen nature. It is not by our works or by our rights but by God's grace that we have food, clothing, and shelter"
I'm not sure what your point is. While no system is perfect, there is a reason for the study of economics. Some types of economies work better than others. We study medicine to improve health even though we live by God's grace. We study economics to help people in society obtain better levels of food, clothing, shelter and health care even though those ultimately come from God.
I believe comparing Socialism to Capitalism has everything to do with taking into account our fallen nature. Socialism feeds into our fallen nature when obtaining things is deemed a right. When someone can act irresponsibly and demand as a right for us to take care of them, chaos results.
Does Octo-mom who kept having in-vitro fetilization despite being single and on taxpayer funded disability and food stamps have the right to have us pay for her 14 children under her terms?
Anything traditionally deemed a right was within the power of the indivdual such as freedom of speech or to live. It makes no sense that I have the right to have you do things for me.
I fully concur we have the obligation to help the needy as clearly stated in Scripture. Our treasures ultimately belong to God and it is a sin of ommision not to help. However, Octo-mom does not have the right to demand that we pay for her irresponsibility under her terms.
Excerpt from 2 Thessalonians 3:
For we did not act in a disorderly way among you, nor did we eat food received free from anyone. On the contrary, in toil and drudgery, night and day we worked, so as not to burden any of you. Not that we do not have the right. Rather, we wanted to present ourselves as a model for you, so that you might imitate us. In fact, when we were with you, we instructed you that if anyone was unwilling to work, neither should that one eat.
Where do we draw the line?
By Jeff (not verified) on Tuesday, February 10, 2009First of all, I think you got my point - all we have is a gift from God, and we do have a duty to give of our own goods in order to support them. To quote St. John Chrysostom (from CCC 2446): "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."
As for socialism versus capitalism, I must confess that I am not sure if you consider our current system of welfare to be socialism, or if you have a different definition in mind. Given my low-speed Internet connection, I haven't watched the YouTube video you referenced, so you'll have to give me a bit more background. You quote the apostle Paul in your postings, especially his oft-quotes phrase "no work, no eat" (my paraphrase). Indeed, I cannot argue against Paul, but I can quote other Scripture passages that speak about our obligation to help the poor (Mt 25, James 2:15-16 to name a couple).
However, this is beside the point. You speak about those who act irresponsibly as examples of how "socialism" can further emphasize our fallen nature. However, if by "socialism" you are referring to the many systems of economic assistance (i.e. "welfare") in place in our country, your examples give a skewed perspective of the good these programs do. I can think of many examples of those who are helped by assistance programs - a former client seeking asylum, who tries desperately to find a job and relies on Food Stamps in order to eat, many of the 200+ mentally ill persons in a residential facility I used to work at; who, without government help would be homeless; a current client who works hard to support herself and her 11 year old son who utilizes a public housing program. There are countless examples of persons who wish to work but are unemployed or underemployed, and utilize the same forms of assistance that Octo-mom and others like her use as well. How do we determine who is worthy of our help, and who is not? If we cut back or eliminate programs designed to help, who will fill in the gaps? Will you or I? I agree that there are those who take unfair advantage of "the system" and by all rights should not be allowed to use it, but if we weed these out, do we also take with us those who do work and who do make a genuine effort to better their circumstances? (cf Mt 13:29) If you can come up with a better system to meet the of these, please let me know!
We're pretty much on the same page
By Jerry (not verified) on Wednesday, February 11, 2009Although I wrote primarily about how the welfare system encourages rampant lifestyle abuse, in my first post I did mention our personal obligation for charity.
While differentiating obligation to help versus right to receive help may seem like splitting hairs, I believe it is important for people to understand they don't have a right to do nothing or less than reasonable and expect others to pay for them.
In terms of governmental aid, it obviously does good, but it also does harm. So the issue is complex. For example, I have no doubt the rate of babies born out of wedlock has drastically increased due to the welfare state. The answer may be the government doesn't give funds for out of wedlock babies and if private charities decide not to fund out of wedlock babies, the state has to take these children from unqualified out of wedlock mothers if the children are malnourished. Of course this requires the state to make a value judgment about aiding a widow, a married couple on hard times or a married woman whose husband skipped out on her, but not an out of wedlock mother. While this is tragic on a personal level to the mother, it is probably better off for the child to get adopted into the home of a married couple and will change the behavior of many women to act more responsibly in the first place and live happier lives. Of course, a feelings based liberal will only emote about the unwed mother and insist that the government give aid to the un-wed mother to make her lifestyle on par with the general population.
Another complex issue to consider is how comfortable people on aid should be. Since food, shelter, medical care, utilities and education make up such a huge portion of most people's budgets if we automatically give out the same level of care to welfare recipients as the general population there is not a lot of incentive for a lot of people to work. A lot of people get these benefits but still can scrape together enough cash for I-pod's, cell phones, movies and flat panel TV's. This may mean that those on welfare should receive sub-par medical care to provide an incentive to work. The tragedy is that if I offered welfare reciepients a plan where they would get better medical care for $70 per month, most would keep their $70 per month cell phone plan and not pay for the medical care. Then we'll hear the sob stories about their inadequate care and how we must therefore force the nanny-state upon everyone.
The other complication is defining the value of work. Take for an example a person who did drugs through high school, never studied, never learned a trade and knock up a girl for whom he is pay child support. Now he shacks up with his common law wife and works as janitor. While it is good he now works, should he expect to same standard of living as someone who was responsible and perhaps learned a trade as being a mechanic? The mechanic has to scrape to get by so once you start giving out aid to the janitor they are going to end up with about the same level of lifestyle. It is entirely possible the mechanic will be paying taxes to fund a Section 8 better home and better medical care for the janitor. However, frequently we hear well intentioned liberal Catholics give sob stories about how the wages to the janitor are unjust since he can't support a family of four.
In terms of the level of abuse of the system, I think its pretty high. There is no incentive for a government worker to remove people from the system because they contribute to job security. Politicians get votes out of constituents receiving benefits as well as good intentioned folks who care for the poor. A fantastic employee of mine who lives in East Los Angeles tells me that she observes the abuse of the system is rampant (her words are it is virtually everyone in East L A.). She thinks it is so bad that she favors a flat tax because she believes those at lower incomes paying the tax will more than make up for it in benefits. (Interestingly enough I don't favor a flat tax and she is so culturally tied to being a Democrat she votes Democrat even though on welfare, abortion and other social issues she has a 180 degree view of the California Democratic Party).
One thing that troubles me is the complete distortion made that the poor are greatly taken advantage of in our system. This mindset is extremely destructive, creating an atmosphere of class warfare, envy, and entitlement. Dr. Finn helped to perpetuate this distortion with his false statement that those who don't pay taxes didn't get a 2008 stimulous check.
On a more personal level I had a Latino installer at my company ask for help on figuring out his federal tax withholdings for his paychecks. He made $54,000 per year and had three kids. I pointed out that he had to withhold nothing since he is owes no taxes due to the Bush tax cuts. I asked him the question if people in his community all believed that the rich don't pay taxes and the poor pay all the taxes and he confirmed that was the case. I have no doubt he won't correct this falsehood the next time his family of friends bring it up in conversation.
As for the you tube link, it documents 2004 house hearings about the hole Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were digging that ended up in the mess we're in now. Although there were good intentions to help people get into homes, those 1% no money down loans inflated the housing market and led to the crash today. Although greed of executives caring only about bonues contributed to the problem, government intervention is what instigated the problem. Dr. Finn is clearly wrong that the free market created the problem.
Economist Thomas Sowell has a weekly column and in my mind a more sound source of information than Dr. Finn. Dr. Sowell may be the most clear thinking articulate cultural treasure our country has today.
Fact Check
By Jeff (not verified) on Thursday, February 12, 2009You seem to make quite a few assumptions about the standard of living for those who are on welfare. For example, you state "Since food, shelter, medical care, utilities and education make up such a huge portion of most people's budgets if we automatically give out the same level of care to welfare recipients as the general population there is not a lot of incentive for a lot of people to work." In the U.S., what most people consider to be "welfare" is called Temporary Aid for Needy Families (TANF), created in 1996 with the push for welfare reform by the Clinton Administration and the Republican Congress. You mentioned your friend in California; in this state, the maximum monthly benefit for a family of three is $704/month ($8,448/year maximum), even with food stamps, health care benefits and a Section 8 voucher (which has a multi-year waiting list, at least in my home state of MN) that is hardly meeting the same standard of living as the general population, especially since the 2009 Poverty level for a family of 3 is $18,310/year. In addition, Recipients must participate in work activities after reaching a trigger limit of no more than 24 months. (Sources: http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/09poverty.shtml, http://www.nccp.org/profiles/CA_profile_36.html) In short, families on welfare don't necessarily get tons of money to spend on whatever they want. On a more personal level, I used to work with families in St. Louis, MO where the monthly benefit from TANF was less than $300/month. Even with some money in food stamps (usually nowhere near what was needed to feed themselves and their children) and pay for clothing, utilities, etc. Note that these mothers became mothers knowing well that they wouldn't get much support from anyone for the children they have. In my experience and opinion, simply cutting off benefits to unwed mothers won't solve the problem; neither will simply throwing money at people who have children out of wedlock. It also does not good to blame Democrats and liberals for the problems our country faces just as it does not good to blame Republicans and conservatives. We've been bashing each other for decades; what has that accomplished?
Clarification
By Jerry (not verified) on Friday, February 13, 2009If you have a solution to the explosion of out of wedlock births other than cutting off benefits to unwed mothers, I'm open to it. While there will never be a complete solution, I do believe economics plays a significant role.
You are correct that most people on welfare are not living lives of luxury. Since most assistance for public housing are in bad neighborhoods that is what scares many people to avoid welfare. My kids are part black, but pass as white kids. If we lived in East LA I would be putting their lives in danger beyond what a Latino kid has to endure which is bad enough. I could get by there if I was a single man keeping a low profile, but forget it if you have a kid. That is why the white working class population is so low in California where real estate prices are high. They have moved to other states.
It should be noted that white non-Latino aren't morally superior to Latinos in the above example. The violence they will face just gives them the incentive to move and find employment elsewhere.
When I said "IF we automatically give out the same level of care to welfare recipients ", the IF implied IF we give what the level of assistance liberals want. I'm not implying that everyone on welfare is living on par with middle class Americans, but there are millions that know how to work the system with unreported income or not marrying so as not to have benefits stop while enjoying the extra income. My guess is my in-law that works at Supercuts and gets Section 8 housing is probably not reporting tip income, for example.
The reality is that a significant percentage of people on welfare have cell phones, flat panels, etc because they work the system with unreported income and can get by living in places like East L.A. Since I have five kids, I'll sacrifice not to have those luxuries so my kids don't have to live in a high crime area where they will be targeted as white kids. (A fact is that the most likely crime victim is a poor white person living in an urban area.) So you can see where someone who gets Section 8 housing in a nice area is getting a really good deal. I mentioned in my first post that there is a long waiting list for Section 8 housing so I realize that not everyone is getting benefits of that scale.
You are correct that welfare is not as good in other states as California. We have the highest taxes is the nation and people move here for the benefits. Despite the high taxes, the state has massively increased spending over the last five years and now there is a $40 billion budget deficit. While the population of illegal aliens has increased the overall population of California there has been a flight of taxpaying citizens and a net migration of people leaving versus people coming from other states. Economics has an impact.
If you add up subsidized housing, free school breakfest and lunch programs, free medical, free college, welfare payments, food stamps, utility assistance plus the job on the side that is not being reported, it can add up to quite a bit. (Yes I would consider these as some form of welfare.) There are other forms of abused "welfare" such as Octomom being on disability but somehow having the abiltiy to get pregnant with in vitro with six kids while on state disabilitly assistance. While being having 8 kids is freakish, the rest of the scenario is quite common.
Correcting Factual Error of Dr. Finn
By Jerry (not verified) on Monday, February 9, 2009ERROR:
"For example, it was wrong for last year’s government stimulus checks to go to taxpayers but not to those too poor to pay taxes."
FACT:
The vast majority of those who paid no taxes got an economic stimulous check in 2008. His statement is plainly incorrect and not open to debate. Anyone with $3,000 of income or social security benefits qualified for a stimulous check. Thanks to the Bush Tax Cuts a family of four taking only the standard deduction with up to $50,000 income pays no federal income tax (although they will pay California income taxes in Democratic dominated California).
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=179211,00.html
We can debate also his assertion that it is better for the economy to give welfare to non-producers further incentivizing them not to work harder versus tax cuts to producers incentivizing them to produce more.
Moral behavior and economic health
By Jerry (not verified) on Tuesday, February 10, 2009I give credit to Mr. Finn for acknowledging that personal moral behavior is a component of economic health. However, while we have an obligation to help others, there is no right to food, shelter and health care. There is a reason the in the story of Adam and Eve, God required man to work.
For most of human history people had to work hard to just feed themselves and put a roof over their heads. Thanks to Capitalism, we enjoy the best standards in human history. Socialists who claim that we must force others to pay immoral people's "right" to food, equal housing and medical care without meaningful work may ultimately bring the economy to a crashing halt.
Mr. Finn wants to impose his worldview upon others as indicated by his statement: "If you want plastic surgery and can afford it, I’m not going to stop you, but first everyone else has to have basic health and dental care." This ultimately means the using of force of law to tell doctors how they can make a living and to tell people they are not allowed to get cosmetic surgery until they pay for someone else's health care on par with their own. This of course undermines the incentive to work and moral health.
Take, for example, my in-laws in Massachusetts. My wife's two brothers have skipped out on their kids. One kid got pregnant at 16. When my wife suggested exploring adoption, her brother responded, "That's what assistance is for." The girl's mother works at Supercuts, but gets free medical care for the family from the State. They live in a beautiful 3 story loft duplex in Cape Cod with the help of Section 8 housing. The daughter, now 18, just sent to our daughter a MySpace message how she just purchased an Audi. My daughter in college drives a 15 year old subcompact with 150,000 miles and dents. Three months before, the MySpace message was about her new Blackberry; we have cheap Nokias on a prepaid plan.
The in-laws get to turn up the heat since they get state assisted utilities while we put on sweaters. They get free braces, we spent thousands of dollars out of pocket for braces, pay thousands of dollars annually for medical premiums, and paid additional thousands last year out of pocket. They delivered their out-of wedlock baby for free while in April we'll pay $500 out of pocket in addition to premiums for our baby.
We have more financial flexibility than they do, but they live in a nicer home and drive nicer cars. If their families actually produced a kid who could get into college, they would get taxpayer fully funded grants to any university. We had to limit our daughter's choices. We pay some and she has to work.
We have savings that might help us get by if am laid off for six months. Since there is a long waitig list for Section 8 housing, we are in a riskier position than them despite our more responsible lifestyle. They don't have savings, but they are already in the system for Section 8 housing which adjusts to their income and are free from any worry such as the need to purchase adequate auto liability insurance. What do they care if they are underinsured: they won't lose their Blackberrys or Section 8 Housing.
Their broken families are a tragedy. The other brother had two kids with a woman who had four other kids from four different fathers, he also knocked up another young lady. In the six children family, one son has spent time in prison. The MySpace page of the 16-year-old features a photo emphasizing her cleavage. The 15-year-old's MySpace Page features photos of her making out with her 19-year-old thug-looking boyfriend. The page also shows her posing in front of her mother's new SUV. I don't have the details of how they manage to afford renting an average two story home (that needs a paint job) on Cape Cod, but I imagine it's your tax dollars at work. They get free taxpayer funded summer camps with cool activities and nice field trips while we have to pay for our kids' camps.
The point is when the younger girls see limited economic conseqences to bad moral behavior, what is their incentive to make the disciplined moral decisions in life? My wife has tried to send them pamphlets and books on leading chaste lives and that has fallen on deaf ears.
My wife used to be a Democrat and lived the destructive lifestyle of her family, but after having an out of wedlock pregnancy, she decided to care take personal responsibility and explore her Catholic roots. I'm very proud of what she did through personal moral fortitude and the grace of God. They may live in a nicer home, drive nicer cars, have the heat turned up higher, have cable TV rather than our antennae TV, have better summer camps and have better cell phones, but my wife has her dignity. However, that's a tough sell to the 13-year-old girl in the family, much less the 18 year old single mother with an Audi reaping the benefits of government assistance.
Socialism leads to destruction on a personal level and ultimately on a national level. It is the reason there is no right to food, housing or medical care, even as we recognize our personal responsibility to give charity to the needy.
(By the way, the primary cause of mortgage crises and our current economic woes was Socialism. The government put pressure on lenders to fund loans at low rates to unqualified buyers under the Community Reinvestment Act which drove the market bubble. )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
U.S. Catholic insists on a civil and respectful dialogue on our website, following our Comment policy. Comments should be charitable, on topic, and brief. U.S. Catholic reserves the right to delete comments deemed inappropriate. We encourage you to choose your words wisely.
