One of the great truths of recent years is that if Pope Francis is in favor of something, it probably is a bad idea:
In Let Us Dream: The Path to a Better Future, co-written with Briton Austen Ivereigh, Pope Francis strongly advocates a basic income.
“The UBI could reshape relations in the labor market, guaranteeing people the dignity of refusing employment terms that trap them in poverty,” Pope Francis wrote.
Those who cite UBI as the key catalyst to the technology-driven transition go to the extent of saying that if the top 1,000 transnational companies are fairly taxed, a modest UBI for people across the world is a possibility.
In Western cities where UBI has successfully been implemented, the working population has welcomed the modern version of England’s Poor Law.
They see UBI paving the way for the abolition of “wage slavery” to which the working professionals are unknowingly tied to.
Go here to read the rest. What UBI would actually do is to reduce the vast majority of the population into perpetual wards of the State, leading a starveling existence. People who pay their own way have a dignity and an independence that would be robbed of them. Its goal, by proponents a lot smarter than our current Pope, admittedly a low bar, is to produce a passive population who will not interfere with the plans of the global elite. The road to serfdom is paved by the UBI.
Pope Francis would only encourage the vice of sloth and other vices practically guaranteeing that nearly everyone would go to hell.
“Pope” Francis is the devil’s servant.
Mediocrity.
Always lowering the bar so everyone can have a trophy by the end of the game.
No thanks.
I can visualize St . Joseph (the worker) now, saying; “I’ve had it with this lousy carpentry work, Caesar has to provide me with a better job or I’m going on strike.
Yup, that’s what the annona did for the Roman people: free grain from North Africa doled out for centuries reduced the Roman people to a mob that (as Tacitus notes bitterly) could care less who was emperor. When Aurelian needed to build a defensive wall in the late 3rd century (still there) he had to struggle to make the people work. Yet elsewhere Francis has spoken of the need for work as part of man’s spiritual nature, so what gives here? Real socialism or just muddle-headed grumbles about “gringo” capitalism?
We had a means tested version for a subset of the population. From 1958 to 1996, you saw an escalating social catastrophe on account of that program. The damage was partially repaired when the program was revamped and term-limits introduced in 1996. The number enrolled declined by 2/3 even as the general population increased by 20%. The reaction of factions in the nexus of interests around the Democratic Party to successful social policy is to reverse the policy if the policy is not founded on leftoid assumptions.
What’s coarsely amusing about this how ineptly it addresses social problems of modest dimension. As we speak, there is no occupation wherein mean annual cash compensation falls below $22,000 per year for a full time worker (see the BLS data on this point). About 10% of the f/t workforce is to be found in the nether portions of the compensation range of those occupations for which the mean annual wage is < $40,000 a year. For that 10%, their mean annual cash wage is < $22,000 a year before taxes. NB, $22,000 a year allows one in a 3d tier city like Syracuse to rent a 2 bdrm apartment with utilities, to purchase about $8,000 of groceries annually (the mean annual per-household expenditure in this country); to purchase a bus pass and phone service; to make weekly trips to the laundromat; and to make occasional purchases at thrift stores and consignment shops. A general tax credit which gave people on the lower end of the wage scale a net rebate capped at a certain % of their earned income would be sufficient to (1) counteract the effect of payroll taxes on their disposable income and (2) give them enough extra cash to drag them above a certain thresh-hold. You wouldn’t need SNAP or subsidized school lunches, or Section 8 or LIHEAP. You could phase out TANF. And you wouldn’t need a UBI. For the elderly, the disabled, and those collecting temporary unemployment compensation, you could add an increment to their check to replace SNAP, Section 8, &c.
Of course, they want to jack up the minimum wage to damage the labor market for low-skill workers and then ply people with cash to encourage them to stay home. You can see what a contextually high minimum wage and contextually high welfare benefits leads by having a gander at Puerto Rico. In a normal occidental economy, the employment-to-population ratio is 0.6; in Puerto Rico, it’s 0.35. They’ve also seen close to zero growth in real per capita income over the last 15 years, have the nation’s most ineffective schools, and have a government which is too enervated to distribute emergency supplies after a hurricane. That’s the future the Democratic Party has in mind for us.
Yet elsewhere Francis has spoken of the need for work as part of man’s spiritual nature, so what gives here? Real socialism or just muddle-headed grumbles about “gringo” capitalism?
My sister for a number of years worked as a special ed teacher in Rochester. She said at the time that students in her training program at Syracuse were taught to say ‘developmentally disabled’, a term not used by working special ed teachers in that era, who favored ruder and more concise terms. She also noted that people outside the field had a somewhat gauzy understanding of what her clientele were like, not realizing that unintelligent people can be quite cunning. I think my sister’s 23-year–old-self would have seen through Francis right away.
“perpetual wards of the state” means if you do not tow the party line, you will be cut off as is happening in China.
Who going to pay for this UBI? Tax. People who work. The left thrive on giving out the dole anyway – one which is as permanent as possible and not what it’s intended for (temporary financial aide whilst one is looking for work). Its designed to trap the pleb into a vicious cycle of dependence and secure their vote at every election.
What’s not to like?
Tall housing tenements, government cheese, curfews and government appointed bishops.
A cross without Christ. A drive thru communion distribution center.
No need for reconciliation…sin has been “canceled.” Happy daze are here again. Uniforms for everyone!
Philip, Can my uniform have the five pointed Red Star not the six pointed yellow star? Some would have had their star on the bellies while Others would not, except not now because Dr. Suess has been canceled…
JFK.
Star up buddy.
Red 5 pointed against a black background is proper.
A new world order church is only a few heretical steps away.
Granting women a role only open to men is a sure sign of the hippie church to come. Francis hasn’t done that…yet. He hasn’t chocked out the “Awoman,”…yet.
So, we got that going for us….so far.
🙂
Get your star on JFK.
Free stuff ahead….cough cough.
From NBC news;
“Recently, the Catholic Church took two small steps for womankind: This month, Pope Francis named the first woman to a managerial position in the Vatican’s most important office, the Secretariat of State. And in October, the world’s bishops suggested that Francis reconvene a commission he had created, at the urging of nuns, to study the ordination of women as permanent deacons — church ministers who are able to perform some of the duties of priests, but not to say Mass or hear confessions.”
It’s strange that PF didn’t get the memo. Women already hold the greatest role within the Church and society. Motherhood.
We don’t need to be bowing down to secular idealism regarding women and equality. We need a good shepherd to preach the Truth regarding womanhood…imho.
It’s strange that PF didn’t get the memo. Women already hold the greatest role within the Church and society. Motherhood.
I cannot help but remember Andrew Greeley’s 1986 memoir. Encomiums to his mother and sister Mary Jule (sister Grace Anne hardly mentioned) and repeated denunciations of ‘the clerical culture’ and their supposed misogyny. Then a passing admission that he didn’t like nuns. See the nuns who appear in his short fiction.
I would take Greeley with a hunk of rock salt given his expressed contempt for just about everyone in his field of vision bar (1) secular academics, (2) close family members, (3) the three other curates posted to his parish during the period running from 1954-64, and (3) people he’d known prior to 1947. I don’t think misogyny is a problem in the clergy. I’ll wager the real problem is that clergymen’s affection for women not their mother approximates a hairdresser’s affection for his clients (which does not include admiration for them in their capacity as mothers).
We don’t need to be bowing down to secular idealism regarding women and equality.
Which means you want a clergy who think like clergymen and not like random NGO administrators. You’ve got a 50-50 shot with parish clergy; less with bishops and their bloated staffs.
Off topic, if Dalrock has left his archives up, you can see his assessment of evangelical pastors (among them entrepreneurial and celebrity pastors) on the subject of teachings on manhood and womanhood. It’s harsh.
Thanks Art.
I’ve been poking around in dated material from Dalrock. Fun insights.
Here’s one from a commentor that hit a home run;
TheWanderer on December 2, 2019 at 3:51 pm
It’s no secret: Bill Gates Sr. was the head of Planned Parenthood. It’s a family of Eugenicist thinkers, so this is no surprise at all. Bill Jr. is very open about his pro-abortion/population control/eugenic/dysgenic position and his funding efforts to cull the herd. Funny to listen to Melinda mention “white people” in a condescending way, since her and Bill have murdered so many black babies. The arrogance is off the chart!
What a world.
😖