Interesting article about the Catholic vote in the US election

[MoreCoffee]

But to the original point, why do you suppose those folks who claim a close following to church teaching tend to vote Republican?

It could be that republican inclined voters tend to see themselves as the defenders of tradition and stability - even when their preferred political party wants to introduce radical changes to taxation and civil society that disadvantage the poor and the weak. Self image and reality are not always the same thing.

 

[Romans 13:3]

Could be a hierarchy of values with pro-life issues placed above relief for poor?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Could be a hierarchy of values with pro-life issues placed above relief for poor?

It could, and wouldn't that be odd? I know that the Lord, Jesus Christ, spoke about what will be significant matters in the last Judgement (Matt 25:31-46) and he was concerned about these things:

• For I was hungry and you gave me food,
• I was thirsty and you gave me drink,
• I was a stranger and you made me welcome,
• lacking clothes and you clothed me,
• sick and you visited me,
• in prison and you came to see me."

(Matthew 25:35-36 NJB)

I do not doubt for a minute that saving the lives of the unborn is of paramount importance, yet in our cultures, the unborn are not accounted as persons and hence may be killed in an abortion without any crime being committed. We ought, by all means, to speak of the sacredness of life and the rights of the unborn. One day, God willing, people will change their views on abortion and see it for the wickedness that it is. Nevertheless it is the immediacy of helping the poor that calls to the faithful; Christ set the example, maybe we should trust his example and follow.

 

[Romans 13:3]

But Republicans and Democrats both say then want to help the poor; its just that they go about it in different ways. One side tends to see direct aid as the best means and the other holds building an economy as whole will help everyone.

So really, we are saying that there is an argument over means rather than goals. And those who lean to the right more closely follow the teaching of the Magisterium, yes?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Which is more credible?

George W Bush was a Republican (still is I reckon), and he led the nation into the economic meltdown that was and is the sub-prime crisis and all that flowed out of it - GFC and people losing their retirement savings because the stock market keeps sinking. He was keen to repeat the Regan presidency in modern times and he managed to land the economy in a hole; just like Regan did with the savings & loan crisis of his day.

President Obama hasn't worked any miracles. The economy is still in the doldrums and will only recover slowly and painfully. All this comes from what? Taxpayers underwriting the massive mistakes and debts created by bankers and the captains of industry.

I am thankful for industry when it works good, when it is part of the general welfare of the nation and when people and communities are valued more highly than a temporary bottom line profit, but that isn't what we get is it? It is all immediate gratification and instant profits that are wanted and all those things get us is poverty and pain and unemployment and repossession of family homes.

 

[Romans 13:3]

I would say that both US parties have some bad baggage. To me, the greatest threat to both rich and poor is the US governmental debt. Niether party likely has the stomach for taking on fully. Sure, there will be lip service paid, but no hard and painful choices.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I would say that both US parties have some bad baggage. To me, the greatest threat to both rich and poor is the US governmental debt. Niether party likely has the stomach for taking on fully. Sure, there will be lip service paid, but no hard and painful choices.

Well, who to choose then? Neither major party has shown any competence in reducing the debt. Both major parties want to pork barrel their own constituencies. The independents will not win, so they are not a likely alternative, and refusing to vote doesn't fix a thing. What do you do then?

 

[rainbojo]

What has Obama done for our country? Seriously ? Obamacare, WE all will pay for this with more taxes. How can WE THE PEOPLE not understand that. Can any one do math? And how about the TRILLION dollar deficit that he says worked? And who is HE to promote Class Warfare? That is just as prejudice as skin color. Anyway, my vote goes to Romney and Ryan. They are two fine men who care deeply about this country and have succeeded. Bravo to them.

 

[Fantine]

But Republicans and Democrats both say then want to help the poor; its just that they go about it in different ways. One side tends to see direct aid as the best means and the other holds building an economy as whole will help everyone.

So really, we are saying that there is an argument over means rather than goals. And those who lean to the right more closely follow the teaching of the Magisterium, yes?

It's all about the lies, the bleepin' lies, and the statistics.

Or, as some people say, when other people are unemployed it's a recession, but when YOU'RE unemployed, it's a depression.

And so theoretically if the stock market goes up and corporate profits go up some economists will say, "the recession's over."

But what has happened in the past fifteen years or so is that the middle class and lower continues to suffer through a recession even after the recovery of corporate profits and markets.

If a corporation "recovers" but never moves those jobs back from China, do the employees ever "recover?"

And so it depends on how the economy is "built."

As I have said many times, I am not opposed to business tax cuts that are DIRECTLY related to hiring. If we're trying to encourage hiring, we shouldn't just throw money at every business, some of whom will use the money to move to Mexico.

Mortgage tax deductions encourage homeownership. Similarly, tax deductions to encourage hiring should be related to hiring.

The Bush tax cuts have not done anything to change the balance of wealth in this country. As a matter of fact, they have exacerbated it.

As Robert Reich noted, when 1% of the populace controls 23% of the assets, it has always been a prelude to widespread economic disaster--the Great Depression, for example.

And what is the Republican solution? To eliminate the capital gains tax, which would mean that Mitt Romney and Warren Buffett would pay NO federal income taxes at all.

Yes, we need to "grow the economy." We need to grow the economy for everyone. The Republicans have a plan to make the rich richer and the middle class poorer. They don't have a plan to grow the economy for everyone.

 

[MoreCoffee]

What has Obama done for our country? Seriously ? Obamacare, WE all will pay for this with more taxes....

Pay more taxes, yes, indeed, what do you expect? Do you want no taxes?

The community pays for what you receive, your roads, the schools, the sewers, your water supply, electricity, all of it is paid for, sometimes by you directly and sometimes by taxes that the whole community pays regardless of how much or how little direct benefit they may receive from day to day.

Taxes exist for precisely the purpose of making some things affordable - you couldn't afford the USA military without taxation. The arithmetic is not hard, anybody can understand it.

 

[Romans 13:3]

No, it is not about lies. A fundamental of Catholic, well really western philosophy, is that truth cannot contradict truth. Recession/recovery are defined as specific contraction or expansion in a given economy, usually primarily related to GDP. Therefore, movement in the stock market is not a mesure of recession.

But none of this has anything to do why Catholics who self-identify as Republicans are those who more closely abide, or at least agree with the Magisterium. No good comes from a discussion of whether Jesus would be Democrat or Republican.

My point in starting this thread was to see if anyone would say that at this particular point in time, those who are serious about the practice of Catholic faith gravitate toward conservative politics. Those who hold liberal political leanings do so at the expense of not being able to follow the Magisterium, particularly in pro-life issues. And the idea of subsidiarity, too. Reasonable Catholic people can debate the best ways to help the poor. It is not reasonable, at least from an obedient Catholic perspective, to hold to a view that is in direct and undeniable conflict with truth.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Obedience to the teaching of Christ (which is the teaching of the Church) is not the same thing as being a republican; if it were the Republicans would outlaw abortion, end contraceptive availability, and have universal health cover as well as outlaw the death penalty and be kind to the weak and poor.

 

[Fish and Bread]

Reasonable Catholic people can debate the best ways to help the poor.

The thing is that the Republican Party doesn't want to help the poor. Flat out. There, I said it. They don't want to help the poor. I am not saying that's true of all individual Republicans, mind you, I'm just saying that is true of the party in the sense that the policy proposals in it's platforms and brought forward by it's top candidates would result in more people going without basic things like food, clothing, shelter, health care, and so on and so forth.

Now, they can't just come right out and say that, because they realize it'd make them look like Ebeenzer Scrooge pre-encounter with the ghosts of Christmas past, present, and future, or the 19th century British "moralist" movement that stood idly by and watched so many Irish people die (Yes, there was a potato famine, but the British government was so against social programs and "handouts" that they actually charged money for relief supplies). So, they say, "No, no, when we say we want to gut programs for old people, sick people, and the poor, all we're really saying is that we want those programs to work better by, you know, um, not existing, or barely existing, because, um... Let's cut taxes more for the rich.".

Now, at this point in the post, I know many people are howling "Private charity!" at their computers. So, I have a challenge for you. Name me any one country at any one point in history that, through private charity alone, gave all homeless people places to live, all starving people adequate food, and all of citizens without health care access to doctors and medicine. I'll wait...

The answer is none. Never. It has never happened. That's no more a policy proposal than attempting to contact the wizard Merlin and seeing if he can cast a spell on rouge states to make them nicer is a foreign policy.

Of course, I'll admit, governments haven't been able to achieve universal housing or been able to feed everyone either. But a whole bunch of governments have achieved universal health care. And Social Security manages to put more money in the hands of the elderly and disabled over all than private charity on a consistent basis, even in this country where conservatives have kept it from being as strong as it could be in theory. Same with food stamps versus soup kitchens. Etc..

I'm not arguing against private charity. I am simply saying that private charity on it's own doesn't cut it for solving these big problems. Never has, never will. It's a good thing, it can help, it has helped, it will help; but it's not a solution. Only government has the size and the power to actually solve these issues. As evidence, I'd point to the fact that everyone in Canada and the United Kingdom has health care. You may not think there have great health care systems over there, but whatever problems you perceive, they at least make it so everyone who wants to can see a doctor and get needed medicines. Heck, in the UK, not only will they charge you nothing (Not even a co-pay), they will reimburse your bus fare for the bus that you used to get to and from the hospital upon request.

 

[Fish and Bread]

Paul Ryan’s Irish Problem - The Daily Beast

 

[Fish and Bread]

Romney tax plan helps rich, hurts middle class: study

 

[WarriorAngel]

Sorry - but the Catechism says on social teaching - that we educate - and assist others in obtaining employment.

THAT IS PRECISELY the social teaching of the Church - that is how the sisters who work in 3rd world countries do it - and that is what Paul Ryan wants this country to do - to help the poor obtain human dignity - get an education - and find a great career in order to be part of the help in our country and not the burden.

WE are NOT a 3rd world country - people. There are means to get ahead and improve one's life rather than just give out hand outs.

St Paul says we are not to even eat another man's bread if we DO NOT work for it ourselves.

Jesus spoke of helping the poor - feeding them - per Matthew's Gospel is entirely based on assisting them - and helping them. That doesnt mean we dont help them get equipped to be self reliant.

AND HOW come the democrats hailed Clinton over signing the welfare reform bill back in the day that lowered our deficit - and helped us DECREASE poverty - but when Ryan says - lets do that and do better for the poor - somehow he going against social teaching.

I TOOK CATECHISM classes - i know what our social teaching is.

 

[Fish and Bread]

Sorry - but the Catechism says on social teaching - that we educate - and assist others in obtaining employment.

Democrats and liberals don't oppose education or helping people obtain employment. That's what is known as a straw man argument, because no real person has the point of view you're knocking down. Saying "We should have food stamps for people who need it" isn't saying "We don't think people should find a job.". In fact, because jobs pay so little these days, 40% of food stamp recipients actually do have jobs- and make so little money working their rear-ends off that they still can't afford to pay basic bills and put enough food on the table.

that is what Paul Ryan wants this country to do - to help the poor obtain human dignity - get an education

Hmmm, doesn't he want to cut funding for public education and college scholarships?

St Paul says we are not to even eat another man's bread if we DO NOT work for it ourselves.

Do you think St. Paul was talking about the elderly and disabled people incapable of work when he said that? Because those are the people who Social Security and Medicare are for, and those are two of the key programs Paul Ryan wants to cut, privatize, and voucherize into virtual non-existence.

What about people who are young, able bodied, and able minded, but can't find jobs (Rough economy, you know)? Do you think St. Paul was saying that they should starve to death? Because if that's really what he meant, I'm becoming a Buddhist.

Jesus spoke of helping the poor - feeding them

Remember the story of the loaves and the fishes and Jesus feeding the multitudes? Do you think Jesus was wrong to do that? Maybe he should have followed the Paul Ryan model and told them to go find their own fish and bake their own bread.

AND HOW come the democrats hailed Clinton over signing the welfare reform bill back in the day

Personally, I was opposed and remain opposed to Clinton's welfare reform bill. I recognize that puts me to the left of some of the Democratic Party on economics and social programs. Clinton and Obama were a bit less liberal than I am on some of this stuff.

 

[Fantine]

Higher education is expensive. Romney said that people should "only go to colleges they can afford" or "borrow money from their parents" to go to college.

What kind of commitment to job training is that?

Democrats granted extensions to the 6 month unemployment insurance maximum for those who were becoming retrained for jobs in the new economy (whose previous jobs were becoming obsolete or outsourced). Republicans voted against this again and again and again.

In individual states with Republican governors, the legislatures are lowering unemployment benefits, eliminating categories of workers who qualify, demanding drug tests for beneficiaries, etc.

My hubby drew unemployment twice--the maximum time limit the first time, and 4 months the second time. Personally, I think that unemployment benefits should be extended at least one additional week for each year the person's age exceeds 40, because believe me, it's tough for over-50's to get jobs.

As I said before, if Republican solutions worked, what's happening to the middle class, and why do the 1% wealthiest control 23% of the country's assets---the "tipping point" for depression?

 

[WarriorAngel]

According to the video of a discussion between Clinton and Ryan - the only way his budget proposal wont work is thru the Senate who wont pass it.

Romney has already decided to go with Ryan's Budget proposal so thats not even a question at all.

The only thing that will hinder educational training and what not - is the senate [democrats]
Furthermore; it makes sense to go to a college that is affordable - we should not be paying taxes for someone to go to Yale or Harvard - since we wouldnt have that option ourselves.

There are moderately priced education - and community colleges or tech training schools.
My friend went to a tech school to become a respiratory therapist and she is independent and raised 3 kids alone, bought her own house and car.

So why would we pay excessive tuition that we ourselves have no hope of going to?
That would be inane.

 

[Brooklyn Knight]

Pay more taxes, yes, indeed, what do you expect? Do you want no taxes?

I hope you do know we already are taxed enough as it is. You got your sales tax, income tax, property tax, water tax, local tax, state tax, federal tax, gift tax, sin tax (Cigarettes, booze).

You really want to rectify things? It's simple: get rid of the plethora of loopholes for big businesses, stop spending money on frivolous things, close down various agencies that are beyond antiquated, only allow benefits to be given to people who are here legally, cut down military spending even further, quit supplying arms to NATO, close down military bases around the globe, etc.

Raising taxes also causes strain for the poor. Look at various urban areas and see how many people are leaving.