www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall revolted

Let�s see. Death penalty opposition, nuclear weapons, and anti-poverty programs. These are all hallmarks of the Catholic Left.

Santorum has held the belief that it is up to the individual states to decide if they want to have capital punishment or not. This is in line with the Constitution. I certainly don't oppose it when applied to the likes of John Allan Muhummad.

Nuclear weapons? Of course! The USA should simply scrap every last one of them. Let us scrap the rest of our military as well and become a bunch of stark-raving pacifists! Pax Christi Forever!

Anti-poverty programs? I take it you mean the welfare reform signed into law by Clinton.

There are some who think the reason for government is to take from some and redistribute to others.

It's called socialsism and I reject it.

The best anti-poverty program is a job.

Santorum is far superior to the closet abortionist who will likely defeat him.

I don't want to make any comments on Pennsylvania politics, since the good people there will resolve which candidate they will or won't elect. There is currently a battle raging over the senatorial election in Tennessee. The way I see it, I can vote for crook number 1, or crook number 2. It's hard to tell who will win, but the people of Tennessee will lose either way. I have never supported the death penalty, but that's a personal decision. It has nothing to do with any official teachings of the Catholic Church. The big problem some have with pro-life, is being able to distinguish between official Catholic teaching, and the late Chicago Cardinal's technicolor seamless garment. They are not necessarily the same thing, liberal angst to the contrary.

I will only repeat again what Ann Coulter said:

Funny how the Dems will fight against reading E-mails of members of Al-Queda, but find it perfectly okay to read E-mails of homosexuals. Hmmm! How about we start reading Barney Frank's?

It seems the party of immorality, is now trying to project an image of morality. Strange?

I think maybe someone's putting their finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing.

The truth is though, that in this day and age, anyone over sixteen is not that innocent. I would consider a pedophile someone that goes after a child thirteen and under. I know that at my grandaughter's private school, there was a straight and gay club for thirteen year old's. I think it had to do with Federal government grants. I recall hearing years ago, that under the Clinton's administration, schools and universities could only get Federal grants if the school adopted certain classes and school clubs on homosexuality, aids awareness, etc.

But of course, the Dems have a habit of moving towards the center at election time, and then going their own liberal way after that. :rolleyes:

Zenovia

Maybe one should read "Rerum Novarum" and "Quadragesimo Anno" I don't think Pope Leo XIII or Pius XI were socialists but they did believe in trade unions and programs to help the poor. They weren't Republicans either and no one is going to tell me that one has to be one to be a good Catholic or Orthodox.
Catholic social teaching is neither Right or Left but Catholic btw!

Dear Brian you said:

I say:

In reference to the above, we have to consider the times. At the time trade unions were necessary, and social programs of course are still necessary. The difference though is who should be in charge of social programs. Should it be the government, or small charities.

Let's take our present day reality. In the past four years our economy has grown the equivalent of all of China's. Now that wasn't by accident, but actually in spite of the circumstances. Pres. Bush inherited a recession and a catastrophy that could have thrown us into a depression. If we didn't have one, it was do to his quick actions.

Pres. Bush immediately lowered taxes, and it worked. In other words, if one raises taxes in order to create social programs, the economy slows down and people lose jobs. If on the other hand, the taxes are lowered, it stimulates investment and that creates jobs. Today, I believe the unemployment is only 5%.

What the Republicans try to protect are small business'. The Democrats stand for large corporations and unions. The unions though are not the poor workers they were before, but rather the teachers union which besides their great wages and benefits, also take part in deciding what books should be used in school, rather than the parents.

The Democratic party also is the party of the Lawyers, and large corporations. When the famers had to sell their farms in order to pay off inheritance taxes, it was the corporations that bought them. So much for high taxes.

What our President tried to do was create jobs by relieving the burdens and regulations on small business' so that they could expand. Again it worked. We have the growth of our economy to prove it.

So if you like multinational corporations, lawyers suing everything and everyone, the teachers lobby with it's liberal agenda choosing what should be taught, more regulations on small business' and the consequent unemployment, then vote Democrat. If not, then vote Republican. It's that simple.

Zenovia

well, if one does not address the issues I guess it is that simple but "Sanctas Simplicitas" not the thoughtful form of simplicity.

Dear Mr.Clean,

Just a friendly reminder to you and to everybody else that I want all politicians referred to properly--either together with their first name, or ideally, with their title. It makes for a much more civil debate on topics of politics which tend to arouse the passions.

Thank you.

Alice, Moderator

Mr. Brian,

I'm just teasing a bit following Alice's admonision.

I appreciate your thoughtful challenge but help us all here would you. I believe religion has a duty to help the poorest of the poor to keep from falling completely through the social and economic cracks. Given that we virtually collect no income tax from those who fall below the poverty level, offer welfare of many kinds to the poor, and offer almost free medical care to those who can't afford it, or at least hospitals do, what more would you suggest?

We know that some are poor, in fact a rather larger percentage, because they make some very foolish decisions. I also know that many who have been classified as poor receive more income than my wife and I do but live poorer lives because of these decisions what do you propose as a solution? Would you artificially restrict the lives of recipients more than they are restricted so that they utilize what they receive better?

I think the working poor who get married and rear children in a respectable way but still find economic life to be very difficult are those who need our assistance more than people who have the capacity to work but won't, don't you?

Still, what more would you do than is already being done by the state? What more do you think the Church ought to be doing? What effects would actions by either have on the social structure of our country? What effect do you believe such actions ought to have?

CDL

I more oppose the philosophy as expressed that Zenovia that charities can somehow solve the problem without state involvement and historically, this was not true in the Depression era (hence the New Deal) and certainly not true in a more complicated society these days.
Certainly there are some who will not work but I believe this very much exaggerated by pundits on the Right wing of politics who hate the idea of social programs in any sense. The great majority of people want to work but also they need jobs that will pull them out of poverty not the trap of welfare to work programs (which Clinton joined with Republicans on) which leave them in minumum wage jobs abd unable to bring up kids in a healthy environment. Business alos needs to step up to the plate.
i was mainly responding to "Mr Clean" linking such real Catholic social teaching to secular socialist philosophy which is a travesty. Catholic social teaching is a challenge to both secular tendencies of the Left and Right and Catholic teaching should never be seen as "cheering" squad for the Republican Party. It isn't.
and I would take exception to your assertion that a large percentage of the poor are poor because of poor decisions on their part. That conveniently absolves the larger wealthier society but does nothing to change an often, indifferent society and is certainly not Catholic social teaching.

Dear Brian you said:

I say:

I don't believe Republicans hate social programs. The problem is that the programs rarely work when controlled by government. The money ends up going to the beauracracy.

The social programs that work the best are those that have a religious and spiritual component.

You said:
I say:

As for business' stepping up to the plate, I think they pay enough taxes. Taxing them more would be detrimental to our economy, and that would mean less jobs for those that need jobs.

You said:
I say:

I agree with you here. Shocked aren't you?

The problem is usually solved when people have a real concern for the welfare of others. Again I emphasize religious charities.

Zenovia

well, I guess we can agree maybe on one little thing- all humans can I suppose LOL

Dear Brian,

I'm going to go a little further in the discussion, since you mentioned the New Deal of Pres. Roosevelt.

I believe it was Aristotle that said 'pan metron ariston', (everything within measure is the best). In other words, don't over do anything.

At the time that Roosevelt became President there were no social programs. Some were needed. The same with our run-a-way monopolies of the late eighteen hundreds. Did you know that the great philathropist Andrew Carnegie had his workers working twelve hours a day, and gave them only one day off during the year. It was the Fourth of July.

A friend of his came to Pittsburgh and Carnegie showed him his 'utopia'. Mind you now, that Pittsburgh at that time was black with coal dust. It was the most polluted city in the world. Well his friend said, "I have now seen hell".

Yes, certain limits were needed on companies, and workers did need their rights. But the pendulum has now swung in the other direction. As Aristotle said, "pan metron ariston".

Today we are probably, (at least in NYS), the most overtaxed people in the world. Our problem is that the super rich do not pay any taxes because of the loop holes in our income tax. These were placed by lobbyists for different interests...so some pay nothing. Actually the one's that pay nothing are the one's that can afford the accountants to find the loop holes.

The best thing would be either a flat tax, where all loop holes would be eliminated, but then again mortgages, at least for a while, would still have to be deducted, and certainly charitable donations. Everything from universities to Churches are dependant on gifts.

Many nations in Europe have a graduating sales tax. In other words, the higher the price of an article, the larger the percent of tax one pays.

This is great of course. Let the rock stars buy their ten Roll Royces and pay three times as much as the average person. But I think the problem is that it might slow down growth. If people stop buying, then we fall into a recession.

Again, it seems a flat tax is best, with maybe a slight 'graduating' tax to offset a few deductions. Do you realize that our system forces people to buy and build mansions that they really can't afford to furnish, simply because of our tax system. They are going up all over the place. :rolleyes: I think it's sinful.

But then again, it produces jobs.

Zenovia

Dear Zenovia,
The "flat tax" is called Poll Tax, and has been tried on a number of occasions in history since the Middle Ages, always leading to dissent, unrest, riots and/or revolution. The most recent example I know of was in the 1980s-90s in the UK, when it was introduced by Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government to finance local services, replacing a previous property tax. There was a long and bitter resistance culminating in riots in the streets of London. The tax was eventually withdrawn, bringing an end to Margaret Thatcher's political career and the subsequent voting out of office of the last conservative government in Britain.
The Poll Tax was introduced in Scotland a year earlier than in England, and was deeply unpopular, though in Scotland protest was peaceful. The results here were a clean sweep of all constituencies, with the Conservatives gaining NONE of the 71 Scottish seats in the UK Parliament, and renewed demands for the recall of the Scottish Parliament (which has happened, albeit with limited authority). To this day Margaret Thatcher is viewed in Scotland with loathing bordering on the obsessive, and the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party, a majority less than 50 years ago, struggles to gain a single seat in any election.

Try it if you like, and see how it goes.

God bless you.

folks,
when I said in a post last week that I was still voting Republican (please note that I said THIS YEAR), keep in my mind that I am the quintessential Independent. I usually vote Republican because it comes closest to what I believe, but in no way do I support the Taliban wing of that Party who have hijacked a fine institution and would have us all under a theocratic regime. Ah, for the days of Barry Goldwater to come back, and toss in a distant cousin of my Grandpa's, Teddy Roosevelt, for more influence. I wish we had a Party that would be prolife, and carry that prolife philosophy beyond the womb, a party that would support the working masses and to be good Godly stewards of the environment but not stooges of the big capitalists or the religious loonies of whatever ilk who salivate and mewl like cats in heat when the word "sex" is mentioned (as if sex was all that morality was to be concerned with)
I am voting for the Republican candidate for governor of Tennessee because I promisedGod that after the Blanton debacle of the 70's that I would never vote for a Democrat for Governor of my state (plus Bredesen made a further mess of TennCare that caused myself and a lot of other folks to be cut from the rolls, but now that I am disabled, I have Medicaid), for Senator, the Republican who had been mayor of my town, no great prize is he, but a hometown person gets my attention, I could live with a Senator Ford, though. For Congressman, because that Republican is a personal aquaintence of mine, a fellow Metis, and one who is supportive of issues concerning mass transit and Native Americans, both button issues with me.so there you have it folks.Foley ain't got nothin' to do with nothin' as far as my vote is concerned
Much Love,
Jonn