Any thoughts on the debates?

[Leo2014]

It’s not charitable to give away other people’s money.

That is partially true…

I am certain most of us give to charities in one form. What we are doing is giving our money to an organization hoping they do the good will that they are stating. But how closely do you follow the finances of the origination that you are giving your money?

Example: Goodwill Industries. Mark Curran, CEO made 2.3 million while his employees hardly make what could be considered a “livable” wage? Yet, conservatives will look the other way in regards to Mark’s salary and berate the small guy for asking more? Those on the lower end of the income scale will need humanitarian aid in the form of assistances with health care, groceries, housing, etc.

Let me state it again; discontentment of current conditions is not an excuse to discard our Christian charity. I most certainly agree that we cannot afford to give away the store and we all feel a sense of frustration when we encounter someone that abuses the system. However, we will look the other way if that individual happens to be wealthy.

 

[Lemuel]

But how closely do you follow the finances of the origination that you are giving your money?

What I give and to whom I give is between me, the recipient and God. I always keep that as secret as possible. Unfortunately, I do share the information with the IRS as well. But I am very careful to know where the money goes. I don’t ever give to charities who pay their executives big salaries. The charities I give to are run by people who sleep on floors.

 

[PJH_74]

It appears that you haven’t had a lot of contact with pro-life activists.

Depends how you look at it…I certainly encounter more than a few here and that informs part of my opinion.

I, for one, am not going to “blast” you. Your proposal actually has a fairly sound internal logic to it. However, the only problem is that we are talking about the murder of innocent, defenseless children. If it were something less than that, I could consider getting behind your way of thinking.

I appreciate your response. I certainly think the sort of proposal I’ve made is the best sort of thing when it comes to low level drug use, prostitution, etc. The “War on Drugs” has mostly criminalized drug addicts and often small time dealers who simply sell to support their own habits. It’s always the disposable little guy that mostly gets caught.

Now we are left with a whole bunch of, generally non-violent people who suffer from the real disease of addiction, with a record. These people are generally not employable so they end up on the welfare rolls or sometimes petty crime to get by.

I know, my proposal has a bad after taste of babies still dying. I guess I understand the reality of this world to be a broken one. Morals, Church teachings, on such issues realistically represent the goal of perfection. Please don’t take me as saying oh well, we can’t achieve it so who cares. I hate making this sort of moral relativism and it’s one that one must be very diligent about if going down this path. Jesus said “Follow Me”, he didn’t say be me. We encounter stones, sticks, and roots that make us stumble on the way.

In the end, I really don’t believe an outright ban is the best moral answer even though it feels like it. The moral answer is the one that saves the most babies and more importantly uproots some of the causes of it. I don’t think such a ban will save more babies because it’s fighting human brokenness and greatly disrupts any ability to counsel and support parents through the process because talking about such is discussing an illegal crime.

I think for me this thinking derives from the tale of the Good Samaritan. Yes, one person took care of another. But there’s an inner statement that we also take care of people we have deep moral or ideological issues with. Yes, there’s a certain ridiculousness here because because a baby might die. But a “Good Samaritan” cannot directly save a baby, helping the mother with the decision is the best that can be done. Coming at her with moral guns blazing will probably push her away. .

Again, it’s a view point of mine, but my goals are yours too. God help us here.

 

[Peeps]

I don’t think such a ban will save more babies because it’s fighting human brokenness and greatly disrupts any ability to counsel and support parents through the process because talking about such is discussing an illegal crime.

I think for me this thinking derives from the tale of the Good Samaritan. Yes, one person took care of another. But there’s an inner statement that we also take care of people we have deep moral or ideological issues with. Yes, there’s a certain ridiculousness here because because a baby might die. But a “Good Samaritan” cannot directly save a baby, helping the mother with the decision is the best that can be done. Coming at her with moral guns blazing will probably push her away. .

I certainly agree with you that any woman experiencing a crisis pregnancy needs much more than just a “Have your baby, don’t kill it!” There is a lot of practical help and money needed for a woman to bear a child.

Can you tell me how the Democratic Party is addressing this? What programs are they advocating to help young women to make the choice to not abort their baby? After all, as Pres. Clinton said, “Abortion should be safe, legal, and RARE!” How are the Democrats making this statement a reality, other than passing out condoms at the local Planned Parenthood center?

From what I have seen, Democrats tend to criticize severely those who want to make sure that women receive counselling–REAL counselling about her many options (e.g., adoption). They oppose any kind of waiting time.

I believe WIC (or some similar program) is still around, and I assume that Democrats support this, as well as various government programs for women and children that provide housing, food, schooling, job training, etc. That’s a good thing, IMO, although many of these programs seem to make very little progress in actually lifting a woman out of poverty because they seem to discourage MARRIAGE to a man.

(continued next post due to word limit)

 

[Peeps]

(Continued from last post)

Democrats derisively oppose parental notification (many parents of young women would be glad, after their initial shock, to welcome another baby into their family, or would at least be willing to help their daughter bear and give birth to the baby and give him/her up for adoption).

Democrats label pro-life people and fellow politicians as “anti-choice” and ridiculously accuse them of forcing women into back alleys for butchering jobs and also accuse them of not being willing to help women and children.

They accuse us of being “pro-birth” but anti-women and anti-children, when nothing could be further from the truth. Of course many pro-life people can do nothing more than pray and give a little cash, but many pro-life people are on the front lines serving women and children in various practical ways from being there during the birth to providing a home during and after the pregnancy to helping a young woman complete schooling and job training, to providing jobs for women, and of course, a myriad of programs and aid for the children.

Also, many pro-life people adopt children (several families in our parish have 12 or more children that they have adopted, and they are wealthy enough to provide them with good homes).

And there are plenty of Catholic and Protestant organizations and charities that help women. I’ve mentioned our local Rescue Mission before on CAF–it’s amazing! Brand new facilities built with the financial gifts of thousands of people, and one of the facilities is a “Safe House” for mothers, expectant mothers, and babies/children.

Another facility in Northern Illinois just opened–the Madonna Renewal Center. Many of us have given money or time to get this place up and running, and it has the blessings of many NON-Christians in the area! Here’s a link: https://madonnarenewalcenter.com/

But sadly, many Democrats seem to see all these efforts as “threats” to a woman’s freedom to choose. Or they criticize the organizations because they have a religious base, or because they preach things that the Democrats believe are “personal choice,” such as chastity, temperance, abstinence, etc.

So although I agree entirely with you that women and children need a lot of PRACTICAL help, I do NOT think that the Democrats are as interested in providing practical help as they are in providing abortions paid for by taxpayers. This solution is certainly cheaper for the taxpayers, but morally, it has nearly bankrupted the U.S.

 

[F_Marturana]

I recently learned that mothers who are on Medicaid during their pregnancies, are only covered during their pregnancies and for 60 days following. There are s number of complications that can happen after the 60 day post-partum.

I’ve had a prolife doctor. He would volunteer at a crisis pregnancy center. He’d take on the mothers as patients. In the same office I saw him at. The center would assist mothers in getting on Medicaid .

Crisis pregnancy centers work with existing safety nets like Medicaid. The can’t run depending on just donations and grants.

 

[PJH_74]

Can you tell me how the Democratic Party is addressing this? What programs are they advocating to help young women to make the choice to not abort their baby?

You can start with Universal Health Care or other ways to reduce the cost of birth. From what I’ve read from apolitical sources a no complication birth runs around $30k. If you don’t have coverage, you probably aren’t doing all that well financially in the first place. Bearing that kind of cost, even if the Hospital works with you, is a massive issue. Mind you we already have a horribly inefficient form of Universal Coverage in that those with insurance end up covering the costs of those who can’t pay. For many people don’t trust the Government on issues like this, the waste in this system has to exceed whatever dysfunction one could imagine at a Government level. Another thing would be getting substantial discounts from drug manufactures who have many of their highest prices in the US. They’re lobby is large and they have strong support from some members of Congress.

After all, as Pres. Clinton said, “Abortion should be safe, legal, and RARE!” How are the Democrats making this statement a reality, other than passing out condoms at the local Planned Parenthood center?

I’m not sure which Clinton was to have said that. But, really on a public policy level, that sort of goal is probably the most feasible and my observations saying it will save the most lives as I’ve said.

As for the condoms, I get the basis of Catholic teaching, but why such opposition when compared to abortion? Combined with abortion, as far as I can see, this is having your cake and maybe eating 99% of it. If the Catholic Church can strategically “lose” on condom public policy, it gains on abortion, even if the laws don’t change. I think you’d agree separate sperm and egg are not a human, from a moral standpoint it is so much better than killing a human.

I don’t have much time to really debate, I’ve probably said what I need to say already. I don’t want to get pulled into a political debate, you probably can understand my thoughts span both parties. But as for these large families, yes you truly have to have money and/or an incredible ability to run a family on a budget, which is truly a full time job. Years ago this was easier, but the cost of raising children is substantially higher now and the legal and societal standard of care bar has gone up substantially.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

I find the commentary entertaining.

 

[JSRG]

PJH_74:

We really only have two choices for parties in this country and there is really no room for additional parties with more nuanced platforms.

I don’t see why there can be several parties in Germany, Russia and many other countries but the Americans have room for only two parties. In a free country, there should be as many parties as the citizens want.

First off, Russia is a really bad example to pick. It’s true that there are more parties represented in their congress than in the US (6 compared to 2). But look at the numbers. The United Russia party utterly dominates the government and has for quite some time, currently controlling 75% of the Federation Council and 75% of the Federal Assembly. Despite the higher number of political parties represented, Russia is for all practical purposes a one-party state. Thus, Russia is not a real example of a system where more than 2 parties can compete.

That said, why is it different in the US compared to countries like Germany? The reasons why are complex, but I can identify the #1 reason quite easily: First-past-the-post voting.

First-past-the-post, for those unaware, means that in an election, whoever gets the highest portion of the vote wins, and that’s that. Virtually all elections in the US operate under this principle (the electoral college complicates things a little, but it’s still first-past-the-post on a state by state basis). Such a voting system heavily favors a two-party system because it strongly encourages voters to worry about “wasting” their vote by voting for a third party candidate.

When you look at the countries that manage to have more parties, they generally don’t use first-past-the-post. They use things like Ranked Choice Voting, proportional representation, or MMP (sort of a mix between proportional representation and first-past-the-post). These systems eliminate or at least dramatically reduce worries of your vote being wasted, so you can vote for whichever party or candidate you legitimately think is best. This allows for more viewpoints to be competitive and more than 2 parties to legitimately compete.

 

[otjm]

It is not the tax benefits which make any of them wealthy; it is the amount of shares they own in the company.

Facebook is $195/share (class A), no dividend. Mark owns @ 11,920,000 class A shares of FB and 392,710,000 class B shares I have no current price).

Tesla is at $224.55, no dividend. And Elon has been losing ground for some time. Elon owned 11% of shares of PayPal when it was sold for $1,500,000,000 (you do the math) and owns @ 38,600,000 shares of Tesla.

Microsoft is at $136.58 with a quarterly dividend of $1.84/share. Bill owns 330,000,000 shares (and has given away 64,000,000 shares).

The value of the shares owned makes any salary and bonuses the equivalent of chicken feed.

And it would take more than social Democrats to change that; a complete overthrow of our economic system might do it - assuming such could ever occur. The Democrats have a number of billionaires also; it most certainly is not a “Republican thing”.