Are you pro-life or Republican first?

[mapleoak]

If I vote the lesser of the 2 evils, does it not slow down the progression of evil?

It gives your approval of the lesser evil. In good conscience, I could never have my name attached to the approval for abortion in any form. And what is less evil about killing some babies and not all babies?

 

[vern_humphrey]

It gives your approval of the lesser evil. In good conscience, I could never have my name attached to the approval for abortion in any form. And what is less evil about killing some babies and not all babies?

If that’s true, failing to vote against the greater evil gives your approval of the greater evil.

 

[pnewton]

If that’s true, failing to vote against the greater evil gives your approval of the greater evil.

But voting for a morally sound third party candidate is not a failure to vote against the greater evil. It is, in fact, voting against both the greater and the lesser evil.

 

[vern_humphrey]

But voting for a morally sound third party candidate is not a failure to vote against the greater evil. It is, in fact, voting against both the greater and the lesser evil.

Not unless the third party has a reasonable chance of winning. Otherwise, the vote simply doesn’t count.

Note how people who voted for Perot helped Clinton win in '92, and how those who voted for Nader helped Bush win in '00. Those voters – who generally would not be aligned with the winning candidate – threw the election to the man they didn’t want.

 

[mangy_dog]

I strongly believe that Republicanism is an ideology based on the notions that a tax is the worst possible evil in the universe and that business can do no wrong. I also strongly believe that the Republican party added its “pro-life” plank in 1980 in order to garner the Christian vote but would jettison it if they thought they could win without it. Anyway, I’d like to see what would happen if the parties changed their views on morals issues ONLY.

I’m leaving the poll anonymous so no one has to feel they need to explain their vote to their fellows.

By the way, DP means death penalty and “Big 5” refers to the so-called 5 “non-negotiables.”

I always place religious precedence ahead of the political. Often times we (christians) are left with the “lesser of two evils” option. Having to vote for the “pro-lifer” even though their political agenda sucks. And I say this without allusions to either party. After which all that’s left for us to do is pray that God sends some sort of Warning or Miracle to sway the hearts and minds of all politicians.

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[pnewton]

Not unless the third party has a reasonable chance of winning. Otherwise, the vote simply doesn’t count.

Those that voted for Bush rather than Perot, their vote didn’t count either. He lost, if by count you mean fail to elect. Besides, either party can have my vote freely. All they need is a nominee that is not proabortion. I put my faith above my politics.

Maybe in Texas we can actually help nominate a candidate for a change. If not and the races are decided, I will show no loyalty or obligation to a system that I had no say in. I will vote my conscience and let the chips fall will they may.

Maybe one day the Republican party will wake up.

 

[mapleoak]

Those that voted for Bush rather than Perot, their vote didn’t count either. He lost, if by count you mean fail to elect.

In fact, anyone who votes for the candidate who ends up not winning can be said that their vote didn’t count.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I’ll say that

In 1980 a former Democrate became a Republican President his belief and actions were:
Pro-war
Pro-death penalty
Amensty for illegal aliens
Anti-tax
Anti-regulation of business
Anti-publicly provided services
Anti-union

Today’s Republican President is:
Pro-war
Pro-death penalty
Publicly for deportation privately for exploit illegals
Pro tax in fact he has already spent the taxes to be collected
Pro-regulation of all business except it really is not that light he mixes all businesses with all government
Blends all public and private services
Does not know what a union is

If you do not believe it try to operate a business today.
All airlines were driven to bankruptcy then allowed to return if dependent on Big Government
All gas and oil were driven to bankruptcy through EPA and asbestos regulation then allowed to return if dependent on Big Government
All of New Orleans was driven to bankruptcy through natural disaster then allowed to free spend if dependent on Big Government

Contrast that with the Democrats if you can, I can not tell any difference

Bush is asking for 3 trillion dollars that is 162% above the budget which proceed him. BTW the deficit under Bush will equal all US deficits from 1789-1987 combined. Additionally 37% of all US debt ever was created in the last 8 years. whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/sheets/hist01z1.xls

The point is parties often do not perform their preaching

 

[Conservative]

It gives your approval of the lesser evil. In good conscience, I could never have my name attached to the approval for abortion in any form. And what is less evil about killing some babies and not all babies?

That’s how I feel. It amounts to two bad apples - one’s rotten to the core, and one’s hiding it under the skin. Either one can’t be digested when peeled. Our Lord says, we are either for Him or against Him. He will spit us out if we’re middle of the road. Scarey.

 

[SoCalRC]

Bush is asking for 3 trillion dollars that is 162% above the budget which proceed him.

I have to admit that the budget floored me. 3+ trillion, a 400B+ deficit, the wars grossly underfunded (per the Pentagon), and massive cuts to sorts of programs you usually invest in during a recession (job training. etc.) or which are stupendously popular with voters. The GOP hopeful’s staffs must be furious. I wonder if they got any advance warning.

Since it puts any candidate currently in congress in a tougher spot, I also wonder if there is an election related motive involved.

 

[SoCalRC]

That’s how I feel. It amounts to two bad apples - one’s rotten to the core, and one’s hiding it under the skin. Either one can’t be digested when peeled. Our Lord says, we are either for Him or against Him. He will spit us out if we’re middle of the road. Scarey.

I’m of the same mind myself. Voting for less evil is still voting for evil. But Mapleoak and I are seemingly both pretty conservative, even for Catholics, when it comes to abortion.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Bush is asking for 3 trillion dollars that is 162% above the budget which proceed him. BTW the deficit under Bush will equal all US deficits from 1789-1987 combined. Additionally 37% of all US debt ever was created in the last 8 years. whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/sheets/hist01z1.xls

The point is parties often do not perform their preaching

And a hamburger cost five cents in 1932.

The federal government will “inherit” enough to pay off the national debt, fund the social security deficit and have a huge surplus in about 20 years if it does not drastically change the estate tax; something it has no evident intention of doing.

 

[IvanKaramozov]

I’m of the same mind myself. Voting for less evil is still voting for evil. But Mapleoak and I are seemingly both pretty conservative, even for Catholics, when it comes to abortion.

What do you suggust them when it comes to voting from a pool who all violate non-negotiable principles?

 

[SoCalRC]

The federal government will “inherit” enough to pay off the national debt, fund the social security deficit and have a huge surplus in about 20 years if it does not drastically change the estate tax; something it has no evident intention of doing.

I’m sorry, this doesn’t make any sense. Right now, the estate tax has a $2,000,000 exemption ($4,000,000 per couple). So it potentially effects about 1/2 of 1% of the population. In 2009, the exemption is set to go up to $3,500,000 ($7,000,000 per couple), so it will then apply to about 2-3 people out of every 1000 (.03% of the population).

With current tax laws, the effective tax rate over the exemption ends up being about 20-22%, which is not chump change, but it isn’t as grossly unfair as it might seem. Many (most?) estates are like ours, with the tax applying largely to previously unrealized capitol gains.

If we were to elliminate the estate tax, it might cost something like $2 trillion dollars in lost revenue (say $1.6 trillion in direct revenue, and another .$400B in additional interest on the national debt), over the next 20 years, but it is impossible that it will generate an additional $9 trillion in revenue. So it couldn’t pay the deficit now, let alone todays amount + interest + 20 x the $400B per year structural defict that the Bush administration is proposing.

Someone has been pulling your leg.

 

[SoCalRC]

What do you suggust them when it comes to voting from a pool who all violate non-negotiable principles?

How are you constraining the pool? ‘Chance of winning’ as some have proposed above? If so, I don’t. I seem my obligation as wholly trusting in God, not just as much as strikes me as ‘practical’.

If it reaches the point where not a single elligible write in vote in the US is accepting of the Church’s “essense of moral law”, I’m not sure what I would do. The tempation to apply proportional reasons would probably be strong, but I’m not sure that capitulating to evil is the right answer.

 

[BamaRider]

I always place religious precedence ahead of the political. Often times we (christians) are left with the “lesser of two evils” option. Having to vote for the “pro-lifer” even though their political agenda sucks. And I say this without allusions to either party. After which all that’s left for us to do is pray that God sends some sort of Warning or Miracle to sway the hearts and minds of all politicians.

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

Goes by Mangy Dog???

 

[Ender]

In truth, I don’t think we’re really going to see positive changes in a major way until the Catholic bishops decide to be brave. It is they who have encouraged Catholics to be blinded to evil by the “consistent life ethic”.

I agree completely with this. In fact I hold the bishops more responsible for abortion being legal than I do the politicians who support it because the bishops know what a great sin abortion is. They have compromised on this issue to achieve other political goals. It is not so much our political parties who have failed us as it is our bishops.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Right now, the estate tax has a $2,000,000 exemption ($4,000,000 per couple). So it potentially effects about 1/2 of 1% of the population. In 2009, the exemption is set to go up to $3,500,000 ($7,000,000 per couple) …

It may not change the point you are making but in fairness you should have mentioned what happens in 2011. At that point the exemption drops back to $1M per person.

… so it will then apply to about 2-3 people out of every 1000 (.03% of the population).

Apparently injustice is tolerable if it only applies to a small percentage of people, especially if we’re not likely to be among them. FYI your math is incorrect: 3/1000 is .3%, not .03%. This makes me wonder: what percent of the population do you consider it acceptable to shaft? .3%? 3%? 30%? Once you accept that it is OK to mistreat even .03% of the population you have sacrificed the principle that all people should be treated fairly and you have no argument against the person who calls your .03% and raises you to 49.9%.

With current tax laws, the effective tax rate over the exemption ends up being about 20-22%, which is not chump change, but it isn’t as grossly unfair as it might seem.

The tax on every dime above the exemption will be 55% and what is grossly unfair is the existence of the tax itself. I understand the appeal the tax has to politicians but I am baffled as to why dying should be taxed.

Ender

 

[Ridgerunner]

The Federal Estate Tax exemption in 2009 will be 3.5 million. In 2010, it will have no limit. In 2011 it drops back to 1 million.

The inflation rate over the last 20 years, cumulatively, is about 86%.

About 5% of the U.S. population has assets over 2 million. About 10% has assets over 1 million.

No one knows what the politicians will do about the estate tax.

The federal debt is about 9 trillion. Total public debt is about 59 trillion (that includes social security with, no change in the “cap” and no change in the tax, and no change in the benefits…none of which is likely true) Of course, many states also have their own “inheritance taxes”, which adds to the “income” side.

If the assets of millionaires increase only by the inflation rate, if there are no millionaires owning more than 2 million, and if they all die within 20 years, the take from the FET will be 42 trillion. Typically, asset values increase exponentially, even if new earnings are not considered, while debt typically does not.

So, while I no longer remember the study where I read the information about the expectable FET take being greater than the government and SS debt combined, just looking at the above, massively simplistic, unexpert and easily critiqued though it is, gives one reason not to be so quick to assume such claims are wrong.

 

[SoCalRC]

Apparently injustice is tolerable if it only applies to a small percentage of people, especially if we’re not likely to be among them.

I am among them. And I don’t consider it unjust. I reap a great deal from society. I started life in a house without indoor plumbing, but we owe what we have now to the grace of God.

The tax on every dime above the exemption will be 55%…

But the effective tax paid ends up being about 20-22%. When you are in my tax bracket you can pay for good estate planning. I also don’t horde, and the laws allow for considerable redistribution during my lifetime.