Are you pro-life or Republican first?

  • Thread starter Thread starter LCMS_No_More
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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
I think you have it backwards. You are angry at the Bishops for not compromising. They wholly hold Catholic teaching even when you know in your heart they should compromise and prioritize as you believe.

But they do not have that option. Their authority flows from the Pope and they are compelled to obey.
 
I think you have it backwards. You are angry at the Bishops for not compromising. They wholly hold Catholic teaching even when you know in your heart they should compromise and prioritize as you believe.

But they do not have that option. Their authority flows from the Pope and they are compelled to obey.
I blame the bishops for equating quality of life issues with life or death issues. I find this morally incomprehensible. Not to mention reprehensible.

Ender
 
I blame the bishops for equating quality of life issues with life or death issues. I find this morally incomprehensible. Not to mention reprehensible.
Now I am confused. Is it Catholicism you object to? The Pope made the connection between abortion, euthanasia, murder, and the death penalty at the same time he declared the first three infallible via the universal agreement of the Bishops.

And it was an ecumenical council that tied abortion to issues like modern forms of slavery, and even deportation, in the Dogmatic Consitution of the Church.

Our teaching on life is that it is an absolute and inalienable right at “every stage” and in “any form”. If you elevate life in certain forms, at the expense of emphasis and attention to others, the teaching itself is compromised. As the Church has noted, “The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine.” (Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith)
 

About 5% of the U.S. population has assets over 2 million. About 10% has assets over 1 million…
I doubt these numbers there is a big difference between controling a million dollars in assets and having a million dollars in assets.

i.e. if you owe 2 million but have 1.5 million in assets your not a millionaire
 
I am born and bred a Democrate but I vote Republican to vote pro life.
 
I doubt these numbers there is a big difference between controling a million dollars in assets and having a million dollars in assets.

i.e. if you owe 2 million but have 1.5 million in assets your not a millionaire
I don’t claim to be an expert at this. Part of my information came from “The Millionaire Next Door” and part from an article whose source I no longer recall. Those are “net asset” numbers. However, as the book pointed out, most of those people are small business owners and most of the wealth is in the business itself.

CNNMoney asserts that there are 8.9 million people whose net worth is over 2 million, exclusive of residence, with 1.4 million of that in liquid assets. That’s about 3% of the total population versus the 5% I remember, but the wealth numbers in the CNN article are higher too.

According to CNNMoney, the average age of the head of those households is 58.

I have been simply amazed at the number of millionaires I have met in the last few years. Virtually none of them inherited it. Most are small businessmen or ranchers. When you consider that, around here a million dollars will buy you about 500 acres, not counting cattle, machinery or the home, it’s not that hard to imagine. There are hundreds of contract poultry farmers here, and a million dollars is about four state-of-the-art poultry houses with equipment. Most have more than four houses. Eight is about standard.

But it’s tough. Those poultry people live hand to mouth for about 7 years and work very hard. No vacations, period. From there on, it’s better financially, but the work is still demanding, and the houses amortize out in 15 years. Those folks are just ordinary country people. Most are fairly young, but not all are. Some of them are Orientals, refugees from Laos and Cambodia mostly, who came here with absolutely nothing.

Down at the feed mill young men hoist heavy stuff all day long in the cold and heat, and haunt the sale barns at night, buying calves to raise on rented land. Mighty tough. But that’s how you eventually get your down payment for the first 80 acres. I suspect most of them will be millionaires in 20-30 years. It’s a hard life, but it’s rewarding in the long term.

I know a fair number of line workers at a meat processing plant who are worth half a million or so, because they bought matching stock in the company for years. There are others with the same jobs and the same opportunities who put their money up their noses and have nothing.

I know one former secretary in a computer software firm who is worth 7 million because she not only bought options in lieu of part of her salary, but borrowed money from the CEO to buy stock in the IPO of the company. He was proud of her for doing it, and loaned it to her. She just retired at age 60. Her husband was a home handyman, and he retired too. I would say her house is worth about $90,000.00. She built a preschool for our parish. Just built it and gave it to the parish, fully equipped.

A local farmer with good financial sense and a farm to put up for collateral joined with the guy who started the software business, and he’s now worth 40 million. He lives in a house worth maybe $175,000.00. He makes a lot of loans to people like those kids at the feed mill and the chicken house people for their down payments, if he believes in them. And he isn’t the only one around here who does that. He donated a million to the parish last year to build a new parish hall.

There is a new charter bank here, whose stock anyone could have bought three years ago and borrowed half the money to do it with no problem. Now, that investment has doubled and pays a 9% dividend based on the original price. Lots of local people bought in the IPO, but a lot more didn’t, and wish they had.

I know two families that are earth-movers. Dozers and trucks and all that. Never saw the inside of a college. Do most of their own repair work. They’re more than net millionaires, but it’s mostly in the trucks and dozers and backhoes.

Two local farm boys went into the implement business. One worked his way up to a JD franchise and the other to Case. Both are net millionaires now, but it’s mostly in their inventory.

A local Vietnamese “boat person” came here with nothing as a boy; went to school and worked in California for awhile, earned a little money, then came here, and opened a restaurant on mostly borrowed money. He still has the restaurant, but now also owns a strip center and a number of duplexes. He’s about 50 now, and is most definitely a net millionaire. He donated a quarter million to the parish hall fund last year.

And this is not a particularly wealthy area. I still think there are a lot more people out there with major assets than people realize.
Most of the ones I know are the plainest, most decent people you would ever want to meet, and I don’t begrudge their success in the least.
 
Ok, your analysis of the base Republican ideals is way off. But I would under no circumstances vote for a candidate that supported abortion.
You’d be hard-pressed to find a single politician in Washington who supports abortion. No one supports abortion in Washingto, period. It’s just that some see it as an unfortunate yet necessary thingamabobber.
 

About 5% of the U.S. population has assets over 2 million. About 10% has assets over 1 million…
I doubt these numbers there is a big difference between controling a million dollars in assets and having a million dollars in assets.

i.e. if you owe 2 million but have 1.5 million in assets your not a millionaire
I did not mean to create an issue, however I find many believe others are much richer than they are. That is part of the reason for our current mess. I drive through these beautiful neighborhoods with 4500 sqft new houses they seem to come with 2 new SUVs and a large boat and you get 2 free overseas vacations? I think what percent of people can afford this? It turns out to be about 1 in 8 and those people are about sixty yet the people in the house are usually about 32. Well, if confused it is all debt.

In 2004 this fed report shows the top 5% of asset values in 2004 were at or over $924,100 (pg 8 Median of 90-100%) their largest asset class is “other financial assets” (pg 11)which includes a large host of items as inherited assets, and stock options. followed closely be “Transaction accounts” (cash equals) and “retirement accounts”. Again these assets are hard to have at age 32
.

A better understanding of the 2004 data
To be in the top 50% you need $71,600 of net worth
To be in the top 30% you need $160,000 of net worth
To be in the top 15% you need $311,100 of net worth
To be in the top 5% you need $924,100 of net worth
federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2006/financesurvey.pdf

A lot of people say this is class envy- their wrong. Many of these debt loads go to bankruptcy which are then redistributed to credit users that is the bottom 70% meaning people like me unwillingly actually pay in to this stupid debt system . Which today is called conservativism by the same people who call this class envy. I do not care for the current trend of calling responsible people envious, and calling huge government with huge debt financially responsible, torture as patriotism, etc, etc . I understand the later section is personal opinion.
 
Now I am confused. Is it Catholicism you object to? The Pope made the connection between abortion, euthanasia, murder, and the death penalty at the same time he declared the first three infallible via the universal agreement of the Bishops.

And it was an ecumenical council that tied abortion to issues like modern forms of slavery, and even deportation, in the Dogmatic Consitution of the Church.

Our teaching on life is that it is an absolute and inalienable right at “every stage” and in “any form”. If you elevate life in certain forms, at the expense of emphasis and attention to others, the teaching itself is compromised. As the Church has noted, “The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine.” (Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith)
Notice the first three, not all four.

We should, of course, sabotage all hope of progress on any of them rather than compromise our ignorant, clericalist interpretation of various encyclicals.

Not coincidentally making ourselves feel better, by voting in favor of economic policies that are, of course, utter nonsense, but that make us feel “compassionate”. Never mind they’ve been widely discredited by Nobel-prize winning scientists.

This is an eyesore.
 
You’d be hard-pressed to find a single politician in Washington who supports abortion. No one supports abortion in Washingto, period. It’s just that some see it as an unfortunate yet necessary thingamabobber.
How in the world did you come to this conclusion? :confused:
 
Is it Catholicism you object to?
You pose the question as if I put my understanding of morality above Church teaching when in fact the dispute arises because I put my understanding of Church teaching above yours. I don’t disagree with the Church; I disagree with you.

The Church is clear that not all moral issues are equivalent - and, really, we don’t need her to tell us that. Where things go wrong is in determining which issues go into the “you can’t get more significant than this” category. Abortion is in that category, capital punishment is not.

Ender
 
You’d be hard-pressed to find a single politician in Washington who supports abortion. No one supports abortion in Washingto, period. It’s just that some see it as an unfortunate yet necessary thingamabobber.
People say this, because they don’t want to be labelled “baby killers”. But the undeniable fact is that Planned Parenthood is in the “business” of selling abortion (their push of contraception is tied into this, as they know a certain % will fail, leading to more abortions, leading to more $$), and all those politicians who support federally funded abortions are helping PP line their pockets. Every one of the “pro-choice” politicians scramble to get PP’s and all those org. tied in w/ them, NOW, NARAL, etc. endorsements. There are 2 politicians right now each accusing the other of not being “pro-choice enough”. With all the advances in maternal medicine, abortion is almost never “necessary” (ask a doctor how often a women’s LIFE is really in danger by being pregnant. LIFE, not “health”, which can mean something as trivial as a hangnail in abortion jargon). They ARE supporting it, because it’s politically advantageous for them. I for one am glad that the Republican party adopted a pro-life platform in 1980 (if that’s actually true), because the dems definately adopted a “pro-choice” platform. My gosh, where would we be if SOMEBODY in political realm wasn’t speaking out against this atrocity? I am disheartened by a lot of Republican positions (although don’t get me started on the death penatly, I hate it when people want to throw that around as an excuse to not vote for the anti-abortion candidate, because, guess what, THE DEMS SUPPORT THE DEATH PENALTY AS WELL. Bill Clinton proudly had Timothy McVeigh executed!), but I’m more mad at the Dem’s for selling their soul to PP, NOW, and NARAL so completely as to refuse to even let a pro-life candidate run in a national election. How can they claim to be the party of the poor and vulnerable (yeah, George Soros, Bill Gates, Alec Baldwin, Dave Letterman and the rest of the Hollywood gang are SO poor and vulnerable :rolleyes:) when they refuse to protect the MOST vulnerable in our society, the unborn and the poor, scared women caught up in a crisis pregnancy :mad: ? Veterinary offices are more regulated than abortion clinics, and your daughter can’t be given a tylenol at school w/o your permission, but PP wants her to be able to have an abortion w/o your knowledge? This is NOT a “pro-woman” position!

Ok, that’s my :twocents: , off my soapbox.

In Christ,

Ellen

Oh, to actually answer the question: I’m pro-life first. I’m pro-life b/f anything else. So much so that my #1 concern is who’s going to allow restrictions on abortion and who’s going to appoint judges who want to overturn Roe v. Wade? I can’t help it that one party refuses to even entertain those two thoughts.
 
People say this, because they don’t want to be labelled “baby killers”. But the undeniable fact is that Planned Parenthood is in the “business” of selling abortion (their push of contraception is tied into this, as they know a certain % will fail, leading to more abortions, leading to more $$), and all those politicians who support federally funded abortions are helping PP line their pockets. Every one of the “pro-choice” politicians scramble to get PP’s and all those org. tied in w/ them, NOW, NARAL, etc. endorsements. There are 2 politicians right now each accusing the other of not being “pro-choice enough”. With all the advances in maternal medicine, abortion is almost never “necessary” (ask a doctor how often a women’s LIFE is really in danger by being pregnant. LIFE, not “health”, which can mean something as trivial as a hangnail in abortion jargon). They ARE supporting it, because it’s politically advantageous for them. I for one am glad that the Republican party adopted a pro-life platform in 1980 (if that’s actually true), because the dems definately adopted a “pro-choice” platform. My gosh, where would we be if SOMEBODY in political realm wasn’t speaking out against this atrocity? I am disheartened by a lot of Republican positions (although don’t get me started on the death penatly, I hate it when people want to throw that around as an excuse to not vote for the anti-abortion candidate, because, guess what, THE DEMS SUPPORT THE DEATH PENALTY AS WELL. Bill Clinton proudly had Timothy McVeigh executed!), but I’m more mad at the Dem’s for selling their soul to PP, NOW, and NARAL so completely as to refuse to even let a pro-life candidate run in a national election. How can they claim to be the party of the poor and vulnerable (yeah, George Soros, Bill Gates, Alec Baldwin, Dave Letterman and the rest of the Hollywood gang are SO poor and vulnerable :rolleyes:) when they refuse to protect the MOST vulnerable in our society, the unborn and the poor, scared women caught up in a crisis pregnancy :mad: ? Veterinary offices are more regulated than abortion clinics, and your daughter can’t be given a tylenol at school w/o your permission, but PP wants her to be able to have an abortion w/o your knowledge? This is NOT a “pro-woman” position!

Ok, that’s my :twocents: , off my soapbox.

In Christ,

Ellen

Oh, to actually answer the question: I’m pro-life first. I’m pro-life b/f anything else. So much so that my #1 concern is who’s going to allow restrictions on abortion and who’s going to appoint judges who want to overturn Roe v. Wade? I can’t help it that one party refuses to even entertain those two thoughts.
Good post. And, sadly, many of the politicians who take the stands you have outline claim to be Catholics.
 
I find the talk of the estate tax interesting, but as one of the few who will likely pay the estate tax, I can’t understand why people hate it so much. I mean think about it for a minute, the least burdensome tax is the one I pay when I am dead! Even if, they set the exemption at $1 million, there could be worse things. I have four heirs. They will get a cool $250k before the estate tax kicks in. I figure, if they don’t think that is enough for them, then I am glad they aren’t getting everything.
 
I’d have to vote the life issues. Sigh I’m one of the biggest fans of the free market out there, but I can survive without it for life.
 
I find the talk of the estate tax interesting, but as one of the few who will likely pay the estate tax, I can’t understand why people hate it so much. I mean think about it for a minute, the least burdensome tax is the one I pay when I am dead! Even if, they set the exemption at $1 million, there could be worse things. I have four heirs. They will get a cool $250k before the estate tax kicks in. I figure, if they don’t think that is enough for them, then I am glad they aren’t getting everything.
That is an interesting viewpoint, but why do you think the government should get it? If you don’t want it all going to your heirs, don’t you think it would be better served going to a charity of your choice?
 
That is an interesting viewpoint, but why do you think the government should get it? If you don’t want it all going to your heirs, don’t you think it would be better served going to a charity of your choice?
Because most people won’t give it to charity, but providing a deduction for a charity might be a way to get around your objection.

Thanks for calling it estate tax not the death tax.
 
Because most people won’t give it to charity, but providing a deduction for a charity might be a way to get around your objection.
So “most people” shouldn’t have a choice on what happens to the money they earned (and were taxed on) their entire life? Why?
 
So “most people” shouldn’t have a choice on what happens to the money they earned (and were taxed on) their entire life? Why?
It might be better if the money went to a charity, I’ll agree with that. But what if it doesn’t?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top