Are you pro-life or Republican first?

[YADA]

Actually, that’s one aspect of public services. I mean any and all services provided by a government agency, from transit to libraries to schools to air traffic control. Republicans tend to favor privatizing all these kinds of services.

Some things government should control completely like the highway system [but private enterprise has a role in the hwy system] Other things government should not handle … others should be handled as close to the receiveing source but less government is better …

Some twenty years ago a young man in our parish started an organization to address homelessness …

Today that organization moves people [individuals and families] from living on the streets into permanent housing …

They follow the family for one year.

On the board of directors are former homeless persons …

One of the first things this organization had to forgo was government assistance, grants, aid of any kind … the rules and regulations that accepting government funds force upon the charity set these people up for failure … thats right, take gvernment help and stay on the streets …

So what is the success rate? How many of these people/families are still in permanent housing one year later … for over 15 years the rates are between 85% to 93% … this is a success rate no government program comes close to matching …

And you believe that government services [welfare, socialize medicine and government redistribution of wealth] is the panacia of social ills …

Do you truly believe that sending money to Washington and/or the State Capital, then paying a government agency [offices, wages and supplies] to process its redistribution to the individual or send it back to the State, County and/or City who in turn has an agency [again offices, wages and supplies] process the needed service to the individual who needs the ‘public assistance’ is the most efficient way to end poverty, addiction, illiteracy, lack of medical care?

For example: Social Security is a pyramid scheme [which our government has passed laws against now]… there is no lock box, it was always another source of taxation where the money was spent today with the hope that current workers would adequately fund the retirees today … problem is: when it started there were about 8 workers for every retiree … now there are about three and soon only two … It was never meant to replace personal savings or retirement … it was supposed to be a supplement … but as soon as the program was started, they government bagan to expand the benefits covered [dependent children, college students, etc] and people began saving less and for many the social security check became the only retirement - no savings …

I am not hard hearted, I am all for helping people who are in need. I know that people get trapped and need a suppport system … becuase I don’t see big government as the answer does not mean that I am evil …

And I am pro-babies and against the death penalty … but the death penalty cannot be equated to aborting the life of an innocent child … that is like comparing basalt rock to clouds …

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Some things government should control completely like the highway system [but private enterprise has a role in the hwy system]

What role, pray tell, should “private enterprise” play in the highway system, except as a construction contractor?

Other things government should not handle … others should be handled as close to the receiveing source but less government is better …

Something I have never denied.

Some twenty years ago a young man in our parish started an organization to address homelessness …

Today that organization moves people [individuals and families] from living on the streets into permanent housing …

They follow the family for one year.

On the board of directors are former homeless persons …

One of the first things this organization had to forgo was government assistance, grants, aid of any kind … the rules and regulations that accepting government funds force upon the charity set these people up for failure … thats right, take gvernment help and stay on the streets …

So what is the success rate? How many of these people/families are still in permanent housing one year later … for over 15 years the rates are between 85% to 93% … this is a success rate no government program comes close to matching …

I’m glad things are working out for these people. I have a feeling that this organization is going be getting a lot more clients in the near future.

And you believe that government services [welfare, socialize medicine and government redistribution of wealth] is the panacia of social ills …

Kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth. It’s unsanitary.

Do you truly believe that sending money to Washington and/or the State Capital, then paying a government agency [offices, wages and supplies] to process its redistribution to the individual or send it back to the State, County and/or City who in turn has an agency [again offices, wages and supplies] process the needed service to the individual who needs the ‘public assistance’ is the most efficient way to end poverty, addiction, illiteracy, lack of medical care?

Actually, I believe that the best way to fix poverty is to create an economy that is conducive to an expanding middle class. Right now, we do not have that kind of economy because most the regulations that incentivize manufacturing within the United States have been eliminated or severly cut back. Americans are forced to compete with $1.00 a day labor. That’s an impossible situation that has been destroying the middle class over the past several years and it needs to be reversed.

I’ve long said that the best solution for poverty is a good union job with benefits and a pension.

As to healthcare, I am for Medicare for All, which is NOT socialized medicine, regardless of what your radio and cable TV “news” channel tell you.

For example: Social Security is a pyramid scheme [which our government has passed laws against now]… there is no lock box, it was always another source of taxation where the money was spent today with the hope that current workers would adequately fund the retirees today … problem is: when it started there were about 8 workers for every retiree … now there are about three and soon only two … It was never meant to replace personal savings or retirement … it was supposed to be a supplement … but as soon as the program was started, they government bagan to expand the benefits covered [dependent children, college students, etc] and people began saving less and for many the social security check became the only retirement - no savings …

You display an excellent skill at memorizing radio and cable tv talking points. I commend you!

Now, lets come back to reality. Please provide back up for your statements. From my understanding, Social Security has all but eliminated poverty among the elderly (11.9% as of 1997). That makes it one of the most successful non-military government programs in terms of accomplishing its mission…and Bush wants to dismantle, I mean “reform” it. Nice.

I am not hard hearted, I am all for helping people who are in need. I know that people get trapped and need a suppport system … becuase I don’t see big government as the answer does not mean that I am evil …

I believe that government has a role to play in our society, after all, it is a servant of our society. Should that role be limited? Sure. One of its primary roles is to protect society from the predators among us…predators of all stripes, including unscrupulous businesses. As I work for an agency that works in the area of workplace protection of emloyees, I can tell you stories about what goes on out there. It’s not pretty and many people die because of it.

And I am pro-babies and against the death penalty … but the death penalty cannot be equated to aborting the life of an innocent child … that is like comparing basalt rock to clouds …

Okay. And…?

Here’s the crux of my question and the intent of poll:

All other things being equal…if the Democrats became anti-abortion, anti-gay “marriage,” anti-research on stem cells taken form unborn children, anti-euthanasia and anti-human cloning AND the Republicans became pro-choice-on-abortion or euthanasia, pro gay-marriage, pro-research on stem cells taken from unborn children, and pro-human cloning…would you still vote Republican or would you change to Democrat?

 

[rlg94086]

It might be better if the money went to a charity, I’ll agree with that. But what if it doesn’t?

Who cares? It’s their money they earned (and paid taxes on) their entire lives. Why should the government decide what they should do with it? What makes you think the government is going to do something better with it?

 

[ribozyme]

Who cares? It’s their money they earned (and paid taxes on) their entire lives. Why should the government decide what they should do with it? What makes you think the government is going to do something better with it?

I thought you would care… you are the one who was concerned that the money from the estate tax wasn’t going to a charity.

 

[Hastrman]

What role, pray tell, should “private enterprise” play in the highway system, except as a construction contractor?

Only extreme, hoping to reincarnate behind a comet Libertarians think that kind of thing should be private; fewer strawmen please.

Kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth. It’s unsanitary.

Oh, I gotta remember that one

Actually, I believe that the best way to fix poverty is to create an economy that is conducive to an expanding middle class. Right now, we do not have that kind of economy because most the regulations that incentivize manufacturing within the United States have been eliminated or severly cut back. Americans are forced to compete with $1.00 a day labor. That’s an impossible situation that has been destroying the middle class over the past several years and it needs to be reversed.

I’ve long said that the best solution for poverty is a good union job with benefits and a pension.

No, the best solution for poverty is everyone owning their own means of production, or an equal share in concentrated means, and working at their own discretion, for their own profit.

You know, like doctors, lawyers, and arguably professors do.

As to healthcare, I am for Medicare for All, which is NOT socialized medicine, regardless of what your radio and cable TV “news” channel tell you.

You’ve never seen Fox News in your life, admit it.

Nor have you compared it with MSNBC.

Me, I prefer CCTV9–China’s English language news channel–to MSNBC, because there’s less offensive left-wing bias.

Now, lets come back to reality. Please provide back up for your statements. From my understanding, Social Security has all but eliminated poverty among the elderly (11.9% as of 1997). That makes it one of the most successful non-military government programs in terms of accomplishing its mission…and Bush wants to dismantle, I mean “reform” it. Nice.

Um…because those are the elderly now. We can’t keep it up, especially not with how long people live after they retire.

Here’s a hint: it’s not a good for the members of a baby boom to have very few children, especially not in a system dependent on the workforce paying into it.

Bare minimum we have to raise retirement age by five, even ten years.

All other things being equal…if the Democrats became anti-abortion, anti-gay “marriage,” anti-research on stem cells taken form unborn children, anti-euthanasia and anti-human cloning AND the Republicans became pro-choice-on-abortion or euthanasia, pro gay-marriage, pro-research on stem cells taken from unborn children, and pro-human cloning…would you still vote Republican or would you change to Democrat?

I’d have to vote Democrat; I’m not a moral simpleton.

I don’t suppose you know any ways to kill time in the breadline?

 

[stinkcat_14]

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?

Our current estate tax allows the individual to get an estate tax deduction for donations to charity from the estate and I fully support that.

As to why the government should get the money, while I don’t like any tax, it is quite apparent that the least burdensome tax is one I pay after I die. It’s the taxes I pay when I am living that I am most concerned about.

 

[Ender]

why do you think the government should get it?

I have yet to read anything that answers this question. What justification is there for the government to take part of an estate simply because the person who created it has died?

Ender

 

[stinkcat_14]

I have yet to read anything that answers this question. What justification is there for the government to take part of an estate simply because the person who created it has died?

Ender

The same justification that the government has for taking part of your income simply because the person earned it. Now, let me ask you a question: If you have to pay a tax, would you prefer to pay it while you are living or when you are dead? Who situation would be less of a burden?

 

[pnewton]

The Mosaic Law had something similar to real estate tax. Every fifty years all land ownership would go back the family to whom it was given at the time of occupation of the land. This prevented the poor from staying poor and the rich from gaining increased riches indefinitely. It was the first case of wealth redistribution to assist the poor. God started it.

 

[Ender]

The same justification that the government has for taking part of your income simply because the person earned it.

This justification would allow the government to tax you for any reason whatever: when you turn 60, or 50, or 37 and a half, if you live on the east side of the road, or if your last name starts with a letter. Do you have no objection to the government levying a tax on any whim at all? We understand why the feds tax death - that’s where the real money is - but I am at a loss to understand why dying should be a taxable event.

If you have to pay a tax, would you prefer to pay it while you are living or when you are dead? Who situation would be less of a burden?

Is this the criterion? Whether the tax is burdensome? Is there no consideration of whether the tax is just?

Ender

 

[stinkcat_14]

Is this the criterion? Whether the tax is burdensome? Is there no consideration of whether the tax is just?

Ender

Under what criteria is the tax unjust? Nobody is harmed by the estate tax because nobody is entitled to anyone else’s money. The dead guy certainly isn’t harmed, because the money is of no use to him now.

 

[Ender]

Under what criteria is the tax unjust? Nobody is harmed by the estate tax because nobody is entitled to anyone else’s money.

You speak of the person who inherits the money as having no right to it but surely the real rights belong to the person who has created the wealth; he and he alone should have the right to determine what happens to it.

You are altogether too cavalier in regard to the right to private property.

Ender

 

[stinkcat_14]

You speak of the person who inherits the money as having no right to it but surely the real rights belong to the person who has created the wealth; he and he alone should have the right to determine what happens to it.

Then why shouldn’t the person who earns income by working at a job have the sole right to determine what happens to the money he earns? When I earn money the government has a claim on it. This is just, but taking money in a way that harms nobody is unjust?

 

[stinkcat_14]

You are altogether too cavalier in regard to the right to private property.

Ender

I guess I am willing to give up a person’s right to property after they die. For some reason, I don’t see the harm in that.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

The Mosaic Law had something similar to real estate tax. Every fifty years all land ownership would go back the family to whom it was given at the time of occupation of the land. This prevented the poor from staying poor and the rich from gaining increased riches indefinitely. It was the first case of wealth redistribution to assist the poor. God started it.

The Republicans apparently believe that they know better than God.

 

[pnewton]

The Republicans apparently believe that they know better than God.

Who doesn’t think that from time to time? I understand the concept of redistribution of wealth and real estate tax and agree that it has a place in any society. So I am liberal in a few areas.

 

[ALLGIRLS]

Here’s the crux of my question and the intent of poll:

All other things being equal…if the Democrats became anti-abortion, anti-gay “marriage,” anti-research on stem cells taken form unborn children, anti-euthanasia and anti-human cloning AND the Republicans became pro-choice-on-abortion or euthanasia, pro gay-marriage, pro-research on stem cells taken from unborn children, and pro-human cloning…would you still vote Republican or would you change to Democrat?

This ficticious Democratic party you describe is the party of my dreams. If it existed I wouldn’t have to play “lesser of 2 evils” (the worst evil always being abortion) every election. What’s sad is that there are individual Democrats who fit that description, but the party bigwigs keep them quiet and won’t let them run for anything above obscure state offices. Whereas the Republicans have Arnold Schwarzenegger as Gov. of California and Rudy Guilani as a former serious contender for the presidential nomination (I assume I can mention Rudy now that he’s dropped out of the race). They let the voters decide. What is the Democractic party so afraid of? Oh yeah, PP, NOW, NARAL Moveon.org, Human Rights Watch, etc., taking away all their money. . The traditional pro-life Democracts really need to split off and form a new party, and then all Catholics could vote w/ a totally clear conscience.

In Christ,

Ellen

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Who doesn’t think that from time to time? I understand the concept of redistribution of wealth and real estate tax and agree that it has a place in any society. So I am liberal in a few areas.

As we all should be. I’m conservative when it comes to life and “morals” (usually that means sex) issues but I have no problem saying that my economic issues are quite another story.

 

[Orionthehunter]

From LCMSNoMore: Actually, I believe that the best way to fix poverty is to create an economy that is conducive to an expanding middle class.

I agree. Part of the success of the US is that it has the largest percentage of its population being middle class. Part of this dynamic is the result that we have the greatest degree of movement between classes. In Europe, the upper class stays that way for generations and the lower class stays that way for generations.

From LCMSNoMOre: Right now, we do not have that kind of economy because most the regulations that incentivize manufacturing within the United States have been eliminated or severly cut back. Americans are forced to compete with $1.00 a day labor. That’s an impossible situation that has been destroying the middle class over the past several years and it needs to be reversed.

Because I believe that the “preferential option for the poor” social teaching extends beyond our borders, I am more concerned about the poverty of God’s children in Asia, Mexico, etc., I think that the movement of jobs to these areas lifts the economic boat of people all over the world. I don’t consider just the effect on Americans whose poorest are “richer” than 80% of the rest of the world. The standard of living in these countries is rising faster than anywhere in the World. Praise be to God!

From LCMSNoMore: I’ve long said that the best solution for poverty is a good union job with benefits and a pension.

I think it is an efficient creation and distribution of goods with minimal distortion from bureaucrats. From this, good jobs and benefits are born.

From LCMSNoMore: As to healthcare, I am for Medicare for All, which is NOT socialized medicine, regardless of what your radio and cable TV “news” channel tell you.

Until I see evidence that the government can deliver not only Medicare more efficiently and compassionately as well as other government services (the lack of dignity with which welfare applicants are treated is appalling), the last thing I want the government to do is broaden their reach into healthcare.

From LCMSNoMore: Now, lets come back to reality. Please provide back up for your statements. From my understanding, Social Security has all but eliminated poverty among the elderly (11.9% as of 1997). That makes it one of the most successful non-military government programs in terms of accomplishing its mission…and Bush wants to dismantle, I mean “reform” it. Nice.

And it did so by mortgaging the retirement accounts of future recipients. In my lifetime, we will see Social Security broke. Not my idea of success. In just a few years, we will have to make the decision: increase poverty of the elderly or tax the young people into poverty.

From LCMSNoMore: I believe that government has a role to play in our society, after all, it is a servant of our society. Should that role be limited? Sure. One of its primary roles is to protect society from the predators among us…predators of all stripes, including unscrupulous businesses. As I work for an agency that works in the area of workplace protection of emloyees, I can tell you stories about what goes on out there. It’s not pretty and many people die because of it.

A most legitimate role of government is to insure that the laws are enforced and that people aren’t exploited. I agree.

From LCMSNoMore: All other things being equal…if the Democrats became anti-abortion, anti-gay “marriage,” anti-research on stem cells taken form unborn children, anti-euthanasia and anti-human cloning AND the Republicans became pro-choice-on-abortion or euthanasia, pro gay-marriage, pro-research on stem cells taken from unborn children, and pro-human cloning…would you still vote Republican or would you change to Democrat?

My registration would change before the GOP adopted all these evils. In the meantime, I’d fight hard to oppose the change.

 

[pnewton]

And it did so by mortgaging the retirement accounts of future recipients. In my lifetime, we will see Social Security broke. Not my idea of success. In just a few years, we will have to make the decision: increase poverty of the elderly or tax the young people into poverty.

Now that brings up another good moral issue. Is robbing from future generations by running up debt for today’s needs moral?

A portion of the taxes I pay go to nothing but interest on FDR’s debts, and those that followed in his footsteps. I mean taxing the people is one thing, but sheesh, FDR and others are still taxing people for generations.