You have people taking pot shots at your claims and statements, but I have not seen anyone take pot shots at you. There is a significant difference between attacking the argument and attacking the person.
As for enjoying it, no I am not and I doubt anyone else is either. Frankly, I do not enjoy having to refute false claims about things like the GI bill or college funding for foster children, taking 5 trillion dollars from the budget versus spending 5 trillion dollars less than Obama over the next 10 years and still being 10 trillion in debt, or the fact that the Ryan budget does not really reduce money for social programs at all, it simply does not increase them as fast as others would prefer; the supposed reductions are in comparison to a budget proposed by the left which does not even exist.
I do not enjoy having to correct someone who thinks it is a moral imperative that we keep on spending money that we do not have. In 2011 the federal government spent 3.6 Trillion Dollars. 1.3 Trillion of that was money that we do not have. If the head of a family spent a bunch of money that they did not have and put themselves massively in debt, it would be a sin. If the pastor of a parish or the bishop of a diocese did the same, it would be a sin. If the CEO of a business did that they would be thrown in jail. Yet, somehow it is our moral duty as a country? Hardly. The Catechism and the Compendium for the Social Doctrine of the Church is not a suicide pact. We have a moral imperative to do what we can, not what we cannot. Simply put, we cannot give what we do not have.
I don’t enjoy pointing out that the Dodd - Frank law, which you lament the repeal of in the Ryan budget, does not provide oversight or regulation to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, who are the two biggest lenders in the country for home loans. I don’t enjoy saying that because they are not regulated while private lenders are, it forces the private lenders to spend more money to finance a loan than it does Fanny and Freddie which is unfair competition on the part of the government. I don’t enjoy saying that both Dodd and Frank are knee deep involved with both Fanny and Freddie and have been for years. But it is the truth nonetheless.
I do not enjoy having to point out that in 2010 alone the United states spent 1.9 trillion dollars of tax payer money on programs at the state and federal level to help the poor (over half of the federal budget). In 2010, approx. 200 billion dollars was given to charities to help the poor in the United States. If you add all that up with projected number of persons below the poverty line in the United States at 20% in 2010, every single poor person (men, women, and children) in the country could have been handed a check for $340,000. A family of four could have been given a check for 1.58 Million dollars. Do you really think that those families of four got 1.58 million dollars worth of services in 2010? And after all of this, you would have us believe that we are not spending enough money. Really? The truth of the matter is that very little of the money that is actually spent to help the poor ends up reaching them. Instead it is used to prop up bloated state and federal agencies and programs that have largely failed in their purpose.
I don’t enjoy any of that and I doubt anyone else does either. However as long as you continue to make unsubstantiated claims, I will continue to refute them.
Also, a teaching isn’t just “made” infallible, it’s declared infallible and has objectively always been infallible. Women can’t be priests because when priests offer a Mass they offer it in the person of Christ. Christ is a male.
