Can Catholics Vote Democrat?

  • Thread starter Thread starter adawgj
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
fnr

In regards to your post #195,

Yes, I support getting rid of the mortgage deduction as well as any other tax deductions and adjusting the marginal tax rates accordingly. It makes no sense to me why a family who lives in an apartment or who have managed to pay off their residence should be, in effect, penalized.

As far as roads, Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution calls on Congress to establish post roads. So I can see a network of highways as being appropriate. That section of the Constitution also calls on Congress to raise and support an army.

As for police and fire, that should, with few exceptions, be a function of local and, maybe, state governments. The only exception being within the District of Columbia and, perhaps, Arlington County, Virginia.

I believe that the people of this country, through the states where they reside, have delegated a very small subset of duties to be accomplished by the Federal government. The federal government should not usurp powers it has not been given.

At least that’s what the 10th Amendment says.

Does that make me an anarchist?
 
ringil said:
Otherwise known as white flight.

I don’t want my kids going to school with those kids.
Click to expand...
Except in Detroit, where it is black flight. So perhaps it isn’t a racial thing, but more like bad school flight.
 
ringil said:
There is nothing in Catholic Social Teaching constantly pushing for lower taxes, more autonomy for businesses, and the reduction of Government Social Programs.
Click to expand...
Yes, there is. It’s called Centisumus Annus, and it explicitly calls for a greater role of the private sector (aka businesses) and the exit of government from the social sector. This is quoted in the Catechism. I’ve commented on this extensively. From CA:

Another task of the State is that of overseeing and directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector. However, primary responsibility in this area belongs not to the State but to individuals and to the various groups and associations which make up society. The State could not directly ensure the right to work for all its citizens unless it controlled every aspect of economic life and restricted the free initiative of individuals. This does not mean, however, that the State has no competence in this domain, as was claimed by those who argued against any rules in the economic sphere. Rather, the State has a duty to sustain business activities by creating conditions which will ensure job opportunities, by stimulating those activities where they are lacking or by supporting them in moments of crisis.

Now, government does have a role. One that CA affirms:

The State has the further right to intervene when particular monopolies create delays or obstacles to development. In addition to the tasks of harmonizing and guiding development, in exceptional circumstances the State can also exercise a substitute function, when social sectors or business systems are too weak or are just getting under way, and are not equal to the task at hand. Such supplementary interventions, which are justified by urgent reasons touching the common good, must be as brief as possible, so as to avoid removing permanently from society and business systems the functions which are properly theirs, and so as to avoid enlarging excessively the sphere of State intervention to the detriment of both economic and civil freedom.

I do think it can be argued that the Great Society was intended as “supplementary interventions, which [were] justified by urgent reasons touching the common good…” However, they clearly have not been “as brief as possible” and in fact have removed “permanantly from society and business systems the functions which are properly theirs.”

No conservative here on CAF (at least not one of the regulars) suggests that the government have no role whatsoever. Rather, we argue that the government should be making efforts to empower “society and business systems” to take over those roles. The government has usurped communities of a lower order. In fact, CA continues with:

In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of State, the so-called “Welfare State”. This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the “Social Assistance State”. Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.

No Republican in Congress or the Senate supports a sudden dismantling of any of the social programs. What myself, many conservatives here on CAF, and I suspect at least some of the Republicans at the national level want is the government “help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society” and return social welfare to communities of a lower order.

As to taxes, there is no mention in Catholic social teaching about the appropriate level of taxation. Indeed, that is a prudential issue.
 
ringil said:
That’s bunk.

If Conservatives idea that a Catholic Party" means “teaching” folks how to “make better choices”, “work harder”, and “pick themselves up by their bootstraps”, then that is no Catholic Party.
Click to expand...
I’m at a loss for this part of your quote. Are you saying its un-Catholic to “teach a person how to fish”, as opposed to “giving a person a fish”…as the saying goes?

(Note: before you go there, yes I agree there is a minority of people incapable of fishing, and have to be given a fish…my comment is a general statement).
 
ringil said:
Otherwise known as white flight.

I don’t want my kids going to school with those kids.
Click to expand...
In many people’s views, its more like, “I want my kids to go to school with high test scores”, or “I want my kids to go to a good reputation for academic achievement”. Not everything is racial.
 
fnr said:
So then you also prefer to get rid of the mortgage interest deduction on your income tax? That’s a pretty huge giveaway that benefits only a fraction of the most needy – those who have the means to save for a down payment. The rest of the deduction goes to people who own houses and who really don’t need the help from Uncle Sam. Oh yeah, and the deduction inflates prices on houses too!

.
Click to expand...
How does allowing people to keep more of the money they earn constitute a “huge giveaway”.
 
estesbob said:
How does allowing people to keep more of the money they earn constitute a “huge giveaway”.
Click to expand...
Why should we base how much tax people pay on whether or not they borrow money to buy a house. There is nothing unique about housing that warrants a tax break. Renters and people who have paid off their home deserve to keep more of their money just as much as people with mortgages. So there is the unfairness issue here. Second, the tax break distorts economic activity by diverting capital to the unproductive part of society.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
Why should we base how much tax people pay on whether or not they borrow money to buy a house. There is nothing unique about housing that warrants a tax break. Renters and people who have paid off their home deserve to keep more of their money just as much as people with mortgages. So there is the unfairness issue here. Second, the tax break distorts economic activity by diverting capital to the unproductive part of society.
Click to expand...
It depends on how you look at taxes. The progressive view seems to be that all income belongs to the govt and tax laws determine how much of the govts money you get to keep. The Conservative view is that tax laws determine how much of our hard earned money we get to keep. Regardless of ones feeling on the Mtg interest deduction it is not a “giveway” in any way, shape or form
 
estesbob said:
It depends on how you look at taxes. The progressive view seems to be that all income belongs to the govt and tax laws determine how much of the govts money you get to keep. The Conservative view is that tax laws determine how much of our hard earned money we get to keep. Regardless of ones feeling on the Mtg interest deduction it is not a “giveway” in any way, shape or form
Click to expand...
You never answered the question though. Why should people with mortgages be allowed to keep more of their money than people who rent or own their home outright? It certainly is a giveaway to a small group of people. A very valid question is why should our tax laws favor deductions to specific groups. And our tax laws are filled with them.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
You never answered the question though. Why should people with mortgages be allowed to keep more of their money than people who rent or own their home outright? It certainly is a giveaway to a small group of people. A very valid question is why should our tax laws favor deductions to specific groups. And our tax laws are filled with them.
Click to expand...
Because its their money.
 
estesbob said:
Because its their money.
Click to expand...
So people who rent aren’t entitled to their money? People who own their homes without a mortgage aren’t entitled to their money?

I understand that your view of taxes is the liberal one, not the conservative one. Your thinking is based on the fatal conceit that people cannot be trusted to handle their own affairs, but must have the overreaching hand of government to guide their behavior.

My viewpoint is the conservative one, where taxes should be set low for everyone. Then if people want to take out a mortgage that is their business, but there is no reason that people with mortgages should have a different tax bill than people without.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
So people who rent aren’t entitled to their money? People who own their homes without a mortgage aren’t entitled to their money?

I understand that your view of taxes is the liberal one, not the conservative one. Your thinking is based on the fatal conceit that people cannot be trusted to handle their own affairs, but must have the overreaching hand of government to guide their behavior.

My viewpoint is the conservative one, where taxes should be set low for everyone. Then if people want to take out a mortgage that is their business, but there is no reason that people with mortgages should have a different tax bill than people without.
Click to expand...
My point, again , is deductions that lower peoples taxes is not a “giveaway”
 
estesbob said:
My point, again , is deductions that lower peoples taxes is not a “giveaway”
Click to expand...
We can quibble about whether or not it is a giveaway. What cannot be quibbled about is that it is neither a fair provision of the tax code. Nor does it promote economically desirable behavior. Only a liberal could support the provision because there is no justifiable reason to give a household a tax break based on whether or not they borrow money.
 
shockerfan said:
In many people’s views, its more like, “I want my kids to go to school with high test scores”, or “I want my kids to go to a good reputation for academic achievement”. Not everything is racial.
Click to expand...
:clapping:
 
fnr said:
Michael Voris is a monarchist.

Keep in mind that after the 2012 election, there were plenty of threads here on CAF talking about how Franco wasn’t really such a bad guy, and how democracy just doesn’t work. The people who put him in power were a combination of monarchists (Carlists) and fascists (Falangists). But he was stridently Catholic, so that was OK to many. Never mind the mass graves. Or Guernica. Or the extrajudicial murders.

The irony with Church Militant types is that the Pope himself is preaching against the politicization of the Church.
Click to expand...
Catholics shouldn’t vote for someone just because he/she claims to be Catholic.

Don’t be part of the low-information crowd.
 
Crossbones said:
It seems like a reasonable role for the government to me.
Click to expand...
Lots of things seem reasonable on the surface or if one kinda sorta feels it out like Grandpa does with his big toe to predict the weather.

Once the surface is scratched, the ineffective nature of government is exposed and those who stand to gain from that must run around making excuses and falsifying the reputation of others by stamping racism, homophobia, ect. on them.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
You never answered the question though. Why should people with mortgages be allowed to keep more of their money than people who rent or own their home outright? It certainly is a giveaway to a small group of people. A very valid question is why should our tax laws favor deductions to specific groups. And our tax laws are filled with them.
Click to expand...
The original reason for tax breaks for mortgage interest was to encourage a certain kind of behavior - the behavior of settling into a home that you own rather than rent. This is like giving a tax break for donations to charities. It is desirable behavior and government has an interest in encouraging it. The home mortgage interest deduction was based on the notion that such behavior is more desirable for the community than other forms of housing.

However that notion is turning out to be more and more questionable. For one thing there are communities built around other forms of housing, such as condominiums and assisted care arrangements. Furthermore, the job and mobility situation is very different from what it when the mortgage interest tax deduction was created. People change jobs more often, and because of these job changes, they sometimes have to move. If you are tied to a house that you own and you have to sell it and buy a new one just to take a job in a different city, then owning your own home is more of a liability than an asset. Therefore I think the mortgage interest tax deduction has outlived its usefulness and should be discontinued. The behavior it encourages is not any better or worse than the behavior of renting - either for the community or the homeowners themselves.
 
I am a rabid foaming-at-the-mouth independant. Both major parties in American politics support policies that I cannot abide both personally or religiously.

What’s a guy like me supposed to do?

well… I try very hard to keep informed and choose the lesser of two evils about 50% of the time.

The other 50% of the time - I vote my conscience and pull the lever for the man I know will best represent both me and what I stand for… I write myself in the other 50% of the time.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
The original reason for tax breaks for mortgage interest was to encourage a certain kind of behavior - the behavior of settling into a home that you own rather than rent. This is like giving a tax break for donations to charities. It is desirable behavior and government has an interest in encouraging it. The home mortgage interest deduction was based on the notion that such behavior is more desirable for the community than other forms of housing.

However that notion is turning out to be more and more questionable. For one thing there are communities built around other forms of housing, such as condominiums and assisted care arrangements. Furthermore, the job and mobility situation is very different from what it when the mortgage interest tax deduction was created. People change jobs more often, and because of these job changes, they sometimes have to move. If you are tied to a house that you own and you have to sell it and buy a new one just to take a job in a different city, then owning your own home is more of a liability than an asset. Therefore I think the mortgage interest tax deduction has outlived its usefulness and should be discontinued. The behavior it encourages is not any better or worse than the behavior of renting - either for the community or the homeowners themselves.
Click to expand...
The idea of tax breaks for different activities is really a liberal notion at its heart. It is based on the idea that people cannot be trusted to manage their own affairs, but that they need the heavy hand of government to guide them. Given that government does almost everything poorly, it is surprising that anyone actually believes that anymore.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top