Can Catholics Vote Democrat?

[freeRadical]

Again, I would disagree. Since schools are administered by the government, they are not subject to free market economies and hence not under those rules (supply and demand).

Oh, everyone obeys supply and demand, even the government.

 

[1newcatholic]

Anything is better than the government.

Enjoy your anarchy.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Stinkcat, you are refuting an argument which no one has made. Which is a bit strange don’t you think?

Ishii

I was responding to a question as to whether we must vote republican, which as you know is unambiguously no.

 

[_Abyssinia]

As a registered Independent, I have voted more than once for Democratic candidates and agendas. While Democrats support abortion and gay marriage rights–contra the teachings of the Catholic church–I have not made the mistake of confusing my private religious opinions (Catholicism) with the necessary rule of law. I don’t get to force my Catholicism on anyone. Those days are thankfully past. (When abortions and gay marriage become mandatory instead of optional, then come talk to me about my vote).

As a Christian, I feel obligated to side with the political groups that care about the things that Jesus cared about–like the poor. Or the indigent. Or abused children. Or the elderly. You know–the groups for which socialist welfare programs exist (Medicare, Social Services, Social Security, etc). Patriotic warmongering and pandering to archaic religious xenophobia is an effective strategy for gaining the support of a moral majority, but in the long run it produces hypocrisy on a grand scale, a false religiosity to which many, but not all, are blind. Capitalism, for example, is not a Christian value, and easily leads to the idolatrous love of money, but it is a precious principle to certain political parties.

I suspect that many people have given up on the very idea of church because the politicized Christianity that dominates the public American sphere is utterly craven and distasteful, and remote from the spiritual values taught by Jesus and the Apostles. “A new commandment I give to you: that you love one another.” Too many political groups forget this law when they spew their hate in the name of a religious identity, but “by their fruits ye shall know them.” Unfortunately the most hateful groups have a way of getting the most attention.

Just my thoughts.

You name particular policies, social security, medicare, and social services, although you don’t specially name what those are. Check out the following post:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=12226520&highlight=medicare#post12226520

 

[sallybutler]

Dawnia,

Grover Norquist is the founder of Americans for Tax Reform, an organization he founded at the request of Ronald Reagan in 1985.

Boehner said this in an interview with Leslie Stahl. Here is the transcript of the interview.
cbsnews.com/news/meet-the-next-house-speaker-rep-john-boehner/

Reid has not brought bills to the floor because he has to get 60 votes to allow the real vote which will pass or fail the bill. Personally, I think he should bring them to the floor so they can vote to not vote. However, that is technically different than filibustering.

 

[shockerfan]

Reid has not brought bills to the floor because he has to get 60 votes to allow the real vote which will pass or fail the bill. Personally, I think he should bring them to the floor so they can vote to not vote. However, that is technically different than filibustering.

The result is the same. Seems you are arguing a straw man. Because you find a minority of Republicans who, you believe, want a government so small its ineffective, its justification to support candidates of a party who support abortion rights and embryonic stem cell research, and forcing the HHS mandate on business owners who find it a violation of their conscience. Am I missing something?

 

[Ridgerunner]

To the point of the question, not all Democrats are pro-abortion. I heard in a homily about a Massachusetts Democrat that in the seminary discerning religious life when an accident left him paralyzed from the neck down. I was curious after hearing of this man and looked him up. I found that not only he, but several Democrats are actually anti-abortion, receiving a rating of 0 from NARAL. There are still some good Catholic Democrats which remain faithful. There are also some Republicans that break party ranks to remain faithful Catholics.

votesmart.org/interest-group/10/rating/6120#.U-L9ZZ0o6ic

Democrats can be anti-abortion and Republicans can be pro-social justice.

Perhaps Repubs SHOULD be “pro-social justice” because the Dems sure aren’t. The Democrats in the administration and congress are all “middle class welfare”; making one part of the middle class subsidize another part. The poor? Well, nothing for them. The rich? Well, we need to loan money to a Brazilian oil company in order to make George Soros’ investment in it pay off. Also, Nancy Pelosi’s nephew. Need to block the Keystone Pipeline so Warren Buffett’s trains carry it from Canada (and blow up now and then)

As to prolife Democrats, that’s virtually an oxymoron. If you look up the NARAL and the National Right to Life scoring, you will find them very similar. Single digits for prolife Dems in Congress. Single digits for pro-abortion Repubs in Congress. The two organizations agree on that, if on nothing else.

 

[Dawnia]

Dawnia,

Grover Norquist is the founder of Americans for Tax Reform, an organization he founded at the request of Ronald Reagan in 1985.

Boehner said this in an interview with Leslie Stahl. Here is the transcript of the interview.
cbsnews.com/news/meet-the-next-house-speaker-rep-john-boehner/

Thank you.

Reid has not brought bills to the floor because he has to get 60 votes to allow the real vote which will pass or fail the bill. Personally, I think he should bring them to the floor so they can vote to not vote. However, that is technically different than filibustering.

He voted no for closure on the bill to overturn SCOTUS on Hobby Lobby. It was a political tactic, but it was still a vote to filibuster his own bill.

 

[ringil]

Democrats can be anti-abortion and Republicans can be pro-social justice.

There are GOP members who don’t advocate reducing social supports? I haven’t heard of these as wouldn’t this stance, kind of violate the GOP stance?

 

[Dawnia]

Perhaps Repubs SHOULD be “pro-social justice” because the Dems sure aren’t. The Democrats in the administration and congress are all “middle class welfare”; making one part of the middle class subsidize another part. The poor? Well, nothing for them. The rich? Well, we need to loan money to a Brazilian oil company in order to make George Soros’ investment in it pay off. Also, Nancy Pelosi’s nephew. Need to block the Keystone Pipeline so Warren Buffett’s trains carry it from Canada (and blow up now and then)

As to prolife Democrats, that’s virtually an oxymoron. If you look up the NARAL and the National Right to Life scoring, you will find them very similar. Single digits for prolife Dems in Congress. Single digits for pro-abortion Repubs in Congress. The two organizations agree on that, if on nothing else.

You also don’t see Republican politicians attacking homelessness with sledgehammers or banning individuals from helping the homeless.

 

[ringil]

Perhaps Repubs SHOULD be “pro-social justice” because the Dems sure aren’t. The Democrats in the administration and congress are all “middle class welfare”; making one part of the middle class subsidize another part. The poor? Well, nothing for them. The rich? Well, we need to loan money to a Brazilian oil company in order to make George Soros’ investment in it pay off. Also, Nancy Pelosi’s nephew. Need to block the Keystone Pipeline so Warren Buffett’s trains carry it from Canada (and blow up now and then)

As to prolife Democrats, that’s virtually an oxymoron. If you look up the NARAL and the National Right to Life scoring, you will find them very similar. Single digits for prolife Dems in Congress. Single digits for pro-abortion Repubs in Congress. The two organizations agree on that, if on nothing else.

You have stated that you were an involved member of the Democrat Party in the past and yet your posts show complete allegiance to everything GOP and complete opposition to even the most basic tenets of the Democrat Party.

I imagine that your entire outlook has changed- that your foundational thoughts on politics have taken a 180. You can’t say that the democrats “left you” as your posts show no hint of appreciation of any aspect of the Democratic Party- be it in the past or in the present.

Not just talking abortion and same sex marriage either- if you stated that you retain some thought on liberal principles but the Democrats “left you” due to abortion and same sex marriage- that would make sense and be consistent. But your opinions show NOTHING democratic about them.

In other words, if you thought as you do while you were with the Democratic Party- that would be like a guy wearing a black suit to a party wearing all white. Complete and utter difference of opinion on all matters but saying “I am one of you”.

It just doesn’t make sense.

 

[ringil]

You also don’t see Republican politicians attacking homelessness with sledgehammers or banning individuals from helping the homeless.

But you may see them advocating the elimination of school lunches.

 

[ishii]

There are GOP members who don’t advocate reducing social supports? I haven’t heard of these as wouldn’t this stance, kind of violate the GOP stance?

You’re wrongly implying that increased funding for social programs and social justice go hand in hand. They don’t. One can be in favor of cutting spending on a wasteful program or eliminating it altogether if it is a useless program or does more harm than good.

But you may see them advocating the elimination of school lunches.

Which Republicans advocate the elimination of school lunches?

Ishii

 

[ringil]

Which Republicans advocate the elimination of school lunches?

Ishii

thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/04/25/470967/gop-school-lunch-cuts/

House Republicans recently proposed cuts to nutrition assistance that will kick 280,000 low-income children off automatic enrollment in the Free School Lunch and Breakfast Program. Those same kids and 1.5 million other people will also lose their Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly food stamp benefits) that help them afford food at home.

Well, limiting the ability of some kids to eat school lunches.

I answered a bombastic and silly post with one.

Very defensive of the GOP eh?

 

[ringil]

You’re wrongly implying that increased funding for social programs and social justice go hand in hand. They don’t. One can be in favor of cutting spending on a wasteful program or eliminating it altogether if it is a useless program or does more harm than good.

The Conservative “wasteful” is my "necessary.

Feeding people who can’t afford food, giving people access to healthcare- not jus the ER, providing before and after school programs for vulnerable children- is social justice.

What have the Bishops said about efforts to reduce social programs- OH YEAH- prudential judgment- i.e. I don’t have to listen to this.

Thinking that people have become to lazy to fend for themselves is not social justice.

 

[tomarin]

I’m going to through out a hypothetical here - what if you firmly believed that humans were contributing to a global warming trend that would quickly render the earth uninhabitable and you believed that the Democrats were willing to do something to halt this process and the Republicans only wished to be obstructionist (not saying I believe these things, but I can imagine a lot of Catholic Democrats do as that is how they are portrayed in the media). Wouldn’t that issue trump abortion according to the voting guidelines of the U.S. bishops? Wouldn’t saving the earth for human habitation be a reasonable justification for voting for a party that is in favor of legalized abortion?

 

[shockerfan]

You’re wrongly implying that increased funding for social programs and social justice go hand in hand. They don’t. One can be in favor of cutting spending on a wasteful program or eliminating it altogether if it is a useless program or does more harm than good.

Ishii

I like to use my $35 can of green beans example for this argument. Lets say we want to feed an hungry person. A government official says “we will procure a can of green beans for that hungry person”. We then find out that the can of green beans cost $35. A Republican would say, “wait, that’s way to much to spend on a can of green beans. We should be able to buy that can for 69 cents…I will only approve funding for 69 cents.” The Democrat, wanting to ensure a lifelong voter, has a press conference on how the Republican hates hungry people and slashed the green bean budget. The Huffington Post headline reads: Republicans Slash Green Bean Budget by 98%".

Then that becomes the talking point on CAF by those who support the Democratic Party.

 

[DeniseNY]

I like to use my $35 can of green beans example for this argument. Lets say we want to feed an hungry person. A government official says “we will procure a can of green beans for that hungry person”. We then find out that the can of green beans cost $35. A Republican would say, “wait, that’s way to much to spend on a can of green beans. We should be able to buy that can for 69 cents…I will only approve funding for 69 cents.” The Democrat, wanting to ensure a lifelong voter, has a press conference on how the Republican hates hungry people and slashed the green bean budget. The Huffington Post headline reads: Republicans Slash Green Bean Budget by 98%".

Then that becomes the talking point on CAF by those who support the Democratic Party.

Yup, and it becomes Republicans hate the poor and want people to starve.

 

[shockerfan]

thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/04/25/470967/gop-school-lunch-cuts/

House Republicans recently proposed cuts to nutrition assistance that will kick 280,000 low-income children off automatic enrollment in the Free School Lunch and Breakfast Program. Those same kids and 1.5 million other people will also lose their Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly food stamp benefits) that help them afford food at home.

Well, limiting the ability of some kids to eat school lunches.

I answered a bombastic and silly post with one.

Very defensive of the GOP eh?

So here is my question. Was the cut really a cut, or a decrease in an increase?

When one goes to the CBO source that the “impartial” article referenced, we read the following, “CBO estimates that enacting this legislation would reduce direct spending by
$5.6 billion in 2013 and by $33.7 billion over the 2013-2022 period, relative to CBO’s
March 2012 baseline projections.” (emphasis mine)

Baseline budgeting never takes into account whether money is spent wisely or not…it just looks at what is being spent. So it takes the current budget and increases it based on inflation and population growth. Then that becomes the baseline. So is the $5.6B decrease, really a decrease or just less of a projected increase? This really relates to by $35 can of green beans example.

Also, there is also the assumption made by those on the left that expecting a government agency to do more with less is impossible and mean. Business does it all the time, and not just by firing people (although after seeing the reports on government employees watching porn, we could stand to cull the herd a bit)

 

[ringil]

I like to use my $35 can of green beans example for this argument. Lets say we want to feed an hungry person. A government official says “we will procure a can of green beans for that hungry person”. We then find out that the can of green beans cost $35. A Republican would say, “wait, that’s way to much to spend on a can of green beans. We should be able to buy that can for 69 cents…I will only approve funding for 69 cents.” The Democrat, wanting to ensure a lifelong voter, has a press conference on how the Republican hates hungry people and slashed the green bean budget. The Huffington Post headline reads: Republicans Slash Green Bean Budget by 98%".

Then that becomes the talking point on CAF by those who support the Democratic Party.

And your talking point characterizing the Democrats as inherently wasteful and incompetent and the GOP as wise and sensible exemplifies your position.

Black hats and white hats.