Can we stop arguing and support each other?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MadeAnew
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
We aren’t really all that different at the heart. We all, Democrats and Republicans, want to help other people and to live ‘good lives’.
It started out with simple differences. Do we help people more when we give to them their needs when they cannot help themselves? That seems reasonable, right?
But then what if they could help themselves but choose not to? Do we still help? And do we try to help them to help themselves because they are responsible for, say, children? How? Can this cause problems? What do we do about those?

So you see out of honest and reasonable desires one group, more Democrat, wished to help and it became more all sorts of social groups as there were more and more splinters of those who could not work because they did not have skills, or did not have child care, or had physical or mental issues, and then as the systems were overcome tried to come up with more and more, to the point where they were so overwhelmed they lost sight of the big picture of WHY they were helping people —originally, to help themselves—and just became focused on “helping people to have whatever they want’. That’s how abortion got into the picture.

And with the Republicans, helping people was more, “getting them on their own two feet to work”, which meant ‘creating more jobs’. And with that in mind, the creation of jobs became a major focus, and less attention was paid to the jobs themselves and to careful use of the land and the factories and the industries and pollution, and instead of helping a person who could not work for legitimate reasons such as child care or lack of skills or physical issues, the focus was, “We have the jobs HERE and if a person isn’t taking them, he or she is lazy. Instead of giving them money, we should take it away until they work.”

Now the thing is, there are some people who ‘abuse the system’. Under Democrats, they are coasting along. Under the Republicans, they’d be tossed out.

But there are people who truly NEED a great deal of care. Under Democrats, they are helped. Under the Republicans, they would be tossed out.

We don’t have a one-size fits all society and we never will.
But we have become so polarised to think that Democrats are all either “Protectors” or “Enablers” depending on our own worldview, and that Republicans are either “Responsible” or “Punishers” depending on our worldview. We are extolling “our groups’ to the skies and ignoring any possible areas where we might be overboard or lacking, and we are demonising ‘the other’ groups and ignoring where THEY might be doing well, or twisting their ‘lacks’ into deliberate malice.
 
A large group does not want to have to have to submit to abortion, gender confusion, acceptance of homosexuality being pushed into the Church. I am traditional.
I am a faithful Catholic. I struggle with taking the faith into the public sphere. As an example, I think the 14th amendment requires the recognition of gay marriage. I’m against it and think it’s wrong, but I think our Constitution requires it’s recognition.

Abortion is always wrong, but it’s also always been with us. It should be reduced to zero, but it never will be.
But its taxes as well. I know we are taught to help our fellow man but there is a fine line where it becomes hand outs for those who are capable of providing for themselves but do not want to.
I also struggle with this. Is the Gospel admonition to me as a person? Should I drag my government into it? Does a government have an obligation to take care of it’s people?
 
There’s an old American lit novel, I have forgotten which one but I seem to recall it was by F Scott Fitzgerals or maybe by his wife, which mentions old men sitting around talking about James G. Blaine, the impression being that they are something like Grandpa Simpson because even by the time the novel was written Blaine was long gone, and it was an old novel when I read it. At some point I looked up James G. Blaine because of that novel.

Another good novel containing a ton of long-forgotten political conflict is “And Ladies of the Club” by Helen Hooven Santmyer. Apparently someone voting for Horace Greeley in 1872 was contentious enough to cause a huge scandal in a town like Xenia, Ohio. Nowadays of course, it’s somewhere between “Who’s Horace Greeley?” and “Who cares?”
 
Last edited:
Power corrupts. America has been the world’s superpower for more than a few decades. Perhaps we’re now seeing the fruit of our superabundance and hubris coming home to roost. Empires fall.
 
Perhaps we’re now seeing the fruit of our superabundance and hubris coming home to roost.
Something else that’s been said after multiple Presidential administrations. The Johnson administration. The Nixon administration. The Bush-Gore contested election. The Trump election. I also think a large percentage of the country spent all the Reagan years expecting us to go up in a nuclear war any moment.

People just love those end times predictions.
 
Last edited:
People just love those end times predictions.
No end times predictions. Unlike some I wouldn’t view the end of the American empire as the end of the world. But I don’t believe it’s falling anytime soon.
 
I reckon it’ll fail when it fails. Probably at a time we least expect, when everything looks to be going along great, and then whammo.
 
Even if tens of thousands did as you said in the same numbers as those who rioted over Trump’s election, why would anyone care? Living in a bunker preparing for end times keeps them off the grid and radar, which is fine with me. The two aren’t even close to comparable.
 
And? If my neighbor locks himself in his root cellar and lives off of baked beans and bullets for four years, why would I care?

If my neighbor burns my house or business to the ground, I can see why I might.

Yours is a philosophical argument, but real-world impacts are what average folks care about.
 
I’d say they voted out Trump moreso than voted in Biden. Look at the signs in the DC and Philly celebrations. I have never seen so many directed at the losing candidate relative to celebrating the winner.

You can continue to dance around how conservative voters react to things versus how liberals reacted when they lost in 2016 all you want. That was the point I was making, and it is pretty plain to see. Bringing up a few folks in bunkers is just an effort to equate the two sides.
 
I know you must be a busy person. But I have been reading these days a book called “The Politically Incorrect guide to Catholicism” if you ever get around to reading it please let me know what you think. Send me a PM if you give it a read.
 
What tax policies in particular are you concerned about?
All of them really. Some people have the attitude that we ought to raise taxes on people because they have more money. Because they are rich. Usually in the hopes of funding some kind of universal healthcare or education. Nobody ever got a job from a poor man. Rich men give people jobs. When you squeeze the rich. It’s the poor who feel the pinch.
 
But I have been reading these days a book called “The Politically Incorrect guide to Catholicism” if you ever get around to reading it please let me know what you think. Send me a PM if you give it a read.
Right now I’m reading The Next Millionaire Next Door and Mary Trump’s book about Donald, though I might put that down now.

I’ll put your recommendation on my list.
 
Last edited:
All of them really. Some people have the attitude that we ought to raise taxes on people because they have more money. Because they are rich.
You realize under oligopoly capitalism part of their wealth comes from public benefits and subsidies both direct and indirect, right? Externalities?
 
I am curious, are you pro-socialism? Every country that has tried socialism has failed and it lead to communism. Why does the youth in America seem to think that we will finally perfect it?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top