Defining 'proportionate reasons'

[Ridgerunner]

Spin, spin, spin, there goes the honesty of this discussion. Where did I say I support Obama? Because many want to choose a candidate at the far end of the spectrum, without compromise themselves, they are free to make false accusations if someone says they are voting pro-life, but not the one at the far end of the spectrum? Are you saying, then, that you will not vote for, or otherwise support Obama? Your every post is Obama-oriented. Say plainly that you won’t, and I will believe you.

While it might be a majority, it’s not all. It seems the generalization is made for other reasons. A majority? You have to admit the Republican party is in disarray on almost every issue OTHER than in it’s opposition to abortion, while the Democrat party is quite united in promoting it.

Yes, the most recent negotiations on the deficit gives good example that the republicans didn’t politicize ‘social programs’ vs. ‘closing tax loopholes and subsidies for the wealthy’. **Oh? Do you recall Ryan at least arguing that his objective was to save SS and Medicare, both of which absolutely everyone admits are headed for failure of something isn’t done to change them? **

So, we should only support one of Christ’s teachings and be less than warm? He didn’t say ‘feed the hungry OR clothe the naked OR give shelter to the homeless OR care for the sick OR…’ I think lukewarm is the other way around…

Who says any given candidate is against feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, etc? What the political argument is about is methods and resources available. That the resources are not there is beyond argument. The Repubs, or at least some of them, argue that putting resources closer to the recipients is one way to reduce the cost that can’t be met the way things are. The Dems basically just say raise taxes. But everybody knows Obama’s tax increases won’t even remotely pay the costs of obamacare, let alone anything else.

I do not accept the idea that Jesus taught us we should impoverish everyone in order to level everyone’s resources. Never did He say it. Interesting to consider the parable of the Good Samaritan. He didn’t cite the Good Samaritan for donating everything he had, or even anything he had, to alleviate the conditions of the generality of the poor in, say, Damascus. He cited him because he saw a proximate, clear and known need, and provided exactly what that need required. Two coins, wasn’t it, and transportation to the inn with the promise of return to pick up the tab if there was anything more?

Very targeted. Very precise. Clear need. Known recipient.

Most government programs are scattergun and provide resources to some in need, some not in need, some who aren’t even who they say they are and about which the providers know nothing, plus a lot of administrative people who live off the programs. Where did Jesus tell us to follow that model?

And where did He tell us to tax working families to provide for the wealthy? That, in many instances, is exactly what Social Security and Medicare do.

Where did He tell us to reduce workers’ wages in order to pay others not to work at all? That’s what transfer payments do. Should we not at least try to ensure that such a reduction is limited and precisely targeted, in lieu of just taking in order to make a good show of throwing money around and assuming it gets to those in need?

And did Jesus ever tell us to so tax everyone that they resort to contraception and abortion because they can’t afford to raise and educate their own children? There is an exact inverse correllation between transfer payment levels and birth rates, you know. That’s why high tax countries have catastrophically low birth rates.

The real argument is about how much in resources should people be allowed to have; resources they earned themselves, as related to resources which, conscientiously, they should feel obliged to transfer to others. Most people are not without places to put the discretionary income they have. With those resources, people transfer to their spouses, to their children, oftentimes to others they know, to churches and to charities which they believe in. Those transfers are transfers which are voluntary and are based on peoples’ judgments regarding their relative obligations to those persons and entities.

The government takes the voluntariness out of it. It, or more accurately, its politicians, decides for individuals how much of the individuals’ resources the government will appropriate for its various contemplated uses. The government and politicians have no idea what any individuals’ perceived obligations are to other individuals or entities. It is concerned only with its own uses.

It is naive in the extreme to imagine that politicians make those appropriations and transfers out of altruistic motives. The very fact that the politicians require transfers from breadwinners to wealthy people; to people about whom they know nothing and to the middle class without providing decently for the very most helpless in the society, tells one that as clearly as the sun on a cloudless day.

But certainly, government has a role in promoting the common good. We all know that. That role, and the proper levels at which it should take place is, for Catholics at least, well set out in the Social Encyclicals of the popes and the writings of the time-tested and time-honored Doctors of the Church, such as St. Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas, who have written extensively and authoritatively on the subject.

None sanction middle class welfare, vote buying or appropriations that are scattered willy-nilly among recipients whose needs are not really known, and certainly not among bureaucrats. That is precisely why the Popes have strongly advocated subsidiarity. The capable person or entity most proximate to the need knows the need best and can deal with it best.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Are you saying, then, that you will not vote for, or otherwise support Obama? Your every post is Obama-oriented. Say plainly that you won’t, and I will believe you.

I thought you had seen my responses, either on this thread or others, where I stated who I support, and who I had considered as a second choice. Neither was Obama. If that’s not clear enough for you, I am not voting for, or in any other way supporting Obama for president.

The purpose of this thread, more specifically this topic, was brought on by, what I view to be, despicable treatment of those who voice their support for Obama, or writing in a candidate of their choice in the general election, none of which gives license to the lack of charity that is so clear on these forums. Love and charity in ALL things. That’s what is taught in scriptures and our Church.

It is quite evident there are those that use spins against, and fragrantly falsely accuse, those who try to reason the outcome of the election, or attempt to defend people that made their decisions. The Bishops Conference has already stated the need to revisit the voter’s guide for Catholics, because it determined the document as ‘vague’. I, for one, can certainly see that it could easily be interpreted differently, and tried to explain how I can see lacks a clear, and definitive, message.

A majority? You have to admit the Republican party is in disarray on almost every issue OTHER than in it’s opposition to abortion, while the Democrat party is quite united in promoting it.

That still does not mean there aren’t pro-life democrats. The republican party, with few exceptions, also seems united in it’s approach to make the wealthy wealthier, because it will ‘trickle’ down, even though we see many of the wealthy opting to utilize other countries because of the benefits of cheaper labor. They are united on fighting a universal healthcare, without consideration of those who will suffer for it. They are clear on immigration reform, or the lack of. To me the foreign policies are negligent in many aspects.

Oh? Do you recall Ryan at least arguing that his objective was to save SS and Medicare, both of which absolutely everyone admits are headed for failure of something isn’t done to change them?

Yes, change those, but let’s not visit tax loopholes, and subsidies for the wealthy. Let’s not consider anything needs to be done about military expenditures, after all it was wise to start a preemptive war before finishing the first one.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Who says any given candidate is against feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, etc? What the political argument is about is methods and resources available. That the resources are not there is beyond argument. The Repubs, or at least some of them, argue that putting resources closer to the recipients is one way to reduce the cost that can’t be met the way things are. The Dems basically just say raise taxes. But everybody knows Obama’s tax increases won’t even remotely pay the costs of obamacare, let alone anything else.

I do not accept the idea that Jesus taught us we should impoverish everyone in order to level everyone’s resources. Never did He say it. Interesting to consider the parable of the Good Samaritan. He didn’t cite the Good Samaritan for donating everything he had, or even anything he had, to alleviate the conditions of the generality of the poor in, say, Damascus. He cited him because he saw a proximate, clear and known need, and provided exactly what that need required. Two coins, wasn’t it, and transportation to the inn with the promise of return to pick up the tab if there was anything more?

Impoverish people? That seems like a spin argument to me. There are ‘bad apples’ in any group of mankind. So, let’s place more money in the wealthy pockets, after all those people are poor and should be used to it by now. Why should we endanger the rich’s eternal salvation? Christ was clear on how hard it is for a rich man to go to heaven. That is a more realistic argument than ‘impoverishing the people’ through social programs, in my honest opinion.

We call ourselves a ‘Christian’ nation, but we make arguments over the lack of a script of how to give from Christ. In fact, there is so much legalism in why we shouldn’t take advantage of a country blessed by God to help those in need, it seems to lack common sense while thinking that people cannot see through it. My faith formed conscience does not believe it, nor can I imagine trying to explain that position to the Lord one day.

We’re supposed to love all life, from conception to natural death. I don’t see that in many of the arguments, or attitudes, against the issues being discussed. Look at all the excuses given, we’re at liberty to disagree, that’s only opinion of a prudential judgment, Jesus didn’t say government can fulfill His teachings, we’re impoverishing the poor, scriptures say a man who doesn’t work shouldn’t eat, that’s forcing the non-believers to give, it causes single parenthood to rise, etc. We hear about how life is so important, yet we need to cut social programs, avoid any attempts of a universal healthcare, start wars without consideration of the people in harms way, maintain the death penalty, effect mass deportations, and the list goes on and on. It’s hard not to see the contradictions to many of the arguments, in my opinion.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Impoverish people? That seems like a spin argument to me. There are ‘bad apples’ in any group of mankind. So, let’s place more money in the wealthy pockets, after all those people are poor and should be used to it by now. Why should we endanger the rich’s eternal salvation? Christ was clear on how hard it is for a rich man to go to heaven. That is a more realistic argument than ‘impoverishing the people’ through social programs, in my honest opinion.

We call ourselves a ‘Christian’ nation, but we make arguments over the lack of a script of how to give from Christ. In fact, there is so much legalism in why we shouldn’t take advantage of a country blessed by God to help those in need, it seems to lack common sense while thinking that people cannot see through it. My faith formed conscience does not believe it, nor can I imagine trying to explain that position to the Lord one day.

We’re supposed to love all life, from conception to natural death. I don’t see that in many of the arguments, or attitudes, against the issues being discussed. Look at all the excuses given, we’re at liberty to disagree, that’s only opinion of a prudential judgment, Jesus didn’t say government can fulfill His teachings, we’re impoverishing the poor, scriptures say a man who doesn’t work shouldn’t eat, that’s forcing the non-believers to give, it causes single parenthood to rise, etc. We hear about how life is so important, yet we need to cut social programs, avoid any attempts of a universal healthcare, start wars without consideration of the people in harms way, maintain the death penalty, effect mass deportations, and the list goes on and on. It’s hard not to see the contradictions to many of the arguments, in my opinion.

it seems you are saying that if “X” is wealthy it’s necessarily at “Y’s” expense. That’s has been discounted so long that it’s hardly worth mentioning anymore, and even the left doesn’t very often nowadays.

Never did I say that a man who doesn’t work shouldn’t eat. Never. That’s a Straw man.

Nor did I say we need to cut social programs. My complaint was that they are not well targeted and tend not to deal with those most in need. As a consequence, most “social programs” in the U.S. are for the benefit of the middle class, most definitely including Obamacare, which is fundamentally a middle class-to-middle class welfare program. It will not change the access of the rich or the poor in any way. Scattergun social programs and middle class welfare are vote-buying and it’s terribly wasteful of the resources of people who would otherwise be free to distribute their surplus to family, church and those known to them.

Never did I say I support “mass deportations” of illegal immigrants. I specifically said they are not necessary at all, and the specter of them is a big myth. Another straw man.

Do you really think you are going to enhance the salvation of the “rich” by taking everything from them? It certainly hasn’t worked in communist countries, has it, where religious observance has always plummeted, along with morals. What do you know about their souls anyway? Nothing.

But in any event, the current “social propaganda” doesn’t target the rich. The Obama tax increases will primarily affect the upper middle class wage earners, farmers and small businesses, not the truly rich. Nor is there any present proposal from the propagandists for the truly poor…the ones who cannot help themselves.

Christ might not have given us a perfect script, but He gave us some pretty good indications that He requires personal charity. Never, ever, ever did He advocate pervasive government social programs at the expense of taxpayers, borrowers and laborers; particularly when bureaucrats batten on them. Not ever.

The fundamental difference, I think, between how i see it and how you see it is that you think people are skunks who would not part with a nickel to aid a starving man, so the government has to take it from them and spread it around as it sees fit. I personally think better of people than that, and worse of the government than you do.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

it seems you are saying that if “X” is wealthy it’s necessarily at “Y’s” expense. That’s has been discounted so long that it’s hardly worth mentioning anymore, and even the left doesn’t very often nowadays.

Never did I say that a man who doesn’t work shouldn’t eat. Never. That’s a Straw man.

Nor did I say we need to cut social programs. My complaint was that they are not well targeted and tend not to deal with those most in need. As a consequence, most “social programs” in the U.S. are for the benefit of the middle class, most definitely including Obamacare, which is fundamentally a middle class-to-middle class welfare program. It will not change the access of the rich or the poor in any way. Scattergun social programs and middle class welfare are vote-buying and it’s terribly wasteful of the resources of people who would otherwise be free to distribute their surplus to family, church and those known to them.

Never did I say I support “mass deportations” of illegal immigrants. I specifically said they are not necessary at all, and the specter of them is a big myth. Another straw man.

Do you really think you are going to enhance the salvation of the “rich” by taking everything from them? It certainly hasn’t worked in communist countries, has it, where religious observance has always plummeted, along with morals. What do you know about their souls anyway? Nothing.

But in any event, the current “social propaganda” doesn’t target the rich. The Obama tax increases will primarily affect the upper middle class wage earners, farmers and small businesses, not the truly rich. Nor is there any present proposal from the propagandists for the truly poor…the ones who cannot help themselves.

Christ might not have given us a perfect script, but He gave us some pretty good indications that He requires personal charity. Never, ever, ever did He advocate pervasive government social programs at the expense of taxpayers, borrowers and laborers; particularly when bureaucrats batten on them. Not ever.

The fundamental difference, I think, between how i see it and how you see it is that you think people are skunks who would not part with a nickel to aid a starving man, so the government has to take it from them and spread it around as it sees fit. I personally think better of people than that, and worse of the government than you do.

What democratic government existed at the time, that Christ could have given example of?

We,or most, Americans say our country is blessed by God. We call ourselves a ‘Christian’ nation. We, the people, are the government. It only becomes ‘alienated’ for the purposes of political views, which seem in part to oppose a taxation to provide for those in need.

The early Church gave example of everyone giving, so that everyone could receive, according to their needs. It seems to me that Christians would be proud of a God blessed country where we can legislate taxes to help, according to the less fortunate people’s needs.

The wealthy control wages and benefits, as much as they can. In affect, profits are measured against expenses, and the labor force is an expense.

I can agree with more precise spending in reference to our social programs. When ‘cuts’ are discussed, it’s not aimed at those that may take advantage of the system, it’s generalized cuts. Those generalized cuts affect those who have no family, friends, or other resources to help them. The Church has specifically stated that governments should prioritize universal healthcare. The Church has called on nations to consider economies based on man. Those calls would not come if the Church could handle social programs alone. The burden is overwhelming, even for our Church.

 

[Ridgerunner]

What democratic government existed at the time, that Christ could have given example of? **The most socialistic of all governments were not, and are not, democracies. And the Roman Empire was quite socialistic by Jesus’ time; rather like the socialist plutocracies in Europe. Straw man number three. **

We,or most, Americans say our country is blessed by God. We call ourselves a ‘Christian’ nation. We, the people, are the government. It only becomes ‘alienated’ for the purposes of political views, which seem in part to oppose a taxation to provide for those in need. The other side of the coin, of course, is to oppose unnecessary taxation to provide for those not in need, while simultaneously ignoring the neediest of all. We should certainly not call ourselves 'blessed by God" for continuing to espouse that.

The early Church gave example of everyone giving, so that everyone could receive, according to their needs. It seems to me that Christians would be proud of a God blessed country where we can legislate taxes to help, according to the less fortunate people’s needs.**Limited communities in the early Church, and are you willing to follow St. Paul’s dictum for them that he should not eat who does not work? I don’t think so. **

The wealthy control wages and benefits, as much as they can. In affect, profits are measured against expenses, and the labor force is an expense. More on this below.

I can agree with more precise spending in reference to our social programs. When ‘cuts’ are discussed, it’s not aimed at those that may take advantage of the system, it’s generalized cuts. Those generalized cuts affect those who have no family, friends, or other resources to help them. The Church has specifically stated that governments should prioritize universal healthcare. The Church has called on nations to consider economies based on man. Those calls would not come if the Church could handle social programs alone. The burden is overwhelming, even for our Church.

You have to realize that the share of “wealth” to national income is pretty much a constant, and has been since 1929 when such statistics were first kept. No matter what happens, it remains about the same. There are reasons for that, and it is probably inescapable in a developed economy. But “income from labor’s” share goes down as transfer payments (entitlements) go up. The two, added together, form the remainder of national income. That has nothing to do with capitalist greed. It has to do with the fact that entitlements have to be paid somehow and, one way or another, it comes out of labor’s share. It comes out of labor’s share because to the extent it is paid for by capital, labor’s share goes down because sufficient capital is not there to support the “excess labor”.

Ironically, the more entitlements take of national income, the LARGER is capital’s share, although it is a larger percentage share of a smaller pie. Capital’s share is lowest at full employment. Granted, it is all within a ratio between the income share of labor and that of capital (“wealth”) that doesn’t change very much.

So, when you increase entitlements, you decrease the value of labor, no matter how you try to do it. Those are just statistical facts, and have nothing to do with ideology; mine or yours.

Therefore, while concern for the poor is a fine ideal, we have to consider two things:
First, nobody has any program to aid the truly poor; those who can’t help themselves. If the truly poor are to be helped, it will have to happen outside government, which has exhibited no interest in doing so since Reagan’s earned income credit.

Second, by increasing transfer payments within the middle class, all you end up doing is devaluing labor. You devalue capital as well, but less so, and capital’s “share” of national income actually goes up relative to labor.

Lots of people go on about how the middle class hasn’t done well in the last couple of decades. Well, the thing to do about it is to look long and hard at entitlements. Sure, improve aid to the truly poor; the ones who can’t help themselves. But the middle class (and above) entitlements are the things that need to be closely examined and, frankly, reduced.

Just going on about “the poor” doesn’t accomplish anything. Actually, if it translates into creating more or increased entitlements to those who don’t really need them, and depresses the situation of the poor, relatively speaking.

As I said before, I have more faith in people than you do. That’s why your approach is statist and confiscatory, while mine assumes a decent degree of voluntariness if people were allowed to keep more of their own earnings.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The most socialistic of all governments were not, and are not, democracies. And the Roman Empire was quite socialistic by Jesus’ time; rather like the socialist plutocracies in Europe. Straw man number three…

My point was, there was no example of government, similar to ours, in the times of the people He taught for them to understand a democratic government, that gave people choices through legislation.

Limited communities in the early Church, and are you willing to follow St. Paul’s dictum for them that he should not eat who does not work? I don’t think so.

If we use St. Paul’s dictum as you reference it, it would seem to contradict the teachings of Christ, and the example of the early Church. While there were no democratic governments in those times, the early Church formed communities to share in the teachings of Christ. That’s all they could do under control of an empire. We have a democratic government where we can openly practice the teachings of Christ, and even have it legislated to be.

To say Christ didn’t teach for governments to fulfill His teachings is to deny traveling by car, train, or planes. He didn’t teach to do those things either. He didn’t teach healing through surgeries. He didn’t teach for the Apostles to check in with the governments and make sure they followed the immigration laws before sharing the Gospel message. There are many things of today, that He didn’t specifically speak on.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You have to realize that the share of “wealth” to national income is pretty much a constant, and has been since 1929 when such statistics were first kept. No matter what happens, it remains about the same. There are reasons for that, and it is probably inescapable in a developed economy. But “income from labor’s” share goes down as transfer payments (entitlements) go up. The two, added together, form the remainder of national income. That has nothing to do with capitalist greed. It has to do with the fact that entitlements have to be paid somehow and, one way or another, it comes out of labor’s share. It comes out of labor’s share because to the extent it is paid for by capital, labor’s share goes down because sufficient capital is not there to support the “excess labor”.

Ironically, the more entitlements take of national income, the LARGER is capital’s share, although it is a larger percentage share of a smaller pie. Capital’s share is lowest at full employment. Granted, it is all within a ratio between the income share of labor and that of capital (“wealth”) that doesn’t change very much.

So, when you increase entitlements, you decrease the value of labor, no matter how you try to do it. Those are just statistical facts, and have nothing to do with ideology; mine or yours.

Therefore, while concern for the poor is a fine ideal, we have to consider two things:
First, nobody has any program to aid the truly poor; those who can’t help themselves. If the truly poor are to be helped, it will have to happen outside government, which has exhibited no interest in doing so since Reagan’s earned income credit.

Second, by increasing transfer payments within the middle class, all you end up doing is devaluing labor. You devalue capital as well, but less so, and capital’s “share” of national income actually goes up relative to labor.

Lots of people go on about how the middle class hasn’t done well in the last couple of decades. Well, the thing to do about it is to look long and hard at entitlements. Sure, improve aid to the truly poor; the ones who can’t help themselves. But the middle class (and above) entitlements are the things that need to be closely examined and, frankly, reduced.

Just going on about “the poor” doesn’t accomplish anything. Actually, if it translates into creating more or increased entitlements to those who don’t really need them, and depresses the situation of the poor, relatively speaking.

As I said before, I have more faith in people than you do. That’s why your approach is statist and confiscatory, while mine assumes a decent degree of voluntariness if people were allowed to keep more of their own earnings.

Does the Church also have less faith in people? They have called on governments to prioritize universal healthcare. They addressed nations about the economies being based on man. Was Christ wrong for teaching ‘entitlements’ through feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, giving shelter to the homeless, and caring for the sick?

How many wars took place at our instigating, and how much did we spend on them, in the last couple of decades? How many jobs have been ‘off shored’ for cheaper labor, without any benefits for the sake of profits? There’s more to why our economies are in the condition they’re in than social programs, or fair labor practices, and the wealthy have made themselves ‘economy proof’’.

God didn’t bless us with democracy for us to look for excuses why we couldn’t carry out His teachings through that democracy. I can’t imagine trying to explain that we thought we could make a ‘Christian’ nation economically strong first, so we held off on social programs to help the least of His; besides, Lord, entitlements only created more poverty. That just doesn’t make sense to me, when I try to view everything through a spiritual eye.

 

[Ridgerunner]

My point was, there was no example of government, similar to ours, in the times of the people He taught for them to understand a democratic government, that gave people choices through legislation. This is an awfully big stretch, to say that Jesus couldn’t have imagined a democratic society, or that He couldn’t have pushed for an even bigger welfare state in the Empire if He wanted.

If we use St. Paul’s dictum as you reference it, it would seem to contradict the teachings of Christ, and the example of the early Church. While there were no democratic governments in those times, the early Church formed communities to share in the teachings of Christ. That’s all they could do under control of an empire. We have a democratic government where we can openly practice the teachings of Christ, and even have it legislated to be. One has to expect that St. Paul meant it, and not because of a lack of democratic government. He wasn’t addressing governments. He was addressing Christian communities. And we also have to expect that St. Paul’s teaching in no way contradicted the teachings of Christ, either. Why would you ever think that?

To say Christ didn’t teach for governments to fulfill His teachings is to deny traveling by car, train, or planes. He didn’t teach to do those things either. He didn’t teach healing through surgeries. He didn’t teach for the Apostles to check in with the governments and make sure they followed the immigration laws before sharing the Gospel message. There are many things of today, that He didn’t specifically speak on.

Do you actually think Jesus cared how people got around, or that he would today? It’s silly to compare that with the way He treated the issue of governmental responsiblity for redistributing wealth…something He never advocated in any way, even once.

People in the Roman empire did not have to follow immigration laws traveling within the empire. There weren’t any. Just thought you would want to know that.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This is an awfully big stretch, to say that Jesus couldn’t have imagined a democratic society, or that He couldn’t have pushed for an even bigger welfare state in the Empire if He wanted.

Is it any bigger a stretch to think that Christ would exclude a democratic government of a ‘Christian’ nation should be excluded from social programs?

Christ came for the kingdom, teaching all to save up for treasures in heaven, and the futility of saving up earthly treasures. We have amalgamated faith and secular in our democratic government, that we call a ‘Christian’ nation. To me, a Christian nation is a large community of Christians governing themselves. Our decisions on governing ourselves reflects which part of the amalgamation we view issues through.

Paul meant it, and not because of a lack of democratic government. He wasn’t addressing governments. He was addressing Christian communities. And we also have to expect that St. Paul’s teaching in no way contradicted the teachings of Christ, either. Why would you ever think that?

Because there is no specific script explaining who is to eat and who isn’t. To take it fully at heart literally, the unemployed, the sick and the poverty stricken should go without. Christ never qualified who were really the hungry, naked, homeless, or sick. He didn’t instruct to ‘judge’ them first, then care for those according to our judgments. He didn’t teach to sort through them searching for people taking advantage before proceeding.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Does the Church also have less faith in people? They have called on governments to prioritize universal healthcare. They addressed nations about the economies being based on man. Was Christ wrong for teaching ‘entitlements’ through feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, giving shelter to the homeless, and caring for the sick?

How many wars took place at our instigating, and how much did we spend on them, in the last couple of decades? How many jobs have been ‘off shored’ for cheaper labor, without any benefits for the sake of profits? There’s more to why our economies are in the condition they’re in than social programs, or fair labor practices, and the wealthy have made themselves ‘economy proof’’.

God didn’t bless us with democracy for us to look for excuses why we couldn’t carry out His teachings through that democracy. I can’t imagine trying to explain that we thought we could make a ‘Christian’ nation economically strong first, so we held off on social programs to help the least of His; besides, Lord, entitlements only created more poverty. That just doesn’t make sense to me, when I try to view everything through a spiritual eye.

Show me where the Church teaches that peoples’ earnings should be confiscated in order to redistribute wealth and/or income among the middle class.

Oh, do you know what the real answer to shipping jobs overseas is? Balancing the budget. It’s just a fact that all money has to return to its country of origin by some means. If, say China ends up with a bunch of dollars, they eventually have to repatriate them by buying goods, services or productive assets. So, if jobs go overseas for cheap-labor tasks, they have to buy goods here that were created at higher labor costs. Otherwise, their dollars are useless. Just paper. But we give them and others an “out” by our deficits. They can, instead, “repatriate” the dollars by buying U.S. debt, which pays them an income that comes out of Americans’ pockets.

Regarding the looting of the “wealthy” (however anyone wants to define that) refer to my post above. You can’t reduce property income (income from “wealth”) without reducing labor income even more. We need to get over this outmoded Marxist way of thinking about wealth. Sure, make them pay taxes just like the rest of us (which nobody tries to do, including Democrats), but we really need to purge ourselves of the notion that a rich man’s gain is a poor man’s loss. It doesn’t work that way, and no economists have thought that since Karl Marx and the toadies of communist regimes, to whom nobody pays attention, even their rulers.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Do you actually think Jesus cared how people got around, or that he would today? It’s silly to compare that with the way He treated the issue of governmental responsiblity for redistributing wealth…something He never advocated in any way, even once.

People in the Roman empire did not have to follow immigration laws traveling within the empire. There weren’t any. Just thought you would want to know that.

It was an example, similar to yours. Surgeries were not instructed as a form of healing the sick. Does that help?

He taught about how difficult it would be for the rich man to enter heaven. He gave examples by telling people to sell all they had and give to the poor. We know the couple died for lying to the Holy Spirit when they tried to save for themselves.

We have an opportunity to follow His teachings through our God blessed government, which as I explained is a large community of Christians. If we have no rights to legislate His teachings through government, we have no right to say the government need listen to us on other most important issues to His followers.

The empire was not ALL nations and didn’t you say it was a stretch for Christ not to have been able to have imagined a democratic society? Why wouldn’t it not have been a stretch for Christ to imagine that nations would enforce borders with immigration laws?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Show me where the Church teaches that peoples’ earnings should be confiscated in order to redistribute wealth and/or income among the middle class.

The Church doesn’t use the term ‘confiscated’. That is a term chosen specifically to avoid the choice of a greater tax to support social programs. It is our choice. We are the people in the constitution. We are the people who can legislate for the common good of man. We are the government called on to prioritize universal healthcare and an economy based on man.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It was an example, similar to yours. Surgeries were not instructed as a form of healing the sick. Does that help?

He taught about how difficult it would be for the rich man to enter heaven. He gave examples by telling people to sell all they had and give to the poor. We know the couple died for lying to the Holy Spirit when they tried to save for themselves.

We have an opportunity to follow His teachings through our God blessed government, which as I explained is a large community of Christians. If we have no rights to legislate His teachings through government, we have no right to say the government need listen to us on other most important issues to His followers.

The empire was not ALL nations and didn’t you say it was a stretch for Christ not to have been able to have imagined a democratic society? Why wouldn’t it not have been a stretch for Christ to imagine that nations would enforce borders with immigration laws?

Now, you’re really just being silly. He did not tell everyone to sell all and give to the poor, only his disciples; something all monks, sisters, nuns and many priests do. If He really intended that everybody for all time sell everything, there would be no buyers, and no economy either, a manifest absurdity. These remarks were limited to particular people. Did He tell Joseph of Arimethea to sell all and give to the poor, or that he was headed for hell? No, he didn’t. Nor did he tell the Roman officer who, at least, had a home and servants.

Oh, we do have an obligation, in my opinion at least, to attempt to formulate our political views and actions utilizing the teachings of the Church in doing so. What we do NOT have an obligation to do is assume that our own economic formulas are the teachings of Jesus, or to attribute to Him things He never taught.

A citizen of the Roman Empire might well have required a “pass” of some kind to enter, say, the Persian Empire and remain alive. But Jesus never spoke of that either.

And you didn’t tell me where the Church says we should increase middle class taxes to give the money to other members of the middle class.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The Church doesn’t use the term ‘confiscated’. That is a term chosen specifically to avoid the choice of a greater tax to support social programs. It is our choice. We are the people in the constitution. We are the people who can legislate for the common good of man. We are the government called on to prioritize universal healthcare and an economy based on man.

Please detail for me and others, in concrete terms, what “an economy based on man” is.

We’re the government called on to prioritize universal healthcare…??? Why, when the government itself doesn’t know (and admits it) that it doesn’t know how many people have no healthcare coverage or how many still won’t after enacting Obamacare?

Are “we” the government called upon to force people to buy health insurance too, or push people off private insurance onto Medicaid?

If obamacare isn’t your version of what universal healthcare you espouse, what is your model?

And you still haven’t cited me to where the Church favors middle class income transfers.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Now, you’re really just being silly. He did not tell everyone to sell all and give to the poor, only his disciples; something all monks, sisters, nuns and many priests do. If He really intended that everybody for all time sell everything, there would be no buyers, and no economy either, a manifest absurdity. These remarks were limited to particular people. Did He tell Joseph of Arimethea to sell all and give to the poor, or that he was headed for hell? No, he didn’t. Nor did he tell the Roman officer who, at least, had a home and servants.

Oh, we do have an obligation, in my opinion at least, to attempt to formulate our political views and actions utilizing the teachings of the Church in doing so. What we do NOT have an obligation to do is assume that our own economic formulas are the teachings of Jesus, or to attribute to Him things He never taught.

A citizen of the Roman Empire might well have required a “pass” of some kind to enter, say, the Persian Empire and remain alive. But Jesus never spoke of that either.

And you didn’t tell me where the Church says we should increase middle class taxes to give the money to other members of the middle class.

It’s not being silly. It’s perceiving the scriptures spiritually in my opinion.

Now who’s being silly. I’ve never said take from the middle class to give to the middle class. That’s your ‘spin’ of what’s been said.

I’ve made my views clear, and so have you. I cannot, in good conscience, agree with you, and I don’t imagine you’re going to agree with me. I’m not going around the circle again.

If you wish to provide something from the one voice of the Church that defines ‘proportionate reasons’ and why he said it was ‘permissible’ in certain instances, I may respond. I have a 24 hour shift in the morning and need to get some rest. I won’t be back on until Sunday.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It’s not being silly. It’s perceiving the scriptures spiritually in my opinion.Private interpretation of the bible. Ok. I get it.

Now who’s being silly. I’ve never said take from the middle class to give to the middle class. That’s your ‘spin’ of what’s been said. Nossir. That’s what virtually every transfer payment is.

I’ve made my views clear, and so have you. I cannot, in good conscience, agree with you, and I don’t imagine you’re going to agree with me. I’m not going around the circle again.
So, we just have to wonder why you are calling for the imposition of a morality that you do not wish to define. Very well.

If you wish to provide something from the one voice of the Church that defines ‘proportionate reasons’ and why he said it was ‘permissible’ in certain instances, I may respond. I have a 24 hour shift in the morning and need to get some rest. I won’t be back on until Sunday.

I won’t be back, probably, until Monday. I assume you’re talking about “proportionate reasons” to support an abortion promoter for office. I don’t think the Church itself has defined it in that sense, but certainly a lot of bishops have, including mine. Nobody has said anything except that, in the American political scene as we have it today, there are no “proportionate reasons” to support pro-abortionists.

So, “proportionate” being coextensive with “equal in gravity to…” one can only conclude that the only “proportionate reason” for voting for a pro-abortion candidate would be to oppose a candidate whose aspirations to murder are greater than 50 million.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Please detail for me and others, in concrete terms, what “an economy based on man” is.

We’re the government called on to prioritize universal healthcare…??? Why, when the government itself doesn’t know (and admits it) that it doesn’t know how many people have no healthcare coverage or how many still won’t after enacting Obamacare?

Are “we” the government called upon to force people to buy health insurance too, or push people off private insurance onto Medicaid?

If obamacare isn’t your version of what universal healthcare you espouse, what is your model?

And you still haven’t cited me to where the Church favors middle class income transfers.

Pope Benedict XVI urges world markets to have a heart

‘Man must be at the center of the economy, and the economy cannot be measured only by the maximization of profit but by rather according to the common good.’

Pope: Health Justice Should Be a State Priority

“Health justice should be among the priorities of governments and international institutions,”

“Important also in the field of health, integral part of each one’s existence and of the common good, is to establish a true distributive justice that guarantees to all, on the basis of objective needs, adequate care,” the Pope affirmed.

He continued, “Consequently, the world of health cannot be subtracted from the moral rules that should govern it so that it will not become inhuman.”

CARITAS IN VERITATE

It is important to distinguish between short- and long-term economic or sociological considerations. Lowering the level of protection accorded to the rights of workers, or abandoning mechanisms of wealth redistribution in order to increase the country’s international competitiveness, hinder the achievement of lasting development.

I’ve already stated that ‘middle class transfers’ is a ‘spin’ of what I’ve been saying.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I won’t be back, probably, until Monday. I assume you’re talking about “proportionate reasons” to support an abortion promoter for office. I don’t think the Church itself has defined it in that sense, but certainly a lot of bishops have, including mine. Nobody has said anything except that, in the American political scene as we have it today, there are no “proportionate reasons” to support pro-abortionists.

So, “proportionate” being coextensive with “equal in gravity to…” one can only conclude that the only “proportionate reason” for voting for a pro-abortion candidate would be to oppose a candidate whose aspirations to murder are greater than 50 million.

I think we’re through. There’s no need saying ‘private interpretations’. I have been one of the biggest proponents of interpretation in light of Church teachings on these forums.

Then there’s the spins, and corrections, and continued spins. I have been speaking on behalf of the poor, or poverty stricken, far from being middle class to transfer between.

Then you say I’m not providing a definition of my view of morality, in reality of us as a Christian nation, when it’s simply because you disagree with my view.

I appreciate your view of ‘proportionate reasons’, but it’s only supported by a part of the Magisterium that serves under the one voice. It also excludes the many reasons and not the single reason you keep going back to; e.g. possible politician pandering, lack of action under a particular party, etc.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I think we’re through. There’s no need saying ‘private interpretations’. I have been one of the biggest proponents of interpretation in light of Church teachings on these forums.

Then there’s the spins, and corrections, and continued spins. I have been speaking on behalf of the poor, or poverty stricken, far from being middle class to transfer between.

Then you say I’m not providing a definition of my view of morality, in reality of us as a Christian nation, when it’s simply because you disagree with my view.

I appreciate your view of ‘proportionate reasons’, but it’s only supported by a part of the Magisterium that serves under the one voice. It also excludes the many reasons and not the single reason you keep going back to; e.g. possible politician pandering, lack of action under a particular party, etc.

Well, if you insist on dismissing opposition to your views as “spin”, then I think we really are through. But I will submit to you, and I encourage you tol read, the Social Encyclicals and the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas on economics, upon which the Popes placed considerable weight. I also encourage you to read “Redeeming Economics” by John Mueller, which is based on Scholastic economics and the Social Encyclicals, as well as providing an examination of secular economic theories both old and new.

If you do, you will find that transfers from earners to people who are not in real need of it are not moral, tend to be harmful, and are not in any way required or recommended by the Church. If you study Obamacare, you will find that it really is a transfer from primarily the middle class, to other members of the middle class. If you know anything about Social Security Retirement and Medicare, you cannot deny that they are primarily middle class benefits; to the rich in some cases. The truly poor are dependent on SSI in whole or in part, and Medicaid, both of which are inadequate (though Medicaid’s adequacy varies from place to place, but SSI’s is grotesquely inadequate everywhere) and should be the immediate focus of charitably intended political action.