Dems struggle with rising popularity of GOP tax law

  • Thread starter Thread starter robertmidwest
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CRUMBS … she said.

Loading…

www.foxnews.com

Loading…

www.theblaze.com

“Creating Relief and Useful Middle-Class Benefits and Savings” Act — or “CRUMBS Act” —
 
Last edited:
Not gratuitous, just obvious.

Often living the Church teachings are harder than cutting and pasting them…i wrestle with it myself daily.
 
Last edited:
Ridgerunner said:
40.png
Hereiam:
Often living the Church teachings are harder than cutting and pasting them…i wrestle with it myself daily.
Click to expand...
Maybe accepting them would be a good start.
Click to expand...
I can only assume for those who do and who do not themselves pick and choose, that would be all the teachings which would even include something like who the Catholic Church calls a Catholic.
 
Last edited:
Sy_Noe said:
I can only assume for those who do and who do not themselves pick and choose, that would be all the teachings which would even include something like who the Catholic Church calls a Catholic.
Click to expand...
You nailed it Sy! Agreed. If they take it to heart, it might be a little self fulfilling prophecy for a lot of those who live on this page.
 
Last edited:
Sy_Noe said:
I can only assume for those who do and who do not themselves pick and choose, that would be all the teachings which would even include something like who the Catholic Church calls a Catholic.
Click to expand...
I think I got it the first time. I had the impression that you were not Catholic. Apparently you’re saying you were baptized Catholic but no longer consider yourself Catholic.

No reason to be vague about it. If you’re a baptized Catholic who no longer believes in the Church, just say so. That way nobody will be confused about it. If it’s so, then one would not expect you to accept anything, particularly, that the Church teaches. But neither would that give good reason for supposing that all Catholics are as dissident as you might be.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
Is a Catholic who votes for a democrat automatically a dissident?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. He might be invincibly ignorant of either the teachings of the Church or the policies of the Dem party. He might not realize there is no “proportionate reason” to support abortion with his vote, or be deluded in thinking that, say, things like bankrupting the coal industry is more important than the lives of innocent children.

So, not, he would not automatically be a dissident.

And not all sinners are “dissidents”. Some are just sinners without being dissidents.
 
Last edited:
jagged said:
It’s bound to be popular as everyone ignores the Republican tax law creates larger deficits until they suddenly care again when a Democrat is president
Click to expand...
No, many of us are glad for the tax relief, yet appalled at the continued spending by people who promised to do better.

But then there is the understanding that, without a supermajority, the Republican majority likely still has to “buy” votes from freespending dems.
 
Boatswain2PA said:
No, many of us are glad for the tax relief, yet appalled at the continued spending by people who promised to do better.

But then there is the understanding that, without a supermajority, the Republican majority likely still has to “buy” votes from freespending dems.
Click to expand...
Plus real cuts need to happen in entitlements, an area where most fear to tread unless prodded by an imminent crisis.
 
Ridgerunner said:
He might not realize there is no “proportionate reason” to support abortion with his vote,
Click to expand...
The problem is that the Church has not definitively taught that there is no “proportionate reason” to avoid voting for a democrat. So there is likely to be a diversity of opinion on this issue.
 
Theo520 said:
Plus real cuts need to happen in entitlements, an area where most fear to tread unless prodded by an imminent crisis.
Click to expand...
Probably.

I did hear a fellow on Maria Bartiromo’s show; a fairly serious economist, who said that on an immediate basis, at least, revenue increases due to increased employment, business activity, and wages are likely to exceed the revenue reductions due to the tax cuts.

Might be true. There was spirited debate among the panelists about it being something that would last. There didn’t seem to be much dissent over the very short term, however .
 
stinkcat_14 said:
The problem is that the Church has not definitively taught that there is no “proportionate reason” to avoid voting for a democrat. So there is likely to be a diversity of opinion on this issue.
Click to expand...
Hard for me or, I would think, anyone else to imagine an “equal or greater” (proportionate) reason to support unrestrained killing of innocent children. But I have no doubt people can rationalize to one. Probably even Nikolas Cruz has his “reasons” for doing what he did, and undoubtedly they were sufficient in his mind.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Hard for me or, I would think, anyone else to imagine an “equal or greater” (proportionate) reason to support unrestrained killing of innocent children.
Click to expand...
Whether or not you have the ability to imagine a “proportionate reason” has no bearing on whether or not they exist. I am not aware of a proportionate reason either, but I have never voted for a democrat since I voted for Gary Hart in a primary. So I have not had reason to deal with that issue. If such reasons clearly did not exist the Church could clearly state that one may not vote for a pro-abortion candidate, ever. The Church has not done that though.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
If such reasons clearly did not exist the Church could clearly state that one may not vote for a pro-abortion candidate, ever. The Church has not done that though.
Click to expand...
The Church generally doesn’t take sides in political campaigns. But it’s not hard to imagine it doing so. Let’s say a mildly or even doubtfully pro-abortion candidate (one of the “20 weekers” for example) ran against a candidate who espoused immediate nuclear war with Russia.

In such a case, I think “proportionate” reason would be there. And I think the Pope himself would oppose the “nuke 'em now” candidate.

But in today’s likely political contests, I see no “proportionate reason”
 
Last edited:
Ridgerunner said:
I did hear a fellow on Maria Bartiromo’s show; a fairly serious economist, who said that on an immediate basis, at least, revenue increases due to increased employment, business activity, and wages are likely to exceed the revenue reductions due to the tax cuts.

Might be true. There was spirited debate among the panelists about it being something that would last. There didn’t seem to be much dissent over the very short term, however .
Click to expand...
I think an extended period of full employment can have a profound impact. Tax revenue rises and demand for services will drop or open room to make tweaks that reduce the cost and abuse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top