Do we vote for the lesser of two evils?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Bay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Disability-Food-Stamps-Jobs.png

Per the Senate Budge Committee, more people were added to the food stamp roles AND more people were added to disability roles than found jobs earlier this year.



While the unemployment rate dropped to 8.1 percent from 8.3 percent in July, it was largely due to Americans giving up the search for work. The report’s weak tenor was also underscored by revisions to June and July data to show 41,000 fewer jobs created than previously reported. The labor force participation rate, or the precentage of Americans who either have a job or are looking for one, fell to 63.5 percent – the lowest since September 1981.

http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Stimulus-Chart.jpg

President Obama got his nearly $1 trillion “stimulus” package passed in March of 2009, partly on the merits of the original version of this graph. The light blue line is what Obama and his crack team of economists predicted would be the worst case scenario unemployment rate if the Stimulus did not pass. The darker blue line is what they promised us it would be if the Stimulus did pass. And the red dots… well, they’re reality. That’s a mighty wide gap there, and well above even the worst case scenario figure.

Bonus: see the green dot in the corner with “11%” next to it? The note with it says that that’s what the unemployment rate would have been in July 2012 if the number of people in the job market were the same as it was when the Stimulus passed. Just to twist that knife a little: that number has gotten worse since July because thousands more people have given up and left the job market.

People want to work. People want to earn their way and provide for themselves and their families. “Redistribution” as a basis for an economy breeds resentment, greed, apathy, and a great flattening of society. Even those who want to work for their living and hate the idea of becoming dependent on government programs can find themselves becoming comfortable, or at least dependent, on those programs. Then they run the risk of losing government benefits (that are very possibly not as good as what they would get from a regular job, but are at least reliable) if they pursue independence. Not an easy place to be. We owe it to ourselves and our fellow Americans to reject the overbearing regulatory state and redistributionist policies that are throttling private sector job growth and lulling millions into a government-subsidized complacency.

catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=36584
foxbusiness.com/economy/2012/09/07/august-jobs-report/
 
JimG said:
But Fr. Rutler hasn’t been saying it yearn in and year out. Just this year.
Click to expand...
I never said **he **said it repeatedly. What I said was," Still, it is this sort of thing that leaves people cynical when they hear it year in and year out." It seems every election there are those that say that election is the most critical since the begining of manking for some reason or another. A real, concrete way to decrease cynicism is to reduce hype and rhetoric and focus on facts and reason. There simple is no reason to suspect that we are going to enter into a totalitarian state in the next four years, at least not that I can see.

If I did agree with Fr. Rutler, I would not be worrying about this election, but rather about fleeing the country while I could.
 
jwinch2 said:
http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Disability-Food-Stamps-Jobs.png

Per the Senate Budge Committee, more people were added to the food stamp roles AND more people were added to disability roles than found jobs earlier this year.

http://www.fbnstatic.com/static/managed/img/fb2/investing/jobGrowth-Aug-2012.jpg

While the unemployment rate dropped to 8.1 percent from 8.3 percent in July, it was largely due to Americans giving up the search for work. The report’s weak tenor was also underscored by revisions to June and July data to show 41,000 fewer jobs created than previously reported. The labor force participation rate, or the precentage of Americans who either have a job or are looking for one, fell to 63.5 percent – the lowest since September 1981.

http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Stimulus-Chart.jpg

President Obama got his nearly $1 trillion “stimulus” package passed in March of 2009, partly on the merits of the original version of this graph. The light blue line is what Obama and his crack team of economists predicted would be the worst case scenario unemployment rate if the Stimulus did not pass. The darker blue line is what they promised us it would be if the Stimulus did pass. And the red dots… well, they’re reality. That’s a mighty wide gap there, and well above even the worst case scenario figure.

Bonus: see the green dot in the corner with “11%” next to it? The note with it says that that’s what the unemployment rate would have been in July 2012 if the number of people in the job market were the same as it was when the Stimulus passed. Just to twist that knife a little: that number has gotten worse since July because thousands more people have given up and left the job market.

People want to work. People want to earn their way and provide for themselves and their families. “Redistribution” as a basis for an economy breeds resentment, greed, apathy, and a great flattening of society. Even those who want to work for their living and hate the idea of becoming dependent on government programs can find themselves becoming comfortable, or at least dependent, on those programs. Then they run the risk of losing government benefits (that are very possibly not as good as what they would get from a regular job, but are at least reliable) if they pursue independence. Not an easy place to be. We owe it to ourselves and our fellow Americans to reject the overbearing regulatory state and redistributionist policies that are throttling private sector job growth and lulling millions into a government-subsidized complacency.

catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=36584
foxbusiness.com/economy/2012/09/07/august-jobs-report/
Click to expand...
Facts are facts. Well said, Jason!
 
youtube.com/watch?v=94lW6Y4tBXs

A classic video, with truths for our country. Virtually everything that Mr. Hannan was speaking about 3 years ago has come home to roost in the USA. The ratio of debt to GDP, the fact that servicing the national debt costs more than we spend on education, and so on.
 
Hi, Pnewton,

You really should look carefully at that item from the USSCB - in fact, here it is so we all can take a look at what it says and how it is being misapplied.

Quote:
**36. When all candidates **hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods

In reality, we do not have to go further then the 2nd & 3rd word to see how the positions take by those who claim that not voting is somehow nobel - totally misses the mark. There is more then Obama and Romney running for office. In fact, here is a link to all of those running for President: politics1.com/p2012.htm

For the Bishop’s statement to have any bearing in this conversation - it would mean that all of these men and women now running for President are in favor of an intrinsic evil - and, that is simply not the case. In my opinion - and in the most charitable way that I can say it - please, review the Bishop’s statement, study all of the candates and then tell me that not voting is in accord with the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Actually, there really is a referendum - it is a vote to continue the murderous policies of Obama. And you can vote him and his policies out of office - but, you have to vote and not just talk about how not voting is somehow in keeping with Church teaching. That is the issue - and it is as serious as a heart attack. Nov 6 is not far off - and what I request every registered voter do is to just vote their conscience for the man or woman you think we lead this country in a moral direction. The argument that unless one votes for a ‘major candidate’ their vote is wasted - is hollow, indeed. We are all accountable for how we use this time to change our government on Nov 6 - and, I think this is a tremendous responsibility we can not discard.

And, as I see it - this is the real essence of charity - not in pleasant but vacuous words - but a clarion call to do good and fight against evil. To actually move forward to make some part of the world a little better by voting one’s conscience.

God bless
pnewton said:
I never said this.
However, from the USSCB guide:

As the Church permits both avenues, so I think all Catholics should. I see criticism of the prudent choices of others, where such choice is permitted, as contrary to Church teaching. When it results in insults, I see it as uncharitable.

Of course we would need to vote if ever there was such a referendum.

That is a personal question to only be addressed on a case by case basis. The latest action was when I helped collect and deliver 150 pounds of food to the local food pantry. I do think voting is not nearly significant as local action, based on the percentage of choice in a candidate that one vote carries out of a voting population of 150,000,000.

I totally agree with this. I think not voting from indifference is an indefensible position. I also see the danger of cynicism creeping in. This is one reason I do not like to read such things like this is the most important election ever or, as one poster put it, this may be the last free election. I have heard that almost every presidential election. Such hype can easily lead to cynicism when repeated every four years.
Click to expand...
 
tqualey said:
For the Bishop’s statement to have any bearing in this conversation - it would mean that all of these men and women now running for President are in favor of an intrinsic evil - and, that is simply not the case. .
I do not see this to be true, as do others who are struggling with voting for Mitt Romney. Abortion is intrinsically evil even in the cases of rape or incest. That is what the modifier “intrinsic” means. It is evil in and of itself. Mitt Romney’s less stance and his greater chance of winning make a strong argument to vote for him, but I do not think I agree with you on this. I think he supports intrinsic evil, albeit to a much more limited degree.
Actually, there really is a referendum - it is a vote to continue the murderous policies of Obama.
Click to expand...
Definition of referendum:
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/referendum
*
a : the principle or practice of submitting to popular vote a measure passed on or proposed by a legislative body or by popular initiative
b : a vote on a measure so submitted
By definition, a referendum is a direct vote, yes or no, on a measure. The presidential election is not a referendum.
Click to expand...
 
Hi, Pnewton,

I am very disappointed.

Not only did I tell you that the Bishop’s statement - you know, one you provided - does not apply here, because not all of the candidates are in favor of intrinsic evil - I gave you the site where there is a list of all those people running to be President.

It would appear to me that the only way you can not see this to be true is to simply not look.

Yes, abortion is an ‘intrinsic evil’ - and if you do not wish to vote for a particular candidate because of their posiiton on this topic - that is a perfectly moral decision - as far as it goes. The trouble is, it just does not go far enough. Since there are other candidates to chose from who do not support this intrinsic evil, it is your responsibility to exercise your civic responsibility and vote for one of them. The issue is fighting evil by doing good - one can not fight evil by doing nothing. And, that there would be an advocacy position for not voting against the evil our President has worked so very hard to put in place is simply astounding to me.

And, yes, I did go beyond the narrow and unimaginative confines of the definition of term referendum - so, guilty as charged! But you know, voting against Obama’s policies is simply not possible in this country - but we can vote against the man. As I more imaginatively see it, we can remove his murderous and immoral policies by voting him out of Office. I just do not see that as too much of an intellectual stretch … but, than, I do not write dictionaries… 😃

Since you appear to champion charity - especially when others disagree with you - I would encourage you to address the issues I raised in this post and the last one I made:

1- There is a Bishop’s statement saying that if all advocate intrinsic evil we may take the EXTRAORDINARY step and not vote.

2- There are other candidates who do not advocate intrinsic evil

3- Therefore, we are examine those other candates and with our well formed and enlightened conscience, exercise our civic duty and vote for one of them

May I have a charitable response acknowledging this reality.

God bless
pnewton said:
I do not see this to be true, as do others who are struggling with voting for Mitt Romney. Abortion is intrinsically evil even in the cases of rape or incest. That is what the modifier “intrinsic” means. It is evil in and of itself. Mitt Romney’s less stance and his greater chance of winning make a strong argument to vote for him, but I do not think I agree with you on this. I think he supports intrinsic evil, albeit to a much more limited degree.
Definition of referendum:
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/referendum
**

By definition, a referendum is a direct vote, yes or no, on a measure. The presidential election is not a referendum.
Click to expand...
 
Good article, and a reminder of one of the many things at stake this Fall in the election. Not to mention, the ability to appoint Federal judges up to and including Supreme Court Justices who will rule on the legality and constitutionality of various things going on right now.

firstthings.com/article/2012/09/a-mandate-to-disobey

Peace,
 
catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=36644
…in October of 2011 the Obama administration, specifically the Department of Health and Human Services, denied federal grants to certain agencies dedicated to helping trafficking victims. Specifically, the USCCB Migration and Relief Services Agency. It had received grants for five years and helped over 2700 people involved in trafficking during that time. Then, in 2011 the grant was denied, with little explanation.
Click to expand...
At the time, Sister Mary Ann Walsh at the USCCB said that she hoped that the Church’s “…position against abortion, sterilization and artificial contraception has not entered into this decision” by the HHS refugee office to reject MRS’ application for a new grant, “especially since this administration has said it stands fully behind freedom of conscience.” It seemed a possibility, but there was no way to link the decision with any sort of affront to religious liberty, no way to know it was really about abortion.
Click to expand...
That is, until two months later when the Department of Health and Human Services levied its contraceptive mandate, attaching it to Obamacare. In retrospect, Sister Walsh’s question seems hauntingly prophetic.
Click to expand...
 
tqualey said:
Hi, Pnewton,

I am very disappointed.

Not only did I tell you that the Bishop’s statement - you know, one you provided - does not apply here, because not all of the candidates are in favor of intrinsic evil - I gave you the site where there is a list of all those people running to be President.

It would appear to me that the only way you can not see this to be true is to simply not look.
Click to expand...
I have already looked farther than this. While there are more candidates running, there are not more candidates running everywhere. So in an individual case, there may or may not be the possibility of voting for someone else. In my state, I have already checked the ballot and only the Libertarian and the Green Party were able to get on the ballot.
 
pnewton said:
By definition, a referendum is a direct vote, yes or no, on a measure. The presidential election is not a referendum.
Click to expand...
tqualey and I have had our differences, but on this point I have to stick up for him. The term “referendum” is commonly used when referring to the election of an individual person when that person’s policies are so closely identified with him that voting for him is essentially the same as voting for his policies, or for one specific policy. To object to that common usage in the context of tqualey’s posting is just nit picking.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
tqualey and I have had our differences, but on this point I have to stick up for him. The term “referendum” is commonly used when referring to the election of an individual person when that person’s policies are so closely identified with him that voting for him is essentially the same as voting for his policies, or for one specific policy. To object to that common usage in the context of tqualey’s posting is just nit picking.
Click to expand...
I understand what you are saying, but I do not see this as nitpicking because of the context, a statement from the bishops. Such things are written with precision. We simply can not take a sentence from such a document, and say, “this is sort of like…” or “this is virtually saying…”, or any such thought. The absolute in the statement applies only to true, literal referendums.

Now what you, and tqualey, are pointing out, these can be useful tools to finding direction for ourselves. However, once we start down that path we have to grant the possibility that other people of good faith might find some other path, even if we do not understand it.
 
Do your own research before you disrespect what i am saying.
Click to expand...
I think that’s just a cop-out on here to avoid meaningful discussion.
How unchristian can people be to call the democratic party evil, to call Obama abortionist, Hitler, to say that the abortion issue as political instead of religious, not
Click to expand...
Funny, I’ve never seen or heard an actual person call Obama Hilter, but I’ve seen democrats compare him to Bush.

Abortion is murder and intrinsically evil.
]being able to recognize the works that Obama is doing for the poor, the disadvantage as religious and Christian acts.
Click to expand...
The idea that big government, whether it’s R, I or D, is helpful to the poor is a costly myth that has been circulating around Catholic circles like a plague.

The amount damage this kind of thinking has done is enormous.

First of all, conservatives, while making less on the average than liberals, give four times as much to charity than the left does.

I guess it’s a little different when it’s your own money and not other people’s, huh?

Government and charity cannot be used as a one-two punch. Because charity is private and bloated government needs funds from the private sector to continue, they are direct competitors.

Secondly, the so-called “war on poverty” has cost us 16 trillion dollars…and the poverty rate has gone up 0.3% since LBJ’s scheme.

Third, all that generous, feel-good aid to Africa in the last 60 years has increased their poverty by more than five times.

Government “help” pretty much always leads to corruption and scandal, which along with sins of omission and** lack of fraternal correction**, are often lost and forgotten.
 
pnewton said:
I never said **he **said it repeatedly. What I said was," Still, it is this sort of thing that leaves people cynical when they hear it year in and year out." It seems every election there are those that say that election is the most critical since the begining of manking for some reason or another. A real, concrete way to decrease cynicism is to reduce hype and rhetoric and focus on facts and reason. There simple is no reason to suspect that we are going to enter into a totalitarian state in the next four years, at least not that I can see.

If I did agree with Fr. Rutler, I would not be worrying about this election, but rather about fleeing the country while I could.
Click to expand...
This could be good advice. People usually wait too long before trying to get out of a bad situation. But where would one go? Spain? Greece? France?
Not likely. Maybe Canada or Texas. 🙂
 
Hi, LeafByNiggle,

Thank you very much. 🙂

Alas, I read his reaponse and it is yet again, another disappointment. The entire purpose of words is communication - and while many can share ideas, there are those who would rather simply not. So, it is continue to march.

My two-fold purpose in these posts is to draw attenion that all of us face a truly major moral challenge (yeah, Pnewton…more hype, eh?:D) And, while the destiny of the ‘free world’ may not appear to ride on it - the continuation of Obama’s murderous policies that are a death sentence for millions unborm in the US annd throughout the world where US foreign policy is promoting abortion… (hmmm…more hype, eh?) Secondly, that we have a moral obligation to do good (wherever and however we can) and work to defeat evil. Not to sound too unsophisticated, but I thought that was the purpose of us leading a moral life.

There have been a numbrer of posts from people who appear to be saying that they are acting in a moral way by taking no action to cast their ballot on election day. What I have found so amazing is that anyone claiming to be Catholic can effectively say, “I’ll leave the choice of who will lead us to others.” Considering this choice only comes our way every 4 years - it certainly does not seem excessive to have people actually cast their vote for whomever they think will do the best job - of the candidates running. None of them are saints and none is running for canonization… just running for President. Admittedly, I too wish the choices were different - and there is a lot of unfairness in the system (e.g., NH and IA are 2 states that do not seem very representative of the US as a whole - yet the voters in those states really call the shots for the rest of us when it comes to who will be eliminated - now that is hardly representative!) But, this is the hand we have all been delt - so we can play it or fold. Those are the only two options.

God bless

s
LeafByNiggle said:
tqualey and I have had our differences, but on this point I have to stick up for him. The term “referendum” is commonly used when referring to the election of an individual person when that person’s policies are so closely identified with him that voting for him is essentially the same as voting for his policies, or for one specific policy. To object to that common usage in the context of tqualey’s posting is just nit picking.
Click to expand...
 
Hi, Pnewton,

Your response is another disappointment fo rme - and one that seems to be truly evasive.

I am making a general statement (you notice the Bishop’s did not specify your area - but a general principle) and you are saying, “Nawwwww, this does not apply to me!” Maybe you should consider the example you are giving with these less then forthcoming responses.

Unless I misunderstand your post, you have basically kept to the position that not voting in November is somehow moral as opposed to selecting a candidate from those running. Fine. This is something that you and everyone else who refuses to actually perform their civic duty will have to live with.

For those who are wanting to vote, but are having difficulties with the particular candidates on the ballot - let me encourage you to simply vote your conscience. This is all that anyone cann ask or to expect. Do the right thing by doing it.

God bless
pnewton said:
I do not see this to be true, as do others who are struggling with voting for Mitt Romney. Abortion is intrinsically evil even in the cases of rape or incest. That is what the modifier “intrinsic” means. It is evil in and of itself. Mitt Romney’s less stance and his greater chance of winning make a strong argument to vote for him, but I do not think I agree with you on this. I think he supports intrinsic evil, albeit to a much more limited degree.
Definition of referendum:
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/referendum
**

By definition, a referendum is a direct vote, yes or no, on a measure. The presidential election is not a referendum.
Click to expand...
 
MODERATOR WARNING

Please charitably discuss the issues, not other members
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top