Frustrated over single issue pro-lifers

[estesbob]

I disagree but I respect your right to your opinion.

Actually the Church says that the resources given to a community of people in the land belong to the people of the land, not a specific few. Some people might be politically, capitalistically or intellectually capable of taking more than their fair share of resources through immoral legal loopholes, however this does not make it right. I’m referring here to the working poor whose wages are unjust and still live in poverty.

If most people received just wages according to the CCC, they would not be poor. Even the disabled or single mothers in such a world would have relatives that had incomes that would allow them to be taken care of privately. We do not live in such a world and unregulated capitalism frankly does not inspire such a situation.

Show me where the Church sets the proper level of taxation? Show me were the church either endorse or opposes either the lefts or the rights approach to helping the poor. Show we where the church defines “just” wages?

The truth is there is absolutely no moral equivalence whatsoever between valid political disagreements on how to best care for the poor & needy and supporting unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand. The Church gives us wide leeway on approaches to the former, but no leeway whatsoever on the latter.

. The idea that I am somehow violating Church teaching by not favoring higher taxes is specious. Forced charity through the federal government results in me having to support a huge ,wasteful bureaucracy and fund programs that are in direct violation of the teachings of my church.

 

[Blossoming]

The Church is not a political entity and it is neither left nor right.

But feel free to show me where the Church says it’s ok to steal from the poor through underpaying, or withholding job creation or for profit to be the sole motive for business in a society.

You can’t because Church dogma not only does NOT support that, it says exactly the opposite.

 

[estesbob]

The Church is not a political entity and it is neither left nor right.

But feel free to show me where the Church says it’s ok to steal from the poor through underpaying, or withholding job creation or for profit to be the sole motive for business in a society.

I dont know of any caniadate or political party that promotes this

You can’t because Church dogma not only does NOT support that, it says exactly the opposite.

The next time a candiate runs on a platform of stealing from the poor and withholding job creation for profit you can rest assaured they will not get my support.

Meanwhile we must take to heart the teachings of the Church:

*No, you can never vote for someone who favors absolutely what’s called the ‘right to choice’ of a woman to destroy human life in her womb, or the right to a procured abortion," *

Cardinal Burke

 

[Blossoming]

See, it’s circular and we have come back to my original post and the title of the thread.

I think the problem is that we don’t have any candidates who qualify as perfectly in line with Catholic teaching. We have only two main parties and both of them stereotypically get part of the teachings of the Church wrong, imo.

I don’t think you are a bad person or a sinner, per se, whichever way you vote, but I would love to join you in prayer for candidates at all levels, local, state and national, to run that would more closely align to social justice according to Catholic teaching, across the board.

Hopefully here you and I can agree.

 

[estesbob]

See, it’s circular and we have come back to my original post and the title of the thread.

I think the problem is that we don’t have any candidates who qualify as perfectly in line with Catholic teaching. We have only two main parties and both of them stereotypically get part of the teachings of the Church wrong, imo.

I don’t think you are a bad person or a sinner, per se, whichever way you vote, but I would love to join you in prayer for candidates at all levels, local, state and national, to run that would more closely align to social justice according to Catholic teaching, across the board.

Hopefully here you and I can agree.

We can agree to disagree on how to best care for the poor and As Catholics we can Never support abortiion in any way - that includes not voting for candidates who support it.

 

[Blossoming]

I suspect this brings us to the point where impasse both began and stays between us.

We shall have to continue to agree to disagree because I follow Catholic teaching that it is immoral to find the solution to poverty is to cause the poor to die off slowly and painfully after a miserable life through immoral legislation that doesn’t take into account the ills of poverty and overall social good.

I am pro-life across the board, politically.

I’m going to unsubscribe this thread because I see this everyday and I think arguing it is an excerise in futility for me. I wish you the best and I’m glad you fight actively for the rights of the unborn, in any event.

Blessings.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

When it comes to reducing poverty, I wish the nation had paid more attention to William Galston, who worked in the Bill Clinton administration. He said this:

“You need only do three things in this country to avoid poverty: finish high school, marry before having a child, and marry after the age of 20. Only eight percent of the families who do this are poor; 79 percent of those who fail to do this are poor.”

Federal and State policies which encourage those three things help to reduce poverty. Federal and State policies which enable opposite behaviors help to increase poverty.

 

[Allegra]

I don’t really think it is helping the poor to vote for democrats anymore than republicans. First of all, I don’t think either party is purposefully trying to stop job creation. They simply can’t agree on a way to get it done, so nothing is being done. Meanwhile, I don’t see any benefit to anyone when I look at many of the plans democrats have for “helping the poor”. They seem to be enableing poverty to continue.
I also don’t agree that anyone is “stealing from the poor”. In fact, many of “the poor” are actively stealing from the government. What is more, there are many people above the poverty line who also defraud the government with absolutely no remorse.

Giving money to such people is not helping them. What would help them is to offer them education at a rate that they might have a reasonable prayer of paying off during the first decade of their adult life. At any rate, I agree with a previous poster. Voting for someone who vows to take money from other people to pay for the needs of those who can’t or won’t help themselves does not fullfill the obligation of charity in any way. Also, having your money taken against your will by the government to take care of other people does not fullfill one’s oblication of charity. Charity is giving your own time, treasure, and talent and only by your own free will.

 

[havana1]

Giving money to such people is not helping them.

So is it better to give money to corporations who don’t “trickle down” that money to people and create jobs? I would rather give money to “such people” instead of forking over more money to greedy corporations who are either outsourcing more jobs to India or keeping the money for their own golden parachutes. I think it’s more “pro-life” to keep the money with FAMILIES and out of the hands of the Wall Street bankers and corporations (who aren’t creating jobs for anyone.)

 

[estesbob]

So is it better to give money to corporations who don’t “trickle down” that money to people and create jobs? I would rather give money to “such people” instead of forking over more money to greedy corporations who are either outsourcing more jobs to India or keeping the money for their own golden parachutes. I think it’s more “pro-life” to keep the money with FAMILIES and out of the hands of the Wall Street bankers and corporations (who aren’t creating jobs for anyone.)

Giving more money to families is of no use to those denied the right to life. All rights flow from the right to life.

 

[Corki]

So is it better to give money to corporations who don’t “trickle down” that money to people and create jobs? I would rather give money to “such people” instead of forking over more money to greedy corporations who are either outsourcing more jobs to India or keeping the money for their own golden parachutes.

But raising taxes would be just as likely to result in more money used to bail out “greedy corporations” than as increased social welfare benefits to the poor.

 

[Allegra]

So is it better to give money to corporations who don’t “trickle down” that money to people and create jobs? I would rather give money to “such people” instead of forking over more money to greedy corporations who are either outsourcing more jobs to India or keeping the money for their own golden parachutes. I think it’s more “pro-life” to keep the money with FAMILIES and out of the hands of the Wall Street bankers and corporations (who aren’t creating jobs for anyone.)

Who said that? Not me! I think we should let the people who earned the money in the first place keep it for themselves!

 

[Joe_5859]

Let me say I’m sorry for getting so worked up about this post. But some people have really jumped down my throat on this . I will admit there are a lot of good posts and arguments on all sides of the debate…

I tend to ignore the posts where people start throwing out the word “communist”. So I probably didn’t really read the posts that have most offended you. Over the years, I have developed the habit of glossing over the emotive, knee-jerk responses. They never even make it into my short-term memory.

 

[Joe_5859]

But raising taxes would be just as likely to result in more money used to bail out “greedy corporations” than as increased social welfare benefits to the poor.

I recall hearing somewhere that the Founding Fathers considered writing into the Constitution a maximum federal income tax of 10%. The reason they did not do this is because they thought that was too high and that their putting it in there would bring about that exact tax rate in short order (the rate at the time was about 3%). If only they knew…

I really think that the Church’s teaching on the principle of subsidiarity is one that needs far greater dissemination: That which can be solved at the lowest level should be solved at the lowest level. I would rather have more free income to donate to the causes that I support rather than rely on the government to make my choices for me. IMO, by sending the responsibility up the ladder, we only make it easier to talk ourselves out of our personal responsibilities towards the people that are right in front of us.

If we understood subsidiarity, I think we would understand Church politics more, too. We wouldn’t expect the “Vatican” to swoop in and correct all ills in a micromanagerial sort of way.

 

[estesbob]

I recall hearing somewhere that the Founding Fathers considered writing into the Constitution a maximum federal income tax of 10%. The reason they did not do this is because they thought that was too high and that their putting it in there would bring about that exact tax rate in short order (the rate at the time was about 3%). If only they knew…

Actually, it was not the founding fathers. There was no federal income tax until Civil War and then it was found unconstitutional. The income tax was imposed in 1916 via a constitutional amendment and you are correct that they dismissed the ideas of a cap for fear Congress would quickly raise it to the, which was if I recall correctly was 10%

I really think that the Church’s teaching on the principle of subsidiarity is one that needs far greater dissemination: That which can be solved at the lowest level should be solved at the lowest level. I would rather have more free income to donate to the causes that I support rather than rely on the government to make my choices for me. IMO, by sending the responsibility up the ladder, we only make it easier to talk ourselves out of our personal responsibilities towards the people that are right in front of us.

If we understood subsidiarity, I think we would understand Church politics more, too. We wouldn’t expect the “Vatican” to swoop in and correct all ills in a micromanagerial sort of way.

I think today’s gospel is applicable:

*Someone in the crowd said to Jesus,
“Teacher, tell my brother to share the inheritance with me.”
He replied to him,
“Friend, who appointed me as your judge and arbitrator?”
*

 

[Joe_5859]

Actually, it was not the founding fathers. There was no federal income tax until Civil War and then it was found unconstitutional. The income tax was imposed in 1916 via a constitutional amendment and you are correct that they dismissed the ideas of a cap for fear Congress would quickly raise it to the, which was if I recall correctly was 10%

Thanks for the correction/added details.

 

[Nate13]

Actually, it was not the founding fathers. There was no federal income tax until Civil War and then it was found unconstitutional. The income tax was imposed in 1916 via a constitutional amendment and you are correct that they dismissed the ideas of a cap for fear Congress would quickly raise it to the, which was if I recall correctly was 10%

They were all just simple-minded back then and didn’t know anything. We are people of higher thought today

 

[mary_bobo]

So is it better to give money to corporations who don’t “trickle down” that money to people and create jobs? I would rather give money to “such people” instead of forking over more money to greedy corporations who are either outsourcing more jobs to India or keeping the money for their own golden parachutes. I think it’s more “pro-life” to keep the money with FAMILIES and out of the hands of the Wall Street bankers and corporations (who aren’t creating jobs for anyone.)

That is the liberal mantra these days. But one should ask if corporations are holding on to their money, why are they doing so? It does not benefit them when they do. Corporations are generally started by people who have a good idea, scrape together enough money to fund that idea and then reap the profits of their investment. If they are lucky and big and successful enough, their stock goes public and more people may benefit by that. I think you are very short-sighted. Too bad schools don’t teach more about economics these days.

 

[Newbie2]

Giving more money to families is of no use to those denied the right to life. (True) All rights flow from the right to life.

I would phrase it differently, but your point is well taken. Without life, all other rights are meaningless.

 

[kama3]

All rights flow from the right to life.

I just love politicians who have their mouths full of the right to life, but at the same time throw country into a prolonged recession, effectively making countless women abort for economic reason.