Glenn Beck rally will be a measure of the tea party's strength

[Suudy]

I do not think Suudy is too far off on what my point I am making. Perhaps I am not explaining my position correctly. Or it is a matter of semantics.

I don’t think it is. You have in the past expressed support for a single payer system. That is contrary to JPII’s writings, violates subsidiarity, and isn’t justified by Rerum Novarum or other writings. It is not just semantics, it is substance.

The government should never be the only and in many cases permanant solution.

What then do you call single payer, other than a permanent program? What about social security? Medicare? These are not programs that are urgent or temporary in nature. These are permanent. And you’ve expressed support for them in the past. Well, at the very least you oppose their elimination.

Obama’s problem is he, his administration, and Congress are trying to be the only solution but in fact they are too Keynesian. They only put a band-aid on the situation. The stimulous stopped us from going over the cliff BUT, it is just a band-aid. They need to control deficits. How? Increase the tax base (a former Republican philosophy) to increase revenues to pay down the debt, control deficits. With jobs comes income. Income equals wealth. Wealth equals demand… I could go on more.

When it comes to Keynesian policies, I think it closer to what Centesimus Annus means than other social programs. First, it is temporary in nature. It does not view injection of capital as a permanent solution, but only a temporary shot in the arm (so to speak).

The real problem, at least with regard to Centesimus Annus, is not Kenyesian economics, but Obama’s idea that the state is the solution to society’s problems. He suggest government solutions, especially federal ones, to the problems. Rather than propose temporary programs that encourage communities and individuals to get involved, he proposes government programs and bureaucracies.

Besides without the individual taking initiative to better himself/herself first then no government or corporate program is going to work. Ultimately it comes down to the individual. Those who run corporations should practice in an ethical way, pay just wages, maintain a safe work environment. If workers want a collective representation as Catholics we are ok to support that as does the CCC and Catholic Social Teaching.

There’s no disagreement here. But that isn’t what started this whole conversation. The issue isn’t whether the government should protect the workers (of course it should). The issue is the programs put place that are neither urgent nor temporary in nature.

Let’s go back to what you wrote that sparked this (at least for me):

“What if I told you the Catholic Church says taxation is obligatory and should be used for the Common Good, especially for the disadvantaged?”

This indicates that you think taxation should be used for social programs. And in the context of the conversation, federal taxation. Nowhere does the Church say that taxation is obligatory for the care of the disadvantaged. She only says that when the government gets involved, it is to be temporary in nature. It doesn’t say how the government should get involved. It does not impose any obligation on the state to collect tax dollars.

However the CCC and Scripture does say that government is part of the solutions and if anything should be the protector. But I agree it is NOT the sole solution. Just reylying on CCC1883 is broadbrushing the realities. Because we have to take in and accept the entire CCC, just as we have to with Scripture. We accept all or none.

It says, in fact, that the only role for the state (except in exceptional circumstance) is to be a protector. It is not to be a provider. So why then do you support permanent social programs such as social security, Medicare, and single payer? Even if these were minuscule in nature (and we know they aren’t), they still would not be licit since they are permanent.

In regards to Mr. Beck and thenature of this site, he would run if he saw all the “Common Good” phrases with in our CCC.

I don’t think so. “Common Good” is not necessarily equated with government intervention. It is not the same thing. And I think Beck is smart enough to recognize the difference between the individuals and various groups of society providing for the “Common Good” and the government doing so.

 

[Suudy]

Exactly Rs are no better-we need viable 3rd party candidates who are willing to make a stand

Really? The R’s are no better?

Do you think the PBA would have had a chance of passing or being signed without the R’s?

Do you think the Mexico City Policy would have been instituted (and re-instituted) without the R’s? (You’ll note that the D’s always rescind it.)

The R’s have done more for the cause of the unborn in the last 30 years than any one D has ever done. And that includes Mr Stupak.

 

[josephdavid]

I don’t think it is. You have in the past expressed support for a single payer system. That is contrary to JPII’s writings, violates subsidiarity, and isn’t justified by Rerum Novarum or other writings. It is not just semantics, it is substance.

Actually only in partial have I supported a single payer system. Meaning that I have defended Canada’s and Frances because I know personally they work. Perfect? No but they work better than the corporate media in the U.S. claims. Now, in regards to our country I have said that 1) we can not afford a single payer system right now and 2) we do not need one in part because we have various single payer systems now. However I will say that the single payer systems proposed by certain Congress members was not mandetory. In fact it was a volunteer plan and allowed the citizen to opt out and pick up a private insurance plan. Now if single payer was mandetory and everyone must have it and pay into it and no other options. That is violation of our free will and violation of the subsidiarity.
Our government just needs to regulate it well and work with private sector to make it equal and affordable for all. It works well in Germany. Both the employer and the employee share the expenses 50/50 unless a different contract. The government then regulates the prices which is evaluated on a scheduled bases to make adjustments in costs due to inflation or whatever.
I have been in a German hospital twice (broken hand, bad flu) and was wonderful and as good as U.S. Doctors are more friendly here haha. Even my best friends father who is a doctor in Germany will agree haha.

What then do you call single payer, other than a permanent program? What about social security? Medicare? These are not programs that are urgent or temporary in nature. These are permanent. And you’ve expressed support for them in the past. Well, at the very least you oppose their elimination.

Is it permanant when you have no other options. However again I do not believe the government needs to offer a singl payer system. I’ll be honest I am not sure how to address Medicare and Social Security. However one is allowed to have other investments and do not necessarily have to rely on SS or Medicare. They can be merely suplimental. Sadly most people need to be further educated that both are merely supplimental and we need a better savings rage. Then again we hold corporations accountable for the declain in real wages. It is not keeping up with costs of living. When I say we that means the individucal NOT the government.
I will confess to be a bit hypocritical in this part. Mainly because these are two issues that at this time I can not address. I do not belive they violate subsidiarity but yet not sure how to answer this. Can not blame me for being honest.

When it comes to Keynesian policies, I think it closer to what Centesimus Annus means than other social programs. First, it is temporary in nature. It does not view injection of capital as a permanent solution, but only a temporary shot in the arm (so to speak).

That is what Keynesian is supposed to be. Sadly some Democrats and Republicans go overboard with Keynesian. I think President Obama had gone overboard and in the wrong direction. Band-aids is all he given us and we all no band-aids do not stick for long.l

The real problem, at least with regard to Centesimus Annus, is not Kenyesian economics, but Obama’s idea that the state is the solution to society’s problems. He suggest government solutions, especially federal ones, to the problems. Rather than propose temporary programs that encourage communities and individuals to get involved, he proposes government programs and bureaucracies.

In part I agree. With out all three parts of our society together working in sync there nothing will work. This is where we are at right now.

There’s no disagreement here. But that isn’t what started this whole conversation. The issue isn’t whether the government should protect the workers (of course it should). The issue is the programs put place that are neither urgent nor temporary in nature.

In my opinion the government should be a regulatory and oversight extension of our democracy only. However, because our society is not in sync with each other, we have this problem of over extending by the government.

Let’s go back to what you wrote that sparked this (at least for me):

“What if I told you the Catholic Church says taxation is obligatory and should be used for the Common Good, especially for the disadvantaged?”

This indicates that you think taxation should be used for social programs. And in the context of the conversation, federal taxation. Nowhere does the Church say that taxation is obligatory for the care of the disadvantaged. She only says that when the government gets involved, it is to be temporary in nature. It doesn’t say how the government should get involved. It does not impose any obligation on the state to collect tax dollars.

Yes It can be used for social programs like public education we are not bound to public education, we have home schooling and private schools.
Actually if you go to other section of the CCC it will tell you the role of the government in part of society. However if we had jobs and good living wages and moral corporations (and politicians!) we would not have to need govenrment provided social programs. More people work and have real living wages to provide for their families and buy things, the less using the public aid system and the less burden on our government and society.

 

[josephdavid]

It says, in fact, that the only role for the state (except in exceptional circumstance) is to be a protector. It is not to be a provider. So why then do you support permanent social programs such as social security, Medicare, and single payer? Even if these were minuscule in nature (and we know they aren’t), they still would not be licit since they are permanent.

See above. I wish I could anwer that and confess to being a partial hypocrite on that. However I do believe these are not final and permanant solutions. We have 401K, IRA, 529’s, private insurance, etc. We have options. We are free to go where and whereever for our needs. Not jsut he goverment.

I don’t think so. “Common Good” is not necessarily equated with government intervention. It is not the same thing. And I think Beck is smart enough to recognize the difference between the individuals and various groups of society providing for the “Common Good” and the government doing so.

Well government is part of society and in our democracy we are the government and we elect people to represent us (in theory haha). I will take Beck seriously when he stops harping on the middle class and the poor and holds corporations who outsource jobs out of this country and exploits the environment and people in those countries which usually are a dictator ship (e.g. China). As I said our society consists of you and I (the individual), government (which is we again with elected representation) and business.

I hope I make sense. I am enjoying this conversation. Thank you. It is civil and it is important.

 

[Charlotte408]

BEST VIDEO EVER FROM TEA RALLY:

youtube.com/watch?v=hX864fXR1A0&feature=player_embedded

And if anyone finds out who this chick is I owe you a coke, I totally want to befriend her on facebook.

 

[Charlotte408]

I looked up her group/cause, and found this:

runawayslavemovie.com/site/

that should be an interesting up and coming, eh?

 

[Suudy]

Actually only in partial have I supported a single payer system. Meaning that I have defended Canada’s and Frances because I know personally they work. Perfect? No but they work better than the corporate media in the U.S. claims.

This sounds like the ends justifying the means. The end is good (i.e. health care), but the means are illicit. They are permanent in nature. These are not temporary government programs meant to serve an urgent need.

However I will say that the single payer systems proposed by certain Congress members was not mandetory. In fact it was a volunteer plan and allowed the citizen to opt out and pick up a private insurance plan. Now if single payer was mandetory and everyone must have it and pay into it and no other options. That is violation of our free will and violation of the subsidiarity.

The mandatory nature is irrelevant. It 1) is not temporary in nature and 2) it does violate subsidiarity because it usurps the proper role of a community of a lower order. I might agree if there were several limitations:

1. 
   *]The program was voluntary. Obamacare is not voluntary, since it requires people to have insurance or face fines (or is it taxes now ).
   *]Regardless of the proposed system, all people are required to pay into it in via tax dollars. There is no option to opt-out of paying for single-payer.
   *]It was temporary. That is, there was a sunset provision in place that eliminated the plan at a fixed later date.
   *]It had provisions to explicitly allow communities of a lower order (e.g. states, counties, cities, etc) to opt out of paying into or participating in the system.
   *]It had provisions to encourage communities of a lower order to put in place a replacement system.
   
   Now, all of this is contingent on an urgent need and exceptional circumstance. Neither of these exist to justify the massive reform that was attempted.
   

   Both the employer and the employee share the expenses 50/50 unless a different contract. The government then regulates the prices which is evaluated on a scheduled bases to make adjustments in costs due to inflation or whatever.

   But this is also what Centesimus Annus argues against. Price regulation is contrary to economic freedom, which is a specific point made.
   

   Is it permanant when you have no other options.

   But that’s not what CA says. It says it must be as brief as possible. There is no attempt to make any of these programs brief at all. There is no effort to establish programs at a lower level. There is no effort to phase out these systems. In fact, the effort has been to expand these programs. There is no attempt to even find other options.
   

   I’ll be honest I am not sure how to address Medicare and Social Security. However one is allowed to have other investments and do not necessarily have to rely on SS or Medicare.

   We don’t have to rely upon it, but we are required to fund it. It is permanent in nature and did not address an urgent need. With SS, what was the urgent need? Perhaps in the case of depression (and post-depression) era needs, but why then was it continued through the economic boom of the 40’s and 50’s? There was no urgent need then, yet it continued.
   
   Was there an urgent need for Medicare at the time? And if there was, did that urgent need remain throughout the 70’s, 80’s, …?
   

   I will confess to be a bit hypocritical in this part. Mainly because these are two issues that at this time I can not address. I do not belive they violate subsidiarity but yet not sure how to answer this. Can not blame me for being honest.

   I don’t blame you. Like I’ve been trying to get through to CMatt, we take in data through our senses and apply our reason. You have no reason to doubt your senses or your reason, so you think you are correct. I have no reason to doubt my own, so I think I am correct. Yet only one of us (or neither of us) can be correct. The point of this conversation is to figure out which of us is wrong (and perhaps both of us!).
   

   In my opinion the government should be a regulatory and oversight extension of our democracy only. However, because our society is not in sync with each other, we have this problem of over extending by the government.

   I agree. It is a regulatory body only. And I agree that it has completely overextended itself. Yet we have a host of individuals, both political and religious, who view the government as the means to achieve social good. The role of government is not to make people be good, but to keep them from being bad (who said that, Dorothy Sayers? I can’t remember).
   

   Yes It can be used for social programs like public education we are not bound to public education, we have home schooling and private schools.
   Actually if you go to other section of the CCC it will tell you the role of the government in part of society.

   I agree. But only insofar as they are justified by subsidiarity and the proper role of government. For example, I think private schools better fit the roles of subsidiarity than government run ones. In fact, prior to government run schools, they were run by churches. And those churches were definitely communities of a lower order.

 

[Suudy]

See above. I wish I could anwer that and confess to being a partial hypocrite on that. However I do believe these are not final and permanant solutions. We have 401K, IRA, 529’s, private insurance, etc. We have options. We are free to go where and whereever for our needs. Not jsut he goverment.

The issue is the permanence of the government solution. There is no effort to eliminate these programs and have them handled by communities of a lower order. Yes, people have their own plans. But there is very little effort on the part of the government to encourage people to plan for their own retirement. In fact, wasn’t there talk recently of eliminating the tax incentives? Or forcing people to invest in government based annuities?

I hope I make sense. I am enjoying this conversation. Thank you. It is civil and it is important.

As am I. My goal is to be civil. I may be blunt or direct, but my goal is definitely not to disparage or offend. These are important issues, and even if we never come to any agreement, perhaps it will encourage others to think more deeply about the issues.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Suudy:

Yet we have a host of individuals, both political and religious, who view the government as the means to achieve social good. The role of government is not to make people be good, but to keep them from being bad (who said that, Dorothy Sayers? I can’t remember).

I think that even the notion of law/government’s role is to “keep them from being bad” is an overextension of purpose, which can easily morph from “keeping them from being bad” to “make them be good”. The proper role of government, particularly in the American iteration of it, is to be the arbiter for the redress of grievances. It is the applivation of active vs. passive control of the social order, understanding that all control is illusionary.

Active control would be “The posted speed limit is 55 mph. If you violate this posting, you will be cited and fined for your actions.” This type of control assumes that society is damaged merely for violating a legal statute, where the society at large is considered the victim and no attributable damage has been caused.

Passive control would be “Any damage that you cause as a result of irresponsible use of your car will result in appropriate renumeration to the plaintiff.” This type of control provides relief and redress for a specific grievance caused by the perpetrator directly to the victim as a result of provable damage and cause of loss.

Our system was set up with a strong foundation of private property as the keystone of citizenship specifically for this reason. However, the Progressive movement (founded on Marxism) erodes the notion and value of personal property and replaces it with communal ownership of property.

 

[Suudy]

I think that even the notion of law/government’s role is to “keep them from being bad” is an overextension of purpose, which can easily morph from “keeping them from being bad” to “make them be good”. The proper role of government, particularly in the American iteration of it, is to be the arbiter for the redress of grievances. It is the applivation of active vs. passive control of the social order, understanding that all control is illusionary.

I don’t disagree. I tried to find Sayers’ quote, and the closest I could find was something along the lines of:

“A good society is one which makes it easy for a man to do good.”

Perhaps the point is that government should be passive (as you say below) in its role. But I think this consistent with the idea that government should not be focused on making people good, but letting people be good.

Active control would be “The posted speed limit is 55 mph. If you violate this posting, you will be cited and fined for your actions.” This type of control assumes that society is damaged merely for violating a legal statute, where the society at large is considered the victim and no attributable damage has been caused.

Passive control would be “Any damage that you cause as a result of irresponsible use of your car will result in appropriate renumeration to the plaintiff.” This type of control provides relief and redress for a specific grievance caused by the perpetrator directly to the victim as a result of provable damage and cause of loss.

Indeed. I do prefer the latter. When I went through RCIA, there was a lengthy discussion of contraception (as there always seems to be). During the discussion, it was asked if using the pill was always wrong. The priest (of which I’ve had several lengthy discussions) pointed out the distinction between canon law and English common law.

Our laws, and thus our way of legal thinking, was derived from English common law. This law assumes the worst and set the minimum standard of behavior. His example was driving through the middle of Kansas and coming upon a stop sign. Despite the fact that you can see to the horizon in all directions, you are legally bound to stop, even if there is no traffic at all. Failing to stop is grounds to be cited.

Canon law, being based upon Roman law, looked at individual circumstances and assumed the best. That same stop sign in Kansas, with no traffic for miles around, could be ignored without fear of legal prosecution. If, however, you were to ignore that stop sign and caused an accident, you would then be prosecuted.

 

[josephdavid]

But there is very little effort on the part of the government to encourage people to plan for their own retirement. In fact, wasn’t there talk recently of eliminating the tax incentives? Or forcing people to invest in government based annuities?

I believe the government and society as a whole needs to do a better job to explain that “Hey this social security is a safety net only!” Not the sole solution. You can not realistically retire with that sort of income in today’s society. Sad but true.
However as I say this. My mother and step-father are in the situation which my mother was unemployed for a year and my step-father going on two years. He had surgery on his kidney again (has a deformed kindey). They had to delcare bankruptcy. It cleaned them out and their 401K is virtually at zero.With me being laid off half of last year, I could barely help them.
I live in Chicago and have a small house and they live in Wisconsin so I could not have them move in. Anyhow there is an example of why I believe in something. It is not their fault they were laid off. In fact my step-father lost his job from the manufacturing moving to Mexico. Actually one of my uncles worked for same company. There is no manufacturing here now. It all moved to Mexico and now that same company is partnering with a Chinese firm.

As am I. My goal is to be civil. I may be blunt or direct, but my goal is definitely not to disparage or offend. These are important issues, and even if we never come to any agreement, perhaps it will encourage others to think more deeply about the issues.

 

[josephdavid]

Our system was set up with a strong foundation of private property as the keystone of citizenship specifically for this reason. However, the Progressive movement (founded on Marxism) erodes the notion and value of personal property and replaces it with communal ownership of property.

What laws have been passed that replace private with communal property?

 

[josephdavid]

I found some interested writings which I took some excerpts from. I know this would make Mr. Beck scream and cringe but would it make sense to a Catholic?

1. Government officials, it is your concern to mobilize your peoples to form a more effective world solidarity, and above all to make them accept the necessary taxes on their luxuries and their wasteful expenditures, in order to bring about development and to save the peace. Delegates to international organizations, it depends on you to see that the dangerous and futile rivalry of powers should give place to collaboration which is friendly, peaceful and free of vested interests, in order to achieve a responsible development of mankind, in which all men will have an opportunity to find their fulfillment.

1. If it is true that the world is in trouble because of the lack of thinking, then We call upon men of reflection and of learning, Catholics, Christians, those who hold God in honor, who thirst for an absolute, for justice and for truth: We call upon all men of good will. Following Christ, We make bold to ask you earnestly: " seek and you shall find",[69] open the paths which lead to mutual assistance among peoples, to a deepening of human knowledge, to an enlargement of heart, to a more brotherly way of living within a truly universal human society.

1. All of you who have heard the appeal of suffering peoples, all of you who are working to answer their cries, you are the apostles of a development which is good and genuine, which is not wealth that is self-centered and sought for its own sake, but rather an economy which is put at the service of man, the bread which is daily distributed to all, as a source of brotherhood and a sign of Providence.

From: Populorum Progressio; Pope Paul VI, 1967

1. Both these groups, therefore, need a thoroughgoing technical and general education, and should have their own professional organizations. It is equally important that the government take the proper steps regarding their training, taxation, credit, social security and insurance.

1. In addition, a sound agricultural program is needed if public authority is to maintain an evenly balanced progress in the various branches of the economy. This must take into account tax policies, credit, social insurance, prices, the fostering of ancillary industries and the adjustment of the structure of farming as a business enterprise.

1. In a system of taxation based on justice and equity it is fundamental that the burdens be proportioned to the capacity of the people contributing.

1. But the common good also requires the public authorities, in assessing the amount of tax payable, take cognizance of the peculiar difficulties of farmers. They have to wait longer than most people for their returns, and these are exposed to greater hazards. Consequently, farmers find greater difficulty in obtaining the capital necessary to increase returns.

From: Magistra, Pope John XXIII, 1961

1. This means that all of us must examine our way of living in the light of the needs of the poor. Christian faith and the norms of justice impose distinct limits on what we consume and how we view material goods. The great wealth of the United States can easily blind us to the poverty that exists in this nation and the destitution of hundreds of millions of people in other parts of the world. Americans are challenged today as never before to develop the inner freedom to resist the temptation constantly to seek more. Only in this way will the nation avoid what Paul VI called “the most evident form of moral underdevelopment,” namely greed [31].

1. These duties call not only for individual charitable giving but also for a more systematic approach by businesses, labor unions, and the many other groups that shape economic life – as well as government. The concentration of privilege that exists today results far more from institutional relationships distribute power and wealth inequitably than from differences in talent or lack of desire to work. These institutional patterns must be examined and revised if we are to meet the demands of basic justice. For example, a system of taxation based on assessment according to ability to pay [32] is a prime necessity for the fulfillment of these social obligations.

1. Businesses have a right to an institutional framework that does not penalize enterprises that act responsibly. Governments must provide regulations and a system of taxation which encourage firms to preserve the environment, employ disadvantaged workers, and create jobs in depressed areas. Managers and stockholders should not be torn between their responsibilities to their organizations and their responsibilities toward society as a whole.

1. More specifically, it is the responsibility of all citizens, acting through their government, to assist and empower the poor, the disadvantaged, the handicapped, and the unemployed. Government should assume a positive role in generating employment and establishing fair labor practices, in guaranteeing the provision and maintenance of the economy’s infrastructure, such as roads, bridges, harbors, public means of communication, and transport. It should regulate trade and commerce in the interest of fairness [74]. Government may levy the taxes necessary to meet these responsibilities, and citizens have a moral obligation to pay those taxes. The way society responds to the needs of the poor through its public policies is the litmus test of its justice or injustice. The political debate about these policies is the indispensable forum for dealing with the conflicts and tradeoffs that will always be present in the pursuit of a more just economy

From: Economic JUstic for All, USCB 1986

 

[Darryl1958]

There is a great leeway in how exactly Catholics are to understand the principles of subsidiarity. Libertarians would tend to stress a certain point of view and liberals another, and fiscal conservatives yet another.

There is a range of correct responses that may follow these principles of the least government possible to be effective. Ceertainly both liberation theology of Marxism and the materialistic philosophies of the right are contrary to these principle by their very definition.

Are Beck’s libertarian ideas outside of the values underlying libertarianism. Certainly, to the extent that he remains open to the Holy Spirit, the answer must be no.

And that was what 8/28 was all about… inviting the Holy Spirit into the public sphere.