If we are bound to vote for the lesser evil. Shouldn't we all vote for the American Solidarity Party?

  • Thread starter Thread starter WannabeSaint
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In all fairness I agree with a lot of their platform but some things I totally disagree with like minimum wages and universal health care. I’m registered with the LMHA (Leave Me the H%@! Alone) Party and I prefer a government that tells me not what it will do for me but what it won’t do for me. Less is better.

I think I also read something about making reparations to blacks, which, if true, I find quite repulsive.
 
Last edited:
F_Marturana said:
Voting for a third party also cause both major parties to shift position to court the third party voters.

There’s a lot of us Catholics, and we should have the clout to change both parties.
Click to expand...
Honestly, the truth is that this is only true when the 3rd party becomes a significant threat.

Even Ross Perot and his “Reform Party” movement had little affect on the Republicans & Democrats.

As a political scientist, I honestly don’t think a third party has much of a chance of influencing anything unless a major (and popular) political leader joins them.

3rd parties don’t work when only fueled by grass root movements. They need well know leaders to join then, and currently none of them have that.

For example: Few people (nationwide) know who Gary Johnson or Jill Stein really are. But is someone like AOC joined the Green Party, that would give the Green Party a big jolt. Or if Trump were join the Libertarian Party, that would give them a big jolt too.

Without a well know leader, third parties remain fringe.
 
Last edited:
Sure it is. It’s right out of Karl Marx’s own playbook: “To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability.”

Minimum wages are a fundamental platform of the socialist party.
 
Last edited:
Formon said:
Minimum wages are a fundamental platform of the socialist party.
Click to expand...
I thought minimun wages were part of the Social Doctrine, when the Popes talk about the obligation of an employeer to pay a just wage.
 
Last edited:
Formon said:
Minimum wages are a fundamental platform of the socialist party.
Click to expand...
So if a party supports something, that’s their policy? Not something anyone can support that said party also supports?
 
Last edited:
AlbMagno said:
40.png
Formon:
Minimum wages are a fundamental platform of the socialist party.
Click to expand...
I thought minimun wages were part of the Social Doctrine, when the Popes talk about the obligation of an employeer to pay a just wage.
Click to expand...
Right. But I suppose the “right” of government to take 60 or 62% of someone’s income doesn’t register in that part of the social doctrine regarding “just” wages? I suppose once the wages are paid out justice can safely turn a blind eye to things like obligation. 🙈

Who is left to care a hoot about the labourer AFTER s/he is paid? I mean the “obligation” regarding fair and just stops right about there since the state is the entity that cares about justice - while it relieves the labourer of the lion’s share of his/her hard-earned money - the accounting Re: social justice has already been completed according to the Pope’s talk. 🤔 The “talk” along with the buck stops there, apparently.

I thought it was the progressive liberal types that were disgusted about the dark times in the past when the serfs had to pay the lion’s share of their hard work to the land-owning elites? Now it is suddenly okay for the elites to essentially confiscate 2/3 of someone’s hard work?

A cynic might conclude that perhaps the reason the socialist types want to pay higher wages is not for employees to be paid justly but so the state can put more dough into the confiscation pot?
 
Last edited:
Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman said:
40.png
Formon:
minimum wages and universal health care
Click to expand...
are not socialist policies. They’re policies of social democracies, but socialism is about common ownership of the means of production.
Click to expand...
Socialism is about state control of the economy - that includes the means of production, price and availability of goods and services, control of consumer spending, property ownership and anything else related to the economy.

Socialism doesn’t become less socialistic just because a democratic majority votes for it. Ask Venezuela.

It might be true that a democracy, properly speaking, might be in the position to control to some degree the extent to which socialism takes over the country, but that is debatable.

The struggle becomes one between those who work for a living and those who vote for a living. Politicians can only pander to the latter not the former, so when pandering becomes the dominant political platform the nation is on a downhill trajectory.

When the voters win out the productive ones lose out.
 
Last edited:
I am not sure if income taxes are part of the Social Doctrine, but if they are not, your point is moot.

Notice how I never talked about income taxes in the previous post. In my country at least, people who gain the minimun wage are far below the minimun to apply to income taxes.
 
If you’re on the federal minimum wage in the USA, as an individual, you’ll pay somewhere around $2000 to $2500 a year, before any credits or deductions. That’s for a single adult with no dependents and prior to any deductions. So generally it’s going to be less than that, and if you have children or other

The highest federal tax bracket in the USA is currently 37%. For 2020, if you make more than $518,401 in the year, you will owe $156,235 plus 37% of whatever you make over $518, 401.

California has the highest state income tax bracket, at 13.3% for those making over a million dollars annually.
HarryStotle said:
The struggle becomes one between those who work for a living and those who vote for a living. Politicians can only pander to the latter not the former, so when pandering becomes the dominant political platform the nation is on a downhill trajectory.
Click to expand...
That’s kind of the issue, actually. Right now our politicians are spending too much time pandering to those who want to keep their inherited wealth and ignoring those who work for a living.
 
DarkLight said:
If you’re on the federal minimum wage in the USA, as an individual, you’ll pay somewhere around $2000 to $2500 a year, before any credits or deductions. That’s for a single adult with no dependents and prior to any deductions. So generally it’s going to be less than that, and if you have children or other

The highest federal tax bracket in the USA is currently 37%. For 2020, if you make more than $518,401 in the year, you will owe $156,235 plus 37% of whatever you make over $518, 401.

California has the highest state income tax bracket, at 13.3% for those making over a million dollars annually.
Click to expand...
So if all taxes, federal, state and local are combined that means the 37% quickly shoots up to 50 or 60% of income. That doesn’t nullify my point.

It also appears that the first $25 000 in social welfare benefits are not taxable.


Someone working full time at the $15 minimum wage is earning about $28 800 before deductions.

So explain again why anyone with a desire not to expend energy would work full time at minimum wage or less when welfare benefits are available that allow them to earn approximately the same income without expending any effort?

This is without alluding to the fact that requiring employers pay $15 / hour results in more unemployment than would otherwise be the case.
 
I love their platform but in my area Solidarity Party is not even listed in the ballot!!!
 
Are you sure you can’t write in Brian Carroll at least?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Thanks @Fauken
After you posted it I double checked and it seems I may still be able to write in the name of the candidate even if ASP is not in the ballot.
 
Last edited:
I would like to just contribute one idea here, in response to OP’s original question. As far as I can see @WannabeSaint has not returned to this conversation since posting their question. I have just recently started posting on CAF, but my first impression is that these online discussions have a way of forgetting that this forum should be a response to someone’s heartfelt plea for intellectual clarification in service to the Gospel.

@WannabeSaint if you are still reading this, it may be helpful to think about this line of argument: we are not, as far as I can see, bound unequivocally to vote for the lesser evil between candidates. There are a few other considerations which might need to come into play in making a decision regarding for whom to vote. One of those is the principle of efficacy. My understanding is that this principle appears in several places in the tradition of moral theology within the Church. The idea is that in deliberating whether to commit an an action that has grave consequences, we must consider whether the action can reasonably (and this is up for prayer and discussion of course) be thought to effect the sort of positive change we wish to see in the world.

I think that for this reason even if we had a party that seemed very closely aligned with Catholic teaching, it would not follow that we would be obliged to vote for this party in an election, if we could not reasonably hope for the party to win. The Church takes into account these circumstantial factors when helping people form consciences about voting. The question we should ask ourselves about the ASP is: what good will this vote serve?

I am not saying it won’t serve any good, but just that this is the main question we should be asking.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top