Issues other than abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter YourNameHere
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Because of the divide in this country over abortion, I think the issue must be a little more complex than what you are saving.
Some women believe it is a personal right’s issue.
Some folks are concerned about rape or abortion when a woman’s life is put in danger.
Most Catholics see abortion as always wrong.
I don’t think it is a black and white issue.
But it is an issue that overshadows the many other issues that need to be discussed. Hince my thread suggesting discussion of other issues.
 
Well, I’d say that Family rooted in Catholic values is the solution to all the problems.

Bring back the family.
 
YourNameHere said:
Most people would not have responded to my thread, but I put abortion in it.
Click to expand...
No. Just. No. CAF posters are NOT one-dimensional people.

I invite you to stick around and pay attention. Topics here follow news cycles. Right now it’s abortion. Other times it’s the abuse scandals, immigration, etc. Again I direct your back to my original post where I said this. Either way, your further posts show that you seem to have an agenda, so I’m going to excuse myself from the discussion. Peace 🙂
 
I think abortion gets treated with such urgency because of the denial that it’s even a human rights violation.

We can all agree that trafficking children for slavery is wrong. But there’s nobody currently saying:

“Their slaves, their choice.”
“You shouldn’t impose your morality on child traffickers.”
“Those are just potential children being trafficked.”

So while I agree that non-abortion human rights issues are important, it makes sense that parishes have a Respect Life Committee that is separate from the Social Justice groups.
 
I’ve seen most of those things discussed on the forum. I think pretty much everyone is on the same page regarding domestic abuse, so there isn’t really much to discuss there. Abortion is discussed alot because there are people who actually argue that it’s a good thing, or at least an acceptable thing. Not a lot of advocates for drug addiction and smacking your spouse and kids around.
 
Aquinas11 said:
40.png
YourNameHere:
Poverty
Click to expand...
$21 trillion of Govt spending over 50 years and poverty rate increased from 27% in 1967 to 29% in 2012 (Forbes)

So Govt should not treat poverty. Not Govt job and they’re terrible at it. Republicans (like abortion) are correct - let private charities deal w poverty. Much more efficient and less wasteful than Govt and people contribute far more when their taxes are reduced (when failing Govt programs eliminated).
Click to expand...
Just wanted to point out that if you define efficiency by dividing benefits actually recieved by the recipients by the budget, there is no private charity that is even remotely as efficient as the federal government.

Awesome charities might hit 15% admin expense. And those are the mega-efficient ones. Wounded warrior, for example, was 57% admin.

Last time I checked social security admin was 2-3% of budget. Just no comparison.
 
Last edited:
Vonsalza said:
Just wanted to point out that if you define efficiency by dividing benefits actually recieved by the recipients by the budget, there is no private charity that is even remotely as efficient as the federal government.
Click to expand...
Under the current status quo, that is.
If the government allowed taxpayers to start sending money which would go to gov’t welfare to private charities instead, it’s a given that the efficiency of those charities would increase dramatically.
 
SS and foodstamps are pass throughs. Just send the check. Not hard to do. Throw in the Criminal Justice system, social work, etc… What percentage are you at then? And how do you measure the benefits of social work; is it by their cost?
 
Are you suggesting something so utterly crazy as privatizing criminal justice?

🤯🤯🤯

But to the point, it’s still overwhelmingly funded by the poor. Don’t believe me? Go to circuit court for the day. Look who’s paying the court fees.

Not the wealthy 😉
 
They’ll be able to hire more staff, fill in gaps in their strategies for their specific missions, and generally be able to do more good.
 
Maximilian75 said:
They’ll be able to hire more staff, fill in gaps in their strategies for their specific missions, and generally be able to do more good.
Click to expand...
And like wounded warrior, throw even bigger and sexier parties and give their officers even nicer cars.
 
NOpe. NOt so. Remember that movie with A. Schwartznaeger (Running Man).
 
I don’t dispute that … I honestly have no idea what WWP does that the VA can’t.
 
Aquinas11 said:
$21 trillion of Govt spending over 50 years and poverty rate increased from 27% in 1967 to 29% in 2012 (Forbes)

So Govt should not treat poverty. Not Govt job and they’re terrible at it. Republicans (like abortion) are correct - let private charities deal w poverty. Much more efficient and less wasteful than Govt and people contribute far more when their taxes are reduced (when failing Govt programs eliminated).
Click to expand...
Where are you getting your poverty rate figures? The Census Bureau puts it at 12.3% for 2017.

And the poverty rate dropped drastically between 1960-1969 after the LBJ’s Great Society programs took effect. in 1959-1960 poverty was at 22.4%. In 1969 the poverty rate was 12.6%. that is a huge difference—a 10.3% reduction! Main cause for change— government programs.

Government programs, well designed and implemented can work very well. One problem is that in the US, they are full of all kinds of means testing, red tape, different states can meddle with them, politicians always making changes—look at Medicare and Medicaid, for example. Two programs that have been tinkered with massively and with medicare, more costs put on the elderly and with medicaid, many states have the annual income limit so low that it is ridiculous. You have to be practically homeless to be able to qualify.
 
Maximilian75 said:
They’ll be able to hire more staff, fill in gaps in their strategies for their specific missions, and generally be able to do more good.
Click to expand...
Do you mean they would expand their mandate, be responsible for perhaps a designated geographical area? Report on programs, success rates, financial efficiency compete for donations?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top