Jack Abramoff and Pius XI

  • Thread starter Thread starter bones_IV
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It sounds like something everyone should know about, but I’m not that impressed with the article as a whole.

In summary, he’s saying that there is corruption at all levels of government. If you make the federal government smaller, then the lobbyists will just go after the local politicians. Okay, so what’s the author’s point?

The reason subsidiarity is important is that local issues are better understood and better handled by local government. That doesn’t mean it reduces corruption.
 
This was an interesting article, but the author really seems to think the the main argument for subsidiarity is to reduce corruption. I believe rlg is corrct in their summary:
40.png
rlg94086:
The reason subsidiarity is important is that local issues are better understood and better handled by local government. That doesn’t mean it reduces corruption.
Click to expand...
So it is a matter of charity to give people the means to solve their own problems, rather than impose it from above. This is the REAL reason for subsidiarity.

We live in a fallen world and must accept that greed and dishonesty will be a part of it.

John McCain also seems to have confused the reasons for subsidiarity. I’ve found that John McCain often takes positions without solid moral reasoning to back it up. One reason I don’t trust him as a politician.
 
I’m still confused by how small government has to be. As someone who came down with a disability at the age of 22 I had no time to save into a future. I had no choice but to rely on Social Security income until I could maintain at least parttime employment. But everytime I went back to work I risked losing medical insurance and would be broke paying for my own care. Certainly the church doesn’t have the means to help here so there must be some assistance from the government. I find this obsessive idea of what is liberal or conservative very disturbing as I see myself and many around me as being those who some on these threads would rather just go away. We must cut the waste in government spending but we don’t need to cut the programs altogether.
 
I don’t think that is fair goofyjim for two reasons:
  1. Saying the federal government should be small and not involved in welfare, social programs, etc. doesn’t mean those programs would not or should not exist. They can and should exist at the local level.
  2. Only a very extreme and callous person would say that there should be no program for those with disabilities. I see no evidence of anyone “on these threads” that fit that description.
I don’t know anyone that wouldn’t agree with your statement bolded below…it’s a matter of who runs it, where it is run, how it is run and how it is paid for.
40.png
goofyjim:
I’m still confused by how small government has to be. As someone who came down with a disability at the age of 22 I had no time to save into a future. I had no choice but to rely on Social Security income until I could maintain at least parttime employment. But everytime I went back to work I risked losing medical insurance and would be broke paying for my own care. Certainly the church doesn’t have the means to help here so there must be some assistance from the government. I find this obsessive idea of what is liberal or conservative very disturbing as I see myself and many around me as being those who some on these threads would rather just go away. We must cut the waste in government spending but we don’t need to cut the programs altogether.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
rlg94086:
I don’t think that is fair goofyjim for two reasons:
  1. Saying the federal government should be small and not involved in welfare, social programs, etc. doesn’t mean those programs would not or should not exist. They can and should exist at the local level.
  2. Only a very extreme and callous person would say that there should be no program for those with disabilities. I see no evidence of anyone “on these threads” that fit that description.
I don’t know anyone that wouldn’t agree with your statement bolded below…it’s a matter of who runs it, where it is run, how it is run and how it is paid for.
Click to expand...
Then why was there this big change to the Medicare drug coverage? My dad explains that the big reason was to make it more cost efficient. But in the previous system, I didn’t have to pay copays for doctors visits or medications which I can’t afford. The irony is that big government only steps in when it is cost efficient to do so. This is one example which should have been left alone. I agree that the states should run it with assistance from Washington.

No matter what level it is run at the taxpayers will complain about having to pay the taxes to cover it. There is a constant resistance to paying taxes at any level.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top