Obama administration deletes religious service for student loan forgiveness

[Rence]

I will be quit surprised if you don’t trot it out yet again.

Well, of course, not only is the above wrong, it is easily contradicted by what I have written in this very thread.

I know you would like to pretend that “the only point I am making” is that I don’t ilk how taxes are being applied but that is, of course, not the case.

Now I don’t expect everyone to agree with my points but I’m not sure why you would be so shocked when you are called out for your misrepresentations and obfuscations.

Alrighty, I’ll bite: What have I misrepresented? What obfuscations?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Alrighty, I’ll bite: What have I misrepresented? What obfuscations?

1. “The only point you’re making is that you don’t like how taxes are being applied by those who are in charge of applying it.” is quite simply a misrepresentation.
2. “If Catholics want a change in how monies are allocated…”, which, of course, obscures the option, discussed at length, of not sending the monies there in the first place, i.e. by reducing or eliminating taxes.

Don’t choke on it.

 

[Rence]

1. “The only point you’re making is that you don’t like how taxes are being applied by those who are in charge of applying it.” is quite simply a misrepresentation.

If you think I have misrepresented your point it’s because you haven’t made it clear enough. That’s not my fault. Communication is a two-way street. What exactly is your beef then?

1. “If Catholics want a change in how monies are allocated…”, which, of course, obscures the option, discussed at length, of not sending the monies there in the first place, i.e. by reducing or eliminating taxes.

Don’t choke on it.

I’ll try not to How does “If catholics want a change in how monies are allocated…” obscure the option of not sending the monies there in the first place? In order to be able to not send money in the first place, taxes will have to be reduced or eliminated, and the only way that’s going to happen is to lobby for those changes and hope that you and your cohorts have a big enough voice to make those changes happen. The politicians who represent all of us, take all of that together and decide how it is best to serve all of those they represent.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

If you think I have misrepresented your point it’s because you haven’t made it clear enough. That’s not my fault. Communication is a two-way street. What exactly is your beef then?

That’s one possibility. It’s not the only one.

I’ll try not to How does “If catholics want a change in how monies are allocated…” obscure the option of not sending the monies there in the first place? In order to be able to not send money in the first place, taxes will have to be reduced or eliminated, and the only way that’s going to happen is to lobby for those changes and hope that you and your cohorts have a big enough voice to make those changes happen. The politicians who represent all of us, take all of that together and decide how it is best to serve all of those they represent.

Whether or not the effort to change the law is successful is secondary to the recognition of the option in the first place. So I can understand why you would wish to obscure the choices but hopefully you can understand why I would wish to illuminate them.

And, no, politicians don’t “decide how it is best to serve all of those they represent”. They decide what position is most likely to lead to a reelection (which requires only the support of 50% of the voters plus one).

 

[Rence]

That’s one possibility. It’s not the only one.

Whether or not the effort to change the law is successful is secondary to the recognition of the option in the first place. So I can understand why you would wish to obscure the choices but hopefully you can understand why I would wish to illuminate them.

There will always be those who think the certain mandates shouldn’t be introduced in the first place. That’s why they get a chance to try and get it changed.

And, no, politicians don’t “decide how it is best to serve all of those they represent”. They decide what position is most likely to lead to a reelection (which requires only the support of 50% of the voters plus one).

And some would say the two go hand in hand…

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

And some would say the two go hand in hand…

Yes, the naive ones say that.

 

[Rence]

Yes, the naive ones say that.

So do those who happen to agree with the majority

 

[The_Rock]

Tyranny of the majority
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
The phrase “tyranny of the majority” (or “tyranny of the masses”), used in discussing systems of democracy and majority rule, is a criticism of the scenario in which decisions made by a majority under that system would place that majority’s interests so far above a dissenting individual’s interest that the minority would be actively oppressed, just like the oppression by tyrants and despots.[1]
Limits on the decisions that can be made by such majorities, such as constitutional limits on the powers of parliament and use of a bill of rights in a parliamentary system, are common ways of reducing the perceived problem.[2] Separation of powers is also implemented to prevent such an event from happening internally in the government

Oh, the bill of rights is supposed to protect the interests of those not in the majority?
Someone inform the President.

 

[sedonaman]

Oh, the bill of rights is supposed to protect the interests of those not in the majority?
Someone inform the President.

There is an effort currently under way to nullify the electoral college. This would remove the protection of small [population] states.

 

[estesbob]

There is an effort currently under way to nullify the electoral college. This would remove the protection of small [population] states.

And give the Liberal Bastions in large cities a larger say in who is elected

 

[sedonaman]

And give the Liberal Bastions in large cities a larger say in who is elected

Not exactly. It would mean that large liberal cities * would actually elect the president. It should also be noted that what proponents of this effort are proposing is to circumvent the Constitutional amendment process.*

 

[Erich]

Not exactly. It would mean that large liberal cities * would actually elect* the president.

Exactly.

Last time I checked, I lived in one of the United States of America, I’m not one of the “United Citizens of America.”

Eliminating the Electoral College will eliminate our federal system of government and representation and and would lead to the nationalization of our government - to the detriment of the States. The President would be selected either through the domination of one populous region over the others (i.e. 6% of the country’s population lives in the NYC metro area alone, about 17% of the country’s population lives in the Boston-NYC-Philly-DC megalopolis, and another 19% of the country’s population lives in the Great Lakes megalopolis) or through the domination of large metropolitan areas over the rural ones.

If the Founding Fathers had intended for the President to be directly elected, they would have written it into the Constitution. But of course they didn’t do that, seeing as they intended to create a government limited in scope and powers.

Power at the national level was split among the three branches, each reflecting a different constituency. Representatives were directly elected by the people (they still are), Senators were chosen by their respective state legislatures (they aren’t anymore, but in my opinion they should be again), and the President was elected by Electors who were appointed by each state (for the time being they still are).

Power was also divided between the national government and the states (though we’ve certainly been seeing less and less of that in the last 75 years or so). There’s a lot to be said for federalism… look at all the regional conflicts that trouble large and diverse nations like India, China and Russia. The Electoral College system at least forces presidential candidates to seek support nationwide, thereby making sure no state is left behind.

Direct election of the president would only reflect the will of a majority. In contrast, the Electoral College provides representation for both the population at large and the states. It thereby tempers and limits the power of majority rule.

I wonder if the activists who are seeking to eliminate the Electoral College in favor of a popular vote to elect the president (presumably because the EC violates “one person, one vote,” as opined by Sen. Diane Feinstein on Larry King Live) are also willing to abolish the Senate for the same reason. Wyoming, with a population of 533,000, gets the same number of Senators as California with its population of almost 37 million. No “one person, one vote” there… where’s the consistency?

 

[sedonaman]

Exactly.

Last time I checked, I lived in one of the United States of America, I’m not one of the “United Citizens of America.”

Eliminating the Electoral College will eliminate our federal system of government and representation and and would lead to the nationalization of our government - to the detriment of the States. …
I wonder if the activists who are seeking to eliminate the Electoral College in favor of a popular vote to elect the president (presumably because the EC violates “one person, one vote,” as opined by Sen. Diane Feinstein on Larry King Live) are also willing to abolish the Senate for the same reason. Wyoming, with a population of 533,000, gets the same number of Senators as California with its population of almost 37 million. No “one person, one vote” there… where’s the consistency?

The one major item that advocates never mention is that the “United” States of America would not even exist without the electoral college because the small states would never have ratified the Constitution because they rightfully feared domination by the large states. In those days, Virginia was in the position that California is today. I live in a small state, and can’t tell you how many knock-down, drag-out arguments I’ve had with a liberal friend who wants popular election. Part of his thinking has to do with not understanding the reason for the electoral college; the rest has to do with Bush winning with fewer votes than Gore. I thought he would be persuaded when I pointed out that his vote under the college was mathematically 14% more powerful than a vote from California. It didn’t even register on the scale.

What is scary is that this movement was started in a few small states.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The one major item that advocates never mention is that the “United” States of America would not even exist without the electoral college because the small states would never have ratified the Constitution because they rightfully feared domination by the large states.

This is true but it is illustrative of a much larger idea: the consensual nature of the Constitution, in general. It is historically unique as being a voluntary agreement among free peoples.

Not long ago one of those legal experts opined on the nature of religious freedom saying, essentially, that maybe it was a mistake to include it in the Constitution but we are stuck with it now, as if unrestricted democracy were the natural order and anything restraining it was just a decoration. In fact, though, the union and the restrictions on it came as one and there is no reason to regard either as inferior to the other.

The plain fact is that the founders were very suspicious of democracy and the electoral college is just one of many mechanisms designed to restrain it.

Of all the mechanisms, the electoral college has probably been the least successful, but from our modern perspective we can see quite easily how justified was the founders general suspicion.

 

[seekerz]

I can only assume that you did not carefully read what you quoted because I suggested precisely that Catholics would be better off doing good works directly rather than sending money to the government and trying to get it back again without strings attached. No?

This new - and artificial - division being created between charitable giving and paying taxes is not at all what I was referring to. Read your own post. You were making a point that certain religious activities could not earn credit and I’m simply asking why we would desire credit for something we’re doing for God?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

This new - and artificial - division being created between charitable giving and paying taxes is not at all what I was referring to. Read your own post. You were making a point that certain religious activities could not earn credit and I’m simply asking why we would desire credit for something we’re doing for God?

It’s not simply about a desire for credit. What you are overlooking is that resources are finite and that different institutions have different capabilities. There is nothing artificial about distinguishing taxes and government from charity and the Church.

The point I made, repeatedly, is that while there are certainly a few things that government can do better than the Church that, in general, Catholics would be doing more good if they acted charitably through the Church (and similar institutions) than sending money through the government.

Credit for religious activities then becomes entirely moot.