B
bbarrick8383
Guest
I thought this would look better without the other persons quotes.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
C
ConcernedApathy
Guest
Funny, that’s just what I was thinking about you.It’s amazes me at how callous we have become to those who need us most by trying to change the name of the spade… Congratulations.
Callous to need.
Congratulations.
(Decided to edit)
Actually, allow me to amend this lest I get some nagging email from a Mod. Frankly I never know what sets them off.
I find your responses callous to need.
R
Raskolnikov
Guest
When I say poor, I don’t mean hobos. I mentioned the homeless starving man as an extreme example to make my point about the proportion of income used on consumption being greater for people who make less money. Most “poor” people (depending on what your definition of poor) have jobs and earn regular income. The point is, if you give tax cuts worth $10 billion to the bottom half of the population in terms of income, and $10 billion to the upper half, the bottom half of the population will spend a much greater proportion of their 10 billion than the upper half. The greater the proportion of wealth in the hands of the wealthier half, the greater the amount of money saved and invested. And of course saving and investing is good and necessary; but when that proportion gets too great, consumption falls (because all the money is tied up in savings, and the poorer half aren’t consuming much), and with production so high (because all the business owner are getting tax cuts and cheaper capital from private investors) and, as a result, prices fall, and what we have is deflation, which is most certainly not a good thing for either the wealthy or the poor; just recall the great depression. This is at least one major, totally pragmatic reason for having disproportionately lower taxes for the poor. If, of course, inflation were to become a threat, then it would be reasonable for the state to lower capital gains tax, taxes for the wealthy and middle class, so as to increase savings. What fiscal policy to adopt naturally depends on the situation.Which is an illogical argument in my opinion. A poor man with $1000 dollars, first off must have a product to purchase. Second off, once the poor mans money is gone, it’s gone. Unless, the poor man was an entrepreneur, who would then use that money to become middle class and hopefully rich and provide much more impact economically with that money than he would buying products. George Soros recently donated a bunch of money to go to NY and be added to the welfare debit cards I believe. I think they gave out something like 500 dollars per person to help pay for school supplies and clothing. If I remember correctly the electronics stores were reporting an increase in sales the following couple of weeks. And then it was gone. Barely a blip on the map for the supplier whose trying to sell his product to a consumer.
Not really. Want to encourage economic growth, encourage wage increases without forcing wage limits.
Lower taxes for those who increase wages by a certain percentage every year.
Lower taxes for increased wages would certainly help. Believe it or not, though, a major liberal economist Paul Krugman, actually once suggested that minimum wage should be abolished; things aren’t always what they seem, I guess. Generally, though, economists are in consensus that taxes and incentives are more efficient than direct controls. So it is a valid argument to say that, rather that the state saying ‘don’t pay workers less than $7 an hour,’ it should offer incentives for those who pay their employees more. Rather than saying “don’t pollute” to the corporations, tax the ones that pollute out of an amount equivalent to the damage of the pollution, and give reductions to the ones that perform above the set standards. ‘Direct controls are bad,’ is one of the major maxims of microeconomics.Ever notice the least regulated industries tend to be the most profitable?
And I’m not arguing for more regulation. Of course, certain industries eed to be regulated at a federal level. Insurance companies, which are interstate corporations, would be much more easily regulated by uniform federal regulation rather than varying degrees and kinds of state regulation. Interstate compatibility would greatly improve the functioning of the Insurance industry; that’s not really an economic issue though. Even liberal, thoroughly Keynesian economists (like Paul Krugman) wouldn’t dare to claim that highly regulated, centrally planned markets are more efficient. There are exceptional markets, however, that can hardly function without being federally regulated. The recent financial crisis yields some examples.
R
Raskolnikov
Guest
I don’t “vote liberal.” However, I think conservatives need to acknowledge the very real issue for Catholics (and Christians in general) with liberal leanings. Putting all the political debates aside, just look at their position. Forsake all of your political positions (remember they hold their political beliefs as closely as you hold yours), and vote for a party that, to them, represents so much that they think is wrong with the country, the ‘lesser of two evils’ because of their mild opposition to the legality of abortion. It is an agonizing decision to make.It’s all about the vote. Vote liberal, support abortion. Like it or not, the blood is on your hands even if you do not support the unintended consequences of your actions in the voting booth.
Just imagine you lived in a country where there were two parties; one is fiscally conservative, supports a low, flat tax rate, is very pro-business, pro-personal responsibility, individual rights on gun ownership, etc, and conservative on foreign policy. Perhaps they even consider themselves the purveyors of Christian democracy, and support the retention of Christian cultural symbols. However, they are pro-choice, perhaps because they consider it in line with their positions on other issues of individual liberty.
Then there is another party, which is economically socialist, vehemently anti-capitalist, wants to outlaw guns and opposes personal responsibility; and they are also secularist. But, they want to outlaw abortion, for whatever reason (maybe they think abortion is the capitalists way of guaranteeing that the population of the proletarians who can’t afford many children under control). I imagine, come election day, most conservatives feel quite bothered by having to go into the booth and vote for everything they despise. I don’t doubt that some would go through it, but it would not be a painless decision.
Personally, I’d like to have a multi-party, ‘open list’ electoral system rather than the stupid 2 party one we have now. Two isn’t nearly enough.
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
Well, look at it this way.Funny, that’s just what I was thinking about you.
Callous to need.
Congratulations.
(Decided to edit)
Actually, allow me to amend this lest I get some nagging email from a Mod. Frankly I never know what sets them off.
I find your responses callous to need.
In the end, our earthly needs on are meaningless.
Can you sit here and say that in the end, abortion will be meaningless? I can justify my positions, I’d tell God straight up that if a man came to me in need of food I would not only feed him but teach him how to live off the land the way I know how. I’d tell God that a politician wanted me to vote for him to help the needy, but all I could see was the number of needy growing when that politician was in office.
What’s your argument to God on your behalf of the murdered unborn? Health insurance was more important? The USA need to be more energy independent?
So you are trying to say that I’m callous to my own needs pretty much.
Which I have to admit, when it comes to abortion I am. I’d give up everything I own right at this second if it meant Roe V. Wade would be overturned tomorrow and the power would be given to the states to make abortion illegal. I’d take it right in the chest, don’t give me any welfare or anything since I was so callous to earthly needs it to get Roe V. Wade overturned. I’d be alright with that.
I’m proud of my decision to be callous of our earthly needs over abortion. I’m proud that you would say that, it makes me feel like I’m in the right position. Were not going to be taking oil with us when we go, but I hope and pray that when I get to heaven I will see those murdered unborn sitting with God and God and those murdered unborn will see that in my heart the only thing that mattered was them and they will all forgive me.
I hope they do the same for you too.
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
I always try to be a Christian first.I don’t “vote liberal.” However, I think conservatives need to acknowledge the very real issue for Catholics (and Christians in general) with liberal leanings. Putting all the political debates aside, just look at their position. Forsake all of your political positions (remember they hold their political beliefs as closely as you hold yours), and vote for a party that, to them, represents so much that they think is wrong with the country, the ‘lesser of two evils’ because of their mild opposition to the legality of abortion. It is an agonizing decision to make.
Just imagine you lived in a country where there were two parties; one is fiscally conservative, supports a low, flat tax rate, is very pro-business, pro-personal responsibility, individual rights on gun ownership, etc, and conservative on foreign policy. Perhaps they even consider themselves the purveyors of Christian democracy, and support the retention of Christian cultural symbols. However, they are pro-choice, perhaps because they consider it in line with their positions on other issues of individual liberty.
Then there is another party, which is economically socialist, vehemently anti-capitalist, wants to outlaw guns and opposes personal responsibility; and they are also secularist. But, they want to outlaw abortion, for whatever reason (maybe they think abortion is the capitalists way of guaranteeing that the population of the proletarians who can’t afford many children under control). I imagine, come election day, most conservatives feel quite bothered by having to go into the booth and vote for everything they despise. I don’t doubt that some would go through it, but it would not be a painless decision.
Personally, I’d like to have a multi-party, ‘open list’ electoral system rather than the stupid 2 party one we have now. Two isn’t nearly enough.
I fail big time on a lots of things. But abortion is not one of them.
I’d swallow my pride and vote to outlaw abortion by whatever means.
Those who consider themselves Christian and have a mild opposition to the legality of abortion based on their personal needs/wants/views on other issues obviously misunderstand the importance of the situation at hand. We are talking about two entirely different issues, one we can live with both on earth and in heaven. The other is Sodom and Gomorrah, the flood is coming, time to build the ark and load up because your about to drown brother in magnitude.
The time for petty debate on what’s more important is long gone.
I
ishii
Guest
IshiiBut poor people *do *provide jobs. Firstly though, I’m going to agree with you, or rather, supportively disagree with you on one thing. “Trickle down” economics is actually a pejorative invented by opponents of supply side economics to criticize it. In reality, no supporter of of supply side economics ever claimed money would “trickle down,” so the very phrase is a straw man. In reality, the argument goes, by reducing capital gains tax (which is admittedly a tax break for the wealthier, since few poor people can afford to do much investing), wealthier people can afford to invest more, increases production, lowers prices, and also leads to lower interest rates. This is the argument for supply side in a nutshell.
On the other hand, there is “demand side” economics, which is how poor people create jobs. It is an established economic fact (which follows from common sense) that if you give a poor person and a rich person each a $1000, that the poor person is going to spend a greater proportion of that money on goods and services, because he has such little money to pay for necessities and luxuries, than the rich person, who will save a portion of it, because he already has most of what he needs. A person who is starving and homeless will spend all of the money on food and shelter (or if you’re a cynic, on booze and cigarettes). Thus, if the government wants to boost aggregate demand and consumption, the best fiscal policy is to give tax breaks or tax credits or other financial benefits to the poorest strata of society to maximize the increase in consumption; when you have greater consumption, you have greater production, and therefore more jobs.
Raskolinkov, give a poor person $1000 and he’ll spend it on goods and services until the money runs out and then he’s back where he started. Give the poor man a job and he’ll spend $1000 of his own money on goods and services regularly. Maintain a strong economy which gives the poor man with his new job a chance for advancement and he’ll end up buying the car, the house, the TV, etc.
So taxing poor people less or givning them other benefits isn’t really socialism, as some claim. Fair or not, it is a valid way to encourage economic growth.
The best benefit for a poor man is a job created by the private sector, not a govt. handout.
The government does in fact provide services, ranging from law enforcement to education to infrastructure development and everywhere in between. How efficiently they do so is a matter for debate, but the claim that the government “doesn’t do anything” is nonsense. It does many things. There are many things it does that are superfluous, and sometimes it interferes in ways that are economically inefficient (such as tariffs), but we still need it for some things, it it is still (believe it or not) preferable to private business in some sectors of the economy.
The matter is pretty much settled: govt is inefficient because there is no incentive to be efficient! As long as the bureaucracy keeps getting fed, it will grow and grow, and the problem or issue it was created to deal with will keep getting worse. Dept. of Education? How is Johnny doing now after decades of federal govt funding of education? Dept. of Energy? How is our energy situation now after decades? They need to be abolished.
As LCMS_No_More wrote, not all liberals support abortion, and the equation of the two is unfair. Why can’t someone support, say, reducing military expenditure, support Keynesian economic policies, support gun control, all belliefs which would make one a liberal, and at the same time be pro-life? What do any of these issues have to do with one another? Personally, I don’t consider myself a liberal; but I honestly don’t see why one couldn’t be even a democratic socialist and still be pro-life and a good catholic.
Liberals overwhelmingly support abortion rights. Where have you been? If your imagined “pro-life” liberal votes for Barbara Boxer or Nancy Pelosi (or just about any Democrat for that matter) then they are effectively pro-abortion rights. When have liberals and conservatives not had disdain for each other? Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
I
ishii
Guest
IshiiI don’t “vote liberal.” However, I think conservatives need to acknowledge the very real issue for Catholics (and Christians in general) with liberal leanings. Putting all the political debates aside, just look at their position. Forsake all of your political positions (remember they hold their political beliefs as closely as you hold yours), and vote for a party that, to them, represents so much that they think is wrong with the country, the ‘lesser of two evils’ because of their mild opposition to the legality of abortion. It is an agonizing decision to make.
Voting against Barbara Boxer - who voted to keep partial birth abortion legal - should not be an “agonizing decision to make.” Maybe its agonizing for those who put partial birth abortion and the sanctity of life on par with the preservation of the snail darter or the right for Johnny to get a free breakfast during the school year.
Just imagine you lived in a country where there were two parties; one is fiscally conservative, supports a low, flat tax rate, is very pro-business, pro-personal responsibility, individual rights on gun ownership, etc, and conservative on foreign policy. Perhaps they even consider themselves the purveyors of Christian democracy, and support the retention of Christian cultural symbols. However, they are pro-choice, perhaps because they consider it in line with their positions on other issues of individual liberty.
Then there is another party, which is economically socialist, vehemently anti-capitalist, wants to outlaw guns and opposes personal responsibility; and they are also secularist. But, they want to outlaw abortion, for whatever reason (maybe they think abortion is the capitalists way of guaranteeing that the population of the proletarians who can’t afford many children under control). I imagine, come election day, most conservatives feel quite bothered by having to go into the booth and vote for everything they despise. I don’t doubt that some would go through it, but it would not be a painless decision.
Such a scenario is unlikely. Its logical for the liberals to be for for abortion. Behind every liberal is someone who is in favor of controlling other people - of deciding who gets what, how many kids to have, what they’ll be taught in school, what businesses can and can’t do. Liberals like to regulate and control and engage in social engineering (“it takes a village!”). Abortion is another way to control. Liberals also tend to focus less on individual responsibility - don’t take responsibility for your actions. Pregnant? Just get rid of the “unplanned pregancy”. Its very logical for liberals to be pro-abortion rights. There are pro-life liberals to be sure. But, as a previous poster said, its not much use to be pro-life and at the same time vote for pro-abortion rights politicians. Personally, I’d like to have a multi-party, ‘open list’ electoral system rather than the stupid 2 party one we have now. Two isn’t nearly enough.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
Trickle down economics doesn’t work when the government is standing around with a giant sponge soaking everything up.No, I just don’t believe in trickle-down economics, which is the popular economic theory among right-wing Republicans.
So, as a right-wing Republican, maybe you can explain to me how cutting taxes on rich people is going to help the economy. Bush did it and we’re still waiting for an economic boom.
All large entities are like that. Try getting money out of your insurance company when you have a claim.
Apples =/= Oranges
E
estesbob
Guest
No-they have an obliagtion NOT to vote for a candidate who supports abortion UNLESS their opponent is more pro-abortion than they are.So, Chrisrians have a positive moral obligation to vote Republican in every single election?
In the last Presdiental elction we had a canidate who supported unresticted taxpayer funded abortion on demand vs a canidate who supported abortion in cases of rape and incest. A Catholic could not vote for the former but could, but was not required, to vote for the latter
L
LCMS_No_More
Guest
You know, it’s kind of difficult to respond to your points when you hide them in other people’s quotes.Ishii
Let me say this, as an economic liberal: I believe that the best anti-poverty program around is a good paying job with full benefits and a pension.
Too bad the Republican party leadership just can’t get with that “good paying,” “full benefits” and “a pension” part. They support giving tax credits to companies that commit economic treason by sending jobs that could be done by American workers offshore so they can exploit people in other countries by paying them pennies a day and pocketing the profit. In my opinion, anyone, regardless of party, who believes that it is a good thing to ship American jobs out of our country and takes action to support this action is a traitor to the United States. Period. End of line.
E
estesbob
Guest
The biggest obstacle to good paying josb with full benefits and a pension is high taxes and overregulation. At some point one would hope liberals would realize that demonizing employers and doing everything possible to increase their cost of doing business is not a good way to create jobs.You know, it’s kind of difficult to respond to your points when you hide them in other people’s quotes.
Let me say this, as an economic liberal: I believe that the best anti-poverty program around is a good paying job with full benefits and a pension.
Too bad the Republican party leadership just can’t get with that “good paying,” “full benefits” and “a pension” part. They support giving tax credits to companies that commit economic treason by sending jobs that could be done by American workers offshore so they can exploit people in other countries by paying them pennies a day and pocketing the profit. In my opinion, anyone, regardless of party, who believes that it is a good thing to ship American jobs out of our country and takes action to support this action is a traitor to the United States. Period. End of line.
Of course both of us are entitled to our personal opinion as to what the best approach to creating jobs is. And the Church neither endorses nor opposes either political parties approach to the issues facing this country today. It is unfortunate that liberal Catholics really have no place to go under America’s current political situation. Rather than rail at the evilness of the Republican Party perhaps they should spend their time reflecting on why the Democrat Party is so wedded to the culture of death.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
As a follower of austrian-school economics, the best long-term anti-poverty program is a small business, access to the doctor of your choice under terms that you and the doctor can agree to, and a pension created, funded, and controlled by yourself and your estate attorney. The Democrats have put America into a position where there will soon be more people drawing entitlement benefits than there are paying into the funds that are being drawn from. Just how are retirees supposed to get a social security check when there are more people drawing from it than there are people paying into it? Democrats have created a wealth transfer ponzi scheme and have the audacity to ridicule and attach blame to Bernie Madoff and indict it as a sign of “capitalism gone wrong”. Social entitlements are a sign of “socialism gone wrong”…like it always does. Sooner or later, you run out of other people’s money.You know, it’s kind of difficult to respond to your points when you hide them in other people’s quotes.
Let me say this, as an economic liberal: I believe that the best anti-poverty program around is a good paying job with full benefits and a pension.
Too bad the Republican party leadership just can’t get with that “good paying,” “full benefits” and “a pension” part. They support giving tax credits to companies that commit economic treason by sending jobs that could be done by American workers offshore so they can exploit people in other countries by paying them pennies a day and pocketing the profit. In my opinion, anyone, regardless of party, who believes that it is a good thing to ship American jobs out of our country and takes action to support this action is a traitor to the United States. Period. End of line.
L
LCMS_No_More
Guest
Funny how that was NOT the message I got back in '08 and ended up having to hold down my vomit as I felt compelled and forced to vote for John McCain against my will…by people like YOU, bob, who at the time insinuated that a failure to vote for McCain constitutes a mortal sin.No-they have an obliagtion NOT to vote for a candidate who supports abortion UNLESS their opponent is more pro-abortion than they are.
In the last Presdiental elction we had a canidate who supported unresticted taxpayer funded abortion on demand vs a canidate who supported abortion in cases of rape and incest. A Catholic could not vote for the former but could, but was not required, to vote for the latter
L
LCMS_No_More
Guest
Here, let me fix that for you:The biggest obstacle to good paying josb with full benefits and a pension is high taxes and overregulation.
“The biggest obstacle to good paying jobs with full benefits and a pension is taxes and regulation.”
The fact is, to the Republican, there is nothing worse in the entire universe than a tax or a business regulation.
Yeah, how terrible to insist that employers actually pay their workers on a regular, consistent basis and train them to work safely and make products that won’t kill the users of those products. It’s just terrible that there are taxes so society can provide an infrastructure and an educated populace for those businesses to prosper. Oh, wait, the Republicans have been defunding those things…never mind.At some point one would hope liberals would realize that demonizing employers and doing everything possible to increase their cost of doing business is not a good way to create jobs.
It’s all good…just ship all the jobs overseas and let’s support TREASON.
Yes, it is sad that the moral position of pro-life is married to such an amoral, utilitarian ideology that puts the pursuit of profit and the love of money ahead of all other considerations (Republicanism). I think that pro-life is like the stepford wife of the Republican party.Of course both of us are entitled to our personal opinion as to what the best approach to creating jobs is. And the Church neither endorses nor opposes either political parties approach to the issues facing this country today. It is unfortunate that liberal Catholics really have no place to go under America’s current political situation. Rather than rail at the evilness of the Republican Party perhaps they should spend their time reflecting on why the Democrat Party is so wedded to the culture of death.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
You are not obligated to vote FOR someone, but there is a strong compulsion NOT to vote for someone. Which is exactly what bob’s message was. Obama…absolutely not due to his strong abortion record. You COULD vote for McCain, but were not obligated to.Funny how that was NOT the message I got back in '08 and ended up having to hold down my vomit as I felt compelled and forced to vote for John McCain against my will…by people like YOU, bob, who at the time insinuated that a failure to vote for McCain constitutes a mortal sin.
C
crazzeto
Guest
Yeah, Obama is good at talking a centrist talk… But when it comes time to walk the walk he throws all that out the window and goes hard left.Actually, I think that’s the plan. Party of “No” and all.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
AgreedLet me say this, as an economic liberal: I believe that the best anti-poverty program around is a good paying job with full benefits and a pension.
Can you provide an IRS link that allows this?Too bad the Republican party leadership just can’t get with that “good paying,” “full benefits” and “a pension” part. **They support giving tax credits to companies that commit economic treason by sending jobs that could be done by American workers offshore so they can exploit people in other countries by paying them pennies a day and pocketing the profit. ** In my opinion, anyone, regardless of party, who believes that it is a good thing to ship American jobs out of our country and takes action to support this action is a traitor to the United States. Period. End of line.
I can provide one that proves you wrong:
irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,id=233907,00.html
The Jobs Creation Act which has been extended and renewed since 2002, gives a tax credit to any employer who “creates” a new job and hires an unemployed person.
Here is the rule defining where the jobs must be created.
irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,id=149478,00.html
L
LCMS_No_More
Guest
And if I were TOLD this back in '08, I wouldn’t have had to deal with trying to avoid making a mess in the voting booth. Knowing this now, I will NEVER, EVER vote Republican again for as long as I live. End of line.You are not obligated to vote FOR someone, but there is a strong compulsion NOT to vote for someone. Which is exactly what bob’s message was. Obama…absolutely not due to his strong abortion record. You COULD vote for McCain, but were not obligated to.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
You probably should have a conversation with the person who told you this and tell them that they were flat out wrong, from a doctrinal perspective. I presume that you will be supporting pro-life Libertarians then, since abortion is part of the Democrat Party platform.And if I were TOLD this back in '08, I wouldn’t have had to deal with trying to avoid making a mess in the voting booth. Knowing this now, I will NEVER, EVER vote Republican again for as long as I live. End of line.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.