Paul Ryan!!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chrish1975
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I just saw an Obama ad that says I’m probably paying a higher percentage in taxes than Romney. If that’s so why doesn’t he advocate lowering the percentage of taxes I pay rather than raising the percentage that Romney pays? 🤷
 
bellasbane said:
In the meantime, inadequately catechized Catholics are as much a problem on the right as are on the left. Case in point, what do you mean by “any true Catholic’s full understanding of our religion’s social teaching?” Seems like you might need to review your lessons on the Sacraments of Initiation - a full understanding has never been a requirement of being a “true Catholic”. If it were, there wouldn’t be very many of us!
Click to expand...
:clapping: :amen:
 
Columbus dispatch editorial

Almost daily, the ill effects of the health-care overhaul passed by Congress last month are becoming apparent.… That’s just for starters. The report also warns that the $575 billion in Medicare reductions that are supposed to help pay for the overhaul are unrealistic. … This would limit the availability of care for millions of seniors in the Medicare program at a time when doctors and hospitals already will be stretched thin by the addition of millions of other Americans clamoring to use the health insurance the overhaul will provide

–

15 percent of hospitals and other care facilities that rely on Medicare reimbursements would become unprofitable, meaning that they might drop Medicare patients

tiberi.house.gov/news/documentprint.aspx?DocumentID=183042
 
_Abyssinia said:
Why are welfare requirements Catholic?

Church has been critical of the modern welfare state but says government has a role in providing a ‘safety net.’ In 1991 encyclical Centesimus Annus Blessed Pope John Paul II says
Click to expand...
No sure what you’re getting at here. Romney wanted to add work requirements in welfare for women in their third trimester of pregnancy and lawmakers elected in the most Catholic state in the Union rejected this. That’s what I was cheering.
Romney saying Obama is taking work out of welfare and ad from Romney on Obama’s on welfare is not misleading.
Click to expand...
No, it’s an outright lie.
Clinton who spoke against the ad is speaking at the DNC convention, he has an interest in defending Obama, he vetoed welfare twice before signing, he is not non partisan. Washington Post gave 4 pinnochios, they are biased, they have been against welfare reform and opposed Clinton when he signed it into law. PolitiFact quotes ‘left leaning Centre of Budget and Policy Priorities’ and they say, ‘the center supports the plan.’ Biased.
Click to expand...
The bill Clinton signed specifically said you have to be employed in a job to collect welfare, and it specifically says you can not change or expand the definition of work beyond what is in the bill. Obama, likely illegally, expanded this to mean job education, training, apprenticeships, all sorts. Clinton welfare reform took power back from the states and Obama said you may consider work if it is training, going back to school etc. Specifically lists what the states may do. Obama’s changes empower states to do a list of specific activities that replace work which guts the key part of the welfare bill, it changes the welfare bill. Obama’s changes may be repealed in court
Click to expand...
Twisty, knotty, makes no sense. This is the most contorted justification for a lie that I’ve ever heard:
  1. Everyone who disagrees with you is biased.
  2. Clinton takes away states rights - and that’s good.
  3. Obama gives power back to the states - and that’s bad.
  4. Education, which helps people get better jobs and stay off welfare - that’s bad.
And who exactly is going to take the Obama administration to court over this?
 
stinkcat_14 said:
Reagan was not as ambitious, it took him five years to acquire as much debt as all the presidents before him.
Click to expand...
How many Reagan Budgets were passed and what did they look like compared to the ones actually passed by Congress in terms of dollars spent?

We know Obama’s budgets have never received a single vote but they actually proposed more spending than the ones actually passed.
 
LisaA said:
Here’s the issue, it’s not a matter of NO regulations regarding the environment, but that many of these departments and government based regulatory agencies have gone far beyond reasonable…
Lisa
Click to expand...
Just finishing my course Environment Crime & Justice, and, yes, there probably are a few cases of overreach by the EPA (I think I know the one you are referring to), but the widespread and common practice is fairly lax enviornmental enforcement, including processing potential environnmental criminal cases (even egregious ones in which the environmental violators KNEW they were harming and putting people at risk thru their env violations) as civil cases, and those which should be civil cases as administrative actions, involving all sort of leeway and help to come into compliance.

And then there is the issue of no environmental regulations at all. Such as the case of fracking (for natural gas) contaminating drinking water, with it posing a risk of leaching into major watersheds in some cases. Things like benzene, toluene, naphthalene, formaldehyde, and some 240+ other substances, many quite harmful to the health. Plus the glycol ethers in the fracking fluids eating thru reverse osmosis membranes, rendering such water filtration useless.

It seems that Bush/Chenney’s 2005 Energy Policy Act (which was written by the fossil fuel industries) excluded regulation of fracking injection fluids by the Safe Drinking Water Act (except for diesel) – see
water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/wells_hydroreg.cfm

For those planning to vote for Romney/Ryan, if you are concerned about health impacts from enviornmental harms, I’d suggest writing to them and letting them know your concerns (which I plan to do), and asking them not to have the very industries to be regulated write in egregious loopholes for themselves at the expense of people’s health and lives – the way Bush/Chenney did.

It is good to write them now, before the election, when they are listening to voters. That’s what I did re a Republican state senator, and he turned out to be very excellent on enviornmental issues.

What we need re AGW is actually leadership more than regs and fees, since it is really up to each and every one of us to mitigate this problem (as JPII told us back in 1990, and BXVI has been reminding us). Sort of like JFK’s 50 mile hike. If they could simply go to their podiums and inspire people to do the environmentally right things (most of which also help one’s pocketbook and the economy), then that would do much more good than all the EPA rules and actions in the world. That would truly save lives, and perhaps inspire more people to be pro-life on other issues, such as abortion.
 
bellasbane said:
It has only been in the last half century that Catholics have been accepted into the mainstream of American politics.
Click to expand...
We’re seeing a reversal of it now, though, or at least repeated attempts.

This administration first went after the Lutherans claiming, like Henry VIII that the government, not the Lutheran Church had the power to decide who is a Lutheran minister and who is not. Fortunately, the government lost that one before the Supreme Court. But it tells you all the same what they are.

Then we’re seeing Obama ordering Catholic institutions and Catholic employers to provide insurance coverage for abortifacients, sterilizations and contraceptives against conscience. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will again push back against the “Catholic tax” imposed by Obama. There’s no certainty that it will, but it’s a certainty that this administration will trample on Christianity when it thinks it can get by with it.
 
SamH said:
How many Reagan Budgets were passed and what did they look like compared to the ones actually passed by Congress in terms of dollars spent?

We know Obama’s budgets have never received a single vote but they actually proposed more spending than the ones actually passed.
Click to expand...
They were both big spenders. One is just more of a profligate.
 
Obama is a good Christian that is following Christian values. Joe Biden is a good Catholic that cares about the poor and the working middle class. Mitt Romney a Mormon has shown by his actions that he cares more about money than people. Paul Ryan is a Catholic that Bishops and nuns have said does not follow Catholic policies towards the poor. He would give big tax cuts for millionaires, while raising taxes on the middle-class. He’s a Tea Party favorite who takes donations from the billionaire Koch brothers, and he introduced one of harshest and most inhumane budgets in recent history. His ideological hero for many years called selfishness a virtue and charity an abomination.
 
bellasbane said:
This thread isn’t about Catholic Joe Biden - it’s about Catholic Paul Ryan. If you want to start a rant against Catholic Joe Biden - go ahead…

In the meantime, inadequately catechized Catholics are as much a problem on the right as are on the left. Case in point, what do you mean by “any true Catholic’s full understanding of our religion’s social teaching?” Seems like you might need to review your lessons on the Sacraments of Initiation - a full understanding has never been a requirement of being a “true Catholic”. If it were, there wouldn’t be very many of us!

The United States is not a Catholic nation…
Click to expand...
:clapping: :amen:
 
Ridgerunner said:
We’re seeing a reversal of it now, though, or at least repeated attempts.

This administration first went after the Lutherans claiming, like Henry VIII that the government, not the Lutheran Church had the power to decide who is a Lutheran minister and who is not. Fortunately, the government lost that one before the Supreme Court. But it tells you all the same what they are.

Then we’re seeing Obama ordering Catholic institutions and Catholic employers to provide insurance coverage for abortifacients, sterilizations and contraceptives against conscience. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will again push back against the “Catholic tax” imposed by Obama. There’s no certainty that it will, but it’s a certainty that this administration will trample on Christianity when it thinks it can get by with it.
Click to expand...
Richard Gerson has called the HHS mandate ‘the most blatantly anti-Catholic legislation since the Blaine amendment.’

I’ve read a lot about virulentl anti-Catholicism in the 1920’s, driving by ‘Nativists’ and the KKK, but this time it’s the government leading the charge, with Obama and Sebelius in the forefront. The administration is dangerously anti-Catholic and anti-Christian.
 
bellasbane said:
Who said anything about the Democrats?
Click to expand...
Lots of people on this thread and on this forum. They are using the same “arguments” you have stated on this thread to support their contention that the Democratic Party positions are in line with Catholic social teaching. They could not be more ill-formed or more poorly catechized.
This thread isn’t about Catholic Joe Biden - it’s about Catholic Paul Ryan. If you want to start a rant against Catholic Joe Biden - go ahead. I’d love to hear what you have to say.
Click to expand...
No, but this thread is increasingly about how “un-Catholic” any non-Democratic-Party position is. And I’m here to tell you that there is zero support, either in tradiitonal Catholicism, or in modern Catholicsm, from St. Peter to Pope Benedict XVI, which equates Romney’s or Ryan’s positions with opposing Catholic social teaching as a whole, or which suggests that a vote for either is a vote against Catholic social justice.
In the meantime, inadequately catechized Catholics are as much a problem on the right as are on the left. Case in point, what do you mean by “any true Catholic’s full understanding of our religion’s social teaching?”
Click to expand...
Well, for one thing, it means the opposite of your understanding, which is frankly poor, and underdeveloped, at least as you have expressed them on this thread with regard to Catholic social teaching. I have already highlighted those poor understandings, earlier on the thread.
Seems like you might need to review your lessons on the Sacraments of Initiation - a full understanding has never been a requirement of being a “true Catholic”. If it were, there wouldn’t be very many of us!
Click to expand...
Full just means comprehensive as to essentials. It is a moral requirement of every Catholic beyond Confirmation to become fully acquainted with the essentials of Catholic moral teaching (including how those precepts and principles apply to contemporary political issues); those are insufficiently presented within RCIA programs, and they most certainly do not correspond with your telescoped and partial view of the Church’s social doctrine.
The United States is not a Catholic nation. It is a liberal democracy founded by a group of Protestant men who believed in individual political and economic rights. These are not traditional Catholic values and the men who founded this nation did not like Catholics. It has only been in the last half century that Catholics have been accepted into the mainstream of American politics. Remember all the trouble Kennedy had when he ran for office?
Click to expand...
Another example in which you fail to understand your faith. Catholics have a grave duty, according to every Pope from Peter to BXVI, to apply their own full understanding of Catholic priorities to their voting decisions. It has nothing to do with selling out to a “non-Catholic nation” or to the original deist founders. Our grave moral obligation as Catholics is to witness to our faith in every realm, including the civic/political realm. This is just one of the many examples of your failure to understand your faith.
 
soma said:
Obama is a good Christian that is following Christian values. Joe Biden is a good Catholic that cares about the poor and the working middle class. Mitt Romney a Mormon has shown by his actions that he cares more about money than people. Paul Ryan is a Catholic that Bishops and nuns have said does not follow Catholic policies towards the poor. He would give big tax cuts for millionaires, while raising taxes on the middle-class. He’s a Tea Party favorite who takes donations from the billionaire Koch brothers, and he introduced one of harshest and most inhumane budgets in recent history. His ideological hero for many years called selfishness a virtue and charity an abomination.
Click to expand...
So supporting homosexual marriage and unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand constitutes a good christian???

As far as the alleged criticism of the Ryan Budget heres what the Bishops said in June:

*There have been some concerns raised by lay Catholics, especially some Catholic economists, about what was perceived as a partisan action against Congressman Ryan and the budget he had proposed,” Bishop Boyea said in reference to the USCCB committee’s opposition to the House budget plan. “We need to be articulate only in principles, and let the laity make these applications … It was perceived as partisan, and thus didn’t really further dialogue in our deeply divided country.”
Code: 
“I’m not sure that we have the humility yet not to stray into areas where we lack competence, and where we need to let the laity take the lead,” he added. “We need to learn far more than we need to teach in this area. We need to listen more than we need to speak. We already have an excellent, fine Compendium [on the Social Doctrine of the Church].”
...
Echoing Bishop Boyea’s comments, Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City said that the committee is “at times perceived as partisan” and needs to consider the principle of subsidiarity, which has been “neglected in past documents.”** Archbishop Naumann added that solutions that place emphasis in enrolling people in government programs have been “tried for decades” and failed.**
“We need to talk about the debt and the real seriousness of that debt,” he continued. “Sometimes we’re perceived as just encouraging the government to spend more money with no realistic way of how we’re going to afford to do this.”
Read more: ncregister.com/blog/pat-archbold/the-bishops-were-wrong-on-the-ryan-budget/#ixzz23eBjytY5*
 
Paul Ryan is anit-Catholic because he’d kill Medicare. He’d replace Medicare with vouchers for retirees to purchase insurance, eliminating the guarantee of health care for seniors and putting them at the mercy of the private insurance industry. That could amount to a cost increase of more than $5,900 by 2050, leaving many seniors broke or without the health care they need. He’d also raise the age of eligibility to 67. Catholics want to help the poor. Obama is assisting the middle class, the working class and the poor so he is following Jesus and his teachings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top