Pope’s climate views press Catholic candidates

[bobcrawford]

If it is settled, then why isn’t the earth warming for the last two decades? In fact the most up to date measuring stations show a general cooling over that period.

And it doesn’t matter how many people believe the scientific consensus, it is still a question of science, and that is not the purview of declaring something infallible.

And I predict this encyclical will be used by Protestants 50-100 years from now to argue against the infallibility of the Pope after this hoax has been definitively disproven. And Catholics at that time will have their work cut out for them explaining how those portions of the encyclical were never infallible teachings.

That is very true. History once showed that scientific consensus once held that the Earth was flat, that the Sun revolved around the Earth, and that the Earth was only about 10,000 years old.

So much for scientific consensus being correct just because it is a consensus.

Not to mention, more and more scientists are beginning to just off the global warming/climate change bandwagon, especially those able to develop an intelligent opinion of research not encumbered with the bias of government money.

 

[bobcrawford]

Is not believing in AGW a Venial sin and or mortal sin?

It is not a sin at all because not believing a lie is never a sin.

 

[zz912]

I would argue that their views are more fascist, as in believing in government control of the means of production while still allowing private ownership.

Fascism is just another flavor of the socialist view.

 

[bobcrawford]

Yet, Canada has a similar program and the Church has not condemned it. The UK has a similar program and the Church has not condemned it. The Church has never ruled that national health insurance programs violate subsidiarity, that is still an open question. Reasonable people can debate whether health insurance should be provided by the federal government, state government or the private sector.

The thing I find amusing is that the people on these forums who scream the most about welfare programs violating subsidiarity tend to get very silent when the question of social security and medicare violating subsidiarity is raised.

First, let’s be clear on the difference. Those of us who work and produce PAY into Social Security and Medicare. It is truly an entitlement because those who paid into it are entitled to receive from it. It is no different that me paying into a 401K program. I am entitled to that which I funded.

The difference between Social Security and Medicare from the current healthcare mess is that those receiving the benefits did not pay to receive those benefits. Those of us who work and produce are paying for our healthcare, plus the healthcare of others.

Thus why we scream about the unfairness of Obama’s healthcare disaster and remain silent on Social Security and Medicare.

Now you understand.

 

[stinkcat_14]

The socialists of today have learned from their past mistakes. They failed when they tried to implement socialism through revolution in the West. Instead they have changed tactics, and now push it through creeping incrementalism. Little by little, through regulation, govt control, govt spending, taxation and other means, they are bringing all of society under the control of govt.

The problem is we keep elected republicans and democrats who keep pushing us closer to socialism. If more taxes, more regulations and more government spending is socialism, which I realize is very debatable, then the question is why do 99% of voters persist in voting for socialists?

Now if their final end result is communism, fascism, or some other form of socialism, the end result is still socialism in some form, which is oppressive govt control and size over most/all of life.

We don’t really know what the end result is, because the only really socialist countries that exist are Cuba and North Korea and both of those countries did not creep towards socialism.

 

[ishii]

The socialists of today have learned from their past mistakes. They failed when they tried to implement socialism through revolution in the West. Instead they have changed tactics, and now push it through creeping incrementalism. Little by little, through regulation, govt control, govt spending, taxation and other means, they are bringing all of society under the control of govt.

Now if their final end result is communism, fascism, or some other form of socialism, the end result is still socialism in some form, which is oppressive govt control and size over most/all of life.

This is an excellent point, zz912. So many people on this form deny the reality of the left. They will say, “the left is not anti-Catholic, nobody is in jail yet.” Of course what they don’t recognize is the fact that the left cannot fully implement their goals all at once - if they did the country would wake up and throw them out of office. Instead they implement their programs piecemeal, incrementally, one tragedy at a time. (be it a (perceived) healthcare tragedy “millions without health care!” , a gun tragedy, “racial” incident, etc.). Similarly, some here don’t admit that the left in this country are socialists: they will say, “they haven’t proposed 100% government control of the means of production, therefore they are not socialist.”

I think some are in denial, some are genuinely ignorant, and others are simply disingenuous - preferring to stoke the fires of disagreement and discord and watch the sparks fly and/or keep the debate going based on false premises and confusion.

Hopefully this doesn’t describe anyone on these forums. (?)

Ishii

 

[zz912]

Yet, Canada has a similar program and the Church has not condemned it. The UK has a similar program and the Church has not condemned it. The Church has never ruled that national health insurance programs violate subsidiarity, that is still an open question. Reasonable people can debate whether health insurance should be provided by the federal government, state government or the private sector.

The thing I find amusing is that the people on these forums who scream the most about welfare programs violating subsidiarity tend to get very silent when the question of social security and medicare violating subsidiarity is raised.

There are a lot of things out in the world that the Church hasn’t gotten around to condemning yet, and may never condemn. Because to do so would take a lot of time and effort, and the Church has other work to do. That is why there are overarching principles that can be applied to understand a situation.

The principle of subsidiarity is that go to the lowest possible level. Clearly each of the 50 states in these United States is a sovereign state. They have fully functioning govts and the ability to implement programs. There is absolutely no justification for promoting a national health care system for the entirety of these United States, when each state is capable of handling the issue themselves.

And I agree with your opinion about SS and Medicare, in that they are horrible and socialistic. I would favor ending them. But I would also favor efforts to limit their damage and modify them if there is insufficient political will to end them. Some on here view it this way as well. You denigrate those who believe in supporting the possible right now even if it is not perfect.

 

[stinkcat_14]

First, let’s be clear on the difference. Those of us who work and produce PAY into Social Security and Medicare. It is truly an entitlement because those who paid into it are entitled to receive from it.

Let me explain something to you. You do not “pay in” to social security in the sense that you pay into a 401k. When you contribute to a 401k, you have money that belongs to you, the government cannot confiscate it. For social security, you pay taxes, and those taxes go from people who work to those who don’t work. You have no enduring right to social security, the government could eliminate SS tomorrow and you would have no standing to sue the government because congress can change it just like it can change any other welfare program. Also, while we pay medicare payroll taxes, that only covers part A, parts B and D are subsidized heavily from general tax revenues which makes them pure welfare programs. Welfare programs that transfer money to people who neither need nor deserve it.

It is no different that me paying into a 401K program. I am entitled to that which I funded.

It is totally different, as I explained above. It is a welfare program plain and simple.

The difference between Social Security and Medicare from the current healthcare mess is that those receiving the benefits did not pay to receive those benefits. Those of us who work and produce are paying for our healthcare, plus the healthcare of others.

Medicare and Social Security takes from those who work and give to those who don’t work. The problem with these programs is that they reward laziness. It is one thing if you are disabled and cannot work, but if you can play golf, you are healthy enough to get off the dole.

Thus why we scream about the unfairness of Obama’s healthcare disaster and remain silent on Social Security and Medicare.

Now you understand.

I understand that you really don’t understand SS and Medicare.

 

[zz912]

And if the CCC gets a revision to include climate change, then all Catholics have to follow what that says, correct?

You have a flawed premise. There couldn’t be an addition of the teaching of climate change, since the deposit of faith has been received, and there will be no further public revelation until the Second Coming of Jesus.

 

[stinkcat_14]

This is an excellent point, zz912. So many people on this form deny the reality of the left. They will say, “the left is not anti-Catholic, nobody is in jail yet.” Of course what they don’t recognize is the fact that the left cannot fully implement their goals all at once - if they did the country would wake up and throw them out of office. Instead they implement their programs piecemeal, incrementally, one tragedy at a time. (be it a (perceived) healthcare tragedy “millions without health care!” , a gun tragedy, “racial” incident, etc.). Similarly, some here don’t admit that the left in this country are socialists: they will say, “they haven’t proposed 100% government control of the means of production, therefore they are not socialist.”

I think some are in denial, some are genuinely ignorant, and others are simply disingenuous - preferring to stoke the fires of disagreement and discord and watch the sparks fly and/or keep the debate going based on false premises and confusion.

Hopefully this doesn’t describe anyone on these forums. (?)

Ishii

The left includes both republicans and democrats, no matter how hard you try to spin it, the republican party is for the most part a liberal party. They believe in big government, they believe in welfare. They may claim otherwise, but if you watch their behavior it is very clear that they are not a conservative party.

 

[SonOfMan]

You have a flawed premise. There couldn’t be an addition of the teaching of climate change, since the deposit of faith has been received, and there will be no further public revelation until the Second Coming of Jesus.

Im talking about the CCC, which has been revised and updated many times already.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Im talking about the CCC, which has been revised and updated many times already.

While the deposit of faith doesn’t change, our understanding of it may change over time. The one good thing about this encyclical is that it does talk about the theology of creation and our responsibility to it. Two hundred years ago problems such as pollution were more localized and less significant, so we quite naturally did not spend as much time thinking about the environment and our moral obligation to be good stewards of the earth.

 

[SonOfMan]

I understand that you really don’t understand SS and Medicare.

Heh, I have a friend who criticsized my retirement plan that I have through my government job. Like bobcrawford said, I pay into this (Im not talking about being taxed) and have been since the day I got hired. That money generates interest in the meantime that goes to programs that benefit the public. So when I retire, you better believe I am entitled to an enduring right of 99% of my paycheck.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Heh, I have a friend who criticsized my retirement plan that I have through my government job. Like bobcrawford said, I pay into this (Im not talking about being taxed) and have been since the day I got hired. That money generates interest in the meantime that goes to programs that benefit the public. So when I retire, you better believe I am entitled to an enduring right of 99% of my paycheck.

A government pension is totally different than social security. I would say you have a right to your government pension. Depending on where you live, it might be overly generous, but that is a political issue. Some government pensions by the way are not as generous.

 

[estesbob]

First, let’s be clear on the difference. Those of us who work and produce PAY into Social Security and Medicare. It is truly an entitlement because those who paid into it are entitled to receive from it. It is no different that me paying into a 401K program. I am entitled to that which I funded.

The difference between Social Security and Medicare from the current healthcare mess is that those receiving the benefits did not pay to receive those benefits. Those of us who work and produce are paying for our healthcare, plus the healthcare of others.

Thus why we scream about the unfairness of Obama’s healthcare disaster and remain silent on Social Security and Medicare.

Now you understand.

Down the Rabbit Hole you go…

 

[stinkcat_14]

Down the Rabbit Hole you go…

Says the guy who brings up the issue of subsidiarity for all welfare programs except SS. A rabbit hole means an inconsistency you cannot explain.

 

[bobcrawford]

Let me explain something to you. You do not “pay in” to social security in the sense that you pay into a 401k. When you contribute to a 401k, you have money that belongs to you, the government cannot confiscate it. For social security, you pay taxes, and those taxes go from people who work to those who don’t work. You have no enduring right to social security, the government could eliminate SS tomorrow and you would have no standing to sue the government because congress can change it just like it can change any other welfare program. Also, while we pay medicare payroll taxes, that only covers part A, parts B and D are subsidized heavily from general tax revenues which makes them pure welfare programs. Welfare programs that transfer money to people who neither need nor deserve it.

It is totally different, as I explained above. It is a welfare program plain and simple.

Medicare and Social Security takes from those who work and give to those who don’t work. The problem with these programs is that they reward laziness. It is one thing if you are disabled and cannot work, but if you can play golf, you are healthy enough to get off the dole.

I understand that you really don’t understand SS and Medicare.

The reality is that every dollar the government takes from you is a tax. When you pay into Social Security you are ENTITLED to the benefit because YOU FUNDED it. Same applies to Medicare. Hence why the government send you on a periodic basis how much money you have contributed annually to those programs. If you never work and never pay into Social Security, in general, you are not entitled to any benefits with some exceptions. I truly understand those programs.

SS and Medicare, like Obama’s disastrous healthcare plan, is a tax. The difference is that Obamacare is a welfare program. Not everyone who pays the Obamacare tax is entitled to benefit from it like SS and Medicare. Therefore Obamacare is not an entitlement, it is a welfare program because is can provide benefit to those who do not pay into it. Obamacare has NOT produced 100% coverage as promised as there are still as many uninsured today as there was at the beginning of Obama’s term. Cincinnati Magazine in reporting about Cincinnati city neighborhood even published the percentage of uninsured in those communities. So much for 100% coverage.

A 401K is yours as long as the government deems it is yours. This government has shown it can do whatever it wants outside the rule of law. So it is yours until the government decides you should not have it and takes it. Obama did indeed make statements that he thought 401K programs were unfair because not everyone could put money into one. So clearly, when the Socialist Progressives decide they want that money also, they just call it a tax and take it.

Sorry my friend, it is you who does not understand the programs, what is an entitlement, what is welfare and the power this government has to take what you have.

 

[stinkcat_14]

The reality is that every dollar the government takes from you is a tax. When you pay into Social Security you are ENTITLED to the benefit because YOU FUNDED it.

So, if the government stopped Social Security tomorrow (through an act of Congress) would you be able to successfully sue to get benefits? The answer is no. You are no more entitled to Social Security benefits than TANF recipients are entitled to their benefits. Or food stamp recipients are entitled to their benefits. Your entitlement comes solely from the fact that Congress deems you qualified to receive benefits. Nothing else…

Same applies to Medicare. Hence why the government send you on a periodic basis how much money you have contributed annually to those programs. If you never work and never pay into Social Security, in general, you are not entitled to any benefits with some exceptions. I truly understand those programs.

So, the question is, can Congress stopped all benefits tomorrow without legal repercussion? The answer is yes. And because the answer is yes, it is a welfare program like any other such as TANF or food stamps or whatever. If you owned the money you put into SS then if the program was eliminated, you could sue under the 5th amendment to constitution because the government cannot take your property without compensation. But social security is not your property, it is welfare, plain and simple.

SS and Medicare, like Obama’s disastrous healthcare plan, is a tax. The difference is that Obamacare is a welfare program. Not everyone who pays the Obamacare tax is entitled to benefit from it like SS and Medicare. Therefore Obamacare is not an entitlement, it is a welfare program because is can provide benefit to those who do not pay into it. Obamacare has NOT produced 100% coverage as promised as there are still as many uninsured today as there was at the beginning of Obama’s term. Cincinnati Magazine in reporting about Cincinnati city neighborhood even published the percentage of uninsured in those communities. So much for 100% coverage.

Obamacare and medicare are government run health insurance programs.

A 401K is yours as long as the government deems it is yours. This government has shown it can do whatever it wants outside the rule of law. So it is yours until the government decides you should not have it and takes it. Obama did indeed make statements that he thought 401K programs were unfair because not everyone could put money into one. So clearly, when the Socialist Progressives decide they want that money also, they just call it a tax and take it.

There is the 5th amendment to the constitution that would keep the government from confiscating your property without compensation. You have no such rights with Medicare and Social Security because they are not property, they are welfare programs.

Sorry my friend, it is you who does not understand the programs, what is an entitlement, what is welfare and the power this government has to take what you have.

I understand the programs quite well my friend. It is you my friend who is the one who is mistaken. But I always relish the chance to teach people new things.

 

[Tomdstone]

And I agree with your opinion about SS and Medicare, in that they are horrible and socialistic.

I think that SS is a wonderful program. It kicks in automatically providing benefits to a widow and her family in a case where the widow has unexpectedly lost the breadwinning husband.

 

[ZellieFan]

I can’t believe Santorum has decided to take this position.

He’s an idiot and won’t make it far in the campaign. I’m still waiting for a viable conservative candidate.