Pope’s climate views press Catholic candidates

[stinkcat_14]

Explain how instituting a massive cap-and-trade carbon system with huge taxes and regulations, with even more bureaucracy is not moving our system more towards a socialistic system?

How is it more socialistic than our housing market? Housing prices are billions of dollars more expensive because of zoning regulations, building codes, occupational licensing restrictions, etc. Then you add to it our preferential tax treatment of housing, where we exempt net imputed rent from taxation, eliminate most capital gains taxes and allow mortgage interest to be deducted, etc. And of course, the socialism in the housing market adds all costs and conveys no benefit.

The point is, one can argue that there is a market failure when it comes to environmental issues. One can debate the nature and extent of the market failure, but nobody claims it is nonexistent. There is no market failure when it comes to the housing market.

Socialists have become more adept over the years. When it first arose, violent upheaval was their modus operandi. But this was met with strong resistance from the free world. So they modified their tactics and are employing the long game. Quietly, slowly, brick by brick, they institute more govt programs, regulations, agencies, departments. More and more authority is centralized and consolidated. But rarely with honestly saying what they are doing. They take what they can get, and then shortly thereafter fight for just a little more.

And slowly but surely, the elephant is eaten, one bite at a time.

I don’t disagree, even Reagan had socialistic tendencies, since he expanded a socialistic program. Nobody who truly believes in markets would do that.

 

[ishii]

Nothing. That’s not what I meant (at least nothing that the founding fathers meant the Constitution to mean).

But today, radical judges are changing the meaning of the freedoms granted by the Constitution. I.e gay marriage and “freedom from religion.”

I stand by the Church before any of these evil interpretations of the constitution.

Okay - but just for the record, what you are saying now is a bit different from earlier. Before you seemed to imply that the constitution was against the Church somehow. Now you’re saying its the incorrect interpretation of the constitution, not the constitution itself. I believe Rick Santorum would agree with you wholeheartedly.

Ishii

 

[stinkcat_14]

The world view was fairly different during the Enlightenment. They didn’t have an ecological understanding of the environment or a sense of human ecology (the interconnectedness among humans), as we (at least some of us) have today. Nevertheless a philosophy prof told me that classical (Adam Smith) economics had some inclusion of the environment, while neoclassical economics of today doesn’t take it into account nearly as much as classical econ did.

And many who still live in the (anti-Catholic) Enlightenment, also don’t reckon the environment as important, but see it as wild (read “useless”) species in wild and useless places. They don’t consider it is the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat, the materials we use to construct our buildings and make our products, the chemicals that permeate our bodies, the climate in which we grow our food. They don’t understand that healthy biological-ecological systems are fundamental to life, while the economy is merely contingent and instrumental. We could live without grocery stores (as difficult at it may be), but we cannot live without food, water, air, and a climate hospitable to human life and our food production.

Luckily the pope has education in science rather than economics.

My husband figured the appropriate question for this thread would be, “What education does Santorum have?” Obviously not a very good one! He should resign and let better qualified people take his place as a policy-maker. He seems out to ruin the world, or something…I’m sure unwittingly.

I think part of the problem is that Smith was writing in the early part of the industrial revolution, so pollution was probably not that big of an issue at the time. Also, the demand for environmental quality tends to go up with income. For example, my town would never allow a steel mill within its borders, mainly because we don’t want the pollution and we don’t need the jobs. On the other hand, poorer areas are much more likely to tradeoff some pollution for jobs.

 

[Crossbones]

I don’t know where you ever got that idea. The Church does not tell us who we have to support. It tells us who we can’t

The end result is the same.

Which means that the Pope is wasting his time with this Encyclical in the US at least.

 

[stinkcat_14]

The end result is the same.

Which means that the Pope is wasting his time with this Encyclical in the US at least.

Never underestimate the ability of people to rationalize things that make no sense, such as whether it is perfectly moral to vote for a pro-abortion politician or that social security does not violate subsidiarity.

 

[Crossbones]

Never underestimate the ability of people to rationalize things that make no sense, such as whether it is perfectly moral to vote for a pro-abortion politician or that social security does not violate subsidiarity.

Or call an unjust war just. Or say that torture isn’t torture.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Or call an unjust war just. Or say that torture isn’t torture.

True.

 

[zz912]

How is it more socialistic than our housing market? Housing prices are billions of dollars more expensive because of zoning regulations, building codes, occupational licensing restrictions, etc. Then you add to it our preferential tax treatment of housing, where we exempt net imputed rent from taxation, eliminate most capital gains taxes and allow mortgage interest to be deducted, etc. And of course, the socialism in the housing market adds all costs and conveys no benefit.

There is a lot of socialism in our housing market, and the places where housing is the biggest issue and most expensive is in those areas where is it most socialized.

Net imputed rent is one of the biggest socialist ideas in a long while. I have no idea why you’re claiming exemption of it is evidence of socialism.

But why are you bringing up a deflection tactic to respond to my point? You are creating a strawman by bringing up the housing market to my point about creeping socialism. Are you unable to respond to what I actually said?

The point is, one can argue that there is a market failure when it comes to environmental issues. One can debate the nature and extent of the market failure, but nobody claims it is nonexistent. There is no market failure when it comes to the housing market.

Sure you can argue the notion of a market failure on environmental issues. The environment has gotten much better, especially in those areas where capitalism is or once thrived. In socialist countries, the environment has suffered tremendously. Our pollution levels, especially in the US, are way down.

And the 2000’s certainly showed serious market failure in the housing market. The socialist policies that created the housing bubble showed that in spades.

I don’t disagree, even Reagan had socialistic tendencies, since he expanded a socialistic program. Nobody who truly believes in markets would do that.

You must think I’m interested in your pedantic games or believe I’ll go down the distraction/deflection rabbit hole you wish the conversation to go down.

 

[lynnvinc]

Explain how instituting a massive cap-and-trade carbon system with huge taxes and regulations…

We need to start by turning off lights not in use, etc. It doesn’t necessarily follow that increasing the price of fossil fuels will lead to people reducing their consumption of these, esp in a rich & profligate country like ours.

Another thing is science should determine policy, rather than policy determining science. We have a problem, failure to solve it is not an option…even tho there could be many different policy options. There is more than one way to accomplish things. I’ve never been in favor of cap & trade, mainly bec it won’t work well enough or be fair to the poor.

However, if people just absolutely refuse to turn off lights not in use and the 100s of other things we could choose from without instituting regulations, I would favor a “fee & dividend” approach, in which all fees collected for each ton of coal and barrel of oil that comes out of the ground or into a US port be divvied up and given to all Americans (the way they gave back taxes some 10 or so years ago); they could then use that money to pay for their higher energy bills OR invest in energy/resource efficiency/conservation and/or go on alt energy when feasible and really be on the road to prosperity!

Or, just end all subsidies for coal, oil, and gas & use some of those funds to increase subsidies for alt energy, EVs, and other things that would help mitigate AGW.

 

[zz912]

The end result is the same.

Which means that the Pope is wasting his time with this Encyclical in the US at least.

Not at all. Democrat Catholics who wish to remain faithful Christians can vote for another acceptable party/politician besides the GOP. And if enough did so, either the DNC would have to change its anti-Christian policies, or the third party would grow very quickly in strength.

 

[stinkcat_14]

There is a lot of socialism in our housing market, and the places where housing is the biggest issue and most expensive is in those areas where is it most socialized.

I agree, mainly in the suburbs where chocking regulation drives up housing prices and keeps out the poor. Also, housing prices are driven up artificially by tax policies that bias people towards investing in housing rather than productive assets.

Net imputed rent is one of the biggest socialist ideas in a long while. I have no idea why you’re claiming exemption of it is evidence of socialism.

How is net imputed rent socialism? Do you deny the existence of imputed rent?

But why are you bringing up a deflection tactic to respond to my point? You are creating a strawman by bringing up the housing market to my point about creeping socialism. Are you unable to respond to what I actually said?

The point is, that as you readily acknowledge, our tax policies and excessive regulation have caused socialism in our housing market. We can easily bring housing back to the free market and nobody would be harmed. We can save government intervention where there might actually be a market failure. There is no market failure in housing.

Sure you can argue the notion of a market failure on environmental issues. The environment has gotten much better, especially in those areas where capitalism is or once thrived. In socialist countries, the environment has suffered tremendously. Our pollution levels, especially in the US, are way down.

So the question is, did capitalism itself eliminate the environmental issues, or is the increased wealth that caused people to push for policies (aka socialism) that dealt with the externalities? Can you point me to a free market economy that solved the environmental problem without government intervention?

And the 2000’s certainly showed serious market failure in the housing market. The socialist policies that created the housing bubble showed that in spades.

I agree, zoning laws increased housing prices, mortgage interest deduction increased borrowing, the lack of taxation on imputed rent increased housing consumption. It is all socialism, in this aspect we agree.

You must think I’m interested in your pedantic games or believe I’ll go down the distraction/deflection rabbit hole you wish the conversation to go down.

You can’t dispute that Reagan took a socialist program and made it more socialist.

 

[zz912]

We need to start by turning off lights not in use, etc. It doesn’t necessarily follow that increasing the price of fossil fuels will lead to people reducing their consumption of these, esp in a rich & profligate country like ours.

Funny, but you were snidely commenting about those who have knowledge/education in economics just a few posts ago. No you make a statement like this, wow. This is a bedrock law of economics. If you raise a price of something, demand for that product will go down.

Perhaps you shouldn’t be so rude/condescending to others next time.

Another thing is science should determine policy, rather than policy determining science. We have a problem, failure to solve it is not an option…even tho there could be many different policy options. There is more than one way to accomplish things. I’ve never been in favor of cap & trade, mainly bec it won’t work well enough or be fair to the poor.

The scientists have become political. And the socialists have recognized there are many people who cower in deference to people with the title of “scientist” and don’t question them. So they use the claim that “scientists” say such-and-such, and expect everyone to follow like sheep. None of their predictions have come true. And Al Gore still owns beachfront property. So you’ll excuse me if I don’t bow down and give blind deference to these “scientists”. They aren’t given the gift of infallibility.

However, if people just absolutely refuse to turn off lights not in use and the 100s of other things we could choose from without instituting regulations, I would favor a “fee & dividend” approach, in which all fees collected for each ton of coal and barrel of oil that comes out of the ground or into a US port be divvied up and given to all Americans (the way they gave back taxes some 10 or so years ago); they could then use that money to pay for their higher energy bills OR invest in energy/resource efficiency/conservation and/or go on alt energy when feasible and really be on the road to prosperity!

So you’ll tax the energy companies, funnel the taxes through massive bureaucracy, then send out pennies on the dollar to the people, and claim you’ve helped them?

BTW, you didn’t answer my question about your personal sin. Since you are posting from a personal computer/smartphone and using more technology than you need “to live a good and decent life”, are you sinning?

Or, just end all subsidies for coal, oil, and gas & use some of those funds to increase subsidies for alt energy, EVs, and other things that would help mitigate AGW.

And then you make a comment like this…

You DO realize the vast majority of the “subsidies” for energy companies is simply expense deductions for massive investments they have to make in equipment and other capital-intensive areas, right? They are allowed to expense those things faster than straight-line depreciation. they aren’t receiving taxpayer money.

 

[Crossbones]

Not at all. Democrat Catholics who wish to remain faithful Christians can vote for another acceptable party/politician besides the GOP. And if enough did so, either the DNC would have to change its anti-Christian policies, or the third party would grow very quickly in strength.

Of course, the same could be said of Republican Catholics, who continue to vote for the party of torture and unjust wars, but somehow they can justify their votes.

 

[zz912]

How is net imputed rent socialism? Do you deny the existence of imputed rent?

Yes, I reject the entire idea of imputed rent. It is an evil, malevolent and pernicious idea dreamed up by socialists wishing to control and steal more wealth from individuals. It is the false idea that a homeowner who is living in their own home they purchased years ago, is receiving a benefit of “income” because the value of their house or the rents they could charge have risen above what they are paying for their mortgage (if they have one still).

It attacks the very foundational belief in private property and individual rights. It demands ongoing, increasing taxation on a home you purchased years ago simply because others are willing to pay more now today than in prior years. It punishes those who live more frugally, who are stable and create stable communities. It encourages constant movement, constant building, and constant unneeded & unnecessary upgrading.

If you want to charge more in property taxes, then actually state that and work towards it. But don’t try this socialist attempt to steal more tax money from those who have lived in their homes for a long time.

 

[zz912]

Of course, the same could be said of Republican Catholics, who continue to vote for the party of torture and unjust wars, but somehow they can justify their votes.

The GOP is opposed to torture and unjust wars, despite your false claims to the contrary. There is nothing in the GOP platform that is contrary to the Faith.

So no, the same cannot be said of Republican Catholics. You’ll just have to accept the fact that a Catholic cannot in good conscience vote for a Democrat today.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Santorum is right.

Pope Francis will hurt the poor with this move to promote the global warming hysteria.

Here’s a great article about how environmentalism harms the poor. Food for thought:

crisismagazine.com/2013/how-environmentalism-harms-the-poor

 

[pnewton]

The GOP is opposed to torture and unjust wars, despite your false claims to the contrary. There is nothing in the GOP platform that is contrary to the Faith.

So no, the same cannot be said of Republican Catholics. You’ll just have to accept the fact that a Catholic cannot in good conscience vote for a Democrat today.

The thing about conscience though, is that the only one that matters is one’s own. There are, as a matter of fact, Catholics who have voted for a Democrat today with a good, clear conscience. I know a handful of situations personally.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Yes, I reject the entire idea of imputed rent. It is an evil, malevolent and pernicious idea dreamed up by socialists wishing to control and steal more wealth from individuals. It is the false idea that a homeowner who is living in their own home they purchased years ago, is receiving a benefit of “income” because the value of their house or the rents they could charge have risen above what they are paying for their mortgage (if they have one still).

It attacks the very foundational belief in private property and individual rights. It demands ongoing, increasing taxation on a home you purchased years ago simply because others are willing to pay more now today than in prior years. It punishes those who live more frugally, who are stable and create stable communities. It encourages constant movement, constant building, and constant unneeded & unnecessary upgrading.

If you want to charge more in property taxes, then actually state that and work towards it. But don’t try this socialist attempt to steal more tax money from those who have lived in their homes for a long time.

Amen!

 

[Crossbones]

The GOP is opposed to torture and unjust wars, despite your false claims to the contrary. There is nothing in the GOP platform that is contrary to the Faith.

So no, the same cannot be said of Republican Catholics. You’ll just have to accept the fact that a Catholic cannot in good conscience vote for a Democrat today.

Ah, the hide behind the platform defense. Never mind what goes on in practice and never mind that most Catholic Republicans are more than willing to redefine torture and unjust wars to serve their needs.

 

[zz912]

The thing about conscience though, is that the only one that matters is one’s own. There are, as a matter of fact, Catholics who have voted for a Democrat today with a good, clear conscience. I know a handful of situations personally.

No, a person can’t vote with a good conscience and vote for a person belonging to and supporting the virulently pro-abortion party.

At best, a person who does has a malformed conscience.