Pro-life Catholic Who Attends Latin Mass Appointed As New UK House of Commons Leader

  • Thread starter Thread starter yankeesouth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LeafByNiggle said:
His effect on the poor based on his personal giving, whatever it is, will pale in comparison to the effect of his public policies.
Click to expand...
No. His public policies are irrelevant, because if he voted to confiscate tax dollars for redistribution, it equally hurts those who it is taken from, as well as the fabric of the culture.
We have seen that here in the US.
 
JonNC said:
confiscate tax dollars for redistribution
Click to expand...
Just to be clear, taxed, borrowed, and printed money is all “redistributed,” whether for farmers, for corporate buybacks, or for low-income subsidies. But you know that.
 
JonNC said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
His effect on the poor based on his personal giving, whatever it is, will pale in comparison to the effect of his public policies.
Click to expand...
No. His public policies are irrelevant, because if he voted to confiscate tax dollars for redistribution, it equally hurts those who it is taken from, as well as the fabric of the culture.
We have seen that here in the US.
Click to expand...
This is a strictly ideological position with no data to support it. It is nonsense to think that giving help to those most in need somehow hurts them. I suppose one can imagine that making them suffer builds character and in that sense alleviating suffering deprives them of that opportunity to build character. But if that is your reasoning, why not come out and admit it, instead of alluding to non-existent statistical support that says that the more money you give to poor people the poorer they become.
 
JonNC said:
40.png
PickyPicky:
Well, of course, unless the tax-collector has a poor sense of what’s right and proper all receipts from taxation are given to someone else.
Click to expand...
Patently false. It is the difference between the general welfare and individual welfare. The general welfare, defined constitutionally, us the role of government: courts, defense, foreign affairs. Individual welfare, transfer payments, for individuals in need, is not a governmental role, at least not at the general government level.
The two are rather distinct.
Click to expand...
This isn’t Catholic teaching. From Rerum Novarum ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII ON CAPITAL AND LABOR 1891

It cannot, however, be doubted that to attain the purpose we are treating of, not only the Church, but all human agencies, must concur. All who are concerned in the matter should be of one mind and according to their ability act together. It is with this, as with providence that governs the world; the results of causes do not usually take place save where all the causes cooperate. It is sufficient, therefore, to inquire what part the State should play in the work of remedy and relief.

32. By the State we here understand, not the particular form of government prevailing in this or that nation, but the State as rightly apprehended; that is to say, any government conformable in its institutions to right reason and natural law, and to those dictates of the divine wisdom which we have expounded in the encyclical On the Christian Constitution of the State .(26) The foremost duty, therefore, of the rulers of the State should be to make sure that the laws and institutions, the general character and administration of the commonwealth, shall be such as of themselves to realize public well-being and private prosperity. This is the proper scope of wise statesmanship and is the work of the rulers. Now a State chiefly prospers and thrives through moral rule, well-regulated family life, respect for religion and justice, the moderation and fair imposing of public taxes, the progress of the arts and of trade, the abundant yield of the land-through everything, in fact, which makes the citizens better and happier. Hereby, then, it lies in the power of a ruler to benefit every class in the State, and amongst the rest to promote to the utmost the interests of the poor; and this in virtue of his office, and without being open to suspicion of undue interference - since it is the province of the commonwealth to serve the common good. And the more that is done for the benefit of the working classes by the general laws of the country, the less need will there be to seek for special means to relieve them.
 
Last edited:
ProVobis said:
40.png
JonNC:
confiscate tax dollars for redistribution
Click to expand...
Just to be clear, taxed, borrowed, and printed money is all “redistributed,” whether for farmers, for corporate buybacks, or for low-income subsidies. But you know that.
Click to expand...
Then confiscated for redistribution. We currently have a total national debt f over $120 trillion. We wouldn’t have it if the general government had honored the enumerated powers. That calls into question all of the things you mentioned.
 
The entire point of the Constitution was to allow Congress to borrow money without having to seek state approval.
 
Here, in the US, government is is subject to the constitution.
Be that as it may:
Emeraldlady said:
The foremost duty, therefore, of the rulers of the State should be to make sure that the laws and institutions, the general character and administration of the commonwealth, shall be such as of themselves to realize public well-being and private prosperity.
Click to expand...
Absolutely agree.
Emeraldlady said:
Now a State chiefly prospers and thrives through moral rule, well-regulated family life, respect for religion and justice, the moderation and fair imposing of public taxes, the progress of the arts and of trade, the abundant yield of the land-through everything, in fact, which makes the citizens better and happier.
Click to expand...
Again, agreed. In fact, in the US, the welfare state had damaged, perhaps irreparably, moral rule, family life, respect for religion.
Emeraldlady said:
since it is the province of the commonwealth to serve the common good.
Click to expand...
Clearly, the Great society has failed to serve the common good.
 
I believe my point was to debunk your statement about enumerated powers. Congress is explicitly empowered to borrow money.
 
niceatheist said:
I believe my point was to debunk your statement about enumerated powers. Congress is explicitly empowered to borrow money.
Click to expand...
Has nothing to do with enumerated powers. Yes, Congress can borrow money. They’ve done so with reckless abandon for decades. They “borrowed” the Social Security trust fund.
The power to borrow is not the power to spend on extra constitutional programs.
 
Congress also has the right to tax. Just like the framers intended
 
Emeraldlady said:
and amongst the rest to promote to the utmost the interests of the poor
Click to expand...
That sounds like an instruction to the head of state to exhort the populace to care for the needy, not to assume the task in their stead.

I wonder why your interlocutor would post that as a defense of her argument.
Emeraldlady said:
the less need will there be to seek for special means to relieve them.
Click to expand...
This seems to be saying the more properly run the society the less needed the will be for charity at all. Hard to argue with that, I must say.

Your dialogist doesn’t seem to be making a good case. But Pope Leo XIII clearly has your back. Noice.
 
Last edited:
The modern conservative is not even especially modern. He is engaged, on the contrary, in one of man’s oldest, best financed, most applauded, and, on the whole, least successful exercises in moral philosophy. That is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. It is an exercise which always involves a certain number of internal contradictions and even a few absurdities. The conspicuously wealthy turn up urging the character-building value of privation for the poor. The man who has struck it rich in minerals, oil, or other bounties of nature is found explaining the debilitating effect of unearned income from the state. The corporate executive who is a superlative success as an organization man weighs in on the evils of bureaucracy. Federal aid to education is feared by those who live in suburbs that could easily forgo this danger, and by people whose children are in public schools. Socialized medicine is condemned by men emerging from Walter Reed Hospital. Social Security is viewed with alarm by those who have the comfortable cushion of an inherited income. Those who are immediately threatened by public efforts to meet their needs - whether widows, small farmers, hospitalized veterans, or the unemployed - are almost always oblivious to the danger.
Click to expand...
John Kenneth Galbraith
 
niceatheist said:
in medieval times the Church was granted vast tracts of land in no small part to assist the impoverished
Click to expand...
Not only that, but the Church’s charity was supported, (in England at least — I don’t know what happened elsewhere), by tithes: a national form of taxation whereby, as Jon would put it, the Church was
JonNC said:
taking property from one person to give to someone else
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top