Pro-Life Catholics, how do you respond to this?

[Sundiver]

How do illegal aliens threaten your freedom?

The people I work with come from another country to escape tyranny and corruption. They get here and they complain that we are not more liberal. Then they go out and vote for the same type of people who screwed up the country they left because of the corruption and tryranny. The Democrats want liberal voters to build their power base. They want to build it illegally because they don’t have a legitimate political platform. If you support abortion then you are engaged in self destruction and loss of freedom. Abortion is the pivotal issue.

The comment “all of the sudden they don’t want the wall” is completely uninformed.

It was called the Secure Fence Act of 2006. Obama and democrats voted for it and it was never built. I don’t know what you mean by uninformed?

As a Catholic one has to look at the life aspect of the issue, and making sure we respect the lives of those who want to enter this country to improve their lives.

Catholics should not have a problem with legal immigration. No argument there.

 

[Sundiver]

So being told to drink from the toilet is OK?

That has been dis proven. It is propaganda.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

The purpose of the Great Society programs was to eliminate the need for them; the idea was that they would give a leg up and help folks to get out of poverty. What we’ve seen instead is that they’ve made poverty more affordable (which is a good thing! But inadequate.) and had some deleterious externalities.

That’s not what the statistics show. See the 2016 HHS report–

https://aspe.hhs.gov/system/files/pdf/154286/50YearTrends.pdf

“Poverty has decreased for the overall population since the 1960s. Official poverty in the
United States stood at 19.0 percent in 1964 and decreased by 4.2 percentage points to
14.8 percent in 2014, moving up and down with economic cycles. The official poverty
rate for children decreased by 1.9 percentage points, from 23.0 percent to 21.1 percent,
during this time.”

“The alternative poverty measure shows the safety net’s impact on reducing poverty
rates has increased greatly over time. Since the 1960s the share of Americans lifted out
of poverty by government programs has increased tenfold. The safety net cut the
poverty rate nearly in half in 2012, from 28.7 percent to 16.0 percent. Nearly 40 million
people, including more than 8 million children, were lifted out of poverty in 2012.”

Median annual earnings, all workers, adjusted for inflation: $43,500 in 1972; $45,000 in 2014. So an increase of $1,500 in 42 years…let me get my calculator… an increase in 3.5% over 42 years. Or an increase of $35.71 a YEAR. What’s that in % terms? 0.08% per year.

Now let’s look at the top 20% of families, as measured by income. 1966 vs. 2014, adjusted for inflation.
From $109,000 in 1966 to $217,000 in 2014. A gain of 108%. (vs. the 3.5% for all workers).
Per year? 48 years…a gain of 2.1% a year vs. the 0.08% for all workers. Or, to put it another way, the top 20% gained 26.25 times as much per year as a median worker.
Fair?

 

[midori]

Helpful image for @Erikaspirit16 :

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[HopkinsReb]

Sigh.

I made two claims in my post. Please tell me which points you think are refuted by which data. Also tell me exactly how you combed out what was the result of Great Society programs and what was caused by other programs, as there are many more factors than just the Great Society programs.

“The government says so” is not an acceptable answer.

 

[midori]

In many countries, they use non-potable water for toilets. So it’s definitely understandable that people who come from such countries would be cautious about being expected to drink toilet water, because they don’t come from a place where they have the luxury of flushing perfectly clean water.

But the obnoxious part is when people are more interested in saying “Oh noes! The humanity!” rather than taking ten seconds to look things up for themselves and realizing that it’s not an unusual thing in certain places where space and safety are big issues.

Here’s three other models, in a stylish chrome!

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Erikaspirit16]

So, departing from generalities, and going to specifics

I congratulate you for doing the right thing, no matter how it turned out. But–and this is NOT directed at you personally–what the right wing does consistently is to take a few example (like the story you told) and say “This program isn’t working…” without looking at the whole picture. There will always be people who cheat or take advantage of the charity of others. But that doesn’t mean we should stop being charitable.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

“The government says so” is not an acceptable answer.

Sigh indeed. If you don’t believe official gov. statistics, then there’s no point in discussion. The thing is that in the past, everyone believed the same facts. Now one group says “Mexicans are rapists” and the other group says “A few Mexicans are rapists.” Big difference, and without agreement on the facts, no point in discussion.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

That has been dis proven.

By whom? Trump?

 

[JanetF]

I’ve never had the chance to vote for a candidate with whom I agree on every issue. I just try to choose the one I think is better.

Same for me. It’s never one issue for me either.

 

[HopkinsReb]

If you don’t believe official gov. statistics, then there’s no point in discussion.

Statistics, yes, generally. Analysis, not often. There are epistemological issues that make me doubt any in-depth economic analysis.

Now one group says “Mexicans are rapists” and the other group says “A few Mexicans are rapists.” Big difference, and without agreement on the facts, no point in discussion.

I’m not arguing that point. Not sure why you’re trying to drag me into that conversation.

 

[midori]

Oh, sure. I have lots of stories about how things go with individuals. That one was just a good example of one that was a more spectacular failure than some of the others. But I could tell you about the guy who burned down my house, or I could tell you about the guy who had no other expenses besides $65 rent and his phone bill, but still didn’t bother paying his electric or water, and they got cut off, and I’m about to go stick a note on his front door saying I’m coming by for an inspection. And he has 48 hours to give me proof they’ve been re-connected, or else our lease is terminated. Because even though he’s maintaining his job, and he has an aunt who promised me she’d keep on top of him (because he’s marginal), she obviously hasn’t been by to realize he’s more interested in being with his crazy pregnant girlfriend than in being a responsible young adult, going to work, paying his bills, and leaving a normal life.

And that’s why I keep giving people chances to succeed… because giving people the opportunity is more important than the money they end up costing me. But ultimately, my biz is a biz, rather than a charity subsidizing other people’s poor life decisions, and the people who do poorly with the opportunities presented will not only be responsible for themselves, but also for the people who missed out on opportunities because they burned the people who would be willing to give charity.

But ultimately, charity is what we do for our neighbors, for love of God. It’s not something we outsource to the government.

And that’s why I object to people saying, “The government ought to mentor people” or “Think of the good that can be done with $100 billion dollars!” How long has the War On Poverty been going on?

So instead of saying, “These people over here ought to do something about those people,” they need to look in the mirror and say, “What can I do, to make a difference for that one person who’s right in my backyard?”

It’s the difference between running off to Calcutta to join Mother Teresa, rather than dealing with the poor and vulnerable right in your home town.

Go do something today! Don’t wait for the government to throw money at it! Don’t criticize the effectiveness of the government’s results… we should be criticizing our own efforts at outreach, whether it’s with our time, talent, or treasure.

 

[farronwolf]

The Constitution grants your freedoms, if it hasn’t been changed, they are still intact.

The funding approved under the 2006 bill is still there, they just didn’t approve the increased funding that was proposed by the current President. Civics 101, all spending bills originate in Congress, not the Executive branch. Something folks should keep in mind. If they removed all funding from border security your argument would hold water, but since that isn’t the case, your argument is invalid.

Also, you might look at how much fencing has been built since 2006, and how much has been replaced. Look at the content of the 2006 act.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Let’s have a closer look at those awful immigrants who are ruing the country.

First, let’s take a look at US Nobel prize winners in medicine, chemistry and physics since 2000. 85 Nobel prizes were won by “Americans.” But 33 of those (39%) were immigrants.
(This is from Forbes, by the way, that infamous font of left-wing propaganda. https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuart...grants-keep-winning-nobelprizes/#49cfdfa4117b )

Let’s have a look at US physicians. Hmmm…29% were born in another country. 7% of those aren’t US citizens. Dentists? 24% are immigrants. Pharmacists? 20% immigrants.
Nurses? 16% of RNs are immigrants. Other sorts of health aides? 23%.

Ever wonder who Steve Job’s father was? Syrian. Elon Musk? Born in S. Africa. Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google? Born in Moscow.

Going for the big picture, let’s look at the Fortune 500 US corporations. 44% were founded by immigrants or the children of immigrants. New American Fortune 500: The Legacy of Immigrants and Their Children - New American Economy Research Fund

Now of course you could just bury your head in the sand, or plug your ears and go “la la la.” But by any measure, a reasonable person would conclude that immigrants are not only a “good” thing for the US, they are an ESSENTIAL thing.

And please don’t go down the road of “legal” vs. “illegal” immigrants.

 

[HopkinsReb]

Let’s have a closer look at those awful immigrants who are ruing the country.

First, let’s take a look at US Nobel prize winners in medicine, chemistry and physics since 2000. 85 Nobel prizes were won by “Americans.” But 33 of those (39%) were immigrants.
(This is from Forbes, by the way, that infamous font of left-wing propaganda. https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuart...grants-keep-winning-nobelprizes/#49cfdfa4117b )

Let’s have a look at US physicians. Hmmm…29% were born in the different country. 7% of those aren’t US citizens. Dentists? 24% are immigrants. Pharmacists? 20% immigrants.
Nurses? 16% of RNs are immigrants. Other sorts of health aides? 23%.

Ever wonder who Steve Job’s father was? Syrian. Elon Musk? Born in S. Africa. Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google? Born in Moscow.

Going for the big picture, let’s look at the Fortune 500 US corporations. 44% were founded by immigrants or the children of immigrants. New American Fortune 500: The Legacy of Immigrants and Their Children - New American Economy Research Fund

Now of course you could just bury your head in the sand, or plug your ears and go “la la la.” But by any measure, a reasonable person would conclude that immigrants are not only a “good” thing for the US, they are an ESSENTIAL thing.

And please don’t go down the road of “legal” vs. “illegal” immigrants.

Not to mention that immigrants are the only reason the US has positive population growth. We’re facing an entitlement crisis regardless, but it would be so much worse if our 1.8 births/woman fertility rate were the sole source of new Americans.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

it would be so much worse if our 1.8 births/woman fertility rate were the sole source of new Americans.

But of course you could change that with government programs…for an example, look at France.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

That one was just a good example of one that was a more spectacular failure than some of the others. But I could tell you about the guy who burned down my house, or I could tell you about the guy who had no other expenses besides $65 rent and his phone bill, but still didn’t bother paying his electric or water, and they got cut off

My advice: get into a different business!

 

[HopkinsReb]

But of course you could change that with government programs

Is there any problem in existence that you don’t think could be solved by a government program?

France is, by the way, below replacement fertility.

 

[phil19034]

Well, for starters, I think it also depends on which elected office you are voting for.

The United States President is different than local state representative in your local state legislature.

The President nominates Supreme Court Justices. So for me, when I vote for President - I look for just Pro Life because of the Supreme Court.

In state elections and for Congress, I will look at other issues. However, in my experience, if one isn’t pro-life, chances are that their other social views don’t match up with mine.

While I’m for immigration and I’m want to support asylum seekers, I do not condone illegal immigration (whether that’s dangerously crossing the border or overstaying visas).

In regards to the poor, I don’t believe the federal govt is the correct place to address this issue. I strongly feel that local communities (churches, city govts, county govts, and state govts) should be on the ones handing these issues. Not the federal govt, as the poverty issue differs from State to State and county to county. For example, what would be considered poverty level in New York City would not be in rural North Dakota or rural Alabama.

Also what works in New Orleans might not work in Buffalo, NY.

So I believe that the “holistic” approach you seek is at the state level, not the federal level.

Now if/when Roe v Wade is returned to the States, then State elections will become more Pro Life issue centric while the Federal level will become less so.

 

[FaithfulKnight]

“The purpose of the Great Society programs was to eliminate the need for them; the idea was that they would give a leg up and help folks to get out of poverty. What we’ve seen instead is that they’ve made poverty more affordable (which is a good thing! But inadequate.) and had some deleterious externalities.”

This is pretty much the thought I started with. Thanks