Regarding politics

  • Thread starter Thread starter VeritasLuxMea
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
the reason why progressive tax is because of the progressive way in which the wealthy get wealthier?Honestly,Say I earn$5k,another $1M.then I earn$10 he earns$10M.that’s right.I doubled He went 10fold.that’s the way this system works as things stand.If I pay 20%thats $2K His 20%,2M.that leaves me $8K Him $8M.but all the necessities medical care,housing,food,cars,meds,are the same price for each of us.So who is hurt worse ?Obviously the poorer man will be.That’s why the richer person should pay a higher rate.Can’t you see why the rich get richer and the poor gets poorer?AS it stands now the rich pay most of the taxes where the say 50% pay none.But why isn’t that fair?the poorer fellow can just get by but the rich can pay more and still get richer.
My main question is what is the fair percentage that the rich should pay?

You started off complaining about politicians not forcing the rich to pay their fair share. What I want to know is what percent do you think is “fair” for the rich to pay?
 
St.Francis:I don’t know if a fair accessment can be made.Now obviously you believe in capitalism and so do I.But we know that with capitalism there always ends up a rich class and a poor class.Also as it carries on the divide always gets greater unless the rich start giving to the poor to prop them up.Now the system in America has gotten to that point where the rich should give more to the lower classes.I have no figure.I have nnothing against rich people and I don’t care if their extremely rich.But I feel that the middle and lower classes are having a harder and harder time just being able to pay their bills.(not to get wealthier)Even though I don’t like the idea of forcing wealthier earners to pay more(I believe it should be voluntary)the system in place is in favor of the wealthy.Its just the nature of the thing.If the less than rich are back to a livable position then we can stop making the rich pay more and go on as usual.
 
St.Francis:I don’t know if a fair accessment can be made.Now obviously you believe in capitalism and so do I.But we know that with capitalism there always ends up a rich class and a poor class.Also as it carries on the divide always gets greater unless the rich start giving to the poor to prop them up.Now the system in America has gotten to that point where the rich should give more to the lower classes.I have no figure.I have nnothing against rich people and I don’t care if their extremely rich.But I feel that the middle and lower classes are having a harder and harder time just being able to pay their bills.(not to get wealthier)Even though I don’t like the idea of forcing wealthier earners to pay more(I believe it should be voluntary)the system in place is in favor of the wealthy.Its just the nature of the thing.If the less than rich are back to a livable position then we can stop making the rich pay more and go on as usual.
Valentino,
First, I don’t believe in capitalism as it is currently constituted in the US, but that’s another topic altogether.

The thing is, simply reditributing funds from the rich to the poor doesn’t work. And it causes a lot of problems in the economy, such as the reduction of revenue when taxes are raised too much.

There are a lot of reasons for our current economic problems: the mortgage absurdity, the expansion of consumer credit, government rules which made putting manufacturing plants overseas more profitable, etc…

We have been actively engaged in redistributing money from the rich to the poor for several decades, and the most co-relative characteristic for children being in poverty is being in a single-parent home. Is simply doling out funds helping? No, instead the rates of illegitimacy have sky-rocketed as has the rate of divorce.
 
I vote against the perpetual war, against selling out the country to usurers, against the total irresponsibility related to the environment, against banishing the religion and morality from the schools and the public life. I do not vote for empty pro life lip service. I submit and empty ballot.
This seems to be an up and coming point of view. More and more Christians are rejecting the small political box that the Religious Right was enforced over all these years. It is clear that Republicans fail in their attempts to change Roe v Wade, and many also believe they fail in acting upon the important principles of social justice.
 
This is sooo far from being the case…

When the Americans revolted against England, in England there was the state-established church, the Church of England. In the colonies, there were colonies which had their own government-established churches. The laws of the individual colonies ranged from requiring people to attend that church or pay a fine to legal indifference.

The First Amendment was that the *federal * government would be forbidden to establish a national church over the states. It was a states’rights issue rather than a religious or individual’s rights issue.

In fact, many of the Founding Fathers were religious, and many believed that principles of this nation would endure only the citizens were religious and maintained a high degree of morality.

(a thought-provoking article on the Catholic influence on the Founding Fathers)
In fact, many founding fathers weren’t religious.

John Adams, the country’s second president, was drawn to the study of law but faced pressure from his father to become a clergyman. He wrote that he found among the lawyers 'noble and gallant achievments" but among the clergy, the “pretended sanctity of some absolute dunces”. Late in life he wrote: "Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, “This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!”

It was during Adam’s administration that the Senate ratified the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which states in Article XI that “the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.”

Thomas Jefferson, third president and author of the Declaration of Independence, said:“I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian.” He referred to the Revelation of St. John as “the ravings of a maniac” and wrote:
The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ levelled to every understanding and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power, and pre-eminence. The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason that nonsense can never be explained."

James Madison, fourth president and father of the Constitution, was not religious in any conventional sense. “Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.”
“During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”

Benjamin Franklin, delegate to the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, said:
As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion…has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; tho’ it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble." He died a month later, and historians consider him, like so many great Americans of his time, to be a Deist, not a Christian.

That’s pretty wordy, but you get the idea. Also, some statistics of the religions of the Founding Fathers (in a more general sense than just the historical celebrities we know of)

Episcopalian/Anglican - 54.7% (88)
Presbyterian - 18.6% (30)
Congregationalist - 16.8% (27)
Quaker - 4.3% (7)
Catholic - 1.9% (3)
 
Valentino,
First, I don’t believe in capitalism as it is currently constituted in the US, but that’s another topic altogether.

The thing is, simply reditributing funds from the rich to the poor doesn’t work. And it causes a lot of problems in the economy, such as the reduction of revenue when taxes are raised too much.

There are a lot of reasons for our current economic problems: the mortgage absurdity, the expansion of consumer credit, government rules which made putting manufacturing plants overseas more profitable, etc…

We have been actively engaged in redistributing money from the rich to the poor for several decades, and the most co-relative characteristic for children being in poverty is being in a single-parent home. Is simply doling out funds helping? No, instead the rates of illegitimacy have sky-rocketed as has the rate of divorce.
Mothers with a child get Aid to dependent children which isn’t that much.I mean it could never pay for rent.It may be $120 a month but in no way would it insentivise a woman to have children so they don’t have to work.I donn’t think you can say the illegimate rate has anything to do with the Gov.helping Single parent mothers.Let’s be logical.It doesn’t promote illegimate sex.if a girl is going to have sex she isn’t saying to herself well if I get preganant the state will take care of my child.She’d have an abortion or use birth control bfore she woould go that route.Also with Aids,ect.most people are more careful today and usse BC.I’m still not sure why the Government would assist companies with money to ship jobs overseas.Do you know the answer to that?
 
I’m a little confused about Catholicism and politics. It’s not entirely clear how this works. A general conservatism seems to pervade the Church. The Pope makes vague comments such as “capitalism and communism have both gone to extremes and those extremes should be avoided”, (this is not verbatim). A lot of people I know seem to think that you “must” have certain positions on particular political issues, whereas others believe that it is up to your discernment, reasoning and moral intuition.

Curiously, I feel like the Bible and Jesus himself say next to nothing about the subject from what I can tell either.

So let’s say your conscience and profound study lead you to believe that particular ideas are most conducive with certain principles (justice, mercy, love, etc.). Would you say that alone is the justification you need to endorse political positions or is there anything else?
Contrary to what you will find on these boards, Catholics on the whole do not lean exclusively to the right. The Church defies political categorization. There are certain specific issues which we cannot disagree about, issues like abortion. But the Church speaks on a multitude of important issues, and you will see them come up in these discussion.

The USCCB (The United State Council of Catholic Bishops) provides all kinds of resources and information about all different issues. They do not tell us how to vote. They teach us about what a Catholic should care about, and they can help us to inform our consciences. But when it comes to actually voting, there is a lot of leeway. There are many reasons. One is that Catholics can in good conscience disagree about huge issues like war, immigration, or capital punishment. We cannot disagree about evils, but we can disagree about the best ways to address them. So Catholics argue- right along with the rest of the country. It would be nice to have a party which aligned more neatly with Catholic teaching than what our current choices are- but we here would disagree about what such a party would look like.

You are right to be confused. Some here would have you believe that Catholics are either card-carrying right-wingers or they are cafeteria Catholics. It is simply not the case. There is no party which reflects the teachings of the Church. Individual politicians in all parties reflect the Church to greater and lesser extent. You have to inform yourself about the issues which matter, and prioritize which matter more or less. You have to inform yourself about individual politicians. There are a multitude of Catholic resources to help with that. Voting is not simple. The Church will not tell you who to vote for, but she will help you to form your conscience.

I recommend the USCCB voter’s resource as a place to start:
faithfulcitizenship.org/

From that guide comes the following important advice:
“During election years, there may be many handouts and voter guides that are
produced and distributed. We encourage Catholics to seek those resources that
are authorized by their own bishops, their state Catholic conferences, and the
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.”

A lot of people want to speak for the Church. Do not be lead away. The Church is not the pet of either party. She is bigger and more authentic than either. Make sure your information is coming from a source that does not have political motive. A clue to that, if they seem to be saying that either on party or the other is the party of the Church, or more truly reflects the teachings of the Church, you can be sure it is not a good resource. Neither party can contain, portray or even defer to the Church as each Catholic must.
 
I think that in the U.S., it is difficult for Christians, both Catholic and other, to justify a liberal political viewpoint, as so many liberal policies are utterly opposed to Christian teachings.

The abortion issue alone should close the book. Liberals are generally pro-legalized abortion, even though they often say they are personally opposed to abortion. Well, isn’t that special?!

No. I can’t buy that, and I think that Christians who buy that are fooling themselves. A country that allows abortion to be the law of the land is a country in grave danger. We are fortunate that God has decided to have mercy on the United States whlie we allow this law and permit the killings of millions of pre-born humans.

If the liberals would miraculously revert on the abortion issue, and join conservatives in crying out for the end of legalized abortion in the U.S., I can understand why some Catholics would feel inclined to be liberal, in spite of the subsidiarity issue. But we all know this isn’t happening and won’t happen. Liberals have given themselves over to the lie that “I wouldn’t personally have an abortion, but I believe others should have the right to have one.” Unbelievable. Appalling.
👍

I basically agree with this. Good show.
 
Simply put, in the U.S., it is the conservatives who are pro-life, and the liberals who are pro-choice (pro-abortion).

Since a pro-abortion stance is utterly inconsistent with Catholic teachings, many Catholics gravitate towards the conservative side of politics.

There’s more than just abortion involved. In the U.S., the conservatives are generally in favor of smaller government and more local government involvement, while liberals are generally in favor of bigger government and more federal government involvement. The concept of involving the smallest, most local authority is called “subsidiarism,” and it is advocated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. So that’s another reason why Catholics are often conservatives.

There is a false idea in the U.S. that conservatives are for the rich, while the liberals are for the poor. This is utterly false. Many of the policies that liberals advocate keep the poor poor, while many of the conservative policies actually help the poor to advance to a better state in life. Also, the conservative policies generally end up allowing us to keep more of our earnings, which means that we have more money to give to charitable institutions, including our Church.

This is an extremely simplified explanation of politics and Catholics, and I hope that it is helpful to you. I can’t speak about politics in other countries, but in the U.S., it is very difficult to go through life without taking a stand on politics. We are a democracy (actually, a republic), and that means “government by the people.” If the people don’t become involved, then the government doesn’t work, or a group of people who do not represent most Americans take charge. I don’t believe that Christians can just sit back and let others do the politics thing. If we sit back, others step forward, and those people are not generally going to institute policies that are friendly to Catholics.
Bravo! Excellent analysis. 👍
 
Contrary to what you will find on these boards, Catholics on the whole do not lean exclusively to the right. The Church defies political categorization. There are certain specific issues which we cannot disagree about, issues like abortion. But the Church speaks on a multitude of important issues, and you will see them come up in these discussion.

The USCCB (The United State Council of Catholic Bishops) provides all kinds of resources and information about all different issues. They do not tell us how to vote. They teach us about what a Catholic should care about, and they can help us to inform our consciences. But when it comes to actually voting, there is a lot of leeway. There are many reasons. One is that Catholics can in good conscience disagree about huge issues like war, immigration, or capital punishment. We cannot disagree about evils, but we can disagree about the best ways to address them. So Catholics argue- right along with the rest of the country. It would be nice to have a party which aligned more neatly with Catholic teaching than what our current choices are- but we here would disagree about what such a party would look like.

You are right to be confused. Some here would have you believe that Catholics are either card-carrying right-wingers or they are cafeteria Catholics. It is simply not the case. There is no party which reflects the teachings of the Church. Individual politicians in all parties reflect the Church to greater and lesser extent. You have to inform yourself about the issues which matter, and prioritize which matter more or less. You have to inform yourself about individual politicians. There are a multitude of Catholic resources to help with that. Voting is not simple. The Church will not tell you who to vote for, but she will help you to form your conscience.

I recommend the USCCB voter’s resource as a place to start:
faithfulcitizenship.org/

From that guide comes the following important advice:
“During election years, there may be many handouts and voter guides that are
produced and distributed. We encourage Catholics to seek those resources that
are authorized by their own bishops, their state Catholic conferences, and the
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.”

A lot of people want to speak for the Church. Do not be lead away. The Church is not the pet of either party. She is bigger and more authentic than either. Make sure your information is coming from a source that does not have political motive. A clue to that, if they seem to be saying that either on party or the other is the party of the Church, or more truly reflects the teachings of the Church, you can be sure it is not a good resource. Neither party can contain, portray or even defer to the Church as each Catholic must.
The problem with the Catholics who support liberals and then try to defend it by saying they oppose policies like capital punishment or war, is that it just isn’t enough to justify voting for pro-abortion politicians. The Church’s teaching leaves room for disagreement on issues of war and capital punishment, and acknowledges that there are justified circumstances for both. There is no leeway on abortion. It is intrinsically evil, in all cases, without exception. And, like it or not, the so-called “right” to abortion is an enormous part of the Democrat party platform. If a politician is running as a Democrat, they are expected to tow that party line–and 99% of them do. That leaves Catholics with no real excuse to support liberals. Evil is evil, and we cannot compromise that, no matter what perceived “good” supposedly out-weighs it.
 
Being right on one issue is not a justification for being wrong on other issues. The idea, of course, that because liberals are more often pro-choice than conservatives, that liberal stances on, say, foreign policy or economic policy are evil or un-Catholic (I am of the view that in such areas liberals are often more in line with Catholic teaching than conservatives, if only as a matter of circumstance) is as preposterous as the idea that because Hitler had a mustache, mustaches incline one toward Naziism. I’ve heard the argument on these forums that one sohuld avoid all aspects of liberalism because it’s “a slippery slope.” You know, one minute you’re questioning Netanyahu’s policies toward Palestinians or opposing the abolition of capital gains tax, the nect minute you;ll be working for Planned Parenthood. It’s a ludicrous sentiment, but it seems to have a decent man convinced. I suppose if I don’t shave my upper lip soon I’ll start wearing jackboots as well. Just because two thins often go together doesn’t mean on leads to the other.
 
I’m a little confused about Catholicism and politics. It’s not entirely clear how this works. A general conservatism seems to pervade the Church. The Pope makes vague comments such as “capitalism and communism have both gone to extremes and those extremes should be avoided”, (this is not verbatim). A lot of people I know seem to think that you “must” have certain positions on particular political issues, whereas others believe that it is up to your discernment, reasoning and moral intuition.
I’m not entirely sure what you’re asking, but if you’re coming from a liberal vs. conservative standpoint, then I guess you could say the Church is more conservative. This is because morals don’t change, which is out of line with modern social liberalism. So liberals will often advocate abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, or whatever, but the Church says no to those because it has always taught they are sins. When it comes to morality, the Catholic Church is very conservative. For the economy, there is much more grey area, because pretty much all you have to do is not be socialist, communist, or capitalist. Subsidiarity and solidarity must be practiced, and the dignity of the human person respected as well, with a preferential option for the poor. At least from my point of view, liberals violate subsidiarity and the dignity of the human person, while conservatives violate solidarity and a preferential option for the poor. But yeah, just don’t go to the extremes in politics, and you should be alright. I recommend going to the USCCB website for this since they do a pretty good job going over most issues major issues.
 
There is no party which reflects the teachings of the Church.
Not entirely. but some Christian Democratic parties in Europe seem to come pretty close.

Actually, there is one which reflects the teachings of the Church. The party doesn’t really have a name and it has a monopoly on the selection process, but the Cardinals who elect the Pope as the head of Vatican City seem to reflect the teachings of the Church. 😃
 
I’m not entirely sure what you’re asking, but if you’re coming from a liberal vs. conservative standpoint, then I guess you could say the Church is more conservative. This is because morals don’t change, which is out of line with modern social liberalism. So liberals will often advocate abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, or whatever, but the Church says no to those because it has always taught they are sins. When it comes to morality, the Catholic Church is very conservative. For the economy, there is much more grey area, because pretty much all you have to do is not be socialist, communist, or capitalist. Subsidiarity and solidarity must be practiced, and the dignity of the human person respected as well, with a preferential option for the poor. At least from my point of view, liberals violate subsidiarity and the dignity of the human person, while conservatives violate solidarity and a preferential option for the poor. But yeah, just don’t go to the extremes in politics, and you should be alright. I recommend going to the USCCB website for this since they do a pretty good job going over most issues major issues.
Oh yeah, and I probably should’ve added that dignity and respect for the human person is the most important out of all of these. There’s a quote in the USCCB’s voter guide that says something like, “all other rights are useless when the right to life isn’t protected”. That’s why Catholics are increasingly Republican here in America, since the party as a whole is for the right to life. However, when the right to life is eliminated, the Democratic party might be a little more in line with Church teaching from my perspective.
 
Mothers with a child get Aid to dependent children which isn’t that much.I mean it could never pay for rent.It may be $120 a month but in no way would it insentivise a woman to have children so they don’t have to work.I donn’t think you can say the illegimate rate has anything to do with the Gov.helping Single parent mothers.Let’s be logical.It doesn’t promote illegimate sex.if a girl is going to have sex she isn’t saying to herself well if I get preganant the state will take care of my child.She’d have an abortion or use birth control bfore she woould go that route.Also with Aids,ect.most people are more careful today and usse BC.I’m still not sure why the Government would assist companies with money to ship jobs overseas.Do you know the answer to that?
Sorry, but government aid to the poor does not stop at food stamps. There is Section 8 housing help, where the poor family pays a certain percentage of their income, if any, and the government pays the rest. If the amount for rent “includes” lawn-mowing and other amenities, then that gets taken care of too.

And poor people get Medicaid, which covers more than any employer-provided health insurance I have seen, and has lower co-pays. So while lower-middle class folks struggle to pay for glasses and go without braces, the poor has all that included.
 
This thread has been dormant for a considerable period. With rare exceptions, reviving threads after a protracted period of inactivity is discouraged because:
Code:
the issues that spurred them are often no longer "hot" or current topics, explaining why thread activity ceased originally.
posters originally involved in the discussion are sometimes no longer active on the forum and, therefore, unavailable to reply to comments added to the thread.
Our experience suggests that, when a topic merits revival, it is best accomplished by initiating a new thread that draws on recent events and can be posted to contemporaneously. This eliminates the baggage of folks being frustrated by asking and not receiving responses to issues raised in early posts (because the new poster didn’t notice that the post he was responding to was made a long time ago).

Posters are very welcome to open a new thread on the subject or any other topic, as well as to actively participate in the myriad active threads in the fora.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top