The problem is that these benefits always causes increases in wealth for all, in that capital investment makes labor much more valuable and secures higher wages and lower cost for consumer goods.
If you have to go into debt to pay for something, then it is not increasing “wealth for all”.
I agree that its not fair to say, as some posters do, “Jesus wants us to have socialized medicine”. Its not a simple matter of “free healthcare for all” as liberals falsely claim.
I pretty much ignore posts where people claim they know want Jesus wants to do.
Ishii
And capital accumulation in the hands of more people rather than fewer is the best way to increase the general welfare - a rising tide lifts all boats. I work hard and do alright, although I am not wealthy by any stretch. But I don’t resent that there are those with millions or even billions. The liberals hate that - they don’t want any rich people, but want to consfiscate and “spread the wealth around” to use the words of our president.I think I may have confused my post. I meant that capital accumulation is the best way to increase the general welfare. Direct consumption spending (aka welfare) is a horrible way to actually fight poverty as it actually decreases capital consumption from where it would have been and as such decreases future wealth such that future poverty would actually be greater than it would have been.
Hopefully that third, run-on sentence makes sense.
Could you elaborate? The first sentence and the last seem contradictory to me.
The Pope is saying that there may be a “diversity of opinion among Catholics” regarding the waging of JUST wars. Unjust wars are mortally sinful. There can be NO “diversity of opinion” regarding the waging of unjust wars. The reason that there CAN**** be a diversity of opinion regarding the waging of JUST wars is that just because a war is just, does not mean that we have to support it. But unjust wars can NEVER be supported. The Iraq War was clearly an unjust war and Ron Paul has demonstrated it. It is ironic that it takes a Protestant like Ron Paul to tell the truth to Catholics who should know better.
Sure - I probably didn’t word it very well. I think that the more people with access to investing and opportunity the better. Rather than the middle class being merely wage earners, wouldn’t it be better if they are also investors, atleast on some level? Allowing the middle class to become investors and have more opportunity is better than the Obama/leftist way of confiscating the wealth of others and redistributing.
I respectfully disagree, I myself thought the pope meant that we can disagree on what constitutes a just war.
You are absolutely incorrect. There can be no disagreement on what constitutes a just war. The Catechism of the Catholic Church spells out the unchangeable criteria that must be met for a war to be considered “just.” Those criteria are black and white and are a matter of faith and morals. There can be no disagreement among Catholics over the Just War criteria that are clearly defined in the Catechism.
(emphasis mine)
(emphasis mine)
But how would you go about doing that since the reason for the lack of investment of the poor and middle classes seems to be due to not their income level but rather their budgeting?
I think that the word “budgeting” is over-used.
It was not a Bridge to ‘‘nowhere.’’ It was extravagant, but it had a purpose.
Santorum has consistently supported broad-based tax cuts and opposed tax increases either by sponsoring key legislation or by casting votes on relevant bills. Some high profile votes include:
* Voted NO on the Clinton tax hike in 1993
* Voted YES on the capital gains tax cut in 1997
* Voted NO on a cigarette tax hike in 1998
* Voted YES on repeal of the Alternative Minimum Tax in 1999
* Voted YES on the 2001 Bush tax cuts
* Voted YES to repeal the Death Tax in 2002
* Voted YES to the 2003 Bush tax cuts
* Voted YES to extend the Bush tax cuts in 2006On spending, Santorum has a mixed record and showed clear signs of varying his votes based on the election calendar. In the 1990s, when he was only a freshman Senator, he was a leading author on the bill that completely overhauled the country’s welfare system. He also voted for the Freedom to Farm Act in 1996 that started the process of ending direct farm subsidies. When Congress decided that it couldn’t live up to that promise, it voted to re-establish the subsidies in 2002 with the Farm Security Act, a bill that Santorum rightly opposed. He also voted for a balanced budget amendment and a line-item veto in 1995.
More recently, when he was out of Congress, Santorum opposed TARP , the stimulus , the auto bailout, and the Fannie-Freddie bailout.One of those exceptions came in 2009, in the special election for Congress in New York’s 23rd district. Santorum was the second high profile potential presidential candidate (Sarah Palin was the first) to endorse Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman over liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava. This showed leadership for the limited government cause because of the timing of the endorsement, coming before establishment Republicans had figured out that Scozzafava was a losing candidate.On the whole, Rick Santorum’s record on economic issues in the U.S. Senate was above average. More precisely, it was quite strong in some areas and quite weak in others. He has a strong record on taxes, and his leadership on welfare reform and Social Security was exemplary. But his record also contains several very weak spots, including his active support of wasteful spending earmarks, his penchant for trade protectionism, and his willingness to support large government expansions like the Medicare prescription drug bill and the 2005 Highway Bill.I don’t think Jesus wants people to be forced to cover, in their insurance plan, contraception and abortion which is seen as an intrinsic evil by His Church.
There have been a diversity of opinion among Catholics about whether the Iraq war was a Just War. Some Catholic leaders have said no, other Catholics like this theologian have said the Iraq war was a Just War.