Sanders Thread

[Lily_Bernans]

I don’t think the republicans care for the poor. Is that calumny? No, that is an opinion. I also don’t think the democrats care for the poor either. That is not calumny either. That is an opinion as well. Whether the republicans or democrats care or don’t care for the poor is not a verifiable fact, so it is subject to our interpretation.

The poor never seem able to escape poverty no matter which party is in power. Not all of the blame can be laid at the feet of politics, I realize that, but politicians in both parties need to start actually caring about the people they represent.

 

[estesbob]

Well, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship seems to cover a wider array of issues. Some would favor Republicans and other Democrats. Then there are those guides that are not endorsed by the Church that seem to only emphasize issues that favor one party or another. I guess that’s why the USCCB doesn’t endorse those guides.

And of course Faithful Citizenship itself is not endorsed by the Church-as the Vatican has made clear Bishops councils have no teaching authortiy

 

[estesbob]

The poor never seem able to escape poverty no matter which party is in power. Not all of the blame can be laid at the feet of politics, I realize that, but politicians in both parties need to start actually caring about the people they represent.

What social programs benefit those denied the right to life.?

 

[zz912]

I said I don’t see it, and I don’t see it. It’s not an accusation against any person or any party. It’s just an opinion. And I don’t “hate” the GOP. I’ve voted for GOP candidates in the past, but I won’t this election cycle.

If you can show me specifically how the GOP give preferential treatment to the poor, I would probably change my opinion.

Smaller government leads to economic improvement. Economic improvement means more jobs. More jobs means less poverty.

And let’s also focus on the actual RESULTS of government poverty programs and not just their intentions. Welfare and poverty programs have created generational poverty where people simply don’t even attempt to make life better for themselves or lift themselves out of poverty. They don’t even attempt to attain employment or build wealth. They just look for a handout.

 

[ringil]

And of course Faithful Citizenship itself is not endorsed by the Church-as the Vatican has made clear Bishops councils have no teaching authortiy

Well I think we certainly should choose to follow the USCCB over an internet site.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Smaller government leads to economic improvement. Economic improvement means more jobs. More jobs means less poverty.

Source?

 

[ringil]

So I ask this out of honest curiosity.

For those opposed to Social Security- what do they think would happen to the millions of older adults who have no savings to live through their golden years.

Would they just be out of luck. Do people believe that private charities are equipped to shoulder such an immense burden?

 

[J_Peterson]

Not for me it isn’t.

That’s why I will neither support Clinton nor Sanders nor entertain liberal excuses on the matter.

Islam is a religion and the Republican front runners aren’t too keen on them. Trump wants them to be blocked from entering the country based on religion alone. Cruz can’t seem to be able to distinguish between Islam and radical Islam (Trump has this problem too). I’d say they are pretty flawed when it comes to religious liberty.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

So I ask this out of honest curiosity.

For those opposed to Social Security- what do they think would happen to the millions of older adults who have no savings to live through their golden years.

Would they just be out of luck. Do people believe that private charities are equipped to shoulder such an immense border?

I believe Social Security should continue, but certainly no administration could just stop payments and leave some folks with nothing.

Private charities couldn’t shoulder the burden, and the welfare ranks would swell so the states couldn’t support them.

I believe Social Security must be protected.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Smaller government leads to economic improvement. Economic improvement means more jobs. More jobs means less poverty.

And let’s also focus on the actual RESULTS of government poverty programs and not just their intentions. Welfare and poverty programs have created generational poverty where people simply don’t even attempt to make life better for themselves or lift themselves out of poverty. They don’t even attempt to attain employment or build wealth. They just look for a handout.

Some government programs do enable poverty; however, there are people who genuinely need help. I believe those who aren’t elderly or disabled, however, should do some kind of work or community service for their welfare benefits.

 

[estesbob]

Well I think we certainly should choose to follow the USCCB over an internet site.

I think we should follow the teachings of the Church and the direct guidance of members of the Magestrium.

. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

Pope Benedict XVI

For 35 years I’ve watched thousands of good Catholic laypeople, clergy and religious struggle to recover some form of legal protection for the unborn child. The abortion lobby has fought every compromise and every legal restriction on abortion, every step of the way. Apparently they believe in their convictions more than some of us Catholics believe in ours. And I think that’s an indictment of an entire generation of American Catholic leadership.The abortion conflict has never simply been about repealing Roe v. Wade. And the many pro-lifers I know live a much deeper kind of discipleship than ‘‘single issue’’ politics. But they do understand that the cornerstone of Catholic social teaching is protecting human life from conception to natural death. They do understand that every other human right depends on the right to life. They did not and do not and will not give up - and they won’t be lied to.

Archbishop Charles Chaput

In considering “the sum total of social conditions,” there is, however, a certain order of priority, which must be followed. Conditions upon which other conditions depend must receive our first consideration. The first consideration must be given to the protection of human life itself, without which it makes no sense to consider other social conditions. “The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2273).

1. The safeguarding of human life is understandably foundational to all other precepts of the natural law. The Church’s teaching, from her very first years, has underlined the particular gravity of taking the life of another, made in the image and likeness of God, except in the case of self-defense, that is, the legitimate defense of self or others ( Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, “On the Value and Inviolability of Human Life,” March 25, 1995, Nos. 52-55).

Cardinal Edmund Burke

Certainly policies on welfare, national security, the war in Iraq, Social Security or taxes, taken singly or in any combination, do not provide a proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate.

Archbishop John Myers

Since abortion and euthanasia have been defined by the Church as the most serious sins prevalent in our society, what kind of reasons could possibly be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion? None of the reasons commonly suggested could even begin to be proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for such a candidate. Reasons such as the candidate’s position on war, or taxes, or the death penalty, or immigration, or a national health plan, or social security, or aids, or homosexuality, or marriage, or any similar burning societal issues of our time are simply lacking in proportionality.

Bishop Henry Gracida

 

[stinkcat_14]

So I ask this out of honest curiosity.

For those opposed to Social Security- what do they think would happen to the millions of older adults who have no savings to live through their golden years.

Would they just be out of luck. Do people believe that private charities are equipped to shoulder such an immense burden?

The first thing you have to remember is that many people on social security are able bodied. So the first thing that would happen is that many of them would get jobs. Let’s be honest, if you can play golf you are well enough to work and not be a burden on society. Second, people can use their own resources rather than demand that others sacrifice for them. Our elderly are one of the wealthiest groups in society. Why should millionaires receive welfare checks? Also, families have a responsibility to help each other. In the old days, grandparents often lived with their children. And that was when we had bigger families and smaller houses. You can’t say we don’t have room for grandma in our mcmanions.

 

[zz912]

So I ask this out of honest curiosity.

For those opposed to Social Security- what do they think would happen to the millions of older adults who have no savings to live through their golden years.

Would they just be out of luck. Do people believe that private charities are equipped to shoulder such an immense burden?

Social Security is already bankrupt, and WILL run out of money. It’s not a question of IF, but of WHEN.

So the question is turned back to you. How will you address the coming collapse? Please lay out your suggestions.

I believe Social Security should continue, but certainly no administration could just stop payments and leave some folks with nothing.

Private charities couldn’t shoulder the burden, and the welfare ranks would swell so the states couldn’t support them.

I believe Social Security must be protected.

SS will end. The math simply won’t work. So lay out your solutions.

 

[zz912]

Source?

You spend all day on here railing about big government and proudly preening about your abhorrence for the big-government behavior of the GOP, and you now need a citation for how smaller government leads to economic growth and prosperity?

Exactly why do you champion smaller government?

 

[stinkcat_14]

You spend all day on here railing about big government and proudly preening about your abhorrence for the big-government behavior of the GOP, and you now need a citation for how smaller government leads to economic growth and prosperity?

Exactly why do you champion smaller government?

My point is, that what you stated was an opinion, not a fact. There are big government countries that do well, like Canada. There are small government countries that don’t do well, such as Haiti. So the effect of government spending on job growth and employment is debatable. The effect of government spending on economic freedom is not debatable.

 

[zz912]

My point is, that what you stated was an opinion, not a fact. There are big government countries that do well, like Canada. There are small government countries that don’t do well, such as Haiti. So the effect of government spending on job growth and employment is debatable. The effect of government spending on economic freedom is not debatable.

Canada does well because it has the US as its protector, and spends little on national defense. It also has the US as a layer of protection from the invasion of millions of very poor, untrained people from Mexico and Central America. It also benefits spectacularly from open trade with the US.

All that said, and the Canadian healthcare system is crumbling. It has to ration care and deny services.

Haiti in no way represents a small government. It’s history is rife with totalitarian despots and its current political and legal environment precludes it from having economic freedom and economic success.

 

[mary_bobo]

Some government programs do enable poverty; however, there are people who genuinely need help. I believe those who aren’t elderly or disabled, however, should do some kind of work or community service for their welfare benefits.

Absolutely. And we should (or someone in government) should go thru the system with a fine toothed comb and combine the programs that address the same issues and cut waste that way. There are many programs that are full of waste, fraud and abuse. This should be looked at. As I recall, when Clinton worked with the GOP to balance the budget, there was a provision for welfare to work. One appreciates more what one has to work for rather than that which is given. There is no dignity in that.

As for SS some adjustments are going to have to be made. We cannot continue to run it status quo. There are not enough people paying in to sustain it as it is. And I am tired of the old “Republicans want to take away your SS” that the Dems trot out every election cycle. No politician in his right mind would do that.

Fact remains, we cannot continue as we are. We know what the problem is, let’s hear some ideas on how to fix it.

 

[estesbob]

My point is, that what you stated was an opinion, not a fact. There are big government countries that do well, like Canada. There are small government countries that don’t do well, such as Haiti. So the effect of government spending on job growth and employment is debatable. The effect of government spending on economic freedom is not debatable.

Canada has a mostly homogeneous population of around 36 million-less than a 10th of the population in the US. You simply can not compare the two.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Canada has a mostly homogeneous population of around 36 million-less than a 10th of the population in the US. You simply can not compare the two.

So in other words, because there is so much variability in countries, there is not much we can infer regarding the effect of the size of government on economic prosperity.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Canada does well because it has the US as its protector, and spends little on national defense. It also has the US as a layer of protection from the invasion of millions of very poor, untrained people from Mexico and Central America. It also benefits spectacularly from open trade with the US.

All that said, and the Canadian healthcare system is crumbling. It has to ration care and deny services.

Haiti in no way represents a small government. It’s history is rife with totalitarian despots and its current political and legal environment precludes it from having economic freedom and economic success.

You also have countries like Germany, which spends more as a percentage of GDP than both the US and Canada, yet it is still economically prosperous.