The Sins of Relativism, Soft-Despotism, and Progressivism

[Galnextdoor]

In colleges and universities throughout the U.S. it is almost impossible to graduate without coming into contact with the belief that there are no absolutes. There is no absolute right; there is no absolute wrong; there is no absolute reality; and there is no absolute truth. This belief holds that there are only people’s perceptions of what they believe is right or wrong. There is no right for everybody, there is no wrong for everybody. We would have to walk in their shoes to decide whether something they do is right or wrong. On the face of it this seems almost Christian. But, … people begin to apply this to things like abortion, same sex marriages, and what people should say about what is right in wrong.

Because no one wants to say that something is absolutely wrong, they turn to the government to decide what is right and what is wrong. If the law of the government says that something is right or wrong, then people in general accept that. (That’s how we have ended up with Catholic politicians who say “Personally, I’m against that, but I represent my constituents who don’t feel that way.”) People have begun to rely, not on their Christian consciences, but what the government says is right or wrong.

As the government usurps the place of a conscience, it begins to think it knows what’s best for its people. It begins to make more decisions for the people that may go directly against the Christian conscience, but people accept it because the government says that these laws are what’s best for the majority of people.

At first the people may protest, but the government uses the real opiate of the masses to keep the people pacified, the promise of money and security. Programs are forced on people, who are not allowed to use the free-will that God gave them. Those who work hard to make money, are forced to give their charity in the form of taxes, because they can no longer afford to donate directly. The charitable works previously done by churches is done by the state. But, … in order to receive that “charity”, people have to go through whatever hoops the government requires.

Eventually, the country ends up with a soft despot government. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_despotism
People vote for a candidate not for his moral integrity, not for the content of his character,
but for what government goodies he promises them. It wont matter whether he is evil, or is anti-religion. It wont matter if he bends the legal system to silence his enemies. What will matter is what assets he puts in the pocket of the common man.

Lately there has been a lot of talk in our nation about Progressivism. Progressivism is the melding of relativism, soft-despotism, and atheism into one movement. It places our hope of “happiness” in the hands of science and government. It doesn’t encourage people to look to the Word of God for our salvation and peace. Pope Benedict discusses this in depth in his encyclical Spe Salvi I encourage people to read the whole thing. The section on The Transformation of Christian Faith-hope in the Modern Age addresses many of the problems American Catholics are facing today in our culture.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe-salvi_en.html

I hope Americans wake up and stop splitting themselves into dual personalities; one for church and one for public.

 

[portarica]

In colleges and universities throughout the U.S. it is almost impossible to graduate without coming into contact with the belief that there are no absolutes. There is no absolute right; there is no absolute wrong; there is no absolute reality; and there is no absolute truth. This belief holds that there are only people’s perceptions of what they believe is right or wrong. There is no right for everybody, there is no wrong for everybody. We would have to walk in their shoes to decide whether something they do is right or wrong. On the face of it this seems almost Christian. But, … people begin to apply this to things like abortion, same sex marriages, and what people should say about what is right in wrong.

Because no one wants to say that something is absolutely wrong, they turn to the government to decide what is right and what is wrong. If the law of the government says that something is right or wrong, then people in general accept that. (That’s how we have ended up with Catholic politicians who say “Personally, I’m against that, but I represent my constituents who don’t feel that way.”) People have begun to rely, not on their Christian consciences, but what the government says is right or wrong.

As the government usurps the place of a conscience, it begins to think it knows what’s best for its people. It begins to make more decisions for the people that may go directly against the Christian conscience, but people accept it because the government says that these laws are what’s best for the majority of people.

At first the people may protest, but the government uses the real opiate of the masses to keep the people pacified, the promise of money and security. Programs are forced on people, who are not allowed to use the free-will that God gave them. Those who work hard to make money, are forced to give their charity in the form of taxes, because they can no longer afford to donate directly. The charitable works previously done by churches is done by the state. But, … in order to receive that “charity”, people have to go through whatever hoops the government requires.

Eventually, the country ends up with a soft despot government. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_despotism
People vote for a candidate not for his moral integrity, not for the content of his character,
but for what government goodies he promises them. It wont matter whether he is evil, or is anti-religion. It wont matter if he bends the legal system to silence his enemies. What will matter is what assets he puts in the pocket of the common man.

Lately there has been a lot of talk in our nation about Progressivism. Progressivism is the melding of relativism, soft-despotism, and atheism into one movement. It places our hope of “happiness” in the hands of science and government. It doesn’t encourage people to look to the Word of God for our salvation and peace. Pope Benedict discusses this in depth in his encyclical Spe Salvi I encourage people to read the whole thing. The section on The Transformation of Christian Faith-hope in the Modern Age addresses many of the problems American Catholics are facing today in our culture.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe-salvi_en.html

I hope Americans wake up and stop splitting themselves into dual personalities; one for church and one for public.

Then why do the republicans get votes if their constituencies generally have the poorest educational systems, the poorest health care and shortest lifespans ?

And why do the states with the highest average earnings generally vote for things that help other people?

As for states being forced to have programs, that is exactly the point. Look at South Carolina, its politicians have some of the least well off constituents and while they are off vacationing on the Appalachian trail or in south america they complain about being forced to provide unemployment or in the past integrated schools and no state sponsored apartheid.

Peace

 

[Galnextdoor]

Then why do the republicans get votes if their constituencies generally have the poorest educational systems, the poorest health care and shortest lifespans ?

And why do the states with the highest average earnings generally vote for things that help other people?

As for states being forced to have programs, that is exactly the point. Look at South Carolina, its politicians have some of the least well off constituents and while they are off vacationing on the Appalachian trail or in south america they complain about being forced to provide unemployment or in the past integrated schools and no state sponsored apartheid.

Peace

I am sorry, but I don’t see any relation between my post and your questions.

 

[Darkbloom]

Then why do the republicans get votes if their constituencies generally have the poorest educational systems, the poorest health care and shortest lifespans ? And why do the states with the highest average earnings generally vote for things that help other people?

What are you basing this on?

As for states being forced to have programs, that is exactly the point. Look at South Carolina, its politicians have some of the least well off constituents and while they are off vacationing on the Appalachian trail or in south america they complain about being forced to provide unemployment or in the past integrated schools and no state sponsored apartheid.
Peace

Mark Sanford’s a knucklehead so all Republicans are bad?

States being forced to institute programs is unconstitutional and violates the concepts of states as checks on federal power and the states as “laboratories of democracy.”

California, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois have long been run by Democrats and they are also among the most financially out of whack states in the union. Places like Texas and Indiana are extremely conservative and in much better fiscal shape. If anything, California should be forced to emulate Texas.

 

[Black_Rose]

I hope Americans wake up and stop splitting themselves into dual personalities; one for church and one for public.

I said this before:

But I think the best solution is to compartmentalize my life and thoughts where my spiritual and “empirical” sides have little overlap but nonetheless exist coevally. There may be conflict where my “empirical” side finds gratification in captiously destroying flawed arguments presented by others intending to support the faith (or the existence of a general deity.) But I realize that being pertinacious empiricist renders one incapable of experiencing god and developing sincere faith.

As for me, I am pragmatic because as I journey through the road of faith, I have no intention gaining an in-depth knowledge of the Magisterium’s social teaching. This not because I find it irrelevant, bereft of information and knowledge, or lacking moral authority, but because such an activity has a high opportunity cost. In other words, a moment used for that activity cannot be used for acquiring information about the global economy, achieving a relatively sophisticated understanding of modern politics, or accumulating a large reservoir of historical knowledge. (I have a strong admiration for Henry C.K. Liu for achieving this even though he is Mao apologist and possesses contempt for Christianity.) Of course, a basic understanding is indeed needed, but beyond that understanding the marginal utility of that activity would fall. Immersing myself in secular politics and events is necessary for me to be as wise as a serpent, but as gentle (simple) as a dove (Matthew 10:16).

But even as a skeptical agnostic, I believe that it was my moral duty to respect those who are suffering yet cannot articulate their own interests. (My previous secular morality did not apply to the vulnerable babies in their mother’s womb that could be denied their right to live.) To me, the right to private property does not permit one to believe that some people have a right to enjoy caviar while other people should starve.

…

I would not totally eschew exposure to Church teaching but I do not consider it wise to employ a huge investment (position) on it since I want to also a diverse array of secular ideas at my disposal too. This much like financial portfolio that has numerous (uncorrelated) positions for diversification purposes which reduces the volatility of the portfolio (and its downside potential) as opposed to a concentrated portfolio with only a few positions rendering the portfolio vulnerable to a large negative move in a position. Certainly Church teaching should influence our consciences, but it is impossible for it solely influence our consciences because it would also be inevitable impacted by secular values and philosophies. My own conscience is still has the impressions of secular philosophy and ethics, but I suppose most of these values are compatible with Church teaching. It is not possible for me to construct a new system of ethics de novo based on Church teaching, but it will be built based on a foundation of my previous secular ethics. It is much more productive when dealing with Machiavellian world to phrase one’s ethical concerns in a secular, universal language as oppose to the sectarian perspective of the Church.

 

[Black_Rose]

I posted this earlier:

It is fairly easy for one to recognize and criticize the imperfections of any society, but it is difficult for one to propose a solution to these imperfections or a feasible alternative vision. What is your alternative vision for France that would replace the social democratic state? How would fully embracing the bourgeois (and neoliberal) values of economic freedom, individual liberty, private property, limited government, privatization, free movement of financial capital, and free trade make France more prosperous and secure? How would embracing your ideas of “freedom” over the “soft despotism” of the “Ancien Régime” of the social democratic welfare state be better for the people?

In colleges and universities throughout the U.S. it is almost impossible to graduate without coming into contact with the belief that there are no absolutes. There is no absolute right; there is no absolute wrong; there is no absolute reality; and there is no absolute truth. This belief holds that there are only people’s perceptions of what they believe is right or wrong. There is no right for everybody, there is no wrong for everybody

There is an absolute zero in physics . I came across that in high school and university.

On epistemology:
There is an absolute reality which can indeed to explored through the scientific methods, but our own senses, intuition, and reasoning can indeed be flawed and prevent one from understanding absolute reality. Scientific knowledge is not considered absolute truth, but is tentative in nature due to its incompleteness. Scientific knowledge’s virtue is that is not considered absolute or unequivocally verified, but because such knowledge has resisted falsification (refutation) by rigorous testing and observation. Mathematics does indeed have absolute truth where conclusions are reached through deductive reasoning from accepted postulates as opposed to induction in the empirical sciences. From this foundation of accepted postulates, one can arrive at certain “truths”, mathematical knowledge, proving them.

Of course, you posts primarily focuses on politics and morality.

 

[Galnextdoor]

I said this before:

You stated that you had no intention of learning about the Church’s social teachings, but yet you feel comfortable criticizing it and “compartmentalizing” yourself. You stated that you would rather gain a sophisticated knowledge of modern politics.

This so sad that almost breaks my heart. The Church holds the Truth, and the Way. Why search for it institutions founded by man, when Christ founded something more than an institution to guide us?

A person can never hope for heaven if they compartmentalize the spiritual from the intellectual. The both require us to ask and seek the Truth, which comes from God.
If the spiritual is compartmentalized away from the intellectual and emotional parts of oneself, that person will always be at war with oneself. We were created intellectual, emotional, spiritual and physical beings. All of these parts of ourself should be engaged as we go through life. They must all be kept in balance so we don’t become warped, but with our ultimate goal being heaven, the presence of God should be acknowledged in everything we do.

All of us have a desire to do the right thing. None of us want the disabled to starve or the mentally ill to be homeless. But we should do it the way Christ taught us, with love in our hearts and our hand extended to help.

The soft-despotism plays on our sympathies for those less fortunate than ourselves. It also plays on our own selfishness. It says look at these poor unfortunate people, vote for me and you wont have to worry about them, the government will take care of them. The government will make sure someone is there to help them.

Hitler used that approach when he began rounding up all the disabled people and killing them.

I went to college with a guy from Germany whose father was a soldier in the German army during WWII. This what he told me,

" My dad was responsible for rounding up the Jews and mental retards and putting them on trains. Hey, he was just following the law. The law was that Jews, f*gs, and retards were to go on trains so no one had to be around them or worry about them. He didn’t know they were making lampshades out of them." Then he started to laugh.

It was the most repugnant thing I had ever heard anyone say to my face. It has stuck with me for 25 years.

My thought is how does someone get to the point where they think its okay for the government to ship people away against their will, even if they don’t know what is ultimately happening to those people.

It starts by people putting their hope and faith in government. Believing that the government will do what’s best for the people even if we don’t personally agree with it.

If you allow yourself to remain silent about what you know to be right and wrong because you don’t want to be called a dullard or seem unsophisticated, you begin to forget what’s right and wrong. Or maybe you still know it’s right or wrong, but you don’t remember why any more. Then you can’t even think why you should defend it. Then you end up not caring as long as it doesn’t directly effect you. Then even if directly effects you it doesn’t matter what you try to say, because you have given up your right to say what’s right and wrong in order to maintain “peace.” You become the powerless silent majority who does whatever the law says.

 

[CMatt25]

You generalize. All progressives do not say there is not one truth and it’s all relative. I’m a progressive because I very strongly believe Christ was unabashedly progressive. And I don’t believe one can truly and fully follow Christ by not making the poor and issues such as healthcare, hunger, the homeless and war, front and center.

Christ spoke of the poor. the sick, the hungry, the homeless, the prisoner in Matthew 25. Blessed are the peacemakers He told us from the Mount. Love one another was the Gospel of our Lord. Yet these have taken a backseat to abortion and gays and Christ did not even mention the words abortion or homosexual.

I am accused all the time here on CAF for being a relativist. But I believe there is one truth. I just don’t believe we can with 100% absolutely certainty always **“KNOW” ** every dotted “i” and crossed “t” of the truth.

That’s why we call it faith and beliefs. And if we are each honest with ourselves, it all begins and comes down in the end to just that. Faith.

And I leave it to God’s mercy if I am wrong.

If that makes me a relativist, then I am honored to be one. But it doesn’t mean I don’t believe there is one truth. I just am humble enough and not so presumptuous to judge or think I am more right than anyone else.

Anyway that’s IMHO. God bless and peace.

 

[DonM]

I doubt we would agree on what a progressive is, but one thing I notice about all political partisans: they are not relativists. They are all quite certain of their various points of view. Richard Dawkins is adamant in his view that religion is the root of all evil. Some are certain they have a right to an abortion. Relativism is not a fault of our current political culture.

 

[St_Francis]

Relativists believe in relativism absolutely…

This is what I have seen: that people who are religious are considered superstitious, ignorant peasants. Non-religious people are seen as sophisticated, educated cosmopolitans. People who go to college are exposed to these two attitudes in the most concentrated form, and guess how they prefer to be perceived?

Religious belief seems almost like an affront to the non-religious–it makes them *angry. *While there are plenty of people who really want to help those in need, those who want to control others *in the guise *of helping the poor are the ones who end up in charge. You can see this by how the latter personally volunteer (very little) and give to charity (very little).

To me, charity ought to be a church activity, *not *a political activity. The government needs to be concerned with justice rather than with mercy (Dr Peter Kreeft). When the government is in charge of mercy (ie, charitable activity), the government has too much power.

The foundation of charity is caritas: acting charitably *for the love of God and thus for Christ-in-our-neighbor. *We all are not supposed to rely on the government but on God: those who are not in need are not supposed to merely shove money at the poor so that they will go away and leave them alone rather than reminding them that they are where they are by the grace of God; and those who are in need are supposed to rely on God rather than on the government.

Back in the Middle Ages, when societies were Catholic, people dedicated their entire lives to helping those in need. “Social safety nets” were provided by the monasteries and convents which were in turn voluntarily supported by those around them. There were no massive bureaucracies and the monks and nuns did not have families to support and educations to pay off. There was a general sense that those with authority had been put in that position by God and had duties and responsibilities to those under their authority rather than the individualistic sense of autonomous superiority that we see in people today.

We have split the various aspects of that Catholic society apart and nothing will really work as long as our social foundation is something other than the love of God and unity of the Church.

 

[Black_Rose]

Back in the Middle Ages, when societies were Catholic, people dedicated their entire lives to helping those in need. “Social safety nets” were provided by the monasteries and convents which were in turn voluntarily supported by those around them. There were no massive bureaucracies and the monks and nuns did not have families to support and educations to pay off. There was a general sense that those with authority had been put in that position by God and had duties and responsibilities to those under their authority rather than the individualistic sense of autonomous superiority that we see in people today.

We have split the various aspects of that Catholic society apart and nothing will really work as long as our social foundation is something other than the love of God and unity of the Church.

Your post reminds me of this entry about the Tang Dynasty of China:

Chinese society during the time of Wu Zhao, in the early part of the Tang
dynasty (618-907), is fortunate in that its economy enjoys long periods of
continuous growth. Along with material growth, cultural development and social
mobility also accelerate.
Poverty in the form of pathological social despair is not prevalent in Tang
time.

The flowering of Tang culture has its roots in the high quality of life enjoyed
by all her citizens, regardless of their social positions and income levels, and
the high standard of the efforts of their labor, manual or intellectual,
regardless of their commercial values.

Since money is only one of the determinants of a good life rather than the all
consuming ingredient, the pleasures of life are not denied to those who do not
aspire to financial wealth, or those who are unable to achieve it because they
do not care to surrender to society’s financial rules.

The inner peace preached by Daoist and Buddhist precepts are verifiable by the
individual’s direct personal experience in the socio-economic realm of the Tang
era. The rejection of materialistic concerns does not necessarily reduce one to
abject poverty, nor earned society’s scorn.

On the contrary, hermits are respected by society and donations toward their
upkeep are considered as enlightened expressions of the donors’ own sagacious
insight rather than ostentatious acts of charity. Generally, an imbalance exist
between donors and recipients, the number wishing to give frequently exceeding
the number prepared to receive.

Whenever a seng (Buddhist monk) or a dao’shi (Daoist priest) or a wandering free
spirit should show up in a village, his presence would be celebrated by an
spontaneous outpouring of generous giving by the villagers that would resemble
an instant festival.

Even in modern time, sengs in Southeast Asian societies would still receive
daily meals by simply walking through villages, without begging, while the pious
lay population would await their habitual schedule with the finest food in the
house ready to give with eagerness, the way bird-lovers would feed their
ornithic idols.

Chinese royalty and aristocrats cultivated respectful relationships with
hermits, many of whom they offered sponsorship in their favorite retreat,
Songshan, and their generous gifts were often graciously declined by the pure
souls.

Many historians would credit this social cohesion of Tang culture, in a society
of spiritual piety, ordered hierarchy, ethnic diversity, cultural assimilation,
political cohesion, if not continuous stability, and social mobility, to the
effectiveness of Confucian emphasis on self-restraint and the calming effect of
Buddhist acceptance of fate. They would cherish the Confucian notion of natural
hierarchy, balanced with the Buddhist view of all things being fundamentally
equal in essence, that have permitted the pursuit of perfection to flourish at
all social levels rather than being concentrated at the top.

The struggle between the aims of Xiao’kang (Individual Contentment) and the
vision of Da’tong (General Harmony) takes place not only during Tang time, but
also throughout Chinese history, and in many ways, the same struggle would still
continue in modern time after some 13 centuries. It takes place under the
mantle of Chinese feudal society which has modeled its social and political
structure as an extension of its basic unit: the family.
Confucian ethics imprints this codified world view in the collective
consciousness of the Chinese people. It regards the Chinese nation as one
extended family.

lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/2001-November/035090.html

St Francis, I would like some excellent secondary (or even primary) sources for your comments about the values of the Middle Ages. I am not asking this to challenge your assertions nor to perforate your argument, but I would like to gain an appreciation for the culture and tradition of the Middle Ages so I could see the positive facets of it. This view, of course, is antithetical to the generally accepted sentiment that the Middle Ages were a “negative” period of stagnation whose political system, an infusion of aristocratic interests and the Church, stifled innovation and progress. Of course, I gravitate towards the latter view, but I want to gain an appreciation of the former view.

 

[St_Francis]

Your post reminds me of this entry about the Tang Dynasty of China:

lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/2001-November/035090.html

St Francis, I would like some excellent secondary (or even primary) sources for your comments about the values of the Middle Ages. I am not asking this to challenge your assertions nor to perforate your argument, but I would like to gain an appreciation for the culture and tradition of the Middle Ages so I could see the positive facets of it. This view, of course, is antithetical to the generally accepted sentiment that the Middle Ages were a “negative” period of stagnation whose political system, an infusion of aristocratic interests and the Church, stifled innovation and progress. Of course, I gravitate towards the latter view, but I want to gain an appreciation of the former view.

I will see what I can find for you, but as my understanding has been formed from many different sources over several years, it might be difficult. One thing to consider is that most history is written from a Protestant (English history) or “Englightenment” (rest of Europe and US) point of view, both of which are actually inimical to Catholicism.

Anyway, I will do my best but it may take a bit of time.

Quick examples of my sources: visiting Belgium and finding out about Binche–where they had an asylum for the insane; reading the biography of St Father Damien and finding out about the leprosauriums, etc. You can see that my sources are somewhat ephemeral!

 

[LCMS_No_More]

If anything, California should be forced to emulate Texas.

In some things yes, but in most things, absolutely NOT! California is unique in the world (we could be our own country and be none the worse off) and is most certainly NOT Texas.

 

[Black_Rose]

You stated that you had no intention of learning about the Church’s social teachings, but yet you feel comfortable criticizing it and “compartmentalizing” yourself. You stated that you would rather gain a sophisticated knowledge of modern politics.

I said no intention of gaining a detailed understanding; it is valuable for one to a rather broad, general knowledge of it.

I also said some of those remarks in context of empiricism and faith:

In order for an to embrace a personal God, one must be humble and willing to pray and commune with God via the sacraments (although I can’t do this yet and I might be envious of those who can). It seems that on matters of faith, it is best for one not to think and employ the tools of human rationalization, but for one to genuflect in obeisance to God and rely on the institution he set up (his Church) for salvation from the physical and spiritual despair of this world. I do not need to think but just feel knowing that God loves me something that I was not capable of doing without him. (Yes, my intention was not to make the latter part abstract or intellectual, but subjective and somewhat emotional.)

Believing in the transubstantiation and accepting the Eucharist as a means of communion with my loving creator does not seem justifiable within the paradigm of modernist epistemology such as empiricism. If I do accept communion, it would seem best for me not to think but feel by placing myself in a state receptive to any manifestation of God’s love.

But I think the best solution is to compartmentalize my life and thoughts where my spiritual and “empirical” sides have little overlap but nonetheless exist coevally. There may be conflict where my “empirical” side finds gratification in captiously destroying flawed arguments presented by others intending to support the faith (or the existence of a general deity.) But I realize that being pertinacious empiricist renders one incapable of experiencing god and developing sincere faith.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=442369

 

[Darkbloom]

In some things yes, but in most things, absolutely NOT! California is unique in the world (we could be our own country and be none the worse off) and is most certainly NOT Texas.

Texas was its own country, and is very unique in a number of ways. For instance, Texas is fiscally solvent. Can California say the same?

 

[Swan]

Texas was its own country, and is very unique in a number of ways. For instance, Texas is fiscally solvent. Can California say the same?

I live in California and the biggest problem we have is the state constitutional requirement of 3/4 approval to raise taxes. We may have a majority of Democrats in our state legislature but we have had a lot of Rep governors who blocked or vetoed progressive legislation. Our fiscal mess is in large part a result of these two things. The 3/4 rule results in the 1/4 minority holding the rest of us hostage. It isn’t the Dems fault. We can’t get even a small tax increase on the wealthy or corporations which we need during this fiscal crisis when the bottom rung folks just can’t bear anymore - so we cut all of our services to the poor - the folks who need them the most - while the rich are none the worse for wear. Personally, I find this abhorrent.

 

[Darkbloom]

I live in California and the biggest problem we have is the state constitutional requirement of 3/4 approval to raise taxes. We may have a majority of Democrats in our state legislature but we have had a lot of Rep governors who blocked or vetoed progressive legislation. Our fiscal mess is in large part a result of these two things. The 3/4 rule results in the 1/4 minority holding the rest of us hostage. It isn’t the Dems fault. We can’t get even a small tax increase on the wealthy or corporations which we need during this fiscal crisis when the bottom rung folks just can’t bear anymore - so we cut all of our services to the poor - the folks who need them the most - while the rich are none the worse for wear. Personally, I find this abhorrent.

Why not reduce the cost of government?

 

[portarica]

What are you basing this on?

Mark Sanford’s a knucklehead so all Republicans are bad?

States being forced to institute programs is unconstitutional and violates the concepts of states as checks on federal power and the states as “laboratories of democracy.”

California, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois have long been run by Democrats and they are also among the most financially out of whack states in the union. Places like Texas and Indiana are extremely conservative and in much better fiscal shape. If anything, California should be forced to emulate Texas.

States being forced to implement programs has been generally found to be constitutional.

As to running deficits in a recession, there are some very liberal socially states like MI that are doing pretty good and some conservative states that are doing poorly.

I think that a state can be fiscally conservative, basically being not wasteful, and still be more along the model of helping the least or you can run up big deficits in conservative places like AZ or NV or Tx’s 3.5 billion .

Peace

 

[Darkbloom]

States being forced to implement programs has been generally found to be constitutional.

As to running deficits in a recession, there are some very liberal socially states like MI that are doing pretty good and some conservative states that are doing poorly.
Peace

In no way is it agreed upon fact that forcing states to implement programs is constitutional. Google “abuse of the commerce clause” sometime.

MI is in terrible financial shape. It has an almost 15% unemployment rate. Indiana, just to the south and subject to many of the same economic conditions, has a substantially lower unemployment rate.

In fact, the level to which a state is considered “red” is almost directly proportional to its financial health.

I think that a state can be fiscally conservative, basically being not wasteful, and still be more along the model of helping the least or you can run up big deficits in conservative places like AZ or NV or Tx’s 3.5 billion .

Contradiction in terms. Being fiscally conservative and “helping the least” at the same time is as easy as being a married bachelor.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. The size of CA’s government keeps growing in step with the worsening of the financial picture for the state. If you honestly believe growing the government still further is going to solve budget woes, then I will referrer you to the first sentence of this paragraph.

 

[portarica]

In no way is it agreed upon fact that forcing states to implement programs is constitutional. Google “abuse of the commerce clause” sometime.

MI is in terrible financial shape. It has an almost 15% unemployment rate. Indiana, just to the south and subject to many of the same economic conditions, has a substantially lower unemployment rate.

In fact, the level to which a state is considered “red” is almost directly proportional to its financial health.

Contradiction in terms. Being fiscally conservative and “helping the least” at the same time is as easy as being a married bachelor.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. The size of CA’s government keeps growing in step with the worsening of the financial picture for the state. If you honestly believe growing the government still further is going to solve budget woes, then I will referrer you to the first sentence of this paragraph.

You confuse ease with success. It is not easy to be fiscally conservative and serve the least. It entails the discipline to spend wisely and not waste money.

As to facts comparing MI to Indiana, the 2009 deficit in Indiana was larger as a percentage of the budget than that of Michigan.

So apparently the libs in MI did better than the Cons in Indiana.

Thursday, 22 April 2010 03:44
The budget struggles facing each of the 50 states during the fiscal year of 2009 were the toughest of the decade. Michigan was ranked as one of the worst ten states in terms of its economy. This has caused a major increase in the budget deficit and has challenged legislators to rethink Michigan’s budget structure. By comparing its budget to that of it neighboring states, the positive and negative qualities of each can be recognized.

In 2009, Indiana, Illinois and Michigan all faced budget gaps totaling billions of dollars. Out of the three states, Illinois faced a shortfall of $2.5 billion or 15.1% of its total budget. Michigan followed in dollar amounts with $2 billion, equaling 8.5% of its budget, and Indiana fell short by $1.2 billion, or 9.1% of its budget.

michiganpolicy.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=759:comparative-analysis-of-michigan-illinois-and-indiana-budgets&catid=31:state-budget-policy-briefs&Itemid=96

Peace