Voting

  • Thread starter Thread starter Louis_Mazar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Philip P:
No, you would succeed in driving abortion underground, thereby killing women as well as children…
This is one of the fallacious arguments the left has used to justify abortion (I’m not saying you are pro-abortion, Phillip, based on your writing you are not), for decades now. For starters it presumes there aren’t illegal abortions taking place now. Minors are having abortions without parental consent and that’s illegal in most states.

No one is ever forced to have an abortion. If a woman choses to kill her baby and dies in the process, then where does the responsibility lie? With her, of course.
 
Only The Rich Pay Taxes

Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay 96.03% of Income Taxes

October 10, 2003

There is new data for 2001. The share of total income taxes paid by the top 1% fell to 33.89% from 37.42% in 2000. This is mainly because their income share (not just wages) fell from 20.81% to 17.53%. However, their average tax rate actually rose slightly from 27.45% to 27.50%.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/me...96_09__of_income_taxes.Par.0008.ImageFile.jpg

*Data covers calendar year 2001, not fiscal year 2001 - and includes all income, not just wages, excluding Social Security

This proves that it was not the tax cut that caused revenues from the rich to fall, but the recession and the stock market crash. In other words, you live by the sword, you die by the sword. If you are going to benefit from the rich paying more taxes, due to progressivity, on the upside, you are going to lose more revenue from these people on the downside. This is a good argument for reducing progressivity.

Think of it this way: less than four dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. Are the top half millionaires? Noooo, more like “thousandaires.” The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $26,000 and up in 1999. (The top 1% earned $293,000-plus.) Americans who want to are continuing to improve their lives - and those who don’t want to, aren’t. Here are the wage earners in each category and the percentages they pay:

Top 5% pay 53.25% of all income taxes (Down from 2000 figure: 56.47%). The top 10% pay 64.89% (Down from 2000 figure: 67.33%). The top 25% pay 82.9% (Down from 2000 figure: 84.01%). The top 50% pay 96.03% (Down from 2000 figure: 96.09%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.97% of all income taxes. The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 17.53 (2000: 20.81%) of all income. The top 5% earns 31.99 (2000: 35.30%). The top 10% earns 43.11% (2000: 46.01%); the top 25% earns 65.23% (2000: 67.15%), and the top 50% earns 86.19% (2000: 87.01%) of all the income.

The Rich Earned Their Dough, They Didn’t Inherit It (Except Ted Kennedy)

The bottom 50% is paying a tiny bit of the taxes, so you can’t give them much of a tax cut by definition. Yet these are the people to whom the Democrats claim to want to give tax cuts. Remember this the next time you hear the “tax cuts for the rich” business. Understand that the so-called rich are about the only ones paying taxes anymore.

I had a conversation with a woman who identified herself as Misty on Wednesday. She claimed to be an accountant, yet she seemed unaware of the Alternative Minimum Tax, which now ensures that everyone pays some taxes. AP reports that the AMT, “designed in 1969 to ensure 155 wealthy people paid some tax,” will hit “about 2.6 million of us this year and 36 million by 2010.” That’s because the tax isn’t indexed for inflation! If your salary today would’ve made you mega-rich in '69, that’s how you’re taxed.

Misty tried the old line that all wealth is inherited. Not true. John Weicher, as a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank, wrote in his February 13, 1997 Washington Post Op-Ed, “Most of the rich have earned their wealth… Looking at the Fortune 400, quite a few even of the very richest people came from a standing start, while others inherited a small business and turned it into a giant corporation.” What’s happening here is not that “the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.” The numbers prove it.

I have made an executive decision as the owner and ultimate editor of this website that this table and these numbers stay on this website forever - or until next year’s numbers come out. In order to get these facts, you have to see them each and every day. This story, along with a link to the IRS chart, will stay somewhere on the RushLimbaugh.com homepage so everyone can see and find these numbers at any time. It’s crucial that people get this, so please, share it with a friend now!

Check Out the UPDATED IRS Table of Numbers from 2001…

(The IRS: Individual Income Tax Returns Each Tax Year 1986 - 2001)
{Requires EXCEL to View}
irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls
(Rush Limbaugh.com Non-EXCEL version of the 2000 IRS Data)
rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/irsfigures.member.html
Read the Article…
rushlimbaugh.com/home/stacks/study.guest.html
(AP: Obscure minimum tax will affect 36 million by 2010)
 
Philip P:
No, you would succeed in driving abortion underground, thereby killing women as well as children…
http://home.houston.rr.com/mchance3/rolleyes.gif

Never mind that there’s no evidence that this would happen. Never mind that even when abortion was generally illegal, it didn’t happen. Never mind that women are both maimed and killed from legal abortion right now, and – quite obviously – the children killed by abortion don’t do that well either, which makes your expressed concern for women and children ring rather hollow.

Why not just 'fess up? You want abortion to stay legal. Everything you’ve said implicitly amounts to as much.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
40.png
Richardols:
Is there? Go to the Democrats For Life website and see how many Democratic congressmen and state politicians are pro-life.

I very much resent the rightists on this Forum implying if not actually stating that all virtue and honesty and morality lies with the Republican Party and its politicians.
You always are making these broad sweeping generalizations about us. You also said we take delight in capital punishment. When I can not find one person on this forum who cheers when somebody is put to death or thinks all virtue, morality, and honesty lies in the Republican Party. :tsktsk:

The Republican Party is filled with corrupt politicians and some bad policies. But compare that to the Nazis/Democratic Party which is for the killing of innocent human beings.
Can you justify voting for Nazis, saying Hitler is for the working Germans, giving them employment and all? It is as crazy as justifying a vote for a “pro-choice” Democrat. “Well, the Republicans are out to get me and I don’t like any of their policies. The Democratic policies will help me out. Who cares if the Democrats support the murder of 40 million human beings and counting. I gotta think about me and other “real” Americans… that is what it comes down to. The 40 million children weren’t “real” Americans or real anything.”

This logic is right out of the 1930s and 1940s Nazis Germany.

Photos of premature babies:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/fotos/preemie.jpg

[paloaltoonline.com/news_features/year(name removed by moderator)hotos2001/pages/10.htm](http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news_features/year(name removed by moderator)hotos2001/pages/10.htm)

Photos of child in the womb:

wombswindow.com/photos.htm

Photos of aborted babies:

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosassorted/index.htm

This mass slaughter is going on right now in our country.
 
40.png
mlchance:
Never mind that there’s no evidence that this would happen. Never mind that even when abortion was generally illegal, it didn’t happen.
I think it is guaranteed to happen as long as a large proportion of society thinks abortion is ‘ok’ and the religious people are just imposing their views by banning it. I can imagine a large underground network, doctors who still believe abortion to be ok talking in whispers to distressed potential mothers, and so forth.

There certainly were a large number of backstreet abortions in the UK before abortion was made legal, and in those days abortion was mostly viewed as unacceptable. (See the film ‘Vera Drake’) Women were injured and died.

It is vital that we press that abortion is wrong, and the reasons that it is wrong. There are excellent secular arguments against abortion, teachings of the Vatican apart, and perhaps we should concentrate on those a little more, in order that the anti-abortion lobby can’t just be dismissed as ‘religious idealogues’. I think this would be useful progress.

Mike
 
40.png
MikeWM:
I think it is guaranteed to happen as long as a large proportion of society thinks abortion is ‘ok’ and the religious people are just imposing their views by banning it. I can imagine a large underground network, doctors who still believe abortion to be ok talking in whispers to distressed potential mothers, and so forth.
A large proportion of society doesn’t think abortion is okay. Well, at least not the U.S. As for imagining things: I can imagine pigs with eagle’s wings that swoop down and snatch salmon out of dark, arctic waters. Doesn’t make them real.
40.png
MikeWM:
There certainly were a large number of backstreet abortions in the UK before abortion was made legal…
Maybe that was the case in the UK (and it certainly takes more than a movie biography of well-meaning but simple-minded woman to demonstrate anything), but it wasn’t case here in the U.S.
40.png
MikeWM:
It is vital that we press that abortion is wrong, and the reasons that it is wrong.
Those arguments have been made and re-made for 30 years here in the U.S. It’s time for the arguments to stop and for definite action to occur.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
Originally Posted by MikeWM
*It is vital that we press that abortion is wrong, and the reasons that it is wrong. *
40.png
mlchance:
Those arguments have been made and re-made for 30 years here in the U.S. It’s time for the arguments to stop and for definite action to occur.

– Mark L. Chance.
The way we do that is make a simple argument anyone can understand, “If you support abortion, you lose the Catholic vote.”
 
40.png
mlchance:
Why not just 'fess up? You want abortion to stay legal. Everything you’ve said implicitly amounts to as much.
No, I want abortion to stay illegal, at the time when it finally is made so. Putting the legislative cart before the democratic horse is a surefire way to make sure we, the pro-life movement, fail. And there is evidence for this, right in our nations very own history. Look at Prohibition. I know many now dismiss the Prohibition movement as a rather silly little incident in our nation’s history, but it certainly wasn’t so at the time. There were very serious moral arguments made for it, many of which are quite reasonable. By banning alcohol we would dramatically reduce domestic violence, increase worker productivity and help the poor (by keeping them clean and sober and so better able to get and keep good jobs), reduce sexual licentousness, and free up economic resources that were otherwise being literally drunk away.

Despite all the pious talk, however, and despite gathering enough popular support to overcome the substantial barriers needed to make an amendment to the Constitution, it failed. Why? Because people didn’t really believe in it. Instead, prohibition succeeded in giving us almost the exact opposite of everything it promised. There’s a lesson there. If we want a law or national policy to succeed, there has to be an authentic democratic consensus in support of it. That is our task. We have not yet achieved it, so talking of makin abortion illegal is premature.

BTW, since we seem to have shifted to pro-life strategy now, rather than voting as such, I’ve started a new thread. I think the British and American experiences with slavery can be instructive for the modern pro-life movement. Discuss at: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=66010
 
40.png
mlchance:
A large proportion of society doesn’t think abortion is okay. Well, at least not the U.S. As for imagining things: I can imagine pigs with eagle’s wings that swoop down and snatch salmon out of dark, arctic waters. Doesn’t make them real.
But a large proportion of society does think it is ok! (I don’t have figures for the US to hand, but in the UK 76% of women are pro-choice. I expect the figure in the US to be lower but rather higher than 0%).

I frequent some philosophy discussion forums (fora?!) and we tend to imagine pink unicorns when we need something silly 🙂

Nevertheless, some things are rather more likely than others. When dealing with any change in social policy you have to at least consider what the effects may be.
Maybe that was the case in the UK (and it certainly takes more than a movie biography of well-meaning but simple-minded woman to demonstrate anything), but it wasn’t case here in the U.S.
Of course; the film reference was meant to be illustrative, not ‘proof’.

The UK Home Office in 1966 estimated there were around 100,000 backstreet abortions each year. By the time the Abortion Act of 1967 had bedded in, there were around 150,000 a year. So making abortion legal did increase the number of abortions, but not by that much. (The current figure is about 180,000).

I find it extremely hard to believe there was no equivalent of a ‘backstreet abortion’ in the USA, and that there wouldn’t be if abortion was made illegal.
Those arguments have been made and re-made for 30 years here in the U.S. It’s time for the arguments to stop and for definite action to occur.
Perhaps, but all you seem to have on the table is fiddling until sufficient Supreme Court justices can be appointed to overturn Roe (and in my opinion, appointing such a vital role based just on their opinion to the one question is at the very least, dangerous). And even then abortion will remain legal in many states. I can’t help but feel efforts would be better spent on education and support, and reforming the adoption system, to save lives in the immediate term, rather than the convoluted and time-consuming legal routes available.

Mike
 
Philip P:
…Putting the legislative cart before the democratic horse is a surefire way to make sure we, the pro-life movement, fail.
Taking the issue back from the judiciary and putting it into legislatures where it constitutionally belongs is a very important step in the direction of democracy and majority rule.
Philip P:
…And there is evidence for this, right in our nations very own history. Look at Prohibition. I know many now dismiss the Prohibition movement as a rather silly little incident in our nation’s history, but it certainly wasn’t so at the time. There were very serious moral arguments made for it, many of which are quite reasonable. By banning alcohol we would dramatically reduce domestic violence, increase worker productivity and help the poor (by keeping them clean and sober and so better able to get and keep good jobs), reduce sexual licentousness, and free up economic resources that were otherwise being literally drunk away.

Despite all the pious talk, however, and despite gathering enough popular support to overcome the substantial barriers needed to make an amendment to the Constitution, it failed. Why? Because people didn’t really believe in it. Instead, prohibition succeeded in giving us almost the exact opposite of everything it promised. There’s a lesson there. If we want a law or national policy to succeed, there has to be an authentic democratic consensus in support of it. That is our task. We have not yet achieved it, so talking of makin abortion illegal is premature.
Because of the enormous demand for alcohol, Prohibition was essentially unenforceable. Satisfying that demand allowed criminals to acquire organizational skills which they applied to other aspects of their business. But I don’t think the demand for abortion is anywhere near the demand for alcohol. And because of that, protecting unborn babies would be much more enforceable. Would you completely eliminate it? No. Just as you can’t completely eliminate any other crime just by legislating.
 
I also don’t doubt there are some abuses that the Bishops should be weeding out. However, the documents in question are precisely those issued by the Bishops themselves, not the abusers you mention.
I continue to believe that the Bishops are basically correct. If I believed the Bishops weren’t strong and forthright in the faith, then I think my trust in the Church would be shaken. Fortunately I personally don’t see that from the Bishops; again I am very, very wary, short of obvious signs of outright abuse, to decide I know better what the Church should be than the Bishops.
After Humanae Vitae was published, all but about 3 Canadian bishops signed a statement saying they rejected it and sent it to the Vatican. Bishops are not infallible and they are oftentimes pressured by the societies they live in to not be as courageous as they could be. When it comes to politics in the USA, I fear many bishops here are too wary to take the high road and courageously defend the Truth at all costs, especially in light of the abuse scandal. I understand it, but I don’t have to agree with it.
 
40.png
legeorge:
After Humanae Vitae was published, all but about 3 Canadian bishops signed a statement saying they rejected it and sent it to the Vatican. Bishops are not infallible and they are oftentimes pressured by the societies they live in to not be as courageous as they could be. When it comes to politics in the USA, I fear many bishops here are too wary to take the high road and courageously defend the Truth at all costs, especially in light of the abuse scandal. I understand it, but I don’t have to agree with it.
If the Catholic bishops had come out strongly against abortion at the outset, we wouldn’t have legalized abortion in this country today.

Of course if courage were shoes, most American Catholic bishops would be naked from the neck down.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
 
Originally Posted by Richardols
Is there? Go to the Democrats For Life website and see how many Democratic congressmen and state politicians are pro-life.
Yes, they say they are pro-life, but when push comes to shove…let’s just say I have personal knowledge of this phenomenon. I voted for a pro-life democrat who attended the parish I belonged to at the time. For a time, he was voting pro-life, but less than a year in Washington was all the time it took for him to start bending to the pressure of his party and going the other way. 😦 Needless to say, I didn’t vote for his re-election.
 
40.png
legeorge:
Yes, they say they are pro-life, but when push comes to shove…let’s just say I have personal knowledge of this phenomenon. I voted for a pro-life democrat who attended the parish I belonged to at the time. For a time, he was voting pro-life, but less than a year in Washington was all the time it took for him to start bending to the pressure of his party and going the other way. 😦 Needless to say, I didn’t vote for his re-election.
Let’s remember what happened to the partial birth abortion bill in the early years of the present administration. The House passed a bill banning that grisly crime. It went to the Senate, where 60 Senators signed on as sponsors. Surely it passed, right?

Wrong. Even though the overwelming majority of the Senate supported it, it never came to a vote. The Democrats were in the majority in the Senate during that term of Congress, and the senior Democrats were, of course, the committee chairmen. They bottled it up in committee and refused to let it come to the floor for a vote.

Only in the next Congress, when the Republicans controlled both houses, did the bill finally pass and get signed into law.

So I say to my fellow Catholics who consider themselves Democrats, clean up your party. As long as pro-abortionists lead the Democratic party it will be the pro-abortion party, no matter what the occasional individual Democratic Representative or Senator might profess.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top