Why do Catholics vote Democrat?

[MissMichal]

This Catholic votes Democrat and sometimes Green Party because she is more concerned about people than corporations.

 

[bacon_man]

This Catholic votes Democrat and sometimes Green Party because she is more concerned about people than corporations.

Murdering the unborn, elderly, comatose, and others, is not concern for people. And besides, I am tired of people whining about corporations, they can pay their people however much they want, they earned that position. What the left-wing proposes, is dragging everyone down to their level because some people earn more than them. Profit isn’t bad, it can be used to expand your bussiness, and therefore create more jobs.

 

[NFrancis]

I think it is important to vote for a Pro-Life President because he/she can appoint justices to overturn Roe Vs. Wade. However since abortion is already legal I don’t really see why not to vote for Democratic Congressmen. They won’t really do much to expand abortions.

Also, some people might someway think that electing Obama over McCain would save more lives. They might think McCain would start wars with different countries and Iran could get nukes and… Or Obama would save more lives by keeping the economy up and people in third world countries wouldn’t starve. I was thinking these things during the election and didn’t know who to vote for. I now think McCain obviously would of saved more lives.

Each year millions of people die due to abortion. It is like a silent holocaust. It is always important to think about how your vote will affect the unborn.

 

[JPUSC]

Murdering the unborn, elderly, comatose, and others, is not concern for people. And besides, I am tired of people whining about corporations, they can pay their people however much they want, they earned that position. What the left-wing proposes, is dragging everyone down to their level because some people earn more than them. Profit isn’t bad, it can be used to expand your bussiness, and therefore create more jobs.

Raising taxes on those with a higher income isn’t going to “drag them down to their level”.

The proper Christian attitude would be that the wealthy should see their success as blessings from God and helping others to receive the basic essentials for living, such as health care, should not be something to be opposing, kicking and screaming. As one human family, we should be looking out for each other.

 

[bacon_man]

Raising taxes on those with a higher income isn’t going to “drag them down to their level”.

The proper Christian attitude would be that the wealthy should see their success as blessings from God and helping others to receive the basic essentials for living, such as health care, should not be something to be opposing, kicking and screaming. As one human family, we should be looking out for each other.

I don’t think it’s right to raise taxes on people for money they earned fair and square. How can they use their sucess to help others if you take that sucess away from them? Bill Gates’s charity, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which works on Education, Healthcare, and Ending poverty, has donated tens of millions of dollars to charitable causes. For example according to Wikipedia, Grameen Foundation
A $1.5 million grant allows Grameen Foundation to make more microloans, to support Grameen’s goal of helping five million additional families and successfully freeing 50 percent of those families from poverty within five years. So wealthy people do help others. Unfairly taxing them will not help anyone. Not to mention it hurts the economy, who gives the majority of people jobs? The wealthy. Taxing them will just cause them to invest in other countries, and hurt jobs here. Not to mention, alot of them could escape most of the taxation through overseas banks and tax shelters. So taxing the rich is counter-productive, and in my opinion, a thinly disguised attempt at class warfare.

 

[JPUSC]

[W]hen there is question of defending the rights of individuals, the poor and badly off have a claim to special consideration. The richer class have many ways of shielding themselves, and stand less in need of help from the State; whereas the mass of the poor have no resources of their own to fall back upon, and must chiefly depend upon the assistance of the State. And it is for this reason that wage-earners, since they mostly belong in the mass of the needy, should be specially cared for and protected by the government.

Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum

That given the clear failures of individualism as a philosophy applied dogmatically to economic matters, “it is most necessary that economic life be again subjected to and governed by a true and effective directing principle…When the State brings private ownership into harmony with the needs of the common good, it does not commit a hostile act against private owners but rather does them a friendly service; for it thereby effectively prevents the private possession of goods . . . from causing intolerable evils and thus rushing to its own destruction.”

Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno

The individual today is often suffocated between two poles represented by the State and the marketplace. At times it seems as though he exists only as a producer and consumer of goods, or as an object of State administration. People lose sight of the fact that life in society has neither the market nor the State as its final purpose, since life itself has a unique value which the State and the market must serve.

Pope John Paul II

[A] person’s superfluous income, that is, income which he does not need to sustain life fittingly and with dignity, is not left wholly to his own free determination. Rather the Sacred Scriptures and the Fathers of the Church constantly declare in the most explicit language that the rich are bound by a very grave precept to practice almsgiving, beneficence, and munificence.

Pope Pius XI

“One of the most striking aspects of development in the present day is the important question of respect for life, which cannot in any way be detached from questions concerning the development of peoples.”

Moreover, the Pope says that the life issues oblige “us to broaden our concept of poverty and underdevelopment to include questions connected with the acceptance of life, especially in cases where it is impeded in a variety of ways.”

Explaining the incompatibility between a mentality that accepts legal abortion as a given and a true social commitment to the common good of society, the Pope also writes that “the acceptance of life strengthens moral fibre and makes people capable of mutual help. By cultivating openness to life, wealthy peoples can better understand the needs of poor ones, they can avoid employing huge economic and intellectual resources to satisfy the selfish desires of their own citizens, and instead, they can promote virtuous action within the perspective of production that is morally sound and marked by solidarity, respecting the fundamental right to life of every people and every individual.”

Pope Benedict XVI, Caritas in veritate

Commentary on Pope Benedict XVI’s Caritas in veritate:

Benedict is also trying to bridge differences within the Church itself. Some Catholics have played down social commitment in favour of forms of piety and public displays of religiosity. Instead Benedict wants forms of piety that strengthen social conscience as a central part of religious identity. He also wants to link the social justice and pro-life movements in the Church more closely around commitment to human wellbeing.

Benedict is undoubtedly aware that leading economists have said this recession was entirely predictable. Many warned against the “casino” capitalism that had developed with various financial bubbles. The failure was not just that of individual greed and corruption, but more systemic, involving the corrosion of values and responsibility in leading financial institutions.

More fundamentally, the economic crisis was driven by the ideology that maintained that minimally regulated free markets of themselves would produce the best and most “efficient” outcome. Benedict does not use the word “neo-liberalism”, but this is clearly what he meant.

Benedict outlines the current failures of the market, recalling Paul VI’s incisive critique of “economic liberalism”. He insists that economics has a critical moral dimension, to serve the wellbeing of all individuals and families. He calls for states and civil society to embrace social and distributive justice more fully. The Church has long defended the right to private property, but insisted this right be available to everyone. Benedict reaffirms the right to just wages, the right of trade unions to organise, and the rights to political freedom and participation.

The Pope is of course aware that the economic crisis in the US has resulted in millions losing their homes and their jobs (including their health insurance), but that the effect in many developing countries is even more traumatic. As many as 100 million people have been plunged back into the most acute hardship of living on less than a $US1 a day, and more than 1 billion people are reported as undernourished.

theage.com.au/opinion/popes-worthy-plea-up-against-market-forces-20090713-diq4.html?page=2

 

[francesca_gen]

JPUSC:

 

[SempirVeritas]

Raising taxes on those with a higher income isn’t going to “drag them down to their level”.

The proper Christian attitude would be that the wealthy should see their success as blessings from God and helping others to receive the basic essentials for living, such as health care, should not be something to be opposing, kicking and screaming. As one human family, we should be looking out for each other.

and the proper role of government is not to step in and force charity and all that crazy stuff.

also, I go to a black college, that unfortunately meets many of the stereotypes. they all gripe about health care… and it ticks me off- you know why?? they drop $1000 easily on their sound systems, and spend $200 a month on cigarets… you know how much a month it would cost the typical ghetto person for health care- $100 a month. I should know, I used to live there. no, of those who are not insured right now- 75% of those- have no excuse. they have the money, but they spend it all on a bunch of **** that is in no way necessary for life…

the republicans as far as health care are looking out for the middle wager earners. its called teaching them to learn what separates needs from wants.

yes, higher taxes do drag down to levels… you want to talk about fairness (you=ppl in general) the more you make, the more you pay…

 

[SempirVeritas]

also, please show where the pope says what percentage the rich should give…

all it says is that they should, not how much…

 

[JPUSC]

and the proper role of government is not to step in and force charity and all that crazy stuff.

also, I go to a black college, that unfortunately meets many of the stereotypes. they all gripe about health care… and it ticks me off- you know why?? they drop $1000 easily on their sound systems, and spend $200 a month on cigarets… you know how much a month it would cost the typical ghetto person for health care- $100 a month. I should know, I used to live there. no, of those who are not insured right now- 75% of those- have no excuse. they have the money, but they spend it all on a bunch of **** that is in no way necessary for life…

the republicans as far as health care are looking out for the middle wager earners. its called teaching them to learn what separates needs from wants.

yes, higher taxes do drag down to levels… you want to talk about fairness (you=ppl in general) the more you make, the more you pay…

Yes, those people do need to stop wasting money on useless cr*p.