Why do some Catholics lean politically conservative?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RCIAGraduate
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The gymnastics it takes to say opposition to the legal process whereby a citizen may sponsor his/her parents or children allowing them to begin the path to citizenship is not opposition to this specific legal immigration process.

Kinda using the Clinton definition playbook?
 
I’m sorry, but saying that someone can’t enter the country based purely on the fact that they are related to someone else is not a rejection of legal migration. You’re the one jumping through gymnastics to make it seem as such.

I might not like that particular plan completely, but that doesn’t change the fact that removing it doesn’t not end the process of legal migration.
 
Last edited:
Forgive me for not taking the Atlantic or CNN as accurate representations of Republican ideals…

Once again, a modification of the means of legal immigration, including the number of migrants, it not opposition to legal migration. Seriously, I genuinely cannot understand why this is so difficult for you to understand.

Our welfare state is currently unsustainable, and it is becoming increasingly necessary to ensure that people entering this country will not be a further burden to it. You might not like the limitation, but legal immigration is still in place, albeit moving in a more merit-based direction. Just because you don’t like the criteria or the number does not mean that the plan is opposed to legal immigration, it just means that it’s opposed to what you think legal immigration should mean.

I’m out for the day, my kiddo has a 101 degree fever, so I don’t have the energy to focus on this discussion anymore. It’s obvious that you won’t be swayed by my argument, and I obviously find your’s unconvincing, so this discussion has become a little pointless.
 
Last edited:
When you get time, you might want to do some digging into the requirements for legal immigrants WRT to receiving government benefits.
 

THIS IS THE REPORT I HAVE BEEN SEARCHING FOR.


## Galveston County: A Model for Social Security Reform

Brief Analyses | Social Security

SSA-01-sm.jpg


No. 514
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
by Ray Holbrook and Alcestis “Cooky” Oberg

EXCERPTS:
The current debate over Social Security reform is reminiscent of the discussions that occurred in Galveston County, Texas, in 1980, when county workers were offered a retirement alternative to Social Security: At the time they reacted with keen interest and some knee-jerk fear of the unknown. But after 24 years, folks here can say unequivocally that when Galveston County pulled out of the Social Security system in 1981, we were on the road to providing our workers with a better deal than Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal.

The Problem with Social Security. Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system under which taxes collected from today’s workers are used to pay today’s retirees. That was sustainable in the past; for example, in 1950 there were 16 workers providing benefits for each retiree. However, today the ratio has dropped to 3 workers for each retiree, and by the year 2030 the ratio will be 2 to 1.

America’s demographic changes and the program’s expansion have driven the initial Social Security tax rate from 2 percent (1 percent each from employer and employee) to 12.4 percent today, and threaten to drive it even higher. This unsustainable trend is why policy makers are looking for ways to reform the system.

But how should the new accounts be structured? Some point to Chile, Britain, Australia or one of almost 30 countries that have incorporated personal investments into their public pension programs. But there are examples much closer to home.

The Galveston Plan. In 1979, many county workers were concerned about the soundness of Social Security, as many people are today. We could either stay with it - and its inevitable tax increases and higher retirement ages - or find a better way. We sought an “alternative plan” that provided the same or better benefits, required no tax increases and was risk-free. Furthermore, we wanted the benefits to be like a savings account that could be passed on to family members upon death.

Our plan, put together by financial experts, was a “banking model” rather than an “investment model.” To eliminate the risks of the up-and-down stock market, workers’ contributions were put into conservative fixed-rate guaranteed annuities, rather than fluctuating stocks, bonds or mutual funds. Our results have been impressive: We’ve averaged an annual rate of return of about 6.5 percent over 24 years. And we’ve provided substantially better benefits in all three Social Security categories: retirement, survivorship and disability.

Galveston officials held meetings that included debates with Social Security officials and put it to a vote: Galveston County employees passed it by a 3-to-1 margin in 1981 - just in time.
 
Last edited:
I’m a very political and social justice liberal. And yes, I’m pro-Life.
 
Last edited:
Galveston vs. Social Security. Upon retirement after 30 years, and assuming a 5 percent rate of return - more conservative than Galveston workers have earned - all workers would do better for the same contribution as Social Security:

Retirement Benefits%3A Galveston Plan vs Social Security

  • Workers making $17,000 a year are expected to receive about 50 percent more per month on our alternative plan than on Social Security - $1,036 instead of $683. [See the Figure.]
  • Workers making $26,000 a year will make almost double Social Security’s return - $1,500 instead of $853.
  • Workers making $51,000 a year will get $3,103 instead of $1,368.
  • Workers making $75,000 or more will nearly triple Social Security - $4,540 instead of $1,645.
  • Galveston County’s survivorship benefits pay four times a worker’s annual salary - a minimum of $75,000 to a maximum $215,000 - versus Social Security, which forces widows to wait until age 60 to qualify for benefits, or provides 75 percent of a worker’s salary for school-age children.
In Galveston, if the worker dies before retirement, the survivors receive not only the full survivorship but get generous accidental death benefits, too. Galveston County’s disability benefit also pays more: 60 percent of an individual’s salary, better than Social Security’s.

Two government studies of the Galveston Plan - by the Government Accountability Office and the Social Security Administration - claim that low-wage workers do better under Social Security. However, these studies assumed a low 4 percent return, which is the minimum rate of return on annuities guaranteed by the insurance companies. The actual returns have been substantially higher.
 

Galveston vs. Social Security. Upon retirement after 30 years, and assuming a 5 percent rate of return — more conservative than Galveston workers have earned — all workers would do better for the same contribution as Social Security:

■ Workersmaking$17,000ayearareexpectedtoreceive about 50 percent more per month on our alternative plan than on Social Security — $1,036 instead of $683. [See the Figure.]
  • Workers making $26,000 a year will make almost double Social Security’s return — $1,500 instead of $853.
  • Workersmaking$51,000ayearwillget$3,103instead of $1,368.
  • Workers making $75,000 or more will nearly triple Social Security — $4,540 instead of $1,645.
  • Galveston County’s survivorship benefits pay four times a worker’s annual salary — a minimum of $75,000 to a maximum $215,000 — versus Social Security, which forces widows to wait until age 60 to qualify for benefits, or provides 75 percent of a worker’s salary for school-age children.
Two government studies of the Galveston Plan — by the Government Accountability Office and the Social Security Administration — claim that low-wage workers do better under Social Security. However, these studies assumed a low 4 percent return, which is the minimum rate of return on annuities guaranteed by the insurance companies. The actual returns have been substantially higher.

Guidance for Today’s Reformers. Congress could consider making participation in any privatization plan voluntary at first. We made our plan voluntary in the beginning and 70 percent joined. It later became mandatory, and now there is full participation. Also, if some workers remain uncertain about investing a portion of their contributions, the plan could include a guarantee that low-income earners receive the same funds they would get with total participation in Social Security.

Our experience has shown that even though low-income workers would do better, a guarantee would ease their worries. Moderate- and higher-income workers would do much better, as ours do, because they have invested more in the plan and are not prejudicially punished or “topped out” on retirement benefits, as they are in Social Security.

In today’s debate about whether to partially privatize Social Security, the Galveston County plan is sometimes demagogued. But our experience should be judged factually and fairly, not emotionally, politically or on the basis of hearsay. We sought a secure, risk-free alternative to the Social Security system, and it has worked very well for nearly a quarter-century. Our retirees have prospered, and our working people have had the security of generous disability and accidental death benefits.

What has been good for Galveston County may, indeed, be good for this country.

Judge Ray Holbrook was Galveston County judge from 1967 to 1995, and oversaw the creation and ad- ministration of the Galveston County alternative plan. Alcestis “Cooky” Oberg is on USA Today’s board of contributors.
 
Last edited:
If you are in America, what’s it like for you being pro-life and a liberal at the same time?
I personally don’t think those two are mutually exclusive, but I do think the current Democratic party does. As the Dems have moved to the extreme left on so many issues, especially abortion, I have to imagine that’s gotta be tough on the few left over who oppose abortion.
 
Skimming the posts and once again pro-life is never dealing with those that were born. Pity.
 
There’s a lot of things that I agree with both the left and the right – it really depends on the issue.

But at the heart of it, I suppose I side with the right on the issues that matter to me the most. I think the problem I have with a lot of the left is that they are becoming more and more hostile and condescending towards Christians and religion in general, but mostly Christian. If I said to someone, “I’m a faithful Catholic that believes all that the Church teaches” – I can tell you which political group would be more likely to welcome me in – probably not the one with people calling me a “bigoted anti-choice homophobe.”
 
Last edited:
Rasoleil said:
I’m a very political and social justice liberal. And yes, I’m pro-Life.
Click to expand...
Me too…I think we can come out now, but it’s the conservatives gunning for us more than the liberals…😜………….They continue to point out we’re the minority. Perhaps there is problem with that? ouch…😏
 
A child’s greatest champions are supposed to be his parents.

When a 3yo’s parents fail him, or want to be rid of him, or want to harm him or kill him---- who steps in? Friends. Relatives. The community. Child protective services. The foster system. The police. The legal system. Ad litem attorneys. If they don’t make it in time, it gets put on the 6:00 news and on Facebook and everyone tsk-tsk-tsk’s about how terrible it was. If only the mom had gotten help for her postpartum depression. Or how could they have been such fiends to keep their kids locked in cages. Or whatever.

But when an unborn baby’s parents fail him-- who’s there to step in? Friends and relatives can only do so much to be supportive, but the law certainly can’t compel them.

So that’s why we focus on the vulnerable whose former legal protections have been discarded. It’s not saying they’re the only vulnerable ones— the world is full of vulnerable people. Shedding light on the plight of one category of unfortunate people doesn’t mean the disregard of all unfortunate people, just like being charitable towards one homeless guy doesn’t mean you hate every other homeless guy you didn’t happen to help, or you hate homeless children, or you don’t care about battered women… :roll_eyes:
 
I’m for assisting all of the aforementioned, but excuse me in my discernment that focus on the unborn just isn’t geared to when that unborn child is here. Where is the assist and pro-advocating for assistance for child and mother until that mother is on her feet again?..And this would include medical assist. I agree, spare the child. But support the child as well. Food too, and housing if needed. Are we going to educate as well? I believe medical assistance is a human right, and the Church agrees.

I don’t care about who’s republican and independent, but I do care about the personhood of those shunned by society…They are made in the Image and Likeness of God and we have reduced them to names. “Alien” for one, I find that deplorable…They are people first.
 
DENNYINMI said:
“Alien” for one, I find that deplorable…They are people first.
Click to expand...
You do realize that the world “alien” has been around since, like, the time of Chaucer? It’s Middle English.

It comes from the Latin word “alienus”, which means “belonging to another”. Like, “belonging to another country.” And that word has its roots in an older Latin word, “alius”, meaning “other/another”. Like, “belonging to another country.”

It’s not disparaging at all.
 
I find your comment similar to arguing with choice groups about whether a fetus is a child, it’s ignorance of science, and science is your friend!~
I think a “stranger” in your land would be more acceptable, and then treat them as God has prescribed in Exodus and Leviticus.
 
The word ‘alien’ has more than one definition, and it is now used disparagingly (this word means derogatory) and is currently associated with persons that are not wanted here. (this means in the current status of Trump political minds)
I don’t care if someone is legal. (This means someone with papers or born here, i.e. a native to the land)…Many are running from places where they cannot even drink the water, and they are running for their lives. (This would mean running from danger)
 
No.

It’s used sloppily by journalists.

There are two kinds of aliens: legal and illegal. People who are labeled as anti-immigrant are most often anti-illegal-immigrant. They’re perfectly okay with legal immigration. In reality, a lot of them understand that the legal immigration system is, in fact, less than ideal. But they think that the system needs to be fixed, rather than ignored. They also think that, rather than people traveling thousands of miles and skipping over lots of other countries to get here, perhaps it would be good if they fixed what was wrong with their country. They’re not running from the drinking water; they’re running from corruption, gang violence, and drug cartels. But in the process, they’re bringing a lot of the gang violence and drug cartels into this country… which is why people object, because if they totally bypass the system, we don’t have a way of telling good eggs from bad eggs.

The rule for claiming asylum is that you have to claim asylum at the first border you get to. But the majority of people coming in aren’t coming from Mexico-- they’re coming from Guatemala and El Salvador. That’s the distance equivalent of fleeing from New York to Los Angeles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top