Why do some Catholics lean politically conservative?

[DENNYINMI]

In former years, you had very low tuition in certain college systems, which did give poorer students the ability to succeed. But the essential difference was that these students had the potential. Today, some students still have potential and need financial help, but too many others do not have the ability to take on college courses. Do I sound conservative here?

If that was a serious question you’ve asked (Do I sound conservative here?) I would say no. I would say neither do you sound like an educator. You judge if students have the potential? For what? The potential to receive an education? How is that determination made? May I suggest it should be made by the student themselves. Lack of wealth shouldn’t determine possibility if there is a desire on the part of the student to learn.

There is less crime in areas with an educated population, obviously less homelessness, more opportunity awaiting for gainful employment, mass job possibility in the future with technical jobs that will require technical training, IT positions are at an all time high and in demand, vocations such as nursing are seeing their usual shortage, there are so many more advantages to training OR college post high school I feel like Elizabeth Barrett Browning…Let me count the Ways.

 

[midori]

Y’all know why college tuition has skyrocketed into the stratosphere?

Because everyone and their dog can get federal student loans.

Back in the mid-80’s, there was a cap: one individual could not take out more than $2500 in federal student loans in a single year.

As of now, an ordinary dependent student can take up to $31,000 in federal student loans over the course of four years. Independent students can take up to $57,500 in federal student loans. Graduate students can take up to $138,500 in federal student loans.

If a student is able to take up to $31k in federal student loans— oh, look at this! Suddenly, tuition costs are rising. And rising. And rising. And rising. And rising.

The federal government said, “Hey, let’s make college afforable for everyone!”

And it had the opposite effect-- putting our students in $1.3 trillion of dollars of student loan debt, and millions of debtors in default.

 

[Borealis2]

I agree. Two truisms that are fairly true are that Democrats care most for the poor and Republicans care most about the already well off. The second is that the young are idealistic and forward-looking so tend to vote for Democrats, older people are more set in their ways and rigid so trend Republican.

Those are ‘falsisms,’ not ‘truisms.’ Democrats don’t ‘care’ for the poor, they exploit them. Democrats prefer to leave the caring of the poor to the government instead of doing it themselves. Democrats, most especially, implement policies that are guaranteed to keep people poor and prevent them from moving to the middle class. Republicans implement policies that enable people to make their own way and choose their own path. As for age, older people tend to vote the way they always have; the majority don’t switch parties unless there is a very good (in their minds) reason for doing so. That’s why many Democrats crossed over to vote for Trump, and why many Republicans voted for Obama in 2008.

Younger people are trending to the right now; the media focuses on the ones who go to the far left, but they are a minority.

 

[Augustinian]

Tuition-free college is an absolutely horrible idea. It will lead to even more overcrowding of classes (and classrooms),

In countries that have that, not everyone is allowed to attend college. If you don’t pass the standardized exams, you get placed into a non-college field like street sweeper or rest room attendant.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Very very few politicians simply are out in the business world one day and running for US Congress the next. They begin in local and state races.

There is also much more to a party than the candidates. Political parties base is at the county and state level, many members of the local party deciding state platforms.

These men and women need the support of every one of us. Get a yard sign, donate a couple of bucks to the campaign.

 

[DENNYINMI]

Republicans implement policies that enable people to make their own way and choose their own path.

Which specific current policies are you speaking of ?..

 

[Borealis2]

Tax cuts that put more money into people’s pockets, for one.

Corporate Tax Cuts Benefit Ordinary Workers | National Review

Corporations might “pay” the corporate tax in a legal sense. But its cost is ultimately borne by some combination of shareholders (through lower dividends or less valuable shares), workers (through lower wages), and consumers (through higher prices). Economists have argued for decades about how big a share of the tax burden each group absorbs, with different results depending on assumptions about the openness of the economy, the mobility of capital, the degree of competition in labor markets, and a host of other factors. More recent empirical work suggests that workers and shareholders share the brunt of the tax, with the former often taking a much bigger hit than the latter.

An E.U. Study in 2007 found, for example, that “a ten percentage point increase in the corporate tax rate of high-income countries reduces mean annual gross wages by seven percent.” A 2009 National Bureau of Economic Research paper analyzing American corporate-tax rates at the state level found that “workers in a fully unionized firm capture roughly 54 percent of the benefits of low tax rates,” while a more recent analysis found that workers overall bore 30–35 percent of the burden. A 2015 study from Germany indicated “that workers bear about 40% of the total tax burden,” though it acknowledged that this was likely lower in companies with profit-sharing arrangements. The Congressional Budget Office has even estimated that the proportion of the corporate income-tax burden borne by labor could be more than 70 percent.

Reducing business-strangling regulations is another:

https://www.inc.com/leigh-buchanan/small-business-welcomes-trump-move-to-cut-regulation-as-a-good-first-step.html

Every president since Jimmy Carter has issued directives meant to restrain the metastasizing federal register. Trump’s approach–similar to one already used in Britain and several other countries–orders agencies to identify two rules for the chopping block every time they promulgate a new one and sets at zero the cost of new regulations for the rest of the fiscal year. The order excludes rules related to the military, national security, or foreign affairs.

In a statement, National Federation of Independent Business president Juanita Duggan called the order “a good first step on the long road toward eliminating ball-and-chain regulations” and urged agencies and the Office of Management and Budget to keep small companies top of mind as they proceed. The NFIB is the largest association of U.S. small-business owners, representing 325,000 companies.

 

[Larryk113]

My dad is 72 and can still work circles around people. He’s used to working.

 

[DENNYINMI]

Tax cuts that put more money into people’s pockets, for one.

Your information (a tax credit for the ordinary person or small businesses, as your articles state) does not address the issue of policies for what we would call the working poor. Many pay no federal taxes through initiatives that were bi-partisan endeavors, further more tax cuts that benefit corporations and more so as of late the share holder, is not a “policy”. It is a tax cut under new tax guidelines.
Do the working poor pay taxes?
They pay federal payroll taxes and sales taxes at the same rate as more affluent Americans, but they do not pay federal income taxes. Under tax programs that both Republicans and Democrats supported as a way to get poor people off welfare, workers with low incomes qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit and often the Child Tax Credit. Perversely, however, these special tax breaks serve as disincentives for the working poor to make more money. A single mother earning $18,000 a year loses tax credits and benefits as she climbs the income scale, so for each additional dollar she makes, she effectively keeps only 12 cents. She has little incentive to increase her hours and her income unless she can make a major jump in salary…Taken from “The Week”, an article on Working, but still poor…

 

[Ender]

They pay federal payroll taxes and sales taxes at the same rate as more affluent Americans, but they do not pay federal income taxes. Under tax programs that both Republicans and Democrats supported as a way to get poor people off welfare, workers with low incomes qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit and often the Child Tax Credit. Perversely, however, these special tax breaks serve as disincentives for the working poor to make more money. A single mother earning $18,000 a year loses tax credits and benefits as she climbs the income scale, so for each additional dollar she makes, she effectively keeps only 12 cents. She has little incentive to increase her hours and her income unless she can make a major jump in salary…Taken from “The Week”, an article on Working, but still poor…

This assumes that unless a policy puts money directly into someone’s pocket it is of no use. Tax cuts - and the elimination of spurious regulations - increase the ability of others to open small businesses. Those new businesses provide jobs, and it is those jobs that puts money directly into someone’s pocket, with the added benefits of them having earned it - which is infinitely better for them - and the government not having to be involved, which is also a great benefit for us.

 

[DENNYINMI]

This assumes that unless a policy puts money directly into someone’s pocket it is of no use. Tax cuts - and the elimination of spurious regulations - increase the ability of others to open small businesses. Those new businesses provide jobs, and it is those jobs that puts money directly into someone’s pocket, with the added benefits of them having earned it - which is infinitely better for them - and the government not having to be involved, which is also a great benefit for us.

With all due respect I’m all for small business, they serve as the backbone of a good American economy but not all persons are business owners, many work for these businesses though. My question is which conservative “policies” as was stated by the aforementioned post I was addressing, assists in moving persons out of poverty. The information about new tax guidelines was addressing small businesses and the ordinary working man, I’m thinking those that actually PAY taxes, not the working poor.

I’ll re-iterate. I would like to know about conservative policies that assist the working POOR…Romneys 47%…lol

 

[Aquinas11]

“it seems like the Catholic position would be very compatible with the left-learning or progressive view”

Which position? Not abortion, not religious liberty, not free speech, etc.

The ONLY Catholic position you could argue is closer to progressive view is helping the poor, but even that Catholic Doctrine is not aligned with progressive view, since the progressive view is INVOLUNTARY TAXATION (FORCED) helping of poor whereas conservative view is VOLUNTARY (PRIVATE) helping of poor, and the latter is consistent with Catholic Doctrine. Jesus never FORCED anyone to do anything. He believed in VOLUNTARISM, which progressives oppose.

 

[Ender]

My question is which conservative “policies” as was stated by the aforementioned post I was addressing, assists in moving persons out of poverty. The information about new tax guidelines was addressing small businesses and the ordinary working man, I’m thinking those that actually PAY taxes, not the working poor.

If you assume that only those policies that directly and specifically increase a person’s wealth should be considered as helping the poor, then you have a case. Very few conservative policies do that. Their approach is not based on giving directly to the poor but rather to create an environment in which they can better help themselves.

Perversely, however, these special tax breaks serve as disincentives for the working poor to make more money.

You’ve identified a real and serious problem. By tying benefits to income, which on the surface seems reasonable, we have created a situation where there is an economic disincentive to work, which is the last thing we need to do. Great Society programs increased benefits to single parent families, which provided a disincentive for pregnant women to marry, which contributed greatly to the situation we’re in today.

So here’s the question: if I propose policies that reduce benefits/welfare/handouts to the poor with the intention providing positive incentives to work rather than disincentives to not work, would you accept those a policies to assist the poor, or simply dismiss them as evidence of disregard?

 

[DENNYINMI]

The ONLY Catholic position you could argue is closer to progressive view is helping the poor, but even that Catholic Doctrine is not aligned with progressive view, since the progressive view is INVOLUNTARY TAXATION (FORCED) helping of poor whereas conservative view is VOLUNTARY (PRIVATE) helping of poor, and the latter is consistent with Catholic Doctrine. Jesus never FORCED anyone to do anything. He believed in VOLUNTARISM, which progressives oppose.

The majority of what we would refer to as the working poor, DONT pay federal taxes if they fall under the federal poverty guideline. So as such TAXES whether paid or not do not constitute a “policy”. Law yes, but what POLICIES do conservatives stand by in assisting the millions in the aforementioned category? BTW, Jesus did say regarding taxes: Render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar and unto God what belongs to God. HE was not against taxes. He even paid them…haha

 

[Aquinas11]

DENNYINMI: “My question is which conservative ‘policies’ as was stated by the aforementioned post I was addressing assists in moving persons out of poverty.”

False premise. “Policies” dont “move persons out of poverty”, the ABSENCE of policies “move persons out of poverty” by reducing the tax burden on rich (to hire the poor) and on the poor (to pay less taxes). Its like asking “which debts move people into solvency?” the question is inherently false.

The most efficient way to help the poor is PRIVATE CHARITY. You dont need Government. Private companies invest money in the Private Charities and the Private Charities help the poor with food, clothing, insurance, etc. The Private Companies benefit from the marketing of donating to Private Charity. More people want to do business with Companies that donate to Private Charities than ones who dont’. The Government is more inefficient than Private Sector at everything, including Charity. So much more poor people could be helped if Regulations on Private Sector were drastically reduced so the Private Companies could then (VOLUNTARILY) donate to Private Charities. It would also be more Christian since Jesus only endorsed voluntary charity not involuntary charity.

 

[Aquinas11]

DENNYINMI: “what POLICIES do conservatives stand by in assisting millions…”

Private Charities & elimination of Government involvement in Charity. See previous post.

DENNYINMI: “Jesus did say render unto Caesar…”

Doesn’t contradict anything I said. I never said he was against taxes. Strawman. I said his TEACHING was not compulsory but instead was voluntary. He didnt force the rich man to go sell everything he has & join him. He merely suggested it.

 

[DENNYINMI]

So here’s the question: if I propose policies that reduce benefits/welfare/handouts to the poor with the intention providing positive incentives to work rather than disincentives to not work, would you accept those a policies to assist the poor, or simply dismiss them as evidence of disregard?

I’ll re-iterate one more time here to be cordial. Your catch-all saving grace of cutting taxes does not benefit them one way or the other. They don’t pay federal taxes.

So now we are left with what to do with the “working poor” so they can become contributing members of society outside of the poverty level, pay rent without government subsidy, contribute towards medical care, day care if need be, and food, car insurance and fundamentals that average workers attend to.

 

[DENNYINMI]

DENNYINMI: “what POLICIES do conservatives stand by in assisting millions…”

Private Charities & elimination of Government involvement in Charity. See previous post.

DENNYINMI: “Jesus did say render unto Caesar…”

Doesn’t contradict anything I said. I never said he was against taxes. Strawman. I said his TEACHING was not compulsory but instead was voluntary. He didnt force the rich man to go sell everything he has & join him. He merely suggested it.

Can the fire departments of Rhode Island attend to the wildfires of California? SUBSIDIARITY dear AQUINAS11…To understand it correctly, The Church does not exclude the federal government from assisting the members of a country if that country cannot handle a difficulty on a local level.
Charity can and does assist in immediate need for many, but we have millions (millions) within the category of working poor that are in need of health care, child care, clothing, nutritious food and the list of fundamental items that the normal man, woman and child need, including housing and heat.

Charity isn’t dismissed, it’s simply not recognized as a sustainable solution to move persons into their own.

What is a conservative policy that renders persons into the realm of independence?

 

[EXdrinker]

This was well said. Most of these things are not taught in school and should be. That being said, what programs exist to teach or coach these life skills? I would be very willing to be part of that by donating time or money. Do you know of any such program?

 

[Ender]

I’ll re-iterate one more time here to be cordial. Your catch-all saving grace of cutting taxes does not benefit them one way or the other. They don’t pay federal taxes.

Again, you appear to only consider a policy useful if it puts money directly into someone’s pocket. That is, the benefit must be direct, visible, and quantifiable. This pretty much excludes the entire conservative approach, which is to create a society with incentives for people to benefit themselves.

You’ve put a premium on education. Conservatives favor more school choice, but (for you) this doesn’t count. The tax cut, which will help enable some people to start new businesses, doesn’t count, because, even though better jobs may now be available, while the tax cuts may give some of the poor more opportunity, they don’t give them more money.

As you yourself noted in commenting on the disincentives to work, direct benefits are a two edged sword, and should be avoided where possible.