G
- Status
G
Geowitz
Guest
Ever heard of Fannie and Freddie. Our friendly government sponsored enterprises? Ever heard of the secondary mortgage market and securitizing mortgages?
Mess with supply, you affect demand. Mess with demand you affect supply. Simple enough? That’s all you need to understand. The government is quite guilty of this.
I think the social sections of the catechism are generally good things, but where you apply them is the most important factor. That is where the discretion lies. You seem to want to go federal and no where does the catechism endorse this idea when we have sovereign states with smart people perfectly capable of taking responsibility. You must apply subsidiarity in all the situations you have quoted from the catechism.Yes, but this would apply, I think, to us both. I quote the Catechism to show where i think my views are supported by it. Perhaps I am wrong, but I am not convinced of that.
An attitude like this can only lead to socialism. What we should be focusing on is freeing up the system to allow the incentive to exist. You want control exerted in this situation. I want more freedom.
If you think we will continue to disagree and you can live with that why don’t you stop promoting the ideas of a system I don’t want to be a part of that will only enslave me?(ie single payer healthcare, education, etc…) It’s not ok with me that we disagree on the basic principles of freedom because I believe freedom is essential to a truly just and charitable society. The main problem is when those with views such as yours start legislating and exert more control over me. I can’t live with that. That’s why I’m going to defend my view. It’s not ok that you want to control people with such a broad brush stroke. Just admit it. You’re think you’re smarter than everyone else and you want the control.
You continue pushing a government based upon control and I’ll continue pushing a government based upon freedom. Really only one of us can promote a system that will leave the other one alone while at the same time protect rights.
That’s why socialism is bad. It cannot do this.
C
Cricket123
Guest
Originally Posted by Cricket123
Actually, the market was inflated by Wall Street’s insatiable desire for mortgages which it could then securitize and sell. Although, this happened with assistance from the government which Wall Street had co-opted and corrupted.
And remember, even though I support it, single-payer healthcare is not what was legislated anyway. Fox can call it “government-run health care” and “socialism” all it wants, but that doesn’t make it so. What we got was government mandated insurance, a very different thing, which I do not support.
My intelligence or lack thereof was not the issue. I’ll stop promoting these ideas now, though.
Actually, the market was inflated by Wall Street’s insatiable desire for mortgages which it could then securitize and sell. Although, this happened with assistance from the government which Wall Street had co-opted and corrupted.
Why yes, I have, as you could tell if you read my post: Fannie and Freddie were the agencies of “government which Wall Street had co-opted and corrupted.” The secondary mortgage market and securitizing mortgages was what I was referring to when I said "Wall Street’s insatiable desire for mortgages which it could then securitize and sell.
So, basically, since I disagree with you, I should just shut up then. OK. On single-payer healthcare, we definitely disagree. What, exactly, are my views on education? I didn’t share them here.
Clearly…
My views were not what was legislated. As I mentioned in previous posts, I don’t support what was legislated. I don’t even think it’s moving in the right direction. In fact, in the healthcare debate, my views were not even on the table.
Why don’t you stop promoting the ideas of a system I don’t want to be a part of… oh, right. Freedom. I forgot. You’re very concerned about freedom.
Well, what I said was that the Church condemns socialism, but everything that is called socialism here is not necessarily socialism in the eyes of the Church. The word is used very casually. Single-payer healthcare was just my example.
And remember, even though I support it, single-payer healthcare is not what was legislated anyway. Fox can call it “government-run health care” and “socialism” all it wants, but that doesn’t make it so. What we got was government mandated insurance, a very different thing, which I do not support.
My intelligence or lack thereof was not the issue. I’ll stop promoting these ideas now, though.
J
jewells17
Guest
Watch Glenn Beck M-F in the afternoons regarding this topic…he talks about it alot and something called liberation theology being not such a good thing. He does give alot of info about this topic and our alot of folks watch in our area. Take it or leave it…just an idea.
G
Geowitz
Guest
Single payer is what I was refering to when I said you promoted healthcare. So, as you said, you support single payer, which is a socialist idea. You said in your last post that your ideas for healthcare were “not on the table”, but then in the same post AND a previous post you say you support single payer. The problem as I mentioned is that you support an idea that mandates my participation whether I want to join or not. And then if I don’t participate in practice I’m sure you’d support the collection of my tax dollars to fund that system.
Don’t worry though. The healthcare bill you seem to hate so much was actually designed to get single payer. You can look up all of the videos on youtube that show various politicians admiting that the eventual goal is “single payer”. The current bill is meant to scape goat the insurance companies. So don’t worry, socialism will soon come if we don’t do anything about it.
I would never say sit down and shut up, atleast for sharing an idea. You can bring up any idea you want, but when you promote ideas and say they should be implemented (which would force me to participate) you are going beyond your opinion of how you think government should be run and stepping into the realm of telling ME what to do. That’s when you can shut up.
Live and let live. Love and let love. Socialism doesn’t allow this.
Don’t worry though. The healthcare bill you seem to hate so much was actually designed to get single payer. You can look up all of the videos on youtube that show various politicians admiting that the eventual goal is “single payer”. The current bill is meant to scape goat the insurance companies. So don’t worry, socialism will soon come if we don’t do anything about it.
I would never say sit down and shut up, atleast for sharing an idea. You can bring up any idea you want, but when you promote ideas and say they should be implemented (which would force me to participate) you are going beyond your opinion of how you think government should be run and stepping into the realm of telling ME what to do. That’s when you can shut up.
Live and let live. Love and let love. Socialism doesn’t allow this.
M
Monk21
Guest
Just a quick note to say that what I see here is,
Your not going to make me do what’s good for me. No sir eee, The hell with those who die every year because they can’t afford treatment.They are not going to take my freedom away from me just because it might be good and it works for other countries.
The ARA has a similar saying, “from my dead hands” and look at the gun problems.
Oh, but we are free you say.
Most in Canada don’t lock our doors, The women walk home alone at night through dark parks. Now that is freedom. What do you really have? I don’t call it freedom. I call it fear.
Like I said before not trying to be nasty, but maybe waking some people up, I see dumb, dumb, and dumber.
C
Cricket123
Guest
Well, what I said was “…in the healthcare debate, my views were not even on the table.” In context, I’m talking about the real debate, in Congress: the one that actually resulted in legislation. Any discussion of single-payer was explicitly off limits.
I sympathize. That’s like me and the military-industrial complex, or the Wall Street bailout, or the invasion of Iraq. These things happen.
Scapegoat the insurance companies? Those warm, friendly, benevolent institutions we all love so much? We’ll scapegoat them by leaving them in charge, giving them billions of dollars, and making them even more powerful than they were before they were supposedly reformed? Even the “radical socialists” at Business Week say this is what Obamacare does.
Heck, if this is how it works, where do I sign up to be scapegoated?
:doh2: I get it. I can share an idea, as long as I don’t “promote it,” or suggest that it “be implemented.” Yep. That makes sense.
And regardless, I’m not telling you what to do. That’s someone else entirely. And what they’re telling you to do, namely “go buy health insurance,” is not what I would tell you to do if I were in a position to tell you what to do.
But I’ll still shut up now.
G
Geowitz
Guest
Thanks.
So with regards to the original post, we have clearly demonstrated here there are MANY opposing points of view. How could we possibly respect all of them fairly as the church says? Simple - rely on subsidiarity. You affect government in your area, I’ll affect it in mine and if either of us is unhappy with the results we can work to change it or move. What you are proposing is that we tie up the whole country in one broad stroke social system.
That’s how we get to socialism and why socialism is bad. By it’s very nature it seeks to accumulate more control if it is not kept in check with the principle of subsidiarity. Everyone has tried to peg socialism with one single definition. Socialism(and all progressive ideologies) are not defined by a set of boxes to check off. Socialism is a progression of government control. It is not defined by one single event or action. It is a part of the natural wordly humanistic progression seen by many civilizations throughout history towards tyranny and slavery.
So with regards to the original post, we have clearly demonstrated here there are MANY opposing points of view. How could we possibly respect all of them fairly as the church says? Simple - rely on subsidiarity. You affect government in your area, I’ll affect it in mine and if either of us is unhappy with the results we can work to change it or move. What you are proposing is that we tie up the whole country in one broad stroke social system.
That’s how we get to socialism and why socialism is bad. By it’s very nature it seeks to accumulate more control if it is not kept in check with the principle of subsidiarity. Everyone has tried to peg socialism with one single definition. Socialism(and all progressive ideologies) are not defined by a set of boxes to check off. Socialism is a progression of government control. It is not defined by one single event or action. It is a part of the natural wordly humanistic progression seen by many civilizations throughout history towards tyranny and slavery.
C
Cricket123
Guest
On subsidiarity:
"When should the state intervene and when should governmental authority refrain? Such questions are difficult to answer outside of the concrete situation, for they depend upon prudential judgments about particular situations. People of good will, including Catholics who are attempting to put into action Catholic social teaching, may legitimately disagree about whether a given piece of legislation or governmental intervention is warranted to alleviate a social problem. Many social questions, such as, “Should this welfare benefit be offered to people in this particular situation?” do not admit of an answer that would be binding upon all Catholics. Nevertheless, all Catholics are obliged to work to find solutions to contemporary social problems in light of the Gospel and their best practical wisdom…
…Catholic social teaching does not address exactly how this should be done in every society. It may be that aggressive social action through the intervention of governmental policy is necessary. It may be that private and voluntary initiatives of religious groups (such as St. Vincent de Paul) and secular groups (such as the United Way) should take place. It may be that businesses should be compelled by law or voluntarily adopt policies that aid the poor. It may be that families and private persons should undertake the responsibility. Most likely a combination of governmental, social and religious, and individual initiatives are needed. What exactly will help the poor (and society in general) will not always be clear in every situation, but every Catholic has an obligation to think seriously and act purposely to aid those suffering around them and around the world."
Full text of original article here.
"When should the state intervene and when should governmental authority refrain? Such questions are difficult to answer outside of the concrete situation, for they depend upon prudential judgments about particular situations. People of good will, including Catholics who are attempting to put into action Catholic social teaching, may legitimately disagree about whether a given piece of legislation or governmental intervention is warranted to alleviate a social problem. Many social questions, such as, “Should this welfare benefit be offered to people in this particular situation?” do not admit of an answer that would be binding upon all Catholics. Nevertheless, all Catholics are obliged to work to find solutions to contemporary social problems in light of the Gospel and their best practical wisdom…
…Catholic social teaching does not address exactly how this should be done in every society. It may be that aggressive social action through the intervention of governmental policy is necessary. It may be that private and voluntary initiatives of religious groups (such as St. Vincent de Paul) and secular groups (such as the United Way) should take place. It may be that businesses should be compelled by law or voluntarily adopt policies that aid the poor. It may be that families and private persons should undertake the responsibility. Most likely a combination of governmental, social and religious, and individual initiatives are needed. What exactly will help the poor (and society in general) will not always be clear in every situation, but every Catholic has an obligation to think seriously and act purposely to aid those suffering around them and around the world."
Full text of original article here.
G
Geowitz
Guest
For those who don’t click on the link. Here’s more of the the same article…
"The government has many necessary and indispensable functions to play, roles that cannot be accomplished by individuals acting alone or even by smaller groups in society.
Yet states and governments often exceed their legitimate role and infringe upon individuals and groups in society so as to dominate rather than to serve them. To combat this tendency, Catholic social thought emphasizes the principle of subsidiarity. Non-Catholics also have discovered this principle. Abraham Lincoln wrote: “The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at all or cannot so well do, for themselves — in their separate and individual capacities.” Government should be as small as possible, but as big as necessary to accomplish whatever needs to be accomplished that cannot be accomplished in any other way. National defense, interstate cooperation, and treaties with other nations are obvious examples of matters properly undertaken by the federal government. Administration of the criminal justice system is another example of a matter that properly pertains to government.
On the other hand, the government should not intervene to attempt to alleviate all problems. A welfare or “nanny” state, offering cradle-to-grave security and attempting to provide for all human needs, expands the state beyond its proper scope and violates the principle of subsidiarity. Pope John Paul II explained:
Malfunctions and defects in the social assistance state [or welfare state] are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the state. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: A community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good. (Centesimus Annus 48)
This overreaching by the state leads to situations that are both inefficient and detrimental to human welfare:
By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the social assistance state leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbors to those in need. (Centesimus Annus 48) "
So what’s your point? Or are you trying to prove mine? Your promotion of overreaching by the state where issues can be handled more locally is both inefficient and detrimental to human welfare.
So obviously if we are not bound by the church to support any specific extent of a welfare state then why do you promote ideas that would bind me? If I’m free to disagree with you as your quotes from the article have shown why am I wrong to demand you to not interfere with my freedom? Subsidiarity solves this problem. It leaves control where it should be. Socialism does not. It seeks to bring everyone under one system. And even then socialism is for the people not the socialist.
"The government has many necessary and indispensable functions to play, roles that cannot be accomplished by individuals acting alone or even by smaller groups in society.
Yet states and governments often exceed their legitimate role and infringe upon individuals and groups in society so as to dominate rather than to serve them. To combat this tendency, Catholic social thought emphasizes the principle of subsidiarity. Non-Catholics also have discovered this principle. Abraham Lincoln wrote: “The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at all or cannot so well do, for themselves — in their separate and individual capacities.” Government should be as small as possible, but as big as necessary to accomplish whatever needs to be accomplished that cannot be accomplished in any other way. National defense, interstate cooperation, and treaties with other nations are obvious examples of matters properly undertaken by the federal government. Administration of the criminal justice system is another example of a matter that properly pertains to government.
On the other hand, the government should not intervene to attempt to alleviate all problems. A welfare or “nanny” state, offering cradle-to-grave security and attempting to provide for all human needs, expands the state beyond its proper scope and violates the principle of subsidiarity. Pope John Paul II explained:
Malfunctions and defects in the social assistance state [or welfare state] are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the state. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: A community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good. (Centesimus Annus 48)
This overreaching by the state leads to situations that are both inefficient and detrimental to human welfare:
By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the social assistance state leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbors to those in need. (Centesimus Annus 48) "
So what’s your point? Or are you trying to prove mine? Your promotion of overreaching by the state where issues can be handled more locally is both inefficient and detrimental to human welfare.
So obviously if we are not bound by the church to support any specific extent of a welfare state then why do you promote ideas that would bind me? If I’m free to disagree with you as your quotes from the article have shown why am I wrong to demand you to not interfere with my freedom? Subsidiarity solves this problem. It leaves control where it should be. Socialism does not. It seeks to bring everyone under one system. And even then socialism is for the people not the socialist.
C
Cricket123
Guest
My point:
People of good will, including Catholics who are attempting to put into action Catholic social teaching, may legitimately disagree about whether a given piece of legislation or governmental intervention is warranted to alleviate a social problem.
Apparently you disagree even with this.
You are entitled to your position, as I believe I am to mine. Yet I find in the marriage of right-wing ideology and Christianity an unspeakable ugliness that has nothing to do with Christ, Christianity, or Catholicism as I have come to understand it.
Peace be with you.
People of good will, including Catholics who are attempting to put into action Catholic social teaching, may legitimately disagree about whether a given piece of legislation or governmental intervention is warranted to alleviate a social problem.
Apparently you disagree even with this.
You are entitled to your position, as I believe I am to mine. Yet I find in the marriage of right-wing ideology and Christianity an unspeakable ugliness that has nothing to do with Christ, Christianity, or Catholicism as I have come to understand it.
Peace be with you.
G
Geowitz
Guest
Oh give me a break…
Yes, we are free to disagree and I have clearly stated that time and time again so you seem to be missing my point. If we are free to disagree, what gives you the right to impose your view? My disagreement with you doesn’t include as a necessity my imposing on your rights whereas your view absolutely does impose on my rights! LOL, this is just hillarious, sorry… As your article says…
"…Yet states and governments often exceed their legitimate role and infringe upon individuals and groups in society so as to dominate rather than to serve them. To combat this tendency, Catholic social thought emphasizes the principle of subsidiarity. Non-Catholics also have discovered this principle. Abraham Lincoln wrote: “The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at all or cannot so well do, for themselves — in their separate and individual capacities.” Government should be as small as possible, but as big as necessary to accomplish whatever needs to be accomplished that cannot be accomplished in any other way. National defense, interstate cooperation, and treaties with other nations are obvious examples of matters properly undertaken by the federal government. Administration of the criminal justice system is another example of a matter that properly pertains to government.
…By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the social assistance state leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbors to those in need. (Centesimus Annus 48) "
I would also argue that single payer goes WAY beyond the responsibility of government because your article says that the social benefit programs are intended to help the poor and needy. The purpose of single payer is not specifically to help the poor and needy. It ties EVERYONE up into a single payer system INCLUDING those who are not poor or needy. That is why it is socialism. So really your view of healthcare isn’t in sync with Catholic social teaching because it’s not about just helping the poor. It’s about removing my freedom as well which violates Catholic social teaching. It’s all about the progression to socialism. Some want control, some want freedom. Freedom that results in true justice and charity.
Yes, we are free to disagree and I have clearly stated that time and time again so you seem to be missing my point. If we are free to disagree, what gives you the right to impose your view? My disagreement with you doesn’t include as a necessity my imposing on your rights whereas your view absolutely does impose on my rights! LOL, this is just hillarious, sorry… As your article says…
"…Yet states and governments often exceed their legitimate role and infringe upon individuals and groups in society so as to dominate rather than to serve them. To combat this tendency, Catholic social thought emphasizes the principle of subsidiarity. Non-Catholics also have discovered this principle. Abraham Lincoln wrote: “The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at all or cannot so well do, for themselves — in their separate and individual capacities.” Government should be as small as possible, but as big as necessary to accomplish whatever needs to be accomplished that cannot be accomplished in any other way. National defense, interstate cooperation, and treaties with other nations are obvious examples of matters properly undertaken by the federal government. Administration of the criminal justice system is another example of a matter that properly pertains to government.
…By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the social assistance state leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbors to those in need. (Centesimus Annus 48) "
I would also argue that single payer goes WAY beyond the responsibility of government because your article says that the social benefit programs are intended to help the poor and needy. The purpose of single payer is not specifically to help the poor and needy. It ties EVERYONE up into a single payer system INCLUDING those who are not poor or needy. That is why it is socialism. So really your view of healthcare isn’t in sync with Catholic social teaching because it’s not about just helping the poor. It’s about removing my freedom as well which violates Catholic social teaching. It’s all about the progression to socialism. Some want control, some want freedom. Freedom that results in true justice and charity.
A
Abu
Guest
I don’t know what is your idea of “right-wing ideology”, but do know that socialism has been condemned by the Catholic Church.
What is acceptable to Christ’s Church is free enterprise. Fr James V Schall, S.J., in *Does Catholicism Still Exist?, *Alba House 1994, p 184-185 put it well:
“Since the Catholic Church wants poverty confronted, since She wants this confrontation to be done justly and with the interest and cooperation of the workers and the poor, She has had to acknowledge, as did the socialist systems themselves, that there are certain ways that must be employed if mankind is to meet its economic problems. These ways can be known and imitated, but they must include a juridical system, profit, enterprise, knowledge, exchange, a market, voluntary organisations, a relatively independent economy, private property, and respect for work and excellence.”
J
jewells17
Guest
The left-wing is pro-abortion…pro-abortion. Enough said.
C
Cricket123
Guest
:tsktsk: Some are, some are not. Perhaps you might read my first post on CAF and tell me how pro-abortion I am?
M
Monk21
Guest
Geowitz wrote:
*I would also argue that single payer goes WAY beyond the responsibility of government because your article says that the social benefit programs are intended to help the poor and needy. The purpose of single payer is not specifically to help the poor and needy. It ties EVERYONE up into a single payer system INCLUDING those who are not poor or needy. That is why it is socialism. So really your view of healthcare isn’t in sync with Catholic social teaching because it’s not about just helping the poor. It’s about removing my freedom as well which violates Catholic social teaching. It’s all about the progression to socialism. Some want control, some want freedom. Freedom that results in true justice and charity. *
Now when Jesus told the parable of the laborers, did he not say that those who worked all day got the same pay that those who worked only an hour? Rich or poor they all got the same pay.
What is the difference if health care gives the same to both the rich or poor?
Only that the poor can survive also?
I am also against abortion and I would place myself as centre left.
*I would also argue that single payer goes WAY beyond the responsibility of government because your article says that the social benefit programs are intended to help the poor and needy. The purpose of single payer is not specifically to help the poor and needy. It ties EVERYONE up into a single payer system INCLUDING those who are not poor or needy. That is why it is socialism. So really your view of healthcare isn’t in sync with Catholic social teaching because it’s not about just helping the poor. It’s about removing my freedom as well which violates Catholic social teaching. It’s all about the progression to socialism. Some want control, some want freedom. Freedom that results in true justice and charity. *
Now when Jesus told the parable of the laborers, did he not say that those who worked all day got the same pay that those who worked only an hour? Rich or poor they all got the same pay.
What is the difference if health care gives the same to both the rich or poor?
Only that the poor can survive also?
I am also against abortion and I would place myself as centre left.
C
Cricket123
Guest
In my view, right-wing ideology unjustly elevates individual rights over collective obligations and the laws of the marketplace over social justice. Combine this with Christianity and you get Puritanism, not Catholicism. Everything is either good or evil. No qualifications are allowed.
Merely use the word “socialism” and the red flag comes down and people start pawing the ground. We will not consider what a policy is, what it does, or how it works. If it is a non-military expense or if it regulates the market in any way it is socialist. We will not consider any differences between Canada and the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. Socialism is socialism.
This must be true. I heard it on FOX.
C
Cricket123
Guest
Monk21 - Perhaps you would be willing to share a first-hand account of the tyranny and oppression under which you suffer?
M
Monk21
Guest
Yes, it is terrible. I spent time last week in emergency for over an hour to get treatment and a prescription for an infection. Had to go back the next night (as I was told by the doctor) and waited another hour. Then I had to spend $1.24 for one drug and nearly $20.00 for another one that is listed at $168.00.
I see my doctor (of my choosing) tomorrow for a follow up.
No hospital charge and I am better now.
last year I received a heart stent after many tests and it cost me $1.22 for each of three drugs I have to take. Overnight and one day hospital stay and the procedure was no charge. Oh how we suffer.
My freedom was on hold for those two hours in the hospital and of course the day for the stent.
I forgot to mention that I have to pay $100.00 a year for my drugs and then usually $1.22 per prescription.
C
Cricket123
Guest
Yes, Monk, but what of your moral fiber? Have you not stolen from your healthier neighbor? Or deprived the less fortunate of his chance to die in poverty? Have you not selfishly cut yourself off from the means to do good to the poor?
And the insurance executive; what of him? Have you not taken the very bread from his lips and deprived him of his livelihood?
Do you not live in fear, with every stented heartbeat, that you will be called to account for this?
- Status