Will voting for Liberals lower poverty, unemployment and the deficit?

[LisaA]

You can argue the correlation between foreign policy leaders and foreign policy end results (something that quite ironically parallels your assertions that Obama is pro-abortion. Such is the irony of life), but you simply can’t argue for Romney.

motherjones.com/documents/392937-stericycle-13d-1999

The document that notes that Romney was the sole shareholder of the companies that profited from Stericycle.

motherjones.com/documents/392936-stericycle-s4-1999

And another.

Mother Jones…oh my goodness now there is a very unbiased site! So very credible! Maybe I’ll pull out my World Nut Daily and counter your argument.

 

[estesbob]

Mother Jones…oh my goodness now there is a very unbiased site! So very credible! Maybe I’ll pull out my World Nut Daily and counter your argument.

I feel like we’ve went through the looking glass…

 

[TimothyIgnatius]

Mother Jones…oh my goodness now there is a very unbiased site! So very credible! Maybe I’ll pull out my World Nut Daily and counter your argument.

Um, those are official government documents. They were used by mother jones for their article. They even provided an option to look at the documents in their original pdf format. Questioning the credibility of the site just seems like a convenient excuse to not look at the evidence, which is damning in all accounts. You can call the site biased, which is undoubtedly is, but you cannot claim there to be any bias in SEC documents

 

[estesbob]

Um, those are official government documents. They were used by mother jones for their article. They even provided an option to look at the documents in their original pdf format. Questioning the credibility of the site just seems like a convenient excuse to not look at the evidence, which is damning in all accounts. You can call the site biased, which is undoubtedly is, but you cannot claim there to be any bias in SEC documents

So Romney is pro -abottion because 14 years ago he invested in a company that invested in a company that picked up medical waste that occasionaly included aborted children??

 

[TimothyIgnatius]

So Romney is pro -abottion because 14 years ago he invested in a company that invested in a company that picked up medical waste that occasionaly included aborted children??

I never said he was pro-abortion, I said he was a profiteer of abortion. If something like this was associated against Obama, no matter how far back in the past, he would’ve been derailed by the far right. But when it happens to the Republican party candidate, they get a free pass.

Also, just logically speaking, it’s kinda hard to be anti-abortion when you’re making millions of dollars from it. You can’t say Romney had no knowledge when his signature appears on the documents.

 

[estesbob]

I never said he was pro-abortion, I said he was a profiteer of abortion. If something like this was associated against Obama, no matter how far back in the past, he would’ve been derailed by the far right. But when it happens to the Republican party candidate, they get a free pass.

Also, just logically speaking, it’s kinda hard to be anti-abortion when you’re making millions of dollars from it. You can’t say Romney had no knowledge when his signature appears on the documents.

Logically speaking the e evidence he made millions from the abortion industry is non-existent

 

[LisaA]

I never said he was pro-abortion, I said he was a profiteer of abortion. If something like this was associated against Obama, no matter how far back in the past, he would’ve been derailed by the far right. But when it happens to the Republican party candidate, they get a free pass.

Also, just logically speaking, it’s kinda hard to be anti-abortion when you’re making millions of dollars from it. You can’t say Romney had no knowledge when his signature appears on the documents.

TI, whatever Romney might have made from Stericycle stock as EstesBob noted, the company picks up medical waste. Some of that medical “waste” was apparently from aborted children. I assure you that the vast majority of Stericycle’s business is not from abortion providers. Our clinic uses Stericycle neither we nor the other hundreds of clinics in the hospital perform abortions.

However it is a really far stretch to claim that Romney made millions from abortion because some portion of one company picked up some medical waste that included body parts from aborted children. By that standard I am also making money from abortions because some portion of my 401k might be invested in a company that has a remote association with a company that provides abortions or contraception. Further anyone who pays taxes is also guilty since our tax dollars provide BILLIONS to Planned Parenthood,the biggest provider of abortion in this country. That is a far more direct connection than Romney’s ownership of Stericycle.

This “guilt by association” was discussed extensively during the 2012 campaign. The connection in this instance is simply too remote to be taken seriously.

Why do you make a huge deal out of a remote and indirect connection with respect to Romney but ignore the MANY DIRECT INSTANCES of Obama supporting abortion?

Lisa

 

[StudentMI]

I think one of the problems with signing on to the liberal plan for lowering poverty (setting aside such issues as abortion and same-sex marriage, which we cannot compromise on) is that their entire vision of poverty is skewed by Malthusianism, the idea that there can be too many people on earth. They won’t admit to it, but look through the environmentalist literature and you’ll see either explicit references to Malthus, or you’ll see ideas that are thoroughly Malthusian. The solution to people starving, or people out of work, or people below the poverty line? Have less kids, which means contraception. This is a position that a Catholic just can’t hold.

Malthus was disproved over a century ago, but his ideas linger on, especially amongst the anti-human left, which values the environment and animals more than human beings. What this leads to is genetic Darwinism, with designer babies and euthanasia. It frightens me how normal this is becoming on the left. They don’t even see the similarity between this and Nazism.

But this isn’t to say what passes for the right-wing is preferable. It saddens me how Ayn Rand is lauded among conservatives. When the anti-Christian message of her thought is pointed out, they will say “well, yes, but she was in the Soviet Union, so she’s important to listen to.” Her most famous novel, the one that she regarded as capturing her philosophy perfectly, Atlas Shrugged, ends with the ‘hero’, who regards religion as foolish, making the ‘sign of the dollar’ over the world. This is the worship of mammon. The emphasis on the individual above all has lead to the worship of the market, and the permission of abortion.

The best way to lower poverty levels and reduce unemployment is to get back to Catholic fundamentals. If you’ve never read the Distributists, I recommend them.

 

[ProVobis]

I think one of the problems with signing on to the liberal plan for lowering poverty (setting aside such issues as abortion and same-sex marriage, which we cannot compromise on) is that their entire vision of poverty is skewed by Malthusianism, the idea that there can be too many people on earth. They won’t admit to it, but look through the environmentalist literature and you’ll see either explicit references to Malthus, or you’ll see ideas that are thoroughly Malthusian. The solution to people starving, or people out of work, or people below the poverty line? Have less kids, which means contraception. This is a position that a Catholic just can’t hold.

Malthus was disproved over a century ago, but his ideas linger on, especially amongst the anti-human left, which values the environment and animals more than human beings. What this leads to is genetic Darwinism, with designer babies and euthanasia. It frightens me how normal this is becoming on the left. They don’t even see the similarity between this and Nazism.

But this isn’t to say what passes for the right-wing is preferable. It saddens me how Ayn Rand is lauded among conservatives. When the anti-Christian message of her thought is pointed out, they will say “well, yes, but she was in the Soviet Union, so she’s important to listen to.” Her most famous novel, the one that she regarded as capturing her philosophy perfectly, Atlas Shrugged, ends with the ‘hero’, who regards religion as foolish, making the ‘sign of the dollar’ over the world. This is the worship of mammon. The emphasis on the individual above all has lead to the worship of the market, and the permission of abortion.

The best way to lower poverty levels and reduce unemployment is to get back to Catholic fundamentals. If you’ve never read the Distributists, I recommend them.

You make some good points.

Ayn Rand’s basic philosophy falls apart when it forces her to deny that an unborn has individual rights, that they are completely subservient to the mother’s rights. However, many on the “right” never get past the part which claims egalitarianism is evil.

As for the sinister left, maybe they should leave their city dwellings for a few days and fly over the U.S. and check out how much uninhabited land (such as in North Dakota and Wyoming) there is before they say things are overcrowded all over. What do you think?

 

[StudentMI]

As for the sinister left, maybe they should leave their city dwellings for a few days and fly over the U.S. and check out how much uninhabited land (such as in North Dakota and Wyoming) there is before they say things are overcrowded all over. What do you think?

Oh absolutely. That was one criticism I kept encountering of Malthus when I was studying economics on my own: he assumed the post-enclosure distribution of English land was ‘natural’ and concluded, from the crowded slums, that once the population rate rose past a certain level poverty was the result, and the answer was less people.

As one example of Malthus in modern day leftism, look up James Kunstler. I thought his book The Geography of Nowhere was interesting (it’s about the rise of the suburbs) and as I was interested in peak oil I skimmed his book The Long Emergency. I glanced at the index, and Malthus was cited. Upon reading a defense on one page, I put the book back on the shelf. Not worth my time.

 

[april32010]

Jesus was a socialist

then why des the Church condemn socialism ? vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_28121878_quod-apostolici-muneris_en.html

1. For, indeed, although the socialists, stealing the very Gospel itself with a view to deceive more easily the unwary, have been accustomed to distort it so as to suit their own purposes, nevertheless so great is the difference between their depraved teachings and the most pure doctrine of Christ that none greater could exist: “for what participation bath justice with injustice or what fellowship bath light with darkness?”

 

[LisaA]

I think one of the problems with signing on to the liberal plan for lowering poverty (setting aside such issues as abortion and same-sex marriage, which we cannot compromise on) is that their entire vision of poverty is skewed by Malthusianism, the idea that there can be too many people on earth. They won’t admit to it, but look through the environmentalist literature and you’ll see either explicit references to Malthus, or you’ll see ideas that are thoroughly Malthusian. The solution to people starving, or people out of work, or people below the poverty line? Have less kids, which means contraception. This is a position that a Catholic just can’t hold.

Malthus was disproved over a century ago, but his ideas linger on, especially amongst the anti-human left, which values the environment and animals more than human beings. What this leads to is genetic Darwinism, with designer babies and euthanasia. It frightens me how normal this is becoming on the left. They don’t even see the similarity between this and Nazism.

But this isn’t to say what passes for the right-wing is preferable. It saddens me how Ayn Rand is lauded among conservatives. When the anti-Christian message of her thought is pointed out, they will say “well, yes, but she was in the Soviet Union, so she’s important to listen to.” Her most famous novel, the one that she regarded as capturing her philosophy perfectly, Atlas Shrugged, ends with the ‘hero’, who regards religion as foolish, making the ‘sign of the dollar’ over the world. This is the worship of mammon. The emphasis on the individual above all has lead to the worship of the market, and the permission of abortion.

The best way to lower poverty levels and reduce unemployment is to get back to Catholic fundamentals. If you’ve never read the Distributists, I recommend them.

Interesting post and it points out that to some of the Left, environmentalism has become a religion of sorts. The Peter Singers of the world wish to create a utopia with perfect children…of course the parents are given a year or two to insure nothing was missed at birth. Ditto with the protection of bugs and amphibians while simultaneously applauding abortion and contraception.

Also agree that our politicians could help create growth and prosperity and better health through following Catholic social teachings. Subsidiarity is one that few seem acquainted with and would IMO be a better approach than the federal collectivism that is in fashion now.

It’s funny how Ayn Rand has emerged as a designated heroine. I found reading her books life changing but again they were fiction and I don’t think the current Republican platform is any more Randian than the DaVinci Code defines Catholicism. But trust me there are as many who think DaVinci is true as those who follow Ayn Rand’s personal philosophy.

Which “Distributionists” do you suggest are worth further exploration.

Lisa

 

[meltzerboy]

I think one of the problems with signing on to the liberal plan for lowering poverty (setting aside such issues as abortion and same-sex marriage, which we cannot compromise on) is that their entire vision of poverty is skewed by Malthusianism, the idea that there can be too many people on earth. They won’t admit to it, but look through the environmentalist literature and you’ll see either explicit references to Malthus, or you’ll see ideas that are thoroughly Malthusian. The solution to people starving, or people out of work, or people below the poverty line? Have less kids, which means contraception. This is a position that a Catholic just can’t hold.

Malthus was disproved over a century ago, but his ideas linger on, especially amongst the anti-human left, which values the environment and animals more than human beings. What this leads to is genetic Darwinism, with designer babies and euthanasia. It frightens me how normal this is becoming on the left. They don’t even see the similarity between this and Nazism.

But this isn’t to say what passes for the right-wing is preferable. It saddens me how Ayn Rand is lauded among conservatives. When the anti-Christian message of her thought is pointed out, they will say “well, yes, but she was in the Soviet Union, so she’s important to listen to.” Her most famous novel, the one that she regarded as capturing her philosophy perfectly, Atlas Shrugged, ends with the ‘hero’, who regards religion as foolish, making the ‘sign of the dollar’ over the world. This is the worship of mammon. The emphasis on the individual above all has lead to the worship of the market, and the permission of abortion.

The best way to lower poverty levels and reduce unemployment is to get back to Catholic fundamentals. If you’ve never read the Distributists, I recommend them.

Who exactly is this “anti-human left, which values the environment and animals more than human beings”? Certainly not the Left I know; maybe the Left as seen through the filtered lens of some on the Right, though.

And welcome to CAF!

 

[Elizabeth502]

Who exactly is this “anti-human left, which values the environment and animals more than human beings”? Certainly not the Left I know; maybe the Left as seen through the filtered lens of some on the Right, though.

I understand the reference, even though it may be an impression rather than the fullness of any position. The impression given, by members of some extremist groups, is that human beings exist for the cosmos/planet, not vice-versa. That’s for starters, Second, that animals are at least equal in importance to humankind or any individual human, if not (sometimes, it’s inferred) more so. IOW, OK to mess with man’s habitat, livelihood, & survival, not with animal habitats. Human beings can be sacrificed for the lower animals, not the other way around. Third (what has been mentioned), restriction on population growth to the point of attempts at legislative control of that, or executive policy about that, and the rationale for that being – again – survival of one or more animal species. Fourth, the plant world is as important as (sometimes more important than) the human world. I’m not talking here about vigilance over worldwide food resources. The Lord forbid that there be one less tree; however, it’s OK to have one less child, adult, or family.

This is all deducible from the policies they advocate, meltzerboy.

IOW, there are environmentalists, and then there are radicals. One, I believe, tries to be grounded in reality and balance; the other is responsible for rant after rant about the evils of population growth, the imbalance between man and the rest of nature, and how the solution to that is fewer human beings, for starters.

Forgetting about the impracticality of this all, I object to the anti-theology of it. It definitely contradicts a Catholic and Jewish understanding of scripture and the order of nature.

 

[StudentMI]

Which “Distributionists” do you suggest are worth further exploration.

Hilaire Belloc, G. K. Chesterton, Fr. Vincent McNabb, E. F. Schumacher, and John Medaille are good.

 

[Bob_Aliano]

Isn’t war and killing just as intrinsically evil as abortion? I mean, abortion is killing and war is killing, where do we draw a distinction? Please do not construe this as me condoning abortion in any way, I do not.

Why is there not more pressure on Catholics to vote for Politicians who support peace? We have been a very warring country (the US) throughout our history, and I think a person would be hard pressed to convince the general public that all of them were just wars.

Consider the fact that these wars are directly linked to why we are in so much debt. I have a hard time believing God enjoys watching us use the he has given us (knowledge, science, technology) to kill and to harm each other. So much of the technology we use is either violent or frivolous. Think of how many world problems we might be able to solved if we used our technological innovativeness to solve world hunger instead of giving us atom bombs and facebook?

It would be wonderful, Utopia! It would be that is, if the world would let us put down all our arms and live in peace. Not going to happen, never has been possible and never will be as long as there are two or more people on the planet; one will always want to control the other, to possess what the other has and to have a bigger and more powerful widget than the other.

 

[LisaA]

Hilaire Belloc, G. K. Chesterton, Fr. Vincent McNabb, E. F. Schumacher, and John Medaille are good.

Thank you, a few of my favorites and a few new resources! Also echo Meltzerboy’s welcome to CAF.

Lisa

 

[StudentMI]

Who exactly is this “anti-human left, which values the environment and animals more than human beings”? Certainly not the Left I know; maybe the Left as seen through the filtered lens of some on the Right, though.

Peter Singer is a prime example. I did not mean to lump all environmentalists in one category. There is, of course, a difference between someone who says “our use of fossil fuels is not sustainable” and “human society is destroying the ecosystem.” I’ve seen leftists, far left types, say things like the latter. The ‘left,’ of course, encompasses many different groups and ideologies. I should have been more clear.

And welcome to CAF!

Thank you, and thanks LisaA.

 

[pete_29]

Who exactly is this “anti-human left, which values the environment and animals more than human beings”? Certainly not the Left I know; maybe the Left as seen through the filtered lens of some on the Right, though.

And welcome to CAF!

PETA?

 

[LisaA]

Who exactly is this “anti-human left, which values the environment and animals more than human beings”? Certainly not the Left I know; maybe the Left as seen through the filtered lens of some on the Right, though.

And welcome to CAF!

Meltzerboy, I think living in NYC you don’t see the “Green Movement” as up close and personal as do we here on the Left Coast. We have a relatively active extremist environmental movement that for example would go into the woods and put spikes in trees (damaging to logging equipment) or set fires at car lots or at construction sites. We had "Butterfly ??? " living in a tree for a year to protect the forest when any moron can fly over the state and see thousands and thousands of acres of forests.

Further the economy has been destroyed by what I consider an extremist drive to protect various animals or plants. Many are aware of the human misery resulting from saving a small fish (Delta Smelt). In my state logging has been decimated to save various insects, amphibians or more well known the Spotted Owl…the irony being that the Barred Owl was killing the Spotted Owls so the environmentlists decided to kill the Barred Owls to save the Spotted. As the old commercial went, “It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature.”

I have heard many of these folks interviewed and to a ONE they don’t care nearly as much about humans as about these animals. Now I am an animal NUT. But I do not understand a philosophy that would save birds and salamanders but will not speak against abortion. I also do not understand a philosophy that would protect a fish and allow families to be unable to put food on the table.

And before anyone jumps in to claim that if I don’t give a rat’s patooty about the Delta Smelt that I want a scorched earth policy, that is not the case. I just think that our charge to be good stewards of the earth and its resources does not mean putting fish and human beings on equal planes. Trust me, many in the super Green Environmentalist movement do just that.

Lisa