Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

How Can A Faithful Catholic Be A Democrat?


Groo the Wanderer

Recommended Posts

I look at the difference between abortion and the death penalty differently. The new person in the developmental stage (a fertilized egg) cannot act with will to do good or bad. The developed person, assuming they are able to exercise will, can choose to act good or bad and earn the rewards or penalties of their act. Society is the will of the community to aid, enable, or promote the consequences of acts that are deemed good or bad. Society is never omniscent or perfect. Abortion is inflicting the consequences of other person's acts onto another that has no ability to defend itself or earn the consequence. A murderer has had choices. Society cannot perfectly mete out consequences, but it can do it's imperfect best. Innocent people are jailed, sued, executed, and punished all the time. The goal is to ensure we are as fair as humanly possible, acknowledging and respecting individuals abilities and rights to make choices and benefit or suffer the results of those free-will choices.

As a non-Catholic, I don't have a dog in the fight about whether or not a Faithful Catholic can be a Democrat. Though it's interesting to discuss what is a 'Faithful Catholic', what is a 'Democrat', what are their values, and discern if choices are contradictory in principle, or complimentary. I have opinions and chosen values, so it behooves me to share them and possible enlighten others to agree with me, or enlighten myself and re-evaluate.

Edited by Anomaly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

thessalonian

I think some of you need to read what the ccc says considering the death penalty. It is CLEARLY not in the same category as abortion which is always a grave moral offense.

[b]2267 [/b]Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1337062899' post='2430791']
the trickle down effect does not work. it just doesn't. cooperate profits are more today with less people working. the companies can get less people to do the same job and make a bigger profit. the thing is republicans and democrats are paid off by lobbyists. the deomcrats have the unions,the LGBT group and others. The republicans have the private rich, evangicalsand usch. To think either party is working in the interest of the common man or their platformis completely right is deluding yourself. All these senators and representatives are doing one thing... trying their best to secure re-election in the future. You have career politicans who care only about re-election.[/quote]
Son, no need to lecture me about the nature of politics and politicians. Nobody here was claiming that Republican politicians are all saints, or anything close to it. Most politicians, of any party, are . . . well, politicians.

And socialism does not work. It just doesn't.
The truth is that increasing taxes on "the rich" won't do squat to improve our economy or the lot of the poor or middle class. Super-rich corporate fat cats won't hurt much from the tax increases, as they can afford it. They won't even have to sell any of their yacts, luxury homes or cars. As the government does more and more to punish profit, they'll simply continue to move more and more operations, jobs, and even businesses, overseas, or spend less on expansion, leading to fewer jobs and more unemployment. It's the poor and middle class in America that will be hurting. And its been proven that increasing capital gains taxes actually leads to [i]less[/i] revenue for the government. And even if all the earnings of the top 1% were confiscated by the government, it would scarcely make a dent in our astronomical national debt.

Serious cuts in government spending are needed, which neither party, least of all the Democrats, seems serious enough about.

[quote]i just find it frusterating when people put politics in front of their religion. the conservative party in america does not support catholic theology. parts of it go against catholic theology. use of the death penalty as a deterent/revenge, pre-emptive strikes, immoral wars(i don't care that the pope did not speak infalliably when saying the iraq war was not a just war. he's the pope and he has way more knowledge than anyone on this board. to disagree with him just shows those people are not interested in the truth buare interested more in justifying thier political leanings. i can't get behind anyone who says the pope did not speak infalliably so that means he can be wrong and he is but I who am not on the pope's level is correct because obviously I know more about catholic theology than the pope), cutting money for those in need(as much as people cry about a welfare/nanny state there are people, good people who need help getting along. cutting funding for any reason is unexceptable. perfect example is hear in kansas they are going to cut funding for blind people who make just enough so they don't qualify for medicare. i don't care what excuse they come up with, its not right. these people who fall just above the poverty line but don't make enough to support themselves without helpneed help. cuttingtheir funding and leaving them to fend for themselves is not right).[/quote]
No one's putting their politics before their religion here. This is from John Paul II, whom I'm pretty sure was a Catholic first, rather than a conservative:[quote]In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of State, the so-called "Welfare State". This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the "Social Assistance State". [b]Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance 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[/b], 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.100



[b]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[/b]. In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbours to those in need.
[/quote]
That describes the welfare state advocated by liberal Democrats to a tee, which has helped perpetuate a permanent underclass in this country.

I'm frustrated by idiots who insist that supporting ever-increasing government spending on "social programs" is mandated by the Church.


[quote]i mean don't even get me started on paul ryans budget plan. he wants cuts in so called entitlements but wants to give more money to the military. money the military is NOT asking for. his reasoning is that he believes the military is to afraid to ask for the money theyreally need. i mean come on.[/quote]
I'd agree that Ryan's plan doesn't go far enough in its spending cuts, but it is vastly better than whatever plan Obama and the Democrats have (though they don't seem to have an actual plan beyond, "Spend like there's no tomorrow!" [and there won't be any tomorrow financially if they keep spending at the current rate]). Military spending remains only a fifth of the federal budget.

[quote]this is exactly what i mean. politicians are notout to help the common man. they are out to push their agenda and secure re-election.

oh and please do not read into this that i am a democrat because i am not.[/quote]
Good for you.

[quote]i will not vote democrat as long as they support abortion, gay marriage, and other things which go against catholic theology. my point is the republican partyis not the "catholic party" by any means and is immoral just like the democrat party. they arenot equal in their immorality because of abortion and gay marriage but immoral none the less.[/quote]
Nobody here was claiming that the Republican party is the "Catholic Party" - the whole point of this thread was to show how incompatible the Democratic Party's principles are with Catholic morality, not to sing the praises of Republican politicians. And while Republican politicians may do immoral things (as will all politicians of any party until Christ comes again), at least there is nothing in the GOP platform directly opposed to basic morality, as there are in the Democratic platform.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dairygirl4u2c

the government spending money can help the economy in its own way. there's no debate that economies are built around money spent by the government. our GDP growth, everything, is tied to it. of course, it's best to be principled about it, and only spend what we need, as jobs and equity is best kept in the private market.
if the government spends on the poor, or on a gov job... dollar for dollar, that's going to people. if we give it to the people... it's not as efficient, they have their own profit which is usually very high, and expenses etc. so the bang for the buck in terms of getting people what they need is served most efficiently when the government does it itself. but of course, we don't want to be socialists, so we should allow the private market to do the rest.

if we wanted to stimulate the private economy best, we should take all those tax cuts for the rich, loopholes etc, that are not being taxed fairly.... they pay 15%, while their secretaries pay 35% etc... and give them to small businesses, or at least tie the money more directly to jobs and business creation and things that benefit society (green energy, cars, houses etc for example, or innovation). we have a lot of dumb money involved when we dont, merely lining the pockets of the rich, or very inefficiently used in terms of creating jobs and wealth. (look up 'rent seeking' eg) they may throw money into a business but the output for society is very small.

------------

think about it. we tax people, give 10,000 to bob, as a job, or for assistance. or, we keep that 10,000 in the private sector. if bob gets anything, by definition, it will be much less than 10,000. the only reason we don't give it right to bob, is because we do not beleive in socialism. not because bob would be much better off if only we'd stop taxing and spending etc. with that said, often, the government might tax 100000 just to help someone with only 10k of true value. but when the programs are efficient or more direct, it's hard to argue that they'd be better off with tax cuts, not taxing etc.

Edited by dairygirl4u2c
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Groo the Wanderer

wrong on so many things. but seriously close on others.

eliminate the income tax period. no loopholes, no deductions.

tax companies at a flat rate, again no deductions or loopholes.

tax people with a national sales tax. those who consume more pay more. very fair and equitable. exempt those under a certain income level

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1337212658' post='2431471']
the government spending money can help the economy in its own way. there's no debate that economies are built around money spent by the government. our GDP growth, everything, is tied to it. of course, it's best to be principled about it, and only spend what we need, as jobs and equity is best kept in the private market.[/quote]dairy, there is little debate that economies are NOT built around money spent by the government. You actually explain some of the problems below. Here is a link that discusses the problems with relying on government spending to increase GDP. [url="http://mercatus.org/publication/does-government-spending-affect-economic-growth"]http://mercatus.org/...economic-growth[/url]

[quote]if the government spends on the poor, or on a gov job... dollar for dollar, that's going to people. if we give it to the people... it's not as efficient, they have their own profit which is usually very high, and expenses etc. so the bang for the buck in terms of getting people what they need is served most efficiently when the government does it itself. but of course, we don't want to be socialists, so we should allow the private market to do the rest.[/quote]No, dairy, the governemnt is usually inefficient because it is structured to follow guidelines which restrict or actually prevent efficiency. That's okay, because the government is not business and cannot have the same goals of operating for a profit that drives for efficiency in the market place because there isn't a competitive market. You can't have competion for most of what the government needs to provide. The money government injects into the economy doesn't really create more money which grows an economy, it still has to 'work' in the private sector to make money. The principle is that governemnt is injecting money that will (may) grow by being spent in the private sector. Borrowed government money has to overcome the intrest charges, government inefficiency, and fact that much of it isn't being spent in 'producing industry'.

[quote]if we wanted to stimulate the private economy best, we should take all those tax cuts for the rich, loopholes etc, that are not being taxed fairly.... they pay 15%, while their secretaries pay 35% etc... and give them to small businesses, or at least tie the money more directly to jobs and business creation and things that benefit society (green energy, cars, houses etc for example, or innovation). we have a lot of dumb money involved when we dont, merely lining the pockets of the rich, or very inefficiently used in terms of creating jobs and wealth. (look up 'rent seeking' eg) they may throw money into a business but the output for society is very small.[/quote]Again, you misunderstand how people are taxed. 80%+ of tax revenues come from job income (40% direct income tax, 40% payroll taxes). "Rich" people are taxed at a higher rate on their "job income" they are paid. They rich also make money on investments and business profits that are taxed on the corporate level then again when they get the money. Since that is double taxed, it's at a lower tax rate, hence the supposedly different over-all tax rate.

All "Green" industries are not necessarily cost efficient in the short term or long term. The most efficient spending is private industry that produces products and services that people will buy in a cost efficient method and create jobs.

------------

[quote] think about it. we tax people, give 10,000 to bob, as a job, or for assistance. or, we keep that 10,000 in the private sector. if bob gets anything, by definition, it will be much less than 10,000. the only reason we don't give it right to bob, is because we do not beleive in socialism. not because bob would be much better off if only we'd stop taxing and spending etc. with that said, often, the government might tax 100000 just to help someone with only 10k of true value. but when the programs are efficient or more direct, it's hard to argue that they'd be better off with tax cuts, not taxing etc.
[/quote]Tax money has to come from somewhere. Where does that initial $10k come from? It comes mostly from people working and their pay being taxed per individual on A-Personal Income tax and B-Payroll tax. It's the private sector that employs people that produces goods and services as efficiently as possible.

I'm not just spewing political partisanship (although it's my opinions), it's basic economics and common sense. We all understand the simple saying: "If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish, you feed him for his life."

And note, close to 50% of people don't pay personal income tax (though there is pay roll taxes paid by the employer).

Groo, how would the logistics work to not tax sales on people with a lower income? The income tax is used for 'progressive' bracketing. Loopholes and deductions are overly complicated, but taxes are used to discourage or encourage certain types of spending. We give tax breaks on home purchases becasue people need to buy homes and it stimulates the building industry. We give less tax breaks on cars, because that's 'less' of a necessity and people have more freedom to purchase various types/costs of cars.

Edited by Anomaly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Groo the Wanderer

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1337263629' post='2431672']
Groo, how would the logistics work to not tax sales on people with a lower income? The income tax is used for 'progressive' bracketing. Loopholes and deductions are overly complicated, but taxes are used to discourage or encourage certain types of spending. We give tax breaks on home purchases becasue people need to buy homes and it stimulates the building industry. We give less tax breaks on cars, because that's 'less' of a necessity and people have more freedom to purchase various types/costs of cars.
[/quote]

dunno yet. likely similar to the state sales tax rebate we have now. peeps below a certain threshold get a calculated 'refund' of what they presumably paid in national sales tax

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1337263629' post='2431672']
All "Green" industries are not necessarily cost efficient in the short term or long term. The most efficient spending is private industry that produces products and services that people will buy in a cost efficient method and create jobs.
[/quote]

"Green energy investment" is a scam. Obama has wasted billions of taxpayer dollars giving to businesses engaged in "green energy" research, with absolutely nothing to show in return. It's easy for corporations to get rewarded big bucks at taxpayer expense simply by claiming to be in the "green" business. If any "green" alternative energy solutions are developed, they will prove quite profitable in the market, and not be in need of government handouts to be successful. I think there is already plenty of market incentive for this as energy prices rise. Federal grants merely insure that huge sums of money are thrown at ineffective ventures, similar to the government bail-outs of banks businesses that reward them for their failure in the market brought about by their own poor practices. If something needs to be propped up by the government in order to work, that shows that it is not in fact an effective endeavor that will benefit the economy.

Stick the word "green" in front of it, and the most blatant crony capitalism/corporate welfare schemes will be readily swallowed by much of the "anti-corporate" left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dairygirl4u2c

[quote]dairy, there is little debate that economies are NOT built around money spent by the government. You actually explain some of the problems below. Here is a link that discusses the problems with relying on government spending to increase GDP. [url="http://mercatus.org/publication/does-government-spending-affect-economic-growth"]http://mercatus.org/...economic-growth[/url][/quote]

i'm not following the article you gave me. maybe you could explain it to me in layman's terms?
note, i don't advocate growing the economy by spending money (and understand how borrowing money is dangerous, so usually dont promote that either).... all i'm saying is that when the government does spend money, that it gets from taxpayers, granted, it's causing the GDP to go up, and creating jobs etc. how is this debateable? example, while i don't agree this is how the government should work in this specific case, someone i know works at a health care unit (a label, euphemism, for a school for the handicap) for certain handicap people. they bill medicaid for their wages. this and all of his coworkers are getting jobs. when we measure GDP, their wages will be included in the measurement.
here is a random website that illustrates that... [url="http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/percent_gdp"]http://www.usgovernm...com/percent_gdp[/url]
the private sector might be able to do things with the money that is more efficient, for sure, particularly in this case. but it's nto changing that GDP is grown by what i just mentioned. and that jobs are created.
in reality, without gov, most of those handicap people probably wouldn't be using those services the family wouldn't pony the money even if they could afford it, which they probably couldn't. and the servcies aren't really even that needed anyway. to me, it smacks of too much socialism to be advocating for. it's not like this is food stamps, or necessary health care.

if we spend money on things like food stamps for instance, that also causes businesses to profit more, and GDP to increase.
we could give the 200 dollars back to the private sector and hope people get food stamps, or whatever it is we give out. but, it's by definition going to not be as much as the person could get back, because the private sector will have to make profit out of that 200, etc.
there may be some arguments about "creating wealth" werein the person gets back more than two hundred by the private sector, but these seem too merky.
maybe a concrete example if you want to 'prove it' to me, we could use this hypothetical. we spend 100 billion on food stamps per year. how will we ensure that those people get the food they need if we give the 100 billion back? we can't ensure that. if that 100 billion was spent on food alone in food stamps, anything else it's spent on will be one dollar less spent food.

[quote]No, dairy, the governemnt is usually inefficient because it is structured to follow guidelines which restrict or actually prevent efficiency. That's okay, because the government is not business and cannot have the same goals of operating for a profit that drives for efficiency in the market place because there isn't a competitive market. You can't have competion for most of what the government needs to provide. The money government injects into the economy doesn't really create more money which grows an economy, it still has to 'work' in the private sector to make money. The principle is that governemnt is injecting money that will (may) grow by being spent in the private sector. Borrowed government money has to overcome the intrest charges, government inefficiency, and fact that much of it isn't being spent in 'producing industry'.[/quote]

you have some valid points. but your points are only valid so far, and in abstract terms... there's countering points that necessarily counterweigh what you said.
i think much revolves around the world "efficient".
-cause yes, government is often inefficient because of the regulations etc that it must follow etc. but not always. i'm pretty sure most money spent by food stamps for instance is on actual food, and less on the government oversight. i'm sure there's government programs that are wildly inefficient, sure.
if you define any government intrustion's necessary overhead to be 'inefficient' then, whatever floats your boat
- we're concerned about getting people food, and giving it back to the private sector won't ensure that these people are the ones who will get it. most of them probably won't, and the ones that do, very much less. in that way, it's extremely inefficient to give the 200 or 100 billion aggregate back to the private sector, if your ultimate goal is getting those people food. if that's how we're measuring "efficiency".

just go back to the hypothetical i said in the above paragraph. if we give the dollar to Joe for a hamburger, he has a hamburger. if give it to the private sector, they have to use it in a business in order to justify getting a dollar to Joe. this is efficient as there are no government intrusions, sure, but if we're concerned just about getting Joe the dollar, it's most direct (if you don't like the world 'efficient') by simply using the government to do it. and in reality, Joe probably wouldn't get the hamburger if we left the money in the private sector. someone else would, cause Joe's subpar as a worker etc even when it's not really his fault, just a little slower, if you're following me.


Quote
Again, you misunderstand how people are taxed. 80%+ of tax revenues come from job income (40% direct income tax, 40% payroll taxes). "Rich" people are taxed at a higher rate on their "job income" they are paid. They rich also make money on investments and business profits that are taxed on the corporate level then again when they get the money. Since that is double taxed, it's at a lower tax rate, hence the supposedly different over-all tax rate.
All "Green" industries are not necessarily cost efficient in the short term or long term. The most efficient spending is private industry that produces products and services that people will buy in a cost efficient method and create jobs.
Quote

I understand how the capital gains and income tax works. (i think) i just don't agree with it. when Bill makes a million in payroll taxes, he's taxed at the 30 some percent rate. then he invests it, and all that money is taxed at the capital gains rate of say 15%. sure, we don't want to double tax the income he already made.... we're concerned about the income he made on the investment. to my understanding, this is what is taxed at a lower rate. why is this fair? why do we do it? because it encourages investment etc. but that doesn't mean it's fair, or really even that it's the best way to stimulate things.
I agree that all green industries may not be the best investement. but if someone wants to make an investment in it, we should promote it. these people will be interested in their bottom line too, don't get it wrong. if it makes sense for them as an investor, it's probably not a bad idea. it certainly beats giving people tax breaks just because we can.
the 'green' stuff was just an example. whatever the government see as something that could be beneficial to society is what we should focus on. and if you don't see something in particular, at the very least tie it more to job creation, not just blanket tax cuts. if we're going to engage in favortism anyway, which is that those lower tax rates are, it whould be for something that benefits society more broadly in a more direct way.
i do personally think the gov should be involved as a hedge. my hunch is there's a catch 22 going on in the energy sector. there's no green product cause there's no infrastructure. there's no infrastructure cause there's no product. the private sector can't decide if it wants to invest or find a awy to make it happen... too much uncertainty. we could be losing out on a product that should exist etc just because the private sector found 65% risk too high. perhaps the gov will lose out when it does this... but it was worth a shot and when that magic bullet does come, it could be expedited by government tax breaks.
in the end, as long as money is exchanging hands an "things are happening" then the economy is being stimulated in any case, so we might as well focus our priorities.

most of the programs such as soc mentioned that were energy failures were when the gov just gives out money. when it's tied to one's own personal wealth, it has all the capitialistic etc incentives normal investments do, to do it right. tax breaks are tied to personal wealth cause you wouldn't be getting the money if it wasn't for you using your own etc.

Quote
Tax money has to come from somewhere. Where does that initial $10k come from? It comes mostly from people working and their pay being taxed per individual on A-Personal Income tax and B-Payroll tax. It's the private sector that employs people that produces goods and services as efficiently as possible.
I'm not just spewing political partisanship (although it's my opinions), it's basic economics and common sense. We all understand the simple saying: "If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish, you feed him for his life."

And note, close to 50% of people don't pay personal income tax (though there is pay roll taxes paid by the employer).
Quote

if Bob is subpar as who the workforced will hire, your "teach a man to fish" analogy is irrelvant.
and what's your point on where they money comes from? i don't deny it's hard working tax payers. Bob won't get the 200 food stamps, cause Bob is subpar, yet we want bob to have food... or mroe food than he'd get otherwise. maybe i should have used a real life example instead of just a random naumber to make a point.
(though i think a case could be made for more socialistic tendencies, such as giving everyone 500 who can't find a job. there's no debate from me though, cause that's way too socialistic for my tastes.)

Edited by dairygirl4u2c
Link to comment
Share on other sites

dairygirl4u2c

all the arguments for focusing on green energy or whatever could be used against "propping" up capital gains folks. why do we need to get them more money if their investment is sound?
we don't need to. they'd invest in it anyways.
we might say we do it cause it might encourage some investment that otherwise wouldn't have occurred, or allow more investment, sure. but that could be said however you give the tax break. i say at the least, focus on job creation, and business creation. not just blanket tax cuts. i'd also push for fosuing on certain industries, but that's at worst my bias. i'm sure we could find other industuries if green ones don't float your boat.
if you're in favor of getting rid of favortism all around, kudos for that. but at least acknowledge that it is favortism. and if you are gonna be favoriting folks, why not do it in a way that makes sense for everyone? you at least acknowledge jobs and business creation are better than having companies just throw money back into their busines that often won't really mean anything for society? e
eg, we throw money at a business that expands its workforce. or we throw money at say yahoo the company. it tries to make more money and there's some social outsput sure, maybe they bought some computers or something. but it's often not creating jobs or businesses. it's more likely just mroe money for the computer maker or whoever. if we direct the focus of the tax break, it'd be more efficient for our social goals.

Edited by dairygirl4u2c
Link to comment
Share on other sites

dairygirl4u2c

on that "let's hand out 500 dollars" point. as an example
we don't do this as a country because its' socialistic. if we wanted to get this done, though, there'd be very little gov oversight involved, it's very simple.... very direct, and "efficient".
if there's lots of gov oversight, it becomes very little maximized output.... the private sector won't waste money buying 200 dollar toilets when it can pay 50, it's more "efficient' in that way. yet, even that gov oversight has some worth to it, even paying 200 on a tiolet stimulates things... just not in a way that's maximized, or fair to the tax payer. etc. in that way it's not "efficient"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dairygirl4u2c

you have some valid points though. i heard in new york they want the state to pay millions for homlessness. it doesn't require millions to build a few buildings for people to sleep etc. well, suffice it ot say, it's pretty much taken as a granted that there's too much buck and not much bang. there's too much gov oversight here. give it back to the private sector and they will make wiser use of the money.... no 200 dollars toilets, please.
course, there's the issue of the homeless not benefiting when we don't use that tax money.
this is an issue that needs a creative solution, which i think could be done with the gov, but the point is that i recoginze your point about efficiency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Groo the Wanderer

you do know that $200 toilet seats are actually line items to fund black ops, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1337293110' post='2431904']
i'm not following the article you gave me. maybe you could explain it to me in layman's terms?
note, i don't advocate growing the economy by spending money (and understand how borrowing money is dangerous, so usually dont promote that either).... all i'm saying is that when the government does spend money, that it gets from taxpayers, granted, it's causing the GDP to go up, and creating jobs etc. how is this debateable? example, while i don't agree this is how the government should work in this specific case, someone i know works at a health care unit (a label, euphemism, for a school for the handicap) for certain handicap people. they bill medicaid for their wages. this and all of his coworkers are getting jobs. when we measure GDP, their wages will be included in the measurement.

if Bob is subpar as who the workforced will hire, your "teach a man to fish" analogy is irrelvant.
and what's your point on where they money comes from? i don't deny it's hard working tax payers. Bob won't get the 200 food stamps, cause Bob is subpar, yet we want bob to have food... or mroe food than he'd get otherwise. maybe i should have used a real life example instead of just a random naumber to make a point.
(though i think a case could be made for more socialistic tendencies, such as giving everyone 500 who can't find a job. there's no debate from me though, cause that's way too socialistic for my tastes.)
[/quote]dairy, I'm not a teacher or highly educated. I've been using layman's terms and you seem to understand lot's of things intuitively. Give the article a second chance.

For an economy to grow, money needs to be created. If I provide a service, like bring your mail from your mailbox and putting it on your table for 25cents, my efforts created for me, 25cents. If I take a day's wages, and buy a happy meal, McDonald's paid for their costs and made let's say, 10 cents. 10 cents of wealth was created within the economy. Capital in economies are not a zero sum game, let's say it's a billion dollars and the idea is to spread the billion around equally to everyone. Just as Jesus told the story of the Master who gave 10 Talents to 3 stewards, if you do nothing with it, it doesn't grow. If you invest it or lend it, it grows.

Rich people will almost always help the economy. If they leave it in the bank, it is lent out by the bank for other people to use in business or to purchase things and the money generates profits or interest, and lot's of people win. Money spent by the Government will usually do the same, however, if it is just money they printed, it doesn't add to the value of the economy as it wasn't created from value. However, as it is injected into the economy and is used, it creates wealth.

In the case of Gov. paid health services, no body is paying for the services like it would happen in the private sector. The fact they purchase medical supplies, build a building, and hire people does provide stimilus to the economy. But the Government has to continual put money into the operation. If it's tax money, it's money from the economy and that is good. If it's printed money, the net worth of the money in the economy goes down a bit (inflation), not so good. If it's money borrowed by China's economy, the interest goes back to China's economy which is not good for US, but good for China. That brings up a whole other ball of tar.

But economics are not simple and cut and dried. There are a wide variety of valid and reasonable opinions that would be morally proper because it's complicated and dynamic. We can agree to disagree on many points and not violate shared morals despite how we love to label with Dema-Crooks or Republi-Rats.

The issue of Abortion and Same Sex Marriage are much more definitive, which is what Groo brought up in the first place. The hypocrasy for Catholics, as I see it, is they will let social economic issuess over-ride a more fundamental issue of abortion. Though most posters here at PM say they would never vote for pro-abort Dems, the fact is, most Catholics do vote Democratic.

It seems to me (I love the interwebz because I can spout my personal opinion with 'authority'), that voting third party in the primaries is good because it gives support to specific opinion. Votes for Ron Paul, Santorum, or Bachman were never wasted because it quantified support to their specific agenda. However, when it comes down to the final choice, you have to vote for who's best for the Country in the Long Term between the two. If you don't vote, you allow the popularity of the worst to easily get elected. The only wasted vote is the vote not cast. Politicians ultimately pay attention to who votes, not who blogs. Bologgers only matter "if" they influence the people who actually vote. When they look at numbers and see most Catholics are registered Democrats and that's how they vote, they rightly conclude that Abortion is a minor issue as compared to Social Economics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

cmotherofpirl

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1337346007' post='2432164']

c.

It seems to me (I love the interwebz because I can spout my personal opinion with 'authority'), that voting third party in the primaries is good because it gives support to specific opinion. Votes for Ron Paul, Santorum, or Bachman were never wasted because it quantified support to their specific agenda. However, when it comes down to the final choice, you have to vote for who's best for the Country in the Long Term between the two. If you don't vote, you allow the popularity of the worst to easily get elected. The only wasted vote is the vote not cast. Politicians ultimately pay attention to who votes, not who blogs. Bologgers only matter "if" they influence the people who actually vote. When they look at numbers and see most Catholics are registered Democrats and that's how they vote, they rightly conclude that Abortion is a minor issue as compared to Social Economics.
[/quote]

This only works if the primary is open but here in PA, it is not. Independents can't vote at all;you can only be Democrat or Republican and only voter for the candidates in your selected party...so if you want to elect a pro-life Democrat you have to be eligible to vote in the primary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...