Political Compass!

[Mickey's_Girl]

Well, here's another way to look at it. Lots of people, both "conservative" and "liberal", would say that they think certain values (fighting poverty, good health care, etc.) are important. The difference is not, I think, in what people actually *value*, but in what they believe to be the best way to achieve those values.

Of course there are greedy people on both sides. But there are at least two sides to every story, and usually far more. And no political idea is perfect. I certainly know concerned, compassionate people on both extremes of the political spectrum, and everywhere in between.

I think our greatest responsibility is to examine our own lives. How much am *I* doing to fight poverty? How much compassion do I show the unlovely? How much charity do I have for others?

I certainly can't answer those questions to my *own* satisfaction, let alone God's. But I think that, although social responsibility is important and called-for, our individual contributions count more. What have I done with the abilities and resources I've been given?

MG

[BurkeFan]

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Jun 5 2004, 10:04 PM'] Liberal Catholic teachings

Rights and Resposniblites-All persons have the fundamental right to life and itams like food shelter clothing jobs health care and education. With the goverement under Bush cutting Fedreal Fincial aid and hurting schools with NCLB (go ask a local elementry teacher there views, I live with them). However, if the goverement is involeved here it is at the "lowest level possible, as long as they can be performed adequately." Socialist health care is better than the system we have in the states for granting basic health care to ALL people.

Economic Justice-- All people have the basic right to form and join and support unions. NO ONE is allowed to amass great wealth when others lack the basic necessities of life.

The MDC are called and bound to relive the debts of 3rd world nations.

All of these are more fully found in the more liberal parties than the more converative. When was the last time Bush called for 3rd World Debt to be removed? Stronger unions? For the rich to give large parts of the their money so that others may barly live? Free or affordable health care for all members of socitey? Granted the dems don't care for all but they have called for stronger unions, less 3rd World Debt, lower health costs etc.

The citiations I have on this paper I took those socail teachings are
~Revom Novarum (Pope Leo XIII 1891)
~Gaudium et Spes
~Evanglium Vitae (JP2 1995)
~Economic Justice for all (USCCB 1986)

Last I looked those are all soruces held in high regrad and considered to be teachers. Unless you don't listen to hte Vatican and the Pope and your bishops. [/quote]
Those sources are in high regard, and they are (with the addition of Quadregesimo Anno) where I got the information for my previous posts. It is also why I said that the Catholic Social Teaching is a third way, it's neither liberal nor conservative while at the same time being both liberal and conservative.
The issue with unionization: Rerum Novarum, when it spoke of unions, didn't really mean, I think, the AFL-CIO, or these huge, soulless unions which are basically democratic fundraisers. Alot of what goes on in unions, as far as I know, such as mandatory fees (and then failure to disclose where those fees are going, such as to John Kerry's campaign), mandatory joining of the union (join or be fired), and such is really counter to the unions that Rerum Novarum spoke about.

On the wealth issue, yes, I think that there is room for people to amass great wealth while others are in need, but, with that wealth comes great responsibility. This responsiblity to the poor should not be forced by the government however, it should flow from charity. I know that you're thinking that such would never happen, and to some extent I agree, but only because the possibly ethos would be, "The governments already taking %30 of my money by force, they're doing my charity." Charity and aid to the poor should not be coerced, except by exhortation and one's own conscience. But this system may not achieve what you consider to be economic justice, since there will always be disparity, no matter how much is given away or how much the government takes.

Socialist health care... when Hillary Clinton tried to socialize America's health care in the 1990s, the result was not positive. It drove costs up a great deal, and made medical care even more removed from those in need. Turning health care over to the government, quite frankly, scares the hell out of me. It may work in other countries to some extent, but it will not work here. What would be better than having the government control all aspects and pay extravagant prices for everything, the controls and law suit aspects of medicine need to be scaled back. A major reason that doctors charge so much is that they can be sued for millions and millions of dollars for anything at all. As a result, they're scared of treating people. What sense is there in giving free medical care to someone, who, if they're unhappy or looking to make a quick twenty million, is easily able to make some sob story and get public support? Very little. Should there be some controls and standards? Of course, but right now, it's excessive and is hurting people who can't afford medicine. This was the result of an attempt to socialize medicine. If socialist health care was really utopian, wouldn't even a partial move to socialization have done wonderful things? Anyhow, my point is that socialization of health care would be as good for the people of this country as a shotgun blast to the leg is for a runner. Socialized health care is only a possible means to the end proposed by the Catholic Social Teaching. It is not the method proposed. And really, I think that it is counter to CST because it skews the role of the state.

On the fundamental right to life, I'd have to say that that is most definitely not in the democrats' agenda.

Conservatives do listen to the Vatican and to the Pope and the bishops. We don't think that any of the ends are bad, on the contrary, we think that they're good and noble ends. We just have completely different ways of going about achieving those ends. Because we have different means, means which we think would be better for achieving the ends, we're lambasted for wanting to kill the poor, torture workers, destroy poor countries, and such.
Conservatives aren't sick, sadistic people.
Bush has often talked about and applauded religious charities, and encouraged people (and the governement) to support faith based initiatives. He has nto called for stronger unions because, quite frankly, the unions are pretty bloody strong as it is. For the affordable health care, I think I made my point above. Third world debt, to my recollection, he hasn't mentioned much about.

My final point: We're bickering about means here, not ends. It would be wise for all of us to remember that liberals are good people just as conservatives are good people. We disagree with the methods that the other side has, and we may feel, as I do, that our methods are more in sync with Catholic Social Teaching, but that is no reason to demonize the other side, something, I'm sad to say, happens too often in the political arena. This is not a statement about subjectivism, but rather a reminder that we're all (I hope) trying to aim for the same target.
In Christ,
Dave

[crusader1234]

Well, I dont agree with that aiming for the same target thing. Maybe we are aiming for similar targets, but they are far far away.

[BurkeFan]

[quote name='crusader1234' date='Jun 6 2004, 12:10 AM'] Well, I dont agree with that aiming for the same target thing. Maybe we are aiming for similar targets, but they are far far away. [/quote]
Then, if I may ask, what am I, as a conservative, aiming for? What are you aiming for?

[crusader1234]

I think its fair to say (with all apologies to the sadists and massochists out there) that everyone wants a society thats perfect.

The big problem here, is that our ideas of perfect are different, otherwise there would be no need for seperate political parties.

You, from a Catholic-Conservative point of view, want Abortion illegalized, Gay Marriages stopped, and healthcare and welfare and taxes to be basically eradicated because it shuold flow from charity as opposed to goverment mandates. In your post in response to Iacobus, you cited that healthcare scares the hell out of you and that it drives up costs.

Me, from a Catholic-Liberal point of view, break from the Liberals in that I want Abortion illegalized and Gay Marriages stopped. However, I fully support healthcare and welfare and taxes. I say that public healthcare is a blessing.

Have I misinterpreted you?

[Ash Wednesday]

Economic Left/Right: -4.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.05


HAA HAA HAA...

I have taken this test before. About 3 years ago I was closer to ghandi. Now I'm a little closer to the pope.

Guess I still lean a bit left in economics, but I've gotten just a little more authoritarian in my old age. *lol*



What if someone got:
Economic left/right: 0
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0 ?

Would that be John Kerry?

[BurkeFan]

No, you haven't, not really.

Regarding healthcare and welfare: I do not think that health care falls under the proper role of government, nor do I think that it can be handled adquately by the government. What I sincerely think would happen if health care was socialized is one of two things: the system works for a number of years, as it has in Europe, and then crumbles under its own weight, as it is (as far as I know, I think Sweden is a good example of this) in Europe, and leave people in dire straits, or, that the result will be a widespread marginalization of health care, as happened in the Soviet Union, with medical care being unsanitary, unsafe, and all around terrifying. The ultimate goal that, I think, you have in proposing the socialization of health care is not all that far from my own: cheap and affordable health care of high quality that is available to all people.
On welfare, since Lyndon B. Johnson introduced the Great Society program in the 1960s, the result of welfare, as I see it, has been the destruction of the black family, dependence upon government handouts, and a marginalization and degradation of the poor, all for negligible results. Welfare, I think, at least the way that it is practiced in the U.S. is often an insult to human dignity.
Is there room for government assistance where it is needed to help families get back on their feet? Absolutely and without question. But, that should be the extent of the assistance. Welfare, I think, only helps to keep the poor poor. I much prefer initiatives such as Focus:HOPE, a Catholic charity in Detroit that provides limited assistance and job training to help people stand on their own. And that is my goal regarding social assistance and justice: to allow people the serious opportunity to be self-sufficient.
Regarding taxes, tes, I do believe that they are too high and should be cut. Along with that should be cut excessive government waste. The National Institute of Health recently spent hundred of thousands of dollars conducting a study on the effect of viewing pornography on women. The taxpayers paid for that study without their knowledge or consent. Taxation, when necessary, is fine. But it is not an allowance for the government to spend at the candy store.

I want to help the poor become self-sufficient and allow them access to good medical care at affordable prices. Is that really so different from your final ends?

In Christ,
Dave

[crusader1234]

[quote name='BurkeFan' date='Jun 6 2004, 12:51 AM']No, you haven't, not really.

Regarding healthcare and welfare: I do not think that health care falls under the proper role of government, nor do I think that it can be handled adquately by the government. What I sincerely think would happen if health care was socialized is one of two things: the system works for a number of years, as it has in Europe, and then crumbles under its own weight, as it is (as far as I know, I think Sweden is a good example of this) in Europe, and leave people in dire straits, or, that the result will be a widespread marginalization of health care, as happened in the Soviet Union, with medical care being unsanitary, unsafe, and all around terrifying. The ultimate goal that, I think, you have in proposing the socialization of health care is not all that far from my own: cheap and affordable health care of high quality that is available to all people.
On welfare, since Lyndon B. Johnson introduced the Great Society program in the 1960s, the result of welfare, as I see it, has been the destruction of the black family, dependence upon government handouts, and a marginalization and degradation of the poor, all for negligible results. Welfare, I think, at least the way that it is practiced in the U.S. is often an insult to human dignity.
Is there room for government assistance where it is needed to help families get back on their feet? Absolutely and without question. But, that should be the extent of the assistance. Welfare, I think, only helps to keep the poor poor. I much prefer initiatives such as Focus:HOPE, a Catholic charity in Detroit that provides limited assistance and job training to help people stand on their own. And that is my goal regarding social assistance and justice: to allow people the serious opportunity to be self-sufficient. 
Regarding taxes, tes, I do believe that they are too high and should be cut. Along with that should be cut excessive government waste. The National Institute of Health recently spent hundred of thousands of dollars conducting a study on the effect of viewing pornography on women. The taxpayers paid for that study without their knowledge or consent. Taxation, when necessary, is fine. But it is not an allowance for the government to spend at the candy store.

I want to help the poor become self-sufficient and allow them access to good medical care at affordable prices. Is that really so different from your final ends?

In Christ,
Dave[/quote]
First - Healthcare does not neccesarily need to work then crumble or become marginalized. In Canada, Healthcare is working. It is not 'crumbling' and is not marginalized. Everyone who needs it - including those whom cannot even pay for it - gets a doctor when they need one. The last time I dropped by the doctor's office I waited about 20 minutes, while watching TV in a sanitary environment. It was far from terrifying - I cought the end of the Lion King and the beginning of Aristocats. In fact, healthcare is getting a lot better - and for those people whom are afraid of sharing, you can always self-insure.

You mentioned a few things about welfare I found sort of odd. First of all, you talked about American welfare - which isn't exactly the socialist prototype. The idea of it 'destroying black families' suggests that white families arent effected in the same manner. The idea of welfare creating dependence on gov't handouts is somewhat ludicrous... if you knew what exactly welfare is, you'd know it is nothing to depend on. It stops people from dying, but its certainly no life that people would choose should they have an opportunity to work. The common misconception about welfare is that it isn't that bad - a cheque from the government so that you can live without working - but in truth a life on welfare is just enough to get by. And if you've worked in Canadian soup kitchens like I have, this is the truth. How is it an insult to human dignity? We give them something to live on when they would otherwise fall through the cracks and die? I dont understand your reasoning here.

The idea of 'giving them a hand up without a handout' seems to be what you are suggesting - hoewver many people would die without the hand out to survive the hand up. In Canada we have both. We arent saying take the money and elave us alone, we say 'heres your money but look what jobs there are...'. Like your focus:hope thing, the government offers plenty of things to help rehabilitate people, especially minorities.

The way I see it, is that in the same way you say people should give to charities like focus:HOPE and whatever, a Socialist government is a charity which has the power to take money from those who wouldn't otherwise give - so that society as a whole can develope without leaving others behind for only the charitable to provide for.

As for your comments about taxes being cut, governments will always make bizzare choices and bad choices - does this mean we should stop helping out those in need, because money is managed poorly? World Vision wastes a TERRIBLE amount of money, however I still donate because I know that some of my money gets there.

And in the end, I still think we should provide for those who cannot provide for themselves, and that healthcare should be available to everyone who needs it.

[Ash Wednesday]

Burkefan: Are you sure it is Sweden that has health care that is "crumbling"? My boyfriend's a Swedish citizen and I visit the country every year, and that really doesn't seem to be the case. Their life expectancy is among the world's highest (higher than these United States, in fact), and their system has consistently ranked higher than the United States in world health reports and assessment of health systems.

[crusader1234]

Ash Wednesday, You are correct!

Sweden and other Scandanavian socialist countries are also in the lead for lowest infant mortality rate.

Sweden and Canada and other socialist countries are in the top ten for life expectancy, USA didnt make the cut.

[quote]Standard of Living
For six years in a row - 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 - Canada has ranked first in the world on the United Nations Human Development Index. Canadians scored high on the key factors of life expectancy, which is significantly affected by environmental quality, and average income, which for one-third of our population comes from environment-related activities. At the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos, Switzerland, Canada ranked third in the world in the 2001 Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI) study, a measure of overall progress towards environmental sustainability, developed for 122 countries. Canada ranks sixth in the world in standard of living when measured according to gross domestic product per capita, behind only the United States, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Germany and Japan. Canada's rank among nations tends to rise even higher in assessments that consider gross domestic product per capita along with other factors (e.g., life expectancy, education) that contribute to the overall quality of life. Basic health care, with the exception of dental services, is free at the point of delivery. Also, in most cases, prescription drugs are dispensed without charge to people over 65 and social aid recipients. Canada also has an extensive social security network, including an old age pension, a family allowance, unemployment insurance and welfare.[/quote]

[crusader1234]

[url="http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762380.html"]More Stats[/url]

This is where I got those stats from to support you Ash... its interesting stuff.

[geetarplayer]

Economic Left/Right: -1.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.69

-Mark

[BeenaBobba]

Economic Left/Right: -1.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.36

That's pretty darn close to the middle, which doesn't surprise me because I'm quite moderate when it comes to politics.

[BurkeFan]

"...the Swedish system is broken. In recent years the Swedish government's budget deficit has been as high as 12 percent of the gross domestic product. By comparison, at the end of the Reagan-Bush [G.H.W.Bush] era, when America's budget balancers had let all the spinning plates fall on their heads, the U.S. deficit was less than 5 percent of GDP. We in America consider our body politic to be perilously in hock, but the Swedish national debt ir proportionately, 40 percent greater than ours. Sweden's national debt is nearly equal to its GDP - to all the things made and all the work done in Sweden annually...Just paying the interest on the national debt takes 7 percent of everything produced in Sweden. And this despite the Swedes taking the hell out of themselves. The tax burden is the highest in the developed world. More than half of the GDP goes for taxes." -P.J. O'Rourke, [i]Eat the Rich[/i], pg 58-59.
The effects may not be visible now, but the base upon which the Swedish system was built is crumbling.

While the Scandanavian countries are lowest for mortality rate, they lead in other things. Denmark, for example, has at times the highest suicide rate in the world. However, they are, along with Sweden, one of the most socialized countries in the world.

Health care may be fine and good in Canada. That wasn't what I was criticizing. I was saying that it will not work in the U.S.
Welfare may work in Canada. It has been a dire failure in the U.S. And, yes, it has destroyed black families, on a greater scale than white families. Look at any statistic for the proportion of single parent black families since the 1960s. It has skyrocketed. Of course, apparently I'm uninformed and don't know what welfare is. I only know that the American attempts at it have failed.
I say that it is an insult to human dignity because it treats people as being incompetent. "Here, you can't manage yourself, so we're going to do it for you." I don't see how welfare doesn't create dependence. What incentive is there to work hard when you have enough money to get adequate food and a color tv?
For the government playing the role of charity with taxpayer money, there is a huge thing to consider: Taxes are not voluntary. They are taken, if necessary, at gunpoint. That is not charity.
In Christ,
Dave

[Ash Wednesday]

Crusader -- my boyfriend and his family (they're actually Polish) have a lot of fun reminding me that Canada, Norway, and Sweden are ranked to be much more livable than the U.S. While O'Rourke is entitled to his conclusions, I respectfully take them with a grain of salt when all the facts are considered in the greater picture.