Did He Plan It?

[M.SIGGA]

you say cutting programs so liberally. people are surviving on some of those programs and they die in very large numbers when they disappear. i'm watching the state of the union right now, and everything he has said so far will only benefit the rich. i'm watching the state of the union right now, and there is a reason ted kennedy and other dems never clap because nothing the president says will benefit the poor people and minorities in their districts. but they don't really matter all that much, right?

[jrndveritatis]

you say cutting programs so liberally. people are surviving on some of those programs and they die in very large numbers when they disappear. i'm watching the state of the union right now, and everything he has said so far will only benefit the rich. i'm watching the state of the union right now, and there is a reason ted kennedy and other dems never clap because nothing the president says will benefit the poor people and minorities in their districts. but they don't really matter all that much, right?

The only reason people are surviving on programs is because we as a nation aren't doing enough ourselves through our private initiative and our churches. People survived before government programs, when children were actually charitable enough to provide for their parents instead of abandoning them. The church used to be the provider of these programs. That is until the government usurped it.

The Catholic Church has a social doctrine called subsidiarity. It states that problems should be addressed at the most immediate level. That pretty much puts the government out of the picture. Of course again this is my interpretation and not the position of the Church.

Everything Bush said can be argued about. Many believe that it will only benefit the rich. Many believe that it will benefit all of society, not just the rich. I really don't see how any tax cut could hurt anyone, especially if the tax cut is across the board. Of course the rich will get more of a return, but perhaps that is because they pay the vast majority of taxes.

The reason Ted Kennedy does not clap is that he and the other Democrats despise Bush. Why? Bush has overturned much of the legislation they passed which drastically increased the size of the government. Of course, perhaps they truly believed that they were helping the poor and that Bush is hurting them. That is far from being a proven fact, in fact they rarely make any presentations of evidence corraborating their claims. Many others, myself included, believe that they actually hurt the poor by making them dependent on the government. Maybe that is why faithful Catholics such as Rick Santorum and Sam Brownback stood up and clapped at Bush's proposals. They think that those proposals will help the poor.

(Another reason Kennedy isn't clapping might be that he is diametrically opposed to Bush's support for traditional morality, such as an amendment defending the Catholic teaching that marriage is between a man and a woman. Maybe Kennedy doesn't like Bush because Bush is working for pro-life policies and judges, while Kennedy is promoting the culture of death, thereby throwing his religion out the back door and acting as a hypocrite by still calling himself Catholic.)

but they don't really matter all that much, right?

Wrong. The poor, as human beings created in the image and likeness of God, are persons deserving of upmost respect. In fact, the Church teaches of the preferential option for the poor.

Once this is granted, people can disagree on how to best help the poor. Conservatives love the poor just as much or more than liberals. They just do not believe government is the answer. It really does not follow that they think the poor do not matter.

[megamattman1]

We are seeking all the facts - already the Kay report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations. Had we failed to act, the dictator's weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day. Had we failed to act, Security Council resolutions on Iraq would have been revealed as empty threats, weakening the United Nations and encouraging defiance by dictators around the world.

First the address that I missed since I just got outta class. I'd be curious as to what these "programs" are and the "equipment" are. If it was significant I'd think it be more widely known. But the media is definitly bias. I hope I'll be able to see all sides on the political news shows.

This quote basically sums up what we have already known actually. He never mentioned how we went to war because we thought there were weopons of mass descruction. I like that Sadam is gone and that the people are free. In a way there's not much more he could say. But then he's using the fact that we had info as an unspoken premise for all this other stuff. I just want him to be adament about the justification in the way that is truly justifiable to me. I know it's not a big deal to say "hey we had this evidence so back off" explicitly but it'd help justify the war more for me and proably a lot more people.

Giving taxes has given the economy its biggest quarterly growth in the GDP in 18 years. The Dow is soaring. More jobs are growing.

Yeah I'd say that's where we disagree. I'll concede to the idea that the tax cut will help the economy. Makes sense. But like I said I only see it as inflated and artifical. One point someone who disagrees with me might say that helping the economy would pay for our debt. Kinda like investing. But I'd only see this as the case if the rich were suffering. I don't see this to be the case right now. After all the hoopla about the bad economy, what's really the issue? Unemployment. 6% ish. But I'd actually say that's pretty reasonable given our technology. Why create a society based on debt in a bad cycle? There'll always be the unemployed unless there's artifical growth going on. When are we finally going to balance the budget and even start paying down the debt? I really would say now is as good a time as any.

And yes cutting is good. But I think we should cut and not give a tax cut.

Cuz like I said it seems we shouldn't be giving tax cuts when the economy will take care of itself.

It states that problems should be addressed at the most immediate level.

Maybe that's wishful thinking, but prolly not, you're right. And now people think, oh the government will take care of it. But on another note, I think the government should take care of it. Shouldn't it be a "social contract" that if you're going to get rich in our society and by putting our people against each other to pay them scrap and use our resources moreso that they should help with the poor? (same reason I agree with the curved tax scheme instead of a flat tax) Instead of us having to? I mean your theory is nice, but why not make the rich moreso?

ANd to the extent of cutting...

you say cutting programs so liberally. people are surviving on some of those programs and they die in very large numbers when they disappear.

It is easy to say cut cut cut. But I know there's lots of things that can be cut. Like education. It's much too financed in my opinon. It doesn't take a lotta money to learn. And I know there's lots more to cut but that'd be getting into specific cases where everyone likes to screw the government thus raising all our taxes! Maybe we should make like and HMO equivalent taxing agency. I've had the idea and kinda pulled that analogy outta my @$$ but I'd seriously think that'd be a good idea! But on the converse of this, just as long as these things we cut aren't jobs cuz as a society we need to help each other. But then isn't any cutting ultiamately destroying jobs?? ey, ey, ey. I'm not sure how much we should cut. But I still think not tax cuts.

But interesting SIGGA. I kinda wondered about that, but of course I'd have to check into this. I assume you mean things like medicare and medicade? People don't die from not getting welfare or other programs do they? If this is true, this could be a very major case in point.

Cuz this could be weighed in with abortion against the economic side. Also, not to downplay the atrosity of abortion, but an pro-choice website (which obviously has bias) said that 99% (such a big number... ) (maybe this was for the partial birth stat? i need to check these things out) of abortions are for those that are in health crisis situations. While not in full truth of all abortions being immoral, I can't see making these people fall in line. Anyway, this 1% being truly beyond any reasonable doubt being aborted, and if M.SIGGA is right, I can see a very hard decision in the poll booth. It's like weighing lives on a scale.

A last incidental note is kinda a separate issue but it kinda goes into what we were talking about. I used to blame the poor for their condition. I'm not really sure what causes them not to go get jobs (the able ones) (and I've been meaning to be more proactive to find out) but if they can't really survive and actually die like SIGGA says (if that's what he means specifically), I can't blame them for the crimes they commit when they live in such an affluent society. Two months ago I would not be saying this but after I heard a stat that the people in like Iraq, I think coincidentally, will soon be faced with Iran (hope I got the countries straight) cutting the supply of water off in the river. This is a thorny issue. Don't they have the right to do this? But wouldn't the Iraqis have a right to at least go up river and get some if they're gonna try stopping the flow? Wouldn't the Iraqis have a right to fight for the water in much similar justifications that we use to go to war? And woudln't the unemployed feel somewhat in the same boat? I suppose it comes down to why they are in their mess to begin with which I need to look into.

I need SIGGA to explain himself, I need to look into those abortion stats, and I like explaining and listening cuz it helps me understand better and there's more I wanted to say but I need to get going!

Edited January 21, 2004 by megamattman1

[jrndveritatis]

It really is not a thorny issue in the voting booth. It is an easy decision from the Catholic view.

Here is the Holy Father's teaching on the matter, taken from an excellent post by Ironmonk:

Our Holy Father John Paul II has stated, Abortion and euthanasia are crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to "take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it." (The Gospel of Life, no. 73).

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_pau...m-vitae_en.html

73. Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. From the very beginnings of the Church, the apostolic preaching reminded Christians of their duty to obey legitimately constituted public authorities (cf. Rom 13:1-7; 1 Pet 2:13-14), but at the same time it firmly warned that "we must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). In the Old Testament, precisely in regard to threats against life, we find a significant example of resistance to the unjust command of those in authority. After Pharaoh ordered the killing of all newborn males, the Hebrew midwives refused. "They did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live" (Ex 1:17). But the ultimate reason for their action should be noted: "the midwives feared God" (ibid.). It is precisely from obedience to God-to whom alone is due that fear which is acknowledgment of his absolute sovereignty-that the strength and the courage to resist unjust human laws are born. It is the strength and the courage of those prepared even to be imprisoned or put to the sword, in the certainty that this is what makes for "the endurance and faith of the saints" (Rev 13:10).

In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to "take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it".98

A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.

It is sinful to vote for pro-abortion candidates.

The Catholic Church has no defined moral teaching on political issues such as cutting programs and taxes.

Therefore, Catholics must vote pro-life, that is, against abortion.

[ironmonk]

you say cutting programs so liberally. people are surviving on some of those programs and they die in very large numbers when they disappear. i'm watching the state of the union right now, and everything he has said so far will only benefit the rich. i'm watching the state of the union right now, and there is a reason ted kennedy and other dems never clap because nothing the president says will benefit the poor people and minorities in their districts. but they don't really matter all that much, right?

WRONG.

There are simple facts to business.

When businesses get tax cuts, they expand and create jobs.

When businesses are taxed heavy, they cut jobs.

These are facts which cannot be denied.

When people who have money get breaks to start new businesses and expand their businesses they create jobs.

Take a few basic accounting and economic classes and you'll learn a lot.

The economy has Bush to thank... the economy is getting better.

People do not live and die on the programs, there are some that need them, and they get them... there are many who abuse them. Take a good look at the Carter's plans and how they almost bankrupted our country.

In the past 6 months the Dow Jones has gained over 2000 points.... about 25%

The NASDAQ has gained 500 points... about 33%.

There are facts to what really helps the economy... and the democrats in power use the poor for votes... they don't suffer from the heavy tax burden that they put on the people, so they don't care... they attack the rich who try to create jobs for the poor, so that they can give the poor handouts instead of teaching them to support themselves.

To say the republican plans help only the rich is to say that you haven't studied what works and what doesn't.

The reason why Ted Kennedy shakes his head and doesn't clap is because he's a liar... a baby killer... and fake Catholic... among other things. The only way they can make themselves look good is to lie and put down other people. They lie about the republican plans, instead of saying how their's will work.

You should listen to both sides.... the democrats in power remind me of Jack Chick... always lying about the other side and never giving detail on how they actually help, only spread lies about what the other side wants.

-ironmonk

[PedroX]

M. Sigga,

I got to give you props. I just don't understand why you don't hide like the rest of us political misfits!

mad props, bro, mad props.

peace...

[M.SIGGA]

WRONG.

There are simple facts to business.

When businesses get tax cuts, they expand and create jobs.

When businesses are taxed heavy, they cut jobs.

These are facts which cannot be denied.

When people who have money get breaks to start new businesses and expand their businesses they create jobs.

Take a few basic accounting and economic classes and you'll learn a lot.

The economy has Bush to thank... the economy is getting better.

People do not live and die on the programs, there are some that need them, and they get them... there are many who abuse them. Take a good look at the Carter's plans and how they almost bankrupted our country.

In the past 6 months the Dow Jones has gained over 2000 points.... about 25%

The NASDAQ has gained 500 points... about 33%.

There are facts to what really helps the economy... and the democrats in power use the poor for votes... they don't suffer from the heavy tax burden that they put on the people, so they don't care... they attack the rich who try to create jobs for the poor, so that they can give the poor handouts instead of teaching them to support themselves.

To say the republican plans help only the rich is to say that you haven't studied what works and what doesn't.

The reason why Ted Kennedy shakes his head and doesn't clap is because he's a liar... a baby killer... and fake Catholic... among other things. The only way they can make themselves look good is to lie and put down other people. They lie about the republican plans, instead of saying how their's will work.

You should listen to both sides.... the democrats in power remind me of Jack Chick... always lying about the other side and never giving detail on how they actually help, only spread lies about what the other side wants.

-ironmonk

Ironmonk,

I can see from being on this board for a little while now that you have really good intentions, and I'm guessing they come from your own personal experiences. Bush said a bunch of wonderful things and had really wonderful plans for America in his speech this evening. He is doing all these "new wonderful things" with money he's getting from cut social welfare programs initiated by democrats.

I'm an intern for Catholic Emergency Assitance in Louisiana and I have seen FIRST HAND the consequences of cutting those "un-needed" social programs. For instance, my office had a program called Electric Lights For Families that was cut this past year, which helped families in temporary financial trouble keep their electricity on. I had to explain to dozens of families this Christmas why the Church could no longer help pay their electric bill. In some cases, families were forced to leave their homes for the holidays, and many families were evicted and put on the street and spent Christmas living with their kids in automobiles. This is why I don't like Bush and until you see the look on those kids faces YOU WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND. Bush's tax cuts are carp because they only benefit the rich. My parents are rich and I hear the types of conversations they have with their peers - all about how Bush is great and is making them more and more money.

YOU are WRONG.

I suggest you do some volunteer work with the poor and needy and discover Christian Charity because you have no idea what you are talking about.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

Bush's tax cuts are carp because they only benefit the rich.

As one of the "working poor" I have to say that the "raise" my husband got last year from one of Bush's tax cuts certainly helped us out. Not to mention the extra $300 we received in September and the refunded $600 we received the year before. In fact, because of "evil" Bush's tax cuts we're going to qualify for the earned income tax credit this year and maybe actually have some money to pay off some bills.

So, since I've benefitted from "evil" Bush's tax cuts, does that make me rich?

I've been on and am on some of these social welfare programs, and let me tell you they have been a blessing for my family. My husband works hard at a very low paying but worthwhile job (Catholic school teacher) and these programs have helped us tremendously, but it's still hard for me to go to WIC every three months and sit there with the other "poor" families - you know, the ones who don't work AT ALL and make their livings off of these welfare programs - as they sit there in their designer clothes (not that I like designer clothes), and their bling-bling and then go drive off boomin' in their Escalades while I struggle to get my wiggly child into the back seat of my 180,000 mile 1994 Chevy Camaro that's seen better days. Yeah, their just dying without these programs.

MSigga I'm sure you have seen the bad side to all this and I don't discount those people adversly affected by changes made, but please try see that there are far more people livin' off the system rather than using it as the step up it should be.

[M.SIGGA]

You have made a point with your situation, but from my experience the majority isn't rapper-bling-bling types. It's mostly retired grandparents who are caring for 4+ grandkids and working at Burgerking or sweeping hair at Super Cuts because the mom is on crack/ in prostitution and the dad is in jail. They live in cars and in one room housing developements. They use their medicare checks to buy food and diapers and when these grandparents die the kids get put into the child-welfare system and the cycle repeats in the next generation. It's one of the saddest American stories that many people never see unless they look for it. There is absolutly nothing Mr. Bush can say to convince me every American is taken care of with his present plan because last week I returned to work to see a line of needy people who were living in cars and appartments over Christmas without heat. These are the majority and the people I'm speaking for who will never be heard by this President, Mr. Bush. His smerk and consistancy in saying every American will benefit and experience the American dream is one of the reasons this man is evil. His lies mean well, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I haven't even started on the war. The tax cut didn't help these people and cancelling the social programs for an extra $600 take-home bucks for medicare isn't going to help them much either.

[hyperdulia again]

Sigga, I support and agree with everything that you have said. Please understand why my hands must be sat upon and my tongue bitten.

[hyperdulia again]

I will however venture that my father getting a huge tax cut didn't really benefit anyone who actually could have used the money. It only gave him more money to throw away on dilettante offspring who already forward their bills to him and are waiting on he and Mamma to go to the gated retirement community in the sky so they can spend money they didn't work for on noble causes like the Republican Party and redecorating.

[M.SIGGA]

Right after the first cut, my dad bought my brother surround-sound speakers for his room and gave me the rest for an investment lesson.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

Really. My heart bleeds for you both.

Good night.

[hyperdulia again]

I got a house. :lol:

[hyperdulia again]

The laughy face was a response to Sigga btw. I think we should eat the rich. It's ridiculous how much money people can accumilate over generations. I do believe in class warfare and the redistribution of wealth. I shouldn't get to live better than other people, just because my family started stealing earlier than theirs...It's sick and downright un-American.