Did He Plan It?

[jrndveritatis]

Okay, lets get away from socialism that is kind of scaring me.

To those who are constantly criticizing Bush, please answer this question.

Who do you support for the presidency, or more specifically who will you vote for this year?

Because it is undeniably sinful to vote for a pro-abortion candidate. That rules out Kerry, Edwards, Dean, or any other Democrat.

Catholics cannot vote for these candidates without endangering their souls.

[M.SIGGA]

Okay, lets get away from socialism that is kind of scaring me. 

To those who are constantly criticizing Bush, please answer this question.

Who do you support for the presidency, or more specifically who will you vote for this year?

Because it is undeniably sinful to vote for a pro-abortion candidate.  That rules out Kerry, Edwards, Dean, or any other Democrat. 

Catholics cannot vote for these candidates without endangering their souls.

Personally,

I'm not a socialist and I do not believe Bush or any other moderate is sincerely pro-life and will work to completely overturn Roe v. Wade. Therefore they are all sinful. It's impossible to be 'a little bit pro-life,' you either respect it or you don't. Among his appointees Ashcroft might be the only exception. The Gospel of Life has been thrown around a lot on this forum and if you want to get technical, no Catholic can really belong to any of the 2 major American political parties. Until Rome says who specifically not to vote for I'm voting for who I want because I don't trust the lying president with the safety of this nation. I'm a minority and I value my American vote and I'm not throwing my constitutional right away. Currently I'm undecided and it definitly won't be Bush. If Church says specifically not to vote for a specific candidate or be aligned with a specific political party instead of beating around the bush all the time, then I will prob exercise my freedom of chosing not to vote at all.

Supporting any of the candidates is technically endangering one's soul because you are supporting someone's sinful cause no matter who you vote for, especially the lying president.

[megamattman1]

It's not really socialism. It's subdued capitalism. Because capitalism by its very nature works by excluding others and taking to no submission would allow the rich to thrive while the rest of us fend for ourselves.

To the issue of flat and general taxes again. I realize that a flat tax would have the rich paying more too. Perhaps on a temporal level a flat tax is good economic policy. And as for the poor, we could help them out as private citizens, but why not insist that the rich help us out? When taking into account the fact that all the rich have to do to help the poor is produce more, and they don't produce simply because there is no need for the poor's services, this is wrong especially when we are the people who make the laws and our "social contracts". Of course why should the producers be the ones who suffer simply because they're they producers? It all adds up to making the curved tax scheme make sense.

And again to cutting programs. If we agree that programs should be cut, we must ask ourself what programs are being cut? Are there any, or are we just doing everything big spenders like to do and a tax cut to boot? That's one thing I must research; what programs has Bush or his future component taken the initiative to cut. And then it'd be nice if they had the gumtion to admit to it.

From a personal level I know he's cutting college funding. While most would probably beesh and moan about that, I agree with that stance. But what else is being cut? SIGGA's made it clear that there's too much in the wrong areas being cut so I think we'd all do well to research more into this.

Of course there's always compassionate conservatism. I don't go either way politically. I'm just arguing theory.

www.ontheissues.com <---interesting website!

I'm curious as to the objectivty of the site as to the picking of the quotes and articles but it seems somewhat objective in that both sides are seen for their contradictions.

I've been thinking they should make a site like that! I haven't really seen much of it and so far it looks like all republicans are republicans and all democrats are democrats. It's sad when no one outside of those spectrums can make it.

I found that site when looking for Bush's record on abortion. I almost want to vote for none of the presidential nominees. I'll withhold my stance at this point. And like possibly vote for someone I know is socially secure and against abortion even though they prolly won't win. Depends on the candidates.

But I won't base my vote on the issue of abortion simply because of this mindset:

Would support - but not pursue - a pro-life Amendment

Bush has said he is opposed to abortion and would support a constitutional amendment making the procedure illegal - except in cases of rape, incest and when the woman’s life is jeopardy. But he also says Americans don’t support the measure, thus there is no need to pursue it. But he would not require his Supreme Court nominees to pass an anti-abortion ‘litmus test.’

Source: Associated Press Jun 14, 1999

Of course, Bush is not a Catholic, but would you say he's morally wrong not to base his Supreme Court decisions on the issue of abortion? Yes he'll vote for a "conservative", (but in prinicple I believe I'm "conservative", such a relative term) but he's it's made that he's not being proactive for it.

I love George Bush for his advocacy of the culture of life. Just like the Church teaches. But I don't think he'll do much, though it's better than someone who actually is pro-choice. But considering the social issues, and the possibility that someone who claims to be pro-life yet letting his brother lay on the way side (and espeically if SIGGA's right about people dying ), if he's not being proactive about abortion, I won't be proactive to necessarily vote for him. I'm think I'm with SIGGA on this one not to make that the deciding issue.

Edited January 21, 2004 by megamattman1

[megamattman1]

And to the other replys.

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.

So you prudentally make note of the bad seeds. I doubt those are the majority of the cases or else the programs wouldn't last. (unless there's some who are so far to one side that they think the "liberals" let it happen) In fact, my adament Catholic social science teach from my community college who is very much "liberal", in that sense and only so to speak, said that 1 in 10 people who recieve benefits are bad seeds. I'm still with SIGGA on this.

I'm curious as to how you got so much tax money. Are you sure you're poor? Because a "poll" (polls can say anything yes) said that only 1 in 5 people said the tax cut has caused much of a change.

But then you understand the necessity of the programs? Again I'm curios as to your situation because you're the only person I've ever heard of who feels the cut has been helpful and gets a cut while gettiong those kinds of benefits.

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.

First, I didn't quote the tone but Ironmonk you really need to work on it. Especially considering that economists can disagree anyway. So again just to reiterate. Yes these are facts. But isn't also "fact" that when we could be putting down the debt and not, and even letting it accumulate, the good times are really inflated and artificial? What do have to you say on this?

I think we agree on most of the issues. (except tax use/cuts/retrieval) But while arguing theory is worthwhile, it can only go so far. So I personally think we should discuss the individual candidates since they will be supposedly be doing or not doing what we all agree on. Not that the tax issue is not still good for discussion. ^_^

Edited January 21, 2004 by megamattman1

[megamattman1]

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.

also to reiterate, I thinkwhat SIGGA said about his experience deserves some recognition that needs to be addressed.

And now to critique myself..

www.ontheissues.ORG (now where's the embarrased face?)

if he's not being proactive about abortion, I won't be proactive to necessarily vote for him.

Then I suppose the only way to ever get the ban is to have a congress of anti-abortionists, which would seem that I'd need to vote that way. Is he basing his action on congress or the people? I'm not sure what that means that he's not pursuing change because the people don't agree. Are we to enforce a law that the people don't agree with? Of course I would think if we can. But what are we to do if the public doesn't agree with pro-life and don't let it fly? (besides the fact that most of us I doubt here have been super active in anti-abortion campaigns) But then wouldn't a change in law ultimately change public opinion? (like the chicken and the egg) So he should make take actions regardless of public opinion. Maybe he really would if he had the congress to do that. I don't know! I suppose that he would. But if all presidents are against my social perspective, will I always be bound to vote for an independant? Or to get things done, someone I don't really prefer?

If only we could get someone against abortion and not for the tax cuts. I'd vote for someone outspokenly against abortion. Even if it's "bad" politics. But in this case he's not outspoken, or at least lacks the proactivity (which is for understandable (I suppose ) politic's sake maybe if someone wanted to convince me, this would be the point),

Maye in the chicken and the egg paradigm the only way to effect change is to change the people if congress is going to have no back bone. Which would mean we all have to be more proactive and take it to the streets brutha.

I think I'll have to check out history to see if a good portion of congress were ever pro-life enough to make change and didn't do anything. Because of popular opinon or find the reason. It's been said that this is the case, but I'd need to see harder proof. Just to see if making abortion the only issue is a realistic stance.

Or else cuz then I think ultimately I'm think I'm with SIGGA on this one not to make that the deciding issue.

Edited January 21, 2004 by megamattman1

[megamattman1]

cmon peeps, reply before i gotta go to class! ^_^

I'll just critique myself some more..

then isn't any cutting ultiamately destroying jobs?? ey, ey, ey. I'm not sure how much we should cut.

Take not needing to buy a new text book every year. Those workers would lose their jobs, but the real crooks who profit would not be anymore and the public can keep their money for other things. I'm still not sure how much exactl to cut but I suppose cutting is good and if jobs are lost, that's that. So long as we have a decent welfare program.

Plus in theory, welfare is not only ideal from a socialist/capitalist society for charity's sake, it's also makes sense from a more temporal sake. In that (in theory anyway) we're all citizens that pay taxes (or could pay in reality perhaps) so it's like a social net based on our social contracts.

and I do not believe Bush or any other moderate is sincerely pro-life and will work to completely overturn Roe v. Wade. Therefore they are all sinful.

also props to SIGGA. if it's true, that's a very good point! And, if it's true, in a way it'd be sinful to vote for them.

Edited January 21, 2004 by megamattman1

[ironmonk]

First, I didn't quote the tone but Ironmonk you really need to work on it.

If you think I need to work on the tone, then you had the wrong tone while reading it.

There was no "tone". :mellow:

When will people realize that the "tone" is in their heads?

Unless emoticons are used or direct insults, they could be reading the wrong tone.

Unless I use emoticons, don't create a tone, and you won't have a problem with it.

:peace:

Keeping it short, to the point, and blunt is not having a tone. :mellow:

"Simple facts" are nothing more than "simple facts"... if people feel there is a tone, maybe it has to do with not knowing the facts... I'm not saying that you do not know the facts, but some here do not.

-ironmonk

[hyperdulia again]

I'm not a socialist, we could only eat the rich once. Level the playing field and see what happens.

[megamattman1]

The only reason I mention it is cuz I think Circle is Catholic potential if he'd overcome his stubbornness which all of our tones help sustain.

Perhaps there was not tone. Here is what I took issue with.

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

The "wrong" I could definitly see as no possible tone if you were just saying wrong. Or if there was tone on the wrong it'd only be on SIGGA's obviously wrong rhetorical question. The accounting and economic class thing I still take issue with.

But it's still possible I misinterpreted. I read into what you meant as if he took the classes he'd believe what you do. But perhaps you meant if he took the classes he'd understand the plan better. The way it was presented seemed to me and would to most anyone I'd think the first interpretation. Sorry if I misinterpreted. Anyway, it's not really a big deal so we can get back to the issues. :)

Edited January 21, 2004 by megamattman1

[M.SIGGA]

I've taken a few econ classed already and I'm taking a tax law class right now. I would hope everyone talking about money would taken at least one econ class. Bush's tax cuts and tax plan sounds great in his speeches and looks fine on paper, but absolutly no consideration is given to the reality of the actual living situations in which most Americans are living. For example, there is a huge government contract now that awards public school districts $52 million to inforce mandatory drug testing in public schools, esp for atheletes. This sounds great to some folks, but that money is being taken from government programs like "Electric Lights" that I was talking about earlier. That is one program of hundreds like it that have been cut to make more bombs to kill more innocent people and distribute tax cuts that don't mean carp to average Americans. The national priorities have been distorted and are all screwed up.

[megamattman1]

But then you understand the necessity of the programs? Again I'm curios as to your situation because you're the only person I've ever heard of who feels the cut has been helpful and gets a cut while gettiong those kinds of benefits.

I write poorly sometimes. What I meant was, you recieve the benefits, so you must understand the necessity? And my questions regarding your situation still stand.

also props to SIGGA. if it's true, that's a very good point! And, if it's true, in a way it'd be sinful to vote for them.

Also, I don't think they'll change abortion unless the public is for it. So that only means we should take it to the streets! The chicken or egg or what have you that started people wanting abortions was when people starting leaving the Church and living sinfully. All that as a premise for their changed in attitude.

I think what it'd come down to is this. Voting for someone who does nothing for abortion, and not voting for someone who will do something, would be just as bad as voting for someone who is for abortion given that the other candidate will do nothing anyway. The issue becomes a neutral factor to me.

That's my opinion as far as the abortion issue goes. But I'll look more into it in case lax pro-life candidates is not the case.

Edited January 21, 2004 by megamattman1

[Carrie]

M. Sigga, I applaud you for standing up for yourself and the rest of us that don't believe Bush is the best thing to happen to the White House.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

What else is there to say about my "situation"? My husband makes about $23,000 a year. Period. We're fortunate because we don't have a car payment (all old cars) and our house note is the end of a 30 year note and is owned by his parents (hence the rent is very affordable). But if anything, and I do mean anything, happens to the one and only car we have running right now, we're tanked. We indulge in cable and the internet and rarely have any money for anything extra like movies or going anywhere. Plus we have a one year old and despite my efforts to keep him in cloth diapers, we still go through a lot of disposable ones. We received the same tax cut money last year that most other people with children did ($300) and the year before that we received the same $600 back that most everyone else did also ($300 per person who filed). And like I said, due to Bush's tax cuts last year my husband received a "raise" - meaning the difference in taxes NOT taken out of his check - and that was nice. And not due to having a child.

The only "welfare" cut that I'm worried about at all is the one that the State of Texas is making to children on Medicad or CHIP's since my child is on Medicad. But that's the state of Texas - not Bush.

So what cuts am I supposed to be seeing here?

And I am rich in friends and poor in finances. Oh well.

[Carrie]

Not everyone got to enjoy those refunds. Not everyone got a few hundred dollars back.

[jrndveritatis]

This is why worries about the wisdom of goverment policies such as cutting programs or taxes are secondary to abortion, according to our bishops.

In assessing political candidates, "opposition to abortion and euthanasia does not excuse indifference to those who suffer from poverty, violence, and injustice... But being `right' in such matters can never excuse a wrong choice regarding direct attacks on innocent human life. Indeed, the failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the `rightness' of positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community." (Living the Gospel of Life, U.S. Bishops, November 1998, #23)

Again, I would like to reiterate that the Church has declared abortion to be a mortal sin. The Church has no official position on anything such as tax cuts or the welfare state, although subsidiarity indicates that she might favor conservatives on this issue. Therefore, voting for a the person who supports abortion when there is a candidate who is pro-life is therefore required by Church teaching.

Please respond to this argument about why it is wrong to vote for a pro-abortion candidate, regardless of your positions on government programs and taxation, issues on which faithful Catholics can disagree.

Do not appeal to Bush being not totally pro-life. He is not. However, he is by far the lesser of two evils, which must always be chosen.