Did He Plan It?

[megamattman1]

In response to Kilroy the Ninja: (this quote not her)

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

I'm with that dude. My family probably makes about that amount and we have (had) a house of six. Yet I think they are mainly in line with what I think. (I'm not really sure lol)

But like he said. I'm really not sure what your situation is. You sounded and sound like a unique case. Not everyone who gets benefits gets tax cuts. That's rare.

please try see that there are far more people livin' off the system rather than using it as the step up it should be.

I don't mean to butcher your words or make an @$$ out of you and me by assuming. Sorry if I missed applied your words. You're unique cuz most people in your shoes wouldn't be quite possibly biting the hand that feeds them. Meaning just by reading what you said it seemed possibly inconsistent. Are you for or against those kinds of benefits? On the one hand you get them and on the other you put them down. I could see if you're for a reformed welfare system (who isn't) but you should state that instead of coming out as if you were against it altogether. Anyway, I stand with what my sociology teacher said about only 1 in 10 bad seeds recieving the benefits. That's not that bad.

Edited January 21, 2004 by megamattman1

[megamattman1]

As far as social concerns, I think mine are correct. And like I said in my quotes, I believe it's very possible that the whoever is against abortion may not do anything about it. I still need to find more substantial proof of this beyond my quote of Busy not wanting to pursue the issue until the public changes. But reflecting his statement, it seems likely that change won't occur until the public is for it. (and it definity won't occur unless representatives change their attitude of not doing anything until the public wants them to) I would like to futher the social discussion aspect cuz if I could be convinced of this, there would be no questions.

But to the core of your issue.

Edited January 22, 2004 by megamattman1

[Kilroy the Ninja]

I'm not against the current welfare system. Please don't twist my words here.

I'm against the lazy, good-for-nothings that abuse it. But I keep hearing about all these "cuts" being made. What precisely is being cut? I know MSigga is has given the example of the electricity assistance program, but what are the others? The welfare programs being cut in my state are due to the state government NOT the Federal Government. And in several cases the Feds are forcing our state to re-instate cuts that the state made. So be sure that the cuts you are talking about are Federal cuts.

And not to go all moderator on ya'll but this is WAAAAAAAYYYYYY off the topic of the thread.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

Not everyone who gets benefits gets tax cuts. That's rare.

Au contrare.

The tax cuts I have been talking about were across the board cuts. Most (like 75%) of the people who have children or filed a tax return, received the cuts I'm talking about. The key words here are filed a tax return . Many of the "poor" may not have gotten a part of that particular tax cut because they already owed money or because they simply did not make enough money in that year to warrant even sending in a tax return.

Other than that, I'm talking about the tax cut that EVERY American who receives a paycheck got last year (or perhaps the year before) when the actual percentage of taxes being withheld from EVERYONE's checks was lowered. Now, I'm not talking a HUGE difference, but there was a difference none the less.

I don't get any breaks because I don't own anything. My son qualifies for Medicad and WIC. That's it. Those programs are there for families like my own - low income (comparatively) and working. The abusers of the exsisting programs are the ones I'd like to kick. And I actually personally know one of them. While they're not technically doing anything wrong (read: they found a perfectly legal way to circumvent the system), they are still somewhat abusing the system. Get rid of these people and I think you'll find that there's a whole lot more money and resources out there for the people who truly need it.

Again, waaaayyy off the original topic.

[megamattman1]

Many of the "poor" may not have gotten a part of that particular tax cut because they already owed money or because they simply did not make enough money in that year to warrant even sending in a tax return

Well, technically it is rare but you made good point. I concede to that secondary argument.

Fortunately, we agree in that you're for reforming the system as long as there's some stipulations to it and so am I. It'd be nice if he did something, and though I don't like big government, maybe the government can find something. No point doing nothing.

I'm not sure if we'd agree, incidentally, in that I'm for keeping the welfare system even if it means lazy guys like your friend. (with stipulations) Cuz that's the way the system is built.

Edited January 22, 2004 by megamattman1

[M.SIGGA]

Folks,

It's not effective to keep quoting the Gospel of Life to support Bush. Bush is not 100% against abortion so therefore he is not pro-life and neither are any of the other candidates. You either believe it is a unique human being with a soul that is brutally murdered or you don't - there is no beating around the bush. If any of you own a copy of the Gospel of Life, you would understand that it is composed very differently than Humanae Vitae and that it is a very lengthy. Quoting from it like dissenters quote Scripture is distasteful.

[M.SIGGA]

I'm not against the current welfare system. Please don't twist my words here.

I'm against the lazy, good-for-nothings that abuse it. But I keep hearing about all these "cuts" being made. What precisely is being cut? I know MSigga is has given the example of the electricity assistance program, but what are the others? The welfare programs being cut in my state are due to the state government NOT the Federal Government. And in several cases the Feds are forcing our state to re-instate cuts that the state made. So be sure that the cuts you are talking about are Federal cuts.

And not to go all moderator on ya'll but this is WAAAAAAAYYYYYY off the topic of the thread.

Your governor in Texas (I think it's Perry) signs and vetos bills based on what his party tells him too. Bobby Jindal, a republican who originally worked for Bush, was appointed by our former Gov. Mike Foster (R.) to serve as a Health Care Commissioner in La. He was almost gauranteed the election because of his magnificent health care reform in our state, which saved tons of money. During the week of the election a report came out that his health care victories, which looked great on paper, came about because he took 60,000 people in Louisiana off medicaid, most of whom were above the retirement age and later died. Jindal's plan was modeled after Bush's medicaid reform. He lost the election and a Dem. won by a landslide. When your governor belongs to the same party as the President, the politics are all intertwined.

[jrndveritatis]

Vetoing pro-life bills and appointing pro-abortion judges means that you are doing something for abortion. All Democratic candidates would do this. That would mean they are adamant supporters of abortion.

Bush has proven that he will appoint a majority of pro-life judges and stand behind them.

Given, he is not 100% pro-life, it does not mean that he is not pro-life.

I do not see how quoting bishops' documents is acting like a dissenter. The bishops are pretty clear that Catholics should vote pro-life.

Even if I accepted the arguments that conservatives are hurting the poor, I would be obligated to vote for a conservative if he were the only pro-life option (or since you say Bush is not pro-life, the least pro-death option) available.

Again, since this is getting very bitter, I would like to calm things down a bit. I believe that it is objectively true that conservative policies help the poor more than liberal policies. If you want to debate this start another thread and I will happily debate. However, I recognize that the Church allows for both sides on these issues, which are matters of prudential judgment. Therefore, lets stop this endless bickering on taxes and government programs, at least on this thread. Let's stick to the point of voting pro-life or pro-choice, or if the moderator wishes, start another thread for this as well.

[megamattman1]

most of whom were above the retirement age and later died.

Edited January 22, 2004 by megamattman1

[M.SIGGA]

I'm not feeling bitter at all, and everything I have stated has been totally honest, and I figured personal honesty would be appreciated. I can't be totally peachy when I believe someone who is dishonest and evil is being put on a throne. The truth gets ugly sometimes. There is a big problem on this board b/c many folks condemn anything and anyone that isn't pro-Bush/ pro-Republican. I've been fair and observed both sides of the arguments against him, but the bad is much greater than the good.

Dissenters pick and chose what they want to quote and accept from Scripture, and base an opinion totally on one aspect; I wanted to say "protestant" instead of dissenter but that would have been taken as some sort of attack.

A man so great and wonderful shouldn't be hated by everyone around the globe.

[M.SIGGA]

ha never mind, I agree, lets quit. I really want too, but I don't think I can talk about this anymore. Thanks everybody for the props.

Bush is going to win in the next election anyway because all the democratic candidates are stupid, except Sharpton

Peace.

[megamattman1]

Bush is going to win in the next election anyway because all the democratic candidates are stupid

props and dittos :lol:

[jrndveritatis]

Okay, so I was just asking around and was told, by sources who are pretty knowledgeable, that the Church has not infallibly declared voting for abortion to be a sin. So some of my previous posts may have been misleading.

However, the Church does obviously discourage voting for pro-abortion candidates, as above quotes demonstrate. The Church also places primary interest on the issue of abortion in elections.

It would be pretty hard to be a Catholic with a well formed conscience and to vote for a pro-abortion candidate when a more pro-life candidate is available. Why? Because abortion is objectively declared to be a mortal sin by the Church. It is a command not to do something. Whereas, helping the poor and building a just society is a positive command, a command to do something. Now, clearly, the only way to obey a negative command is to not do what it says not to do. Things are different with a positive command. Different legitimate means are available to accomplishing what it commands. People can disagree on these means, and, as long as they are working towards fulfilling the command, be faithful Catholics whichever means they choose. So, the only way to not promote abortion is to not vote for it, when the people you vote for would appoint pro-abortion judges and veto pro-life bills. There are multiple ways to help the poor, but only one way to not support abortion.

Or at least one question. Why not vote for an off candidate who is more anti abortion like I'll prolly do since that is techniceal even lesser evil still? Is it cuz it's like wasting the vote?

It could be considered wasting the vote by some, but it wouldn't be wrong. The reason you can vote for someone who is not exactly the most pro-life (such as voting for Bush over Buchanan) is because of this consideration of wasting your vote. But of course you could vote for Buchanan. At least that's the way I understand it.

Anyways, thanks guys for the debate it made me think and refine my views.

[Don John of Austria]

First any aid in getting some one an abortion is an automatic excommunication Now voting for someone who is going to make it easier to get abortions is definently aiding people in getting abortions . Now, knowingly voting for someone who intends to fund or in anyway make abortions easier to get is aiding in someone getting an abortion. Ergo voteing for someone who intends to make abortions easier to get( which is every major democrat) logicly incurs instant and automatic excommunication. Just because our Bishops are to wussy to come out and say that doesn't mean it isn't the truth. It isn't some strech of logic it just IS logic.

Now as for the Federal Government, it is there for very limited reasons ,to buy bullets aim them at people we don't like, to make suret hat the States don't aim them at each other, to make surethat the States have free trade with each other, and to make treaties with foriegn powers. That is really about it, every thing else the Federal Government does is a direct result of unconstitutional power grabs. I personally wish the federal Government would do there Job and nothing more or course I also wish It would GIVE US OUR MONEY BACK. The States should be worrying about their own citizens and perhaps if the average american wasn't paying 45% of his income in taxes to some government agentcy( State local as well as federal) then the qverage Catholic would give more than 1% of his income to the Church enabling her to be Charitable and take care of the Poor. The Federal govenment was never ment to do most of what it does, it needs to stop trying to be THE government and allow the States to run there own affairs.

[megamattman1]

Dittos on the refinements and learning stuff. I even see some idological purposes for the tax cut. I could even convert to all that with a good rationale. I admit I don't know it all! And in fact will probably surprise you with what I am going to say.

Considering that the democrats would veto any bills concerning abortion, I can't in good conscious vote for them. I did some research and saw how much Clinton vetoed stuff! I can't believe how ignorant I was of all that. I assumed things would change when the people changed.

If the courts find it unconstitutional for the presidents to have that veto power, I will probably stop basing my votes on abortion unless there's a more adament pro-lifer president or a clear forthcoming overhaul for the panel.

Even though I said I would never vote for him, the abortion issue sticks right out there, and I would feel obligated voting for Bush so as not to waste my vote on an off candidate.

I suppose I usually take the stance that reality triumps prinicple. Just like before I considered the veto power, I considered the reaity that nothing would be done. And now, to an extent, it's about having a pro-life president for the sake of a pro-life president, but I'd say it's just as much if not more about trying to NOT have a pro-choice. I know it's what we'll all do to justify voting for him, but I'm not sure it's technically right when there's a better candidate. Cuz isn't that like saying the end justifies the means? I've always had a hard time with that concept. I know as a general rule of thumb, it's right, but in practice it's hard for me to say always. At least until I see the bigger picture or something I'm missing. I know you seem to have decided it wouldn't be wrong, but in terms of what I just said, is there anything else?

Also, you came to the same conclsions about the commands and stuff that I have. EVEN IF, the poor were dying by voting pro-life (all in theory), that only means we need to save them. When something can be done to save the poor, we can't weight them against saving the babies.

Edited January 22, 2004 by megamattman1