Second Republican Debate

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1275131' date='May 16 2007, 02:05 PM']but theoretically, isn't the Republican party intended to make it so that social justice is able to be carried out by the private charitable individual, rather than the state? Cuz even outside of abortion, I don't like the Democratic stance. I think lower taxes is the best way to take care of social justice issues. But I understand where you are coming from. Catholics are traditionally part of the democratic party.[/quote]
See, I would totally disagree. I'm not wanting to get into a huge debate here, but we all benefit from addressing social justice issues. Leaving the cost of addressing those to a small percentage of the population is not equitable.

But let's not get into that here ...

[kujo]

Be Catholic.

Vote for Catholic morals.

If a Democratic candidate showed up, was pro-life, strong on defense, pro-tax cuts, and promised to cut government spending, they'd get my vote. But, as it is, Democrats are a party of people who, despite their best intentions, condone killing babies and elderly folk. They are weak in foreign policy, pandering to the wishes of the United Nations. But, if they changed all that and adopted more socially-conservative stances while beefing up defense, then I'd vote for 'em...

But wouldn't all of those things make them Republicans?????

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='kujo' post='1275137' date='May 16 2007, 03:11 PM']Be Catholic.

Vote for Catholic morals.

If a Democratic candidate showed up, was pro-life, strong on defense, pro-tax cuts, and promised to cut government spending, they'd get my vote. But, as it is, Democrats are a party of people who, despite their best intentions, condone killing babies and elderly folk. They are weak in foreign policy, pandering to the wishes of the United Nations. But, if they changed all that and adopted more socially-conservative stances while beefing up defense, then I'd vote for 'em...

But wouldn't all of those things make them Republicans?????[/quote]

didn't mean to change the subject...we can get back to the debates if you want. i didn't even watch them...

[Aloysius]

Subsidarity is a Catholic principal that we should all work for too. No Catholic can support centralization of social justice to the federal government, this would be against the principal of subsidarity. We must always be working for the strengthening of local governments' power over social justice issues and the weakening of the federal government's power over them; because what can be done at a local level SHOULD be done at a local level, morally speaking. The only justification for larger governments like the federal government is for the sake of international affairs and disputes between multiple local governments, according to true Catholic social justice. Otherwise the Church teaches that local communities should work within themselves to fix their social inequalities; local charities and churches first, local governments next. The ideal situation that we should all be working for is that the buck is able to stop there, local issues of homelessness or unemployment should never have to go above the local government: that's what we should all believe is the ideal, but that's not what the democratic party believes is the ideal.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1275131' date='May 16 2007, 02:05 PM']but theoretically, isn't the Republican party intended to make it so that social justice is able to be carried out by the private charitable individual, rather than the state? Cuz even outside of abortion, I don't like the Democratic stance. I think lower taxes is the best way to take care of social justice issues. But I understand where you are coming from. Catholics are traditionally part of the democratic party.[/quote]

Can you point to a real world example of lower taxes leading to improved social justice, although I'll grant that the best means of delivering social justice is through charitable organizations such as the Catholic Church? Based on policy outcomes, I don't think that one can infer anything other than that the Republicans don't care about the poor. I'm open to correction but I'd need actual examples.


[quote name='kujo' post='1275137' date='May 16 2007, 02:11 PM']Be Catholic.

Vote for Catholic morals.

If a Democratic candidate showed up, was pro-life, strong on defense, pro-tax cuts, and promised to cut government spending, they'd get my vote. But, as it is, Democrats are a party of people who, despite their best intentions, condone killing babies and elderly folk. They are weak in foreign policy, pandering to the wishes of the United Nations. But, if they changed all that and adopted more socially-conservative stances while beefing up defense, then I'd vote for 'em...

But wouldn't all of those things make them Republicans?????[/quote]

From my perspective, the only thing you've listed that has anything to do with Catholic morals is being pro-life. Being strong on defense, cutting government spending, and lowering taxes can be construed, IMHO, as antithetical to Catholic teaching, which places an emphasis on the dignity of the person, particularly the poor and disenfranchised. The US spends more on defense than the rest of the world combined. I find it hard to square that with the fact that increasing numbers of people, especially children, are falling below the poverty line and going without health insurance, adequate nutrition, etc.

[Paladin D]

[quote name='reelguy227' post='1275061' date='May 16 2007, 02:09 PM']I think Romney is pro life now, at least that's what I got from what he said. Saying that although he was for a woman's right to choose, when he had eventually seen the cheapening of life that is going on, he became unconditionally pro life. So I think that's what he is. I'm glad he was the number one choice in the poll instead of Guiliani, that guy is not a good candidate-morally that is.

Paladin, you'd take Guiliani over Romney, why??[/quote]


I didn't say that, I said the two are alike. They both are personally against abortion, but they have no intention in trying to ban all forms of abortion.

Edited May 16, 2007 by Paladin D

[kujo]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1275178' date='May 16 2007, 05:10 PM']Can you point to a real world example of lower taxes leading to improved social justice, although I'll grant that the best means of delivering social justice is through charitable organizations such as the Catholic Church? Based on policy outcomes, I don't think that one can infer anything other than that the Republicans don't care about the poor. I'm open to correction but I'd need actual examples.
From my perspective, the only thing you've listed that has anything to do with Catholic morals is being pro-life. Being strong on defense, cutting government spending, and lowering taxes can be construed, IMHO, as antithetical to Catholic teaching, which places an emphasis on the dignity of the person, particularly the poor and disenfranchised. The US spends more on defense than the rest of the world combined. I find it hard to square that with the fact that increasing numbers of people, especially children, are falling below the poverty line and going without health insurance, adequate nutrition, etc.[/quote]

I never said that cutting taxes had anything to do with the social justice of the impoverished. Cutting taxes, at least in part, helps the middle class by easing their financial woes. Similarly, it levels the playing field in the free market which encourages the market.

Secondly, your assertion that the Republicans don't care about the poor is uninformed. Do you have any proof of this or is it just mindless-dribble?

Being strong on defense has to do with my family. I want our President to be actively-defending this country from attack. The fact that you can't see the connection is pretty silly. While I would agree that MORE needs to be done to help the impoverished in our country, I don't think that has to do with spending money defending our country.

So, let's recap:
1. Social justice is MORE than just helping the poor. We are all deserving of social justice.
2. Pro-life=Republican=Catholic
3. Strength on defense protects my family. So, pro-family.
4. More needs to be done to help the poor and uneducated in our country.

[Socrates]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1275125' date='May 16 2007, 01:47 PM']Not to hijack the topic, but I feel the same way, not represented by either party. In a nutshell, the Dems support for abortion is a non-starter, while the Repubs are extremely weak on social justice issues.

What would you think of a "Christian Democratic" party which would blend social justice and pro-life platforms in the best traditions of the Catholic Church?[/quote]
(Sorry to continue the hijack, but . . .)
Unfortunately, "social justice" is too often used as a buzz word essentially meaning "big-government socialism."

And as I see it, both parties are far too much for government tax-and-spend "solutions."

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1275178' date='May 16 2007, 03:10 PM']Can you point to a real world example of lower taxes leading to improved social justice, although I'll grant that the best means of delivering social justice is through charitable organizations such as the Catholic Church? Based on policy outcomes, I don't think that one can infer anything other than that the Republicans don't care about the poor. I'm open to correction but I'd need actual examples.
From my perspective, the only thing you've listed that has anything to do with Catholic morals is being pro-life. Being strong on defense, cutting government spending, and lowering taxes can be construed, IMHO, as antithetical to Catholic teaching, which places an emphasis on the dignity of the person, particularly the poor and disenfranchised. The US spends more on defense than the rest of the world combined. I find it hard to square that with the fact that increasing numbers of people, especially children, are falling below the poverty line and going without health insurance, adequate nutrition, etc.[/quote]
The truth is that, in the real world, taxes and federal government spending have been constantly rising over the past century, under both Democrats and Republicans. This increase in spending on welfare and other government spending has done little to end social and economic ills in this country, and some problems - such as illegitmacy, crime, and abortion - have skyrocketed since the vast increase in spending on welfare since Johnson's "Great Society" programs in the 1960s.

And this federal spending has occured under both Republican and Democratic administrations. Democrats howl about Republican "spending cuts" - but the reality is that the "cuts" proposed by Republicans are not in reality cuts at all, but only slow down the rate of spending increases from that proposed by the Democrats.
And the truth is that federal [i]domestic[/i] spending increased more under President Bush than under Clinton!
Yet the Dems and liberal bleeding hearts continue to whine that "Republicans don't care about the poor"!

According to you, how much and how quickly do taxes and government spending have to continue to grow to be "in accord with Catholic teaching"??

Where in the Catechism does the Church teach that perpetual rapid growth in government spending is a moral mandate??

As others have pointed out, heavy taxes actually do much to hurt the economy, ultimately hurting the poor most of all; and relying on federal tax-and-spend government programs is contrary to the principle of subsidiarity.
Our current tyrannical tax system especially hurts small businesses, and helps discourage entrepeneurship and self-sufficiency. (Being self-employed, I know this first-hand.)

What I would like to see is a drastic slashing in both taxes and federal spending, but this is unlikely to happen, as government has a natural tendency to grow ever larger, and people become dependent on government to take care of what they should be doing themselves.

The socialistic welfare states of many European countries are paying for this with growing economic problems and sky-rocketing unemployment rates.

The fact is, your statements here are not based on facts and reality, but on political rhetoric and hot air.

Edited May 17, 2007 by Socrates

[GodChaser]

[quote name='kujo' post='1274790' date='May 15 2007, 11:09 PM']So, what did we think of the debates? I really really liked Brownback's responses about abortion. I really liked Romney's stance on improving our own government, specifically in Washington. I liked Ron Paul pointing out that American foreign policy has directly-influenced the hatred the terrorists from the Middle East feel towards America. I LOVED Tancredo's jab at John Edwards. And I liked Giuliani's firm stance on defense.

Now if only Fred Thompson would announce already, take all of these good points, and KICK SOME DEMOCRATIC BOOTY!!!![/quote]
Ron Paul for Ta Win!

He's my canidate, and wants to open up the investigation for 9/11 again!

[Didymus]

how is cutting governmental spending antithetical to Catholic teaching?

[Didymus]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1275178' date='May 16 2007, 04:10 PM']Can you point to a real world example of lower taxes leading to improved social justice, although I'll grant that the best means of delivering social justice is through charitable organizations such as the Catholic Church? Based on policy outcomes, I don't think that one can infer anything other than that the Republicans don't care about the poor. I'm open to correction but I'd need actual examples.[/quote]


I don't see how there is enough proof that the GOP doesn't care to actually abandon Republican principles for those of the Democratic party.

Based on policy outcomes, I don't think that one can infer anything about the Democrats except that they advocate an open door to socialism.

[Didymus]

[quote name='kujo' post='1275289' date='May 16 2007, 07:16 PM']Being strong on defense has to do with my family. I want our President to be actively-defending this country from attack. The fact that you can't see the connection is pretty silly. While I would agree that MORE needs to be done to help the impoverished in our country, I don't think that has to do with spending money defending our country.[/quote]
good point

[Norseman82]

I was trying to put my finger on where Tommy Thompson was on embryonic stem cell research (ESCR)...he seemed all over the map on that one.

I like McCain's emphasis on cutting back on spending, he was warning us of the entitlement spending crisis back when he first ran in 2000. Too bad he voted for ESCR.

Brownback needs to articulate his views on issues other than abortion. I like the fact he mentioned he had a hybrid car, that might earn him points with the environmental crowd.

Besides Fred Thompson, Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel also is someone I'd like to hear more from. Put both of them on the ticket!

[Norseman82]

[quote name='kujo' post='1274790' date='May 16 2007, 12:09 AM']I LOVED Tancredo's jab at John Edwards.[/quote]

If you are referring to the "haircut" reference, I think that was Mike Huckabee.

But Tancredo came up with a good one with the "I'm loking for Jack Bauer" line regarding to anti-terrorism efforts.

[Didymus]

I didnt watch this debate yet, but from what I've seen before T. Thompson doesn't at all look like he knows what he is talking about when they bring up embryonic stem cell research. It's like we all just now learned about it and everytime it comes up he needs to walk through his whole canned routine. I dunno.

We need some more bashing of the other party. I think the primaries should have more of an outlook of 'who can best defeat the other party' not 'who can best bash those within their own party.' and that goes for both Republicans and Democrats (although the Dems have been doing this already, naturally because there is a Republican in the White House.

Edited May 17, 2007 by Didymus