Second Republican Debate

[kujo]

[quote name='Norseman82' post='1275573' date='May 17 2007, 01:06 AM']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.[/quote]

DOH!!!

Sorry about that.

Both of them had good lines.

[Aloysius]

Tax-cuts and cutting government spending are Catholic social justice issues; the goal is NOT to do whatever it takes to get rid of poverty and hunger. If we wanted to do that, it'd be very easy: everyone without a home or a job should be rounded up and given standard government housing and standard jobs; the government could institute little communes for all the homeless and hungry and settle the whole thing right away. But if they did so, they would violate the principal of subsidarity, violate the principals of human dignity and freedom. so too, we cannot sacrifice subsidarity even if it would rid the whole nation of unemployment, poverty, and hunger. Unemployment, poverty, and hunger have to be rooted out in a more substantial way that throwing money and government beaurocracies at the problem; it is absolutely immoral to take away from someone's human dignity by making their best and only resource, in times of necessity, to be a government hundreds or thousands of miles away from them that they have a very small voice in and are extremely overshadowed in comparison to. Social justice, in the ideal system that we should attempt to approximate, would start and end at the local level and the federal government would not deal with it on individual bases.

Strengthening charities and local governments to do the tasks of social justice is the only thing morally compatible with human dignity, ultimately.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1275638' date='May 17 2007, 01:09 AM']Tax-cuts and cutting government spending are Catholic social justice issues; the goal is NOT to do whatever it takes to get rid of poverty and hunger. If we wanted to do that, it'd be very easy: everyone without a home or a job should be rounded up and given standard government housing and standard jobs; the government could institute little communes for all the homeless and hungry and settle the whole thing right away. But if they did so, they would violate the principal of subsidarity, violate the principals of human dignity and freedom. so too, we cannot sacrifice subsidarity even if it would rid the whole nation of unemployment, poverty, and hunger. Unemployment, poverty, and hunger have to be rooted out in a more substantial way that throwing money and government beaurocracies at the problem; it is absolutely immoral to take away from someone's human dignity by making their best and only resource, in times of necessity, to be a government hundreds or thousands of miles away from them that they have a very small voice in and are extremely overshadowed in comparison to. Social justice, in the ideal system that we should attempt to approximate, would start and end at the local level and the federal government would not deal with it on individual bases.

Strengthening charities and local governments to do the tasks of social justice is the only thing morally compatible with human dignity, ultimately.[/quote]

Are you suggesting that the poor don't want help?

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1275165' date='May 16 2007, 03:02 PM']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.[/quote]

I can definitely go with this. We should never abdicate our PERSONAL, INDIVIDUAL responsibility to advocate and work for social justice in all its forms. Where government can help that, great, where it can't, get out of the way.


[quote name='kujo' post='1275289' date='May 16 2007, 06:16 PM']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.[/quote]

As for the "mindless-dribble" comment, let's try to keep this civil. I have a view. You disagree with it. Let's not call names, though.

In response to your question, I would point to the results of Hurricane Katrina and the Federal Government's response, specifically the Bush administration's response, as evidence that Republicans aren't really interested in the poor.

I agree that social justice is more than helping the poor but, IMHO, that is a central element of social justice. Jesus said, you clothed Me when I was naked, fed Me when I was hungry, visited Me when I was sick or in prison. That list speaks to the disadvantaged in society.

As for being strong on defense, I don't really want to "go there." Suffice it to say that I think we should be "working smarter, not harder."

[quote name='Socrates' post='1275306' date='May 16 2007, 07:05 PM'](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."
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.[/quote]

Again, I ask that we keep this civil.

Tax cuts don't work, period. You might label Democrats as "tax and spend." I could similarly label the Republicans "borrow and spend." Tax cuts don't stimulate the economy, all they do is lead to budget deficits and a national debt that our children and grandchildren will have to pay.

You're right about the increase in spending by both parties. The reality is, they're both spending on the things that are important to them and their respective constituencies. The honest way to deal with that is either a) raise revenue through taxation to spend on the government's priorities, or b) cut spending in line with revenue.


[quote name='Didymus' post='1275330' date='May 16 2007, 07:24 PM']how is cutting governmental spending antithetical to Catholic teaching?[/quote]

All I'm saying is, I don't think that conservative economic policy, e.g. cutting taxes = being a good Catholic.

[quote name='Didymus' post='1275333' date='May 16 2007, 07:28 PM']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.[/quote]

By all means, the Republicans should advocate their ideas in the political arena. However, the proof in the pudding is in the eating. More people, especially children, are in poverty now than there were six years ago. More people, especially children, lack health insurance than there were six years ago. Do the math.


[quote name='Aloysius' post='1275638' date='May 17 2007, 02:09 AM']Tax-cuts and cutting government spending are Catholic social justice issues; the goal is NOT to do whatever it takes to get rid of poverty and hunger. If we wanted to do that, it'd be very easy: everyone without a home or a job should be rounded up and given standard government housing and standard jobs; the government could institute little communes for all the homeless and hungry and settle the whole thing right away. But if they did so, they would violate the principal of subsidarity, violate the principals of human dignity and freedom. so too, we cannot sacrifice subsidarity even if it would rid the whole nation of unemployment, poverty, and hunger. Unemployment, poverty, and hunger have to be rooted out in a more substantial way that throwing money and government beaurocracies at the problem; it is absolutely immoral to take away from someone's human dignity by making their best and only resource, in times of necessity, to be a government hundreds or thousands of miles away from them that they have a very small voice in and are extremely overshadowed in comparison to. Social justice, in the ideal system that we should attempt to approximate, would start and end at the local level and the federal government would not deal with it on individual bases.

Strengthening charities and local governments to do the tasks of social justice is the only thing morally compatible with human dignity, ultimately.[/quote]

I agree that dispensing social justice is best done at the local level. The Federal Government, however, sets the tone with its tax policies.

[kujo]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1275680' date='May 17 2007, 10:34 AM']As for the "mindless-dribble" comment, let's try to keep this civil. I have a view. You disagree with it. Let's not call names, though.

In response to your question, I would point to the results of Hurricane Katrina and the Federal Government's response, specifically the Bush administration's response, as evidence that Republicans aren't really interested in the poor.

I agree that social justice is more than helping the poor but, IMHO, that is a central element of social justice. Jesus said, you clothed Me when I was naked, fed Me when I was hungry, visited Me when I was sick or in prison. That list speaks to the disadvantaged in society.

As for being strong on defense, I don't really want to "go there." Suffice it to say that I think we should be "working smarter, not harder."[/quote]

You accuse the Republicans (which I am) of not caring for the poor, and you ask [b]me[/b] to keep things civil?

The slow response to Katrina was due to the lack of leadership in local and state governments in Louisiana and insufficient resources and incompetence in FEMA. Proof of this comes when you look at the response to the recent tornados in Kansas. White, middle class people were victims here, and still there is a lack of quality response due to lack of FEMA and lack of National Guard.

Hmmm....so YOU are weak on defense....

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='kujo' post='1275711' date='May 17 2007, 09:41 AM']You accuse the Republicans (which I am) of not caring for the poor, and you ask [b]me[/b] to keep things civil?

The slow response to Katrina was due to the lack of leadership in local and state governments in Louisiana and insufficient resources and incompetence in FEMA. Proof of this comes when you look at the response to the recent tornados in Kansas. White, middle class people were victims here, and still there is a lack of quality response due to lack of FEMA and lack of National Guard.

Hmmm....so YOU are weak on defense....[/quote]

We must agree to differ, I'm afraid.

I disagree the Republican = Catholic.

[kujo]

I think you are misunderstanding my point there.

Republicans are supportive of pro-life legislature which is advantageous to Roman Catholics.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='kujo' post='1275719' date='May 17 2007, 09:54 AM']I think you are misunderstanding my point there.

Republicans are supportive of pro-life legislature which is advantageous to Roman Catholics.[/quote]

Right, and in my original response to you, I said "[f]rom my perspective, the only thing you've listed that has anything to do with Catholic morals is being pro-life." On pro-life, I'm totally on board. But what I also said in an earlier post is that [i]apart from that[/i], I didn't feel represented by Republicans (or Dems, for that matter, because of their pro-abortion stance).

[Aloysius]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1275653' date='May 17 2007, 08:53 AM']Are you suggesting that the poor don't want help?[/quote]
I am suggesting that the help that big government offers them is, in reality, a hindrance to their human dignity and free will when compared to the help that would be offered first by private individuals, families, charities, and local governments (in that order)

The poor should be helped; but big government is both inneffective and detrimental to their ultimate good; like Ronal Reagan said: when will people realize, the more help you get from big government [i]the less freedom you have[/i]

A couple principals to consider when asking why this teaching on subsidarity is so important to the dignity of those who are being helped:

#1 There's independence, an American ideal with certain noble elements; there's nothing wrong with it and when people aim for it as their ideal, they should not be hindered unless they do it to the detriment of others.
#2 There's interdependence, the traditional European and Catholic model, whereby everyone within the society is intricately woven into that society and thus dependent upon everyone who is part of their community; a village is inter-dependent within itself, for instance.
#3 Then there's dependence, the moral evil whereby the people become dependent upon their government. My over-exagerated charecterization of this situation was my example of rounding up the poor and homeless into government communes; but lesser degrees of this are still bad.

Subsidarity preserves #2 with the possibility of #1, and helps to prevent situation #3.
When the federal government becomes responsible for individuals within some local community, it violates the principal of subsidarity and creates, or at least begins to move towards, situation #3. In order to prevent situation #3, the wisdom of the ages as has been passed down to us through the Church says as a matter of principal that whatever can be accomplished at the lower level, morally should be accomplished there. Therefore, if it be possible for one to become successful in society due to the support of their family, then the government should preserve the sociological situation which allows them to succeed in life by negotiating only through the support of their family; and when the network of family falls through for people, the first resource should be private charities which will organically and caringly help them. when all that fails, then it is up to the local community. but that's it, as far as the ideal situation that we should be working for goes: local communities need to be composed of forces within themselves which act interdependently; only havng recourse to a larger government when there are things beyond their scope; disputes between local governments, for instance; or international disputes.

This principal of Social Justice comes from She who has 2000 years of experience dealing with the rise and fall of governments and economies; this is the fruits of all her experience, something western civilization would do well to listen to. She knows what she is talking about: she's seen all western governments and what they've done through the millenia.

Now, the republicans pay lip-service to this when they say they are for states-rights and cutting government spending in washington and lowering taxes; but they don't often deliever. The democrats, on the other hand, have as their stated goals the rejection of subsidarity; they want to increase federal social programs on all levels, ultimately wanting things like federally funded national healthcare for all. This totally breaks apart from the principal of subsidarity.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1275886' date='May 17 2007, 03:12 PM']#1 There's independence, an American ideal with certain noble elements; there's nothing wrong with it and when people aim for it as their ideal, they should not be hindered unless they do it to the detriment of others.
#2 There's interdependence, the traditional European and Catholic model, whereby everyone within the society is intricately woven into that society and thus dependent upon everyone who is part of their community; a village is inter-dependent within itself, for instance.
#3 Then there's dependence, the moral evil whereby the people become dependent upon their government. My over-exagerated charecterization of this situation was my example of rounding up the poor and homeless into government communes; but lesser degrees of this are still bad.[/quote]

Good framework for discussion.

Usually, Dems are accused of being "socialists" and creating "dependency." Certainly, government programs can incline toward this and we don't want to go down that road. On the other hand, the danger of "independence" is [i]capitalism sauvage[/i], an "I'm all right, Jack" attitude. When Cain asked, "am I my brother's keeper," the answer was and is, "yes."

I think that interdependence along the lines you set out is what we should aim for, and why [i]I don't feel represented by either party[/i].

[Aloysius]

Yes, I agree with you about independence; except that it is more acceptable than dependence if it is done without actively harming others and including indpendent benevolence to be one's brother's keeper; when independent benevolence is included, independence tends to be a positive good for society. but interdependence must exist at the local levels of charities and local governments only when charities fail. it is not properly the federal government's place; the federal government does not have a role to play in the interdependency within a local community; because the federal government is an over-reaching entity that by nature and de facto, when it gives help to individuals, creates dependency. when it deals with whole local governments as they deal with each other; and whole state governments as the states deal witih each other, then there is an inter-dependency between equal players. and there is an inter-dependency between equal players when there are individuals being helped by charities; even with local governments they're on more of an equal playing field; that citizen of the local government has real power in that government. who are we kidding if we think and individual in need is on any type of level playing field with the federal government though? that's why the federal government should only deal with state governments, and state governments should really only deal with local governents, and it should be the local governments which deal with the individuals; because the local government is truly inter-dependent with the citizens of its locality.

I just want to make it clear: it shouldn't be the stereotypical "I feel represented by republicans on abortion; I feel represented by the democrats on social justice" because that's just not the case. the democrats do not represent Catholic social justice. neither do the republicans, though they pay a little more lip service to the aspects of subsidarity in attempting to prune down big federal government, though they never actually act on what they say they're going to do.

The republican platform is betteer on abortion at representing us. Neither platform is really good at representing social justice though; they both mess it up.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1275911' date='May 17 2007, 03:39 PM']Yes, I agree with you about independence; except that it is more acceptable than dependence if it is done without actively harming others and including indpendent benevolence to be one's brother's keeper; when independent benevolence is included, independence tends to be a positive good for society. but interdependence must exist at the local levels of charities and local governments only when charities fail. it is not properly the federal government's place; the federal government does not have a role to play in the interdependency within a local community; because the federal government is an over-reaching entity that by nature and de facto, when it gives help to individuals, creates dependency. when it deals with whole local governments as they deal with each other; and whole state governments as the states deal witih each other, then there is an inter-dependency between equal players. and there is an inter-dependency between equal players when there are individuals being helped by charities; even with local governments they're on more of an equal playing field; that citizen of the local government has real power in that government. who are we kidding if we think and individual in need is on any type of level playing field with the federal government though? that's why the federal government should only deal with state governments, and state governments should really only deal with local governents, and it should be the local governments which deal with the individuals; because the local government is truly inter-dependent with the citizens of its locality.

I just want to make it clear: it shouldn't be the stereotypical "I feel represented by republicans on abortion; I feel represented by the democrats on social justice" because that's just not the case. the democrats do not represent Catholic social justice. neither do the republicans, though they pay a little more lip service to the aspects of subsidarity in attempting to prune down big federal government, though they never actually act on what they say they're going to do.

The republican platform is betteer on abortion at representing us. Neither platform is really good at representing social justice though; they both mess it up.[/quote]

I think I agree

So, going back to an earlier question, how about a new party along the lines of a "Christian Democrat" model, to include as platforms:
[list=1]
[*]A pro-life from the moment of conception stance
[*]Devolved government
[*]Fiscal responsibility informed by pay-as-you-go: either raise revenues through taxes to pay for government programs, or cut spending, but don't borrow
[*]Environmental responsibility
[*]...
[/list]
Whaddaya think?

[Socrates]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1275680' date='May 17 2007, 08:34 AM']I can definitely go with this. We should never abdicate our PERSONAL, INDIVIDUAL responsibility to advocate and work for social justice in all its forms. Where government can help that, great, where it can't, get out of the way.
As for the "mindless-dribble" comment, let's try to keep this civil. I have a view. You disagree with it. Let's not call names, though.

In response to your question, I would point to the results of Hurricane Katrina and the Federal Government's response, specifically the Bush administration's response, as evidence that Republicans aren't really interested in the poor.[/quote]
The government simply wasn't prepared for something on the scale of the Katrina disaster, and there was bungling on several different levels. However, there is really nothing to indicate things would have been any different had Clinton or another Democrat been president. Of course, it's easy to use this to play partisan politics, and say, "If [i]we[/i] were in control, we woulda done things right."
One can criticize Bush and the federal government's response (as well as that of the Democratic New Orleans officials), but to use this to make a blanket statement that "Republicans don't care about the poor" is partisan nonsense.
Studies have in fact shown that overall Republicans give more in charitable donations than Democrats.

[quote]I agree that social justice is more than helping the poor but, IMHO, that is a central element of social justice. Jesus said, you clothed Me when I was naked, fed Me when I was hungry, visited Me when I was sick or in prison. That list speaks to the disadvantaged in society.[/quote]Then perhaps you should go do some volunteer work with the poor and needy, rather than complain about how the government is not spending enough. Nobody is against helping the poor. The problem is with wasteful government programs that breed dependency.

[quote]As for being strong on defense, I don't really want to "go there." Suffice it to say that I think we should be "working smarter, not harder."
Again, I ask that we keep this civil.[/quote]
It was you who in an earlier post said that "being strong on defense" is "antithetical to Catholic teaching."

[quote]Tax cuts don't work, period. You might label Democrats as "tax and spend." I could similarly label the Republicans "borrow and spend." Tax cuts don't stimulate the economy, all they do is lead to budget deficits and a national debt that our children and grandchildren will have to pay.

You're right about the increase in spending by both parties. The reality is, they're both spending on the things that are important to them and their respective constituencies. The honest way to deal with that is either a) raise revenue through taxation to spend on the government's priorities, or b) cut spending in line with revenue.[/quote]Your statement that "tax cuts don't work, period" has nothing to back it up. Especially as there have been very little significant federal tax cuts in practice. Reagan's income tax cuts in the 80s helped bring a booming economy, up from the recession of the Carter years, though overall taxes actually increased in that decade, as did government welfare spending.
Obviously, lowered taxes help the economy - business thrives in states and locations with low taxes, and what works on the local scale works on the federal.

I agree with you, though, about the Republicans under Bush increasing spending and creating debt. This is a serious problem I have with Bush.
I go with "solution b."
Both taxes and government spending need to be cut back drastically. Bush is trying to play it both ways.
However, politicians of both parties seem addicted to big spending - and part of the problem here is the mentality in politics of proposing government programs as the solution to all life's ills.

[quote]All I'm saying is, I don't think that conservative economic policy, e.g. cutting taxes = being a good Catholic.
By all means, the Republicans should advocate their ideas in the political arena. However, the proof in the pudding is in the eating. More people, especially children, are in poverty now than there were six years ago. More people, especially children, lack health insurance than there were six years ago. Do the math.[/quote]
And domestic government spending has increased. Do the math.
I don't consider raising taxes = good Catholic.

And your initial insinuation that those who wish lower taxes are going against Catholic teaching was what started all this fuss in the first place.

[quote]I agree that dispensing social justice is best done at the local level. The Federal Government, however, sets the tone with its tax policies.[/quote]
Increasing taxes and government spending does not equal social justice, nor does it do anything at all to increase charity at the local level. (I have yet to hear of anyone doing charitable work because he was inspired by the "tone" set by high federal taxes!)

Edited May 18, 2007 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1275924' date='May 17 2007, 03:51 PM']I think I agree

So, going back to an earlier question, how about a new party along the lines of a "Christian Democrat" model, to include as platforms:[list=1]
[*]A pro-life from the moment of conception stance
[*]Devolved government
[*]Fiscal responsibility informed by pay-as-you-go: either raise revenues through taxes to pay for government programs, or cut spending, but don't borrow
[*]Environmental responsibility
[*]...
[/list]Whaddaya think?[/quote]
Definitely agree with the first two points on your list.
I'm for fiscal repsonsibility, but believe in cutting back taxing and spending together - this goes with "devolved government."

I'm for "environmental responsibility", but would have to look at specific policies in question. Not all "environmental" policy is good or beneficial.

Anyways, a pro-life party that believes in subsidiarity and cutting back big government would bear very little resemblence to today's Democratic Party. Such a party wouldn't be more like the Democrats than Republicans.

Unlike many on here, I don't see the ideal party as some sort of "middle ground" compromise between the Democratic and Republican parties, or between conservative and liberal, but something that most would consider well to the "right" of both major parties.

Edited May 18, 2007 by Socrates

[Guest T-Bone]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1276139' date='May 17 2007, 07:06 PM'](I have yet to hear of anyone doing charitable work because he was inspired by the "tone" set by high federal taxes!)[/quote]

Oh, yeah, as someone living just above the poverty line, I am totally inspired by giving a significant portion of my income to the Federal Government to waste. It increases the amount I give to charity, and the free time I don't have because of the necessity of a second job, I spend helping others.