Second Republican Debate

[Aloysius]

yes, it is not the middle-of-the-ground that is where the truth of Social Justice lies; it is with radical insight which utterly does not fit what they are doing now at all; it's not a mix of dem and rep policies that would be good for us, but a mix of some rep ideals (which are the democrats-of-fifty-years-ago ideals, ie subsidarity) actually put into practice intstead of just being paid lipservice.

federal government spending has to be cut, federal taxes have to be cut. to not do so would violate the principals of subsidarity, as far as I'm concerned. our federal government has grown too big and powerful in its programs directed towards individuals which cause them to be dependent.

if we want to talk about local governments, it can't be as unequivically said that, morally speaking, taxes must be cut and spending must be cut

federal big government spending, though, must be cut and taxes must be cut. I would hold that that's a necessary moral position flowing out of the Church's Social Justice doctrines.

[kenrockthefirst]

For the purposes of full disclosure, let me re-state that I am a registered independent. I am NOT advocating for the Democratic party, by which I do not feel represented.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1276139' date='May 17 2007, 08:06 PM']It was you who in an earlier post said that "being strong on defense" is "antithetical to Catholic teaching."[/quote]

What I said was that [i]defense spending[/i] at current levels in the US was possibly antithetical to Catholic teaching. I don't think that current spending levels necessarily have anything to do with being strong on defense, which is a red herring, IMHO, by which you can say, "he's 'weak' on defense, so we can discount anything he says.'"

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1276391' date='May 18 2007, 02:57 AM']federal government spending has to be cut, federal taxes have to be cut. to not do so would violate the principals of subsidarity, as far as I'm concerned. our federal government has grown too big and powerful in its programs directed towards individuals which cause them to be dependent.

if we want to talk about local governments, it can't be as unequivically said that, morally speaking, taxes must be cut and spending must be cut

federal big government spending, though, must be cut and taxes must be cut. I would hold that that's a necessary moral position flowing out of the Church's Social Justice doctrines.[/quote]

As for taxes at the federal level, and delivery of social services at the local level, much of the income for local government programs comes from the federal government. When the feds cut taxes, local, county, and state governments have to increase taxes to pick up the slack. So, federal tax cuts aren't usually tax cuts at all, simply tax shifts.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1276150' date='May 17 2007, 08:17 PM']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.[/quote]

So we inch toward some kind of consensus

What I meant by "devolved government" was bringing government services closer to those served, which may or may not result in a change in one's overall tax burden. You get what you pay for.

"Environmental responsibility" has two goals, in my view: a) being responsible for God's creation, and b) reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, particularly from the Middle East, which in turn enhances our national security. See, I can talk security as well

[Aloysius]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1276440' date='May 18 2007, 10:15 AM']For the purposes of full disclosure, let me re-state that I am a registered independent. I am NOT advocating for the Democratic party, by which I do not feel represented.
What I said was that [i]defense spending[/i] at current levels in the US was possibly antithetical to Catholic teaching. I don't think that current spending levels necessarily have anything to do with being strong on defense, which is a red herring, IMHO, by which you can say, "he's 'weak' on defense, so we can discount anything he says.'"
As for taxes at the federal level, and delivery of social services at the local level, much of the income for local government programs comes from the federal government. When the feds cut taxes, local, county, and state governments have to increase taxes to pick up the slack. So, federal tax cuts aren't usually tax cuts at all, simply tax shifts.[/quote]
I'm talking about cutting the federal programs that federal taxes are being spent on. The federal government can still deal with State governments by funding them or whatever, because State Governments and the federal government can be on an equal playing field of inter-dependence. Each state has 2% control of the senate, some proportion of control in the house based upon their population, and tremendous amounts of leeway to deal with the federal government. They're on an equal playing field; as long as we increase state's rights against increasing federalization; so that the federal government can deal between them. But individual Federal Income Tax is ridiculous, and makes everyone dependent to that degree on the federal government (just try to tell me you're inter-dependent with the IRS, excuse me while I laugh)

The Fair Tax would help to get the government out of the business of overwhelming individuals into a dependence upon them through individual income taxes, dealing instead with larger systems as it is supposed to do. [url="http://www.fairtax.org/"]http://www.fairtax.org/[/url] The tax system would be done through a system of inter-dependence, making the store-owners the tax collectors makes tax collectors inter-dependent with the people they are collecting from.

The Federal Government should not be dealing with individuals (except when they're felons) because that makes the individuals dependent upon them. They should be dealing with States; while the states should be dealing with local governments, and the local governments should be dealing with individuals. That's the only way to accomplish a system of inter-dependence. If local governments had to increase their taxes, so be it; though since the local governments are much more inter-dependent with me, I'll have a much bigger say in the matter, and I might even be able to propose programs which would not require the increasing of tax, or at least would support taxing in smart ways and not spending it erroneously. It's not about whining that we have to pay so many taxes, it's about not wanting to waste money through the funnel-hole in Washington.

I know you don't feel represented by the democrats either, but what I'm trying to wonder is why you want to create a "Christian Democrat" party; what's the point of the word "Democrat" there? What policies specifically are you keeping from the democratic platform? I am arguing that there are really no major policies of the democratic platform which are really compatible with Catholic Social Justice.

I'll leave you with one more poignent thought:

Aloysius for President.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1276733' date='May 18 2007, 02:07 PM']I'm talking about cutting the federal programs that federal taxes are being spent on. The federal government can still deal with State governments by funding them or whatever, because State Governments and the federal government can be on an equal playing field of inter-dependence. Each state has 2% control of the senate, some proportion of control in the house based upon their population, and tremendous amounts of leeway to deal with the federal government. They're on an equal playing field; as long as we increase state's rights against increasing federalization; so that the federal government can deal between them. But individual Federal Income Tax is ridiculous, and makes everyone dependent to that degree on the federal government (just try to tell me you're inter-dependent with the IRS, excuse me while I laugh)

The Fair Tax would help to get the government out of the business of overwhelming individuals into a dependence upon them through individual income taxes, dealing instead with larger systems as it is supposed to do. [url="http://www.fairtax.org/"]http://www.fairtax.org/[/url] The tax system would be done through a system of inter-dependence, making the store-owners the tax collectors makes tax collectors inter-dependent with the people they are collecting from.

The Federal Government should not be dealing with individuals (except when they're felons) because that makes the individuals dependent upon them. They should be dealing with States; while the states should be dealing with local governments, and the local governments should be dealing with individuals. That's the only way to accomplish a system of inter-dependence. If local governments had to increase their taxes, so be it; though since the local governments are much more inter-dependent with me, I'll have a much bigger say in the matter, and I might even be able to propose programs which would not require the increasing of tax, or at least would support taxing in smart ways and not spending it erroneously. It's not about whining that we have to pay so many taxes, it's about not wanting to waste money through the funnel-hole in Washington.

I know you don't feel represented by the democrats either, but what I'm trying to wonder is why you want to create a "Christian Democrat" party; what's the point of the word "Democrat" there? What policies specifically are you keeping from the democratic platform? I am arguing that there are really no major policies of the democratic platform which are really compatible with Catholic Social Justice.

I'll leave you with one more poignent thought:

Aloysius for President.[/quote]

I like it, let's do it.

"Christian Democrat" is a flavor of political party, particularly in Europe, that is culturally / socially conservative but more left-leaning in its economic approach. See [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_democrat"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_democrat[/url]. Maybe that's not really applicable, though, in light of the discussion about interdependence.

How about building a new party so that you can get your legislation passed?

[Socrates]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1276441' date='May 18 2007, 08:19 AM']So we inch toward some kind of consensus

What I meant by "devolved government" was bringing government services closer to those served, which may or may not result in a change in one's overall tax burden. You get what you pay for.

"Environmental responsibility" has two goals, in my view: a) being responsible for God's creation, and b) reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, particularly from the Middle East, which in turn enhances our national security. See, I can talk security as well [/quote]
We may agree on some things, but I'm not sure we're really in agreement regarding the proper role and size of government.

I think government needs to be cut back overall. There are far too many wasteful and unneeded government beauracracies and programs which should be eliminated or vastly scaled back.
Government simply does not do a very good job at most things.

Less government=lower taxes=more prosperity and freedom.

And "environmental responsibility" needs to be better defined. Policies claiming to be "environmentally responsible" can be either good or bad. Government beauracracy tends to do as poor a job in protecting the environment as it does in anything else.

[Socrates]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1276739' date='May 18 2007, 02:15 PM']I like it, let's do it.

"Christian Democrat" is a flavor of political party, particularly in Europe, that is culturally / socially conservative but more left-leaning in its economic approach. See [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_democrat"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_democrat[/url]. Maybe that's not really applicable, though, in light of the discussion about interdependence.

How about building a new party so that you can get your legislation passed?[/quote]
I was wondering about that. I assumed though you meant "Democrat" as in the American Democratic Party.
I don't really follow European politics, but I've understood the Christian Democrats to be somwhat socialistic (though perhaps better than their opposition.)

I wouldn't look to modern Europe for solutions to our political problems.

[Socrates]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1276440' date='May 18 2007, 08:15 AM']What I said was that [i]defense spending[/i] at current levels in the US was possibly antithetical to Catholic teaching. I don't think that current spending levels necessarily have anything to do with being strong on defense, which is a red herring, IMHO, by which you can say, "he's 'weak' on defense, so we can discount anything he says.'"[/quote]

Your own words:
[quote]Being strong on defense, cutting government spending, and lowering taxes can be construed, IMHO, as antithetical to Catholic teaching[/quote]

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1278284' date='May 20 2007, 10:01 PM']Your own words:

Being strong on defense, cutting government spending, and lowering taxes can be construed, IMHO, as antithetical to Catholic teaching[/quote]

Here's the full quote, which contextualizes my comment:

"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. [i]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.[/i]"

[emphasis added]