Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for the discussion of current events,cultural issues and politics especially in relation to Catholic values.

Saint Thomas More was martyred during the Protestant Reformation for standing firm in the Faith and not recognizing the King of England as the Supreme Head of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Thomas More

Nov 20th 2012 new

(Quote) John-221057 said: Since we're on the topic, I'd invite hardcore Republicans who are also Catholics to take a...
(Quote) John-221057 said:

Since we're on the topic, I'd invite hardcore Republicans who are also Catholics to take a look at the principles of Catholic social teaching:
www.centacarebrisbane.net.au


This one is especially important and is why I support social democratic political parties:

. The Principle of Preferential Option for the Poor and Vulnerable

In a society marred by deepening divisions between rich and poor, our tradition recalls the

story of the last judgement (Mt 25.31-46) and instructs us to put the needs of the poor and

vulnerable first. The United States’ Bishops put it well: “The needs of the poor take priority

over the desires of the rich; the rights of workers over the maximisation of profits; the

preservation of the environment over uncontrolled industrial expansion.”

--hide--


John - you are in principle correct. The mistake you make is that we should let the federal government do it. Those of us that are against the federal government handling this does not make us anti-poor. It makes us anti-government. The federal government is large, inefficient, corrupt and immoral.

If they were not raping us for 50% of our incomes, it would be a lot easier to contribute to the causes of "our choice"

I am also against the Dept. of Education, that doesn't mean I don't think we should educate our children.

LOCKED
Nov 20th 2012 new

(Quote) John-221057 said: Since we're on the topic, I'd invite hardcore Republicans who are also Catholics to take a...
(Quote) John-221057 said:

Since we're on the topic, I'd invite hardcore Republicans who are also Catholics to take a look at the principles of Catholic social teaching:
www.centacarebrisbane.net.au


This one is especially important and is why I support social democratic political parties:

. The Principle of Preferential Option for the Poor and Vulnerable

In a society marred by deepening divisions between rich and poor, our tradition recalls the

story of the last judgement (Mt 25.31-46) and instructs us to put the needs of the poor and

vulnerable first. The United States’ Bishops put it well: “The needs of the poor take priority

over the desires of the rich; the rights of workers over the maximisation of profits; the

preservation of the environment over uncontrolled industrial expansion.”

--hide--

As Pope JPII observed, if the right to life is ignored all other rights have no value.

LOCKED
Nov 20th 2012 new

(Quote) John-221057 said: I wouldn't say they chose socialism. I'd say they chose a society where everyone pays thei...
(Quote) John-221057 said:

I wouldn't say they chose socialism. I'd say they chose a society where everyone pays their fair share for the good of all and rejected trickle-down economics. Neoliberal, trickle-down economics has been proven to be a failure just like totalitarian socialism.

--hide--

In the US the lowest almost 50% in income pay no Federal Income Tax. The top 10% in income pay about 90% of the Federal Income taxes. The remaining 40% pay only 10%.

Who isn't paying their fair share?

Actually trickle down economics does work.

I am glad you are able to read and memorize bumper sticker economic and political truths. It used to be that the Canada system of education turned out fairly well educated people. But I guess it to has fallen prey to the dumbing down process.

LOCKED
Nov 20th 2012 new

(Quote) ED-20630 said: Concerning Father Pavone.... My understanding is that he was not reall...
(Quote) ED-20630 said:

Concerning Father Pavone....


My understanding is that he was not really "put into exile". I believe that I heard on EWTN some months ago that his bishop had some concerns about the finances of the Priests for Life organization. I don't believe that there was any real suspicion of any sort of wrong-doing, but that the bishop just wanted to make sure that organization would not be put at risk in the future because of questions about use of funds. I understand that Priests for Life (as an organization) has really brought in a lot of money (though donations) and spent a lot of money (over the years) and that there might have been some concern from the bishop that all of the funds were being used appropriately. That is my understanding for the reason that they made the change so that Fr. Pavone was no longer the official face of the organization. To this day I have never heard that any sort of wrong-doing was found. My impression is that the bishop thought that Fr. Pavone was almost too visible as the head of Priests for Life.


It would be nice to hear an update about this on EWTN one of these days, as it is sort of a mystery.


Ed


--hide--



I follow Father on fb along with many friends. He counseled all of us not to make an outcry. This is a very humble man and if he was too visible it was in getting truth out about abortion. He would have funerals for aborted babies...can't have that, right?! Not very politically correct. He was put out in the desert and cut off in pretty desolate circumstances and not allowed to see even his family...this from other priest friends. He told us to let the Vatican take care of it and pray. He is being allowed to work again. Thank God for all the wonderful people at Priests for Life that kept everything going. As I said Satan at work.

LOCKED
Nov 20th 2012 new

(Quote) Joe-787295 said: John - you are in principle correct. The mistake you make is that we should let the fe...
(Quote) Joe-787295 said:


John - you are in principle correct. The mistake you make is that we should let the federal government do it. Those of us that are against the federal government handling this does not make us anti-poor. It makes us anti-government. The federal government is large, inefficient, corrupt and immoral.

If they were not raping us for 50% of our incomes, it would be a lot easier to contribute to the causes of "our choice"

I am also against the Dept. of Education, that doesn't mean I don't think we should educate our children.

--hide--



Joe, all human beings, individuals and institutions, have a moral responsibility towards the poor. This includes the government. Just because the government isn't doing its job doesn't take away from the fact that it has a moral responsibility. If billionaires paid what they owed in taxes then the middle class wouldn't have to bare so much of the burden and would have more money to contribute to charities of their choice.

The problem I don't think is big government so much as crooked government. The bigger problem is how money is being spent. Look at this past election. $6 billion was spent in total. This amount of money could have gone a long way if invested in charity, health care for people without insurance, research and development, or education.


Obviously not everyone is being raped for %50 of their income if this much is available to spend on elections.

LOCKED
Nov 20th 2012 new

(Quote) Paul-866591 said: The situation is as you report, ED. One thing, however, apprently Fr. Pavone is still the...
(Quote) Paul-866591 said:

The situation is as you report, ED. One thing, however, apprently Fr. Pavone is still the head of th Priests for Life, but his Bishop has not released him back to that work. At least that is the last I heard.

--hide--



He is working:) He was a source of much spiritual comfort during the campaign and will continue to be during this adminstration.

networkedblogs.com

LOCKED
Nov 20th 2012 new

(Quote) Paul-866591 said: In the US the lowest almost 50% in income pay no Federal Income Tax. The top 10% in incom...
(Quote) Paul-866591 said:

In the US the lowest almost 50% in income pay no Federal Income Tax. The top 10% in income pay about 90% of the Federal Income taxes. The remaining 40% pay only 10%.

Who isn't paying their fair share?

Actually trickle down economics does work.

I am glad you are able to read and memorize bumper sticker economic and political truths. It used to be that the Canada system of education turned out fairly well educated people. But I guess it to has fallen prey to the dumbing down process.

--hide--



When you argue, it's much more convincing when you cite real facts instead of resorting to insults and give numbers probably presented by Fox News. smile

LOCKED
Nov 20th 2012 new

(Quote) Paul-866591 said: As Pope JPII observed, if the right to life is ignored all other rights have no value.
(Quote) Paul-866591 said:

As Pope JPII observed, if the right to life is ignored all other rights have no value.

--hide--



Not everyone who voted for Obama did so because of his stance on abortion. Romney is pro-abortion too.

www.youtube.com

LOCKED
Nov 20th 2012 new

(Quote) Florian-626971 said: (Quote) Mary-814080 said: I will respectfully disagree with you and ...
(Quote) Florian-626971 said:

Quote:
Mary-814080 said:


I will respectfully disagree with you and Cheryl, are either one of you in the healthcare business? I am not. Do you have parents who are on Medicare with a supplement? I do and I will tell you that it is a good program.


I have one question for you and Cheryl, if you become eligible for Social Security in your lifetime will you accept it? I answered it earlier and said yes because I have paid into social security for over 30 years.


Hi, Mary. You may disagree with me anytime. I am not in the health care business and have no expertise on this issue. I assume, though, that you read my argument; and the argument doesn't depend on whether one has had good experiences dealing with Medicare. I will take your word for it that it's a good program in that sense. But there's still something wrong with the Medicare program because it's going bankrupt. I suggested that this is a consequence of government getting involved in the health care industry in the first place.

Of course, we should all accept Social Security if we've paid into it. Then again, we also would accept an item that was returned to us after being stolen from us. But we wouldn't say that a thief's program of stealing from people is a "good program." So I don't accept the implication I think you're making, namely, by accepting Social Security one accepts that it's a good program.

--hide--

Hi Florian et alia,

You sure do have a problem with stealing, don't you? You live in Minnesota, right? Beautiful country, Minnesota.

James

LOCKED
Nov 21st 2012 new

(Quote) Florian-626971 said: (Quote) James-17080 said: Yes, personal health care is a public good. Ar...
(Quote) Florian-626971 said:

Quote:
James-17080 said:

Yes, personal health care is a public good. Are you really suggesting to me that if people can't afford personal health care, they should be left to die? Yes, people take care of their own needs in a lot of areas. I'm not suggesting that those who can fend for themselves should be taken care of by the government. But there are a lot of people who can't, and this is why we have Social Security and Medicare (which you consider "socialism"). Let me ask you this: Do you consider socialism with respect to Medicare and Social Security bad things?

Congrats on getting your Ph.D from a public university. You know, a university which the state pays for most of your education. It looks to me that you're all in favor of some forms of socialism, and not in favor of socialism which doesn't affect you. Now, admittedly, maybe that's not true. But based on my interactions with you, that's what it looks like.

James ☺


No. Personal health care is a personal good, not a public good. That is clear.

Of course, I am not suggesting that those without health insurance ought to be left to die. What sort of people would allow that to happen? If there are people do consciously let that happen, then I admit that they should be held responsible somehow. But that doesn't mean that the government is responsible if its constitution does not charge it with that responsibility.

In your vision for gov't health care, the government does not take care of those who can fend for themselves. Thus, your gov't health care does not serve the public, only certain members of public. Why does this not prove that personal health care is not a public good? Actually, what you are identifying as a public good is not really health care but welfare, or broadly speaking, poverty insurance, which covers not just poverty but all low income people for whom health insurance is cost-prohibitive.

So, are Social Security and Medicare, and for that matter, welfare all bad things? It is difficult to argue that these are public goods. One could argue that they are by saying they're insurance which covers everybody and therefore serves the whole public. This is how Social Security was originally conceived. In the event you lived to be too old, SSI had you covered (age 65 was the life expectancy when SSI was first enacted). I don't know, maybe its not such a bad idea to have saftey net like Social Security as a last resort for people. But it was probably bad that we've expanded the Social Security program so much since the 1930's. If welfare is absolutely necessary to deal with poverty, then I am in favor of that too. However, Medicare, I would say, has been a bad thing overall. The USA survived for 190 years without the Medicare program. Medicare was a big step in the march of government towards greater and greater involvement in the health care industry. That involvement has led to health care costs rising out of control, though better medical technology also must have contributed to that as well.

--hide--

First paragraph: False. Health care is a public good, and if you think this is in any way untrue, just wait until the next epidemic breaks out. More and more diseases, from gonorrhea to tuberculosis, are becoming harder and harder to treat because of misuse or overuse of antibiotics. And if there is a filovirus breakout, what do you want it to be, every man for himself (herself) because that's the way we handled medicine in the 18th Century?

Second paragraph. Oh, that's nice to know that those without health insurance should be left to die. But then they go to the ER, where the government picks up the tab anyway. Who do you think pays for their treatment, a secret Santa?

Third paragraph: I have a vision for government health care? Oh well, let's move on. Your argument here is interesting (if fallacious). The fact is that we will all need health care at some point of our lives, from birth to death. You seem to think that persons who pay into a system are shafted if they never receive services from that system. But that is what insurance is, is it not?

Fourth paragraph. Before I answer this, let me ask you something: Have you ever received Social Security or Medicare?

James


LOCKED
Posts 181 - 190 of 200