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

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

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 27th 2012 new

(Quote) Cheryl-409772 said: (Quote) James-17080 said: (Quote) Cheryl-409772 said:...
(Quote) Cheryl-409772 said:

Quote:
James-17080 said:

Quote:
Cheryl-409772 said:

Quote:
James-17080 said:



Looks like you never listened to President Eisenhower's speech, warning us of the military-industrial complex. Here, I'll post it, just for you, because I like you

www.youtube.com

The relevant points of Eisenhower's speech in relation to this thread start at about 7:00, but the whole thing is worth watching. Lest anyone discount what Eisenhower is saying, we have here a man who served at the very top of his profession, a General of the Army, equivalent to a Field Marshal in the British, Russian, or German armies. Eisenhower served 8 relatively untarnished years as President, a record that has not been repeated since the end of his tenure of office.

Cheryl, I am not suggesting that you just "give up". I would never suggest that to you or anybody else. But sometimes, we have to deal with circumstances beyond our control. That's part of life. It's also possible that without that safety net, you can get yourself in real trouble. I'm obviously not familiar with your circumstances, but according to your profile, you have children at home part time. This is part of the public record. I'm sure you thought about this, but what if they become ill, and you aren't working?

I want to be very clear on what I'm saying here. I am not throwing this in your face for giggles (there is so much other stuff I can laugh at). What I am trying to say is that sometimes, some of us need help because we become involved in desperate situations through no fault of our own. And nobody should be ashamed to ask for that help.

James ☺


Again, I've never said a true safety net shouldn't be there...for the disabled for instance. I just don't think that is what we have these days and I definitely think the republicans are the better group to make sure that it is a true safety net and not funding for abortions and birth control, etc... I'll have to look at Eisenhower's speech in a bit as it is too late, but that won't negate from the fact that the federal govt. was established primarily for defense and that is all the federal govt. should be taxing for. Well, perhaps for interstate roads too perhaps...but an argument could be made for that being part of defense too.




If you say that you think a safety net should be there, then there is little for us to bicker about. Do I think the Republicans would do a better job at constructing one? Not a chance. Everything the Republicans have said suggest that the want to take that safety net down and turn it over to the private sector. A case in point would be Bush's privatization plan for Social Security.

James ☺


There is nothing to debate about...EVERYTHING that CAN possbily be in the hands of the private sector should be...however, S.S. is safe with either party as are the rest of the social programs. However, only one party will do its best to cut waste and programs that should not be covered by tax payers like abortion and that is the republican party which is really the democrat party now. Really, they haven't done enough either because they have moved too far left....have also let it go from a safety net to cover people who don't really need it and shouldn't have it. Recently saw a show on North Korea....people there are starving and resorting to eating tree bark and even eating each other....that is a total communist country with benevolent govt. controlling everything (oh and thanks to Obuma's watch, they are now up to six nukes, I believe...scary considering how crazy these rulers are)....we don't want that here. God is outlawed there too...what party is trying to take him away here...yes the previous democrat party now the liberal socialist party. The only reason someone could not see how different these two parties are now from what they used to be is due to blind allegiance to a party...that is sad.

--hide--


What items do you suggest should be in the private sector that are now in the public sector? I have no reason to believe that Social Security would be safe with the Republicans. Don't you remember that Bush tried to privatize Social Security in his second term? The "republican party which is really the democrat party now". You'll have to explain what this means, as I have no idea what you are trying to say. Then you make the quantum leap from Social Security to... North Korea! What?! I am not familiar with any party that is trying to outlaw God. Then you go on to the "the previous democrat party now the liberal socialist party". I have no idea what this means either.

Oddly enough, your last sentence makes sense. Yes, the two parties are different, and this has been noted. Both parties have moved to the right. As Bill Maher pungently puts it, the Democrats have moved into becoming a center-right party, and the Republicans have moved into an insane asylum. Maher's opinions are his own, and do not reflect mine. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that both parties have moved to the right.

James ☺

Nov 27th 2012 new

(Quote) Cheryl-409772 said: (Quote) Cheryl-409772 said: Bernie from the raise the Taxes thread (God f...
(Quote) Cheryl-409772 said:

Quote:
Cheryl-409772 said:

Bernie from the raise the Taxes thread (God forbid, but they will do it yet again, the "republicans" are already giving in because of the bad rap the "dems' have given them about loving the rich so if they dont they won' t get reelected)

Anyway, Bernie correectly said, " Let's look at history again. Bush inauguration had a deep recession and collapse of the dot com market, which occurred under Clinton, but Bush didn't blame him, he just took on the challenge.

911 occurs and 3,000 people die. 3,000 jobs disappear immediately. Along with those jobs 15,000 ancillary jobs disappear. These are jobs that depended on those earners for their jobs. In addition, we had to shut down commercial and general aviation. This alone caused 100,000 direct job losses and 1,000,000 ancillary job losses.

If allowed to fester or trying to spend our way out of it like Obama would have caused a mess like we have now. Instead Bush pushed through tax cuts and within one year the economy was higher than it was when he was sworn in. The tax cuts increased revenues by 16% for the first 6 years of his administration. Then Democrats got control of Congress in 2006 and screwed things up. Two years time and the increased the deficit, ruined the economy and managed to blame Bush for their mess.

I refer you to previous post concerning how Republicans balance the budget under Clinton, but got no credit. From '94 to '96 Republicans forced Clinton to balance the budget. In two years time they turned around the economy and had it roaring. Two years after taking control of Congress in '06. Democrats have ruined our economy and may have ruined what America stood for and was based on."


...and Bernie goes on to say this:

You can't fix a problem unless you recognize that is exists and who caused it. If government caused the problem, then more government won't fix it. However, the resolution is in your retort and you don't even know it. We are actually spending $18 Billion an hour (going to have to check numbers, could be $118 Billion).

Obama's tax increase would take 525 years just to cover his deficit spending for 2011. The problem isn't the taxes, it is spending, and you outlined how much more we are spending compared to decades past. Obama though has come all in and increased spending on the nonsense that it will stimulate the economy. It didn't work during the depression, and in retrospect, only made it worse.

The higher tax rates in the past didn't affect people as that marginal tax rate would only apply to those earning the equivalent of $1 Billion a year now. The average person and millionaire actually paid less in taxes then than now. It is because of inflation which caused tax creep. Now Reagan got some indexing, but not enough and I think some of that was repealed during Clinton's first two years when Democrats controlled Congress.

Now, don't get me wrong, There are several things I didn't like about Bush, prescription coverage being one. The choice though was between him or some Democratic idiot. We have to chose the better candidate, not the best, as the best person may not be running. Obama is a disaster and by 2016 we are going to be facing collapse of the Dollar and our country.

We have to get past the idea that government is supposed to fulfill our desires as the instills greed in people, thinking they are entitled to other people's earnings.

"A lie will go around the world twice, before the truth gets out of bed."
Abraham Lincoln

--hide--


I could go through here and try to make a counterpoint to every one of your points, but, as a mathematician, your numbers caught my eye, and so that is what I will focus on. Let us assume that your $18,000,000,000 figure is correct. If that is true, then we are spending
$18,000,000,000 / hour ∙ 24 hours ∙ 365 days / year = $157,680,000,000,000. One hundred fifty seven trillion dollars a year? I don't think so.

The calculation for your figure of " $118 Billion (/ hour (?)) is left as an exercise for the reader.

James ☺

Nov 27th 2012 new

(Quote) Cheryl-409772 said: No James I am lying juts for kicks. I never even worked in South Texas and nev...
(Quote) Cheryl-409772 said:

No James I am lying juts for kicks. I never even worked in South Texas and never heard of anyone who cheated the system. Wait, I did! I can tell you that two of the people I know who use SS checks for stuff they shouldn't have I knew personally....so yea, don't appreciate your calling me a liar...the student situation, I knew personally...the others I was told. What do you call it when the govt. takes money from someone to give to some else besides socialism? This is especially WRONG when the stuff they use it on is just waste or outright evil like abortion and birth control. I can also tell you that we all need a helping hand and I don't think anything is wrong with that....what I'm not sure of is the "how".

--hide--


First, perhaps you should research the Catholic doctrine on subsidiarity. I think it answers your questions sufficiently.

Secondly, if there is no way to PROVE what you've been offering as objective examples, how do YOU even know they're true examples? It's not calling someone a liar to say "I don't know how true your story is...". It's a statement based upon what you have already admitted: Your examples cannot be verified. You know, there is a name for defaming people in public; it's a sin against the fifth commandment called detraction...so, do be careful with what you say. Everyone has a right to his good name, and a person commits a murder of sorts to take it from him unjustly. I'm not saying you've committed the sin, since I can't identify the people you're talking about...I'm merely admonishing you to take care with your words for fear of sinning.

Nov 27th 2012 new

(Quote) John-221057 said: See, that's just one of those lies from the fringes of the right wing that j...
(Quote) John-221057 said:

See, that's just one of those lies from the fringes of the right wing that just won't go away. The problem with a lot of the people who call themselves "pro life" is that once you're outside the womb, you're on your own. No help, just survival of the fittest. That's why I don't believe a lot of conservatives who say they're pro life. Conservative politicians run their mouth about life beginning at conception (Which I believe too, and I identify myself as liberal) except that they also favour programs that create a Darwinist society, with no help for vulnerable people. And the people who vote for conservatives talk like that too.

It doesn't make sense to me saying life begins at conception, yet once outside the womb it's okay for people to just fall into poverty with no help to get back on their feet. That's social darwinism and that's contrarty to the dignity and worth that's owed to the human person.

--hide--


When I was a kid, my family couldn't afford groceries at times. I'm not going to go into it, but our neighbors always knew when that was. Long story short, when we would get back from Mass or school or some other outting, there would always be a week's worth of groceries sitting inside the door of our house. No one said anything...and we never were certain who exactly did it.

No one complained and no one talked about it. It just happened.

Why does the government have to be involved in matters of a neighbourhood again?

Nov 27th 2012 new

(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said: When I was a kid, my family couldn't afford groceries at times. I'm not going t...
(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said:



When I was a kid, my family couldn't afford groceries at times. I'm not going to go into it, but our neighbors always knew when that was. Long story short, when we would get back from Mass or school or some other outting, there would always be a week's worth of groceries sitting inside the door of our house. No one said anything...and we never were certain who exactly did it.

No one complained and no one talked about it. It just happened.

Why does the government have to be involved in matters of a neighbourhood again?

--hide--


Thanks for sharing your story Chelsea.

In the town where I grew up, I could see how that type of grocery bag by the door thing could happen. The town was smaller, people knew each others families, or if you didn't know a family, you knew someone who was related to them. People stayed in the same neighbourhoods for more than one generation in some cases. It was the kind of place where people knew each other's business, (which could be good or bad, I guess). Helping out a neighbour was possible. Sometimes people left their leftover garden harvest on your doorstep (a grocery bag with fresh tomatoes and couple of cucumbers, or something similar).

Where I live now is a different story. It is a very big city. You can't possibly know all of your neighbours. Part of the neighbourhood is kind of transient, so where landlords rent lodgings, there are new tenants coming in all the time. One apartment building complex can have about 100 units or more. There is a lot of diversity and you don't know everyone's food preferences or faith practices. Leaving a grocery bag that included pork sausages would be a religious insult to some people, or including peanut butter could be a mistake due to nut allergies. Moreover, I would have no idea if someone was in need of food or not. If you don't know someone personally, you cannot provide that kind of personal direct assistance to them. A donation to a charity or tax dollars funding a government program are the only way I can help those around me in need right now.



Nov 28th 2012 new

(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said: First, perhaps you should research the Catholic doctrine on subsidiarity. I think it an...
(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said:



First, perhaps you should research the Catholic doctrine on subsidiarity. I think it answers your questions sufficiently.

Secondly, if there is no way to PROVE what you've been offering as objective examples, how do YOU even know they're true examples? It's not calling someone a liar to say "I don't know how true your story is...". It's a statement based upon what you have already admitted: Your examples cannot be verified. You know, there is a name for defaming people in public; it's a sin against the fifth commandment called detraction...so, do be careful with what you say. Everyone has a right to his good name, and a person commits a murder of sorts to take it from him unjustly. I'm not saying you've committed the sin, since I can't identify the people you're talking about...I'm merely admonishing you to take care with your words for fear of sinning.

--hide--
What are you talking about? YOu have no idea what you are talking about...I know these people personally. Indeed, my mother just bought coats for the children of one of them who is speniding hte deceased parent's SS check on cigs and alcoho. I think you need to read what subsidiarity means.....because it explains that charity needs to begin at the smallest units...not the largest...in other words with local chairities and govt...not federal. I guess you are guilty of committing a sin then because it sounds like you are attacking my good name.

Nov 28th 2012 new

(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said: When I was a kid, my family couldn't afford groceries at times. I'm not going t...
(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said:



When I was a kid, my family couldn't afford groceries at times. I'm not going to go into it, but our neighbors always knew when that was. Long story short, when we would get back from Mass or school or some other outting, there would always be a week's worth of groceries sitting inside the door of our house. No one said anything...and we never were certain who exactly did it.

No one complained and no one talked about it. It just happened.

Why does the government have to be involved in matters of a neighbourhood again?

--hide--
Then why are you attacking me...that is what subsidiarity is!

Nov 28th 2012 new

(Quote) James-17080 said: What items do you suggest should be in the private sector that are now in the public secto...
(Quote) James-17080 said:



What items do you suggest should be in the private sector that are now in the public sector? I have no reason to believe that Social Security would be safe with the Republicans. Don't you remember that Bush tried to privatize Social Security in his second term? The "republican party which is really the democrat party now". You'll have to explain what this means, as I have no idea what you are trying to say. Then you make the quantum leap from Social Security to... North Korea! What?! I am not familiar with any party that is trying to outlaw God. Then you go on to the "the previous democrat party now the liberal socialist party". I have no idea what this means either.

Oddly enough, your last sentence makes sense. Yes, the two parties are different, and this has been noted. Both parties have moved to the right. As Bill Maher pungently puts it, the Democrats have moved into becoming a center-right party, and the Republicans have moved into an insane asylum. Maher's opinions are his own, and do not reflect mine. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that both parties have moved to the right.

James ☺

--hide--
The democrat party denied God three times at his convention.....they wanted to take Him out of their platform...their constituencies were ignored though by the heads who thought better of it and they put Him back in....research it....gosh it was all over the news. No, it isn't outlawing Him yet....but it is a step in that direction. Obama is taking Him out of everything that he can...didn't mention Him in the Thanksgiving address AGAIN...huh...who is he thanking? He has done so many things...it is the party of prodeath...killing babies, physician assisted suicide, etc....it is well on the way. Nothing Bill Maher says is sane...and is just a lie....the fact that you listen to him much less quote him is disgusting....the liberal party (dems) are far, far left now....they are supported by the communist party so enough said. The republicans are the new democrats. The tea party is the new republicans. There is nothing that you have said that show that the republicans want to take away the elderly's SS checks though it sounds like certain people worry only about themselves and that check when they vote. Offering to privatize it as an OPTION...well, there is nothing wrong with that as long as the other safety net is there if preferred. For instance, if I didn't want the govt. to take out of my check for SS but wanted to invest it myself...I should have that right. The govt. should not be taxing for anything except defense....period.

Nov 28th 2012 new

(Quote) John-221057 said: (Quote) Cheryl-409772 said: Also, how in the world can liberals say they be...
(Quote) John-221057 said:

Quote:
Cheryl-409772 said:

Also, how in the world can liberals say they believe in helping the less fortunate when they believe in killing babies...the MOST less fortunate...it just doesn't make any sense to me!


See, that's just one of those lies from the fringes of the right wing that just won't go away. The problem with a lot of the people who call themselves "pro life" is that once you're outside the womb, you're on your own. No help, just survival of the fittest. That's why I don't believe a lot of conservatives who say they're pro life. Conservative politicians run their mouth about life beginning at conception (Which I believe too, and I identify myself as liberal) except that they also favour programs that create a Darwinist society, with no help for vulnerable people. And the people who vote for conservatives talk like that too.

It doesn't make sense to me saying life begins at conception, yet once outside the womb it's okay for people to just fall into poverty with no help to get back on their feet. That's social darwinism and that's contrarty to the dignity and worth that's owed to the human person.

--hide--
You make no sense....what lie....that killing babies is not helping them? That they are the Most less fortunate? Who are you to say that republicans don't want to help people who need help after they are born. Put it this way...if I needed help, I would put my "money" into trusting a republican...especially a Christian one...any day before a liberal. I can guarantee you a liberal democrat does not really want to help anyone. They have an agenda to promote the prodeath culture and take God out of everything and they are doing a darn good job of it...they do it under the pretenses of being the party who helps more people...but this just isn't true. Both parties provide a safety net, but only the liberals want to make everyone except govt. poor and reliant.

Nov 28th 2012 new

(Quote) Cheryl-409772 said: (Quote) James-17080 said: What items do you suggest should be in ...
(Quote) Cheryl-409772 said:

Quote:
James-17080 said:



What items do you suggest should be in the private sector that are now in the public sector? I have no reason to believe that Social Security would be safe with the Republicans. Don't you remember that Bush tried to privatize Social Security in his second term? The "republican party which is really the democrat party now". You'll have to explain what this means, as I have no idea what you are trying to say. Then you make the quantum leap from Social Security to... North Korea! What?! I am not familiar with any party that is trying to outlaw God. Then you go on to the "the previous democrat party now the liberal socialist party". I have no idea what this means either.

Oddly enough, your last sentence makes sense. Yes, the two parties are different, and this has been noted. Both parties have moved to the right. As Bill Maher pungently puts it, the Democrats have moved into becoming a center-right party, and the Republicans have moved into an insane asylum. Maher's opinions are his own, and do not reflect mine. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that both parties have moved to the right.

James ☺


The democrat party denied God three times at his convention.....they wanted to take Him out of their platform...their constituencies were ignored though by the heads who thought better of it and they put Him back in....research it....gosh it was all over the news. No, it isn't outlawing Him yet....but it is a step in that direction. Obama is taking Him out of everything that he can...didn't mention Him in the Thanksgiving address AGAIN...huh...who is he thanking? He has done so many things...it is the party of prodeath...killing babies, physician assisted suicide, etc....it is well on the way. Nothing Bill Maher says is sane...and is just a lie....the fact that you listen to him much less quote him is disgusting....the liberal party (dems) are far, far left now....they are supported by the communist party so enough said. The republicans are the new democrats. The tea party is the new republicans. There is nothing that you have said that show that the republicans want to take away the elderly's SS checks though it sounds like certain people worry only about themselves and that check when they vote. Offering to privatize it as an OPTION...well, there is nothing wrong with that as long as the other safety net is there if preferred. For instance, if I didn't want the govt. to take out of my check for SS but wanted to invest it myself...I should have that right. The govt. should not be taxing for anything except defense....period.

--hide--


Hi Cheryl et alia,

Here are some suggestions for writing. Avoid run-on sentences. Please use capitalization. If you want to make accusations like "...the liberal party (dems) are far, far left now....they are supported by the communist party so enough said.", then be prepared to back up your statements with proof.

Use whitespace to make what you write more readable.

As for your comment that "The govt. should not be taxing for anything except defense....period.", do you think that we should sell the Louisiana Purchace back to France, since that had nothing to do with defense, and the money had to come from somewhere?

James ☺

Posts 81 - 90 of 146