Second Republican Debate

[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

[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].