Second Republican Debate

[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.

[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]