2008 Voting Questionnaire

[mommas_boy]

First, at Socrates, thank you for such a charitable post.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1470326' date='Feb 27 2008, 09:29 PM']Ever-increasing government spending does not equal social justice.[/quote]

I realize that's precisely what I said, but I do agree with you that government spending does not precisely equal social justice. I do however believe that PROPER government spending will further social justice.

Case in point is the astronomical spending of the Iraq war, compared to the spending on education. Indeed, the hot-button issue of No Child Left Behind is largely due to the drastic level of underfunding that the law has received, leading to underperforming schools.

To add insult to injury, underperforming schools must submit a list of their students so that the students may be contacted by military recruiters, according to the provisions of the same law. Whether the intended consequence or not, it seems that underfunding NCLB leads to farming infantry men and women from the same schools that are most at risk.

I am student teaching this semester at a public school on the South Side of Chicago. The school has a Marine JROTC program there, brought in to increase discipline, promote excellence, etc. I talked with one of my students today who was dressed in his "Class B" JROTC uniform. I asked him if he was planning on joining the military. He said "most certainly". I asked him why. He said that "he didn't know", but that "fighting was all that he was ever good at" and that "he liked it", and so he wanted to become a marine. He is just a child, not much older than 16, if that.

What frustrates me is that I have students who come to school for no other reason than because it is a safe place to be. Yet, they are being trained [b]in school[/b] how to fight, as though they didn't live with it outside of school already.

With a total US public school enrollment of only 77 million students, I relish to think of what kind of discipline and excellence programs one could instate to replace youth militarization programs like ROTC, just with the $100 billion USD that we spend each year on the war.

Forgive my controversy; it certainly wasn't my goal to cause argument, and this is mostly anecdotal and emotional and therefore not worthy of argumentation. That said, I felt like the story needed to be heard; it had an effect on me today.

[quote](And even Pope John Paul II has condemned the socialistic "welfare state.")[/quote]

Pope John Paul II also condemned (not sure if that is the right word) strict capitalism, stating that it lost the value of the person within society just as extreme socialism and communism did.

My point is not that we should be socialists, only that capitalist economics is not 100% right for Catholics based upon Catholic Social Teaching. Neither side is a perfect fit. Both sides approach the world with a very narrow world view, whereas we as Catholics possess a "Universal" world view, for this is the meaning of the word "catholic". This lack of a perfect fit for Catholics is where I get off on saying that "If you are Catholic and not utterly frustrated with politics, you aren't doing it right". We must be "in the world, but not of the world", and therefore [b]never comfortable[/b] with the status quo, until that status quo more closely resembles the Kingdom of God. Thus, our frustration with the world points us toward our ultimate goal of Heaven, as St. Augustine said, "Lord, my heart is restless until it rests in You".

[quote]While I strongly disagree with Momma's_Boy on his big-government ideals, I commend him for putting the sanctity of human life first.[/quote]

Thank you, and blessings.

[Socrates]

[quote name='mommas_boy' post='1470832' date='Feb 28 2008, 07:16 PM']First, at Socrates, thank you for such a charitable post.
I realize that's precisely what I said, but I do agree with you that government spending does not precisely equal social justice. I do however believe that PROPER government spending will further social justice.

Case in point is the astronomical spending of the Iraq war, compared to the spending on education. Indeed, the hot-button issue of No Child Left Behind is largely due to the drastic level of underfunding that the law has received, leading to underperforming schools.

To add insult to injury, underperforming schools must submit a list of their students so that the students may be contacted by military recruiters, according to the provisions of the same law. Whether the intended consequence or not, it seems that underfunding NCLB leads to farming infantry men and women from the same schools that are most at risk.

I am student teaching this semester at a public school on the South Side of Chicago. The school has a Marine JROTC program there, brought in to increase discipline, promote excellence, etc. I talked with one of my students today who was dressed in his "Class B" JROTC uniform. I asked him if he was planning on joining the military. He said "most certainly". I asked him why. He said that "he didn't know", but that "fighting was all that he was ever good at" and that "he liked it", and so he wanted to become a marine. He is just a child, not much older than 16, if that.

What frustrates me is that I have students who come to school for no other reason than because it is a safe place to be. Yet, they are being trained [b]in school[/b] how to fight, as though they didn't live with it outside of school already.

With a total US public school enrollment of only 77 million students, I relish to think of what kind of discipline and excellence programs one could instate to replace youth militarization programs like ROTC, just with the $100 billion USD that we spend each year on the war.

Forgive my controversy; it certainly wasn't my goal to cause argument, and this is mostly anecdotal and emotional and therefore not worthy of argumentation. That said, I felt like the story needed to be heard; it had an effect on me today.
Pope John Paul II also condemned (not sure if that is the right word) strict capitalism, stating that it lost the value of the person within society just as extreme socialism and communism did.

My point is not that we should be socialists, only that capitalist economics is not 100% right for Catholics based upon Catholic Social Teaching. Neither side is a perfect fit. Both sides approach the world with a very narrow world view, whereas we as Catholics possess a "Universal" world view, for this is the meaning of the word "catholic". This lack of a perfect fit for Catholics is where I get off on saying that "If you are Catholic and not utterly frustrated with politics, you aren't doing it right". We must be "in the world, but not of the world", and therefore [b]never comfortable[/b] with the status quo, until that status quo more closely resembles the Kingdom of God. Thus, our frustration with the world points us toward our ultimate goal of Heaven, as St. Augustine said, "Lord, my heart is restless until it rests in You".
Thank you, and blessings.[/quote]
I'm afraid I must still respectfully disagree.

Yes, war is expensive. Is what is to be gained in Iraq worth the costs? I have my doubts, and do not wish a never-ending war, but that's another debate. I'm personally more for a "speak softly and carry a big stick stick" military policy, as opposed to constant expansionism.

However, if you are against massive government spending on war, it does not conversely follow that a massive amount of tax money should be spent on "education" or other domestic programs.
In fact, the truth is that domestic spending including on education increased more under Bush than under Clinton.
And this includes Bush's "No Child Left Behind" boondoggle. A couple years back I was dating a public school teacher, and one of her complaints was that in her school all the classroom time had to be spent preparing for and taking government-mandated tests, while the children's basic educational needs were being neglected, and many were indeed "falling behind."
Whatever Bush's flaws, I wouldn't list not spending enough on education other programs one of them!

Your argument based on the common but flawed liberal premise that our educational problems will be fixed by throwing more money at them. How exactly is giving more money to the public schools going to make our kids better educated? Where is the money going to? Do we need higher-paid teachers? While the NEA (being a labor union) will always argue that teachers are under-paid, public school teachers in fact have fairly comfortable salaries, in many cases earning over $50,000 a year, with 3-month vacations and other benefits. Nobody's going to get rich being a teacher, and, yeah, one could always argue that teachers deserve more; however I don't know any public school teachers who are starving, and I'd suggest if one's primary goal in his profession is to make big money, then maybe being a teacher isn't his true calling.
Simply having high-paid teachers isn't going to fix our educational problems.
Is the money to go into NCLB and other bureaucratic government programs? Again, as I've mentioned, these have their problems, and simply more funding isn't going to fix many of the basic problems in our educational system (including stifling bureaucracy, hostile and uncooperative parents, politically-correct regulations, lack of basic discpline, etc.). I've known a number of public school teachers, so I've heard plenty of stories.
The truth is that over the decades, we've been spending more and more on education, and are kids are often learning less and less, in many cases graduating from highschool barely literate, having minimal reading and math skills. Many of our grandparents ended grade school with better basic literacy skills than today's high-school graduates. The problem's not lack of money.
And many private schools that have less money and much lower-paid teachers, provide better education than most public schools.

As for ROTC programs and the military, I'm sorry, but your complaints sound like typical hippy silliness. No one's forced into ROTC or the military; it sounds like your JROTC boy willingly chose what he's doing, and enjoys it. No doubt he's better off than he likely would've been otherwise. Better that he be learning some valuable disciplines, self-respect, and be serving his country, than that he be gang-banging or drug-dealing in the South Side. The military has helped give some direction and opportunity to a lot of kids who might otherwise have lived dead-end lives.

And whatever you may think about the current war, it's important that our country have a strong military, both in war and peace time. If we were attacked by a powerful agressor, or drawn into a serious world-war-type situation, you'd be glad to have young men fighting for your freedom in the Marines, rather than decry "youth militarization programs." Freedom isn't free, and you might show some more respect for those who sacrifice for your freedom.

While saying "money should be spent on education, not war" may make pretty rhetoric, it doesn't really stand up to the facts.

Laissez-faire capitalism as condemned by the popes (an ideology opposing any limits on businesses whatever) hasn't been practiced in this country in a hundred years, and we are swinging more and more in the direction of socialism.
I don't have time to go into all the issues but for a good read on the topic I'd strongly recommend [url="http://www.amazon.com/Church-Market-Catholic-Defense-Economics/dp/0739110365/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1204253275&sr=8-1"][i]The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy[/i], by Thomas E. Woods Jr[/url].

Edited February 29, 2008 by Socrates

[Jaime]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1470326' date='Feb 27 2008, 09:29 PM']I'd definitely say McCain would be a better president than either Hillary or Obama, but that's really not saying much. The problem is how much better would he be, and would the potential long-term damage to the conservative foundations of the Republican Party be worth it?
McCain's talking the talk now, but can he be trusted? That's the big question.[/quote]

See this is the stuff that bugs me.

If your faith is your first priority, then "potential long term damage..." is completely irrelevant. This falls into the "well there are other considerations besides abortion" argument. And its the same argument used by Catholics who vote democratic.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1471877' date='Mar 1 2008, 01:25 PM']See this is the stuff that bugs me.

If your faith is your first priority, then "potential long term damage..." is completely irrelevant. This falls into the "well there are other considerations besides abortion" argument. And its the same argument used by Catholics who vote democratic.[/quote]
I still don't see how being a single issue voter is being responsible, to your country or your faith. The Church is not founded on single handedly ending abortion.

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1472535' date='Mar 2 2008, 08:41 PM']I still don't see how being a single issue voter is being responsible, to your country or your faith. The Church is not founded on single handedly ending abortion.[/quote]

It is true that there are other very important issues to keep in mind. I'm against the war, for example, and I think it's a fairly important issue. All the same, I believe the abortion issue is far more pressing. Millions of unborn children have been killed due to abortion. Too many people have died as a result of the war, but more have died as a result of abortion. I know it's really cliche to bring Hitler into abortion discussions, but I think it should be noted that Hitler wanted to improve the lives of many Germans. The problem was that he advocated killing others. Would you have voted for Hitler if he promised to improve your quality of life? I doubt you would've. Why? Because he blatantly advocated killing other people. Anyhow, improving the quality of life for many citizens, ending the war, and getting rid of the death penalty are all good things IMO, but I think life itself takes precedence over quality of life. If you added the combined casualties from the war and the death penalty, that number wouldn't even come close to the number of kids who've been killed due to abortion.

Edited March 3, 2008 by BeenaBobba

[XIX]

I'm not really a single issue guy, I just vote like one.

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='XIX' post='1472588' date='Mar 2 2008, 08:21 PM']I'm not really a single issue guy, I just vote like one.[/quote]

Ooh. Thank you. I like that line, and I think that I'll use it when talking with those who don't understand solidly-Catholic voting strategies.

I also use this one (though it's not as concise), for dealing with those who refuse to see hope in the issue: voting pro-life is as much about not-participating in the status quo as it is about overturning it.

[Ash Wednesday]

I really haven't decided who I am going to vote for -- whether it is McCain or third party. (I'm in a blue state so it's not like it's going to really count).

It would be easier for me to address these questions of whether or not McCain would be better than Clinton or Obama if some of Clinton or Obama's records were compared alongside McCain's.

And Catholics aren't about being "single issue voters" in principle -- there are other issues that aren't negotiable. Candidates that are more liberal about abortion generally tend to be more liberal about the other non-negotiables as well.

Edited March 3, 2008 by Ash Wednesday