www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Poll: Who won the Republican Debate tonight?

Ryan,

I certainly appreciate the opportunity to dialog over differences, so thank you for your response.

Here are a few thoughts in response to yours:


I suppose it depends upon how one defines "the poor" and "poverty". Truth be told, many of the poor in the US would still be regarded as wealthy by comparison with...oh, say Mexico or the Philippines. True, abject poverty does exist in the US, but it is far more rare. I do not think poverty like that is acceptable at all. At the same time, that does not mean it is the federal government's role to handle it. I think we should look to the states, churches, private institutions, etc.



High taxation does not facilitate charitable giving. Lower taxation does. Charity should not be forced upon people nor should it be mandated by the government. I would contend that people give less of their own personal resources when they believe the government will take care of the poor. Where is the virtue in that?

With that said, the federal government would have far less need of our tax dollars if it would simply eliminate pointless, wasteful institutions like the Department of Education (as wasteful a bureacracy as one could imagine) among others.


So...is the Constitution meaningless then because it is old? Or should we reinvent ourselves every so often to suit the moods, tastes, times and "context" of every generation? Despite your protest here, I believe that the founding documents of our nation witness to important, abiding and eternal truths.



Not sure if you have read much of the history of British Imperial rule in the colonies and elsewhere. Of course it was not all bad, but your view seems to fly in the face of...well, American patriotism. So all that Patrick Henry "Give me liberty or give me death" claptrap was really about making a profit? Those evil so-called patriots...nevermind the fact that they payed very deeply (personally, financially and with their lives) for their desire to achieve American independence. It was all about capitalism and the desire to make a buck.

Pleeeaaassseee...!

As far as whether or not the founders are treated as demi-gods, I've personally seen the worship of pagan idols before. It doesn't look anything like how Americans regard George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin or my ancestor, John Adams...even on a good day.


But the Catholic moral tradition is that the ends do not justify the means. Just because we arrive at a favorable (personally or otherwise) result does not somehow bless the means to achieve that end.


Are you asking me do I live the Gospel perfectly in every aspect of my life? No. Do I try? Yes. I do periodically reference the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, as well as Guadium et Spes to ascertain the Church's view on things political. I also have another helpful resource, Catholic Social Thought: The Documentary Heritage and favor much of what I have learned of distributism. If you think my beliefs are not aligned with Catholic teaching, I'd be interested in chapter and verse. After Pope John Paul issued the Gospel of Life, I, with some great difficulty, opened my mind and heart to the fact that my views on the death penalty were not entirely Catholic.

At the same time, I also find confiscatory tax rates which penalize families who cannot take home more of what they earn, as well as bloated government in bed with powerful unions with a vested interest in adding the number of dependents and employees as immoral.


Perhaps...but I would say that it is not the proper place of the federal government to intervene. Such issues are more properly relegated to the states.



And such laws also come at a cost to employers...which could easily result in fewer job opportunties for employees. Not every corporation affected by this is run by some big fat-cat in a suit with a golden parachute. Smaller to mid-sized companies - often women and minority owned - are the backbone of the economy and economic opportunity. FMLA affects them more than you would think.

Here is an article from HR Magazine, a trade magazine in my industry. As you will see, the costs are extremely high for FMLA.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3495/is_6_50/ai_n13826257


These are certainly legitimate points. I am no friend to absolute, unbridled free-market captitalism. Exploitation of workers is immoral and I believe is directly opposed to the principles of life and liberty. I find much of Wall Street excessively immoral and distasteful. I disagree philosophically with the divide that has been created between ownership of a corporation, the means of production and the delivery of services to clients. I personally favor local markets to national ones.

That being said, I never said I did not favor ANY government intervention or regulation of business. The sometimes abused Commerce Clause of the Constitution provides for this, plus regulation can occur at the state level.

Again, I believe in a limited national government. I do not share entirely the same beliefs about state and local governments, especially since I potentially have more of a voice at the local level.

To me, that is one of the defining characteristics of true conservatism. It is also reflects the wisdom of the founders, I believe.

God bless,

Gordo

Almost my exact sentiments Gordo !

Another take on the debates...

http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/blog/g/baede55a-70b3-4980-b998-5e6eaf88b437

[Linked Image]

Gordo:

On this matter, I'll think we'll just have to disagree. Especially in light of your anti-union comment--several members of my family and I either are or have been union members and are grateful for the role unions have played in lifting our family from poverty into the middle class, and by the way, the Church teaches that workers have the right to bargain collectively--I think that you and I come from radically different perspectives on some of these questions. Furthermore, I have reached different historical conclusions then you about our national history and I doubt that either of us will change the opinion of the other I also wish to clarify previous comments about agreeing with you that certain things that the federal government not being examples of "Catholic social teaching in action." You were speaking about the means used by the government. I personally had what I believe to be the philosophical basis in mind. I don't think our welfare state is philosophically based in Catholic social teaching. However, it is my personal belief that the methods are not inconsistent with Catholic social teaching because I believe that our history shows that entrusting these matters of social welfare to state and local governments, or even more preferably to individuals and the Church, has not worked. When those authorities and charitable organizations and individuals that are closer to the public either cannot or refuse to address adequately needs of the social welfare sort, then it is not a violation of the principle of subsidiarity for the national government to take up the role that should otherwise fall to the local governments, individuals, and charitable organizations. Now I realize that you probably disagree with the historical judgment I have just made, but if my judgment is true (which it may not be), then I believe that federal involvement in social welfare matters is not only consistent with, but also demanded by, the principles of Catholic social teaching.

Sincerely,
Ryan

Ryan,

I actually favor the notion of collective bargaining and the intrinsic right of workers to organize and the importance of protecting the rights (true rights) of workers. (Not that it is important, but I used to work in labor relations.) I also believe that management gets the union it earns. If there is a hostile relationship between the two, I believe management should look in the mirror FIRST before waving accusations at anyone else.

That being said, while I do genuinely support unions in principle, that does not mean always in what they practice. One can support the important work of unions without supporting everything the leadership does. Plus, and we both know this is true, unions often (not all and everywhere, of course) abuse their power by protecting underperformers and a culture of mediocrity. Sometimes it is only because they themselves fear litigation by one of their members! Nevertheless, reform is needed there if unions are to retain their (dwindling) credibility and presence in the marketplace. It appears that government unions are some of the last holdouts...and the results, well...have you been to the DMV lately?


I would be interested in seeing any proof of this, if you can provide it. I wonder if you are just accepting the status quo as proof that the private sector or the states could not provide the charity truly needed for individuals. Granted the federal government has "deeper pockets" with its rates of taxation, but that does not mean that the status quo is either better or moral...or more Catholic.

And again, where is the virtue in federal mandates of charity?


So we never really were a fully moral country until the federal government subsidized welfare? You gotta help me here, Ryan. I'm not seeing the obligation, especially when other means exist. And I cannot see how an ever expanding welfare dependency on a large, centralized national government is a good thing and does not violate principles of subsidiarity. Again, the good ends we both share and desire for the poor do not fit the means you are supporting, IMHO.

God bless and thanks for the continuing discussion.

Gordo

Also, we have not even begun to address the destructive force welfare has been on minority families. Fatherhood has been relegated to a low level of importance, since the federal government can provide the assistance you need!

Not everything can be blamed on welfare, but it certainly bears a large part of the responsibility. As one of my favorite conservative authors, economist Thomas Sowell, observes:


Additional quotes:

http://jpetrie.myweb.uga.edu/sowell.html

Gordo

Isn't it a Catholic belief that the best solutions derive closests to the people involved. I know that there is a name for this but impersonal government handouts cripple the moral and spiritual strength of people and society. The welfare system makes the state a god. Not good. Not good.

Is the Church ready to reclaim this ground?

CDL

This all strikes very close to home for me, since I live on a social security disability income. It is a poor living if that is all there is, and that is all there is. However, I know that I am not alone and there is not enough private charity to keep those predictable checks coming in month to month. Just would not happen locally.

So it is not an either or proposition.

People in my position put everything we have back into the system every month. A constant cycling of ready cash.

That has a very positive impact on the system.

My life is not anything near that which anyone in this topic would choose to replicate in their own lives, but were it not for my work over several decades and the work of others unknown to me, I would be on the street, in an institution, in a hovel or dead.

No. It is not an either or proposition.

Mary

Mary,

God bless you.

My sense is that if there ever was to be a change, after so long a time, it would take many years to take effect and measures would have to be put in place to help ensure that no one falls through the cracks. To Dan's point, the Church (and other organizations) may not be ready to retake this ground entirely. And much of the bloated bureacracy in Washington, DC would have to be eliminated for this to work.

And just to be clear, I am not saying that government has no role in welfare - just that it should be at the state level, not the federal. States that want to have generous welfare systems can and should vote for such things and tax its citizenry appropriately. My wife and I were in college when our first son was born. We benefitted from the state of Ohio's assistance to pay for her and his care. We lived for some 15 years in Minnesota, and it was very generous with its welfare - my second child was born in a hospital thanks to Minnesota's state-sponsored health care system. At the time, I was teaching at a local parochial school, where they pay you like you are celibate. We are very grateful for MinnCare...it was just the sort of temporary safety net we needed at that time.

By the time our third child was born, I had private insurance.

That being said, I also do not oppose Social Security, although it is in desparate need of reform.

In ICXC,

Gordo

PS: I will also only clarify that I believe that there is a MARKED difference between able-bodied adults who refuse to work, and those who have a disability.

Gordo:
Not all states have such generous public assistance programs as you encountered in Ohio and Minnesota. Many states have a much lower standard of living and much lower tax base than either Ohio or Minnesota. Your suggestion in an earlier post that people you live in less generous states could simply move to more generous states leaves much to be desired, in my opinion. If all the poor in states like Louisiana or Mississippi were to move to states like Minnesota and Ohio (which many of them cannot-they can't afford to move down the street, much less across the country), then those states with more generous state welfare systems would find themselves overwhelmed. I just think ending federal welfare would be disastrous, as Mary's post helps demonstrate. I have no problem with further reform of federal welfare to prevent those who don't need assistance from receiving it and to ensure that those who need assistance only temporarily from being permanently dependent on welfare. However, as I've said in previous posts, I don't believe that it is feasible to rely on charity alone. Many state and local governments have shown themselves either unwilling or unable to fill the need. Charitable organizations and private individuals don't possess the resources to reach everyone in need-both monetarily and in terms of being able to identify everyone who is need.

On a different note. Would you have all federal work safety laws repealed? If they were, workplace deaths in many states where legislators are more interested in the favor of businesses than in serving the people would surely increase. What about requiring overtime pay after 40 hours? History has shown that without this law, many employers would force their employees to work ten hours a day or more, seven days a week-which employers still can do, but almost all don't, because of the overtime pay requirement that is federal law. What about food and drug safety legislation? What about federal kidnapping statutes that authorize the FBI, with its vast resources that exceed those of local law enforcement agencies, to investigate kidnappings? No doubt there are lives that have been saved that otherwise would have been lost were it not for this sort of federal intervention. Also, I think that federal law enforcement with respect to drug trafficking is a good thing. What about federal student loans, that allow thousands and thousands, who would otherwise have extremely limited options, to obtain educations beyond high school? To me, these are all examples of ways in which the federal government has intervened to support and improve the common good. I think the consequences would be horrendous if the federal government (in spite of its flaws) were to surrender their role in these areas to state and local governments.

Ryan

I could stomach politics a lot better if people on opposite ends of the political spectrum could be as respectful and kind to each other as Gordon and Ryan are to each other.

They are both patient in explaining their points of view, respectful in their critiques of the other person's position, and they both have much more energy than I have these days for taking the time to lay out their views and critiques in a logically and systematicly.

I have so much stress in my life right now, I can't even deal with politics, it makes me too upset.

The issues discussed here are vital, and I believe it matters greatly how we as a society decide to address them.

Thank you Gordon and Ryan for demonstrating how Christians can disagree in a gentelmanly manner.

Lance,

Thank you for your kind words. One of the differences that I have seen between politically conservative and liberal Christians is that often (but not always) the ends are the same and we differ on the means. We both want strong families, a strong economy, freedom to exercise religion, the protection of all human life from conception to natural death, the protection of the rights of workers, freedom to own property and the means of production, conservation of the environment, as well as peace (all war, even just war, is a punishment from God).

I tend to favor a radically reduced size of the federal government to accomplish these ends (and to some extent that includes our military, although I would favor - in principle - a mandatory stint in a state National Guard or militia (not the kooky ones, BTW) SO LONG AS the (ab)use of the National Guard for foreign wars is eliminated). I believe that we were established constitutionally as a Republic with great power given to the states and less power to the federal.

I also believe deeply in caring for the poor, the sick, the elderly and infirm and those families and individuals who struggle either temporarily or longer term with difficulties to provide for themselves a life of dignity. I believe that the Church and the private sector in cooperation with the states should be the ones to provide this care as this is in keeping with both the principles of subsidiarity (my contention) and the preferential option for the poor, as well as the need for virtuous giving (which confiscatory taxation undermines).

The fact that Ryan, you, Mary and I are all believing Eastern Orthodox Catholics should be our starting point for any discussion on politics. Actually, the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation should be!

Both Ryan and Mary have thrown out some good questions that I need to research a bit before responding further.

In ICXC,

Gordo

To some of Gordo's good ideas, I'll add some of my own for the complete radical overhauling of the society we live in. Foremost would be the elimination of taxes to support public education. It's time to slaughter the sacred cow and recognize it not only as a crippling burden on taxpayers, but also as an evil system of indoctrination that creates atheistic, pro-homosexual, America hating socialists.

Lawrence,

That sounds like you agree with the radical notion of eliminating the Department of Education...which still seems like a good idea to me.

CDL

I do think there is a difference between eliminating publicly subsidized education altogether and eliminating the Department of Education. I would personally support the latter, not the former.

Public education - when it is not a pawn of political indoctrination and social experimentation, which it often is - and focuses on the "three R's" can be very effective in supporting an educated populace. It can be done more efficiently and effectively, however, and it can be done by the States without the Federal government having a hand in it.

That is not to say that I would not support the elimination of most of the bureaucratic administration of public schools. The schools do need reform.

Gordo