Catholic FAQ


Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > In The News > World News
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #601  
Old May 4, '12, 1:33 pm
ComputerGeek25 ComputerGeek25 is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: March 5, 2007
Posts: 3,004
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Obama intensifies push for ‘Buffett Rule’

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickey Finn View Post
Suudy, just because someones life wasn't terminated through abortion. Does not mean, we are no longer their keeper.

ATB

But you're willing to overlook abortion aren't you?
Reply With Quote
  #602  
Old May 4, '12, 1:52 pm
Mickey Finn Mickey Finn is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: November 28, 2008
Posts: 2,163
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Obama intensifies push for ‘Buffett Rule’

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevegravy View Post
I have proposed this little thought experiment several times in the past and have yet to get a decent response, other than they are not the same taxes are demanded by governments like that makes them moral. Or they are moral because our government votes for them.

What is the difference???????????

Scenario 1
My grandma needs food, medicine, heat in the winter and a roof over her head. She doesn’t have enough money. I am a good and dutiful grandson so I buy a gun some ammo and start holding up everyone I can demand their money or their life.

Scenario 2
My grandma needs food, medicine, heat in the winter and a roof over her head. She doesn’t have enough money. I am a good and dutiful grandson so I get a lobbyist start haranguing legislatures about my grandmother plight asking for state money to alleviate her suffering. I do fund raisers and press conferences, denouncing those who oppose are heartless haters et cetera. I also fashion the law so many people can get in on the racket. I get a law passed and public money for granny.

The only difference I see is the second scenario uses the coercion of the state to accomplish what I was willing to do for free. Well, maybe almost free, keeping 20% of the take for my ammunition expenses, time, and travel.

Perhaps I am missing something so can someone help me out?
No, I'm afraid I can't help you.
__________________
I'm no where near a Saint or a Pope. But I say you cannot love the poor with the same heart you love wealth, and material things.
Reply With Quote
  #603  
Old May 4, '12, 1:55 pm
stevegravy stevegravy is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: October 18, 2007
Posts: 1,830
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: Obama intensifies push for ‘Buffett Rule’

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ridgerunner View Post
The third possibility, of course, is that you reduce your own consumption and help Grandma out from your own resources. A fourth would be that you first seek help from family, then the Church, then the county, then the state, and so on. Subsidiarity.

But that's not your point, I just couldn't help saying it.

The difference is that we consider laws duly passed to be legitimate exercises of the right of governments to govern. Granted, some laws are unconscionable, because governments can go immoral. Some methods of affecting laws are also immoral.

But we do have to be careful about seizing the assets of others in the name of charity, precisely because many times there is no charity involved, in reality, but vote-buying.
Well the third option is NOT practical it requires self-sacrifice that is something that is moral and uplifting and a good that is anathema to liberals. Your fourth option is idyllic and would apply if we were all believers in helping our fellow man.

I didn’t ask about legitimate or licit just the power an armed thug has over the victim. That power is neither legitimate or licit unless the armed thug has announced he is now the leader of the country. If you don’t have the means to resist what difference is it to you if he is legit or not. He is the boss until a bigger better-armed thug comes by. Lots of dictatorships and emperors change that way. Such is the world we live in.

I asked what the moral difference is not legal. I am just stating both are acting the same.

Last edited by stevegravy; May 4, '12 at 2:08 pm.
Reply With Quote
  #604  
Old May 4, '12, 2:11 pm
stevegravy stevegravy is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: October 18, 2007
Posts: 1,830
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: Obama intensifies push for ‘Buffett Rule’

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickey Finn View Post
No, I'm afraid I can't help you.
Well if you cannot help you don’t have a sufficient background to comment on what should be other peoples tax liabilities.
Reply With Quote
  #605  
Old May 4, '12, 2:50 pm
LisaA LisaA is offline
Senior Member
Book Club Member
 
Join Date: January 6, 2009
Posts: 6,536
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Obama intensifies push for ‘Buffett Rule’

Quote:
Originally Posted by stinkcat_14 View Post
But in this case, neither republicans nor democrats advocate this, they are both in favor of redistributionist medicare and social security. Part D of medicare is pure redistribution and a pure violation of subsidiarity and republicans are for the most part to blame for it.
That is not true in two ways. One, there have been attempts to reform SS and Medicare, make it a private and self directed account, to make Medicare a premium support program, to means test, to increase the age, to offer other ways of funding. Every one of these proposals have been shot down by Democrats. So to say neither Republicans or Democrats are for reform, you have it half right....

In politics, wishing doesn't make it so, particularly when you have one party blocking every attempt at creating some kind of personal accountability.

I disagree that Part D is PURELY redistribution because the patient pays out of pocket for both the premium and the drug itself. There are methods to give more support to low income patients and less to high income patients. Now I'm not defending Part D as it was created because there were clearly some shenanigans going on with the Republican who was instrumental in pushing it through. Had Part D been structured like Parts A & B, the price the government paid would be substantially less as it is with A & B. THis should have been fixed immediately because it was clearly a conflict of interest at work.

I do agree that Republicans are skeptical of many of the redistributionist programs in in that term I mean you get paid although you made no contribution. While SS and Medicare often return far more than was paid in, they are not purely redistributionist and had the government actually done as promised and segregated the funds, had them invested wisely, it would have remained solvent longer. But this just demonstrates that you don't give politicians a chance to get their hands in the cooky jar because they simply can't resist OPM.

Lisa
Reply With Quote
  #606  
Old May 4, '12, 2:50 pm
Ridgerunner Ridgerunner is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: September 10, 2006
Posts: 23,984
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Obama intensifies push for ‘Buffett Rule’

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickey Finn View Post
I think they only care about their money. They would like the problems I mentioned payed for by the less fortunate. Through lower wages, higher taxes, and generally making do with out. This is the only explanation for their possition. Like I said before, you should not worry about the wealthy.

ATB
I don't worry about the wealthy. But you honestly think wealthy people would rather fall off a rotten bridge and drown in a river than to pay taxes? Nobody should be so hated, not even the wealthy.

And again, where do you draw the "wealthy" line? A million in assets? $100,000? $50? What? One might fear home invaders. One might fear muggers. But one does not fear bogeymen. Are "the wealthy" vague bogeymen to you; men in top hats and striped trousers about which you know nothing? Or do you really have an idea who it is you hate?
Reply With Quote
  #607  
Old May 4, '12, 2:54 pm
Ridgerunner Ridgerunner is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: September 10, 2006
Posts: 23,984
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Obama intensifies push for ‘Buffett Rule’

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevegravy View Post
[size=3][font=Calibri]Well the third option is NOT practical it requires self-sacrifice that is something that is moral and uplifting and a good that is anathema to liberals. Your fourth option is idyllic and would apply if we were all believers in helping our fellow man
Well, this might be a hasty statement. This is exactly what the Popes have encouraged us to do in the Social Encyclicals before resorting to the next level of potential provender.
Reply With Quote
  #608  
Old May 4, '12, 3:00 pm
LisaA LisaA is offline
Senior Member
Book Club Member
 
Join Date: January 6, 2009
Posts: 6,536
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Obama intensifies push for ‘Buffett Rule’

But we do have to be careful about seizing the assets of others in the name of charity, precisely because many times there is no charity involved, in reality, but vote-buying[quote]

Ridgerunner, you have once again hit the nail on the head. It gets so tiresome to hear that if you don't want to hand over ever increasing amounts of the money you have earned or saved you "hate poor people" or want bridges to collapse or babies to go to bed hungry.

There is nothing charitable about taxation or government programs, not even intent in many cases. It is simply a down payment for future votes.

BTW has anyone seen the latest Obama campaign "Julia" where a composite woman is taken from cradle to grave by her dear old Uncle Sam. Somehow THIS is what we are supposed to aspire to?

Lisa
Reply With Quote
  #609  
Old May 4, '12, 3:11 pm
Ridgerunner Ridgerunner is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: September 10, 2006
Posts: 23,984
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Obama intensifies push for ‘Buffett Rule’

[quote=LisaA;9258677]But we do have to be careful about seizing the assets of others in the name of charity, precisely because many times there is no charity involved, in reality, but vote-buying
Quote:

Ridgerunner, you have once again hit the nail on the head. It gets so tiresome to hear that if you don't want to hand over ever increasing amounts of the money you have earned or saved you "hate poor people" or want bridges to collapse or babies to go to bed hungry.

There is nothing charitable about taxation or government programs, not even intent in many cases. It is simply a down payment for future votes.

BTW has anyone seen the latest Obama campaign "Julia" where a composite woman is taken from cradle to grave by her dear old Uncle Sam. Somehow THIS is what we are supposed to aspire to?

Lisa
Thank you for your kind words.

No, I have not seen the Obama film "Julia", and with any luck at all, I never will.
Reply With Quote
  #610  
Old May 4, '12, 3:18 pm
LisaA LisaA is offline
Senior Member
Book Club Member
 
Join Date: January 6, 2009
Posts: 6,536
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Obama intensifies push for ‘Buffett Rule’

[quote=Ridgerunner;9258711]
Quote:
Originally Posted by LisaA View Post
But we do have to be careful about seizing the assets of others in the name of charity, precisely because many times there is no charity involved, in reality, but vote-buying

Thank you for your kind words.

No, I have not seen the Obama film "Julia", and with any luck at all, I never will.
Apparently just posted on the Obama campaign website. Of course as someone noted that Obama is President when Julia enters Head Start and is STILL President when she gets Medicare. HMMMMMM maybe a Freudian slip so to speak? The other notable thing is that Julia seems to have no man in her life other than the one who impregnates her and then leaves her and the child to be supported by the taxpayers. As more than one pundit has commented, the EWWWWWWW factor is at an all time high.

Really in so many ways they show their true colors in such campaign productions. Is there any question Obama and his supporters are hoping for a socialist country where families are weak and the government is strong. It's all about control...always has been

Lisa
Reply With Quote
  #611  
Old May 4, '12, 4:06 pm
Ridgerunner Ridgerunner is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: September 10, 2006
Posts: 23,984
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Obama intensifies push for ‘Buffett Rule’

[quote=LisaA;9258733]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ridgerunner View Post

Apparently just posted on the Obama campaign website. Of course as someone noted that Obama is President when Julia enters Head Start and is STILL President when she gets Medicare. HMMMMMM maybe a Freudian slip so to speak? The other notable thing is that Julia seems to have no man in her life other than the one who impregnates her and then leaves her and the child to be supported by the taxpayers. As more than one pundit has commented, the EWWWWWWW factor is at an all time high.

Really in so many ways they show their true colors in such campaign productions. Is there any question Obama and his supporters are hoping for a socialist country where families are weak and the government is strong. It's all about control...always has been

Lisa
I agree entirely. I suppose I ought to watch the film, but I already know the Obama people oppose everything else our Catholic Church teaches. Why would they not also discourage belief in family formation? That film truly sounds like an encouragement to an almost diabolical kind of despair. Despair of one's own abilities to survive in a world God "made for mankind". Despair of remaining chaste. Despair of family. Despair of the decency of the opposite sex. Despair, despair, despair. My goodness, one would think Obama is advertizing hell. Maybe he is.
Reply With Quote
  #612  
Old May 4, '12, 4:34 pm
stinkcat_14 stinkcat_14 is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: June 26, 2005
Posts: 5,912
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Obama intensifies push for ‘Buffett Rule’

Quote:
Originally Posted by LisaA View Post

I disagree that Part D is PURELY redistribution because the patient pays out of pocket for both the premium and the drug itself.
I say purely redistribution because the recipients never paid into any system to get benefits. The program's government component is paid for out of general tax revenues, which many recipients don't pay.
Reply With Quote
  #613  
Old May 4, '12, 4:39 pm
Suudy's Avatar
Suudy Suudy is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: September 29, 2004
Posts: 5,111
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Obama intensifies push for ‘Buffett Rule’

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickey Finn View Post
Suudy, just because someones life wasn't terminated through abortion. Does not mean, we are no longer their keeper.
You didn't answer the question.

How do these even come close to the evil of abortion?
__________________
Tiber Swim Team '05

"To love for the sake of being loved is human; to love for the sake of loving is Angelic." -- Alphonse de Lamartine
Reply With Quote
  #614  
Old May 4, '12, 4:51 pm
Mickey Finn Mickey Finn is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: November 28, 2008
Posts: 2,163
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Obama intensifies push for ‘Buffett Rule’

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevegravy View Post
Well if you cannot help you don’t have a sufficient background to comment on what should be other peoples tax liabilities.
? I'm not sure what your talking about.
__________________
I'm no where near a Saint or a Pope. But I say you cannot love the poor with the same heart you love wealth, and material things.
Reply With Quote
  #615  
Old May 4, '12, 4:52 pm
Mickey Finn Mickey Finn is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: November 28, 2008
Posts: 2,163
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Obama intensifies push for ‘Buffett Rule’

Quote:
Originally Posted by ComputerGeek25 View Post
But you're willing to overlook abortion aren't you?


? where have I said that?
__________________
I'm no where near a Saint or a Pope. But I say you cannot love the poor with the same heart you love wealth, and material things.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > In The News > World News

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8458Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: GLam8833
5145CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: Vim71
4424Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: DesertSister62
4037OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: eschator83
3863SOLITUDE
Last by: beth40n2
3738Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: RJB
3321Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: grateful_child
3284Poems and Reflections
Last by: PathWalker
3224Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: 4elise
3110For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: flower lady



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:03 am.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.