Jim McDermott: Too soon to cut back unemployment benefits

Why do so many catholics vote for Democrats, in spite of their often radical pro-abortion positions? It is because for many catholics, at least on the west coast, supporting "social justice" and "helping the poor" (through government handouts) is a way to live the gospel. Being a good Christian and helping the poor is realized through taxation and redistribution of wealth - robbing Peter to pay Paul. They see a guy like Jim McDermott, with a 100% NARAL rating and vote for him anyway, because he is for "helping the poor" . Consider:

seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2012073579_guest10mcdermott.html

grid.ontheissues.org/House/Jim_McDermott_Abortion.htm

votesmart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?r_id=3108

If you don't have time to check out the links, here it is in a nutshell:

Congressman Jim McDermott favors not cutting unemployment benefits lower than 99 weeks. Congressman Jim McDermott is perhaps the most pro-abortion congressman in the country. Congressman McDermott gets a 100% rating from the National Catholic Social Justice Lobby.

I believe that some catholics who support such candidates as McDermott (and others) are ignorant and truly believe they are living out their faith by voting for such people. However, with some catholics, I think their faith is really a faith in socialism, in which case, they have lost their faith. I am open to other viewpoints, either from Catholics faithful to the magisterium or from former Catholics who now believe in the need for a secular government to build a paradise on earth.

Ishii

[quote="ishii, post:1, topic:201581"]
Why do so many catholics vote for Democrats, in spite of their often radical pro-abortion positions? It is because for many catholics, at least on the west coast, supporting "social justice" and "helping the poor" (through government handouts) is a way to live the gospel. Being a good Christian and helping the poor is realized through taxation and redistribution of wealth - robbing Peter to pay Paul. They see a guy like Jim McDermott, with a 100% NARAL rating and vote for him anyway, because he is for "helping the poor" . Consider:

seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2012073579_guest10mcdermott.html

grid.ontheissues.org/House/Jim_McDermott_Abortion.htm

votesmart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?r_id=3108

If you don't have time to check out the links, here it is in a nutshell:

Congressman Jim McDermott favors not cutting unemployment benefits lower than 99 weeks. Congressman Jim McDermott is perhaps the most pro-abortion congressman in the country. Congressman McDermott gets a 100% rating from the National Catholic Social Justice Lobby.

I believe that some catholics who support such candidates as McDermott (and others) are ignorant and truly believe they are living out their faith by voting for such people. However, with some catholics, I think their faith is really a faith in socialism, in which case, they have lost their faith. I am open to other viewpoints, either from Catholics faithful to the magisterium or from former Catholics who now believe in the need for a secular government to build a paradise on earth.

Ishii

[/quote]

Well, isn't it too soon to cut back on unemployment benefits? What beneficial effect on the labor market will be realized if the government cuts back on unemployment benefits?

[quote="Black_Rose, post:2, topic:201581"]
Well, isn't it too soon to cut back on unemployment benefits? What beneficial effect on the labor market will be realized if the government cuts back on unemployment benefits?

[/quote]

Do we have the money to have unemployment benefits last for 99 weeks? I don't think so.

Ishii

[quote="ishii, post:1, topic:201581"]

Congressman Jim McDermott favors not cutting unemployment benefits lower than 99 weeks. Congressman Jim McDermott is perhaps the most pro-abortion congressman in the country. Congressman McDermott gets a 100% rating from the National Catholic Social Justice Lobby.

[/quote]

McDermott represents pretty much the heart of liberal WA state. Unfortunately, I don't think there are enough Catholics in his district to chane the outcome even if they all voted for the opposition. I think McDermott a lifer. He's as liberal as they come, represting a district as liberal as they come.

Sadly, one of our "Catholic" senators here in WA, also gets pass. Will Carholics once again ignore her pro-abortion stance? Murray has a 67% rating according to you link.

BTW, NETWORK and Carholics for a Free Choice have ties. NETWORK is just as blind to abortion as most of our Catholic Democratic congessmen.

[quote="Black_Rose, post:2, topic:201581"]
Well, isn't it too soon to cut back on unemployment benefits? What beneficial effect on the labor market will be realized if the government cuts back on unemployment benefits?

[/quote]

Here is a link to another story on this subject that would seem to contradict ol' Baghdad Jim:

seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2012084801_quitters11.html

The basic point of the story is that the job market is improving.

Ishii

[quote="Suudy, post:4, topic:201581"]
McDermott represents pretty much the heart of liberal WA state. Unfortunately, I don't think there are enough Catholics in his district to chane the outcome even if they all voted for the opposition. I think McDermott a lifer. He's as liberal as they come, represting a district as liberal as they come.

Sadly, one of our "Catholic" senators here in WA, also gets pass. Will Carholics once again ignore her pro-abortion stance? Murray has a 67% rating according to you link.

BTW, NETWORK and Carholics for a Free Choice have ties. NETWORK is just as blind to abortion as most of our Catholic Democratic congessmen.

[/quote]

Thanks for your reply. My original title to this thread was going to be "why so many Catholics vote Democrat" but I guess someone changed it to better reflect the article I linked to. I wanted this to be a discussion of why so many Catholics still remain steadfast in their support of Democrats, many of whom are the most pro-abortion politicians in history. I am pretty sure that McDermott got a lot of votes from Seattle Catholics who vote Democrat no matter what. The question is why - that's what I wanted this thread to be about.

Ishii

[quote="ishii, post:1, topic:201581"]
Why do so many catholics vote for Democrats, in spite of their often radical pro-abortion positions? It is because for many catholics, at least on the west coast, supporting "social justice" and "helping the poor" (through government handouts) is a way to live the gospel. Being a good Christian and helping the poor is realized through taxation and redistribution of wealth - robbing Peter to pay Paul. They see a guy like Jim McDermott, with a 100% NARAL rating and vote for him anyway, because he is for "helping the poor" . Consider:

seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2012073579_guest10mcdermott.html

grid.ontheissues.org/House/Jim_McDermott_Abortion.htm

votesmart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?r_id=3108

If you don't have time to check out the links, here it is in a nutshell:

Congressman Jim McDermott favors not cutting unemployment benefits lower than 99 weeks. Congressman Jim McDermott is perhaps the most pro-abortion congressman in the country. Congressman McDermott gets a 100% rating from the National Catholic Social Justice Lobby.

I believe that some catholics who support such candidates as McDermott (and others) are ignorant and truly believe they are living out their faith by voting for such people. However, with some catholics, I think their faith is really a faith in socialism, in which case, they have lost their faith. I am open to other viewpoints, either from Catholics faithful to the magisterium or from former Catholics who now believe in the need for a secular government to build a paradise on earth.

Ishii

[/quote]

I know folks on both sides of the unemployment bush.

Some really want to work and are on the verge of losing their mobile home and having to move to a tent.

Others are perfectly content to draw unemployment compensation for as long as they can in their tent. It's a problem you or I can't solve.

But so often I see posts like yours and I wonder: Are you more strongly anti-abortion than you are anti-unemployment? Or vice versa? In so many posts like yours, I sense that anti-abortion views are secondary to anti-social justice views, and towing the line of a particular party.

[quote="mark_a, post:7, topic:201581"]
I know folks on both sides of the unemployment bush.

Some really want to work and are on the verge of losing their mobile home and having to move to a tent.

Others are perfectly content to draw unemployment compensation for as long as they can in their tent. It's a problem you or I can't solve.

But so often I see posts like yours and I wonder: Are you more strongly anti-abortion than you are anti-unemployment? Or vice versa? In so many posts like yours, I sense that anti-abortion views are secondary to anti-social justice views, and towing the line of a particular party.

[/quote]

I wonder what the point of this post is. Ishii, like many of us, view protection of innocent human life as paramount. Indeed, social justice (in the common parlance that seems to exclude pro-life issues) is secondary to right to life issues. As quoted before (pointer to actual person appreciated) no other rights have any meaning if the right to life is not present.

[quote="mark_a, post:7, topic:201581"]
I know folks on both sides of the unemployment bush.

Some really want to work and are on the verge of losing their mobile home and having to move to a tent.

Others are perfectly content to draw unemployment compensation for as long as they can in their tent. It's a problem you or I can't solve.

But so often I see posts like yours and I wonder: Are you more strongly anti-abortion than you are anti-unemployment? Or vice versa? In so many posts like yours, I sense that anti-abortion views are secondary to anti-social justice views, and towing the line of a particular party.

[/quote]

Really? What part of my post suggests that I am more "anti-unemployment" than anti-abortion? A man might find himself unemployed, but atleast he is alive to continue searching for a job. The unborn who get aborted on the other hand.....

Also, what about my post makes you think I am "towing the line of a particular party" ? Examples please!

Ishii

First - Social justice and living the Gospel of Jesus Christ is a huge topic and onethat has often been co-opted in an order to make political gain ..... and it does not lend itself well to short sound [text] bites ... like we have here ... to fully address all the finer points.

Secondly, if a person is denied life - all other God given rights have zero meaning.

Third, we are called to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick and imprisoned and give drink to the thirsty .. the real question becomes: "How to we go about living this Gospel calling?" How do we accomplish the feeding, sheltering, nursing etc of those in need?

Some advocate that this is the primary role of the government.

Still others say that is the role of the family [the primary 'safety net', the neighbor and the Church.

IMHO: The problem with those that see this as governments role is that they have to fund this [ie taxes] and define the assistance, who receives it and how it is dispersed. And the 'social justice' arena grows and grows .... the fruit of this experiment is available. Amoungst african american families the number of chldren living in poverty is higher, the abortion rate is high, fatherless/absentee fathers are inreasing, incarceration rates are higher ... similar results among every demographic ... the great society is a failure ... our society rewards unmarried parent households and supports children in place of a 'father' in the house. Drop out rates for high school students is way to high ... and many that graduate can't read!!!

We now have multi-generations of families who have never been off welfare .. three and four generations of families have never been off the welfare roles :eek:

Porn shops seem to flourish on every corner [free speech] and parents havve no rights to know if their grand-children are eing sucked down the abortionist's sink .... and un-employment can become the 'paid' vacation for some [and yes I know that not everyone takes this attitude - I myself spent much of last year unemployed for the first time in 31+ years - and I recently found a position - Thank God:gopray2:]. Many people never seriously start looking for a job until their benefits are about to run out.
Is this new? No ... St Paul had to deal with those who sought to take adantage:
from Second Letter to the Thessalonians:

In fact, when we were with you, we instructed you that if anyone was unwilling to work, neither should that one eat. We hear that some are conducting themselves among you in a disorderly way, by not keeping busy but minding the business ofothers. Such people we instruct and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to work quietly and to eat their own food. But you, brothers, do not be remiss in doing good. If anyone does not obey our word as expressed in this letter, take note of this person not to associate with him, that he may be put to shame. Do not regard him as an enemy but admonish him as a brother.

Thus the balancing of individual responsibility and Christian charity is as old as the Church ... and there is much validity in the thought that centering the government as the 'provider' of social justice - the great equilizer as it were - is kin to deifying that government ... worshiping and paying homage to the 'being' that sustains you .. it smacks of the "Enlightenment" and "Modernism" which were condemned b the Church at the dwn of the 20th century ... it did not go way .. it just became more subtle -

Just because I don't appreciate the expansion of welfare does not mean that I am uncaring - it might mean that I care more .. that I want to help end the cycle of poverty not prolong it ...

[quote="ishii, post:6, topic:201581"]
The question is why - that's what I wanted this thread to be about.

[/quote]

Maybe an even better question is "what to do about it?"

If it is true that some Catholics vote for Democrats because they believe that Democrats stand for compassion and social justice, and Republicans do not, then one obvious strategy would be for all Catholics to come out strongly in support of moderate Republicans, who are not in favor of dismantling the social safety net, and support economic policies that would be appealing to these conflicted Democratic-leaning Catholics. Then, after the Catholic vote is solid, perhaps we can finally make a united stand for life. Even if you disagree with moderate Republican candidates on some of these issues, it would be a small sacrifice to save millions of lives.

[quote="Suudy, post:8, topic:201581"]
As quoted before (pointer to actual person appreciated) no other rights have any meaning if the right to life is not present.

[/quote]

That does not necessarily follow. If the provision of rights (or ethical consideration) from a secular system of ethics is based on sentience and consciousness, then those rights would have meaning for those who possess the characteristics of sentient beings regardless of how society treats the unborn who do not have those characteristics.

Maybe some Catholics would vote for being anti-unemployment since it personally affects them more than abortion as one easily observe the insecurity, anxiety, and financial hardship unemployment causes. Perhaps, poverty is regarded as a universal evil by most members of society while abortion is generally considered a sectarian issue.

[quote="Black_Rose, post:12, topic:201581"]
That does not necessarily follow. If the provision of rights (or ethical consideration) from a secular system of ethics is based on sentience and consciousness, then those rights would have meaning for those who possess the characteristics of sentient beings regardless of how society treats the unborn who do not have those characteristics.

[/quote]

But we as Catholics make no distinction between secular and Catholic ethics. It is a metaphysical impossibility for a secular society to provision any rights. The existence of rights is independent of society. Thus your initial premise is false. So society is not in a position to decide who lives based on the intrinsic characteristics (such as sentience) of any person.

Maybe some Catholics would vote for being anti-unemployment since it personally affects them more than abortion as one easily observe the insecurity, anxiety, and financial hardship unemployment causes. Perhaps, poverty is regarded as a universal evil by most members of society while abortion is generally considered a sectarian issue.

I don't disagree that people may regard poverty and abortion differently. But that isn't the point. Is poverty an evil, ethically speaking? Abortion? Both? If both, which is the greater evil? Now, as Catholics, apply Catholic principles. What good does the right to a fair wage mean if you are not even afforded to right to even be born?

[quote="Suudy, post:8, topic:201581"]
As quoted before (pointer to actual person appreciated) no other rights have any meaning if the right to life is not present.

[/quote]

I agree and vote accordingly.

[quote="ishii, post:9, topic:201581"]
Really? What part of my post suggests that I am more "anti-unemployment" than anti-abortion?

[/quote]

My comment was a generalization about posts like yours that we so often see here.

Also, what about my post makes you think I am "towing the line of a particular party" ? Examples please!

Ishii

Maybe I was being presumptuous. I don't seem to be able to suppress my frustration with the "pro-life" party any more.

I think Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party has correctly pointed out that Republicans, who have controlled the Presidency for 20 of the past 28 years, have hijacked the abortion issue to get elected and have done absolutely nothing about it.

[quote="ishii, post:3, topic:201581"]
Do we have the money to have unemployment benefits last for 99 weeks? I don't think so.

Ishii

[/quote]

If YOU needed the extension of benefits to help YOUR family make it through this greed-induced recession you would be singing a different tune. Hypocricy is the favored song of ridicule until hardship befalls one in a subjective way. Everyone is high until they are low. It is funny...in a tragic sort of way.

I have worked in trauma and critical care for over twenty years and, believe me, everyone, the high and the low, pleads for mercy when the endotube is inserted and the ventilator is all that stands between them and asphyxiation. Arrogance ends at the E.R. door.

Humility is a much more dignified response to the hardships endured by our own impoverished brothers and sisters, in this overfed, overindulged society. Wake up to the mercy which forms part of the ethos of our faith. If they need 99 weeks of relief to recover from this ignominious wall-street mega-scam, then the rest of us will survive...somehow. Maybe on a few fewer calories, but is that so bad?

We spend billions on foriegn aid to countries like Israel, who have more money than we do, yet when our own brothers and sisters need a bit of a hand they become the enemy. Media brainwashing really does work. How unfortunate...especially for our own downtrodden underclasses. Or is nationalism only relevant when it is the Fourth of July and the fireworks are blazing, the flags are waving, and you have a beer-bratz stuffed in your kisser.

Yeah, the poor, they are the ones to blame. Let's pile on. It is easy...right?

[quote="mark_a, post:15, topic:201581"]
My comment was a generalization about posts like yours that we so often see here.

Maybe I was being presumptuous. I don't seem to be able to suppress my frustration with the "pro-life" party any more.

I think Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party has correctly pointed out that Republicans, who have controlled the Presidency for 20 of the past 28 years, have hijacked the abortion issue to get elected and have done absolutely nothing about it.

[/quote]

And this is factually inaccurate ...

First of all presidents do not make law - congress does and the republicans did not control congress during every republican presidency .. And even congress is not the only 'law making body" as we have the Courts ... and judicial activism .. which is how we got 'seperation of church and state' [found no where in the constitution] and abortion on demand from conception to birth through rulings in Roe V Wade and Doe v Bolton ... And the list goes on ad naseum .. and all of this has been written of in many threads.

It is not th republicans who are heartless and don't care for people. It is not repulcians who fail to reach out and help their fellow man. It is democrats who fail to support charitable organizations [unless you are a 'catholic' democratic governor who is the Chairperson for annual fundraisers for NARAL - Oregon or Planned Parenthood - or the charity is to save whales or destroy the timber industry] - Food Banks are just so 'Blah' - not eye cathcing enough ..... It is not the rpublicans that fail to pass legisation that limits abortions - its the lawsuits filed by democratic operatives in the ACLU and Planned Parenthood -

What we do not have is a pro-abortion - pro-child killing democratic party. The party platform is planked with abortion - on demand - from concpetion to birth [and some in the party even after birth upwards of 18 months :eek:]

AND they are not the party of the people, they are not 'for the little guy' ... the democrats are the party of the millionaires whose idea of helping the little guy is to provide permanent poverty through gvernment dependancy like welfare and food stamps. Financially supporting behaviors that destroy families like illigitmacy, drug addiction, subsidized housing and generational welfare checks ... in essence they support a new form of indentured servitude - the "man" is the government .... They have adopted Margaret Sanger's ideal to keep the masses controlled in number - just enough of them to insure dependent voting block and cheap labor to clean their multiple homes [how many did John Kerry have?] and to care for their eco friendly cars the SUV's used only at their WInter retreats for ski outings and the private jets - because common - common carrier - how can one get to Brazil for that Climate Summit on a commercial airline ....

Then there is the duty to pay your taxes - well not for the Kenndys or the Kerrys - off shore tax shelters are okay for them - and well some can defer their taxes until they get a political appointment - but you - you need to pay your taxes .... :rolleyes:

[quote="unafraid, post:16, topic:201581"]
If YOU needed the extension of benefits to help YOUR family make it through this greed-induced recession you would be singing a different tune. Hypocricy is the favored song of ridicule until hardship befalls one in a subjective way. Everyone is high until they are low. It is funny...in a tragic sort of way.

I have worked in trauma and critical care for over twenty years and, believe me, everyone, the high and the low, pleads for mercy when the endotube is inserted and the ventilator is all that stands between them and asphyxiation. Arrogance ends at the E.R. door.

Humility is a much more dignified response to the hardships endured by our own impoverished brothers and sisters, in this overfed, overindulged society. Wake up to the mercy which forms part of the ethos of our faith. If they need 99 weeks of relief to recover from this ignominious wall-street mega-scam, then the rest of us will survive...somehow. Maybe on a few fewer calories, but is that so bad?

We spend billions on foriegn aid to countries like Israel, who have more money than we do, yet when our own brothers and sisters need a bit of a hand they become the enemy. Media brainwashing really does work. How unfortunate...especially for our own downtrodden underclasses. Or is nationalism only relevant when it is the Fourth of July and the fireworks are blazing, the flags are waving, and you have a beer-bratz stuffed in your kisser.

Yeah, the poor, they are the ones to blame. Let's pile on. It is easy...right?

[/quote]

I was unemployed once. I pounded the pavement until I found a job. Took about two weeks. It was a lousy job, but a job nonetheless. While working at that job, rather than gamble like so many of my "downtrodden" co-workers, I pounded the pavement to get a better job. Took about six months. I got that better job using skills I worked my tail off to acquire. When 9-11 happened, a bunch of us got layed off because of the decline in tourism (this was in Hawaii). Most went on unemployment for a while. When the company informed everyone that the tourism had picked up to the point that everyone could have their jobs back, a number CHOSE TO STAY ON UNEMPLOYMENT. . I guess they liked living off the government more than working. Anyway, the job available might not be the ideal job or the best paying job, but its a job nonetheless. I've been there, so spare me the lecture on hypocrisy please.

Ishii

[quote="mark_a, post:15, topic:201581"]
My comment was a generalization about posts like yours that we so often see here.

Maybe I was being presumptuous. I don't seem to be able to suppress my frustration with the "pro-life" party any more.

I think Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party has correctly pointed out that Republicans, who have controlled the Presidency for 20 of the past 28 years, have hijacked the abortion issue to get elected and have done absolutely nothing about it.

[/quote]

What has Chuck Baldwin and the Constitution party done to curtail abortion? Sounds like you want a "perfect" pro-life party where everyone agrees with you on the subject. Well maybe you have one in the Constitution party but the problem is, they can't do anything about abortion because they can't get elected. The Republican party has done some good things to curtail abortion. These have been outlined many times on other threads so your assertion that the Republicans have "done absolutely nothing about it" is absolutely wrong. Some Republicans are pro-life, some aren't. And some who say they are could probably do more. Its hard to change the law with Roe V. Wade still the law of the land. We have got some good justices from past Republicans and some lousy ones. Its hard to know for sure how a prospective nominee will vote on the issue once on the bench. I think we have four good ones. We need one more. You can waste your vote on Chuck Baldwin, or you can make it count by voting for a candidate who is both pro-life and has a chance of winning. A vote for someone like Baldwin is effectively a vote for the continuation of the status quo.

Ishii

[quote="ishii, post:18, topic:201581"]
I was unemployed once. I pounded the pavement until I found a job. Took about two weeks. It was a lousy job, but a job nonetheless. While working at that job, rather than gamble like so many of my "downtrodden" co-workers, I pounded the pavement to get a better job. Took about six months. I got that better job using skills I worked my tail off to acquire. When 9-11 happened, a bunch of us got layed off because of the decline in tourism (this was in Hawaii). Most went on unemployment for a while. When the company informed everyone that the tourism had picked up to the point that everyone could have their jobs back, a number CHOSE TO STAY ON UNEMPLOYMENT. . I guess they liked living off the government more than working. Anyway, the job available might not be the ideal job or the best paying job, but its a job nonetheless. I've been there, so spare me the lecture on hypocrisy please.

Ishii

[/quote]

Boy, I bet all those people who choose to live on unemployment really enjoy living off of a stipend which lands them way beneath the poverty line. That's really living it up! People do not choose poverty, as you suggest. That is elitist and presumptuous. No one likes being poor, to say that they do makes you sound insensitive, and dare I say it...cold..

Also, if you are such a workhorse, why don't you go and volunteer at a food kitchen. Show all those bums who won't work what a superior work ethic is all about. Shine an example on them. Be a beakon to all those slackers.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.