Posted on 01/09/2012 7:54:11 PM PST by tcg
Ann Coulter's criticism of Rick Santorum for being "more of a Catholic than a Conservative" makes me want to do even more to help people come to understand his positions. ...Coulter's comments help explain why Catholics like me consider ourselves to be 'reluctant Republicans." She was derisive of Rick Santorum's concern for the poor. She mocked his insistence upon the connection between moral, social and economic issues. She was condescending and dismissive of his integrated campaign message.
...Santorum understands that freedom is a good of the human person. Further that he sees that the market economy, as promising as it is, requires the continual expansion of opportunities for participation. Many of us who are inspired by him are from blue collar backgrounds. Our ancestors did not come over on the Mayflower. We care about the poor and cringe when any candidate seems to lack concern for them.
However, we also now know that big government does a horrible job of providing care for them and that collectivism - be it of the right or the left - is anything but the solution. We want a candidate who speaks of opening up economic participation in the American dream to as many as possible. One who recognizes that the market was made for man, not man for the market.
...Recently I heard Rick Santorum defend his proposal to increase the child tax credit in order to help parents, promote the family and grow our economy. He accurately explained the fact that a demographic winter is leading many Nations in Europe to do all they can to increase the birth of children.
He then persuasively argued that America needs to encourage strong families because strong families build a strong Nation. He is correct. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at catholic.org ...
You most likely have no clue as to what the actual teaching of the Church is as opposed to prudential statements made by members of the clergy.
Good argument so far as it goes. But there are parts, and this is one of them, where the CCC is ridiculously underthought and overwritten..Are only “prosperous” nations “obliged” to accommodate immigrants? And how is persecution, never even mentioned as an excuse for exodus, superceded (much less replaced) by “security” and “means of livelihood? Where are security and means of livelihood defined? How is ANYone obliged to “respect” anything or anyone? Deference may be demanded, but respect is earned. Never mind that “respecting,” say, Islam’s “spiritual heritage” is hardly the aim of Catholicism.
But, even if the wording were less 60s-constructed, we’d still be left with the same unenforceable dicta as the beatitudes. Good advice it may be, but it’s nonbinding, only partially because Christ never preached social justice.
The US isn’t experiencing a demographic winter.
But Santorum’s tripling of the exemption for children guts the income tax of the usual income incentives for people to work harder: it increases the tax burden on those without dependents, and for those with dependents, it too cuts the association with actual income earned.
Just an all around bad policy. (But great if, like Santorum, you have seven kids.)
Sorry, don’t get that vibe at all. Take a chill pill.
The child tax-credit is to society’s benefit. Santorem’s seven will be paying more in taxes (specifically Social Security) than Zero’s two, and that’s just how it is. It’s exactly the same argument DINCs use when they don’t want increased public-school taxation: “We don’t have kids, so why should we have to pay school taxes?” True, but they do have houses which, so the argument goes, gain in value with the purportedly better schools. (And NO, I’m not saying that taxes improve public schools, nor that ANYone should be paying taxes for public schools; but that’s the way things exist today.)
No, it’s not the same argument. People don’t pay more in property taxes in correlation with the harder they work to make money. Santorum’s scheme does create that effect.
And how does the argument that paying more local property taxes to supposedly boost the quality of local schools and thus property values apply here? It’s a bogus argument for its own sake—school SAT scores are increased by having more smart parents and hence kids in town, not by more school spending—but it absolutely doesn’t apply when talking about a federal income tax.
Catholic Church (as far as its officials - US Bishops) has for most of the 20th century been a leftist organization. Without US Catholic bishops, we would not have the welfare state, crushing debt, out of control immigration.
Also, let's not forget the support of US Catholic Bishops for Nuclear Freeze movement (in order to derail Ronald Reagan).
The support of these leftist positions has nearly destroyed Catholic Church. Catholic bishops have endorsed expansion of government into areas traditionally performed by Catholic Church (charity, education, health care), can be viewed by a rational observer as noting short of a suicidal.
There has been some change lately in the “right” direction, but it may prove to be too little too late.
As far as Santorum, he is a decent individual. But if people of Tea Party persuasion think Santorum is the right person to carry their banner, they are fooling themselves.
The US needs drastic, painful cuts to avoid Greek tragedy (Greece today is only a preview of what is to come). Which candidates have what it takes to cut government down to sane size? I think Perry and Paul do. Gingrich probably as well. I have serious doubts about Santorum and Romney.
Ann “man neck” Coulture is nothing but a shill for the leftist republican elete’s.
As far as I’m concerned she has mislead conservtives for years to get book sales up.
When you hear her criticize Newt as unelectable; for the same brash/bold 'qualities' that captivated Ann in the name of Chris Christie; she just totally slips in it. . .
Romney is not at all, a conservative.
Which, unfortunately, is precisely the opposite of what will be needed to beat Obama. For that, we need someone who is serious, thoughtful, and vicious to his political opponents. In other words, Newt Gingrich.
Which, unfortunately, is precisely the opposite of what will be needed to beat Obama. For that, we need someone who is serious, thoughtful, and vicious to his political opponents. In other words, Newt Gingrich.
I’m not talking about the similarity of the taxes but of the similarity of the argument: why should “I” pay more than, or the same amount as, the taxes of someone with a larger family? The argument in each case assures or protects long-term general welfare—one of a nation, the other of a school district.
People already pay more taxes than those with families, but Santorum’s plan would significantly lessen incentives for work for approximately half the population.
That’s not good economic policy aside from any ‘fairness’ argument. And tere’s more evidence by far of tax policy influencing economic behavior than family formation—just look at the experience in Europe.
Being Catholic and conservative I’d say the main difference is capitol punishment. This is not a trivial matter but the one divergence is pretty small when compared to the differences with liberal philosophies which are quite numerous.
I like to point out that a recent survey of religious affiliation on Freerepublic showed that Catholics are by far the largest faith of your fellow FREEPERS.
_____________________________________________________________
Well said!
I think many in our society don't understand that and think that their forced confiscation, tax contributions equals charity. Government entitlements, welfare if you will, is not charity. Charity is when you leave a bag of groceries on someones doorstep and walk away, charity is when you send a gift card in the mail and don't include a note with your name on it. Charity is what you give to the Church so they can help others.
As a child I saw Robin Hood as a hero. Robbing from the rich to give the the poor who didn't earn it is not charity it is stealing and receiving stolen goods. It is a sin. For some reason we put the stamp of government on it and then say it is not a sin because we all do it together. If we make a law that says we must all commit adultery and then obey the law it is still sin. Paying our taxes and standing by watching the helpless unborn being murdered with our tax dollars is sin unless we do all we can to stop it. Supporting children having children is a sin, but the government says it is good. What the government says has nothing to do with what is right or wrong.
Now for Rick Santorumn. I will vote for him in the primary if he is still in when it gets to my state. As I have said before he is the best of what is left, but, he does support welfare. He does support it to a lessor degree than Democrats. He wants to cut Social Security. Social Security recipients paid into the ponzi scheme and those who have not yet collected will likely get riped off.
Personally I am glad our society takes care of those that cannot take care of themselves. My gladness however does not make it right. People who can not take care of themselves should rely on charity or the goodness of people to take care of them. Then they would be grateful for what they got and the giver would feel good for giving. As it is the recipient thinks it is owed to him and the giver resents his gift because it is not a gift but a burden of a heavy handed society.
Rick Santorum actually worked to decrease Welfare, that is a good thing. I wish however we could get rid of this idea that poor people are entitled to the rewards of other peoples labor whether it be a little or a lot, that is either slavery or indentured servitude.
I am not against taxes, even high taxes if they are needed to defend the country. I am simply against robbing from the producers and giving to the non-producers. When I was a young man defense accounted for 70% of the federal budget. There was no welfare. When I was young everyone supported themselves. Some people that were lazy or incompetent paid the price by living in poorer conditions than those who worked hard or got an education and did jobs that others couldn't do. Now our society feels that it isn't fair that the uneducated should not have to pay the price for their failure to educate themselves and take from those who did. I resent it. I don't resent charity and give generously to many charities and my church but nobody makes me do that.
What you post is all well and good but for today’s poor most ‘fellow men’ doesn’t give a crap. As they say ‘we’re not a Christian country’ but maybe a tax deduction would be persuasive.
I know exactly what you’re talking about. Things *have* improved, but there are still plenty of libs/”moderates” in the USCC. But election-wise, there is good news: when Santorum is clearly understood, i.e., his across the board program is considered in totallity, he is seen as being congruent with Catholicism (and the CCC) as it is meant to be understood in truth.
Please re read this thread’s article. It presents the balance and reasonableness of Santorum’s vision, and how it is informed by the balance and reasonableness of Catholic teaching. When I read it, everything clicked regarding the attitude, focus, spirit, and application of Catholic social teaching. I said to myself, “THIS is what it should be!”
One of Santorum’s themes is the dignity of work and providing people with opportunities for them to stand on their own feet in freedom, rather than being enslaved in dependency on the government. With the exception of individual Bishops, the USCC wants the government to take care of “the poor,” preferably “undocumented immigrants.” (That’s “illegal aliens” for you in Rio Linda. lol) OTOH, Santorum is against amnesty and for a border fence. In his blog, Archbishop Dolan basically called conservatives “Know Nothings,” and said he agreed with the very liberal Cardinal Mahoney regarding “immigration.” In another entry, Dolan said that Americans are selfish gas guzzlers; Santorum wants to “drill, baby, drill.” The comparisons go on and on.
The last visionary conservative we had was Ronald Reagan - I’m waiting to see if the USCC will castigate Santorum. I’d be surprised if they don’t.
Capitol punishment IS NOT a defined doctrine, but the libs and MSM act like it is.
Bl. John Paul II wrote that given the advancement of civilization, and well as the penal system, capitol punishment should not be neccessary in order to protect society. However, he stopped short of declaring a doctrine. And those are the facts.
Coulter not being totally Catholic helps to explain why she is not totally conservative.
Fournier seems to say that conservatives don’t care enough about the poor and cites it as a reason he is only reluctantly a conservative or republican. That is wrong for two reasons. First, there are no real poor people in America. The vast majority of people who ever lived would be stunned by the opulence in which “poor” Americans live in. Secondly, free markets, which conservatives champion, are the best cure for poverty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.