In your free time, visit the sites about phentermine phentermine http://www.canadianlabels.net/
online poker online poker http://www.8gold.com/
viagra viagra http://www.cheapest-viagra-on-line.co.uk/
debt consolidation debt consolidation http://www.debt-help-bill-consolidation-elimination.com/
online casino online casino http://www.onlinegamingassociation.com/
casino casino http://www.mediavisor.com/
credit cards credit cards http://www.911easymoney.com/
online casino online casino http://www.popwow.com/
poker poker http://www.oiline.com/
mortgages mortgages http://www.spoodles.com/
loans loans http://www.houseofsevengables.com/
diet pills diet pills http://www.crepesuzette.com/
debt consolidation debt consolidation http://www.sportsparent.com/
payday loans payday loans http://www.instant-quick-money-cash-advance-personal-loans-until-pay-day.com/
student loans student loans http://www.tmsathai.org/
private mortgages private mortgages http://www.stmaryonline.org/
personal loans personal loans http://www.flafeber.com/
home loans home loans http://www.thatwhichis.com/
travel travel http://www.condodream.com/
hotels hotels http://www.royalmailhotel.com/
mortgage mortgage http://mortgage.top.uaeecommerce.com/
mortgage rates mortgage rates http://mortgage-rates.uaeecommerce.com/
clonazepam clonazepam http://www.uaeecommerce.com/
diet pills diet pills http://www.newtruths.com/
loans loans http://www.fidelityfunding.net/
...

Merry Christmas!!

Comment added by Unregistered on Sat 25 Dec 2004 - 07:31 h

I hope everyone here has a Merry Christmas! I would submit to the new member that instead of looking for universal healthecare in this country which is a socialist idea and only deals with insurance. An argument can be made that it isn't working well in other countries, except to say that everyone has coverage, that we discuss ways that everyone has "care". What can we do about people who refuse options given to them by their companies, and then tax the system by not paying the bill? Catholic hospitals(one of the largest groups of hospitals in the country) give away medical care FREE on a daily basis, but they are getting extreme amounts of heat for not giving abortions, for not allowing abortions in their facilities and for not having it in their insurance plan. Thank goodness President Bush has signed a law preventing pro choice groups from going after Catholic people and others who refuse to give abortions.

With regards to the poor, all Catholics have a responsibility to the ministry of the poor. Where many of us disagree is how we do that. We don't believe that social programs by government taxation is working. (to be clear, some might be, but those then are the ones we should keep in Government) We don't believe that the right people are helped by them because of too much beurocracy, and we question as to whether or not they are only making people more dependent on being poor. We have poor in the US, but we also have the poor worldwide, we have an obligation to them too. We must again find the best ways to help the poor on a worldwide basis, so they actually get help.

One of the reasons that abortion and stem cell research was the most important of our issues this year, was because of one thing... our Catechism states that even by supporting abortion you can be excommunicated. There are many of us that think it is the most heinous of sins that a population can do to themselves. The evidence is starting to appear that we are right. Look at the country that now euthanizes their children. 30 yrs ago it was predicted that this would happen, but we actually didn't dream it would be the children, we thought it would be the Hitlerest type of issues, with the disabled and the elderly. It actually is worse than that.

Christ was born for us this day, to save our sins. God Bless you all!!

reply to this comment

Healthcare

Comment added by lmilford on Mon 27 Dec 2004 - 11:57 h

I thought that I needed to add something to my previous response about healthcare. In added defense to my assertion that something needs to change in healthcare is a recent study by the American Journal of Public Health states that between 1991 and 2000, 866,000 African-Americans died prematurely due to the fact that they did not receive the same level of healthcare as white counterparts. This is a disgusting statistic that shows that our current system of healthcare is not as wonderful as you would believe. Universal of even expanded healthcare coverage could have helped these people! We cannot let this continue on in the most prosperous nation in the world! This is why we as Catholics need to have our voice heard on these issues! We cannot call ourselves a Christian society as long as material wealth is a factor of life and death in our healthcare system.

reply to this comment

Merry Christmas!

Comment added by lmilford on Mon 27 Dec 2004 - 08:13 h

First of all... Merry Christmas to all!!! What a wonderful time of year! To go into your argument that universal healthcare is a socialist idea... that is completely wrong. It is a human idea. In fact, the healthcare plan pushed by the Clinton administration would have put universal healthcare in the hands of private insurers, still giving them the ability to control costs and manage care. This is completely different than in other universal healthcare countries. The argument that countries that offer universal healthcare somehow offer substandard care is completely false.

For your argument about helping the poor... I think you missed my point. I never advocated wealth redistribution through government channels. What my argument entailed was that the current system of trickle down economics only works to deepen the wealth divide. A more compassionate approach would be a form of trickle up economics. You see trickle down economics works from what is call the supply side... which means you give incentives to suppliers to produce more, creating demand, etc. The other school of thought is called demand side. This was practiced by Rubin in the Clinton admin. In this school of thought, incentives are given to consumers (i.e. working class) so they can afford to purchase more goods and demand more supply. It is a much more balanced approach, and as the 1990s showed, helps to spread wealth a little more evenly without the government. You mentioned that government payments to the poor intice them not to work. That would mean that you have very little faith in the will of poor people. There has been calls to cut or reduce the "workfare" reforms that were installed in the 1990s that were specifically designed to help people transition from welfare to work. These have proven to be effective programs, but hit a wall when there are less jobs in the economy for these people to transition to. Right now the unemployment rate stands at about 5.7 percent, which means about 8 million people out of work - not because they want to be but because there aren't any more jobs.

You also mentioned that we have an obligation to help the poor of the world. I did mention that in my post. I truley believe that we need to spread prosperity and not destruction.

reply to this comment

Nice

Comment added by hugetim on Mon 27 Dec 2004 - 09:52 h

What a helpful and succinct response.

I only wanted to add that what I have read recently in economics indicates "supply-side" economics is an ideological contruction outside of the economics mainstream. All economists recognize the "supply-side" effects, but they also know the importance of other factors. The problem with "supply-side" economics is not that it is wrong about supply effects (though it tends to exaggerate them) but that it denies that any other factors exist. An exclusively "demand-side" economics would be just as wrong. Instead, what I think was practiced in the Clinton years was *Economics*, without leaving anything out for ideological reasons. (This is not to say I agree with all of Clinton's economic policies...)

Imilford, it sounds like you are pretty familiar with the ins and outs of welfare reform. Would you be interested in writing a blog entry that could get us started with some criteria for evaluating the records and positions of members of Congress on welfare reform, with respect to Catholic Social Teaching? As you may know, the welfare program (TANF) is up for "reauthorization" this spring, which means TANF will be changed in some potentially large (and harmful) ways, and these changes will be put into effect for the next five years.

reply to this comment

Hello

Comment added by lmilford on Mon 27 Dec 2004 - 11:00 h

Thanks for your kind response. I know my generalizations were just that. What is happening today is that *Economics* is being ignored. Instead of looking at all the factors and getting a picture of the trends in the economy, it seems as though the current administration is content to know the answers to begin with and formulate the facts to back up their answers. What makes me sick to my stomach is that under the Clinton economic plan, even with lean years as we are having now, the government wouls have been able to take care of the baby boomers with no problem. Now the future of the system is again in jeopardy. But, in response to your request, I can put something together this weekend hopefully and have a blog ready for the New Year! A great idea!

reply to this comment

Glad to Hear!

Comment added by lmilford on Fri 24 Dec 2004 - 05:35 h

I am glad to hear that I am not totally off the wall! I agree that looking to the past will not do anyone any good. We need to start looking to the future now because, as we all know, the future has a way of showing up faster than we expect. I focus on the last election because it is when I seemed to get a full understanding of how the Catholic voice is being muttled to the point of not being heard at all. That needs to change. As Catholics, I think we all need to help push for positive change for everyone in our own country and in our world.

reply to this comment

Welcome!

Comment added by hugetim on Fri 24 Dec 2004 - 01:43 h

Dear Imilford,

It is wonderful to have you here! I couldn't agree more with the thrust of your post, that the Catholic community is neglecting important issues central to Catholic identity, and this board is dedicated to helping change that.

On the particulars of your post, I would point out that Bush has done some substantial things on abortion and embryonic stem cell research. My serious concern is that he will do little more in four more years, and pro-lifers who voted for him will be dissapointed. In any case, it is clear to me that Pres. Bush's neglect of increasing poverty and numbers of uninsured, as well as his irresponsible policies regarding the deficit and "trickle down economics," are indeed "inherently anti-Catholic."

However, this board is about moving beyond the debates of the past election and looking forward to the future. Frustrated with the difficulty of deciding between candidates who each have positions offensive to Catholic sensibilities (and Catholic teaching), we are focused on finding, supporting, and promoting public servants and candidates for office who demonstrate engagement with the whole of the Catholic Christian message (life-with regard to both abortion and war, family-with regard to both just wages and the definition of marriage, social justice and global solidarity). Even if these candidates can only be found in the House of Reps. or at the state or even local level, we want to find them and hold them up as models to show Catholics and others what it means to be fully Catholic. Ultimately, we want to encourage more of these to run for higher offices so we have more candidates we can support wholeheartedly, and more public servants who "show our shared values of compassion for the less fortunate, peace, and social justice."

reply to this comment

Important Issues?

Comment added by Unregistered on Fri 31 Dec 2004 - 13:07 h

Occasionally we are given the chance to vote for the lesser evil of two evils. Many good, loyal, ROMAN Catholics agonized over that choice this time round. It wasn't a question of Bush or Kerry, since Kerry was never a serious option for sincere convinced Catholics. It was a question of Bush or stay at home, Bush or protest vote, Bush or write in candidate .... Why? Because neither major party candidate completely represented the Catholic position on anything. We found ourselves recognizing that a Democratic party dedicated to the "little guy" which could not, somehow, find a way of condemning abortion, which is the ultimate crime against the little guy, couldn't get our vote under any circumstances. Many of us who voted for Mr. Bush did so with a heavy heart, sure only that a vote for his opponent would make things immeasurably worse and that a vote for Mr. Bush gave us the chance to fight again, another day for other issues of grave importance.

Chris

reply to this comment

Welcome Chris

Comment added by hugetim on Fri 31 Dec 2004 - 17:00 h

Amen! Hang around if you can and help us bring more fully Catholic politicians to the fore of politics!

reply to this comment