Originally Posted by James50

If that is what you think I said, you misunderstood. I do not think the Catholic Church should have moral authority over all of society. I do think they should not be forced to pay for a trivial expense that is contrary to their beliefs. Only a complete ideologue would think this was worth the fight.

I have often been attracted to the left because of their pursuit of justice. Just when I am about to come over, they pull something like this that shows their true intolerance and authoritarianism. They will stop at nothing, care for no one's beliefs, and would blast through everything I hold of value if it would satisfy their ideology.

James50

James, if you're going to just parrot JPT's statements, then I don't think we have anything more to say to each other at this point.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

James, if you're going to just parrot JPT's statements, then I don't think we have anything more to say to each other at this point.

What did I say that was like JPT?

James50

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

If a Romney presidency is too horrible to even imagine, how about a Gingrich presidency? Eric, by turning away, shuddering, and refusing to look, you are setting yourself up to be blindsided.

I'm not too worried now; Gingrich is not going to be nominated, and certainly not elected.

Originally Posted by James50

Others have said that if liberalism was a church, abortion is the blood sacrifice at its altar. Now it appears, contraception has entered the temple as well and every speck of tolerance, respect, and understanding for the beliefs of others must be offered up to this totem. And for something that is a trivial monetary cost.

Don't you have that reversed? Opposition to abortion is the main conservative tenet of many religious people, and now the Catholic objection to contraception is entering the temple as well.

Originally Posted by Deb C

While I don't support the whole no birth control baloney, my guess is that many of us would see it as an infringement on our belief system if the government came in and dictated what we had to do. Including those of us who don't profess to belonging to an organized religion.

So before we go picking on any particular religion for it's belief system, I suggest that we put ourselves in their shoes. EVERY religion has its own set of beliefs. The job of the government is not to dictate what is right or wrong in our belief system.

It's a question of offending the religious organization, not a religion per se.

Obama has just stirred up a hornets nest with going back on his word to the Catholic leadership. We are talking about a powerful system that has been in place for hundreds of years. No institutionalized religion is going to stand by and let the government dictate their belief system. None.

While I agree going back on his word could be a problem for Obama, and he might have to find a way out, this is not a case of having the government dictate a belief system. The Catholics are free to believe as they wish, but the rule is about whether a Catholic-owned hospital should be required to dispense contraceptives to patients covered under the health care law (I think...).

Or is it about Catholic hospitals forcing their employees not to go out and buy contraceptives? That is very unfair, if that's the case...

Originally Posted by James50

Ahh, a predictable change in subject. Of course, this has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but it is predictable. I will take it as a sign you have run out of arguments; a victory of sorts.

James50

The topic at hand is elections 2012.

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/economic-gains-questions-romney-boost-obamas-prospects-november-050107581--abc-news.html

Here is an interesting article. It is basically saying that Obama is winning the two man Mitt Romney v Obama race at this point even though Mitt hasn't secured the nomination. What I thought was interesting was the data they had on Republicans. I will quote a couple of those paragraphs here.

But it's true too that Romney's fortune - if elected he'd be one of the wealthiest presidents in history - is a delicate issue given the public's long-running economic discontent. Sixty-eight percent think the tax code favors the wealthy in this country; 56 percent feel that way strongly. Seventy-two percent favor raising taxes on millionaires; 59 percent say so strongly. Both include majorities of Republicans.

Based on his roughly 14 percent tax rate on 2010 income of about $22 million, the public by a broad 66-30 percent says Romney is not paying his fair share of taxes; even nearly half of Republicans say so, as do half of very conservative Americans. The public by 53-36 percent, a 17-point margin, thinks Obama better understands the economic problems people are having. Obama leads Romney by 55-37 percent in trust to better protect the interests of the middle class, and remarkably, by 10 points, 52-42 percent, in trust to handle taxes.

I really wish the debate would center around a term other than "fair share" of taxes. I think as long as someone is paying what they legitimately owe, they ARE paying their fair share according to tax law.

I may think certain types and levels of income should be a bit higher, but that's different than whether Romney and others in his situation are "paying their fair share." IMO, unless they are engaged in criminal tax evasion, and they are paying what the law requires, they are. It doesn't mean support for the status quo.

Plus, the "pay their fair share" meme does sound a little too much like whiny class envy politics, and I don't think that's productive.

Originally Posted by James50

Come on David, you can do better than this. Salaries are agreed mutually by the two parties. Benefits under the federal rule are not allowed to be mutually agreed upon. In this case, the federal rule is forcing a crisis of conscience on the employer. There is no need for it. The cost of contraception is trivial. It is only because of Obama's obeisance to the abortion lobby that this has even become an issue. It is a disgusting betrayal to the Catholic leadership who supported him. The real extremists are people like Planned Parenthood. It is sad Obama has to kowtow to them. I cannot support it.

James50

More basically, what one gets as pay is one's to dispose of as one sees fit. An employer cannot control what one does with cash pay. Scrip, maybe not; if someone is in a company town and is paid in scrip then one must use it as is generally available. If an employer should pay in scrip as in the old days and get away with it (possible if some interests got their way), then the employer could easily shape what experiences are available and are not available. Maybe there might be no alcoholic beverages available to workers, or if cable TV were available with scrip, then the employer might decide that the only "news" available on cable might be corporate-friendly FoX Propaganda Channel.

I think that you can understand why reformers, often at the time associated with some corporate interests of the time, supported reforms that eventually required employers to pay in cash instead of scrip. Remember -- some capitalists preferred that workers have choice in how to spend their earnings.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

I really wish the debate would center around a term other than "fair share" of taxes. I think as long as someone is paying what they legitimately owe, they ARE paying their fair share according to tax law.

I may think certain types and levels of income should be a bit higher, but that's different than whether Romney and others in his situation are "paying their fair share." IMO, unless they are engaged in criminal tax evasion, and they are paying what the law requires, they are. It doesn't mean support for the status quo.

Plus, the "pay their fair share" meme does sound a little too much like whiny class envy politics, and I don't think that's productive.

Ah but "fair" is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as "equitable or even-handed among conflicting interests." He might be paying the legally mandated amount, but that doesn't make it fair. A law can certainly be an unfair law (we have many, many! examples).

And I don't think it is fair in the slightest. When I went to start my own business and employ myself, I paid a higher tax rate than Romney right off the bat. For about $18k in income (which translates to lots of beans and no health insurance), I owed the IRS almost $3k.

But the Heritage Institute and other propagandists want you to focus on the "Income Tax" so I would have been included in the nonsense statistic of 40-something percent of Americans who paid zero "Income Tax."

So all those "tax deadbeats" that the conservatives like to ramble on about? Yeah, they were probably paying a higher percentage of their gross income to the IRS than Romney did.

Fair? No. Not in the slightest.

Originally Posted by James50

The success of our culture depends on a vibrant pluralism. We are better off with many centers of authority and not just one. The Catholic church is hardly omnipotent, but it should have a voice in our culture. When our society evolves to a stage where the government is the sole source of authority and power, we will be the poorer for it.

James50

That was your original statement, and it sounded to me as if you meant the church should have authority beyond its membership.

Originally Posted by James50

If that is what you think I said, you misunderstood. I do not think the Catholic Church should have moral authority over all of society. I do think they should not be forced to pay for a trivial expense that is contrary to their beliefs. Only a complete ideologue would think this was worth the fight.

I have often been attracted to the left because of their pursuit of justice. Just when I am about to come over, they pull something like this that shows their true intolerance and authoritarianism. They will stop at nothing, care for no one's beliefs, and would blast through everything I hold of value if it would satisfy their ideology.

James50

What I can't understand is this: you profess to be concerned with justice, but you're only concerned about the feelings of the Catholic hierarchy--who are out of touch even with Catholic lay people on these subjects--and you're not in the least concerned with the rights of, say, a nurse working in a Catholic hospital to get the same health insurance as a nurse working in a different hospital. You don't seem to realize that "the abortion lobby" as you call it has a large constituency of single and married women--and their partners I might add-who regard birth control as a right. I'm more concerned about them, I freely admit.

Let me by the way throw something new into the mix. As the breast cancer flap shows, the attack on women's rights in these areas--and I do not just mean abortion--is getting more and more heated. A very generationally savvy friend of mine pointed out that this is happening just as the new Homelander young women are approaching puberty. Coincidence? I doubt it.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It's a question of offending the religious organization, not a religion per se.



While I agree going back on his word could be a problem for Obama, and he might have to find a way out, this is not a case of having the government dictate a belief system. The Catholics are free to believe as they wish, but the rule is about whether a Catholic-owned hospital should be required to dispense contraceptives to patients covered under the health care law (I think...).

Or is it about Catholic hospitals forcing their employees not to go out and buy contraceptives? That is very unfair, if that's the case...

The health insurance at Catholic hospitals don't cover abortions, elective sterilizations, or birth control pills. When people are hired they are told that these services and scripts are excluded. It appears from the thousands of employees, this has never been a voiced concern. To my knowledge anyway. People just go other places for those services and BCP.

The problem is that the president of the Catholic Hospital Association was told by Obama that the new law would not affect the church doctrine. (Wrong as it is) But after she convinced bishops of the promise, it turns out that it does. Now she feels betrayed and the bishops are in an uproar. Not a pretty picture.

Only the future will tell what this will mean. However, as a former Catholic, I must say, there has been much bashing of that faith here. There is also much good that has come out of that system; food pantries, shelters for the homeless, free health care for the poor and many other really wonderful social justice and peace endeavors. It's not all bad as some would like to portray.

Every religious institution has it's dark side. This is why I find it amazing that people who have never ever been Catholic are throwing stones.

While the birth control issue is a problem, there are others who view it differently. I really read much hype here and passion for justice with this issue. Which there should be to some respect. But I rarely read this much outrage about what is happening under our nose with the destruction of our planet and waging wars all over the place. Where's the righteous outrage about the growing homelessness and the hunger in this country? Or how a president down right lied to get what he wanted?

Originally Posted by Deb C

The health insurance at Catholic hospitals don't cover abortions, elective sterilizations, or birth control pills. When people are hired they are told these these services and scripts are excluded. It appears from the thousands of employees, this has never been a voiced concern. To my knowledge anyway. People just go other places for those services and BCP.

Actually I was reading that quite a few Catholic Hospitals already provide insurance to employees that covers birth control. If you think Catholic parishioners are fairly liberal, you should talk to the doctors, Jesuits, and teachers!

Only the future will tell what this will mean. However, as a former Catholic, I must say, there has been much bashing of that faith here. There is also much good that has come out of that system; food pantries, shelters for the homeless, free health care for the poor and many other really wonderful social justice and peace endeavors. It's not all bad as some would like to portray.

Every religious institution has it's dark side. This is why I find it amazing that people who have never ever been Catholic are throwing stones.

Since I spent the better part of 18 years in Catholic schools, can I keep chucking rocks? They kinda gave me all this ammo... Of course, the ultimate irony is that in the deep south, Catholic schools are a nice secular alternative to the incredibly religious public schools.

I don't think murder i.e. abortion should be paid for by medical insurance either.

Back on topic--polling is suddenly looking up for Obama.

RCP's got a decent electoral map here, and although they seem to rely a bit too heavily on Rasmussen for their polling data, even they have to admit that Obama has a head start in the delegate count.

Obama needs 53 from these toss-up states, and Romney needs 79:

Colorado (9)

Florida (29)

Iowa (6)

Nevada (6)

New Hampshire (4)

North Carolina (15)

Ohio (18)

Pennsylvania (20)

Virginia (13)

Wisconsin (10)

Originally Posted by pizal81

I don't think murder i.e. abortion should be paid for by medical insurance either.

And I respect your views. No one should tell others what to believe.

… on Obamacare/Catholic Hysteria!!!

- Over half of Americans already live in the 28 States that require insurance companies cover contraception: Several of these States like North Carolina, New York, and California have identical religious employer exemptions. Some States like Colorado, Georgia and Wisconsin have no exemption at all. One of the 28 states includes the home of RomneyCare - probable diminishes this as a differentiating issue for the election

- Churches are exempt from the new rules: Churches and other houses of worship will be exempt from the requirement to offer insurance that covers contraception

- Of the other religious organizations that employ and serve a broader constituency that would not be exempt (but, would have a one-year transition window to adjust), the largest impact would be on hospitals that without Medicaid and Medicare (two of the largest federal programs) would barely exist if at all. If your gonna take money from the devil, ....

- The law requires no individual to violate their personal beliefs by taking advantage of the benefit, the law simply acknowledges that there are some who may work in a Catholic hospital who may not have the same stricture against contraceptives and want it to be included as part of their group coverage savings with a third-party insurer.

- No individual health care provider will be forced to prescribe contraception; drugs that cause abortion are not covered by this policy – drugs like RU486 are not covered by this policy, and nothing changes the President’s firm commitment to maintaining strict limitations on Federal funding for abortions.

- A Le Moyne College/Zogby International national poll in 2007 found 67 percent of American Catholics disagree with the church teaching that artificial birth control is wrong. Six in ten (64 percent) oppose requiring high school sex education programs to only teach abstinence. They also believe insurance companies should be required to cover and pharmacists required to sell birth control pills. Three-quarters of Catholics support requiring health insurance plans to cover birth control pills (75 percent). Nearly eight in ten (78 percent) oppose allowing pharmacists to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions.

Now, before returning you to your hysteria over this trumped-up issue....

I would just like to note, as an occasional practicing Catholic (Irish/French thingee) my sigh of relieve that the entire issue has focused on contraception and not on that other abomination against "God's Plan" - erectile dysfunction and the prolific use of Viagra in our culture. Ah, not that, ah, I have ever particularly, ah, ah, ah.... Whoops, got to go! Mother Superior is headed down the hall this way and looks even less gregarious than usual!

Oh, and just to note, this and all similar such issue would go away with single payer.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

RCP's got a decent electoral map here, and although they seem to rely a bit too heavily on Rasmussen for their polling data, even they have to admit that Obama has a head start in the delegate count.

Obama needs 53 from these toss-up states, and Romney needs 79:

Colorado (9)

Florida (29)

Iowa (6)

Nevada (6)

New Hampshire (4)

North Carolina (15)

Ohio (18)

Pennsylvania (20)

Virginia (13)

Wisconsin (10)

Possible Combinations, discounting Florida, Pennsylvania, & Ohio for the moment:

Likely Blue
Colorado
Nevada
New Hampshire
Wisconsin

Total: 29

Likely Red
Iowa
Virginia
North Carolina

Total: 32

If one side got all of these little swing states?

Total: 61 - Good for Obama, bad for Romney

Remaining Total (FL, OH, PA): 67 - Good for Obama, bad for Romney

Conclusion what will make or break this election? Florida, Ohio & Pennsylvania. If Romney could get all those "little" swing states and then one of the "big three" he'd be set. Dear God... I've got a lot of advertising to sit through this year, yet again... Obama meanwhile all he has to do is keep Romney from getting all three of the "big three" and a sizable amount of the little swing states.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Possible Combinations, discounting Florida, Pennsylvania, & Ohio for the moment:

Likely Blue
Colorado
Nevada
New Hampshire
Wisconsin

Total: 29

Likely Red
Iowa
Virginia
North Carolina

Total: 32

If one side got all of these little swing states?

Total: 61 - Good for Obama, bad for Romney

Conclusion what will make or break this election? Florida, Ohio & Pennsylvania. Dear God... I've got a lot of advertising to sit through this year, yet again...

~Chas'88

Note that North Carolina was blue in 2008. This is an interesting state.

Originally Posted by millennialX

Note that North Carolina was blue in 2008. This is an interesting state.

I've seen multiple explinations for that--extending from a large African-American population to rising Millennials. What do you think?

~Chas'88

Yea NC was slightly blue and Virginia was VERY blue.

While I do think Romney will do relatively well with retired Floridians, yankee Republicans don't generally inspire a lot of motivation in the south. So the urban centers in VA and NC can have a big impact.

That might be an argument for why Obama can carry Florida, too... he won Jacksonville last time, so he'll probably pick up Tally, Tampa, Orlando, and Miami. Romney will do good in the panhandle, central/southern ag regions, and in the coastal retirement communities... but those aren't the big population centers. Obama probably needs to campaign hard in Jax & Tampa since they're very conservative for cities of their size, and try to get a good turnout in Miami.

A new southern strategy.. lol

Originally Posted by Chas'88

I've seen multiple explinations for that--extending from a large African-American population to rising Millennials. What do you think?

~Chas'88

Yes, your examples and the growing crowd of Academics located in many of NC cities with Universities. Especially the Research Triangle area, Asheville, Wilmington, Winston-Salem and Greensboro area. Then all the Northern transplants and crowd connected to the growing motion picture industry here. Obama's favorite show, Homeland is shot here and is supposed to take place in DC (NC is a weird if you think of it)

I live in Charlotte so I can cross the street into SC and see the exact opposite world. It's day and night, and culture wars can get pretty high, here. I wonder how the Democratic election will go. Probably more intense then the Republican convention in Philly, when I was there.

PS. Here's the kicker...when I first came down, I actually ran into a lot of Black Republicans. It was a culture shock. LOL

Ron Paul is huge with the millennials, btw.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

I really wish the debate would center around a term other than "fair share" of taxes. I think as long as someone is paying what they legitimately owe, they ARE paying their fair share according to tax law.

I may think certain types and levels of income should be a bit higher, but that's different than whether Romney and others in his situation are "paying their fair share." IMO, unless they are engaged in criminal tax evasion, and they are paying what the law requires, they are. It doesn't mean support for the status quo.

Plus, the "pay their fair share" meme does sound a little too much like whiny class envy politics, and I don't think that's productive.

There is inherently a moral component in tax policy. I would like to see a balanced approach and feel that we need to always seek a balance of power.

I think that the question of 'fairness' could better framed as matter of being responsible (and not just legal)

http://www.taxjustice.net/cms/front_content.php?idcatart=2&lang=1


..."We oppose a financial and legalistic approach to tax, which focuses exclusively on the boundary between what is legal (tax avoidance) and what is illegal (tax evasion.) Instead we favour an accountability-driven approach, differentiating between what is responsible, and what is not. A responsible approach sees tax not as a cost to a company to be avoided, but like a dividend: a distribution out of profits to all stakeholders. Companies do not make profit merely by using investors' capital. They also use the societies in which they operate -- whether the physical infrastructure provided by the state, the people the state has educated, or the legal infrastructure that allows companies to protect their rights. Tax is the return due on this investment by society from which companies benefit."...

Also, I like the concept of the OT Jubilee (not sure that this was actually practiced) and support an inheritance tax to prevent the endless accumulation of wealth.

-

History of the Jubilee


http://198.62.75.1/www1/ofm/jub/JUBmean1.html

..."The Jubilee (v10) was a decision to return to the origins, when everyone in Israel had his own property and hence his freedom and equality in dignity. It was a reaction against tenureship and poverty. It was a period of social reform which allowed for an economic equilibrium, whereby everyone enjoyed at least the minimal economic independence and liberty."...

Originally Posted by millennialX

Ron Paul is huge with the millennials, btw.

Especially rich Millennials.

~Chas'88