Bishop criticizes USCCB committee’s reaction to Ryan budget

[rlg94086]

“This budget gets Washington out of the business of picking winners and losers, and restores fiscal discipline with over $5 trillion in cuts to government spending so the private sector can grow.”

The above quote is right from Ryan’s website
http://budget.house.gov/prosperity/economicfreedom.htm
I do not want to cut $5 trillion which will make cuts to entitlement programs. I don’t know how I can be any more explicit than this. I am taking words right out of Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity.”

I was hoping that we could have a discussion on how Catholic social teaching differs from what Paul Ryan and his colleagues envision. Ryan’s vision is very different than the vision of Catholic social teaching. Can we at least agree on that?

How is cutting $5 trillion from a budget “different than the vision of Catholic social teaching?” Where do you find teaching that trillions of dollars of debt is a good and moral thing for a government to incur?

 

[estesbob]

“This budget gets Washington out of the business of picking winners and losers, and restores fiscal discipline with over $5 trillion in cuts to government spending so the private sector can grow.”

The above quote is right from Ryan’s website
http://budget.house.gov/prosperity/economicfreedom.htm
I do not want to cut $5 trillion which will make cuts to entitlement programs. I don’t know how I can be any more explicit than this. I am taking words right out of Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity.”

I was hoping that we could have a discussion on how Catholic social teaching differs from what Paul Ryan and his colleagues envision. Ryan’s vision is very different than the vision of Catholic social teaching. Can we at least agree on that?

I dont see where Ryans budget conflicts with Catholic social teaching at all.

 

[Ridgerunner]

“This budget gets Washington out of the business of picking winners and losers, and restores fiscal discipline with over $5 trillion in cuts to government spending so the private sector can grow.”

The above quote is right from Ryan’s website
http://budget.house.gov/prosperity/economicfreedom.htm
I do not want to cut $5 trillion which will make cuts to entitlement programs. I don’t know how I can be any more explicit than this. I am taking words right out of Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity.”

I was hoping that we could have a discussion on how Catholic social teaching differs from what Paul Ryan and his colleagues envision. Ryan’s vision is very different than the vision of Catholic social teaching. Can we at least agree on that?

No, we can’t agree on that.

Nobody has yet taken some specific provision, shown what’s wrong with it and why it’s against the teachings of the Church, let alone a number of them. Maybe one of these times somebody will, but I have not yet seen it in this thread. All I have seen are sweeping generalizations and conclusions. In court I think the lawyers would object “No proper foundation, your honor”, to which the judge would reply “Sustained”.

And, for goodness sake, Ryan is talking three trilliion out of some number of years and STILL won’t end the ongoing deficits. Perhaps he should be surprised by his own moderation. Is there something in the Catechism that tells me my children and granchildren should each have a debt of $500,000 instead of the present $148,000? Where do we go to find that teaching?

 

[Ridgerunner]

But is it? One of the social teachings is that people and families should be enabled to acquire productive, inheritable assets. How are they to do that when they are already $148,000 in the hole at birth? I know a family with nine kids. So their share of the national debt is about a million and a half, combined. (don’t have a calculator with me, but that’s close) Is there any reason why it should be five million? How on earth is that consistent with the teachings of the Church?

Ryan ought to be chided for not going further than he has. Instead, all kinds of people are screaming like a tree full of screech owls that he has somehow tied fair maiden to the railroad track.

 

[jwinch2]

But is it? One of the social teachings is that people and families should be enabled to acquire productive, inheritable assets. How are they to do that when they are already $148,000 in the hole at birth? I know a family with nine kids. So their share of the national debt is about a million and a half, combined. (don’t have a calculator with me, but that’s close) Is there any reason why it should be five million? How on earth is that consistent with the teachings of the Church?

Ryan ought to be chided for not going further than he has. Instead, all kinds of people are screaming like a tree full of screech owls that he has somehow tied fair maiden to the railroad track.

Not to mention that we are currently borrowing approx. 40% of every dollar the US government spends. I don’t remember seeing anywhere in the Catechism or the Compendium for the Social Doctrine of the Church about them being a suicide pact. If you want to see the end game, take a look at Greece, Spain, Portegual, etc. Does anything think the situation in those countries is a good representation of Catholic social teaching? If we don’t get a handle on our spending and start focusing on the very poor instead those someone government agency said are poor yet drive their own car to pick up their welfare check while they check facebook on their iPhone, we are going to see our entirely economy collapse and no one will be helping anybody. catholic-convert.com/2012/06/02/a-young-doctor-writes-to-president-obama/

From everything I can tell about the Ryan budget, he doesn’t even really make cuts, he simply does not increase as fast as the President does. The 5 trillion in savings is off of projected future spending, not off of current spending. If his plan is implemented entirely, the country would still be spending massive amounts of money on programs to help the poor. How again is this uncatholic?

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Not to mention that we are currently borrowing approx. 40% of every dollar the US government spends. I don’t remember seeing anywhere in the Catechism or the Compendium for the Social Doctrine of the Church about them being a suicide pact. If you want to see the end game, take a look at Greece, Spain, Portegual, etc. Does anything think the situation in those countries is a good representation of Catholic social teaching?

From everything I can tell about the Ryan budget, he doesn’t even really make cuts, he simply does not increase as fast as the President does. The 5 trillion in savings is off of projected future spending, not off of current spending. If his plan is implemented entirely, the country would still be spending massive amounts of money on programs to help the poor. How again is this uncatholic?

Amen.

Another reason to like you

 

[jwinch2]

Amen.

Another reason to like you

Cheers Lou!

 

[JimG]

No, we can’t agree on that.

Nobody has yet taken some specific provision, shown what’s wrong with it and why it’s against the teachings of the Church, let alone a number of them. Maybe one of these times somebody will, but I have not yet seen it in this thread. All I have seen are sweeping generalizations and conclusions. In court I think the lawyers would object “No proper foundation, your honor”, to which the judge would reply “Sustained”.

And, for goodness sake, Ryan is talking three trilliion out of some number of years and STILL won’t end the ongoing deficits. Perhaps he should be surprised by his own moderation. **Is there something in the Catechism that tells me my children and granchildren should each have a debt of $500,000 instead of the present $148,000? **Where do we go to find that teaching?

Indeed, this may be the key question of regarding social justice that no one seems to want to address.

Where is the justice in saddling the next generation and beyond with burdensome debt so that we can live better?
It is clearly unjust, and against the common good.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Indeed, this may be the key question of regarding social justice that no one seems to want to address.

Where is the justice in saddling the next generation and beyond with burdensome debt so that we can live better?
It is clearly unjust, and against the common good.

It is about priorities, income and expenses.
Where does it come from and where does it go?
And how would you like to change it?

usfederalbudget.us/budget_gs.php

One thing is certain. Something MUST be done about healthcare costs.

usfederalbudget.us/spending_chart_2002_2022USb_13s1li111mcn_10t

 

[ljpgoodwin]

Ridgerunner

I do understand what you are saying about the $140,000. I think we can offset a lot of that debt by making sure we have enough income. My point continues to be that I think the bishops are offering a different way through the economic problems we have. As you have noted there were 2 bishops who disagree with the rest of the USCCB. You seem to be taking the same tact as the two decenters. I tend to agree with the more traditional understanding of CST, along with the rest of the USCCB.
Again, I point to the G.I. Bill and also to Dwight D. Eisenhower and his building of the interstate highway system as examples of good cooporation between the public and private sectors.

As for you point that I am not addressing your question about what I disagree with in the Ryan plan…I am not sure what you want me to say. I really mean that. Can you point me to something you would like me to comment on? I really have tried to address this. Give me some text from the plan that you want me to comment on and I’d be happy to let you know what I am thinking. I really am trying to address your questions, but you are going to help me out a bit here. I’m not exactly sure that I am looking at the same documents that you are. So if you could point me to something that would be very helpful.

That is what I was hoping you would do with # 1 and 2 of the principles in chapter 4 of the Compendium. I was hoping that you might be able to comment on how you think the idea of the universal destination of goods comes to bear on Ryan’s ideas of cutting federal entitlement programs.

 

[ljpgoodwin]

Ridgerunner

Maybe it would help our conversation if we start with a very fundamental question. Please understand that I am not trying to be a smart a**. I am really trying to understand how we, as a country, have come to be so divided on this issue. I really want to understand what you are thinking.

So my fundamental question is this: Why are there poor people here in one of the most wealthy places in the world?

 

[JimG]

It is about priorities, income and expenses.
Where does it come from and where does it go?
And how would you like to change it?

usfederalbudget.us/budget_gs.php

One thing is certain. Something MUST be done about healthcare costs.

usfederalbudget.us/spending_chart_2002_2022USb_13s1li111mcn_10t

Yes, it is about priorities, income and expenses. Government’s income comes from taxpayers, and that is a finite resource. Another source of income is borrowing, and the federal government currently has to borrow 40% of everything it spends. Of course, the taxpayers must pay the interest on those borrowings, and either pay it off eventually or keep refinancing it forever.

The nation has reached a point where only about half of us pay taxes and half do not. With an aging population dependent on a shrinking workforce, the system is becoming unsustainable. When we can’t pay for our own spending, we’ve just been transferring the cost to future generations, burdening them with unjust debt which will hold them down economically for decades. The just thing to do is to begin paying down the debt, not increase it.

What are healthcare costs? They are the prices we pay for healthcare services—what we pay to doctors, nurses, lab technicians, hospitals, imaging costs, etc. All healthcare costs represent income to somebody.

One thing that health insurance does is to ensure that these various people get paid. Health insurance insures us against expenses, but it is an income guarantee for healthcare providers.

And when providers have an income guarantee, they have little incentive to keep prices down.

Costs of healthcare keep rising for those things which are covered by insurance. But prices for things which insurance does not cover, such as LASIK surgery, have come down.

So health insurance is a transfer payment from the insured to the medical professionals. When government pays for healthcare, it is a transfer payment from taxpayers to doctors and hospitals and others. It’s an income guarantee for the professional class. Ideally, insurance ought to provide for coverage of catastrophic costs, not routine costs. That would help keep prices down.

 

[KSU]

B. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE POLITICAL COMMUNITY

a. Autonomy and independence

1. …The Second Vatican Council solemnly reaffirmed that, “in their proper spheres, the political community and the Church are mutually independent and self-governing”.[867] The Church is organized in ways that are suitable to meet the spiritual needs of the faithful, while the different political communities give rise to relationships and institutions that are at the service of everything that is part of the temporal common good. The autonomy and independence of these two realities is particularly evident with regards to their ends.

…For her part, the Church has no particular area of competence concerning the structures of the political community: “The Church respects the legitimate autonomy of the democratic order and is not entitled to express preferences for this or that institutional or constitutional solution”,[868] nor does it belong to her to enter into questions of the merit of political programmes, except as concerns their religious or moral implications. vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html#

The last two words, “moral implications”, would include issues such as laws forcing the Church to “marry” gay couples upon request, etc. By no stretch of the imagination can those words authorize a bishop to declare Congressman Ryan’s budget immoral.

It is simply an exercise of lack of knowledge to argue otherwise.

 

[estesbob]

Ridgerunner

Maybe it would help our conversation if we start with a very fundamental question. Please understand that I am not trying to be a smart a**. I am really trying to understand how we, as a country, have come to be so divided on this issue. I really want to understand what you are thinking.

So my fundamental question is this: Why are there poor people here in one of the most wealthy places in the world?

The “Poor” in our Country would be considered middle class in most countries in the world.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

So my fundamental question is this: Why are there poor people here in one of the most wealthy places in the world?

There are urban poor and rural poor. And “poor” is not necessarily bad. Our religious actually take vows of poverty. But their needs are taken care of. That is where the concern needs to be. Food, shelter, healthcare; especially for children.

 

[rlg94086]

The “Poor” in our Country would be considered middle class in most countries in the world.

I was thinking the same thing. I’ve been “poor” in America. It’s not great, and I prefer to not be “poor.” But, I was still eating. I was even homeless for a little while, but I was able to get a minimum wage job and found a cheap way to get a roof over my head.

 

[ljpgoodwin]

True, the poor here are somewhat better off than other countried. So I think that means that we should find ways to help as many hungrey and homeless families as we can. I don’t think we can just ignor the causes of poverty. There are things we can do as a nation. Just because other countries have greater poverty than do we does not mean we can ignore poverty in our own nation. I don’t think we should be in a race to the lowest common denominator.

So what do you think are the causes of poverty?

 

[estesbob]

True, the poor here are somewhat better off than other countried. So I think that means that we should find ways to help as many hungrey and homeless families as we can. I don’t think we can just ignor the causes of poverty. There are things we can do as a nation. Just because other countries have greater poverty than do we does not mean we can ignore poverty in our own nation. I don’t think we should be in a race to the lowest common denominator.

So what do you think are the causes of poverty?

Having a child out of wedlock, dropping out of high school, being raised by a single Mom, drug and alchohol abuse, mental problems.

The reason our Poor are so much better off than in other countries is we spend massive amounts of money on the poor.

 

[rlg94086]

True, the poor here are somewhat better off than other countried. So I think that means that we should find ways to help as many hungrey and homeless families as we can. I don’t think we can just ignor the causes of poverty. There are things we can do as a nation. Just because other countries have greater poverty than do we does not mean we can ignore poverty in our own nation. I don’t think we should be in a race to the lowest common denominator.

So what do you think are the causes of poverty?

Mostly? Poor choices, as estesbob mentions.

I don’t see why you are concerned about people “ignoring the causes of poverty.” We don’t, and no one is recommending we should. “Doing things as a nation” does not have to mean large, federal bureaucracy.

 

[TEPO]

I live in a nice neighborhood up on the hill… The worst part about living on a hill is that I have to drive through the poor neighborhoods to get to my house. Course on the bright side, that’s better than having the poor drive through my neighborhood to get to their homes… . (just kidding)