Bishops To Super Committee: Treatment Of Jobless, Hungry And Homeless Is Moral Measure Of Deficit Reduction

[MillTownCath]

This is what I like to see, and these kinds of articles should be filling up the social justice section here.

“We fear the human and social costs of substantial cuts to programs that serve families working to make ends meet and escape poverty,” the bishops wrote. “At a time of record foreclosures, increasing poverty and high unemployment it is not justifiable to weaken the national safety net or to make disproportionate cuts to programs that can help low and moderate income families avert crisis and live in dignity."

usccb.org/news/2011/11-169.cfm

 

[promethius]

This is what I like to see, and these kinds of articles should be filling up the social justice section here.

“We fear the human and social costs of substantial cuts to programs that serve families working to make ends meet and escape poverty,” the bishops wrote. “At a time of record foreclosures, increasing poverty and high unemployment it is not justifiable to weaken the national safety net or to make disproportionate cuts to programs that can help low and moderate income families avert crisis and live in dignity."

usccb.org/news/2011/11-169.cfm

I don’t think anyone has a problem with working families that are trying to lift themselves out of poverty though… so much as the non-working, drug users, who have no interest in improving their station or sanctity.

A social wellfare program should be one which is a temporary leg up coupled with resources to attain sustainable living conditions through a job and appropriate residence.

So I certainly don’t think the position of eliminating wellfare fraud, simplifying the social safety net by cutting back on the staggering number of programs, and creating a structure of welfare-to-work programs is incompatible with the Bishop’s statement.

 

[carn]

** live in dignity.**"

According to which catholic teaching or dogma is one required to provide unconditionally to others the means to live in dignity?

As far as i understand christians are required to provide others in need the means to live not in absolute poverty (starvation, death due to lack of shelter) or the means to live at all (e.g. medical care).

And they are depending on interpretation even forbidden from providing food to those who could work but do not want to.

How does one determine whether or not someone not wealthy has enough material wealth to live in dignity?

 

[JimG]

The bishops are right to be concerned that cuts to social spending programs will be detrimental to the poor. They seem to be particularly concerned that such cuts will be detrimental to the poor of other nations, not just the U.S. Yet they also note that the current economic situation is “unsustainable.”

The problem is that it is overspending by the U.S. government which has created the unsustainability and saddled future generations of taxpayers with the spending needs of current generations.

The choices boil down to cutting spending now to avoid national bankruptcy followed by the bursting of the debt bubble and hardship for everyone, or continued spending followed by inflation which destroys the value of all money. The poor will suffer either way.

The debt bubble will either burst suddenly or deflate slowly. Either way will result in hardship.

 

[MillTownCath]

The bishops are right to be concerned that cuts to social spending programs will be detrimental to the poor. They seem to be particularly concerned that such cuts will be detrimental to the poor of other nations, not just the U.S. Yet they also note that the current economic situation is “unsustainable.”

The problem is that it is overspending by the U.S. government which has created the unsustainability and saddled future generations of taxpayers with the spending needs of current generations.

The choices boil down to cutting spending now to avoid national bankruptcy followed by the bursting of the debt bubble and hardship for everyone, or continued spending followed by inflation which destroys the value of all money. The poor will suffer either way.

The debt bubble will either burst suddenly or deflate slowly. Either way will result in hardship.

Huge tax cuts + Expensive wars = debt

 

[JimG]

Huge tax cuts + Expensive wars = debt

Huge entitlement programs, + expensive wars + no growth regulations = huge debt.

The national debt has risen exponentially for a long time, but particularly within the last two administrations, with Obama contributing more to the debt than Bush.

But the fact is, no matter who spent the money, the money was spent. It was money the nation did not have, and so it was borrowed.

The question is, will anyone be willing to actually begin reducing the debt? (Not just reducing the rate of increase.)

Because if the debt continues to grow, the economy will collapse.

Even worse: reducing the debt means reducing consumption, and that will make the economy slow down.

Crash the economy or deflate the bubble with a gradual slowdown. Take your choice.

 

[SanAgustin]

God bless our Catholic Bishops!

As teachers, we offer several moral criteria to help guide these difficult decisions:

1. 
   *]Every budget decision should be assessed by whether it protects or threatens human life and dignity.
   *]A central moral measure of any budget proposal is how it affects “the least of these” (Matthew 25). The needs of those who are hungry and homeless, without work or in poverty should come first.
   *]Government and other institutions have a shared responsibility to promote the common good of all, especially ordinary workers and families who struggle to live in dignity in difficult economic times.

1. 
   

   Based on our Catholic principles and everyday experience, a just framework for future budgets cannot rely on disproportionate cuts in essential services to poor and vulnerable persons. These programs need to be made more effective, efficient and responsive and we should work to strengthen and improve them on an ongoing basis. However, it would be wrong to balance future budgets by hurting those who already hurt the most by cutting programs such as foreign aid, affordable housing programs, child nutrition, or health care.** A just framework also requires shared sacrifice by all, including raising adequate revenues, eliminating unnecessary military and other spending, and addressing the long-term costs of health insurance and retirement programs fairly. **

   We fear the human and social costs of substantial cuts to programs that serve families working to make ends meet and escape poverty. These programs include: food and nutrition, child development and education, the Emergency Food and Shelter Program, and affordable housing programs. At a time of record foreclosures, increasing poverty and high unemployment it is not justifiable to weaken the national safety net or to make disproportionate cuts to programs that can help low and moderate income families avert crisis and live in dignity.

   usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/economic-justice-economy/upload/letter-to-supercommittee-budget-deficit-2011-08-31.pdf
   
   Amen.

 

[JimG]

Perhaps some of the bishops would like to be on the super committee for debt reduction. How would they propose to maintain or enhance every existing entitlement program while managing to reduce the $14 (and growing) Trillion dollar debt?

It is working families now who maintain those programs. It is working families pay into the social security and Medicare program who are paying the benefits for older people now receiving SS and Medicare. It is working families who pay. Heck, it is working families who pay for MY social security and Medicare. (Yes, I paid into them for years, but those payments went to pay those who were then retired.)

I suppose the bishops might suggest taxing the rich more. They might suggest cutting the defense budget in half. But there are not enough rich to pay down the debt and to maintain entitlement programs. And leaving the nation (and the world) unprotected is also not a moral proposition. A subjugated nation is a poor nation.

What does the USCCB suggest to the government of Greece?

 

[SanAgustin]

Perhaps some of the bishops would like to be on the super committee for debt reduction.

I don’t think they would, their role as I quoted the document is to be “As teachers, we offer several moral criteria to help guide these difficult decisions”, not to be economists.

What does the USCCB suggest to the government of Greece?

Not sure why the USCCB would make a declaration to a country outside the US, maybe you should look at what the Greek bishops have written.

In the meantime, I recommend we read and meditate on what the Holy Father has written on this subject;

CARITAS IN VERITATE
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html

I offer this prayer for all the poor of this nation and of the world;

God of Justice
open our eyes
to see you in the face of the poor.
Open our ears
to hear you in the cries of the exploited
Open our mouths
to defend you in the public squares
as well as in private deeds
Remind us that what we do
to the least ones,
we do to you.
Amen.

 

[JimG]

I don’t think they would, their role as I quoted the document is to be “As teachers, we offer several moral criteria to help guide these difficult decisions”, not to be economists.

Not sure why the USCCB would make a declaration to a country outside the US, maybe you should look at what the Greek bishops have written.

In the meantime, I recommend we read and meditate on what the Holy Father has written on this subject;

CARITAS IN VERITATE
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html

I offer this prayer for all the poor of this nation and of the world;

God of Justice
open our eyes
to see you in the face of the poor.
Open our ears
to hear you in the cries of the exploited
Open our mouths
to defend you in the public squares
as well as in private deeds
Remind us that what we do
to the least ones,
we do to you.
Amen.

The reason I made a reference to Greece is this: The Greek government has similarly overspent, and has now imposed austerity measures on its people in order to avoid default. They are hoping that other European countries will bail them out.

But who will bail out the United States? And when the U.S. goes bankrupt, won’t that hurt the poor? And doesn’t the government have a moral obligation to prevent national bankruptcy?

We all have an obligation to help the poor–and individual obligation–as stated in Jesus’ account of the last judgment in the gospel of Matthew. He makes demands on individulas; He doesn’t say much about governments.

I’m simply saying that presenting comments about our obligations to the poor, directed to government policy, without giving specific recommendations, doesn’t particularly help with regard to actual policy. Shall we choose continued spending and hyperinflation, or shall we choose debt reduction and austerity?

 

[SanAgustin]

The reason I made a reference to Greece is this: The Greek government has similarly overspent, and has now imposed austerity measures on its people in order to avoid default. They are hoping that other European countries will bail them out.

I know why you made the reference, but the rhetorical question didn’t really mean much since we know the US bishops are called to focus on teaching morals to this country. You know that.

But who will bail out the United States? And when the U.S. goes bankrupt, won’t that hurt the poor? And doesn’t the government have a moral obligation to prevent national bankruptcy?

I agree with you, the nation does have a moral obligation to not go bankrupt. I’m not sure if there’s a Church pronouncement on that, but it should be self evident as it would not benefit the public good.

We all have an obligation to help the poor–and individual obligation–as stated in Jesus’ account of the last judgment in the gospel of Matthew. He makes demands on individulas; He doesn’t say much about governments.

He doesn’t say much about governments in Matthew 19:18 when he reafirms we should not kill or steal. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t have laws against those things.

However, did you read Caritas in Veritae? I believe the Holy Father is not talking to individual Catholic here but also to whole nations in matters of economic development.

I’m simply saying that presenting comments about our obligations to the poor, directed to government policy, without giving specific recommendations, doesn’t particularly help with regard to actual policy. Shall we choose continued spending and hyperinflation, or shall we choose debt reduction and austerity?

The job of the bishops is to teach on morality, and they have done so here, and are promoting the social justice values promoted by the Church.

 

[Ender]

This is what I like to see, and these kinds of articles should be filling up the social justice section here.

“We fear the human and social costs of substantial cuts to programs that serve families working to make ends meet and escape poverty,” the bishops wrote. “At a time of record foreclosures, increasing poverty and high unemployment it is not justifiable to weaken the national safety net or to make disproportionate cuts to programs that can help low and moderate income families avert crisis and live in dignity."

If it were known which programs actually worked and which were harmful, or if we knew what constituted “disproportionate cuts”, such comments would be helpful. But since we don’t - they aren’t.

Ender

 

[promethius]

Huge tax cuts + Expensive wars = debt

Actually, to be clear, the Huge Tax cuts represent 150 Billion per anum, and the Expensive wars represent 100 Billion per anum. This means that combined the Huge tax cuts and Expensive wars = 16.6% of the deficit.

Comparatively, mandated spending (Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, Interest on Debt, etc) makes up approximately 70% of our tax revenue. If we were to try to balance the budget without cuts to these programs (and assuming not tax increases), we would have to cut all other programs by approximately 80%.

Compared to the disproportionate expenditure on the poor, the “expensive wars” and “huge tax cuts” you mention are mere drops in the bucket.

EDIT: and by disproportionate expenditure on the poor, I mean that, as someone who has travelled the world (17 countries so far!) I can honestly say that our poorest person wouldn’t trade places with the richest in some countries, and that our welfare recipients would be considered upper class by most of the world. It is unfortunate that our materialist society has led us to believe that anyone but the tiniest group of Americans actually lives in poverty.

 

[SanAgustin]

If it were known which programs actually worked and which were harmful, or if we knew what constituted “disproportionate cuts”, such comments would be helpful. But since we don’t - they aren’t.

So you think the moral guidelines the bishops have set out are a waste of time? Did you read the document?

 

[SanAgustin]

EDIT: and by disproportionate expenditure on the poor, I mean that, as someone who has travelled the world (17 countries so far!) I can honestly say that our poorest person wouldn’t trade places with the richest in some countries, and that our welfare recipients would be considered upper class by most of the world. It is unfortunate that our materialist society has led us to believe that anyone but the tiniest group of Americans actually lives in poverty.

I come from the “3rd world”, and I’ve traveled as far as the slums of India. I’ve seen far worst poverty in my native country and some places that I’ve visited, but the first time I went to Philadelphia, I was shocked by the poverty just outside the airport … and the depressing nature of empty factories in that city.

I think poverty in other places, doesn’t excuse poverty here.

1 in every 200 citizens had to resort to emergency shelter between 2008-2009
We have ~17% of our population uninsured.
We have people with bachelor’s degrees at ~27% and college graduation rate is ~50%
High unemployment.
15.4 million people live in extreme poverty.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I come from the “3rd world”, and I’ve traveled as far as the slums of India. I’ve seen far worst poverty in my native country and some places that I’ve visited, but the first time I went to Philadelphia, I was shocked by the poverty just outside the airport … and the depressing nature of empty factories in that city.

I think poverty in other places, doesn’t excuse poverty here.

1 in every 200 citizens had to resort to emergency shelter between 2008-2009
We have ~17% of our population uninsured.
We have people with bachelor’s degrees at ~27% and college graduation rate is ~50%
High unemployment.
15.4 million people live in extreme poverty.

I could not agree more than this country needs job creation. And if, someday, people in a position to hire are no longer so afraid of government radicalism, I expect we’ll get the jobs. But the longer this radicalism goes on, the harder it will be.

Extreme poverty, or just poverty, is always relative, and it’s relative in a number of ways. I know people whose income is absolutely below the poverty line, but who eat well, are housed well, heat their houses, have vehicles, and all that. For some on the very low end, it’s all on a lower scale. Some of that is due to this being a mostly rural but fairly heavily populated area. Food is unbelievably cheap if you know what to do. Homes in the country can be rented for laughable amounts, and you can get it mostly rebated to you anyway. Heat is free if you want to burn wood, because wood is free. You can get a fairly decent older car for $1,000; sometimes less if you have a decent understanding of mechanics and know enough people. If you want to bother to go to the local ministerial alliance outlet, you can get surprisingly good clothing for next to nothing or free. At yard sales you can get all kinds of things for next to nothing. Medical care, if your income is low enough, is free. Public school is free. Transportation to school is free. Even electricity is cheap if you don’t waste it.

If you’re capable of working and are not on drugs, you can get a job without much trouble. Might not be your ultimate job, but it will be a job that will be sufficient to live on if you are careful about what you do and take advantage of the things available to you. A number of factories around here will even pay your junior college tuition if you are working on a certificate in their field. You can go to College of the Ozarks and, if you work, you pay no tuition at all.

I’ll admit, if you are truly disabled and dependent on SSI, it’s a lot harder, but there is nothing on anybody’s political agenda to either improve or decrease that.

I realize in some other places, none of that is the case because of where the person lives and what is available to him or her. But one of the problems, I think, with a lot of government programs is that they “shotgun” remedies, both to people who need it and to some who don’t.

Personally, I don’t favor middle class welfare, though I do favor programs that help the truly poor. Middle class people who are not disabled are capable of helping themselves. They might not want to do what they need to do, but it’s there.

I realize it was estimated before Obamacare that some 20% of people had no health insurance. And when Obamacare passed, what did we get? Obama himself admits that something like 20% of people still won’t have coverage. But if Sebelius has her way, abortifacients like the “morning after” pill and Ella will be fully covered with no deductibles and everybody else has to pay for it, including Catholic institutions.

I understand the USCCB having a concern about cutting truly necessary programs affecting those who genuinely cannot help themselves. But what does that really tell us in practical terms? That nothing at all can be cut, no matter what kind of burden it puts on people trying to raise families? Warren Buffett qualifies for Medicare, paid for by people who pay more taxes than he claims to pay. Is there really any sense in that? Any justice in paying social security to a multimillionaire when it’s paid for by working people?

The concept is fine. But the USCCB offers no practical solutions, and probably shouldn’t.

 

[promethius]

I come from the “3rd world”, and I’ve traveled as far as the slums of India. I’ve seen far worst poverty in my native country and some places that I’ve visited, but the first time I went to Philadelphia, I was shocked by the poverty just outside the airport … and the depressing nature of empty factories in that city.

Let’s not equivocate. The slums of india and the “poverty” outside the airport in Philidelphia are orders of magnitude in difference. An empty factory means a BUSINESS went out of work. It might be forlorn, but it’s certainly not an indicator of poverty.

I think poverty in other places, doesn’t excuse poverty here.

That’s true, certainly, but there are still the questions of whether the government definition of poverty is correct AND over the moral obligation/means of helping the poor.

1 in every 200 citizens had to resort to emergency shelter between 2008-2009

How many of these were for poverty vice for natural disasters? Fires, floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, etc… they all force people to seek emergency shelter, but have little to do with poverty.

Furthermore, how many nations don’t even HAVE emergency shelters?

Another question: were all of these emergency shelters government provided, or were some of them non-profits, private, or religious shelters? What is the breakdown?

We have ~17% of our population uninsured.

First, when did insurance become a matter of poverty? If I’m a 20 year old single male with no children, do I NEED life insurance, or can I choose to forgo it?

And what does uninsured mean? No health insurance? When did that become a RIGHT? No car insurance? What if I don’t drive? No life insurance? What if I have no need of it?

Why did insurance become a measure of poverty? I could be the richest man in the world and CHOOSE not to be insured.

We have people with bachelor’s degrees at ~27% and college graduation rate is ~50%

Yes, however our society isn’t even ready for that high of a graduation rate from college. Part of the problem of unemployment is under-employment… the shocking revelation that our standard of “college for all” has produced a bevvy of over-qualified personnel who can’t find enough of the specialized jobs they need… and so they end up working entry level jobs to pay off tens of thousands in college debt that didn’t get them into the field they wanted anyway.

We need to seriously look at the false standard that “everyone” should go to college. High school needs to be improved, yes, but the solution is not a bachelor’s degree for everyone.

High unemployment.

But whose job is it to solve this problem? The idea of free market society is that the market adjusts itself. You can delay adjustments by intervention, but ultimately you cannot prevent them, and delaying an adjustment only makes it worse. The drawn out recession we’re seeing now is the affect of decades of harmful interventionism that delayed the consequences of multiple adjustments until they all piled up into a train wreck. This is why private charity in times of negative adjustments is the answer, rather than over-regulating that which is uncontrollable anyway (aka, the market)

15.4 million people live in extreme poverty.

What is EXTREME poverty though? We can’t even decide what POVERTY means, much less extreme poverty. According to the current administration, everyone has a right to high speed internet… even if they live in a rural area by choice. So does someone who doesn’t have access to this “right” count as being in “extreme poverty”? And if not having a cell phone and high speed internet access is extreme poverty, we have to say that all the “robber barrons” were, in fact, living in “extreme poverty” while they were the richest men in the world… because without a cell phone or high speed internet, that’s poverty.

The problem with the teaching of the bishops is that it is a guideline to be followed in conjunction with terms which ARE NOT CLEARLY DEFINED in American society.

 

[SanAgustin]

That’s true, certainly, but there are still the questions of whether the government definition of poverty is correct AND over the moral obligation/means of helping the poor.

The census definition for these are clearly and openly defined for everybody to look at.

census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/methods/definitions.html

How many of these were for poverty vice for natural disasters? Fires, floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, etc… they all force people to seek emergency shelter, but have little to do with poverty.

I’m not sure, I think the current homelessness rate is over half a million though.

First, when did insurance become a matter of poverty? If I’m a 20 year old single male with no children, do I NEED life insurance, or can I choose to forgo it?

And what does uninsured mean? No health insurance? When did that become a RIGHT? No car insurance? What if I don’t drive? No life insurance? What if I have no need of it?

To me, access to basic health services is a basic human concern for a nation. I don’t really care if it’s called a right, privilege or whatever … the more people that have access to health insurance the better for the individuals and the better for society. The only case were I can see a govt. not caring or helping in this area, is if espouses some strange darwining survival of the fittest mentality. Which to be quite honest, I think some people have that mindset.

Yes, however our society isn’t even ready for that high of a graduation rate from college. Part of the problem of unemployment is under-employment… the shocking revelation that our standard of “college for all” has produced a bevvy of over-qualified personnel who can’t find enough of the specialized jobs they need… and so they end up working entry level jobs to pay off tens of thousands in college debt that didn’t get them into the field they wanted anyway.

We need to seriously look at the false standard that “everyone” should go to college. High school needs to be improved, yes, but the solution is not a bachelor’s degree for everyone.

Not everyone, but a lot more people than today. I’m not sure about the problem is we have too many qualified people, that’s kind of a funny concept when we need more engineers and technologists. There’s actually a shortage of qualified people in my view.

If this nation wants to compete globally, people need to get off this “we have too many people in college” mentality too. I mean to argue that the US population is over educated is a bit funny.

This is why private charity in times of negative adjustments is the answer, rather than over-regulating that which is uncontrollable anyway (aka, the market)

This crisis is a direct result of lack of regulation, we got into this because of the fiasco in the financial and housing market, and by any objective measure that was because of lax or no regulation. The argument being made now that it is because of over regulation is really baffling!

The “market” doesn’t help the poor, that’s why we have charities. Charities are not “part of the market”, they’re supposed to be non-profits. The fact that charities exist, doesn’t mean the government has no role in the general welfare of its citizens.

What is EXTREME poverty though? We can’t even decide what POVERTY means, much less extreme poverty.

Check out the link. You may not agree, but that criteria is clearly spelled out and it looks reasonable to me. Also, this criteria doesn’t include superfluous stuff like do they have internet, TV, etc. Why don’t you read the definitions they use first before we criticize them???

The problem with the teaching of the bishops is that it is a guideline to be followed in conjunction with terms which ARE NOT CLEARLY DEFINED in American society.

The guidelines the bishops have provided are very clear, the definitions and figures of poverty by the census bureau are open and readily available for everybody to read. I think most people working on this area have very clear definitions about all of this.

 

[promethius]

The census definition for these are clearly and openly defined for everybody to look at.

census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/methods/definitions.html

Yes, that is how the US Census Bureau defines poverty. Obama disagrees and states that a basic right all people are entitled to is high speed internet. The government itself doesn’t even agree on WHAT poverty is between the various agencies that work towards solutions to the problem of poverty.

I’m not sure, I think the current homelessness rate is over half a million though.

That’s 1 in 680, not 1 in 200. Where did that first statistic even come from? It SOUNDS enticing regarding a problem of poverty, but when we dig in we see the reason that Mark Twain noted that lying nature of statistics…

To me, access to basic health services is a basic human concern for a nation. I don’t really care if it’s called a right, privilege or whatever … the more people that have access to health insurance the better for the individuals and the better for society.

Access to health care to treat someone in regards to protection of life and human dignity is ENTIRELY different than “access to insurance” though.

I presume, however, that by 17 million uninsured, you are referring to health insurance. Why aren’t you concerned by those who have no life or car insurance? Are you concerned by those who are “under-insured” in terms of only having catastrophic coverage?

What about a person who can afford health insurance but can’t afford car insurance or homeowners insurance? Do they not get consideration as “uninsured” because they lose out on a different form of insurance?

Not everyone, but a lot more people than today. I’m not sure about the problem is we have too many qualified people, that’s kind of a funny concept when we need more engineers and technologists. There’s actually a shortage of qualified people in my view.

If this nation wants to compete globally, people need to get off this “we have too many people in college” mentality too. I mean to argue that the US population is over educated is a bit funny.

The problem with remaining competitive is not the raw number of college graduates. It’s the composition of graduates. Instead of focusing on fields that NEED people who are qualified, we’ve pushed ALL to attend college. The vast number of business school graduates working line manager jobs at McDonald’s to pay off their bills doesn’t affect the shortage of engineers (or nurses and doctors for that matter).

What we SHOULD ideally have is 15-20% with a 4 year degree, but properly divided into needed fields, and an expanding of trade schools that cost less but qualify people for the entry positions they’ll end up in anyway.

This crisis is a direct result of lack of regulation, we got into this because of the fiasco in the financial and housing market, and by any objective measure that was because of lax or no regulation. The argument being made now that it is because of over regulation is really baffling!

Ask any bank loan officer and they will tell you that the law established that a bank had to rate someone for a range of loan options for which they could not legally refuse the person… hence if the person wanted a $200,000 APR loan with zero down, and the regulatory calculation foisted on the banks stated that person was qualified for such a garbage loan term, the loan officer could RECOMMEND against it, but could not deny the person.

The result was that banks traded bad mortgages to get around the losing proposition of being forced by law to give loans that were bad ideas to people who should have taken smaller loans at fixed rates with downpayments. Blaming mortgage trading for the housing bubble is like blaming fingernails for mosquito bites. The one is a result of the other, not the cause. Sure, mortgage trading was unregulated and greedy, but it couldn’t haven happened if the government hadn’t mandated loans and people hadn’t been greedy enough to take the maximum dollar amount regardless of their real ability to pay off the loans under APRs.

The “market” doesn’t help the poor, that’s why we have charities. Charities are not “part of the market”, they’re supposed to be non-profits. The fact that charities exist, doesn’t mean the government has no role in the general welfare of its citizens.

That is true. But the government is not a charity and charity programs by the government do not promote the general welfare, but rather the particular welfare. I have never once benefitted from the foodstamp program.

Check out the link. You may not agree, but that criteria is clearly spelled out and it looks reasonable to me. Also, this criteria doesn’t include superfluous stuff like do they have internet, TV, etc. Why don’t you read the definitions they use first before we criticize them???

Again, the Office of the President doesn’t even agree with the census bureau, but I digress. What I asked here was for an agreed-upon definition of “extreme poverty”. Your refering me back to the census bureau doesn’t work… because the term “extreme poverty” doesn’t appear anywhere in their definitions.

The guidelines the bishops have provided are very clear, the definitions and figures of poverty by the census bureau are open and readily available for everybody to read. I think most people working on this area have very clear definitions about all of this.

Again, the president of the United States of America disagrees with your sentiment that the census bureau is correct. He thinks that poverty includes more than a minimum dollar amount. If the president disagrees, how can I accept you basic premise that the census’ definitions are correct?

 

[Ender]

Again, the Office of the President doesn’t even agree with the census bureau, but I digress. What I asked here was for an agreed-upon definition of “extreme poverty”. Your refering me back to the census bureau doesn’t work… because the term “extreme poverty” doesn’t appear anywhere in their definitions.

What you and SanAgustin disagree about is not just what constitutes poverty but how best to alleviate it. These are both valid topics that in fact need to be debated and addressed. The point of this thread, however, is what the bishops have said on the issue. If the bishops are saying no more than “Remember the poor and do the right thing” then I would agree with them and commend their comments. If, however (as seems more likely), they are implying that doing the right thing means supporting policies X and Y then they speak only for themselves and have in fact overstepped their authority.

We may properly argue over and disagree about how best to resolve our political problems but it is inappropriate for anyone - and especially a bishop - to imply that we have a moral obligation to support Proposal X and oppose Proposal Y in the area of economic policy. Determining what should be done to address the nation’s economic woes is not a moral issue and should not be treated as if it was.

Ender