House chaplain forced out by Ryan

[upant]

Perhaps he should have prayed that the tax cuts would increase revenue, since many people seem to believe on faith that they will.

he’d still be picking sides.

He said a prayer.

we don’t know the full story which makes this thread funny. everybody is assuming it is over a prayer when we really don’t know. ryan’s camp said it is more than just over a prayer.

but to engage, if he picked the dem side he would be guilty of support of the items i stated.

 

[Luke6_37]

f a person votes for a dem, the voter enables their abortion agenda because it is prominent on their platform.

Party platforms are meaningless. What matters is what a political party does while in power.

When the Democrats were in power, the abortion rate was on a downward trajectory and even fell below what it was in 1973. This happened in both red and blue states…

Abortions declining greatly across most of US - The Boston Globe

Abortions have declined in states where new laws make it harder to have them but they’ve also waned in states where abortion rights are protected, an Associated Press survey finds.

www.bostonglobe.com

Several of the states that have been most aggressive in passing antiabortion laws — including Indiana, Missouri, Ohio, and Oklahoma — have seen their abortion numbers drop by more than 15 percent since 2010. But more liberal states such as New York, Washington, and Oregon also had declines of that magnitude, even as they maintained unrestricted access to abortion.

It remains to be seen what will happen to the abortion rate now that the Republicans are in power. So far, they failed to pass a 20-wk ban on abortion, voted to fully fund Planned Parenthood, and eliminated the contraception coverage requirement in the ACA.

Lets hope that isn’t a recipe for disaster.

you would rather throw money at the issues and get nowhere instead of finding a real solution

No. I would rather have a functional government that places the Common Good above special interests and seeks to ensure the equality of opportunity for all. Right now, we have a vulgar clown show happening in the White House and a gutless self-serving Congress.

 

[upant]

When the Democrats were in power, the abortion rate was on a downward trajectory and even fell below what it was in 1973. This happened in both red and blue states…

did you read what the leader said would be her agenda, why do you deny what they say? a vote for a dem is a vote to expand abortion.

No. I would rather have a functional government that places the Common Good above special interests and seeks to ensure the equality of opportunity for all.

after trillions of dollars spent on poverty we have very little improvement, time for different ideas, unless the money is really just to enslave a base and grow it.

It remains to be seen what will happen to the abortion rate now that the Republicans are in power. So far, they failed to pass a 20-wk ban on abortion, voted to fully fund Planned Parenthood, and eliminated the contraception coverage requirement in the ACA.

yes, the rino’s are a disappointment. if the left succeeds in getting rid of trump, pence can make a difference.

 

[Luke6_37]

a vote for a dem is a vote to expand abortion.

You need to learn to look beyond the rhetoric to results. The GOP is a one trick pony that does its one trick really really badly. The Democrats are no better. They seek expand access to abortion and end up reducing the abortion rate.

I am going to keep voting ProLife, which is a far more expansive concept than what the GOP tries to sell itself as being. That means voting for the candidate whose policies will save the most lives across the entire lifespan.

after trillions of dollars spent on poverty we have very little improvement,

Source?

if the left succeeds in getting rid of trump, pence can make a difference.

Sounds like you hope the left will succeed.

 

[dvdjs]

Source?

In fact data show otherwise.

 

[Luke6_37]

Luke6_37:

Source?

In fact data show otherwise.

That’s right! People were hit hard during the Great Recession, but you didn’t see the kind of desperate poverty that preceded the New Deal - especially among the elderly, who had Social Security to fall back upon.


By Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, Jessica C. Smith. - https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/demo/p60-256.pdf, Public Domain, Link

 

[dvdjs]

That’s right!

You might focus into some especially successful areas like poverty among the elderly.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/half-of-century-of-poverty-in-america/

To assess efficacy of programs, it is important to consider the impact of in-kind support that is not reflected in income but mitigates poverty. Tis accountingis on in the “aternative poverty measures”.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/private/pdf/154286/50YearTrends.pdf

 

[Theo520]

Source?

Here are three diverse sources. If someone claims to have not seen this before, it’s more like willful ignorance, or maybe deflecting

Why the war on poverty failed — and what to do now

Brooklyn’s Bedford-Stuyvesant was ground zero for Great Society anti-poverty programs. You’d hardly guess it today.

www.vox.com

The War on Poverty: 50 years of failure

This year marks the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon B. Johnson's launch of the War on Poverty. In January 1964, Johnson declared "unconditional war on poverty in America." Since then, the taxpayers have spent $22 trillion on Johnson's war. Adjusted for inflation, that's three times the cost...

www.heritage.org

The War on Poverty Wasn’t A Failure – It Was A Catastrophe

https://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2014/03/19/the-war-on-poverty-wasnt-a-failure-it-was-a-catastrophe/

The "War on Poverty’ was decades later and completely separate from the New Deal and the establishment of Social Security. You can’t use one to justify the other.

The stated goal of the War on Poverty, as enunciated by Lyndon Johnson on January 8, 1964, was, “…not only to relieve the symptom of poverty, but to cure it and, above all, to prevent it.” Measured against this objective, the War on Poverty has not just been a failure, it has been a catastrophe. It was supposed to help America’s poor become self-sufficient, and it has made them dependent and dysfunctional.

 

[dvdjs]

Here are three diverse sources.

Diverse? LOL.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The three “diverse sources” are all opinions. They apparently have different definitions of “failure” of a program. They are not comparable to the raw data presented in the graphs shown earlier. The data speaks for itself. We can form our own opinions from that data. I would like to see a source that gives a different looking graph. Then we can compare apples to apples.

 

[Theo520]

Diverse? LOL.

Vox is liberal, Heritage is Conservative, and Forbes is fairly mainstream

The three “diverse sources” are all opinions. They apparently have different definitions of “failure” of a program. They are not comparable to the raw data presented in the graphs shown earlier. The data speaks for itself. We can form our own opinions from that data. I would like to see a source that gives a different looking graph. Then we can compare apples to apples.

Right, they look at it from different angles and have different commentary
What else would you expect from diverse sources???

But they agree what we were doing didn’t achieve it’s stated goals.

 

[dvdjs]

what we were doing didn’t achieve it’s stated goals.

We have substantially eliminated gross deprivation. This important ot acknowledge and celebrate. We have not prevented poverty - perhaps we must do more.

Or, it may be that poor will be with us always. But we have made great strides in feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and helping the sick. This is not failure; it is our calling.

 

[Theo520]

Stop changing the goal posts.

We had already “substantially eliminated gross deprivation” before the WOP started in the 70’s,
it was never about that.

 

[dvdjs]

We had already “substantially eliminated gross deprivation” before the WOP started in the 70’s,

We hadn’t.
You can get a sense of he scope of what has happened by confronting the data.

Stop changing the goal posts.

The goal post under discussion in this thread is this:

after trillions of dollars spent on poverty we have very little improvement

It is you who changed the goalposts.
In any case, I am happy to go by the goalposts established by Christ.

 

[Theo520]

We hadn’t.

You can get a sense of he scope of what has happened by confronting the data.

None of the above posted charts seem to support you.
We are pretty much where we started circa 1970.

 

[dvdjs]

None of the above posted charts seem to support you.

If you are unable make your way through the graphs in my post #70, read the accompanying document.

 

[Theo520]

If you are unable make your way through the graphs in my post #70, read the accompanying documen

Your first chart shows stability with slight reduction (SSN not part of War on Poverty)

so do your second two, unless you use a completely different ‘alternative’ way to measure. Even with your alternative view, the returns are paltry. (less than 25% improvement).
There is no ROI on the investment

 

[dvdjs]

There is no ROI on the investment

What are your expected returns in feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and tending to the sick?

less than 25% improvement

check your math

 

[Theo520]

What are your expected returns in feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and tending to the sick?

There you go, changing the goal posts again. Does your boss let you rewrite your objectives before each annual salary review? That’s what you are doing here, dumbing down the goals to what you actually did.

The very clear goal was to get people out of poverty.

If feeding people in poverty was the goal, we just would have set up a chain of soup kitchens for far less expenditure.

 

[Luke6_37]

The "War on Poverty’ was decades later and completely separate from the New Deal and the establishment of Social Security. You can’t use one to justify the other.

What I would say is that efforts to reduce poverty have had mixed results depending on the population under consideration and the nature of the intervention. We should be able to learn from the past to improve our efforts in the future.

The problem is that folks like @upant and the politicians they support tend to double down on pet programs or policies for ideological reasons without really considering their actual impact. This happens on both the right and the left. Neither side want to admit it when their best intentions have little impact or worse, result in disaster.

For example, the “War on Drugs” was a Republican baby that cost millions, devastated African American households & communities, and did nothing to prevent the current opioid crisis. According to the Vox article you cited:

If there were no war on drugs, and thus drugs could not be sold on the street at a markup, then the men in question would have no choice but to seek legal employment. To claim that they would not seek legal work is to indicate a lack of faith in them that borders on dehumanization.

I think the government should strive to guarantee equality of opportunity for all and provide a basic safety net in the form of healthcare, food and housing, so folks can take risks without fearing they will end up destitute.

However, what the government should not do is insist on equality of outcome for all, because there will always be certain people who are more intelligent or more conscientious who get ahead. These folks should not be constrained, but they should not be allowed to game the system either by giving themselves further advantages at the expense of those who are less successful.

The Republican Tax bill that Fr. Conroy prayed about is particularly egregious in the way it benefits the wealthy at the expense of the working and middle class. By all measures it is likely to create trillion dollar deficits and do very little to stimulate economic growth.

Why did the GOP pass it? I think its because most Congressional Republicans are “Prosperity Gospel” Christians who believe wealth is a sign of God’s favor and blessing. It doesn’t matter how you acquire it as long as you have it. That’s very different from what Fr. Conroy, as a Jesuit Priest, would preach. So Father Conroy has to go and be replaced with one of their own preachers.

Prosperity theology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org