Latest Budget Proposal

[Michael_Mayo]

I guess it leaves more room for private charity.

U.S. President Donald Trump asked lawmakers on Tuesday to cut $3.6 trillion in government spending over the next decade, taking aim at healthcare and food assistance programs for the poor in an austere budget that also boosts the military.

radically cuts assistance to lower-income Americans.

biggest savings would come from cuts to the Medicaid healthcare program for the poor

reuters.com/article/us-usa-budget-idUSKBN18I26X

 

[peter26]

I have heard from a pro-life newsletter that the proposal completely cuts off funding to abortion providers.

 

[Faithdancer]

I have heard from a pro-life newsletter that the proposal completely cuts off funding to abortion providers.

Amen! This is the kind of action I hoped for when I voted for this man. Abortion-as-birth-control must end. I believe that the ongoing slaughter of the innocent unborn is the single greatest evil in America today.

 

[Book_Worm]

What a wonderful Christian Trump is! In addition to cutting funding for abortion, his budget cuts Medicaid funding by $600 billion, food stamp programs by $193 billion, student loans by $143 billion, and cuts programs for the disabled to give the wealthiest a $3.6 trillion tax break.

Jesus would be so proud!

But the good thing is that the budget is totally unrealistic. Most economists have said that it is based on a $2 trillion math error.

 

[Ender]

What a wonderful Christian Trump is!

I am open to arguments that his budget is unwise, but not that it is immoral. That you believe it will have harmful effects would properly lead you to oppose it on its merits, but unless Trump et al intend those effects - something you cannot possibly know and are therefore forbidden to judge - there is no justification for suggesting he is un-Christian. Stick with attacking what you see are flaws in the budget, and recognize that we are not to judge others uncharitably particularly about their intentions which are hidden.

Ender

 

[mikekle]

What a wonderful Christian Trump is! In addition to cutting funding for abortion, his budget cuts Medicaid funding by $600 billion, food stamp programs by $193 billion, student loans by $143 billion, and cuts programs for the disabled to give the wealthiest a $3.6 trillion tax break.

Jesus would be so proud!

But the good thing is that the budget is totally unrealistic. Most economists have said that it is based on a $2 trillion math error.

They always go after the same groups of people, seems Trump is no different! God forbid they threaten to cut military or defense spending, I think we would probably see a major terrorist attack if that were threatened…just to ensure PLENTY of budget money for the defense industry!

Or better yet, cut some of the money slated for the black budget, or at least let people know what they money is being used for and how much is being spent!!! This is billions in itself that NO ONE has any idea or right to know how its being used…That is a problem imo, a big one.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

I am open to arguments that his budget is unwise, but not that it is immoral. That you believe it will have harmful effects would properly lead you to oppose it on its merits, but unless Trump et al intend those effects - something you cannot possibly know and are therefore forbidden to judge - there is no justification for suggesting he is un-Christian. Stick with attacking what you see are flaws in the budget, and recognize that we are not to judge others uncharitably particularly about their intentions which are hidden.

Ender

It certainly seems to weaken the socioeconomic safety net so badly neede by so many. Of course we dont want people dependent on the Nanny State, do we.

 

[Ender]

It certainly seems to weaken the socioeconomic safety net so badly neede by so many.

It is certainly portrayed that way. On the other hand pretty much every budget the Republicans have proposed has been portrayed that way. Still, so long as the message is effective there is no need to change it.

Ender

 

[Michael_Mayo]

It is certainly portrayed that way. On the other hand pretty much every budget the Republicans have proposed has been portrayed that way. Still, so long as the message is effective there is no need to change it.

Ender

You believe such a budget does not undermine the safety net?

 

[Ender]

You believe such a budget does not undermine the safety net?

I think immense debt undermines the entire economy. Now, I may be wrong, but there is certainly nothing immoral in choosing the course one believes is best. As I said, there are any number of prudential reasons to oppose (or support) the proposed budget…but I don’t believe there are any moral reasons to oppose it. I make no argument either for or against it; I’m simply not familiar enough with its details to comment. My only observation is that I don’t believe there are any moral grounds for opposing it, which is why I find the involvement of the bishops in these political debates more than a little inappropriate.

Ender

 

[Michael_Mayo]

I think immense debt undermines the entire economy. Now, I may be wrong, but there is certainly nothing immoral in choosing the course one believes is best. As I said, there are any number of prudential reasons to oppose (or support) the proposed budget…but I don’t believe there are any moral reasons to oppose it. I make no argument either for or against it; I’m simply not familiar enough with its details to comment. My only observation is that I don’t believe there are any moral grounds for opposing it, which is why I find the involvement of the bishops in these political debates more than a little inappropriate.

Ender

Perhaps they are more “familiar with the details” that you.

 

[Ridgerunner]

You believe such a budget does not undermine the safety net?

I, for one, certainly don’t know, because the budget always hides increases by not calling them increases, and “cuts” are most always increases that are just a bit lower than somebody or other wanted.

I don’t know about this budget for that reason. I do remember back when Paul Ryan proposed a budget that decreased the increase in food stamp spending to 8% from the 12% advocated by the Democrats. (inflation was about 1% at the time) And then I saw a letter from a USCCB bishop accusing Ryan of starving people because of the “deep cuts” in the program. Did he even look at it, or did he just read about it in the New York Times?

I’m skeptical about every claim made, but particularly those claiming cuts in the “safety net”.

 

[Ender]

Perhaps they are more “familiar with the details” that you.

“They” may very well be more familiar with the details, which is why I said one could oppose the budget for any number of practical reasons. What they are not familiar with, however, and what they are forbidden to judge, are the intentions of the people who crafted it, which is why it is more than a little inappropriate to suggest the budget is “immoral.”

Ender

 

[Michael_Mayo]

“They” may very well be more familiar with the details, which is why I said one could oppose the budget for any number of practical reasons. What they are not familiar with, however, and what they are forbidden to judge, are the intentions of the people who crafted it, which is why it is more than a little inappropriate to suggest the budget is “immoral.”

Ender

Do you see no moral implication for:

• The ongoing destruction of over one million innocent human lives each year by abortion
• Physician-assisted suicide
• The redefinition of marriage—the vital cell of society—by the courts, political bodies,
and increasingly by American culture itself
• The excessive consumption of material goods and the destruction of natural resources,
which harm both the environment and the poor
• The deadly attacks on fellow Christians and religious minorities throughout the world
• The narrowing redefinition of religious freedom, which threatens both individual conscience and the freedom of the Church to serve
• Economic policies that fail to prioritize the poor, at home or abroad;
• A broken immigration system and a worldwide refugee crisis
• Wars, terror, and violence that threaten every aspect of human life and dignity

1. Some question whether it is appropriate for the Church to play a role in political life. However, the obligation to teach the moral truths that should shape our lives, including our public lives, is central to the mission given to the Church by Jesus Christ. Moreover, the United States Constitution protects the right of individual believers and religious bodies to participate and speak out without government interference, favoritism, or discrimination. Civil law should fully recognize and protect the right of the Church and other institutions in civil society to participate in cultural, political, and economic life without being forced to abandon or ignore their central moral convictions. Our nation’s tradition of pluralism is enhanced, not threatened, when religious groups and people of faith bring their convictions and concerns into public life. Indeed, our Church’s teaching is in accord with the foundational values that have shaped our nation’s history: “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/upload/forming-consciences-for-faithful-citizenship.pdf

 

[Ender]

Do you see no moral implication for:

• The ongoing destruction of over one million innocent human lives each year by abortion
• Physician-assisted suicide
• The redefinition of marriage—the vital cell of society—by the courts, political bodies,
and increasingly by American culture itself

These are all moral issues about which the church has well developed doctrines that do not admit of multiple positions.

• The excessive consumption of material goods and the destruction of natural resources, which harm both the environment and the poor

“Excess” and “harm” are both judgments. The church has no doctrine on prudential opinions.

• The deadly attacks on fellow Christians and religious minorities throughout the world

Really? Raising questions about the validity of the bishops involvement in budget proposals equates to a lack of concern about the worldwide slaughter of Christians? That’s your argument?

• The narrowing redefinition of religious freedom, which threatens both individual conscience and the freedom of the Church to serve

This is a valid issue to debate…as opposed to all of the others.

• Economic policies that fail to prioritize the poor, at home or abroad;

Your judgement of those policies is prudential. As I said before, the church has no doctrines that specify what specific economic proposals are moral or not.

• A broken immigration system and a worldwide refugee crisis

It is valid to raise the issue; it is less so to propose solutions. Resolving prudential political issues is the job of the laity, not the clergy.

• Wars, terror, and violence that threaten every aspect of human life and dignity

All serious problems, and all subject to different interpretations and judgments.

1. Some question whether it is appropriate for the Church to play a role in political life. However, the obligation to teach the moral truths that should shape our lives, including our public lives, is central to the mission given to the Church by Jesus Christ.

It is appropriate for the clergy to teach moral truths, it is much less so to express a political opinion as if it was a moral truth.

Moreover, the United States Constitution protects the right of individual believers and religious bodies to participate and speak out without government interference, favoritism, or discrimination. Civil law should fully recognize and protect the right of the Church and other institutions in civil society to participate in cultural, political, and economic life without being forced to abandon or ignore their central moral convictions.

The question has never been whether bishops have a legal right to express their political opinions. The question has always been whether it is wise for them to take sides on political issues.*I suggested that it is a mistake for bishops to squander their credibility as teachers of faith and morals by issuing pronouncements, especially politically partisan pronouncements, on matters beyond their competence as bishops. These are typically matters of prudential judgment on which Catholics (and others) of equal intelligence and good will can and do disagree. *(Fr. Richard Neuhaus)
Ender

 

[Ender]

I, for one, certainly don’t know, because the budget always hides increases by not calling them increases, and “cuts” are most always increases that are just a bit lower than somebody or other wanted.

I don’t know about this budget for that reason. I do remember back when Paul Ryan proposed a budget that decreased the increase in food stamp spending to 8% from the 12% advocated by the Democrats. (inflation was about 1% at the time) And then I saw a letter from a USCCB bishop accusing Ryan of starving people because of the “deep cuts” in the program. Did he even look at it, or did he just read about it in the New York Times?

I’m skeptical about every claim made, but particularly those claiming cuts in the “safety net”.

The high dudgeon raised about this budget seems built on the same model as the wails raised against Ryan’s budget, and once again there is reason to believe that no, Virginia, Santa is not actually cutting the budget, he is only trying to reign in its growth.But as Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the Manhattan Institute points out, what liberals call “cuts” are not cuts at all – they merely slow the rate of spending. The Trump budget increases federal spending over 10 years by $1.7 trillion.
And apparently there may be a valid reason for this effort.Regarding our federal budget, here’s what the Congressional Budget Office says: “If current laws remain generally unchanged, the United States would face steadily increasing federal budget deficits and debt over the next 30 years – reaching the highest level of debt relative to GDP ever experienced in this country. …The prospect of such large debt poses substantial risks for the nation…”
I’m guessing not much of this was apparent from the bishops’ comments.

Ender