Paul Ryan!!

[Swiss_Guy]

Hey, wait a minute! Those are statement of facts made by Paul Ryan so deal with it! They are not statements of spewed out by the left as if the left is something evil. There are independents and moderates as well. The right has been hijacked by the extremist. They believe and espouse capitalism until it fails… In a free market, companies that take risks and fail or companies that are not competitive do not get bailed out. As Henry Paulson stated there is a ‘moral hazard’ for gambling and there is no such thing as too big to fail. Unfortunately, he changed his mind and initiated one of the largest bailouts in history of this country.

Too many people have been dummied down by listening to ‘carnival barker’ Rush Limbaugh and get their news from Fux News.

As the French President said it well. “The French Revolution of 1789 hasn’t breathed its last!” “If Europe is a volcano, France is the crater of all European revolutions!” “Vive la France!”, “Vive la République!”, “Vive la Résistance!”

“Look, we have to smash this prejudice that the rich are useful just because they’re rich.”

It’s a vision of society. Just as we won’t allow poverty in our society, we won’t allow the hyper-accumulation of riches. Money should not be accumulated but circulated, invested, spent for the common good."

Fat Cat Tax on the Rich
Will rich people flee France, as his critics warn? “If they do, no problem. Bye bye,” he smiled.

Capitalist propaganda always managed to make people think the markets’ interests were humanity’s interests." For too long people have been made to feel that they were some kind of drain or problem for expecting free education, free healthcare or being able to stop working when they were old and spent."

Yes, but before he publicly rejected Ayn Rand.

And yes, classical liberalism and neoliberalism are both things I reject. Same thing with keynesianism and socialism, so your probably not satisfied yet .

 

[Elizabeth502]

The Bishops have NOT been inconsistent in their messaging. So if you find yourself at odds with them with respect to things like unions and entitlements for the poor - you’re not operating under a Catholic paradigm.

From Bishop Blaire’s 2011 Labor Day message, on the USCCB website:

"The Church’s relationship with the labor movement is both supportive and challenging. Our Church continues to teach that unions remain an effective instrument to protect the dignity of work and the rights of workers. At their best, unions are important not just for the economic protections and benefits they can provide for their members, but especially for the voice and participation they can offer to workers. They are important not only for what they achieve for their members, but also for the contributions they make to the whole society.

**This does not mean every outcome of bargaining is responsible or that all actions of particular unions–or for that matter employers–merit support. Unions, like other human institutions, can be misused or can abuse their role. **The Church has urged leaders of the labor movement to avoid the temptations of excessive partisanship and the pursuit of only narrow interests. Workers and their unions, as well as employers and their businesses, all have responsibility to seek the common good, not just their own economic, political, or institutional interests.

The teaching that workers have the right to choose freely to form and belong to unions and other associations without interference or intimidation is strong and consistent. At the same time, some unions in some places have taken public positions that the Church cannot support, which many union members may not support, and which have little to do with work or workers’ rights. Leaders of the Church and the labor movement cannot avoid these differences, but should address them in principled, respectful and candid dialogue. This should not keep us from working on our own and together to advance common priorities of protecting worker rights, economic and social justice, overcoming poverty, and creating economic opportunity for all."
In this and other statements, the Bishops, both as heads of committees and as a body, have not declared that all unions are an intrinsic good; they have (as indicated above) defined unions as a good with qualification, depending on the particular union – a concept which is further fashioned in Blaire’s 2012 Labor Day statement, already on the website in anticipation.

So anyone who believes he or she “knows the Catholic position,” yet still insists that the Church’s stand on unions has absolute value, whereas Life issues have mere relative value or lesser value or private value or cynical value, is not operating under a Catholic paradigm, no matter how clever and independent and self -“educated” (cough) such a person believes himself or herself to be.

Private interpretation of Catholic apologetics only works when you’re correct on the facts. When you’re not, the only person you’re fooling is yourself.

 

[Havard]

If Ryan is such a right-wing extremist, how has been so successful in a swing district that voted for Obama in 2008? Note that he averages about two thirds of the votes cast in his elections!:

Year…Office…District…Democrat…Republican…Other
1998 U.S. House of Representatives Wisconsin 1st District Lydia Spottswood 43% Paul Ryan 57%
2000 U.S. House of Representatives Wisconsin 1st District Jeffrey Thomas 33% Paul Ryan 67%
2002 U.S. House of Representatives Wisconsin 1st District Jeffrey Thomas 31% Paul Ryan 67% George Meyers (L) 2%
2004 U.S. House of Representatives Wisconsin 1st District Jeffrey Thomas 33% Paul Ryan 65%
2006 U.S. House of Representatives Wisconsin 1st District Jeffrey Thomas 37% Paul Ryan 63%
2008 U.S. House of Representatives Wisconsin 1st District Marge Krupp 35% Paul Ryan 64% Joseph Kexel (L) 1%
2010 U.S. House of Representatives Wisconsin 1st District John Heckenlively 30% Paul Ryan 68% Joseph Kexel (L) 2%

 

[CMatt25]

No he is not. He is lying The GOP is spinning a lie long enough that it has become fact This has already been debunked the $716 billion dollar cut as outline in OMB report, was not cutting payments to medicare recipients but for future growth reduction to medical PROVIDERS and the results in saving would allow more people to be covered. You probably prefer the voucher system where senior citizens on $1400 SS will get a $6000 voucher to buy health insurance which will cost $16,000. Good luck on that one.

Even Paul Ryan doesn’t know how it will are work out. Watch how a CNN and a Fox news Reporter rip into Romeny’s chief campaign adviser and Paul Ryan as well

John Sununu bit off more than he can chew when he started ranting at CNN’s Soledad O’Brien Tuesday afternoon. In a rare display of journalistic back bone in the face of right-wing accusations of liberal bias, O’Brien essentially told a conservative bully to take his propaganda and stuff it.
CNN Host Crushes Lying Romney Surrogate (VIDEO)**

Pawlenty suggests that Soledad O’Brien doesn’t understand English**
rawstory.com/rs/2012/08/15/pawlenty-suggests-that-soledad-obrien-doesnt-understand-english/

**
Last night, newly ensconced Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan sat down for his first solo interview with Fox News’ Brit Hume and let slip an admission about Mitt Romney’s budget plan – an admission that’s receiving surprisingly little press attention. Asked by Hume when the Romney plan would balance the budget, Ryan said he didn’t know because “we haven’t run the numbers on that specific plan.”**

"We Haven’t Run The Numbers:" A Startling Ryan Admission That’s Getting Little Attention

I’m neither Left nor Right, GOP or Democrat. I’m an Independent applying Catholic/Christian principles to an immoral world

Ecoclimber, thank you so much for setting the record straight on the Obama Medicare cuts. I’ve explained it on other threads but obviously to no avail on this forum. Just going around spouting out the 716 billion dollar figure means nothing unless they also acknowledge where the savings is coming come. As you said not from the beneficiaries. Hopefully they will hear it from you better.

I don’t know about other outlets but MSNBC did give attention last night to the Ryan slip up that they haven’t run the numbers yet. Astonishing I know from a supposed econ guru. But that’s what the “econ guy” said.

Saw a clip of the Soledad O’Brien interview of Sununu as well. Might have seen it on CNN as I sometimes channel surf. I even surf on ocasion to FOX just to see what spin they’re giving. Anyway thanks for the post.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

From Bishop Blaire’s 2011 Labor Day message, on the USCCB website:

"The Church’s relationship with the labor movement is both supportive and challenging. Our Church continues to teach that unions remain an effective instrument to protect the dignity of work and the rights of workers. At their best, unions are important not just for the economic protections and benefits they can provide for their members, but especially for the voice and participation they can offer to workers. They are important not only for what they achieve for their members, but also for the contributions they make to the whole society.

**This does not mean every outcome of bargaining is responsible or that all actions of particular unions–or for that matter employers–merit support. Unions, like other human institutions, can be misused or can abuse their role. **The Church has urged leaders of the labor movement to avoid the temptations of excessive partisanship and the pursuit of only narrow interests. Workers and their unions, as well as employers and their businesses, all have responsibility to seek the common good, not just their own economic, political, or institutional interests.

The teaching that workers have the right to choose freely to form and belong to unions and other associations without interference or intimidation is strong and consistent. At the same time, some unions in some places have taken public positions that the Church cannot support, which many union members may not support, and which have little to do with work or workers’ rights. Leaders of the Church and the labor movement cannot avoid these differences, but should address them in principled, respectful and candid dialogue. This should not keep us from working on our own and together to advance common priorities of protecting worker rights, economic and social justice, overcoming poverty, and creating economic opportunity for all."
In this and other statements, the Bishops, both as heads of committees and as a body, have not declared that all unions are an intrinsic good; they have (as indicated above) defined unions as a good with qualification, depending on the particular union – a concept which is further fashioned in Blaire’s 2012 Labor Day statement, already on the website in anticipation.

So anyone who believes he or she “knows the Catholic position,” yet still insists that the Church’s stand on unions has absolute value, whereas Life issues have mere relative value or lesser value or private value or cynical value, is not operating under a Catholic paradigm, no matter how clever and independent and self -“educated” (cough) such a person believes himself or herself to be.

Private interpretation of Catholic apologetics only works when you’re correct on the facts. When you’re not, the only person you’re fooling is yourself.

 

[CMatt25]

If Ryan is such a right-wing extremist, how has been so successful in a swing district that voted for Obama in 2008? Note that he averages about two thirds of the votes cast in his elections!:

It’s not all that unusual with the power of incumbancy for incumbant congressional candidates to be reelected over and over and over. Or else Obama is not the far left socialist he’s painted to be on this forum. Most likely some combination of both play into it.

 

[_Abyssinia]

From Bishop Blaire’s 2011 Labor Day message, on the USCCB website:

"The Church’s relationship with the labor movement is both supportive and challenging. Our Church continues to teach that unions remain an effective instrument to protect the dignity of work and the rights of workers. At their best, unions are important not just for the economic protections and benefits they can provide for their members, but especially for the voice and participation they can offer to workers. They are important not only for what they achieve for their members, but also for the contributions they make to the whole society.

**This does not mean every outcome of bargaining is responsible or that all actions of particular unions–or for that matter employers–merit support. Unions, like other human institutions, can be misused or can abuse their role. **The Church has urged leaders of the labor movement to avoid the temptations of excessive partisanship and the pursuit of only narrow interests. Workers and their unions, as well as employers and their businesses, all have responsibility to seek the common good, not just their own economic, political, or institutional interests.

The teaching that workers have the right to choose freely to form and belong to unions and other associations without interference or intimidation is strong and consistent. At the same time, some unions in some places have taken public positions that the Church cannot support, which many union members may not support, and which have little to do with work or workers’ rights. Leaders of the Church and the labor movement cannot avoid these differences, but should address them in principled, respectful and candid dialogue. This should not keep us from working on our own and together to advance common priorities of protecting worker rights, economic and social justice, overcoming poverty, and creating economic opportunity for all."
In this and other statements, the Bishops, both as heads of committees and as a body, have not declared that all unions are an intrinsic good; they have (as indicated above) defined unions as a good with qualification, depending on the particular union – a concept which is further fashioned in Blaire’s 2012 Labor Day statement, already on the website in anticipation.

So anyone who believes he or she “knows the Catholic position,” yet still insists that the Church’s stand on unions has absolute value, whereas Life issues have mere relative value or lesser value or private value or cynical value, is not operating under a Catholic paradigm, no matter how clever and independent and self -“educated” (cough) such a person believes himself or herself to be.

Private interpretation of Catholic apologetics only works when you’re correct on the facts. When you’re not, the only person you’re fooling is yourself.

Catholic teachings on unions

Though unions ought to have a social role and a political voice, they are not “political parties,” ought to avoid the quest for political power, ought not to be “too closely linked” to political parties, and at the same time ought not to be forced to submit to the “decisions of political parties.” They ought to be independent from the political process, and never “become an instrument for other purposes.” Their role is to make the political arena “sensitive to labor problems,” and–in a manner independent of partisan spirit–help the political process include the rights of workers as part of the political mix. (Compendium, No. 307)

If unions become instruments of political parties, or if political parties become instruments of unions, there will necessarily be imbalance. Unions in such cases “easily lose contact with their specific role, which is to secure the just rights of workers within the framework of the common good of the whole of society.” (Compendium, No. 307)

 

[Havard]

Ecoclimber, thank you so much for setting the record straight on the Obama Medicare cuts. I’ve explained it on other threads but obviously to no avail on this forum. Just going around spouting out the 716 billion dollar figure means nothing unless they also acknowledge where the savings is coming come. As you said not from the beneficiaries. Hopefully they will hear it from you better.

I don’t know about other outlets but MSNBC did give attention last night to the Ryan slip up that they haven’t run the numbers yet. Astonishing I know from a supposed econ guru. But that’s what the “econ guy” said.

Saw a clip of the Soledad O’Brien interview of Sununu as well. Might have seen it on CNN as I sometimes channel surf. I even surf on ocasion to FOX just to see what spin they’re giving. Anyway thanks for the post.

I implore you to apply the same standards to people you agree with you that you apply to people who disagree with you. That is, one can’t “set the record straight” by sourcing sites that are universally understood to be biased in one direction or the other. Just as you would not accept the National Review as a source, Media Matters is likewise unacceptable.

Without some kind of frank ground rules, we’re not even communicating with each other, we’re just dancing around willy nilly.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Catholic teachings on unions

Though unions ought to have a social role and a political voice, they are not “political parties,” ought to avoid the quest for political power, ought not to be “too closely linked” to political parties, and at the same time ought not to be forced to submit to the “decisions of political parties.” They ought to be independent from the political process, and never “become an instrument for other purposes.” Their role is to make the political arena “sensitive to labor problems,” and–in a manner independent of partisan spirit–help the political process include the rights of workers as part of the political mix. (Compendium, No. 307)

If unions become instruments of political parties, or if political parties become instruments of unions, there will necessarily be imbalance. Unions in such cases “easily lose contact with their specific role, which is to secure the just rights of workers within the framework of the common good of the whole of society.” (Compendium, No. 307)

Ooops.

 

[LisaA]

Media matters as a source? It is a pro abortion, pro homosexual marriage, anti Catholic organisation

Medicare cuts in ObamaTax directly effect the elderly by cutting medicare advantage payment rates by 2017 an average of $3700 for every person. 27% below what recipients would receive with out ObamaTax. If they lose $3700 annually in Medicare from 65 years old until their death at 78 they would lose $44000 in benefits and medicare spending would increase $25 billion with ObamaTax

ObamaTax 15 member bureaucrat unelected board will likely impact the elderly’s health care because they will look at health care records, and how many quality years you have left and if they believe you have few quality years and the cost of a treatment is high you may get rationing

Before ObamaTax was passed people said abortion funding will not be part of the law, but pro life groups knew it would and it is fact

Thanks Abyssinia, Ecoclimber’s comments are not only partisan but totally erroneous.

To reiterate your comments: Obamacare damages Medicare recipients IMMEDIATELY. Medicare Advantage a very popular program that benefitted lower income seniors with good choices was basically gutted. Obamacare has created “IPAB” which is a bunch of faceless bureaucrats who will tell doctors whether or not Grandma get’s the new hip or heart surgery…she’s old poor thing and why make the investment. Sarah Palin was not far off in calling this a “death panel.”

Ecoclimber cavalierly says that Obama’s cuts don’t take money from seniors but merely from the DOCTORS providing care. As Ecoclimber OBVIOUSLY doesn’t know a) Medicare already underpays doctors b) Seniors are already finding it hard to find a doctor willing to take Medicare c) it’s only going to get harder with more people on the exchanges and Medicaid and d) in reality the cuts to doctors have proved so unpopular that chances are they will be kicked down the road again adding to the deficit. Obamacare’s total costs have far exceeded the estimates. It is HUGELY unpopular with seniors.

Ecoclimber tosses out $6000 for the voucher as if this is a) fixed in stone and b) what EVERY senior will receive. If he/she had actually read Ryan’s plan he/she would note that the way this plan saves money is by means testing. Lower income seniors will receive far more premium support than high income seniors. Further Ryan’s plan bases the voucher on what it would cost to cover the equivalent of current Medicare coverage. Obviously the amounts will be adjusted for inflation. But hey that doesn’t spin as well as lying and saying you’ll only get $6000 for your “medical care.”

Lisa

PS great posts from Steve, Elizabeth, Paul, Scott, Ridge and all as well

 

[edwest2]

Might depends on the definition of regulars. I can’t possibly take the time to search every post. But here’s one saying Obama’s party is completely at odds with Christian morals. Completely? Really? I’m going out on a limb here thinking Obama supports at least some of his party’s platform. So that would make him completely at odds with Christian morals.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9634719&postcount=232

He is for abortion, euthanasia, forcing the HHS Mandate on Catholics and other Christians, thus denying our religious freedom, and he is for same-sex marriage. And the Federal government, under no law, has the right to force its citizens to buy any product or service. He is enabling the Culture of Death.

Peace,
Ed

 

[_Abyssinia]

Thanks Abyssinia, Ecoclimber’s comments are not only partisan but totally erroneous.

To reiterate your comments: Obamacare damages Medicare recipients IMMEDIATELY. Medicare Advantage a very popular program that benefitted lower income seniors with good choices was basically gutted. Obamacare has created “IPAB” which is a bunch of faceless bureaucrats who will tell doctors whether or not Grandma get’s the new hip or heart surgery…she’s old poor thing and why make the investment. Sarah Palin was not far off in calling this a “death panel.”

Ecoclimber cavalierly says that Obama’s cuts don’t take money from seniors but merely from the DOCTORS providing care. As Ecoclimber OBVIOUSLY doesn’t know a) Medicare already underpays doctors b) Seniors are already finding it hard to find a doctor willing to take Medicare c) it’s only going to get harder with more people on the exchanges and Medicaid and d) in reality the cuts to doctors have proved so unpopular that chances are they will be kicked down the road again adding to the deficit. Obamacare’s total costs have far exceeded the estimates. It is HUGELY unpopular with seniors.

Ecoclimber tosses out $6000 for the voucher as if this is a) fixed in stone and b) what EVERY senior will receive. If he/she had actually read Ryan’s plan he/she would note that the way this plan saves money is by means testing. Lower income seniors will receive far more premium support than high income seniors. Further Ryan’s plan bases the voucher on what it would cost to cover the equivalent of current Medicare coverage. Obviously the amounts will be adjusted for inflation. But hey that doesn’t spin as well as lying and saying you’ll only get $6000 for your “medical care.”

Lisa

PS great posts from Steve, Elizabeth, Paul, Scott, Ridge and all as well

Ryan and Romney need to be clearer on ObamaTax’s medicare advantage cuts effect everyone immediately



How obamacare guts medicare

These draconian cuts in Medicare payments to doctors, hospitals and other health-care providers that serve America’s seniors were the basis for the Congressional Budget Office’s official “score”—repeatedly cited by the president—that the health-reform legislation would actually reduce the federal deficit. But Mr. Obama never disclosed how that deficit reduction would actually be achieved.

There will be additional cuts under ObamaCare to Medicare Advantage, the private option to Medicare that close to one-fourth of all seniors have chosen for their coverage under the program because it gives them a better deal. Mr. Foster estimates that 50% of all seniors with Medicare Advantage will lose their plan because of these cuts. Mr. Obama’s pledge that “If you like your health plan, you will be able to keep it” clearly does not apply to America’s seniors.

Moreover, there will be additional cuts to Medicare adopted by bureaucrats at the Medicare Independent Payment Advisory Board. ObamaCare empowers this board to close Medicare financing gaps by adopting further Medicare cuts that would become effective without any congressional action. Mr. Foster reports that “The Secretary of HHS is required to implement the Board’s recommendations unless the statutory process is overridden by new legislation.”

The drastic reductions in Medicare reimbursements under ObamaCare will create havoc and chaos in health care for seniors. Many doctors, surgeons and specialists providing critical care to the elderly—such as surgery for hip and knee replacements, sophisticated diagnostics through MRIs and CT scans, and even treatment for cancer and heart disease—will cease serving Medicare patients. If the government is not going to pay, then seniors are not going to get the health services, treatment and care they expect

Mr. Foster reports that two-thirds of hospitals already lose money on Medicare patients. Under ObamaCare it will get much worse. Hospitals also will shut down or stop serving Medicare patients

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703649004575437311393854940.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion

 

[_Abyssinia]

Ryan and Romney need to be clearer on ObamaTax’s medicare advantage cuts effect

How obamacare guts medicare

These draconian cuts in Medicare payments to doctors, hospitals and other health-care providers that serve America’s seniors were the basis for the Congressional Budget Office’s official “score”—repeatedly cited by the president—that the health-reform legislation would actually reduce the federal deficit. But Mr. Obama never disclosed how that deficit reduction would actually be achieved.

There will be additional cuts under ObamaCare to Medicare Advantage, the private option to Medicare that close to one-fourth of all seniors have chosen for their coverage under the program because it gives them a better deal. Mr. Foster estimates that 50% of all seniors with Medicare Advantage will lose their plan because of these cuts. Mr. Obama’s pledge that “If you like your health plan, you will be able to keep it” clearly does not apply to America’s seniors.

Moreover, there will be additional cuts to Medicare adopted by bureaucrats at the Medicare Independent Payment Advisory Board. ObamaCare empowers this board to close Medicare financing gaps by adopting further Medicare cuts that would become effective without any congressional action. Mr. Foster reports that “The Secretary of HHS is required to implement the Board’s recommendations unless the statutory process is overridden by new legislation.”

The drastic reductions in Medicare reimbursements under ObamaCare will create havoc and chaos in health care for seniors. Many doctors, surgeons and specialists providing critical care to the elderly—such as surgery for hip and knee replacements, sophisticated diagnostics through MRIs and CT scans, and even treatment for cancer and heart disease—will cease serving Medicare patients. If the government is not going to pay, then seniors are not going to get the health services, treatment and care they expect

Mr. Foster reports that two-thirds of hospitals already lose money on Medicare patients. Under ObamaCare it will get much worse. Hospitals also will shut down or stop serving Medicare patients

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703649004575437311393854940.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion

 

[edwest2]

Perhaps you could post what Ryan has praised Rand for, rather than speculating with innuendo?

It’s a pity others aren’t so harsh on similar radical atheists and abortion supporters (Maya Angelou ring a bell?)

From Ryan’s mouth, at the 2005 Atlas Society event:

atlassociety.org/ele/blog/2012/04/30/paul-ryan-and-ayn-rands-ideas-hot-seat-again

(emphasis mine)

Ryan picks up on Rand’s Collectivism vs. Induvidualism themes, as many have (see Rush’s 2112, or even some Obama supporters (Anne Hathaway, Brad Pitt, Sandra Bullock, and Eva Mendes, plus Angelina Jolie).

I haven’t seen anything Ryan does, proposes, or has proposed in his career as being “Randian”.

Rand was no conservative. Rand was continually at odds with the founders of modern conservatism (just read William F. Buckley’s, a Catholict I might add, obit of Rand, or his review of Atlas Shrugged),

aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_faq#obj_nr_vs_ar

absolutely hated Reagan,

dangerousminds.net/comments/ayn_rand_absolutely_hated_ronald_reagan

and derides conservatives in general.

I want people here to put up or shut up:

Please point out what policy proposed by Ryan, what ideas espoused by Ryan (outside of the individualism vs. collectivism dichotomy) would be in agreement with Ayn Rand’s objectivism philosophy…

or to stop beating this obviously dead horse.

Here you go:

nytimes.com/2012/08/15/opinion/ayn-rand-wouldnt-approve-of-paul-ryan.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1345140033-gdFKtZ1uRxjPe13gTYcB0A

Peace,
Ed

 

[CMatt25]

Medicare cuts in ObamaTax directly effect the elderly by cutting medicare advantage payment rates

First of all about 75% of Medicare beneficiaries are not even enrolled in these “Medicare Advantage” private insurance programs. Only approximately 25% are nationwide. But nevertheless the truth about how Obama cuts Medicare can be found in the link I’ve provided below. There’s a chart and everything for you Abyssinia.

“The majority of the cuts, as you can see in this chart below, come from reductions in how much Medicare reimburses hospitals and private health insurance companies.”

“The average Medicare Advantage per-patient cost was 117 percent of regular fee-for-service. The Affordable Care Act gives those private plans a haircut and tethers reimbursement levels to the quality of care administered, and patient satisfaction.”

“Another big chunk comes from the hospitals. The health law changed how Medicare calculates what they get reimbursed for various services, slightly lowering their rates over time. **Hospitals agreed to these cuts **because they knew, at the same time, they would likely see an influx of paying patients with the Affordable Care Act’s insurance expansion.”

"It’s worth noting that there’s one area these cuts don’t touch: Medicare benefits. The Affordable Care Act rolls back payment rates for hospitals and insurers. It does not, however, change the basket of benefits that patients have access to."

Finally with all the criticism on this forum and in other Republican circles on the way Obama cuts Medicare, I found it interesting the last sentence in this analysis states even Paul Ryan keeps the Obama cuts in place.

washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/14/romneys-right-obamacare-cuts-medicare-by-716-billion-heres-how/

 

[mary_bobo]

Therefore, there are those bishops who may well disagree with Ryan and their fellow bishops about that. Bishop Morlino’s opinion must be given careful attention, but his is but one opinion.

Maybe an opinion, but he has met Ryan and spoken with him about these issues. I think that makes him more qualified to assess Ryan.

 

[rlg94086]

Bishop Morlino says Ryan used prudential judgement and did that in accordance with Catholic principals

madisoncatholicherald.org/bishopscolumns/3366-bishop-column.html

youtube.com/watch?v=USDwb78VfUU

You may disagree with the budget but it is not not in keeping with Catholic teaching

Weird…nothing in there about the budget’s “inhumanity” or any “genocide” going on.

Obviously, it is fine for a Catholic to support the budget. It is a matter for prudential judgement and does not mean that said Catholic is against helping the poor, not following Church teaching, etc.

Now that we have that out of the way, let’s discuss other items where Romney/Ryan clearly line up with the Church (or at least get a heck of a lot closer) and Obama/Biden are completely opposed.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Which is all irrelevant, since the actor in this case is Ryan and his bishop is Morlino. You, your opinion, and the opinion of Bishop Taylor (God bless him) aren’t really relevant. Bishop Morlino admitted that he isn’t an economic expert, so won’t comment on specifics, and will not endorse any particular politician, as it is not within the scope of his office. But, what Bishop Morlino can do is testify to the veracity of Ryan’s sincere effort to develop a budget that honors the spirit of Catholic doctrine, since that IS in the purview of Bishop Morlino’s authority as the Apostolic See of Ryan’s diocese.

That’s what I read in the OSV a few weeks back when they did a story on Rep. Ryan’s budget.

 

[bellasbane]

bellasbane;9657113:

The Bishops have NOT been inconsistent in their messaging. So if you find yourself at odds with them with respect to things like unions and entitlements for the poor - you’re not operating under a Catholic paradigm.

From Bishop Blaire’s 2011 Labor Day message, on the USCCB website:

"The Church’s relationship with the labor movement is both supportive and challenging. Our Church continues to teach that unions remain an effective instrument to protect the dignity of work and the rights of workers. At their best, unions are important not just for the economic protections and benefits they can provide for their members, but especially for the voice and participation they can offer to workers. They are important not only for what they achieve for their members, but also for the contributions they make to the whole society.

**This does not mean every outcome of bargaining is responsible or that all actions of particular unions–or for that matter employers–merit support. Unions, like other human institutions, can be misused or can abuse their role. **The Church has urged leaders of the labor movement to avoid the temptations of excessive partisanship and the pursuit of only narrow interests. Workers and their unions, as well as employers and their businesses, all have responsibility to seek the common good, not just their own economic, political, or institutional interests.

The teaching that workers have the right to choose freely to form and belong to unions and other associations without interference or intimidation is strong and consistent. At the same time, some unions in some places have taken public positions that the Church cannot support, which many union members may not support, and which have little to do with work or workers’ rights. Leaders of the Church and the labor movement cannot avoid these differences, but should address them in principled, respectful and candid dialogue. This should not keep us from working on our own and together to advance common priorities of protecting worker rights, economic and social justice, overcoming poverty, and creating economic opportunity for all."
In this and other statements, the Bishops, both as heads of committees and as a body, have not declared that all unions are an intrinsic good; they have (as indicated above) defined unions as a good with qualification, depending on the particular union – a concept which is further fashioned in Blaire’s 2012 Labor Day statement, already on the website in anticipation.

So anyone who believes he or she “knows the Catholic position,” yet still insists that the Church’s stand on unions has absolute value, whereas Life issues have mere relative value or lesser value or private value or cynical value, is not operating under a Catholic paradigm, no matter how clever and independent and self -“educated” (cough) such a person believes himself or herself to be.

Private interpretation of Catholic apologetics only works when you’re correct on the facts. When you’re not, the only person you’re fooling is yourself.

Wow, all that from one brief reference to unions.

I really don’t understand what motivated you to go to all the trouble - big bright colors and all. Are you disputing my assertion that what the Bishops say about unions is spot on with respect to traditional Catholic economic theory? Because that’s all I actually say.

I have an idea, why don’t you list the facts I actually got wrong, as opposed to those you imagine I got wrong, but really just made up yourself. That would be far more instructive for everyone and may even move this discussion forward in a constructive manner.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Wow, all that from one brief reference to unions.

I really don’t understand what motivated you to go to all the trouble - big bright colors and all. Are you disputing my assertion that what the Bishops say about unions is spot on with respect to traditional Catholic economic theory? Because that’s all I actually say.

I have an idea, why don’t you list the facts I actually got wrong, as opposed to those you imagine I got wrong, but really just made up yourself. That would be far more instructive for everyone and may even move this discussion forward in a constructive manner.