US Bishops' Conference Largely Disappointed by Debt Ceiling Agreement

[Scott_Lafrance]

I think you are absolutely right - responsibility is at the heart of this matter.

We are responsible for all our brother and sisters, at least that is what we as Catholics believe. We are also responsible to ensure that we keep future generations in mind with all our decisions. So given this point of agreement - do you believe there are issues when those who can afford not only every thing they need, but have more than they need, are asked to give more to ensure that there are not cuts to the safety net for those who truly have need?

I agree with this, but the sticking point many have is that whose truly in need and can we help make these people self sufficient and/or help reduce their burdens on society? How do we spend out money in an efficient manner?

The Bible clearly states to help the poor, but it also expects us to use our time, talent and treasure.

My main problem is that these’ “social safety net” programs have become political tools of career politicians who play off people’s sympathies to get themselves re-elected, with no real concern of everyone that is impacted by their policies. Additionally, most of these programs were designed or have been modified to keep poor people poor. To truely help, you must get the ones that need a hand to a position where they are self-sustaining, and to identify the truely destitute ones in a manner that helps them retain their dignity. I don’t think any of the federal programs do this well at all. I remember what my favorite President, Calvin Coolidge, said about farm subsidies, and it applies to all federal social justice programs today, namely that “government control cannot be divorced from political control”.

 

[CMatt25]

Do you really think one can compare household budgets to national budgets?

I think the differences are too great between the two to make simplistic comparisons - we can’t print money, we don’t sell bonds, (the kind of loan perhaps you are talking about) we do not have the ability to tax, wage wars (funded or not)

No I don’t think one can compare the two. And you give excellent reasons why it is not rational to do so. I do though find it interesting when I hear folks do so. Because government debt is frowned upon. Yet households have debt. Be it mortgages, 2nd mortgages, car loans, credit cards, and so forth.

In any case 4elise, you asked earlier how do we expect anything to get done or solved when each side retreats to their corners? In reading thru recent posts, I again see folks who think taxation is stealing. When faced with such a mindset, honestly I don’t know where we go from here and how we can get anything done. Peace.

 

[wynnejj]

Also let’s rewrite the 503c regulations that will tax funds given to charities that are not distributed to the poor and needy.

There’s a very good idea.

 

[Contarini]

Yes, we should make sure they all have cell phones too.

Quite possibly. Given the cultural and technological situation today, a cell phone could make all the difference to a person looking for work or doing odd jobs.

Edwin

 

[CMatt25]

I get so tired of class warfare.

In that case so are the poor and the middle class tired of the warfare on them.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

No I don’t think one can compare the two. And you give excellent reasons why it is not rational to do so. I do though find it interesting when I hear folks do so. Because government debt is frowned upon. Yet households have debt. Be it mortgages, 2nd mortgages, car loans, credit cards, and so forth.

In any case 4elise, you asked earlier how do we expect anything to get done or solved when each side retreats to their corners? In reading thru recent posts, I again see folks who think taxation is stealing. When faced with such a mindset, honestly I don’t know where we go from here and how we can get anything done. Peace.

At some point the banks will stop lending to you though.

 

[CMatt25]

Sorry, but deontological libertarianism is not Catholicism (or a particularly strong philosophical idea for that matter). Taxes is not stealing just because deontological libertarianism says so.

In the current context, raising taxes on the rich is quite acceptable since they own and earn a disproportionate amount of wealth and income. Income inequality in the US is the highest in the Western world with a gini-coefficient of about 45 in 2007 (according to the CIA). It’s probably even worse now. That is behind Russia and China! It is clear that the rich can afford to pay more, so why shouldn’t they? If the moral argument is a political argument based on a fringe idea in philosophy that has gained nationwide support due to think tanks supporting financial interest and greed, I don’t think Catholics ought to care.

And to nuance the issue a little bit - no one is saying we should burden future generations with our mistakes, which is why we raise taxes on the rich. When they are raised to a reasonable level, we see what is left to manage through potential cuts. The problem now is that the rich is not required to make any sacrifices, whereas the poor are. And this is after a financial crisis largely created by the rich where the rich got bailed out of their problems. So, when the rich are in trouble, everyone should pay. But when the poor and the middle class are in trouble, they’re on their own. That is just unacceptable.

:clapping:

 

[CMatt25]

At some point the banks will stop lending to you though.

Or if you’re a good customer, pay your bills on time, your banks can choose to increase your debt ceiling… uh… I mean credit limit… in the meantime.

 

[stevegravy]

At some point the banks will stop lending to you though.

Sooooo…Answer me this, am I morally responsible? “My granny is hungry and she has no money for food. So, being a good grandson I grab a gun and hold up ……insert name of any bleeding heart, or class warfare monger…… It is your money of your life. Now I return to Granny 90% of the take keeping 10% for my overhead, guns and bullets, and transaction fee required by Frank Dodd Financial Reform Bill. It is a better deal then she would get with the federal government

 

[qui_est_ce]

The Bible clearly states to help the poor, but it also expects us to use our time, talent and treasure.

The Bible tells us to see the face of God in the poor. We are to BE the face of God to the poor. The poor are those who are spiritually poor as well as materially poor. We are to help the poor out of love for God.

The government cannot “love” or be the face of God, therefore using the government does not meet Catholic Teaching.

Thinking we can eradicate material or spiritual poverty is arrogant. Mother Teresa didn’t seek to eradicate poverty, she sought to give dignity to the dying.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Sooooo…Answer me this, am I morally responsible? “My granny is hungry and she has no money for food. So, being a good grandson I grab a gun and hold up ……insert name of any bleeding heart, or class warfare monger…… It is your money of your life. Now I return to Granny 90% of the take keeping 10% for my overhead, guns and bullets, and transaction fee required by Frank Dodd Financial Reform Bill. It is a better deal then she would get with the federal government

I think you’re replying to the wrong person…

 

[qui_est_ce]

Or if you’re a good customer, pay your bills on time, your banks can choose to increase your debt ceiling… uh… I mean credit limit… in the meantime.

Are you seriously telling people to go into debt to pay debt?

 

[estesbob]

Sorry, but deontological libertarianism is not Catholicism (or a particularly strong philosophical idea for that matter). Taxes is not stealing just because deontological libertarianism says so.

On that we agree. Taxes are necessary to fund the legitimate needs of the government.

In the current context, raising taxes on the rich is quite acceptable since they own and earn a disproportionate amount of wealth and income. Income inequality in the US is the highest in the Western world with a gini-coefficient of about 45 in 2007 (according to the CIA). It’s probably even worse now. That is behind Russia and China! It is clear that the rich can afford to pay more, so why shouldn’t they? If the moral argument is a political argument based on a fringe idea in philosophy that has gained nationwide support due to think tanks supporting financial interest and greed, I don’t think Catholics ought to care.

Again if higher taxes are needed why not raise them on everybody? . We have a tax system that already excludes 47% of earners from paying any federal income tax. . And yet all we hear is complaints about the rich, who already pay the bulk of all federal income taxes, not paying enough.

And to nuance the issue a little bit - no one is saying we should burden future generations with our mistakes, which is why we raise taxes on the rich. When they are raised to a reasonable level, we see what is left to manage through potential cuts. The problem now is that the rich is not required to make any sacrifices, whereas the poor are. And this is after a financial crisis largely created by the rich where the rich got bailed out of their problems. So, when the rich are in trouble, everyone should pay. But when the poor and the middle class are in trouble, they’re on their own. That is just unacceptable.

Of course the problem is coming up with what a reasonable level is. The top 25% of earners in this country already pay a 84% of all federal income tax. , what do you think the reasonable level is? 90% 100%

. The truth is that everybody wants higher taxes on everybody but themselves. The liberal definition of shared sacrifice is you sacrifice, I share,

 

[rlg94086]

Or if you’re a good customer, pay your bills on time, your banks can choose to increase your debt ceiling… uh… I mean credit limit… in the meantime.

Yep, they’ll raise it high enough until the consumer goes bankrupt. Good point! Oh, wait, you think raising the debt ceiling is a good thing…

 

[rlg94086]

Are you seriously telling people to go into debt to pay debt?

Yeah…I don’t think he thought his response out very well before he made it.

 

[JimG]

This is a good point - we are as individuals are not supposed to ignore the needs of our brothers and sisters, and we will be called to account for the times we have.

We are however, also a society, formed into governments. Do you think there is a responsibility collectively to do anything? Do you think the Church has this wrong?

Certainly there is a collective responsibility. I have to say that the collective responsibility is best met by groups such as those under the umbrella of Catholic Charities, or by Catholic and Christian international charitable groups. The Missionaries of Charity, founded by Mother Teresa, for example, does great good and is never bogged down by needless bureaucracy or regulation.

In my own area, the diocese operates a diner which is open to anyone who comes for a free meal every day of the year. There are something like 6,000 volunteers who assist in its operation. No overweening bureaucracy there either.

I am continuously astonished, however, by the overall impression I often perceive from those advocating for more governmental benefits: the idea that the debt doesn’t matter, that unfunded liabilities don’t matter, even that government actually knows how to solve serious economic problems. Mostly, it doesn’t. Because really, bureaucrats are no smarter than the rest of us, and make just as many bad decisions.

Sure, governments can print money, or create it from the computer. So can banks. The total wealth of a country, however, is simply it’s gross national product, and if there is more money than needed to represent those goods and services, inflation must result. And inflation hurts the poor much more than it does the rich.

Bernanke and company think they are helping by keeping interest rates near zero. But that hurts—and is an injustice to—widows who are trying to live on insurance proceeds.

Not only that, but the deficit has now reached an unsustainable tipping point, and not only in the U.S. but in many European governments. Centralized federal welfare programs are at base supported by a dwindling share of workers. That’s partly a result of depopulation policies which have been pursued, to the national detriment, over the past sixty or seventy years.

Governments have only two sources of income—taxes and borrowing. Sure, we can tax the rich all we want, but no amount of taxing the rich and printing money will get us to the point of a balanced budget, nor will it make a dent in the unfunded liabilities overhanging the future economy. And at some point it will become counterproductive.

How much economic destruction are we willing to risk for the sake of our entitlements?

In my opinion it may already be too late.

 

[estesbob]

Are you seriously telling people to go into debt to pay debt?

No-he is telling other people to go in debt to keep him from having to go in debt.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Certainly there is a collective responsibility. I have to say that the collective responsibility is best met by groups such as those under the umbrella of Catholic Charities, or by Catholic and Christian international charitable groups. The Missionaries of Charity, founded by Mother Teresa, for example, does great good and is never bogged down by needless bureaucracy or regulation.

In my own area, the diocese operates a diner which is open to anyone who comes for a free meal every day of the year. There are something like 6,000 volunteers who assist in its operation. No overweening bureaucracy there either.

I am continuously astonished, however, by the overall impression I often perceive from those advocating for more governmental benefits: the idea that the debt doesn’t matter, that unfunded liabilities don’t matter, even that government actually knows how to solve serious economic problems. Mostly, it doesn’t. Because really, bureaucrats are no smarter than the rest of us, and make just as many bad decisions.

Sure, governments can print money, or create it from the computer. So can banks. The total wealth of a country, however, is simply it’s gross national product, and if there is more money than needed to represent those goods and services, inflation must result. And inflation hurts the poor much more than it does the rich.

Bernanke and company think they are helping by keeping interest rates near zero. But that hurts—and is an injustice to—widows who are trying to live on insurance proceeds.

Not only that, but the deficit has now reached an unsustainable tipping point, and not only in the U.S. but in many European governments. Centralized federal welfare programs are at base supported by a dwindling share of workers. That’s partly a result of depopulation policies which have been pursued, to the national detriment, over the past sixty or seventy years.

Governments have only two sources of income—taxes and borrowing. Sure, we can tax the rich all we want, but no amount of taxing the rich and printing money will get us to the point of a balanced budget, nor will it make a dent in the unfunded liabilities overhanging the future economy. And at some point it will become counterproductive.

How much economic destruction are we willing to risk for the sake of our entitlements?

In my opinion it may already be too late.

My feelings exactly.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Are you seriously telling people to go into debt to pay debt?

I cannot fathom why he is advocating debt.

Just because people go into debt does not mean it is right, and that our debt and that our government should do the same thing.

We actually have a negative savings rate in this country. I don’t know how this is actually a good thing, and something we can base a sound economy on.

 

[wynnejj]

I was responding to comparing a household budget to the national one, which to me is overly simplistic - and has led to a great deal of misunderstanding on the part of many people who certainly agree in personal financial responsibility.

Yet, the simple household budget model is key to the problems with the national budget model. There is no misunderstanding. When one steps back at looks at the national budget from the simple household budget model, one finally can see the forest despite the trees. The simple concept holds true for the national budget.

And this is where the ‘how’ can be discussed by people of goodwill - if the ranker could be taken out of the discussion and discuss how we can insure those most in need at home are provided for - with the burden and sacrifices shared by those who can most afford it - It is the Holy Father who call on nations to provide for other nations - do you disagree that the US should actually be helping internationally?

No. Where I disagree, with spending cuts in general, international charity is fair game for spending cuts. Given that our brand of international charity includes, in good measure, family planning centers, I don’t see how we do any good exporting our immorality.

Adding this to any discussion brings back the ‘everything is about abortion / family planning’ an important issue of course - but we can talk about other things without that caveat being added to every single discussion, don’t you think?

Sure, if we are not talking about Catholic social justice teaching. Sure, if you want to deny the Real Presence at the table of Catholic dialogue. What rankles - what draws rancour from serious Catholics - is the denial of the real presence of persons unborn in the name of Catholic social justice. The lack of acknowledgement by persons on this discussion thread, purporting to defend the interests of the “poor and vulnerable”, categorically refuses to bring the unborn to the table of their interpretation of Catholic social justice teaching. You want to know the truth? You can’t handle the truth.