US Bishops' Conference Largely Disappointed by Debt Ceiling Agreement

[rlg94086]

No I can’t list the bishops, but I’m sure bishops attended the ‘bishops conference’.

Really? When was it? Where was it? I mean, it would be big news if a bunch of biships got together to discuss the debt ceiling. I would expect letters to their parishes, statements to the media, etc.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Really? When was it? Where was it? I mean, it would be big news if a bunch of biships got together to discuss the debt ceiling. I would expect letters to their parishes, statements to the media, etc.

No they didn’t get together to discuss the debt ceiling. The bishops conference was ‘disappointed’.

Despite a few positive developments from the recent debt ceiling agreement, the budget debates were mostly discouraging in their lack of concern for the poor, the U.S. bishops’ conference said.

Read more: ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/US.php?id=3741#ixzz1UgR1iGGl

Do you doubt the bishops conference makes public statements without knowledge of bishops?

 

[4elise]

• 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.

Well said. Thank you for this clarity.

 

[Tsuwano]

Does the phrase prudential judgement mean anything?

Yes, prudential judgement is what the good Samaritan did not use when he chose to help the man who fell among thieves. Right?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Really? When was it? Where was it? I mean, it would be big news if a bunch of biships got together to discuss the debt ceiling. I would expect letters to their parishes, statements to the media, etc.

I responded and said I couldn’t list any bishops that discussed the debt ceiling specifically. Please provide a list of bishops denouncing the statements made in the article? If they are erroneous statements, where are the bishops that would speak out with corrections?

 

[rlg94086]

No they didn’t get together to discuss the debt ceiling. The bishops conference was ‘disappointed’.

That is my understanding. I’m glad you recognized it.

Do you doubt the bishops conference makes public statements without knowledge of bishops?

I don’t believe the bishops, as a whole are consulted. The particular committee, which may include some bishops but also laypeople, issue the reports.

 

[4elise]

Okay, well at least you are consistent and favor bureaucracy at the largest level possible.

However, just as the Pope is not calling for a global healthcare bureaucracy, he also is not calling for large, federal bureaucracies when he says “nations should do ‘x.’” While your fire analogy is a clever answer, it is a case of the nation stepping in temporarily to help with a problem. I’m all for that. For example, if a state had an outbreak of cholera, I would expect the country to pull together to help that state.

My interest is in following Church teaching regarding the proper role of the State, maintaining both solidarity and subsidiarity, and avoiding the Welfare State and large bureaucracy. I believe the best way to do this is to focus on state/local and non-governmental solutions whenever possible. A large, federal bureaucracy stifles individual initiative and harms human dignity.

Well, consistent is good anyway, right?

Can we explore the example of the fire a bit further? One state (due to limited resources, poor economy, or whatever) provides education for their students that puts the students at the top of the nation, they have a high percentage of college graduation, high paying jobs, these people have children who have the same advantages, and this generational advantage on one state can be compared to a state whose situation is the inverse -

I think it is reasonable to say state and local and certainly non-governmental solutions whenever possible - but I do not believe it is enough - and apparently (speaking on behalf of the USCCB per the article) neither does the Church.

 

[4elise]

I get so tired of class warfare. 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 or 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.
You see the difference is merely the government passes laws so what they do is legal.

Now if you really want shared sacrifice let’s do something constructive. Let’s tax the 47% who pay no taxes so everybody has to have skin in the game. Also let’s rewrite the 503c regulations that will tax funds given to charities that are not distributed to the poor and needy. After all this go ahead and then tax the rich for more if you have to.

so being a good grandson… I am sure you would find another way to help your hungry grandmother - and connect her to senior programs (some of which are at risk of being cut)

Are the 47% you are talking about those below the poverty line? Or corporation that avoid tax? How about bringing transparency to who funds political campaigns too? Good idea about the non profits / (not sure who you are talking about) and great - see consensus already! I think we would need to tax the rich more!

 

[4elise]

Its not a “safety net” anymore. Liberals have turn it into a trampoline.

So does this mean people can jump right off it? (sorry couldn’t resist!)

 

[4elise]

The issue is there are a number of people who do not use public services and benefits as a safety net. That’s why terms such as generational welfare, welfare queens and poverty pimps have been coined. See some of the anecdotal evidence I posted earlier - I believe one can look up urban test scores versus money spent per child to help clarify the post.

But like all generalizations - these fail to take into consideration the individuals who are impacted - who do have real need. I think any fraud, that of the system, corporate, government should be ended - but to say because there are those who abuse the system, we should eliminate it seems to me to be an excuse.

 

[4elise]

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.

Thank you - I too agree that helping people move to self sufficient should always be the goal - but things like school lunches for kids that come from families who are struggling, providing in home care for the elderly, medical supplies for someone with permanent physical disabilities, etc, etc, so much of this I believe we would agree on - when we can take the vitriol out of the discussion. It feels like bad theater what we witness the nonsense in congress, on the 24 hour news - that is why I really welcome the voice of the Church speaking out for the poor - makes me proud to be a Catholic -

I really believe we could lead the dialogue.

 

[4elise]

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”.

I think other politicians have made their careers on opposing these ‘social safety nets’

Do you really think school lunches are to keep the poor - poor, or to feed hungry kids? Do you think programs for seniors to help them get to their doctor appointments are to keep them poor?

I think that the ‘safety net’ is being used as a political tug of war - and that the misinformation on both sides does no one a service.

 

[4elise]

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

good point that I hadn’t considered -

 

[4elise]

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

not if you are making your payments - apparently the world trusts that we will pay ours - since the treasure bills are more popular since our downgrade!

 

[rlg94086]

Well, consistent is good anyway, right?

Can we explore the example of the fire a bit further? One state (due to limited resources, poor economy, or whatever) provides education for their students that puts the students at the top of the nation, they have a high percentage of college graduation, high paying jobs, these people have children who have the same advantages, and this generational advantage on one state can be compared to a state whose situation is the inverse -

You aren’t seriously going to say that the addition of the Department of Education in the 70s and the federal spending have actually improved the situation, are you? Are you saying we should throw more money at the problem?

Yes, education is different state-to-state. The schools in my state are better than those just across the river. I have a potential job in California, a VERY wealthy state with VERY high taxes, and one of the things that concerns me is the horrid quality of the schools down there. I’ve lived there (in fact, I’m from there), so I know the difference in quality.

We need to improve our education systems, but adding homosexual education requirements, as they just did in California, isn’t really going to make the schools that much better, is it? I don’t think it’s a money issue either…

4elise:

I think it is reasonable to say state and local and certainly non-governmental solutions whenever possible - but I do not believe it is enough - and apparently (speaking on behalf of the USCCB per the article) neither does the Church.

I think the USCCB statement is a knee-jerk, don’t cut anything for the poor, statement. I don’t believe it is saying that national programs are preferred. Even if it did, the committee has no authority, and I am free to disagree with its statement.

 

[rlg94086]

I responded and said I couldn’t list any bishops that discussed the debt ceiling specifically. Please provide a list of bishops denouncing the statements made in the article? If they are erroneous statements, where are the bishops that would speak out with corrections?

Not erroneous…just opinions. The USCCB has no authority, so the Bishops may not feel compelled to give a contrary opinion, if they have one. Regardless, it is an opinion of a committee of the USCCB, and I am free to disagree, especially when it appears to me to have some parts that are contrary to Church teaching in the Compendium.

 

[4elise]

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.

Just FYI Catholic Charities is funded in part by government grants.

catholiccharitiesusa.org/Page.aspx?pid=296

1. Catholic Charities support an active public-private partnership with government at all levels.

The Catholic Church has a long and strong tradition of teaching about the responsibilities of government in promoting the common good and protecting the least among us, and the responsibilities of Catholics as citizens and taxpayers to support those roles and actively participate in civic life.

In light of these teachings, Catholic Charities have sought and accepted partnerships with cities, counties, states, and the federal government in which we receive government funding to provide services to the wider community that we judge to be consistent with our own mission. These payments may take the form of contracts to deliver particular services, such as foster care; voucher payment from individuals paid by government, such as Medicaid; and government funding of construction, such as housing. Government provides funding; we bring additional funding, volunteers, efficiency, values, community credibility, and dedication to the service of local communities and their needy families.

I found your comment about depopulation interesting …
I think there is also a correlaiton in the decrease immigrations and downturn in economic growth dallasfed.org/research/swe/2003/swe0306a.html

 

[4elise]

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.

Honestly, I don’t think he was advocating debt - but this points even more to why one can not compare a household budget to a national one.

 

[CMatt25]

So do you think 90% is “fair” 100% and if 47% paying no tax is “fair” how about 50% or 60% Again your failure to understand the difference between wealth and income makes it hard t

You’re hung up too much on your percentages. Persuader already explained to you how your percentage number don’t say much about the actual burden on the rich.

 

[rlg94086]

Honestly, I don’t think he was advocating debt - but this points even more to why one can not compare a household budget to a national one.

Oh no, I think his point about banks increasing individuals’ debt limits was spot on. I help people who have gone bankrupt buy cars. Consumers often extend themselves too far, and are aided by the banks who keep increasing their limits.

How far is too far for our nation? Should we just keep upping the debt ceiling?