US Bishops' Conference Largely Disappointed by Debt Ceiling Agreement

[4elise]

I find the original post offensive, as well. My apologies, as I read your post but didn’t see the original person’s post. Mea culpa.

Thank you

 

[rlg94086]

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we Catholics could lead the discussion so that those who are really in need can receive what they need, and we could strive to advance our belief that all life is sacred.

I’ve tried. I was called “lukewarm” (biblical allusion to being spat out, no doubt) by a pro-federal-bureaucracy type for suggesting we embrace all of Church teaching, including subsidiarity, and take care of the poor through a combination of local/state government and non-government institutions.

I do this, as a Republican, while also advancing our belief that all life is sacred.

 

[bbarrick8383]

thud (the sound of my head hitting the computer)
Ok… the point I was trying to make - why should children - who through no fault of their own - born in a state ranked 49th in education - not be seen as having generational disadvantages vs the state ranked # 1 - where high % of students attend college - get good paying jobs - then have children who go to schools ranked # 1 - etc, etc, etc. = generational advantage.

The state that ranks 49th in education will take whatever education money you send them and continue to produce the same as it was before. To me, the biggest reason is because those children are geared for an agriculture area. I feared the day my father found out I skipped a year of Vo-Ag to spend a year in Home-Ec with my girlfriend. It’s just a no no around here to not show pigs/cows/goats/sheep. We had a great Math teacher, we had a pretty good English teacher, we had an awesome Science teacher. But we were raised by our parents to focus on Ag, and Baseball/Softball/Football or whatever sport. No regrets here, I watched my classmates take Trigonometry while I took Business math and played sports. Now I did go to college and get a two year degree, who knows maybe I’ll go back and get a bachelors when my kids are grown. Who knows, I’m focused on them and making sure the path they take is right for them.

A year or two ago we had the opportunity to vote to raise spending for OK schools to equal the average of three nearby states that spend more than we do. It got defeated. Our schools have been given more money and the quality has just gone down. They no longer offer Spanish classes nor do they have the money saved up that they use to when I was there.

 

[Raskolnikov]

So, do you believe the tax rates prior to the Bush cuts were draconian for the lower 47%? Were they suffering endlessly and nearly to the level of the “people starving to death or dying of easily curable diseases in sub-saharan Africa?”

(what was that comment all about, anyway? )

I wasn’t comparing the American poor to the sub-saharan African poor, I was just questioning estesbob’s indignation about such a comparably insignifacant ‘injustice.’ No, the SSA poor have it much worse (that is, the African poor, not the gay poor ).

The point is that I’m not even arguing that it’s fair that that 47% doesn’t pay taxes, but that it doesn’t really matter that much, because they don’t make enough money to contribute a significant amount anyway, no matter how high their taxes are. Economic policy isn’t about fairness anyway, it’s about expediency.
bbarrick:

The argument is more to point out the fact that the rich are already paying a majority of the tax burden. And that those in the lower income areas are not only paying no income taxes, but getting way more than they need from the system to survive. There is hardly any means testing below 50k. All you gotta do is walk into the local DHS office and they will start throwing welfare checks at you.

No doubt the rich do pay the emajority of the tax burden, and they will, no matter how much you tax the other classes, because they make such adisproportionate share of the wealth. If tax increases are necessary (and I’m not saying they are, but hypothetically), you can tax the rich more, and oh how unfair, or you can tax the poorer halfmore, but what would be the point? You wouldn’t get anything anyway, maybe 1 or 2% increase in revenue if you make them all pay 20 or so %. The point is, there;s almost no point to tax them; what they’d bring in would be pocket change.

Being from an area where everyone knew everyone’s business before there ever was a Facebook. I can take you to more people’s houses that are lazy frauds than I can those who actually need the help they get.

I suppose it varies from place to place. I see crazy homeless people muttering to themselves and their imaginary friends while riding the bus in circles around the city to keep out of the cold; I suppose we could save a little money by taking away their free bus passes. But I did a little work at my high school for a program that drives around the city in a van giving poor people soup and hot dogs. These people weren’t fakers. Many of them probably belonged in mental hospitals. Even the sane ones often desperately needed healthcare, and many invested enough effor in building their shanties and hideouts by the train depots that I don’t think they were all that lazy. Even if they wanted jobs, of course, who’d hire them? DIfferent places have different problems, I suppose.

 

[rlg94086]

No, the SSA poor have it much worse (that is, the African poor, not the gay poor ).

 

[4elise]

I’ve tried. I was called “lukewarm” (biblical allusion to being spat out, no doubt) by a pro-federal-bureaucracy type for suggesting we embrace all of Church teaching, including subsidiarity, and take care of the poor through a combination of local/state government and non-government institutions.

I do this, as a Republican, while also advancing our belief that all life is sacred.

So many of the non-government institutions, like Catholic Charities, are able to do what they do because of government grants (paid for by taxes) - so the non-government organizations are not solely funded by private donations from individuals or foundations. If their funding gets cut they will have to cut their services, and the ones who will suffer will be the poor, vulnerable children, battered women, etc.

I think, and of course I could be wrong, one of the fundamental differences in the views
of those who want to (a) put the breaks on safety net cuts and (b) those who believe the abuse of the system justifies cuts is - the belief that anyone can ‘pull themselves up by their bootstraps’ - I am of the belief that there are many who don’t even have boots therefore no straps with which to pull themselves up.

does anyone believe this super committee will be able to work together to get anything done or the automatic triggers are inevitable? (for example, Pentagon officials say the cuts to their departments are “very high risk” and “draconian.) I think the only way this would have worked would be if the automatic triggers were not only cuts but tax increases too.

Personally, I don’t identify with a party - think they both get too much wrong.

 

[rlg94086]

Personally, I don’t identify with a party - think they both get too much wrong.

I tried registering “Independent,” but then you don’t get to vote in a primary. So, I sat down and looked at the two major parties, and I determined that the Republican Party was closest to Catholic teaching. It is certainly the case on life issues, and I believe it is also true on economic issues at the federal level. From a war/peace standpoint, I find them fairly equal (look at the history of aggressive acts, and see for yourself). Democrats get the nod on environmental issues, but I’m a moderate on that issue - I believe in sensible regulation and being a good steward of the environment.

At the local/state level, I tend to be more economically “liberal.” That said, I won’t vote for a pro-choice state legislator, since they can have an impact on life issues within my state, so, for the most part, Republican it is.

I hope the “Democrats for Life” actually gain some traction though…it would be great, if all we had to argue about was where to best spend public money and whether a field mouse should be protected or not.

 

[Linda_Marie]

The point is that I’m not even arguing that it’s fair that that 47% doesn’t pay taxes, but that it doesn’t really matter that much, because they don’t make enough money to contribute a significant amount anyway, no matter how high their taxes are. Economic policy isn’t about fairness anyway, it’s about expediency.

No doubt the rich do pay the emajority of the tax burden, and they will, no matter how much you tax the other classes, because they make such adisproportionate share of the wealth. If tax increases are necessary (and I’m not saying they are, but hypothetically), you can tax the rich more, and oh how unfair, or you can tax the poorer halfmore, but what would be the point? You wouldn’t get anything anyway, maybe 1 or 2% increase in revenue if you make them all pay 20 or so %. The point is, there;s almost no point to tax them; what they’d bring in would be pocket change.

This is one of this things I’m trying to understand here. What exactly is the income level at which federal income taxes apply in the United States? Are they really poverty stricken? One response is that it is $50K before you have to pay tax. imho, these people can certainly contribute to the country’s well-being by paying federal income tax. $50Kpa is hardly poverty stricken.

Here, almost all workers pay federal income tax, with only the first $6,000 tax free. They can earn another $7K without having to pay tax. Everyone contributes, even if the rate of tax for low income earners isn’t very high. A person earning $50Kpa would pay $8840 in federal income tax. A person making $25Kpa will pay $2,184 in tax. Even those receiving benefits have tax deducted. Everyone pays.

The amount they contribute in tax may not be much but it makes a big difference in attitude towards taxation. It is not the pocket change involved, but the principle that some people deserve to pay tax and others don’t and that those who don’t pay have the right to increase the tax paid by those who do.

Back on topic, one of the things said by the committee from the USCCB was:

Despite this advancement, however, Carr said that ultimately the “deal fell short.”

The legislation “did not reflect the criteria called for by the bishops in their letters to and meetings with policy makers,” which included “fulfilling the demands of justice and moral obligations to future generations; controlling future debt and deficits; and protecting the lives and dignity of those who are poor and vulnerable.”

Read more: ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/US.php?id=3741#ixzz1UhQ5fZH7

So, their statement was not just about protecting the poor and vulnerable, but also our obligations to future generations. Currently, we are saddling them with massive debt. I don’t think they will thank us for it.

 

[wynnejj]

Interesting article which I thought lends itself to our topic…

We Can’t Even Cut Programs That Don’t Work … by Steven Malanga
realclearmarkets.com/articles/2011/08/10/we_cant_even_cut_programs_that_dont_work_99176.html

Some of the hyperbolic rhetoric we are now hearing about efforts to trim the deficit is coming from advocacy groups warning that much of our cutting will fall on the poor. These advocates frequently use the plight of the poor to inveigh against cuts in programs that don’t accomplish anything. We spend several billion dollars a year on community development block grants that originated decades ago as naïve, if somewhat well-intentioned efforts to restore declining neighborhoods. Over the years, however, Congress expanded the program to richer communities and gradually made it into a haven for member earmarks. When in 2006 the Bush administration actually proposed refocusing the grants on poor neighborhoods and redesigning them so that groups would need to show some evidence their programs helped ameliorate poverty, the advocacy community and members of Congress in both parties revolted, refusing to consider any such evidenced-based grantmaking.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

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

Why would they?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

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.

The old addage “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for life.” is patently true. You give people something to fill an immediate need, and they will keep coming back to you with their arms open. People, in general, follow the path of least resistance. If they can get their basic needs met with a free hand out, why would they put forth the effort to provide for themselves. This is where I say that “social safety net” programs have become trampolines. They were intended to catch people from dying a horrific death, but have become entitlement programs that people think they have a lifelong right to.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

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.

No one here is saying that “the system” should be eliminated.

The issues is that these are public funds.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

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.

It may not translate well, but what happens when China thinks we are no longer a sound investment?

A household will be cut off if it spends too much.
Any business venture that continually looses money will eventually loose investors.

Then there’s the whole issue of inflation…

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Can you please clarify what 3 commandments are violated to help the poor per this discussion.

Well there’s Jealousy, Lying and Stealing - you can’t tell me that a good number of people on welfare could at least try to reduce their burdens on society?

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Dishonest? Spinning what I say is dishonest, to say the least.

Let me ask you this. Since you believe poverty levels have not changed, do you think we should just scrap all the social programs through government?

No, but I think we can tweak them a bit.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Or we could raise the tax on people who make more than 250,000 a year, close loop holes on corporate tax, AND yes make budget cuts carefully - with a goal of getting the budget covered within 10 years - because if we cut too deeply - from what I understand - we will inhibit growth only making the situation worse -

Try telling that to the Democrats. They’ll claim you’re going to make Grandma eat dog food!

 

[iamrefreshed]

I apologize if you took offense to my response but **it is my experience **that people who can make such comments and who hold such low opinion of the poor - ie calling people ‘wellfair queens’ are not people involved in direct care for the poor.

Never called anyone a ‘welfare queen’.

It is my experience that people who make such false accusations and hold such a high opinion of government handouts are people not involved in direct care with the poor.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Never called anyone a ‘welfare queen’.

It is my experience that people who make such false accusations and hold such a high opinion of government handouts are people not involved in direct care with the poor.

 

[estesbob]

Whatever a bishops conference is, it is a place of discussion and the topic of the debt ceiling agreement was discussed as ‘largely disappointed’. I realize they have many things to discuss, but the agreement came about during their conference and it was discussed.

There are over 400 bishops in the United States. The letter by the USCCB bureaucrat was issued a day after the debt agreement was reached. . There is no way there was any discussion whatsoever about the debt ceiling agreement. Again one of the problems with this discussion is a basic misunderstanding of the purpose and makeup of the USCB.
It is not a legislative body, it promulgates no laws,it has absolutely no authority whatsoever over any Catholic.

Because it is an organization made up of members of the Magisterium. I listen carefully to what they say. but I’m also very careful to look at what it is they are saying, where it came from and the details of what they said. . Accordingly, I will give much, much more weight to the specific pronouncements of an individual Bishop or a consensus issued document than I will in general letter or document issued by a layperson who heads one of their committees.

. In this case we’re talking about a letter that was obviously not viewed by many , if any at all) all of the bishops in the country, a letter that made only vague comments concerning the debt ceiling, offered no specifics , no solutions and more importantly no guidance whatsoever for Catholics.

. I personally think the federal government does have a role in providing for the poor and needy. and I readily acknowledge in our Church also believes it has a role. , but that does not mean I have to accept that all social programs are underfunded and effective… I do not have to support every proposal made for helping them. . I firmly believe in the church doctirne of subsidiarity and believe the best social programs operate on the local level regardless of whether they’re funded privately or publicly. . Accordingly, I do not support massive federal welfare programs. Block grants to states or specific grants to local municipal charitable organizations with as few strings as possible attached is the route to go, in my opinion.

Accordingly when I look at voting for somebody, after I determine their pro-life, . I look at how they would fund programs for the poor and needy. . It is been my experience that those politicians who support abortion are also adamant that public funding for the poor and needy cannot go to any organization that believes God has a place in helping the poor and needy,that the poor and needy need spiritual help as well as physical health. They would have us believe that it is more than proper to give money to an organization that believes homosexual behavior is perfectly moral , while excluding any organization who makes any references to God other than “God bless you” when handing out welfare checks

 

[ComputerGeek25]

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.

Correct. I really think there’s a lot of cruft out there, propoganda of sorts.