US Bishops' Conference Largely Disappointed by Debt Ceiling Agreement

[ComputerGeek25]

You put it all in a nutshell. Federal Programs have done nothing to help families better themselves.

The ride was never free.

We are not saying to do without, we are suggesting alternative means of helping people.

Again, instead of just mailing these people a check, we should also be helping them secure the necessary grants, loans and tax breaks to break out of their situation by receiving the neccessary skills and what not to find more meaningful work and/or move.

God forbid we do that. It would make too much sense. But what do I know, I’m a heartless conservative.

 

[wynnejj]

No one has said that stealing and lying are not wrong. What has been said is that we have to be very careful not to affect those truly in need by across the board cuts based solely on numbers and money available. I also wonder how we can provide more ‘security’ against ‘fraud’ without growing the government to oversee a program to assure it’s going to the truly needy.

The flip side of the bold print is “keep entitlements based solely on numbers and money available”, where numbers represents votes and money is the carrot. It seems to me that entitlement programs should be built with a self-destruct measurement system built in by contract that says the entitlement must fulfill its mission in this defined measured way. If the mission is not fulfilled, the entitlement is cancelled automatically. Security against fraud must be done by those employed by the entitlement program as a constant threat of “going under”, just as any small business goes under. There has to be a bottom line that the service works, and federal employees must know that their enterprise will “go under” if the mission is not met. Until these checks & balances become standard procedure, I will be against federal entitlements if convinced that they can be better handled by state & local budgets.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I don’t think Christ would approve of people abusing charity either. To much is given, much is expected and all that.

For those that Christ wouldn’t approve of, it’s His to judge and His alone.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Let’s see some viable suggestions on how to help people before cutting off their lifelines.

 

[JimG]

Libs don’t seem to understand this.

I know several people who work in a school district in an urban setting. Many of them would like to quit. Mainly because they have no parent or community buy in or accountibilty. Parents don’t see the value in education or discipline and pass this onto their kids - they know the government will always be there to feed and clothe them so they see no value in getting an education or a job. No matter how much money they throw at the teachers, schools, etc. this problem won’t be fixed until you get full accountibility from parents.

Again, I agree it could be worse if we didn’t throw any money, but it sure could be a lot better.

One of my relatives works in an urban school district, and listening to her describe her work is depressing. Yes, she would like to quit, but she needs the money and is willing to work hard, which is not an attitude typical of most of her students or their parents.

Reading the comments about free school lunches interested me, because there was no such thing when I was in elementary school. We were a family with five kids, my Dad earning very little at his factory job. I suppose we could have been described as poor even then, though I would have bristled at any such idea at the time, as would my parents.

Mom packed our lunches for us to take to school each day, and wrapped them newspaper tied with a string. I figured that the kids who brought their lunches to school in paper bags might be considered a little richer. My parents would have been insulted if anyone had suggested that it was the school’s job to give us lunches. Now, it seems, more than half of the kids in a lot of schools somehow qualify for free lunches. To most parents, it’s just another government benefit, to be expected.

The thing is, the school district my relative works at has kept getting more money over the course of many years, and the results just keep getting worse. Schools can’t be parents, although a great many social programs have endeavored to relieve parents of responsibility by shifting it to the government, in effect creating a permanent underclass.

As for the debt debate, the two sides keep talking past each other. My own view is that if we keep spending money we don’t have, the system will inevitably collapse. I’m tempted to throw in the towel and just say let’s spend as much as we like for as many social programs as we want with income we don’t have and raise taxes until the pig squeals and dies. But the end result will be the same: economic collapse, which the rich will manage to survive but the poor won’t. There’s a reason big economic depressions only occur about once a century. All those who had lived through the last one have to have died off before conditions become ripe again.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Let’s see some viable suggestions on how to help people before cutting off their lifelines.

I know you’ve been reading this thread…

 

[wynnejj]

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

I am in total agreement.

The letter in question comes from a branch of the USCCB organization that represents a committee that has a direction that tends to positive entitlement acquisition & persistence. It is like a zealous school teacher whose focus does not allow other subjects. There is a real disservice to their positive role when they don’t qualify their every “sales pitch” for the “poor & vulnerable”. They must exert pressure for socially conservative principles, such as the life issues, in all their communications. They appear to seek charitable entitlements without qualifications. This makes their message tainted to those concerned for a specific group who most qualify as the “least of our brethren”.

The fact is that the Justice, Peace, and Human Development committee aligns itself with Pro-Choice forces when they do not qualify their communications for the “poor and vulnerable” with a Pro-Life message decrying entitlement funds for human destruction. The phrase “common good” becomes associated with a subset of Catholic social justice message that speaks for the born, and not the unborn. To me, personally, they often come off as an enemy to my active Pro-Life efforts.

The subject of the debt ceiling debate focused largely on the question of what would be appropriate spending cuts. A plug for de-funding Planned Parenthood, as feckless as the plug would be, is important not for what it achieves, but for what it says about what Catholic social justice means.

 

[wynnejj]

As for the debt debate, the two sides keep talking past each other. My own view is that if we keep spending money we don’t have, the system will inevitably collapse. I’m tempted to throw in the towel and just say let’s spend as much as we like for as many social programs as we want with income we don’t have and raise taxes until the pig squeals and dies. But the end result will be the same: economic collapse, which the rich will manage to survive but the poor won’t. There’s a reason big economic depressions only occur about once a century. All those who had lived through the last one have to have died off before conditions become ripe again.

I was about to post something to the same effect, but I refuse to give up my towel.

According to the Hitch-Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, the towel is the most useful thing in the universe…

"A towel, it says, is about the most massively useful thing an interstellar hitchhiker can have. Partly it has great practical value - you can wrap it around you for warmth as you bound across the cold moons of Jaglan Beta; you can lie on it on the brilliant marble-sanded beaches of Santraginus V, inhaling the heady sea vapours; you can sleep under it beneath the stars which shine so redly on the desert world of Kakrafoon; use it to sail a mini raft down the slow heavy river Moth; wet it for use in hand-to- hand-combat; wrap it round your head to ward off noxious fumes or to avoid the gaze of the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal (a mindboggingly stupid animal, it assumes that if you can't see it, it can't see you - daft as a bush, but very ravenous); you can wave your towel in emergencies as a distress signal, and of course dry yourself off with it if it still seems to be clean enough.

**More importantly, a towel has immense psychological value.** For some reason, if a strag (strag: non-hitch hiker) discovers that a hitch hiker has his towel with him, he will automatically assume that he is also in possession of a toothbrush, face flannel, soap, tin of biscuits, flask, compass, map, ball of string, gnat spray, wet weather gear, space suit etc., etc. Furthermore, the strag will then happily lend the hitch hiker any of these or a dozen other items that the hitch hiker might accidentally have "lost". What the strag will think is that any man who can hitch the length and breadth of the galaxy, rough it, slum it, struggle against terrible odds, win through, **and still knows where his towel is is clearly a man to be reckoned with.**"

 

[Persuader]

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

Well, you don’t get to say that 47% pay no taxes. What is true to say is that they pay no federal income tax. Is that fair? Well, given the glaring income inequality, I think it is. Since the rich is paying a low percentage of their own income, the fact that they pay so much and the poor and middle-class pay so little, is because of their enormous wealth. It is not because they are burdened with taxes.

In the last 30 years, income for the middle-class and poor has stagnated. Meanwhile it has grown dramatically at the top. It is that growth that pay taxes, and since the rich have most of it, they just have to pay up. That is how it works. You cannot ask people without money to pay the taxes. It is just like another poster said, since the poor and middle-class earn so little (comparatively), raising their taxes contributes a pittance. It has no effect, and the reason is that their pretax income is too low for it to have any effect. That is a fact. So, unless you fix that first (raise their income), thinking about increasing their tax burden is both pointless and draconian.

 

[estesbob]

Well, you don’t get to say that 47% pay no taxes. What is true to say is that they pay no federal income tax. Is that fair? Well, given the glaring income inequality, I think it is. Since the rich is paying a low percentage of their own income, the fact that they pay so much and the poor and middle-class pay so little, is because of their enormous wealth. It is not because they are burdened with taxes.

In the last 30 years, income for the middle-class and poor has stagnated. Meanwhile it has grown dramatically at the top. It is that growth that pay taxes, and since the rich have most of it, they just have to pay up. That is how it works. You cannot ask people without money to pay the taxes. It is just like another poster said, since the poor and middle-class earn so little (comparatively), raising their taxes contributes a pittance. It has no effect, and the reason is because their pretax income is too low for it to have any effect. That is a fact. So, unless you fix that first (raise their income), thinking about increasing their tax burden is both pointless and draconian.

Failure to answer question is duly noted You can’t tell us what fair is other than it’s not fair now of course another question is how does making 250,000 a year make one “rich”

 

[SamH]

Let’s see some viable suggestions on how to help people before cutting off their lifelines.

There’s been almost 50 years for that discussion. The whole point of the Great Society was to END poverty and the programs would fade away. Instead the programs grew and poverty levels stayed the same. What makes it worse is that prior to the implimentation of the “Great Society” programs the poverty rate had dropped for 30+ years.

The war on poverty is over - we lost.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I’m not going to try and define what makes one rich or not, but will remind people of how hard it was said it is for a rich man to enter heaven, by Christ.

We’ve seen arguments of enabling sin for poor people through social programs. Then on the other hand we see arguments from the same people to exclude people of means from having to pay more in taxes. Is there no concern that might enable sin from people of means? It is only a myth that some people of means commit fraud in filing taxes? Is it not true that some people of means are driven by greed?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

There’s been almost 50 years for that discussion. The whole point of the Great Society was to END poverty and the programs would fade away. Instead they grew and poverty levels stayed the same - after 30+ years of dropping.

The war on poverty is over - we lost.

So we quit fighting the war on poverty? Is that the solution? What about the war on drugs, it seems we’ve lost that war too.

 

[SamH]

We’ve seen arguments of enabling sin for poor people through social programs. Then on the other hand we see arguments from the same people to exclude people of means from having to pay more in taxes. Is there no concern that might enable sin from people of means? It is only a myth that some people of means commit fraud in filing taxes? Is it not true that some people of means are driven by greed?

So you say with lower taxes they’ll be committing less of a sin?

 

[SamH]

So we quit fighting the war on poverty? Is that the solution? What about the war on drugs, it seems we’ve lost that war too.

That solution was working. Poverty rates were in decline for 30+ years until the Great Society Programs started. Don’t you want to use a solution that works?

Are you against ending poverty?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

That solution was working. Poverty rates were in decline for 30+ years until the Great Society Programs started. Don’t you want to use a solution that works?

Are you against ending poverty?

So the solution is to end social programs and let everyone fend for themselves?

I’m sure I have clearly stated my concern over poverty and have in no way suggested I was against ending it. Why ask such a question? To be perfectly honest, it doesn’t appear to be an honest question. :tsktsk:

 

[SamH]

I’m sure I have clearly stated my concern over poverty and have in no way suggested I was against ending it. Why ask such a question? To be perfectly honest, it doesn’t appear to be an honest question. :tsktsk:

So why do you propose to extend programs that have been proven to exacerbate poverty? Don’t you want to see people succeed?

 

[CMatt25]

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.

Based on the lists of participants I have my concerns/doubts. Though as I understand it the vote does not have to be unanimous and could be 7-5 or something like that in favor of whatever they do. Is this correct?

 

[CMatt25]

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

Yes that’s a problem with a 2 major party system.

It certainly is the case only if you define “life issues” as basically related to abortion and embryos which of course I understand many Catholics and others do. Peace.

 

[estesbob]

Based on the lists of participants I have my concerns/doubts. Though as I understand it the vote does not have to be unanimous and could be 7-5 or something like that in favor of whatever they do. Is this correct?

When Harry Reid put John Kerry on the committee it doomed to failure.