US Bishops' Conference Largely Disappointed by Debt Ceiling Agreement

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Press
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SamH said:
See what I mean about wording it better? It’s not “better dead than underfed” but it is the exact same thing only with a warm fuzzy righteous tone. . :angel1:
Click to expand...
Really - wow amazing that you are comfortable posting this.
 
iamrefreshed said:
He would have fed me. And if he didn’t then the government could have stepped in and removed me.
Click to expand...
And who pays for Child Protective Services? Is it less expensive to provide case workers, oversee foster care, legal fees, than free lunches? Is it only a monetary concern - and if that is the case then we would only weigh the financial and not personal costs?

Are there health care issues of malnourished children, who can’t learn as well, who then make bad choices as parents - choosing to gamble instead of caring for their children?
 
4elise said:
I did, - I think Prodigal Son1’s reply was clear. ALL life, born and unborn are to be protected. seems to make sense.
Click to expand...
And, who is against that exactly? Certainly, no conservatives/Republicans I know would disagree with that statement. That being said, if all life is to be protected, how can a Catholic/Christian support a party that is pro-choice, pro-euthanasia, pro-embryonic stem cell research?
 
rlg94086 said:
And, who is against that exactly? Certainly, no conservatives/Republicans I know would disagree with that statement. That being said, if all life is to be protected, how can a Catholic/Christian support a party that is pro-choice, pro-euthanasia, pro-embryonic stem cell research?
Click to expand...
Not that he’s against it, but SamH insinuated there was something wrong with it being stated by me. 🤷
 
rlg94086 said:
And, who is against that exactly? Certainly, no conservatives/Republicans I know would disagree with that statement. That being said, if all life is to be protected, how can a Catholic/Christian support a party that is pro-choice, pro-euthanasia, pro-embryonic stem cell research?
Click to expand...
Sigh - the insinuation has been that being ‘liberal’ - as defined of being i*n favor of keeping the safety net *- as the original article in this thread notes - therefore means that one supports pro-choice, pro-euthanasia, pro-embryonic stem cell research - this is what is extremely frustrating ---- **to care for the unborn is not a issue mutually exclusive to caring for those who are poor and disadvantaged. **
 
rlg94086 said:
They are pretty. Blue’s my favorite color. 🙂
Click to expand...
I’m glad you like the color.

That was a bonus - I was mearly trying to clarify that the burden of taxes falls more heavily on the poor - even though there is so much misinformation about that.
 
4elise said:
Sigh - the insinuation has been that being ‘liberal’ - as defined of being i*n favor of keeping the safety net *- as the original article in this thread notes - therefore means that one supports pro-choice, pro-euthanasia, pro-embryonic stem cell research - this is what is extremely frustrating ---- **to care for the unborn is not a issue mutually exclusive to caring for those who are poor and disadvantaged. **
Click to expand...
Yeah, I guess it is unfair of me to assume that the pro-safety-net folks are Democrats who vote for pro-choice candidates because issues like the safety net. There are some that don’t…there are an awful lot who do, though. A lot of Catholics voted for Obama, and Catholics like Pelosi and Biden sell out their “care for the unborn” for such issues.
 
4elise said:
So - looking at this information you still believe that 47% pay NO taxes and the wealthy are unfairly burdened with tax?
Click to expand...
47% pay no federal income taxes. I didn’t say they were unfairly burdened just pointed out when the top 25% pay 84% of federal income taxes it’s hard to make the case they don’t pay their “fair” share
 
rlg94086 said:
Yeah, I guess it is unfair of me to assume that the pro-safety-net folks are Democrats who vote for pro-choice candidates because issues like the safety net. There are some that don’t…there are an awful lot who do, though. A lot of Catholics voted for Obama, and Catholics like Pelosi and Biden sell out their “care for the unborn” for such issues.
Click to expand...
My father always warned me about ‘assumptions’ - I’m sure yours did as well.
On these threads I believe (perhaps because it is a Catholic thread) that we could do better than make assumptions about each other - we could actually have a meaningful dialogue - and contribute to the national discussion on what we need to do to be a stronger country, enabling the opportunities for everyone.
 
4elise said:
I’m glad you like the color.

That was a bonus - I was mearly trying to clarify that the burden of taxes falls more heavily on the poor - even though there is so much misinformation about that.
Click to expand...
Everyone seemed to ignore my chart (maybe it was the color) that showed the growth of spending versus revenue since 1965. I asked why we couldn’t just go back to the spending levels of the Clinton administration (adjusted for inflation) and even reverse the Bush tax cuts (all of them). According to the chart, we would have a surplus. I can’t see how the reduced spending would be a problem for anyone, because those were the glory days…

BTW…do you notice that the discussion about the unfairness of taxing the lower 46% didn’t happen until after Bush lowered their tax rates? :confused: Odd. Prior to that, they could afford it…now it is unfair. :hmmm:
 
estesbob said:
47% pay no federal income taxes. I didn’t say they were unfairly burdened just pointed out when the top 25% pay 84% of federal income taxes it’s hard to make the case they don’t pay their “fair” share
Click to expand...
Please take a moment to look at those charts again - if one person has $1000 and they have to pay 50% of that in some form of tax, and another has $1,000,000 and only pays 10% of that in tax - **the case is that the poor are unfairly burdened. ** When people like Romney say 50% pay no federal tax - do you think it is to encourage equity?🤷 - or to get the votes of people who do not look into this any further - and who just say ***“well that’s not fair! We ought to do something about that!” ***
 
4elise said:
My father always warned me about ‘assumptions’ - I’m sure yours did as well.
On these threads I believe (perhaps because it is a Catholic thread) that we could do better than make assumptions about each other - we could actually have a meaningful dialogue - and contribute to the national discussion on what we need to do to be a stronger country, enabling the opportunities for everyone.
Click to expand...
I’ve done so…I was called “lukewarm,” remember?

BTW…I think we all are giving our views of what would make the country stronger and enable opportunities for everyone. Who do you think isn’t?
 
rlg94086 said:
Everyone seemed to ignore my chart (maybe it was the color) that showed the growth of spending versus revenue since 1965. I asked why we couldn’t just go back to the spending levels of the Clinton administration (adjusted for inflation) and even reverse the Bush tax cuts (all of them). According to the chart, we would have a surplus. I can’t see how the reduced spending would be a problem for anyone, because those were the glory days…

BTW…do you notice that the discussion about the unfairness of taxing the lower 46% didn’t happen until after Bush lowered their tax rates? :confused: Odd. Prior to that, they could afford it…now it is unfair. :hmmm:
Click to expand...
I didn’t comment on this because to be honest I couldn’t tell if you were actually proposing this or were being sarcastic. And, to be honest I’m still not sure. 🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top