US Bishops' Conference Largely Disappointed by Debt Ceiling Agreement

[bbarrick8383]

Matt 25:35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.

No one has to rewrite anything.

Because when private entities are not able to provide entirely for all the hungry, the homeless, and for the caring of all the sick and for all of us who one day will confront illness and disease, to make certain all then have access to adequate and affordable care, the Christ some of us read about in Scripture would not turn away additional government help, even if from a federal government, for those He spoke of in these verses.

We simply do not believe our Lord would say, "Well alright there is still a need and government has offered a greater role to help, but no I will instead allow those less fortunate still in need to continue to go without. I will allow the sick to go without affordable adequate, guaranteed healthcare. Because not raising taxes on those most able to afford to pay more is of greater importance to Me than the poor and the sick are.

This is simply not the Christ some of us read about in the Gospels. The Christ Whom was such a champion and Advocate for the poor, the downtrodden, and the sick.

And yet I haven’t seen a soul here advocate for government programs only as the sole means to fulfill all of Christ’s call to us. Only that government programs can be an important part of the equation to go along with individuals, faith based groups, and other entities.

It’s really not any more difficult to understand than that. Hope this helps. God bless us all as we strive in faith to walk our lifelong journeys with Him. Peace.

Interesting thing is, if you provide for someone using someone else’s resources, you can take the “you” out of those verses because what you took didn’t belong to you so you did not provide it.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Some of the posters here seem to support tackling the Pharisee, taking his money then donating it while taking credit for the donation.

The example of “you”.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Catholics who want the government to do their charity work just don’t want to get their hands dirty. It’s much easier, I guess, to step over a homeless man and mutter “Why doesn’t he take advantage of a social program” than it is to stop.

Love the avatar.

 

[estesbob]

I looked for statistics that supported your claim that the efforts of the Great Society had led to more sin and poverty - and all I can find in a brief search (except blogs from people who also do not back their comments) countrystudies.us/united-states/history-121.htm / apparently began with tax cuts, and one measurable outcome, “1965 and 1968, for example, black-family income rose from 54 percent to 60 percent of white-family income” (infoplease.com/ipa/A0104552.html in 2006 median income white family: $50,673 / black family $31,969 58.5%)

It seems that one could take any point in history and then say everything ‘bad’ that happened since that point are a result of X - or the same argument could be for everything good that has happened since that point (or action) in history -

I think Johnsons efforts of the Great Society were well intended - and obviously one can argue if effective, but I think on the face of it they were intended to lift up the poor, because he believed if they were lifted up it would be good for everyone.

Another factor leading to the decline was the introduction of the “pill”, which came about about the same time as the great Society was introduced. Pope Paul VI 's encyclical * Humane Vitae* was prescient in its predictions of the problems that would occur as a result of a contraception society

 

[estesbob]

If I have a family and my earnings barely feed my family, should I take out a loan to keep up my usual level of charitable contributions domestically and abroad? Should I say… If I can get the loan, what do I care? Either I will not be able to pay it back and the creditor will have to absorb the loss, or worse case my kids will pay for it when times are better (I hope, I hope). Do you think this is what the Church teaches with this national budget debate?

In the context of the OP article, this is the scope of the question. Whether to tax from the rich is a subject for another thread, but it seems to be the crux of how this thread has morphed.

.Clearly you see the difference between having to cut back your own charitable giving and forcing others to pick up the slack?

. The other problem with this is that it is well documented that the more people believe in a bigger government, the less they contribute continue to charity. It is not a matter of not being able to afford to help the needy, it is more a matter og people believing they can abdicate their responsibility to help the needy by voting for people who claim they will do it for them

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Another factor leading to the decline was the introduction of the “pill”, which came about about the same time as the great Society was introduced. Pope Paul VI 's encyclical * Humane Vitae* was prescient in its predictions of the problems that would occur as a result of a contraception society

And it’s blind following of “feed the poor” no matter what the cost, either moral or monetary that has caused us to be in the situation we are in today.

Some of the posters here don’t seem to grasp that we are called to use moral means to help the poor. Violating at least 3 of the commandments in the process does not constitute “helping the poor”

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Catholics who want the government to do their charity work just don’t want to get their hands dirty. It’s much easier, I guess, to step over a homeless man and mutter “Why doesn’t he take advantage of a social program” than it is to stop.

You worship Mary. No we venerate her. That’s what these discussions are like when someone tells us our reasoning, even when we take time to explain it.

No one is released from their obligation to continue helping through a private venue. In addition to private, we choose to use another venue to try and reach the most people.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

And it’s blind following of “feed the poor” no matter what the cost, either moral or monetary that has caused us to be in the situation we are in today.

Some of the posters here don’t seem to grasp that we are called to use moral means to help the poor. Violating at least 3 of the commandments in the process does not constitute “helping the poor”

It’s eyes wide open to place worry over money than to worry about ‘feeding the poor’.

Trying to achieve the Lord’s commands to ‘feed the poor’ is not a violation of the commandments. Christ did not elaborate on how to ‘feed the poor’, we are called to do it, through whatever means necessary to reach the most. What we do for the least, we have done for Him.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

It’s eyes wide open to place worry over money than to worry about ‘feeding the poor’.

Trying to achieve the Lord’s commands to ‘feed the poor’ is not a violation of the commandments. Christ did not elaborate on how to ‘feed the poor’, we are called to do it, through whatever means necessary to reach the most. What we do for the least, we have done for Him.

You still don’t understand that the ends don’t justify the means. How hard is it really?

 

[Persuader]

How is stealing from one group of people to give it to another group of people with no legitimate claim to it decent or just? I thought stealing was a mortal sin. Particularly when you are stealing from people who haven’t been born yet in order to serve “justice” to entitlement programs that exist today. That is why I cannot tolerate liberal programs, the kill and steal from the most defenseless of our society, the unborn.

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.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

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.

If you really want to get at the heart of the issue, you tax wealth, not income. Taxes on income always hurt the middle and lower class more than the upper class, who’s wealth is based on assets, not income.

Other than that, you seem to really like the government coming in and stealing from one group and disbursing it among others who have no legitimate claim to it.

 

[rlg94086]

If there were states that could not provide their own fire and police that would be needed, then yes - for example the National Guard, the cooperative efforts of state fire departments when there is a large wild fire, we do have federal law enforcement because federal laws are applicable in all states.

The Pope does make this argument on a global level all the time - we are responsible for our brothers and sisters in Kenya who are suffering today - and our nation responds to the humanitarian needs of places around the world all the time, for example President Bush’s PEPFAR efforts to fight HIV/AIDS in Africa.

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0903092.htm

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.

 

[stevegravy]

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.

.

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.

 

[iamrefreshed]

What people really mean when they want to tax the rich…

“I’m not rich”

“I don’t want to pay more”

“It’s my money, take his, he has more”

“Wah, wah, it’s not fair look at his car, he can afford more”

And my personal favorite…

“It’s really to help the poor”

 

[4elise]

We are discussing the article, right? There is nothing in the article about the possibility of printing more money, selling bonds, or additional taxes related to the article. The article is generally about the debt ceiling agreement - loan & spending cuts. Yes, this is as simple as a household budget.

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.

The focal point of the article is cutting of domestic & international social programs in relation to other cuts. It begs the question, should we borrow to provide international charity. The international charity is the primary talking point of the article. My family budget question tracks very well with this issue.

I agree with Church teaching about the need for social programs to provide a safety net domestically. But one can’t kill businesses that fuel the government that provides the safety net. One can’t add the burden of maintaining international charity when charity must begin at home.

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?

And when a spokesman for the bishop’s social justice branch neglects to push for de-funding family planning centers that subsidize abortion services, in the context of the full social justice guidelines, then that spokesman eliminates social justice for the unborn from its portrayal of Catholic social justice.

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?

 

[4elise]

What people really mean when they want to tax the rich…

“I’m not rich”

“I don’t want to pay more”

“It’s my money, take his, he has more”

“Wah, wah, it’s not fair look at his car, he can afford more”

And my personal favorite…

“It’s really to help the poor”

Since I can only speak for myself - this is not what I mean. I think ALL the Bush tax cuts should be eliminated if that is what it takes, I am certainly willing to pay more taxes if it means the safety net is preserved, public schools remain open, etc. and I have heard many people share this position -

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Since I can only speak for myself - this is not what I mean. I think ALL the Bush tax cuts should be eliminated if that is what it takes, I am certainly willing to pay more taxes if it means the safety net is preserved, public schools remain open, etc. and I have heard many people share this position -

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

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Since I can only speak for myself - this is not what I mean. I think ALL the Bush tax cuts should be eliminated if that is what it takes, I am certainly willing to pay more taxes if it means the safety net is preserved, public schools remain open, etc. and I have heard many people share this position -

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.

 

[4elise]

No one has the right, morally, to steal from future generations to pay for the present. The Church is very clear, we have to support and defend the poor in a FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE MANNER, one that does not bancrupt the future to pay for the present.

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?

 

[ComputerGeek25]

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.