US Bishops' Conference Largely Disappointed by Debt Ceiling Agreement

[CMatt25]

Christine, Scott, Geek et al, 1st of all I apologize for prematurely getting excited that we were getting somewhere. For a brief moment there I forgot we still have disagreements about values and obligations. And on this next point I speak only for myself. But a balanced federal budget is simply not a priority of mine over some other concerns. I for instance share the concerns as espoused by the USCCB as reiterated by their spokesperson in the story at the beginning of this thread.

But that said however, as has already previously been explained by Persuader, one side is not against including cuts if necessary along with increasing taxes on those who can most afford to pay more. Your side in Washington however wants it only one way. Their way without any compromise between the 2. Those in Washington holding to your views, expect the other side to give in to all of your camp’s cuts but are not willing to come toward our side and even support a tax increase on those who can most afford it. And until they are and while your side in Washington remains unwilling to do even that, we have a huge problem for which I have no answer for when your side is unwilling to compromise with us.

God bless us all as we journey along our walks of faith. Let us pray. Peace.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You’re wrong. The government programs were put in place not because of Jesus’ teachings but because of a liberal belief in statism that prevailed in the LBJ era of the Democrat party. The Great Society programs that were part of the “war on poverty” in large part excacerbated the problem creating larger #'s of poor people. Illigitimacy, drugs, break up of the family, dependence on welfare, etc. are conditions that were made worse with the government programs! Why do you think Jesus would be in favor of government programs that created more sin and poverty???

Ishii

I have never said that I think Jesus would be in favor of anything that created more sin and poverty. Christ said feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give shelter to the homeless, and care for the sick. That sounds very similar to the very social programs some have said creates more ‘sinful actions’.

Please discontinue spinning what I say.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The two richest people in America, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, wants to raise taxes on the rich. This is because of what I have already explained. The rich have secured such a high percentage of total income and total wealth that they are very capable of paying more taxes, and they can easily do this without paying a high percentage of their own income.

I should think they could, but they probably won’t. Buffett himself said his tax rate is lower than that of his secretary. If he can do that now, why should anyone think he or any other truly rich person can’t do it even if an additional tax is placed on high earners who can’t control their income the way Buffett and Gates and the other truly rich can?

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Christine, Scott, Geek et al, 1st of all I apologize for prematurely getting excited that we were getting somewhere. For a brief moment there I forgot we still have disagreements about values and obligations. And on this next point I speak only for myself. But a balanced federal budget is simply not a priority of mine over some other concerns. I for instance share the concerns as espoused by the USCCB as reiterated by their spokesperson in the story at the beginning of this thread.

It’s been explained to you several times.

The USCCB is stating an opinion that is not binding.

Secondly, you should care very much about a balanced budget, or else it’s going to be a lot worse for the poor and middle class

But that said however, as has already previously been explained by Persuader, one side is not against including cuts if necessary along with increasing taxes on those who can most afford to pay more. Your side in Washington however wants it only one way. Their way without any compromise between the 2. Those in Washington holding to your views, expect the other side to give in to all of your camp’s cuts but are not willing to come toward our side and even support a tax increase on those who can most afford it. And until they are and while your side in Washington remains unwilling to do even that, we have a huge problem for which I have no answer for when your side is unwilling to compromise with us.

God bless us all as we journey along our walks of faith. Let us pray. Peace.

Buying into the propoganda are you? I suppose you think grandma is going to be eating dog food huh?

The Dems are just as much against deep spending cuts. Why should we raise taxes if we aren’t going to take a look at spending?

Thirdly, I have not (nor have most of the reasonable, regular posters here) stated that I am against raising taxes. I am simply stating that we need a more wholisitic look at the current issues which includes entitlement reform.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

I have never said that I think Jesus would be in favor of anything that created more sin and poverty. Christ said feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give shelter to the homeless, and care for the sick. That sounds very similar to the very social programs some have said creates more ‘sinful actions’.

Please discontinue spinning what I say.

He’s not spinning what you say. He’s stating the fact that poverty levels have not changed despite the programs created and expanded upon in the Great Society. Simply sticking your head in the sand and denying that there’s issues with these programs is being dishonest.

 

[rlg94086]

I have never said that I think Jesus would be in favor of anything that created more sin and poverty. Christ said feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give shelter to the homeless, and care for the sick. That sounds very similar to the very social programs some have said creates more ‘sinful actions’.

Please discontinue spinning what I say.

Actually, it’s not spin. It’s you’re failure to comprehend. If a social program worsens the plight of the poor, it is nothing like what Christ would want. I know some people believe the ends justify the means. In your case, it seems that you don’t care about the ends, as long as the means “sounds similar” to what Christ called for.

 

[estesbob]

It’s been explained to you several times.

The USCCB is stating an opinion that is not binding.

.

The author of the letter offered no specifics whatsoever. Accordingly we have a lot of people reading anything they want into what this bureaucrat said.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

The author of the letter offered no specifics whatsoever. Accordingly we have a lot of people reading anything they want into what this bureaucrat said.

You are correct on this as well. The Bishop here is stating a non-binding opinion, based on little fact and is proposing no specific action.

 

[Persuader]

There is absolutely nothing whatsoever to keep them from sending as much money into Internal Revenue Service. as they want. They most certainly do not speak for everybody that makes over $250,000 a year, the nonsensical definition of “rich” used by the current administration.

. Again the top 25% of earners in this country pay 84% of all federal income tax. What do you think the fair level should be? 90% 100%

47% of earners pay no federal income tax whatsoever. . Do you think this level is too high or too low?

I have explained the numbers you have produced. You think 84% is a lot, and it is, but there is a reason. It is not because the rich pay a high percentage of their own income (then we might have an issue), but because their pretax income is so much higher than the lower classes. Consider a Scandinavian country, for instance, where the rich pay a higher percentage of their own income, but still pay a lower percentage of “federal” income tax. That is because income inequality is much lower. The poor and the middle-class own more wealth and have a higher income, whereas the rich own less and have a lower income. The rich pay less of “federal” income tax. So, economically, the rich have it worse off but still pay a lower percentage than 84. I hope the point is clear now. The 84% number doesn’t say much about the actual burdens on the rich. We need the context, and in context, 84% tells a different story.

It is similar with your 47% number. If you employ people and raise income through wages etc. you would see that number go down. As it stands, the lower class own “nothing” and earn “nothing”, so there is “nothing” to tax.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Actually, it’s not spin. It’s you’re failure to comprehend. If a social program worsens the plight of the poor, it is nothing like what Christ would want. I know some people believe the ends justify the means. In your case, it seems that you don’t care about the ends, as long as the means “sounds similar” to what Christ called for.

Actually, it is a spin. I explained my view that Jesus’ commands of feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give shelter to the homeless, and care for the sick, is providing to people, through His believers. Some of those opposing my view, which is social programs provide very similar to what Christ commanded, have said in essence that ‘social programs, enable sinful actions’. I tried very diligently to explain that I cannot see how one can say that one ‘creates sinful actions’ and the other does not. So in return the poster asks me, ‘Why do you think Jesus would be in favor of government programs that created more sin and poverty???’ That is an false assumption, which is based on my question of how the two are different. So, it’s not my ‘failure to comprehend’.

Christ wanted all of His to fulfill His commands. It seems to me that if one disagrees that our government cannot, is it because they consider us not to be a Christian nation. If not, then do they want to work to make it as much a Christian nation as possible?

Personally, I want this to be a Christian nation, which would also be a ‘Christian community’. If we could truly be a Christian community, nation, then I would be pleased to pay more in taxes to see His commands fulfilled through our ‘Christian government’. If enough don’t believe it can be achieved, we’re wasting our time trying to elect ‘Christian’ officials to government to try and accomplish any of His teachings. In short, if we want to work through government to accomplish any ‘single issue’, then we should strive to work through government to accomplish many issues in line with His teachings.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

He’s not spinning what you say. He’s stating the fact that poverty levels have not changed despite the programs created and expanded upon in the Great Society. Simply sticking your head in the sand and denying that there’s issues with these programs is being dishonest.

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?

 

[estesbob]

I have explained the numbers you have produced. You think 84% is a lot, and it is, but there is a reason. It is not because the rich pay a high percentage of their own income (then we might have an issue), but because their pretax income is so much higher than the lower classes. Consider a Scandinavian country, for instance, where the rich pay a higher percentage of their own income, but still pay a lower percentage of “federal” income tax. That is because income inequality is much lower. The poor and the middle-class own more wealth and have a higher income, whereas the rich own less and have a lower income. The rich pay less of “federal” income tax. So, economically, the rich have it worse off but still pay a lower percentage than 84. I hope the point is clear now. The 84% number doesn’t say much about the actual burdens on the rich. We need the context, and in context, 84% tells a different story.

It is similar with your 47% number. If you employ people and raise income through wages etc. you would see that number go down. As it stands, the lower class own “nothing” and earn “nothing”, so there is “nothing” to tax.

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

 

[Orleans_Attny]

I don’t think many would argue with this as a general proposition. Where it becomes difficult is when one tries to get to specifics, or even to the more general question how much debt and spending are too much.

. . . . [had to shorten to post]

In my opinion, it is to remove the obstacles to spending and employment. As in the Depression, those obstacles are largely caution due to a fear of a threatening situation. What’s the threatening situation? Well, unknown costs of employment, unknown but oncoming regulation affecting employment, unknown but threatening tax burdens, unknown but threatening interest rates, unknown but threatening costs of energy and everything that uses energy, to state a few.

In short, a government that does radical and disturbing things, and not just in spending.

Other than the 2012 elections (and only “maybe” those) there really isn’t a remedy for what we’re facing now. Ideology rules and good sense is not prevailing.

I agree with most of your comments and I think we’re generally alligned. But this issue quickly becomes very complicated and very nuanced. And there are a number of variables.

Time is a big issue. If you ran a game of chance, and you told players outright that the odds were 9 to 1 aginst them many peouple would say “that’s a sucker’s bet” and walk away. But more insightful people need more information. For example: Is there a limit on how many chances I can buy? What is the payout ratio? What is the minimum and maximum wager per chance? Time and outlay and long-term benefit are highly relevant variables.

Similarly, for-profit corporations regularly run in the red for years before realizing a profit.

Governmental fiscal policy requires, however, one to make decisions with less than complete information. Does it make sense to increase the federal government deficit by 5, 10, 20 or 30% over the next 5 years? 10 Years? Maybe. I don’t know. What long-term benefit to do we expect to get from that investment. Highly relevant: Are we talking about increasing debt generally, or funneling increased resources to particular areas of government?

Do we need to adjust the government’s debt to revenue ratio? Certainly. But when? And how? I happen to be in the military, so cuts to defense are going to affect me (already have). That doesn’t mean that I’m necessarily opposed to defense cuts - my opinion depends on the benefit we realize from those cuts, when we realize it, and what those cuts will cost me and my family.

So I suppose my opinion on this matter is very nuanced. I can’t hardly agree with anyone that makes blanket statements. Do we need to raise taxes? It depends. On whom? How? and How much? Do we need to cut spending? It depends? What is the short-term and long-term benefit and risk? What are we cutting? And by how much?

I assess that the people on both sides of the aisle that are very dogmatic in their positions are behaving hyperbolically. And I find little value in that sort of rhetoric.

(In this assessment I do not refer to your earlier post - but I merely make a general statement.)

Pax,
OA

 

[rlg94086]

Actually, it is a spin. I explained my view that Jesus’ commands of feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give shelter to the homeless, and care for the sick, is providing to people, through His believers. Some of those opposing my view, which is social programs provide very similar to what Christ commanded, have said in essence that ‘social programs, enable sinful actions’. I tried very diligently to explain that I cannot see how one can say that one ‘creates sinful actions’ and the other does not. So in return the poster asks me, ‘Why do you think Jesus would be in favor of government programs that created more sin and poverty???’ That is an false assumption, which is based on my question of how the two are different. So, it’s not my ‘failure to comprehend’.

Christ wanted all of His to fulfill His commands. It seems to me that if one disagrees that our government cannot, is it because they consider us not to be a Christian nation. If not, then do they want to work to make it as much a Christian nation as possible?

Personally, I want this to be a Christian nation, which would also be a ‘Christian community’. If we could truly be a Christian community, nation, then I would be pleased to pay more in taxes to see His commands fulfilled through our ‘Christian government’. If enough don’t believe it can be achieved, we’re wasting our time trying to elect ‘Christian’ officials to government to try and accomplish any of His teachings. In short, if we want to work through government to accomplish any ‘single issue’, then we should strive to work through government to accomplish many issues in line with His teachings.

Since you still don’t see where your comprehension failed, let me break it down for you:
Ishii’s original question

ishii:

But** would Jesus want government programs that encourage the societal ills** - illegitimacy, drugs, dependency on govt. handouts, etc. to be funded? I don’t think so.

Your response:

Did Christ avoid the sinners? Did He widely condemn them?

Now, any normal person would recognize that your response completely missed the mark, so I asked the natural question:

me:

That’s not what ishii asked. Would Jesus encourage something that brought more sinfulness?

Your response:
Prodigal Son1:

He did not avoid the sinners. It was for the sinners that He came into the world, not the righteous.

Jesus said feed the hungry, cloth the naked, give shelter to the homeless, and care for the sick. Did He tell us to do things that brought on more sinfulness?

Again, totally missed the mark. The point was made that the government programs worsen the condition of the poor and enable sinfulness, and your response is “Jesus said feed the hungry…Did He tell us to do things that brought on more sinfulness?” Well, duh, no…that is the point. If the social programs bring on more sinfulness, then they obviously aren’t what Jesus wants us to do.

I could go on, but every one of your responses does the exact same thing - ignores the point and makes a completely irrelevant counterpoint. There is no need for spinning…we just have to read your responses to see you didn’t understand the points that were being made or just can’t manage to create logical responses. The gist of your responses led me to the conclusion that you don’t care about the ends, as long as the means sounds like something Jesus wants us to do…

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Since you still don’t see where your comprehension failed, let me break it down for you:
Ishii’s original question

Your response:

Now, any normal person would recognize that your response completely missed the mark, so I asked the natural question:

Your response:

Again, totally missed the mark. The point was made that the government programs worsen the condition of the poor and enable sinfulness, and your response is “Jesus said feed the hungry…Did He tell us to do things that brought on more sinfulness?” Well, duh, no…that is the point. If the social programs bring on more sinfulness, then they obviously aren’t what Jesus wants us to do.

I could go on, but every one of your responses does the exact same thing - ignores the point and makes a completely irrelevant counterpoint. There is no need for spinning…we just have to read your responses to see you didn’t understand the points that were being made or just can’t manage to create logical responses. The gist of your responses led me to the conclusion that you don’t care about the ends, as long as the means sounds like something Jesus wants us to do…

Missed a mark set by you? Sorry, my opinion is my own and the mark I hope to make will come judgment day.

By the reasoning I read in your post the Church is not what Jesus wants us to do. It’s history is filled with imperfections, because it has imperfect people in it’s history, just as government does. It’s the same thing. If His teachings can be abused to produce sinful actions, then anything of His can be, and I’m not buying that at all.

The social programs are not bringing on sinful actions, imperfect people are. The social programs are designed to help those in need, just as Jesus’ commands were to help those in need.

No solutions are being offered, only criticisms and what seems to be a desire to end the social programs. Why?

Thanks for keeping the topic on me and not the discussion at hand. Your condescending tone, spins, and direct criticisms have me firm in my beliefs. Well, duh, oh…

I’m not responding to such tones anymore.

 

[rlg94086]

Missed a mark set by you? Sorry, my opinion is my own and the mark I hope to make will come judgment day.

By the reasoning I read in your post the Church is not what Jesus wants us to do. It’s history is filled with imperfections, because it has imperfect people in it’s history, just as government does. It’s the same thing. If His teachings can be abused to produce sinful actions, then anything of His can be, and I’m not buying that at all.

The social programs are not bringing on sinful actions, imperfect people are. The social programs are designed to help those in need, just as Jesus’ commands were to help those in need.

No solutions are being offered, only criticisms and what seems to be a desire to end the social programs. Why?

Thanks for keeping the topic on me and not the discussion at hand. Your condescending tone, spins, and direct criticisms have me firm in my beliefs. Well, duh, oh…

I’m not responding to such tones anymore.

Okay.

 

[Trader]

I should think they could, but they probably won’t. Buffett himself said his tax rate is lower than that of his secretary. If he can do that now, why should anyone think he or any other truly rich person can’t do it even if an additional tax is placed on high earners who can’t control their income the way Buffett and Gates and the other truly rich can?

You have to look at what Buffett and Gates do, not just what they say. Both are giving vast sums to private charities, not the government. Bill Gates even retired from Microsoft to make giving away his wealth a full time job. Do you think he would put so much effort into philanthropic pursuits if he believed the government could do it better?

Warren Buffett was asked on CNBC about two weeks ago if he would voluntarily send money to the US Treasury and he dismissed it out of hand. Nobody does that.

 

[rlg94086]

You have to look at what Buffett and Gates do, not just what they say. Both are giving vast sums to private charities, not the government. Bill Gates even retired from Microsoft to make giving away his wealth a full time job. Do you think he would put so much effort into philanthropic pursuits if he believed the government could do it better?

Warren Buffett was asked on CNBC about two weeks ago if he would voluntarily send money to the US Treasury and he dismissed it out of hand. Nobody does that.

Yep. Their funds are better utilized through their philanthropic efforts than they ever would be through a government program.

 

[Trader]

The social programs are not bringing on sinful actions, imperfect people are. The social programs are designed to help those in need, just as Jesus’ commands were to help those in need.

QUOTE]

Jesus commanded a lot more than what government programs provide. How about, “But from now on, avoid this sin.” (Jn.8:11); and “If you love me, keep my commandments” (John 14:15) ?

These things are always missing from government programs and that is why they are destined to fail. Private programs like Alcoholics Anonymous, Habitat for Humanity, our local homeless shelter, Vincent Village, and Catholic schools which are faithful to Church teaching all yeild better results at less cost and do not involve involuntary taking from third parties. They also are different because they demand accountability from the people being helped, act on a local level, and do not treat the participants as mere numbers.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Does Vatican City state operate strictly on a local level?