US Bishops' Conference Largely Disappointed by Debt Ceiling Agreement

[rlg94086]

You’re hung up too much on your percentages. Persuader already explained to you how your percentage number don’t say much about the actual burden on the rich.

Have you watered the magical, mystery money tree today?

 

[4elise]

Yet, the simple household budget model is key to the problems with the national budget model. There is no misunderstanding. When one steps back at looks at the national budget from the simple household budget model, one finally can see the forest despite the trees. The simple concept holds true for the national budget.

I disagree.

No. Where I disagree, with spending cuts in general, international charity is fair game for spending cuts. Given that our brand of international charity includes, in good measure, family planning centers, I don’t see how we do any good exporting our immorality.

We export life saving antiretroviral drugs for people in Africa suffering from HIV, among other things, we as Catholics can continue to speak for the good things done, and advocate for changes in policy that will better reflect our values.

Sure, if we are not talking about Catholic social justice teaching. Sure, if you want to deny the Real Presence at the table of Catholic dialogue. What rankles - what draws rancour from serious Catholics - is the denial of the real presence of persons unborn in the name of Catholic social justice. The lack of acknowledgement by persons on this discussion thread, purporting to defend the interests of the “poor and vulnerable”, categorically refuses to bring the unborn to the table of their interpretation of Catholic social justice teaching. You want to know the truth? You can’t handle the truth.

Excuse me? Have I taken a tone in any of this thread that deserved this last comment?

So please allow me to try to say what I was saying, and hope you will understand that I am NOT saying that the issue of the unborn should not be paramount for Catholics. In addition to that / not instead of that / we must also care for poor children, the mentally ill, people with chronic illness, etc, etc. etc.

 

[estesbob]

You’re hung up too much on your percentages. Persuader already explained to you how your percentage number don’t say much about the actual burden on the rich.

Actually he didnt explain anyhting. ill ask you -if the top 25% of earners paying 84% of all taxes is not enough how much is? 90% 100%

You and Persuader would have us believe that 47% of Amercians are so destitute they can not afford to pay taxes. As has been pointed out before when 47% pay no federal income taxe its easy to convince them to raise taxes on everybody else.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Have you watered the magical, mystery money tree today?

If you didn’t graduate from Enron’s School of Business…or Hogwarts, you wouldn’t understand.

 

[4elise]

But the problem is we currently need to tax everyone who makes like $75,000 or above at 100% of their income in order to cover the budget this year. Quite simply, this is not feasible. Deep budget cuts need to be made as well as tax hikes.

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 -

 

[Linda_Marie]

Actually he didnt explain anyhting. ill ask you -if the top 25% of earners paying 84% of all taxes is not enough how much is? 90% 100%

You and Persuader would have us believe that 47% of Amercians are so destitute they can not afford to pay taxes. As has been pointed out before when 47% pay no federal income taxe its easy to convince them to raise taxes on everybody else.

In the United States, how much do you have to earn before you are required to pay federal income tax?

Here in Australia, the tax-free threshold is $6,000pa. If you earn over $6,000 in the year, you pay federal income tax.

 

[CMatt25]

How far is too far for our nation? Should we just keep upping the debt ceiling?

I don’t come anywhere close to approaching my credit limits. And I’ve seen them raised over time. But then I’m not a nation. Our nation is much larger than my household.

 

[rlg94086]

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 -

How about we just end the Bush tax cuts (all of them) and go back to the spending levels during the Clinton administration? Those were the glory days, weren’t they? I hear we had a surplus. Surely, the cuts wouldn’t be too deep and the taxes too high, right? I mean, we were doing great then!

Hmm…come to think of it, if we just cut spending to the Clinton days, we would be okay according to this inflation-adjusted chart:

http://www.heritage.org/BudgetChartbook/charts/2011/growth-federal-spending-revenue-600.jpg

Any takers? USCCB? “Clinton was the best and Bush was evil incarnate” liberals?

 

[rlg94086]

I don’t come anywhere close to approaching my credit limits. And I’ve seen them raised over time. But then I’m not a nation. Our nation is much larger than my household.

Indeed. The bigger the debt, the harder they fall…

 

[bbarrick8383]

In the United States, how much do you have to earn before you are required to pay federal income tax?

Here in Australia, the tax-free threshold is $6,000pa. If you earn over $6,000 in the year, you pay federal income tax.

I make over 40,000 US dollars and get paid to file my income taxes every year. Not only that, but my children qualify for free health care till their 18. My wife could have gotten a brand new, expensive, breast pump when my daughter was born and we could get free formula/baby food to feed her now. Plus we could also get free food for us as well.

Now, I know it’s not all free. My father and other taxpayers pay for it. So I don’t understand, we might as well take advantage of it all I guess, at least he would see money going back into the family.

To be honest, I’d rather just take what he has to pay in taxes if I had to choose.

 

[CMatt25]

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 -

We could 4elise, but that would require a meetings of the minds to a greater extent than appears possible now on your number. I recall quite awhile back we were discussing the quarter million dollars a year figure and people here were saying that is middle class.

 

[bbarrick8383]

We could 4elise, but that would require a meetings of the minds to a greater extent than appears possible now on your number. I recall quite awhile back we were discussing the quarter million dollars a year figure and people here were saying that is middle class.

I’ve seen a guy making nearly four times that and not draw a paycheck from the company to keep from having to fire employees.

But you guys will stop at nothing to lump him in with the rest of your numbers you want to consider rich and force him to fire people.

 

[Raskolnikov]

Actually he didnt explain anyhting. ill ask you -if the top 25% of earners paying 84% of all taxes is not enough how much is? 90% 100%

You and Persuader would have us believe that 47% of Amercians are so destitute they can not afford to pay taxes. As has been pointed out before when 47% pay no federal income taxe its easy to convince them to raise taxes on everybody else.

You and so many others really harp endlessly on that 47%. If you’re so committed to your ideal of fairness, what are you to make of all the people starving to death or dying of easily curable diseases in sub-saharan Africa? Why, exactly, does the 47% that supposedly does not pay federal income tax merit so much concern from you?

I’ve said before, it can’t because of its financial significance, because you must know as well as I do that even if they were taxed as if in the highest bracket (what, almost 40%?), the bottom 47% of the population would still only be bearing maybe 2 or 3% of the total tax burden, and the top 25% would still be paying 84 (or maybe 83)% of the tax burden. And you would still have you talking point, you could say, “why on earth to 47% of the population pay only 2% of the taxes” and everyone would all indignant, failing to recall that that 47% of the population makes around only 10%, or perhaps even less, of the income. That;s why.

Life simply isn’t fair. That’s the short answer. Why, of all the undeserved injustices in the world, that 2 or 3% in lost tax revenue (which, if imposed, would have a negative effect on the economy not worth the money gained from it) irks you so much, I cannot understand.

 

[Raskolnikov]

I’ve seen a guy making nearly four times that and not draw a paycheck from the company to keep from having to fire employees.

But you guys will stop at nothing to lump him in with the rest of your numbers you want to consider rich and force him to fire people.

Oh, and ‘you guys’ don’t do the exact same thing? Most people on welfare are just lazy frauds, and all that doesn’t sound familiar?

 

[rlg94086]

You and so many others really harp endlessly on that 47%. If you’re so committed to your ideal of fairness, what are you to make of all the people starving to death or dying of easily curable diseases in sub-saharan Africa? Why, exactly, does the 47% that supposedly does not pay federal income tax merit so much concern from you?

I’ve said before, it can’t because of its financial significance, because you must know as well as I do that even if they were taxed as if in the highest bracket (what, almost 40%?), the bottom 47% of the population would still only be bearing maybe 2 or 3% of the total tax burden, and the top 25% would still be paying 84 (or maybe 83)% of the tax burden. And you would still have you talking point, you could say, “why on earth to 47% of the population pay only 2% of the taxes” and everyone would all indignant, failing to recall that that 47% of the population makes around only 10%, or perhaps even less, of the income. That;s why.

Life simply isn’t fair. That’s the short answer. Why, of all the undeserved injustices in the world, that 2 or 3% in lost tax revenue (which, if imposed, would have a negative effect on the economy not worth the money gained from it) irks you so much, I cannot understand.

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? )

 

[bbarrick8383]

You and so many others really harp endlessly on that 47%. If you’re so committed to your ideal of fairness, what are you to make of all the people starving to death or dying of easily curable diseases in sub-saharan Africa? Why, exactly, does the 47% that supposedly does not pay federal income tax merit so much concern from you?

I’ve said before, it can’t because of its financial significance, because you must know as well as I do that even if they were taxed as if in the highest bracket (what, almost 40%?), the bottom 47% of the population would still only be bearing maybe 2 or 3% of the total tax burden, and the top 25% would still be paying 84 (or maybe 83)% of the tax burden. And you would still have you talking point, you could say, “why on earth to 47% of the population pay only 2% of the taxes” and everyone would all indignant, failing to recall that that 47% of the population makes around only 10%, or perhaps even less, of the income. That;s why.

Life simply isn’t fair. That’s the short answer. Why, of all the undeserved injustices in the world, that 2 or 3% in lost tax revenue (which, if imposed, would have a negative effect on the economy not worth the money gained from it) irks you so much, I cannot understand.

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.

I don’t know where I fall in that 47 percent that pay no taxes, but when I punch in the numbers in my tax software program I get back at least double what I paid throughout the year. On top of all the benefits I qualify for, I’d say I could rook the taxpayer of 15 to 20 grand a year if I wanted to.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Oh, and ‘you guys’ don’t do the exact same thing? Most people on welfare are just lazy frauds, and all that doesn’t sound familiar?

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.

 

[4elise]

Nice! Demonize those who disagree with you. I will have to share this with those I work with in my charitable organizations. They will enjoy a good chuckle.

Excuse me? This was in reply to

Originally Posted by iamrefreshed View Post
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.

May I ask if you find anything offensive about this original post? Or does it deserve a because you may agree with the inference?

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.

This direction toward tossing posts like the above into the discussion is what is discouraging - and perhaps I should avoid responding to inflammatory statements because even if I try to respond reasonably it is heard by those with opposing views as “Demonize” - never my intention. Very frustrating.

 

[rlg94086]

Excuse me? This was in reply to

May I ask if you find anything offensive about this original post? Or does it deserve a because you may agree with the inference?

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.

This direction toward tossing posts like the above into the discussion is what is discouraging - and perhaps I should avoid responding to inflammatory statements because even if I try to respond reasonably it is heard by those with opposing views as “Demonize” - never my intention. Very frustrating.

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.

 

[4elise]

You aren’t seriously going to say that the addition of the Department of Education in the 70s and the federal spending have actually improved the situation, are you? Are you saying we should throw more money at the problem?

Yes, education is different state-to-state. The schools in my state are better than those just across the river. I have a potential job in California, a VERY wealthy state with VERY high taxes, and one of the things that concerns me is the horrid quality of the schools down there. I’ve lived there (in fact, I’m from there), so I know the difference in quality.

We need to improve our education systems, but adding homosexual education requirements, as they just did in California, isn’t really going to make the schools that much better, is it? I don’t think it’s a money issue either…

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.

I think the USCCB statement is a knee-jerk, don’t cut anything for the poor, statement. I don’t believe it is saying that national programs are preferred. Even if it did, the committee has no authority, and I am free to disagree with its statement.

I think that knee-jerk reaction is the same one I have - and of course you can disagree, you have free will, and I would not imply that to disagree is sinful - or that you don’t care about the poor - this discussion keeps degenerating to such implication -

those who want the government involved are guilty of class warfare or are ignorant of the economic realities or are nationalists who want to abdicate all state / local power

those who don’t want the government involved don’t care about the poor / only care about their own pocketbooks /

as each side sees the other in these simplistic, cartoon like ways - nothing can be resolved.

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.