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:
So why do you propose to extend programs that have been proven to exacerbate poverty? Don’t you want to see people succeed?
Click to expand...
I am sorry, I don’t believe that all federal social programs exacerbate poverty. Many are very successful. Many need reform. Some should be cut. This process should be a careful one that is done outside of the political football that is being tossed back and forth between the left and the right only to ensure their reelections.

Asking a question like “Don’t you want to see people succeed?” is again the toss of the football - you disagree with me, therefore you must want people to stay dependent, and unsuccessful. I think Prodigal Son1 has demonstrated in his posts that his concern is for the poor - for their well being - seeing them as his brothers and sisters.

You of course may disagree on how to help people succeed - but I wouldn’t suggest that *because you do not believe in extending social programs, * you therefore only want people to fail - just that you have come to a different conclusion than is in the original article in this thread.
 
rlg94086 said:
I don’t define it that way, but clearly abortion is a greater evil than, for example, poverty or the death penalty (which neither party opposes btw). Last I checked, putting an innocent to death was worse than allowing that innocent to live in poverty. 🤷
Click to expand...
anti death penalty - agreed - but another topic no doubt (I’ve been on those threads!)
 
Persuader said:
I have answered the question. I think it is fair to raise taxes on the rich now, and I have explained why by referencing to income inequality and the growth patterns of the economy the last 30 years. Now, the reality is that this economic growth have been concentrated at the top, and the higher you go, the higher the growth. So, the top 1% have seen more growth than the top 10% and so on.

I am open to concentrating tax increases for those earning over $500 000 or $1 million. The details is best left to relevant experts. What is important is the principle of it. **To imagine that the rich is somehow burdened unfairly in this economy is ludicrous **(as I have explained). What is clear is that those who have to pay in this economy is those who have benefited from its structure, and that (as I have explained) is the rich.
Click to expand...
Well said.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
There’s no such ‘cry’.

While I agree that abortion is a terrible thing, I cannot justify being against it by saying a starving baby is less terrible. To me, both are horrendous and worthy of attention, especially from Christians. Neither is something that should be joked about, or insinuated as lightly as a back slapping point between people who somehow agree on a ‘political’ view.
Click to expand...
Thank you - the post you were replying to was offensive, and I actually had no idea how to reply.
 
SamH said:
Agreed, its worded differently to seem kinder while accomplishing the same thing.
Click to expand...
How offensive to suggest that ‘liberals’ - caring for those living who are suffering are also uncaring for the unborn.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Maybe I’m not making myself clear. I find either horrendous, but I’ve already said that. Do you think a starving baby is more acceptable than an abortion? What if the baby died of malnutrition? Doesn’t it become the same thing at that point?

I really dislike my words being twisted into something they’re not. But it seems some would rather use those tactics than stick to a topic of discussion. 🤷
Click to expand...
It’s not twisting. It’s pretty simple. Both of us find a starving baby horrendous and unacceptable. However, you are creating a false dichotomy - either support abortion but save the starving babies, or support social programs and allow people to kill their unborn innocents. I wouldn’t allow someone to starve their baby, nor would I allow them to kill their baby.
  1. A baby who lives, as opposed to being aborted, will not necessarily starve. They at least have a chance to live a full life…not so much for the baby who was killed.
  2. Government-run social programs are not the only way to keep a baby from starving.
Giving someone the choice to kill their unborn child, is no different than giving them the choice to kill their toddler, teenager, etc. It is a grave evil, and there is no way you can spin support of those who are in favor of allowing such a choice to be the right way to vote as a Christian.
 
ComputerGeek25 said:
It boggles my mind that people seem to forget this. This whole issue is a shade of grey - we can’t simply support craddle to grave welfare but there is a need for a safety net. No one is advocating doing away with it - but we need help people get on their feet - no more, no less.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry - but some are advocating for doing away with it - perhaps not you, but there are those in government (and I believe on this thread as well) who are.
 
Persuader said:
I have answered the question. I think it is fair to raise taxes on the rich now, and I have explained why by referencing to income inequality and the growth patterns of the economy the last 30 years. Now, the reality is that this economic growth have been concentrated at the top, and the higher you go, the higher the growth. So, the top 1% have seen more growth than the top 10% and so on.

I am open to concentrating tax increases for those earning over $500 000 or $1 million. The details is best left to relevant experts. What is important is the principle of it. To imagine that the rich is somehow burdened unfairly in this economy is ludicrous (as I have explained). What is clear is that those who have to pay in this economy is those who have benefited from its structure, and that (as I have explained) is the rich.
Click to expand...
Nobody said the rich were burdened unfairly. Just, again, pointing out the obvious, a tax system were nearly half the people pay no federal income tax and the top 25% pay 84% of all federal income taxes is broken . I am glad that Romney mentioned this on the campaign trail today. . Perhaps when the American people realize the real truth, they will quit falling for every demagogue who complains about tax cuts for the rich and realize nearly half the people in this country are getting a free ride.
 
rlg94086 said:
It’s not twisting. It’s pretty simple. Both of us find a starving baby horrendous and unacceptable. However, you are creating a false dichotomy - either support abortion but save the starving babies, or support social programs and allow people to kill their unborn innocents. I wouldn’t allow someone to starve their baby, nor would I allow them to kill their baby.
  1. A baby who lives, as opposed to being aborted, will not necessarily starve. They at least have a chance to live a full life…not so much for the baby who was killed.
  2. Government-run social programs are not the only way to keep a baby from starving.
Giving someone the choice to kill their unborn child, is no different than giving them the choice to kill their toddler, teenager, etc. It is a grave evil, and there is no way you can spin support of those who are in favor of allowing such a choice to be the right way to vote as a Christian.
Click to expand...
Not all social programs enable abortion.
 
SamH said:
I guess you haven’t read 2 Thessalonians 3:10.
Click to expand...
Luk 14:11 Because every one that exalteth himself shall be humbled: and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
Luk 14:12 And he said to him also that had invited him: When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends nor thy brethren nor thy kinsmen nor thy neighbours who are rich; lest perhaps they also invite thee again, and a recompense be made to thee.
Luk 14:13 But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame and the blind.
Luk 14:14 And thou shalt be blessed, because they have not wherewith to make thee recompense: for recompense shall be made thee at the resurrection of the just.
Click to expand...
Mat 25:35 For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink: I was a stranger, and you took me in:
Mat 25:36 Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me.
Mat 25:37 Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry and fed thee: thirsty and gave thee drink?
Mat 25:38 Or when did we see thee a stranger and took thee in? Or naked and covered thee?
Mat 25:39 Or when did we see thee sick or in prison and came to thee?
Mat 25:40 And the king answering shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.
Click to expand...
Mat 25:41 Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire, which was prepared for the devil and his angels.
Click to expand...
Mat 25:42 For I was hungry and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty and you gave me not to drink.
Mat 25:43 I was a stranger and you took me not in: naked and you covered me not: sick and in prison and you did not visit me.
Mat 25:44 Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison and did not minister to thee?
Mat 25:45 Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen: I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.
Mat 25:46 And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.
Click to expand...
 
blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/06/22/u-s-has-record-number-of-millionaires/
According to the annual World Wealth Report from Merill Lynch and Capgemini, the U.S. had 3.1 million millionaires in 2010, up from 2.86 million in 2009. The latest figure tops the pre-crisis peak of three million.
Click to expand...
Merrill and Capgemini define millionaires as individuals with $1 million or more in investible assets, not including primary home, collectibles, consumables and consumer durables.
Click to expand...
The wealth held by these millionaires also hit a record. North American millionaires had a combined wealth of $11.6 trillion, up from $10.7 trillion in 2009.
Click to expand...
The number of Americans with $30 million is still slightly below the pre-crisis peak. In 2010 there were 40,000 North Americans with $30 million or more, up from 36,000 in 2009.
Click to expand...
Why are millionaires doing so much better than everyone else? Financial markets. Remember, the rich depend on financial markets (which have rebounded) while the rest of America depends on jobs and homes for wealth–both of which remain in a slump. According to the report, global equity markets rose 18% in 2010. Since the wealthy have a larger share of their fortunes in stocks, they would have benefited most.
Click to expand...
Confiscate the wealth of all millionaires, and a deficit of 1 trillion will be fed for 10 or so years.
 
estesbob said:
In a speech today, Romney just commented on the fact that nearly 50% of Americans pay no federal income tax. . I am hoping this becomes a key issue in the 2012 election.
Click to expand...
I hope by the time the election comes people will become educated on this issue and not take this at face value.

50% pay a much higher % of their income on TAXES - state and local, SSI,sales, gas, etc… nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html

Please consider



 
estesbob said:
Have to be careful about attributing anything to Christ in these forums. We even had a poster claim Jesus was pro-abortion
Click to expand...
sound of head hitting desk.

Really - I am sure no one with whom you are in disagreement on this thread would make such a statement - so the relevance escapes me.
 
estesbob said:
You have to understand the liberal concept of corporations. From a tax standpoint they areto be treated as people. From a campaign-finance standpoint they are not to be treated as people. . Hope that clears it up.
Click to expand...
Liberal? You think this came because of a liberal agenda? Interesting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top