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.
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Well it seems like it would be an important factor. What is the threshold of deductions, $12k? So anyone that makes less pays no taxes. If they have children, the allowable untaxed income rises with each dependent. It could be that 47% represents low income families, and single people, who could possibly be employed by a percentage of those paying a higher tax because they make so much more. 🤷
Click to expand...
The poverty level is 12% No way you can parse the nubers to justify 47% paying no Federal income tax No way you can take that figure and claim the “rich” don’t pay their “fair” share
 
estesbob said:
The poverty level is 12% No way you can parse the nubers to justify 47% paying no Federal income tax No way you can take that figure and claim the “rich” don’t pay their “fair” share
Click to expand...
I’m not trying to parse it, only understand it. Without the extra information, we can only assume, one way or the other.

I think a national sales tax would be the way to go, myself.
 
4elise said:
In a world where there are well funded St. Vincent de Paul Societies at every parish - all will be well!
Click to expand...
The world has had over 2000 yrs. That’s why where private individuals and faith based groups fall short, some of us argue for a more substantial government role than others. But by the way things are sounding here, we not only might have to wait until the next world for all to be well, let alone seeing much headway in this world in the meantime. 😦
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
I’m not trying to parse it, only understand it. Without the extra information, we can only assume, one way or the other.

I think a national sales tax would be the way to go, myself.
Click to expand...
Be good for my business but dismantling the current tax system would have a catastrophic effect on the economy.
 
estesbob said:
Totally irrelevant to the point I was making It is hard to claim the "rich " dont pay their “fair” share when neRly half pay no federal income tax
Click to expand...
The point is that the % that pay no federal tax pay PLENTY of tax (when looking at TOTAL tax.)

What is ‘fair share’? 50% of what one has or 8% of what one has - especially if the one paying 8% has 1000(or more) x more than the other?
 
rlg94086 said:
I’m all for it! Let’s go. Obviously, there will be some increases to the budget because of interest on the increased debt, but we would either have a surplus or much smaller deficit. Wouldn’t we?

(Why do you keep assuming I’m sarcastic?)
Click to expand...
dailykos.com/story/2011/04/13/966570/-Just-Restore-the-Clinton-Tax-Rates!

Interesting, really.

How does our post 9/11 defense spending figure into this? Is there someone who has added this factor to the equation? I would be interested
 
4elise said:
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?
Click to expand...
You make the typical error in judgement. Evey child would not need CPS. A vast majority of people are/were just like my father. When push comes to shove they will feed their children. I ate during the summer and on weekends.

Throwing lunch at me did not help my home life but it made some people ‘feel good’. You yourself ‘felt good’ at helping me. Well, it didn’t help.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Rather than insinuate I lied, or tried something dishonest by spinning what the commentaries said (ironic you’d do that :rolleyes: ) Show us other scriptures that support that we don’t have to care for the poor and that they should be working for themselves?
Click to expand...
I insinuate nothing. You accused me of taking scripture out of context then you parse a Catholic commentary claiming it contradicts what I said it did when actually it supports what I said it did. What you did was disingenuous at best.

As soon as I read your post I knew what you had done - otherwise you would have posted a link. Your reputation is what you make of it, you have made yours. Don’t blame others for what you have done.
 
iamrefreshed said:
You make the typical error in judgement. Evey child would not need CPS. A vast majority of people are/were just like my father. When push comes to shove they will feed their children. I ate during the summer and on weekends.

Throwing lunch at me did not help my home life but it made some people ‘feel good’. You yourself ‘felt good’ at helping me. Well, it didn’t help.
Click to expand...
I am sorry about your situation.

I get accused of inflamatory language. But the fact of the matter is quite simple - shouldn’t I be allowed to quit my job and go on the public dole without expectation to ever get off?
 
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. .
Click to expand...
There’s no problem with having a safety net. The problem is too many people are using it as a hammock.
 
ComputerGeek25 said:
I am sorry about your situation.

I get accused of inflamatory language. But the fact of the matter is quite simple - shouldn’t I be allowed to quit my job and go on the public dole without expectation to ever get off?
Click to expand...
Thanks but this was nearly 40 years ago.😉

It sad how many think that those on the dole really need it. Sit for 20 minutes in some bodega and see how many scratch off’s they sell.:eek:
 
iamrefreshed said:
Thanks but this was nearly 40 years ago.😉

It sad how many think that those on the dole really need it. Sit for 20 minutes in some bodega and see how many scratch off’s they sell.:eek:
Click to expand...
Oh, I have a story. Have one friend who use to deliver pizza’s in HS and College in a bad section of the city. They would get people who would apply to work there who were on welfare/UI. The owner would interview them and agree to hire them, but they would never show up to work. Because of the socialist paradise that is New York State, whoever checked up on these people could only ask one yes or no question - which is “Did this person apply for a job at your business?” The business owner could only answer yes or no, and not provide any follow up details such as this person never showed up to work - which would have obviously gotten the recipients into trouble, or at least triggered an investigation.

I’d like to see some people of the liberal persuation to try to spin this somehow.
 
wynnejj said:
What’s your point? Are you trying to say that early Christian communities are the small scale model that should be applied to the large scale, modern day, Roman Empire?

What I am saying is that this model does not scale up because it defies the necessary right-sizing mix of subsidiarity & solidarity.

Obviously, Our Lord was not against welfare. The parable about unemployment compensation is an example, where laborers who showed up seeking work received a full days pay whether or not they worked a full day. If you are willing to work, and you need to eat, then you are entitled to eat by a beneficial employer - whether private or public sector.

Obviously, Our Lord was against those who are lazy and don’t measure up. Those who forgot oil for their lamp were not offered oil by those who came prepared. If those who came prepared shared evenly with the lazy, then when they entered the wedding feast, halfway through all the lights would go out. Our Lord did not chastise these ‘uncharitable, selfish’ individuals, but rather told the lazy share-with-me jokers to get lost.

This latter predicament is the one our nation is in today.
Click to expand...
I just saw your response and even tons of posts later, I feel it necessary to respond. Forgive me if I’m misinterpreting the gist of what you’re saying but it seems to be that those receiving Gov’t assistance in our nation today are by and large “lazy” and they “don’t measure up”. We disagree on this (I have seen no proof presented for your viewpoint), but the difference is not irreconcilable.

My stance is simply this: if it is really true that the poor are largely lazy and milking the system, the solution needs to be one that
  1. strengthens eligibility guidelines,
  2. provides methods (for everyone, including people like you and me) for monitoring and reporting of fraud/waste/abuse by recipients (like the messages on health insurance bills that encourage people to report fraud and provide a number for doing so)
  3. ensures that recipients obtain/seek employment/training unless they are disabled or otherwise unable to
I could go on, but the gist is that measures to make people accountable should be strengthened, if they are presently lax (which I believe they are). However, simply cutting programs/funding across the board is like having a butcher doing a facelift instead of a plastic surgeon. I have trouble believing that the real objection many people have to gov’t assistance programs is waste/abuse/fraud, simply because I see very little suggestions offered to target the same. The real undercurrent I see is one that blames the poor for their situation in life and disavows any responsibility either in contributing to their predicament or in helping them out of it.
 
seekerz said:
I just saw your response and even tons of posts later, I feel it necessary to respond. Forgive me if I’m misinterpreting the gist of what you’re saying but it seems to be that those receiving Gov’t assistance in our nation today are by and large “lazy” and they “don’t measure up”. We disagree on this (I have seen no proof presented for your viewpoint), but the difference is not irreconcilable.

My stance is simply this: if it is really true that the poor are largely lazy and milking the system, the solution needs to be one that
  1. strengthens eligibility guidelines,
  2. provides methods (for everyone, including people like you and me) for monitoring and reporting of fraud/waste/abuse by recipients (like the messages on health insurance bills that encourage people to report fraud and provide a number for doing so)
  3. ensures that recipients obtain/seek employment/training unless they are disabled or otherwise unable to
I could go on, but the gist is that measures to make people accountable should be strengthened, if they are presently lax (which I believe they are). However, simply cutting programs/funding across the board is like having a butcher doing a facelift instead of a plastic surgeon. I have trouble believing that the real objection many people have to gov’t assistance programs is waste/abuse/fraud, simply because I see very little suggestions offered to target the same. The real undercurrent I see is one that blames the poor for their situation in life and disavows any responsibility either in contributing to their predicament or in helping them out of it.
Click to expand...
I think you and I agree to an extent.
 
SamH said:
I insinuate nothing. You accused me of taking scripture out of context then you parse a Catholic commentary claiming it contradicts what I said it did when actually it supports what I said it did. What you did was disingenuous at best.

As soon as I read your post I knew what you had done - otherwise you would have posted a link. Your reputation is what you make of it, you have made yours. Don’t blame others for what you have done.
Click to expand...
I could not link it because it came from my Bible program on my computer.

Now, present supporting scriptures to support that view. I posted some from Christ saying to ‘feed the poor’. If we take your verse, as you interpret it, we have a conflict of teachings from scriptures and Christ Himself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top