USCCB Urges Catholics to Lobby on Behalf of Anti-Poverty Programs

[Ridgerunner]

. Equally sweeping, is the charge that Catholics are pushing to cut Social Security. Which Catholics? Enumerate the “cuts.” Who, Catholic or non-Catholic Republican, is calling for a cut in Social Security checks for those who are currently receiving?

Well, okay. I’m Catholic, though I’m not a Republican. I think SS should be means tested. Does it make any sense to pay SS to Warren Buffett or anyone whose private pension and/or property puts him in the “high income” category, when the taxes to pay for them are taken from people who work for a living? If you ask me, that’s unjust in the extreme; taxing the poor and middle classes to pay the rich.

How about if we start by cutting off SS to people whose other income exceeds, oh, let’s say $200,000/year for a married couple or $150,000/year for a single person?

 

[cmforte]

I’m glad you just came out and said it without using incoherent terminology (ACORN???). So you think these two bishops went “rogue”, because this statement represents the USCCB as a whole not the opinion of two of its members.

Also the statement contains zero political opinions, if you see any that says more about the reader than the USCCB.

I see no political statement in the letter, all I see is bishops fulfilling their duty to give moral guidance in full accordance with the Catholic Church.

I know this was a ways back and maybe someone has addressed it by now, but**…you really don’t know what ACORN is!!!**

-Chris

 

[Pork_Roll]

Catholic Republicans “don’t want to touch the defense budget?”

Have you read any of my other posts? I listed two prominent catholic conservative politicians who do not want to decrease defense spending at the expense of social security and medicare: Paul Ryan and Rick Santorum.

Besides Ron Paul, most prominent republicans hold the defense budget as a sacred cow. I don’t have a problem with this per se, but when it’s at the expense of programs designed to help the poor, I do. It isn’t very catholic. In fact, when you read the catholic church’s teaching on matters of the economy, it doesn’t square well with our overly individualist approach to regulating the market.

 

[Raskolnikov]

Have you read any of my other posts? I listed two prominent catholic conservative politicians who do not want to decrease defense spending at the expense of social security and medicare: Paul Ryan and Rick Santorum.

Besides Ron Paul, most prominent republicans hold the defense budget as a sacred cow. I don’t have a problem with this per se, but when it’s at the expense of programs designed to help the poor, I do. It isn’t very catholic. In fact, when you read the catholic church’s teaching on matters of the economy, it doesn’t square well with our overly individualist approach to regulating the market.

. Every time I see the supposed statistic, “non-defense spending,” as in, so-and-so cut ‘non-defense’ spending by X, I nearly vomit. It’s an invalid statistic. If you cut spending elsewhere but raise it by just as much in defense, then you didn’t cut spending. Democrats may just as easily start referring to ‘non-social program spendin.’ Everyone, pickout you favorite quarter of the state, and from now on, exclude it from spending statistics. No, spending is spending, and defense spending should be at the top of the list to be cut back.

 

[rlg94086]

Well, okay. I’m Catholic, though I’m not a Republican. I think SS should be means tested. Does it make any sense to pay SS to Warren Buffett or anyone whose private pension and/or property puts him in the “high income” category, when the taxes to pay for them are taken from people who work for a living? If you ask me, that’s unjust in the extreme; taxing the poor and middle classes to pay the rich.

How about if we start by cutting off SS to people whose other income exceeds, oh, let’s say $200,000/year for a married couple or $150,000/year for a single person?

Sure, but neither you nor any prominent Catholic conservatives are recommending decreasing the checks of current Social Security recipients who really need it. Its a ridiculous assertion by people who just like to use fear tactics for political purposes.

 

[rlg94086]

. Every time I see the supposed statistic, “non-defense spending,” as in, so-and-so cut ‘non-defense’ spending by X, I nearly vomit. It’s an invalid statistic. If you cut spending elsewhere but raise it by just as much in defense, then you didn’t cut spending.

I’m sorry that fiscal discussions cause you gastric distress. Who is calling for cuts in non-defense spending along with increased defense spending for a net-zero decrease in spending?

Raskolnikov:

Democrats may just as easily start referring to ‘non-social program spendin.’ Everyone, pickout you favorite quarter of the state, and from now on, exclude it from spending statistics. No, spending is spending, and defense spending should be at the top of the list to be cut back.

I don’t consider defense cuts off the table, but why should it be “at the top of the list?” Defense is one of the few items that the federal government is clearly supposed to provide according to the Constitution.

 

[rlg94086]

Have you read any of my other posts? I listed two prominent catholic conservative politicians who do not want to decrease defense spending at the expense of social security and medicare: Paul Ryan and Rick Santorum.

Besides Ron Paul, most prominent republicans hold the defense budget as a sacred cow. I don’t have a problem with this per se, but when it’s at the expense of programs designed to help the poor, I do. It isn’t very catholic. In fact, when you read the catholic church’s teaching on matters of the economy, it doesn’t square well with our overly individualist approach to regulating the market.

Fantastic…two prominent politicians lead you to accuse all Catholic Republicans.

 

[estesbob]

Fantastic…two prominent politicians lead you to accuse all Catholic Republicans.

It is the neverending mental gymnanstics Cathoilc Democrats must go through to rationalize their support of pro-abortion canidates, In another thread we were told by one of them that we could vote for Obama because the republican canidates wanted to anihilate all life on earth. It is hard to argue with such beliefs.

 

[Graubo3]

Yep. Two Catholic bishops, Blaire and Hubbard, of the ACORN wing, speak collegially for all U.S. bishops:thumbsup:. Wonder what the ACORN wing has to gain or lose?

What does this incoherent terminology mean, and are you saying the Bishops dont represent the Catholic Church in the United States?

Some of this rhetoric reminds me of what the pro government establishment in el Salvador would accuse bishop Romero doing. Very disturbing, specially coming for Catholics.

Apparently, current events and ecclesiology are something you need to work on. It did not fly over everyone’s head. As far a current events: google.com/search?q=cchd+acorn&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a

As far as ecclesiology, I will listen to Pope John Paul II:

20. … This logic is quite explicit in the canonical norm concerning the exercise of the legislative power of the Bishops assembled in the Episcopal Conference: “The Conference of Bishops can issue general decrees only in those cases in which the common law prescribes it, or a special mandate of the Apostolic See, given either motu proprio or at the request of the Conference, determines it”.(77) In other cases “the competence of individual diocesan Bishops remains intact; and neither the Conference nor its president may act in the name of all the Bishops unless each and every Bishop has given his consent”.(78)

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_22071998_apostolos-suos_en.html

No, these two Catholic bishops do not represent the entire U.S. bishops collegially, only their names appear. Sorry for the unflagged sarcasm and your incoherency. Nor do they represent me, they are not my diocesan bishop. I can say and remain faithful to the Church that as a “specially” Catholic, as you called me, their words can mean squat to me. My comment about them being the ACORN wing stands. Wonder what they have to gain or to lose?

Finally, I could care less that Cesar Romero moved to el Salvador after Batman, he’s Puerto Rican.

Peace, Graubo

 

[Trader]

I would have been so much happier with a statement from the bishops that the best antipoverty program does not come from the government, or even from the Catholic Church. The best anti-poverty program is still the original, and it came from God himself. The best antipoverty program is the FAMILY.

Last month’s poverty statistics showed that families headed by a single woman have a poverty rate FIVE TIMES the poverty rate of a family headed by a married couple. It is even worse than that headline number, which only considers income. The poverty rate does not address the fact that married couples need to spend less for daycare for their children. The totally secular “Marriage Project”, a multi-year, multi-disciplinary study at Rutgers University found that the members of a family in a marriage also have better mental and physical health, longer lifespans, lower crime rates, lower rates of incarceration, better education outcomes, high incomes, and more assets. Ask yourself, which groups have a long history of support for marriage and the family as Jesus taught? My first answer would be the Catholic Church. Can someone suggest a second one?

Today’s unemployment report showed that college graduates have an unemployment rate of 4.2%. You double that rate for only a high school diploma, and more than double that rate again for those who failed to complete high school.

Where is even a mention from the two bishops that the biggest changes to decrease poverty need to be made by the poor? Government programs have a long record of sustaining poverty and the behaviors that cause it. They are nowhere near as successful in reducing poverty.

I have a new next-door neighbor. She is a single woman, and registered nurse, and just had to turn her life upside down to buy a house in a safe neighborhood and fight for the custody of three children, ages 3, 2, and 1, who were members of her extended family. The kids can’t stay at their old house–it burned down. They can’t stay with their parents–they are going to prison. As I understand it, the house burned when the mother and one of her boyfriends had their meth lab explode, and it was not a first offense for either of them. There is no question in my mind that these children are better off with their “auntie” permanently than they would be under a government fostercare program.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Has the USCCB ever urged Catholics to lobby on behalf of anti-abortion programs? Just wondering…

 

[rlg94086]

Has the USCCB ever urged Catholics to lobby on behalf of anti-abortion programs? Just wondering…

Yes.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Nice job bishops.

Just wondering:

What does the church define as socialism? Because I’ve seen a lot of posts claiming that government funded programs are socialist, etc.

 

[JimG]

I would have been so much happier with a statement from the bishops that the best antipoverty program does not come from the government, or even from the Catholic Church. The best anti-poverty program is still the original, and it came from God himself. The best antipoverty program is the FAMILY.

Last month’s poverty statistics showed that families headed by a single woman have a poverty rate FIVE TIMES the poverty rate of a family headed by a married couple. It is even worse than that headline number, which only considers income. The poverty rate does not address the fact that married couples need to spend less for daycare for their children. The totally secular “Marriage Project”, a multi-year, multi-disciplinary study at Rutgers University found that the members of a family in a marriage also have better mental and physical health, longer lifespans, lower crime rates, lower rates of incarceration, better education outcomes, high incomes, and more assets. Ask yourself, which groups have a long history of support for marriage and the family as Jesus taught? My first answer would be the Catholic Church. Can someone suggest a second one?

Today’s unemployment report showed that college graduates have an unemployment rate of 4.2%. You double that rate for only a high school diploma, and more than double that rate again for those who failed to complete high school.

Where is even a mention from the two bishops that the biggest changes to decrease poverty need to be made by the poor? Government programs have a long record of sustaining poverty and the behaviors that cause it. They are nowhere near as successful in reducing poverty.

I have a new next-door neighbor. She is a single woman, and registered nurse, and just had to turn her life upside down to buy a house in a safe neighborhood and fight for the custody of three children, ages 3, 2, and 1, who were members of her extended family. The kids can’t stay at their old house–it burned down. They can’t stay with their parents–they are going to prison. As I understand it, the house burned when the mother and one of her boyfriends had their meth lab explode, and it was not a first offense for either of them. There is no question in my mind that these children are better off with their “auntie” permanently than they would be under a government fostercare program.

I have to agree entirely. The best anti-poverty program is the FAMILY. Any governmental program that tends to destroy the family is a program that increases poverty.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I have to agree entirely. The best anti-poverty program is the FAMILY. Any governmental program that tends to destroy the family is a program that increases poverty.

All you have to do is look at the condition of the black family today as opposed to before LBJ’s “Great Society” and “War on Poverty” programs began. It’s pretty clear what helps and what doesn’t.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Yes.

When? Where?

 

[rlg94086]

When? Where?

usccb.org/about/pro-life-activities/respect-life-program/index.cfm

 

[Holly3278]

I agree with them. We need to support anti-poverty programs both in the government and otherwise. Poverty is a horrible thing for so many people.

 

[Ender]

I agree with them. We need to support anti-poverty programs both in the government and otherwise. Poverty is a horrible thing for so many people.

It is one thing to support helping the poor but quite another to support a specific program that ostensibly helps the poor. We can all agree on the former but there is no chance we will all support the same program because individuals have very different perceptions about the effects any particular plan will have. In just the same way, it is fine for the bishops to remind us of our obligations to help the poor but they go too far when they lobby for the passage - or continued support - of particular programs. Determining what works and what doesn’t is quintessentially a political problem and is a place the clergy should in most cases choose to avoid.

Ender

 

[Swiss_Guy]

It is one thing to support helping the poor but quite another to support a specific program that ostensibly helps the poor. We can all agree on the former but there is no chance we will all support the same program because individuals have very different perceptions about the effects any particular plan will have. In just the same way, it is fine for the bishops to remind us of our obligations to help the poor but they go too far when they lobby for the passage - or continued support - of particular programs. Determining what works and what doesn’t is quintessentially a political problem and is a place the clergy should in most cases choose to avoid.

Ender

I didn’t see the bishops supporting a specific program in the link, just that we should not cut programs (in general) that help stop poverty.