Will an economic stimulus package help us during recession?

[goofyjim]

I dont know of anything that the Church says that runs contrary to republican ideology. Of course with the Demcorat Party they are on the wrong side of nearly all issues the Church holds dear.

If all you view are moral issues, I would agree. But since there are more than the moral issues, such as economic ones and social ones, I respectfully disagree.

 

[estesbob]

If all you view are moral issues, I would agree. But since there are more than the moral issues, such as economic ones and social ones, I respectfully disagree.

One can argue all they want about the “other” issues. But the problem the democrat party has is they are proudly in oppositon to major Church teachings-its not even a matter of dispute.

 

[didymus]

Hi everyone–it’s me Whatevergirl:wave: --my husband wanted me to post this for him using his username, since he cannot access the forum very often at work.

He was curious of the opinions of his question–will an economic stimulus package help to revive our economy in the event we have a recession? (which looks pretty evident that we might soon)
If you were the President–what measures would you take to build this package?

I wish I could say that I’d have the courage to do what the President and Congress should do – nothing.
We are going to have a recession. The patient has already caught the virus. No one knows yet how severe it will be or how long it will last but we have a committee of doctors (Pres & Congress) who should be honest enough to say, “You’re just gonna have to suffer until your system fights it off.”
But the patient is demanding, “DO something!” and threatening to fire them so they have to appear busy DOING something.

No “stimulus package” will help. One thing I hate about getting old is deja vu. Way back when I was a kid working at McDonald’s I got a check for $50 from the IRS – everybody in the country did, practically, as part of a “stimulus package”. A few years ago it was a $400 advance on their next year’s refund.

No matter how much it is this time, it won’t be enough to help but it will be enough to further weaken the dollar and possibly fuel inflation. Tax cuts won’t work because they’re just deficit spending in reverse.

I feel bad for all you young 'uns who’ve never seen what a **real ** recession looks like, take it from one who live thru the Ford/Carter years.

 

[goofyjim]

One can argue all they want about the “other” issues. But the problem the democrat party has is they are proudly in oppositon to major Church teachings-its not even a matter of dispute.

They are only in opposition on moral teachings. We are discussing economic plans. The economy is a negotiable issue and there is not a clear cut Church teaching on a proper economic stimulus package. Never will be. That is not the Church’s expertise. Therefore, as I’ve said elsewhere, if the Democrats were to miraculously start supporting the Church on moral issues one could easily vote for them on economic platforms.

 

[Ridgerunner]

No “stimulus package” will help. One thing I hate about getting old is deja vu. Way back when I was a kid working at McDonald’s I got a check for $50 from the IRS – everybody in the country did, practically, as part of a “stimulus package”. A few years ago it was a $400 advance on their next year’s refund.

No matter how much it is this time, it won’t be enough to help but it will be enough to further weaken the dollar and possibly fuel inflation. Tax cuts won’t work because they’re just deficit spending in reverse.

I feel bad for all you young 'uns who’ve never seen what a **real ** recession looks like, take it from one who live thru the Ford/Carter years.

I totally agree with you on this, Didymus.

In general I also agree with GoofyJim’s post. However, I will quibble with him a bit. While the Dem Party TALKS a lot about social justice, etc., and therefore SEEMS more in line with the Church’s teachings, it doesn’t actually act according to the Church’s social teachings. When you set all the rhetoric of both parties aside, and look at the social encyclicals, you find that the Popes have supported a decent “safety net” under those who simply cannot support themselves, but otherwise discourage dependence on government, and particuarly on centralized government. Likewise, they have discouraged overdependence on “big business”. The Popes have, instead, recognized that most of us do live on wages, but have consistently supported the widest possible individual ownership of productive assets; assets that give the family the greatest freedom of self-determination, and that can be passed down to one’s children, so one’s children can support their own families to the greatest extent possible.

When you look at that, you can’t help but conclude that neither party follows those principles. The Dems are government-oriented all the way, and the more centralized, the better. The social “safety net” is grotesquely inadequate for those who cannot help themselves. Rather, the Dems always seems to propose across-the-board “middle class welfare” that encourages, rather than discourages overdependence on government. The Repubs seem to think “big business” is inherently benign and that if it flourishes, everyone will automatically flourish. Both concepts are contrary to the social encyclicals.

If this country really acted in accord with Church principles, the Dem TALK about helping the poor would result in something better than the miserable support the real poor actually receive, and the Repub TALK about things like privatization of social security contributions so that people actually OWNED their retirement programs and Repub tax reductions were directed more to families with children rather than being “across the board” reductions, we would come a lot closer.

I agree with GoofyJim that the “non-negotiables” are paramount in at least this election cycle. Abortion and its “progeny”; cloning and euthanasia have, in my opinion, corrupted the Dem party to the point that it is its paramount value, and the party can never be a useful social instrument until it is purged of that poison pill. The recomposition of the Supreme Court should be the number one priority at this time. If that goal is accomplished (and Catholics will determine it in 2008, to our credit or our shame) then attention can and should be turned to social issues. And just as Catholics should vote in accordance with the Church’s position on abortion, they should then vote in accordance with the social encyclicals. But before making assumptions about which party most nearly complies on particular social issues, Catholics need to learn what the social encyclicals really say, and how they can best be applied. And in my opinion, the U.S. bishops should be the first to undertake that study, as their occasional commentaries on “social justice” seem pretty persuasive to me that they don’t understand them.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

The problem I have with the current topic is:

**So when we elected a Republican congress (both houses) and a Republican President, how much progress did we make on those moral issues? Or responsible spending, physical constraint, etc, etc? **

My opinion is there is no actual difference; the whole election process has become a beauty or popularity contest with no substance. If you win you pass a few pay-off pieces of legislation to repay your major donors, who actually fund both sides to assure the pay-off regardless of who wins.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The problem I have with the current topic is:

**So when we elected a Republican congress (both houses) and a Republican President, how much progress did we make on those moral issues? Or responsible spending, physical constraint, etc, etc? **

My opinion is there is no actual difference; the whole election process has become a beauty or popularity contest with no substance. If you win you pass a few pay-off pieces of legislation to repay your major donors, who actually fund both sides to assure the pay-off regardless of who wins.

There’s one difference, for sure. The next president will almost certainly determine whether the Supreme Court will overturn Roe vs. Wade and its progeny. On the one hand, there are some candidates who would probably make an appointment that will facilitate that. On the other, there are some candidates that will absolutely preclude it. By one’s vote this November, one declares to himself and before God, which side of that question he’s on. We should be clear in our minds about that. No rationalizations. No excuses. In November, we vote for or against abortion on demand. The rest is just ground clutter.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Wouldn’t it be great if our politicians were as devoted to the country as those 19-year old kids serving in Iraq and Afghanistan?

It would be a great blessing and this country would be back on track.

 

[SoCalRC]

There’s one difference, for sure. The next president will almost certainly determine whether the Supreme Court will overturn Roe vs. Wade and its progeny… On the one hand, there are some candidates who would probably make an appointment that will facilitate that. On the other, there are some candidates that will absolutely preclude it. By one’s vote this November, one declares to himself and before God, which side of that question he’s on. We should be clear in our minds about that. No rationalizations. No excuses. In November, we vote for or against abortion on demand. The rest is just ground clutter.

There are three basic problems with this argument. First, the current GOP president has made two supreme court nominations, both upheld Roe and Casey in Carhart (only Scalia and Thomas, in a concurring opinion, rejected Roe on the basis of constitutionality).

Second, there is no evidence that even overturning Roe v. Wade will eliminate abortion in the US. It would simply make it a matter for the states. And, even if Catholic doctrine could be reflected in all 50 states, we have every reason to believe that, because of the expanded use of chemical abortificants, illegal abortion would be even more widespread than ever before.

Third, for a Catholic, your profession that voting purely on a single issue is a clear test of one’s spiritual committment is deeply heretical. Catholics are called upon to be unwaveringly pro-life, not just anti-abortion. These teachings have the support of multiple Popes and the authority of ecumenical council. Rome has clearly instructed us on how to properly apply this to voting:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

There are 9 broad principles upon which we are warned against compromising. The importance of not compromising these principles is stressed:

When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person.

The reason is that compromising our pro-life stance, which includes life in every stage (fertilization to natural death) and in every state (rich, poor, sickness, health), devalues life over all, as the Church explains:

The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine.

Picking and chosing when and how to apply our teaching on life is what Pope Benedict calls “moral relatism”. In fact, we think it is the same defective moral reasoning that abortionists use:

“Besides, every human being, even the child in the womb, has the right to life from God and not from his parents, not from any society or human authority. Therefore, there is no man, no human authority, no science, no “indication” at all—whether it be medical, eugenic, social, economic, or moral—that may offer or give a valid judicial title for a deliberate disposal of an innocent human life, that is, a disposal which aims at its destruction, whether as an end in itself or as a means to achieve the end, perhaps in no way at all illicit. Thus, for example, to save the life of the mother is a very noble act; but the direct killing of the child as a means to such an end is illicit.” - Pope Pius XII

There are religious faiths that embrace the concept of tolerating grave evil for noble ends, but Catholicism is not one of them.

Similiarly, there are faiths which put great emphasis on the moral conclussions of the individual but, again, Catholicism is not one of them. It is a matter of Canon Law, the Dogmatic Constitution, and the Catechism, lay members simply cannot proclaim themselves to be morally superior in interpreting and applying Church doctrine than the Magesterium.

 

[goofyjim]

I totally agree with you on this, Didymus.

In general I also agree with GoofyJim’s post. However, I will quibble with him a bit. While the Dem Party TALKS a lot about social justice, etc., and therefore SEEMS more in line with the Church’s teachings, it doesn’t actually act according to the Church’s social teachings. When you set all the rhetoric of both parties aside, and look at the social encyclicals, you find that the Popes have supported a decent “safety net” under those who simply cannot support themselves, but otherwise discourage dependence on government, and particuarly on centralized government. Likewise, they have discouraged overdependence on “big business”. The Popes have, instead, recognized that most of us do live on wages, but have consistently supported the widest possible individual ownership of productive assets; assets that give the family the greatest freedom of self-determination, and that can be passed down to one’s children, so one’s children can support their own families to the greatest extent possible.

When you look at that, you can’t help but conclude that neither party follows those principles. The Dems are government-oriented all the way, and the more centralized, the better. The social “safety net” is grotesquely inadequate for those who cannot help themselves. Rather, the Dems always seems to propose across-the-board “middle class welfare” that encourages, rather than discourages overdependence on government. The Repubs seem to think “big business” is inherently benign and that if it flourishes, everyone will automatically flourish. Both concepts are contrary to the social encyclicals.

If this country really acted in accord with Church principles, the Dem TALK about helping the poor would result in something better than the miserable support the real poor actually receive, and the Repub TALK about things like privatization of social security contributions so that people actually OWNED their retirement programs and Repub tax reductions were directed more to families with children rather than being “across the board” reductions, we would come a lot closer.

I agree with GoofyJim that the “non-negotiables” are paramount in at least this election cycle. Abortion and its “progeny”; cloning and euthanasia have, in my opinion, corrupted the Dem party to the point that it is its paramount value, and the party can never be a useful social instrument until it is purged of that poison pill. The recomposition of the Supreme Court should be the number one priority at this time. If that goal is accomplished (and Catholics will determine it in 2008, to our credit or our shame) then attention can and should be turned to social issues. And just as Catholics should vote in accordance with the Church’s position on abortion, they should then vote in accordance with the social encyclicals. But before making assumptions about which party most nearly complies on particular social issues, Catholics need to learn what the social encyclicals really say, and how they can best be applied. And in my opinion, the U.S. bishops should be the first to undertake that study, as their occasional commentaries on “social justice” seem pretty persuasive to me that they don’t understand them.

We are required to follow the hierarchy on the moral issues but not the economic ones. Those are left to freedom of choice. As I said before the Church’s expertise is not the economy. It is faith and morals. Whether one wants to use supply side economics, the Keynesian economic theory, or whatever is left to the individual to prove purely on a secular basis.

 

[SoCalRC]

We are required to follow the hierarchy on the moral issues but not the economic ones. Those are left to freedom of choice. As I said before the Church’s expertise is not the economy. It is faith and morals. Whether one wants to use supply side economics, the Keynesian economic theory, or whatever is left to the individual to prove purely on a secular basis.

But we have a very specific obligation with regards to the goal of the economy. This is spelled out in the Catechism and was the subject of Pope Benedict’s second Encyclical (reiterating principles from an encyclical promulgated 40 years prior).

I think that is what helps drive this conversations in a predictable fashion. We actually have a Catholic obligation towards socially just economic development. So an economy that increases ultra weath and poverty, while dampening fiscal mobility, is a moral problem for Catholics.

That happens to match precisely what we have now. Then add a second attack on the issue of basic fiscal competency - the ability to manage an economy in a remotely responsible fashion. Just 3 weeks ago, the President gave a speech declaring that all indicators suggested that the US economy is the strongest it has been “in US history”. Now the President is asking for a 140B stimulous package to avert a recession. How, exactly, did we go from the healthiest economy ever to being ‘on the brink’ in just three weeks?

The bailout proposal itself also seems to raise some issues. The President appears to be proposing taking money out of the nation’s (virtually everyone’s) social security fund and redistributing it to everyone except those at about 200% of the poverty rate and below. Again, this brings us back to the a moral responsiblity as Catholics.

Rather than disucss this, we inevitably start hearing calls that it does not matter if a party runs up national debt and runs the economy into the dumps, abortion trumps all issues. But, as I have shown, this is not the Church’s stated position. So the conversation will loop back and repeat…

 

[Texas_Roofer]

… add a second attack on the issue of basic fiscal competency - the ability to manage an economy in a remotely responsible fashion…Now the President is asking for a 140B stimulous package to avert a recession. …The bailout proposal itself also seems to raise some issues. … redistributing it to everyone except those at about 200% of the poverty rate and below. Again, this brings us back to the a moral responsiblity as Catholics.

Rather than disucss this, we inevitably start hearing calls that it does not matter if a party runs up national debt and runs the economy into the dumps, abortion trumps all issues. But, as I have shown, this is not the Church’s stated position. So the conversation will loop back and repeat…

Here, here, I second your motion. Consider this, expenditures to increase education could both boost the economy and reduce unplanned pregnancy. Students are typically poor and thus spend the money immediately on unfulfilled needs. So why not? Well business men are not the target audience.

 

[SoCalRC]

Here, here, I second your motion. Consider this, expenditures to increase education could both boost the economy and reduce unplanned pregnancy. Students are typically poor and thus spend the money immediately on unfulfilled needs. So why not? Well business men are not the target audience.

See, we can agree on things… But if you look back to my first post (way back on page one), all those issues seem to apply. We nearly doubled our national debt in about 6 years, are spending $2B+ on two wars, all while slashing taxes massively, primarily on the wealthy (of 270B in Bush tax cuts, about $180B went to the top 10% ($90B of that went to the top 1.5%).

I’ve very much like to see us invest in our own future, but we have to pay for it in a way that does not unduly burden our descendants. Right now we have a double whammy, pro-inflation policies coming to roost (hampering the Fed’s ability to infuse cash) at the same time that private capitol has a fundemental problem of equity (not cash flow, equity).

We’ve given ourselves so few options, that I find myself agreeing with the Fed Chairman, who has not impressed me to date.

 

[psr13]

But we have a very specific obligation with regards to the goal of the economy. This is spelled out in the Catechism and was the subject of Pope Benedict’s second Encyclical (reiterating principles from an encyclical promulgated 40 years prior).

I think that is what helps drive this conversations in a predictable fashion. We actually have a Catholic obligation towards socially just economic development. So an economy that increases ultra weath and poverty, while dampening fiscal mobility, is a moral problem for Catholics.

That happens to match precisely what we have now. Then add a second attack on the issue of basic fiscal competency - the ability to manage an economy in a remotely responsible fashion. Just 3 weeks ago, the President gave a speech declaring that all indicators suggested that the US economy is the strongest it has been “in US history”. Now the President is asking for a 140B stimulous package to avert a recession. How, exactly, did we go from the healthiest economy ever to being ‘on the brink’ in just three weeks?

The bailout proposal itself also seems to raise some issues. The President appears to be proposing taking money out of the nation’s (virtually everyone’s) social security fund and redistributing it to everyone except those at about 200% of the poverty rate and below. Again, this brings us back to the a moral responsiblity as Catholics.

Rather than disucss this, we inevitably start hearing calls that it does not matter if a party runs up national debt and runs the economy into the dumps, abortion trumps all issues. But, as I have shown, this is not the Church’s stated position. So the conversation will loop back and repeat…

Um, there is no social security fund. Social security tax money goes into the general tax fund. Sorry to burst your bubble. Why am I even paying social security? I’m 21, and by the time I’m old enough there won’t be any left for me.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Um, there is no social security fund. Social security tax money goes into the general tax fund. Sorry to burst your bubble. Why am I even paying social security? I’m 21, and by the time I’m old enough there won’t be any left for me.

Yes and No, the SS funds are loaned back to the government to cover deficits. However if we did not run deficits the funds would be loaned out through the Federal Reserve System. The issue is we drain the capital market through deficits rather than supply the capital market with a small surplus. The issues spiral because the government now has to be involved in everything to keep all others loaning to the US Federal Government. If a surplus existed we could lower taxes and simply not care about the business of others. When you are 70 SS will exist the last thing government will do is kill their cash cow! You will have to be older to draw, and it will be taxable in some forms. That is where the system went wrong as the life expectancy rose 20 years or more the age to draw remained constant so from the 1970’s and through we have been running deficits inside SS. We should be paying 8% tax with no employer match. Today we pay 7.65% direct plus a hidden 7.65% is collected from our employer, that’s 15.3%. About 7-8% pays for our retirement while the rest is used to pay back for an irresponsible Congress.

Hope that helps

 

[Ridgerunner]

There are three basic problems with this argument. First, (Roberts and Alito) both upheld Roe and Casey in Carhart Absolutely, totally wrong. The rules in Roe and Casey were not the law of the case, nor were they before the Court. In any event, the majority is still pro-abortion, by one. You might also reflect on the fact that the Chief Justice (Roberts) has the greatest power in deciding what cases will be accepted by the Court. Do you really think he didn’t know in advance that Kennedy would at least vote in favor of bans on partial-birth abortions before he accepted the case? Why, if the avowedly prolife candidates aren’t going to change the composition of the Court, does the abortion lobby think so?

Second, there is no evidence that even overturning Roe v. Wade will eliminate abortion in the US. It would simply make it a matter for the states. ** Whether it would be left to the states depends on how the Court might overrule the abortion cases. There will be abortions anyway, you say, so why allow its regulation or prohibition? You could say the same about infanticide or rape. Possily some states would allow abortion on demand to continue. Possibly not. Probably few, if any, would make it an absolute right, because few people support that. **

Third, your profession that voting purely on a single issue is a clear test of one’s spiritual committment is deeply heretical. Catholics are called upon to be unwaveringly pro-life, not just anti-abortion. These teachings have the support of multiple Popes and the authority of ecumenical council. Rome has clearly instructed us on how to properly apply this to voting:
** Oh, I never said that voting on a single issue is a clear test of one’s spiritual commitment. Only God knows the state of any person’s soul. But that doesn’t mean I can’t oppose objective evil. To support abortion is clearly sinful. There is no countervailing and more serious moral issue presently in the balance. What, exactly and in detail, is your pro-abortion candidate going to do that, to you, overbalances the evil of abortion?**

There are 9 broad principles,:**Please quote for me, then, the statement by the Pope, or from the Catechism if you prefer, that says it’s not sinful to support abortion. Then tell me, concretely, (no platitudes or generalities, please) what your pro-abortion candidate is going to do that is greater in importance than one million innocent lives per year. **

The reason is that compromising our pro-life stance, which includes life in every stage (fertilization to natural death) and in every state (rich, poor, sickness, health), devalues life over all, as the Church explains:**And how many millions die each year in the U.S. because of poverty? How many are dismembered because of it? Please give me the statistics. Poverty can be addressed in the next election cycle, and the next and the next, because the poor will live. The unborn millions will not./B]

Picking and chosing when and how to apply our teaching on life is what Pope Benedict calls “moral relatism”. And who did that? Tell us how many millions of innocents are going to be saved from death by your pro-abortion candidate, and how, exactly, it’s going to be effected. Maybe you can persuade me still. Or, you could just say you favor abortion on demand, and want to persuade Catholics to vote for those who support it.**

Similiarly, there are faiths which put great emphasis on the moral conclussions of the individual but, again, Catholicism is not one of them. It is a matter of Canon Law, the Dogmatic Constitution, and the Catechism, lay members simply cannot proclaim themselves to be morally superior in interpreting and applying Church doctrine than the Magesterium.And how is one proclaiming himself to be morally superior in stating an absolute; that supporting abortion is a moral evil, and observing that neither party has done jack for the unfortunate in decades, and may therefore be reasonably doubted when either of them claims they now will do so? I’m sorry to be this way, but it is you who are sitting in judgment (subjective) of politically conservative positions on matters of prudential judgment, and have found them so gravely immoral that their immorality overbalances the (objective) evil of abortion, upon which prudential judgment may not be exercised. And I am the one who is assuming moral superiority?

 

[Al_Masetti]

I want to post a brief remark and then come back to this thread later.

My quick response: it depends …

… it depends on what the specifics are on a stimulus package.

I will read the pevious posts and come back.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Yes and No, the SS funds are loaned back to the government to cover deficits.

No, they are simply taken and spent.

In fact, the IRS calculates what is paid in FICA taxes – the FICA tax isn’t even tracked separately!!

The Social Security Administration tells IRS what they need each month, and they get that amount. The rest is kept in the General Fund, and a book-keeping entry is made that the government “owes” the Social Security Administration so much money.

No interest has ever been paid on a single dime of the “trust fund.”

 

[Texas_Roofer]

No, they are simply taken and spent.

In fact, the IRS calculates what is paid in FICA taxes – the FICA tax isn’t even tracked separately!!

The Social Security Administration tells IRS what they need each month, and they get that amount. The rest is kept in the General Fund, and a book-keeping entry is made that the government “owes” the Social Security Administration so much money.

No interest has ever been paid on a single dime of the “trust fund.”

So why did you use “No” the IRS is not the Treasury or even the Office of Management & Budget (OMB). The IRS is correct to collect the tax because it is a tax pure and simple. Once it was thought this could be an insurance fund, however Congress got involved and now it is a tax. Insurance is volunteer taxes are not. If you look I called it the “cash cow” which is what it is, because many think it is not a true tax.

 

[vern_humphrey]

So why did you use “No” the IRS is not the Treasury or even the Office of Management & Budget (OMB). The IRS is correct to collect the tax because it is a tax pure and simple. Once it was thought this could be an insurance fund, however Congress got involved and now it is a tax. Insurance is volunteer taxes are not. If you look I called it the “cash cow” which is what it is, because many think it is not a true tax.

It is indeed a cash cow – and as a tax, it is a regressive tax, which means low wage earners pay a higher percentage than the highest paid wage earners.

And consider this – the “Social Security Trust Fund” is more than 20% of our National Debt. When the FICA tax starts bringing in less than Social Security pays out, we will get the double whammy – instead of milking that cash cow, we’ll have to start feeding it.

Does anybody think we can actually pay down 20% of our national debt? And do it without the Social Security surplus?