E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) admitted this morning that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops had a moral point to their letter criticizing the House GOP Budget drafted by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) for its cuts to safety net programs valued by the poor saying, “Yes,” but he wished “they’d take a bigger look and the bigger look is if we don’t make decision these programs won’t exist.”
Yesterday the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops sent letters to various House Committees asking them to “resist” some of the trillions in dollars of cuts called for in the Ryan Budget. In a letter to the House Agriculture Committee the bishops said to members “resist for moral and human reasons unacceptable cuts to hunger and nutrition programs.” The letter continued “if savings need to be achieved, cuts to agricultural subsidies and direct payments should be considered before cutting anti-hunger programs that help feed poor and vulnerable people.”
When asked by NBC News about the letters, Boehner, a church-going Catholic, said America’s debt was what distressed him. “What's more of a concern to me is the fact that if we don't start to make some decisions about getting our fiscal house in order there won't be a safety net," he said. "There won't be these programs.”
Boehner, though, also acknowledged the importance of America’s social safety net, calling it "critically important."
“And so, when you look at the fact we have to make hard decisions, it's about trying to make sure that we're able to preserve these programs that are critically important for the poorest in our society," he said.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops wading into policy fights on Capitol Hill is nothing new. The group was steadfastly opposed to healthcare reform unless there was a guarantee that no taxpayer money could be involved in subsidizing abortion.
Earlier this year, the bishops actively opposed the Obama administration’s ruling that contraception should be covered in the insurance plans of religiously affiliated employers who may be opposed to such methods of birth control.
Catholic Democratic members have been critical of the bishops in the past for not focusing enough on another tenet of Catholic doctrine, the aiding of the poor. One House Democrat of the Catholic faith who asked not to be named, told NBC News, “I’m glad they’re finally being consistent lobbying for Catholic teaching.”
Leave a Comment:
It is called balance for a reason.
We cannot offset the debt problem off the backs of the disadvantaged - while protecting those of means!
Until the GNOP acknowledges the only way to start addressing this mess is through not only cutting spending but increases in revenue the country will remain in a stale-mate!
It wasn't the Democrats who walked away from a 4 trillion dollar deal last August...
Spin that Boehner!
Wow .. Otis is still at work he must be white knuckling it !
The letter addressed one section of the budget plan -- a plan that tackles everything from entitlement reform, reduce spending and tax reform. Not the entire plan. This is a Luke Russert spin hack piece. His father is asking God right now to let him come back to kick some journalistic sense into the boy. The story is that the Catholic Bishops support the vast majority of the budget plan and asked that one area be looked at for reform. No one expects any bill to be passed and signed without some amendments and changes.
If the Buffoon Rule is a start then so isn't the Ryan Budget.
We are broke Fiesty. In debt and more so everyday. I don't care who is the president or who runs congress. But cuts are coming whether we want them are not. So the only solution I have seen from you, is get the rich to cover the cost.
Red,
You owe me a keyboard! lol
Ya know it's always 5:00 somewhere...
Like I said, it wasn't the Democrat's who walked away & as long as people like you believe the only way out is cutting - we will continue with stale mate!
You are part of the problem - not the solution!
Ever heard of; "give & take"?
Diet Pepsi everywhere ? That why i keep my " To Catch a Predator Sweet Tea " in a covered container with a swirly straw. ;-)
Wrong Red.
Actually, the reality is that we cannot continue to provide safety nets for the disadvantaged while destroying those who invest in business, who help create new jobs and help grow the economy.
Red's wrong again.
Obama's asinine spending IS THE PROBLEM. There is no way for revenue to keep up with much less catch up with the libs historic spending insanity.
Bush had revenue in 2007 of $2.568 trillion with spending of $2.728 trillion for a deficit of $160.7 billion.
Obama had revenue in 2011 of $2.173 trillion with spending of $3.818 trillion for a deficit of $1.645 trillion – 10 TIMES Bush’s deficit!
Yea that is the extreme example ....
Bush (2001-2008) - $2.006 Trillion / 8 years; $251 Billion per year
Obama (2009-2012) - $5.33 Trillion / 4 years; $1.333 Trillion per year
Obama's real spending is only FIVE TIMES the biggest spender previously.
The mysterious plan that was only in Obama's head?
What a laugh, especially when what he actually puts down, such as the Buffett Rule, turns out to only cut .003% of his deficit ... that would take over 500 years to negate this years deficit alone.
Yea spin away Red.
Excuse please, I keep hearing that for three years Obama has not got a budget passed so who's budget are we spending from and again a little reminder it is not the president that holds the check book it is the house and senate. but again again whos budget are we running on since Obama has none. Could it be......nawww no way could not be.
Tis,
You are right.
The repubs have not stood up to Obama's "throwing grandma on the street" demagoguery.
Thank God they did gain control of the House in 2010 and have and at least stemmed the rate of bleeding allowing for a few jobs, a little modest growth that wouldn't have happened otherwise.
2012 is the only real answer.
You have got to be kidding! Tax rates for the 'job creators' have been at all time Bush's first term. Where are the frigg'n jobs? At the very top are hedge fund managers who create nothing but wealth for themselves and a few investors.
Back in the Eisenhower years the top rate was 91%. The result? The rich invested in manufacturing and other job creation industries to avoid the high tax rate.
This is the lie the gnop perpetuates. The best lies have a little truth mixed in. So, yes the rich will invest when the tax rate is high. That's the part you leave out.
What this is is just the asinine starve the beast theory of government, along with the lame, debunked trickle down theory.
Most of the debt is the result of massive tax cuts that mainly benefit those who have admitted they don't need it and two wars started off the books.
Obama never said the Buffet rule was a debt cure, that's your spin. What it represents is fairness and everyone chipping in. The vast majority of Americans support this, including many of the super rich.
Bob you really need to take a class on comprehension. If the government does not pass a new budget it can only run on past budgets or temporary ones as this House has done. They just keep passing little extentions and who has had the control over that, give you a hint (GOP). They have been controlling the budget not democrates, remember the debt ceiling and how well that worked out (GOP). So "Thank God they did gain control of the House in 2010" Yep thats when things really started to sprial down, you can not run any democratic government with a my way or the highway mentality, if you do it is not a democracy any longer. And as for allowing a few jobs an modest growth explain how the GOP has done that since 2010 they have had nothing but social issues on their agenda. Please Bob step off the cloud you need to find ground.
Bob:
Where did the $3.818 trillion in spending come from? What programs initiated by Obama raised the spending to that level. We know about the stimulus in 2010. What happened in 2011?
I think some of it may be safety net payouts (food stamps, unemployment, etc), but what has Obama done to raise spending?
Secret Boehner memo to Catholic bishops released!
Jon Martz:
In addition, everyone who has a job pays toward medicare. Dividends are not subject to the medicare tax so those hedge fund managers don't pay towards medicare.
Thanks for pointing out that low tax rates for the rich means they don't invest in jobs.
Clinton’s best year, 2000, generated revenue of $2.025 trillion.
(After Bush’s tax cuts in 2003 had time to take effect:)
Bush’s revenue in 2005 was $2.153 trillion. 6% above Clinton’s best year.
Bush’s revenue in 2006 was $2.406 trillion. 16% above Clinton’s best.
Bush’s revenue in 2007 was $2.568 trillion. 21% above Clinton’s best.
Bush’s revenue in 2008 was $2.524 trillion. 20% above Clinton’s best.
So how again, does that tax cut stuff “cost” trillions in revenue?
[Source was OMB, Historical Tables, Table 1.3, 25-MAR-11]
Regarding the wars ... the 8 year cost was $760 billion .... less than 1/2 of Obama's spending last year alone.
Actually, that was when unemployment first dropped below 9% after 2 years, dummie.
No, that is exactly what democracy is ... the repubs are elected by the people and did what the people who elected them to do ... slow/stop Obama.
It is called base line.
Obama raised the level of spending with the stimulus initiatives/programs and libs would scream bloody murder if that level of spending is not continued ... they would be CUTS to the poor ... to the teachers ... the fire fighters ... the police ...infrastructure .... blah blah blah
Are there not any of you guys that have a clue?
Bob you calling anybody else dummies is a real joke.
www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html?_r=1
Simple colored chart may be even you (bob) could understand. Well may be not.
Church & State Magazine / By Rob Boston
Right-Wing Religion's War on America
Many in America's Catholic leadership and on the evangelical right claim there's a war on religion. In fact, they are waging a war on individual liberties.
April 9, 2012 |
From a posh residence in the heart of New York City that has been described as a "mini-mansion," Cardinal Timothy Dolan is perhaps the most visible representative of an American church empire of 60 million adherents and vast financial holdings.
Dolan and his fellow clergy move easily through the corridors of political power, courted by big-city mayors, governors and even presidents. In the halls of Congress, they are treated with a deference no secular lobbyist can match.
From humble origins in America, the church has risen to lofty heights marked by affluence, political influence and social respect. Yet, according to church officials, they are being increasingly persecuted, and their rights are under sustained attack.
The refrain has become commonplace: There is a "war on religion." Faith is under assault. The administration of President Barack Obama has unleashed a bombardment on religion unlike anything ever seen.
The average American would be hard-pressed to see evidence of this "war." Millions of people meet regularly in houses of worship. What's more, those institutions are tax exempt. Many denominations participate in taxpayer-funded social service programs. Their clergy regularly speak out on the issues of the day. In the political arena, religious leaders are treated with great respect.
Furthermore, religious organizations often get special breaks that aren't accorded to their secular counterparts. Houses of worship aren't required to report their income to the Internal Revenue Service. They don't have to apply for tax-exempt status; they receive it automatically as soon as they form. Religious entities are routinely exempted from employment laws, anti-discrimination measures and even routine health and safety inspections.
Unlike secular lobbies, religious groups that work with legislators on Capitol Hill don't have to register with the federal government and are free from the stringent reporting requirements imposed on any group that seeks to influence legislation.
Religion in America would seem to be thriving in this "hands-off" atmosphere, as evidenced by church attendance rates, which in the United States tend to be higher than any other Western nation. So where springs this "war on religion" talk?
Twin dynamics, mutually related and interdependent, are likely at work. On one hand, some religious groups are upping their demands for even more exemptions from general laws. When these are not always extended, leaders of these groups scream about hostility toward religion and say they are being discriminated against. This catches the attention of right-wing political leaders, who toss gasoline on the rhetorical fires.
A textbook example of this occurred during the recent flap over coverage of contraceptives under the new health care reform. The law seeks to ensure a baseline of coverage for all Americans, and birth control is included. Insurance firms that contract with companies must make it available with no co-pays.
Houses of worship are exempt from this requirement. But religiously affiliated organizations, such as church-run hospitals, colleges and social service agencies, are dealt with differently. The insurance companies that serve them must make contraceptives available to the employees of these entities, but the religious agencies don't have to pay for them directly.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) attacked this policy and insisted that it violates the church's right of conscience. Furthermore, the hierarchy insisted that all private employers should also have the right to deny any medical coverage that conflicts with their beliefs – no matter what the religious views of their employees.
The issue quickly became mired in partisan politics. Claims of a "war on religion" expand on long-held Religious Right seasonal claims of an alleged "war on Christmas." The assertions of yuletide hostility paid great dividends to the Religious Right. They boosted groups' fund-raising efforts and motivated some activists to get involved in politics.
Religious Right leaders and their allies in the Catholic hierarchy are hoping for a similar payoff through their claims of a war on religion.
With the economy improving, Republicans may be on the verge of losing a powerful piece of ammunition to use against Obama. The party's Religious Right faction is eager to push social issues to the front and center as a way of mobilizing the base.
Many political leaders are happy to parrot this line. For the time being, they've latched on to the birth control issue as their leading example of this alleged war.
To hear these right-wing politicians tell it, asking a religiously affiliated institution that is heavily subsidized with taxpayer funds to allow an insurance company to provide birth control to those who want it is a great violation of "religious liberty."
In mid February, House members went so far as to hold a hearing on the matter before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, stacking it with a bevy of religious leaders who oppose the rule on contraceptives. Among them was Bishop William E. Lori of Bridgeport, Conn., who heads up a new Catholic lobbying effort on this and other social issues.
Americans United submitted testimony to the committee, but Republicans on the panel denied the Democrats' request to hear testimony from Sandra Fluke, a student at Georgetown Law School who supports the contraceptive mandate, thus leaving the panel stacked with religious figures – mostly men – who are hostile to contraceptives. (See "No Fluke," April 2012 Church & State.)
The idea was to create the impression that the religious community – and by extension the American public – is up in arms over the regulation. In fact, the religious figures who spoke at the event were from ultra-conservative traditions that represent just one segment of religion in America. Many religious leaders and denominations support access to contraceptives, and several polls have shown support for the Obama administration's position hovering at around 65 percent. (Polls also show that many American Catholics disagree with the church hierarchy on this issue.)
This isn't surprising in a country where use of contraceptives is widespread. According to the Guttmacher Institute, 98 percent of women who engage in sexual activity will use at least one artificial form of birth control at some point in their lives.
Contraceptives are also often prescribed for medical reasons, such as shrinking ovarian cysts or relieving menstrual pain. Americans respect religious liberty, but most believe it can be maintained while safeguarding access to needed medications.
Most Americans, in fact, understand the need to balance rights. Religious organizations have the right to believe and preach what they want, but their ability to rely on government to help them spread these views is necessarily limited.
In addition, valid social goals can override an overly broad definition of religious liberty. In some states, fundamentalist Christian parents have been ordered by courts to take their children to doctors. The theory is that a child's right to live free of sickness and disease outweighs the parents' religious liberty concerns.
In addition, religious liberty has not traditionally been construed as license to trample on the rights of others.
"People who cry moral indignation about government-mandated contraception coverage appear unwilling to concede that the exercise of their deeply held convictions might infringe on the rights of millions of people who are burdened by unplanned pregnancy or want to reduce abortion or would like to see their tax dollars committed to a different purpose," wrote Erika Christakis, an early childhood educator and administrator at Harvard College, on a Time magazine blog recently.
The courts have long recognized this need to balance rights. In the late 19th century, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down plural marriage, which was then practiced by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Mormon practice, the court held, was disruptive to society and had no roots in Western tradition; thus it could be banned.
In the modern era, the court devised a test whereby government could restrict religious liberty if it could demonstrate a "compelling state interest" and that it had employed the "least restrictive means" to meets its goals.
That standard was tightened even further in 1990, when the Supreme Court handed down a decision in a case known as Employment Division v. Smith. The decision, written by arch-conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, held that government has no obligation to exempt religious entities from "neutral" laws that are "generally applicable."
Since then, many religious groups have turned to the political process to win exemptions from the law. Generally speaking, they've been very successful. In a ground-breaking 2006 New York Times series, the newspaper chronicled the various exemptions from the law granted to religious organizations covering areas like immigration, land use, employment regulations, safety inspections and others.
The Times reported that since 1989, "more than 200 special arrangements, protections or exemptions for religious groups or their adherents were tucked into Congressional legislation…." The paper noted that other breaks "have also been provided by a host of pivotal court decisions at the state and federal level, and by numerous rule changes in almost every department and agency of the executive branch."
But religious groups, like any other special interest, don't get everything they want. On occasions when they've failed, some religious organizations have been quick to complain that discrimination or a hostility toward religion did them in. In fact, political leaders might have simply concluded that certain demands of religious groups are not in the best interests of larger society.
Is there any evidence that Obama is stingier with exemptions than past administrations or that the president has it in for religious groups? Not really.
Under Obama, the "faith-based" initiative, an idea that goes back to the days of George W. Bush, has continued to flourish. Obama even stepped back from a vow he made while campaigning in 2008 to require religious groups that receive support from the taxpayer to drop discriminatory hiring policies.
Mother Jones magazine reported in February that if Obama is hostile to religion, he has an odd way of showing it.
"But all the outrage about religious freedom has overshadowed a basic truth about the Obama administration: When it comes to religious organizations and their treatment by the federal government, the Obama administration has been extremely generous," reported Stephanie Mencimer for the magazine. "Religious groups have benefited handsomely from Obama's stimulus package, budgets, and other policies. Under Obama, Catholic religious charities alone have received more than $650 million, according to a spokeswoman from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, where much of the funding comes from."
Obama's Justice Department hasn't always pleased religious conservatives, but it has hardly been hostile to faith. The department sided with the state of Arizona in defending at the Supreme Court a private school tax-credit scheme that overwhelmingly benefits religious schools, going so far as to assist with oral arguments before the justices. When a federal court struck down the National Day of Prayer as a church-state violation in 2010, the administration criticized the ruling and quickly filed an appeal.
"If Obama is 'warring' against religion, he's doing it with a popgun and a rubber knife," Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United, told The Washington Times recently. "On core religious freedom issues, they have been moderate, to a fault…. It's not much of a war."
Other observers note that in a nation where the government's regulatory touch over religiously affiliated institutions is exceedingly light, it's hard to take claims of a war on religion seriously.
"People who claim the government is hostile to religion are either insincere or uninformed," said Steven K. Green, director of the Center for Religion, Law and Democracy at Willamette University. "Religious entities enjoy a host of benefits and advantages that their non-religous counterparts lack.
Green, who was legal director at Americans United during the 1990's, added, "At the same time, many religious entities that enjoy exemptions from neutral regulations receive subsidies from the government for their operations. Rather than there being a 'war on religion,' the government surrendered its regulatory forces a long time ago."
The Church with the help of the Republican Party has blurred the lines between church and state. Stepping in to insert their demands really shows the hand of John Paul II and how more conservative the church has become. They should have no place in the political arena, not everyone, including many of their members, follow their dictates and as tax-exempt institutions they should respect that separation. Politicians serve all the people they represent regardless of their religious views and the Church is very wrong to 'punish' these representatives when they do not follow church doctrine in serving the people.
All you have to do is believe that a baby is a baby, whether in utero or born, and you become a right wing religious extremist. All you have to do is ask why if a pregnant mother is killed in an auto accident and her unborn fetus dies as a result, the driver is charged with two counts of vehicular manslaughter at the very least, but the same women can have an abortion and kill that same fetus, and it is a matter of choice.....Am I the only one here who sees the definition of life largely hinging on convenience rather than reality....and by everyone's definition, I become a wild eyed fanatic for noticing that there are huge gaps in the logic of the arguments used to justify abortion.
Well the church is now having a different view since the GOP is coming after the money and not forcing just a policy change.
See John Bonehead! We tried to tell you, you're with the WRONG corrupt political puppets! Get out now, while you still stand a chance!
Vote STRAIGHT DEMOCRATIC, the life you save may be your OWN!!!
Sober Speaker Boehner: "I will support the Catholic Church when it comes to regulating a woman's vagina but do not support the Catholic Church when it tells me I'm being inhumane with my cuts to assistance for the poor".
You are mean when sober Speaker Boehner! Go have a drink and get some sex from the many lobbyist who entertain you regularly.
We can never address the excesses in any program, nor the abuses, if we are not willing to put each and every program on the table for scrutiny. We cannot continue to use the words of "aid to the poor and disadvantaged" to become the equivalent of a sacred cow in India who is allowed to foul the streets with urine and feces, but cannot be touched, changed, altered in any way despite the harm that these behaviors do the community at large.
Sue-3329001,
Fascism is for you my friend! Hitler especially had similar ideas! Don't know what country practices Fascism these days but your aforementioned India may. Why not move if you prefer that?
Where I live at, we have, sadly a very large homeless community. And quite a few living in severe poverty. Our local Catholic parishes are being pushed to the brink in trying to help. The Ryan Plan does not help the cause.
That's why I and thousands of others who are more fortunate VOLUNTARILY stop each week when we grocery shop and pick up non-perishable items for the food pantries. Always ask your pantry what it is need of before buying -- FYI.
Ben,
I always try to buy an extra bag of groceries to donate. Love the idea of checking with the food bank. I will do that. (our grocery has a special area to put food donations). Thanks for the FYI. I will do that (and forward the idea to a few others I know who do that).
phine -
I agree, that's a good idea - but before we go looking to Ben for advice on feeding the hungry, perhaps we should check out his post at #6.1 below and the video clip he thinks is so hilarious. If he was really the soul of charity he would like us to believe, he would be ashamed to post either one.
JoAnne,
I accept a good idea for helping from anyone. My pay grade isn't high enough to judge someone. I leave that to the big guy!
Glad you enjoyed it JoAnne :-)!!!! I guess The Little Rascals, The Three Stooges, The Al Jolson Story, et. al. are all banned from viewing. We can disagree on policy and civility but both sides can do charitable things without being questioned by the other.
Thank you Phine. Be careful or you're are going to be kicked out of the club LMAO!!!!
Ben, I have already been kicked out!
Who are you trying to kid? YOU QUIT!
God lady, you're a liar!
Wonder what your plastic Jesus thinks of your fibbing...
Phine -- I thought I noticed that because they have been ignoring you on here over the past several weeks. Sorry.
Oh my dear God!!!! With that reaction, you were right to quit. Distance yourself from those self-righteous fanatics. It will get worse as their Titanic continues to sink. The personal attacks will never cease.
And you are blessed because of it! Keep up the good work! I know the Ryan plan does not help the cause but the system is also broken. There are a lot of people receiving entitlements that shouldn't.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-michigan-lottery-winner-welfare-fraud-20120417,0,1066427.story
Here is a story about a Michigan woman that won a million in the lottery cleared 500,000 after taxes, bought a second house a new car and was still collecting welfare. She said she "thought it was OK because I thought they would cut me off and I have 2 houses to pay for and no job"
Gee, ya think she should have thought about the job thing a little bit before buying a second house? Then she thinks it's OK to keep getting entitlements because heck she's been getting them her whole life right? Why should it change now? This is a pretty good example of how the system is broken and how there are people gaming it for every tax dollar we've got. Don't get me wrong I understand there are people who legitimately need help and I don't begrudge them it but the system has too many gaping holes that need filling. Something has to change. I honestly believe if our government could run these type of programs without corruption and waste, and with better guidelines, we wouldn't be in the financial pickle we are in now.
xxx
Phine,
I also believe you are blessed for quitting the Feisty hate club, congratulations on your revelation.
Personal attacks matter not to me any more. If truth were to be told, the presidential election is not the be all and end all to our problems. The real power is in the legislative power of the states and Congress. That is where the fight should take place.
I have a deep, personal faith. The "kicked out of the club" is a personal joke with a few other posters. But, Feisty, if it makes you feel better to attack me, go for it. I just don't care anymore.
96ws6:
She was caught so the system isn't completely broken. And I agree that fraud costs us a lot. So should we throw the baby out with the bath water and eliminate all safety nets? I think we need to put on our thinking caps and come up with new ways to bust the criminals who ruin our safety nets by committing fraud.
Time for a national id card with a picture, fingerprints, and possibly retinal patterns encoded on the card. Would have to be used when cashing a check, voting, getting a job, applying for benefits, going to the doctor, etc. Crosschecks citizenship, job status, voter status, etc. Kinda' reeks of Big Brother, but if you want to reduce fraud, illegal immigration, identity theft, voter fraud (not voter registration fraud), etc. ... some liberties will have to go. The alternative is to ignore those who need the most help.
It isn't what you do when someone is watching, it's what you do when no one is watching that will get you through the pearly gates.
phine,
California is four votes away from a democratic super majority. Lets see how that plays out.
Phine do you realize that its what pink flamingos eat that gives them their pinkish color....just throwing it out there.
Rable, rable to the rest of you!
rot,
I don't know what flamingos eat. Just think they are pretty.
Great posts as usual, phine. Please keep them coming.
Your advice on food banks is spot on. Our local food bank is in a rural area. I cannot believe the need.When I first volunteered there many, many years ago it served only about fifty households. Now it is in the hundreds. Only thing I could add, is for donors of food to please keep in mind it takes gas money to haul donated foodstuffs to the site. Check out your local food bank and give them at least a five dollar donation. This has nothing to do with the election. The cost of transporting food goes back to the eighties. Better yet, contact your local food bank and offer to pick up the donations when you go shopping and then drop them off.
Every little effort counts.
Bleeryeyed,
As I said in my post I don't begrudge those that need it and we DO need a better system. But good GOD man! A National ID card?!?!? To even THINK about trying to fix this with more bureaucracy and more expanded government is NOT THE ANSWER! Sorry pal but I will not sacrifice any more liberty for the EMPTY promise (lie) of security or so my government can take care of me. I don't agree that the only other alternative is to turn our backs on people either. If the system was not such a mammoth mess it would be easier to manage. (and pay for) We need LESS government not more.
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin
AnaBanana-1782128
Go have a drink and get some sex from the many lobbyist you already entertain. You need both!
Here it is...
http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lwftdos9Up1qdmfbco1_500.gif
Then go out and eat a dog and snake. This reminds me of our president when reading his book. One of my favorite Our Gang episodes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xm-UzSz5UmY
Where is the democrats plan as to the entitlement programs? The only thing the democrats talk about is raise taxes so we can spend more. How many welfare programs do we now have, 10, 20, more, even the government can't tell us. Let's consolidate all of these programs into one, it would cut down on waste, fraud, and overhead. We have to rein in spending before raising taxes. I have said many times on these threads that cut spending, waste, fraud and duplication then we will consider tax increases. But just increasing taxes so we can spend more on uncontrolled programs is just plain nuts.
That's simply not going to work. The two can be acheived simultaneously and should be. We NEED MORE REVENUE any way you slice it. We cannot rely on cuts alone.
Sorry Bryan,
Cut the size of Government and the money it spends, put more of the tax money, back to the people. Then and only then will you see it stabalize.
Bryan,
You have to cut spending first, so you will know how much extra revenue you need, if any.
Yeah - because that's worked out so well the last 30 years... lol
Quit pissing on my leg and telling me it's raining!
The federal budget cannot be balanced by cuts alone. Conversely, increasing revenue (raising taxes) will not further this effort without spending restraint. Ironically, it will take a balance of cuts and added revenue to achieve a balanced budget. They have to occur in parallel to have a real chance of suceeding.
Fine with me. They can piss on you and not say anything for all I care. Is this country perfect -- by no means. But it is the greatest country in the world and even we are in bad shape due to obama, we are still better off than the rest of the world when it comes to opportunities, health, justice, etc. To say otherwise makes one look small. So small in fact you can't see them when you are pissing.
Fiesty,
When the previous tax cuts are not renewed and the parts that go with it, I will see a $3,500 increase next year taxes. That's 3,500 more to pay for your utopia, not my family.
Help me out here... who ran up the Chinese VISA card to enact these cuts?
Wasn't the theory suppose to be that they would create jobs?
Yet, we were hemorrhaging 750K per month at the end of 2008...
Figures don't lie but liars sure can figure!
Fiesty,
You are truly unable to grasp the concept that you and your followers are bent on the idea the 2008 economy was all of President Bush's making. I know this is a mute point. I work hard, I am not a economist, I am not a ultra right winger. But have to pay more for my business, pay more for my insurance, pay more for food, more for gas, have more paperwork and regulations under obama than I have ever had. That is not Bush's fault. You have your voice here, but you would not last two minutes in a real debate of thought and ideas in a free market society.
Fiesty,
In your case I am sure the government can probably do a better job managing the money. After all, your posting history implies that the government is where you get your money from. For the rest of us, we know how to spend our own money and would like to keep it that way instead of letting the government re-distribute it to folks like you. If you had a job other that being a paid blogger you probably wouldn't need the handout in the first place.
BTW who kept running up the Visa bill after promising to stop the Iraq war "by 2009"? Who ran up another 3 billion in Libya? Who is keeping the tab running in Afghanistan? We got Osama why are we still there. Why did the president set a pullout date after the elections when the Afghanistan war is so unpopular?
Sorry Charlie!
You know nothing about me & ASS-ume way too much my friend...
Raising taxes sure didn't work for California.
California has its own unique problems that have nothing to do with the US and its budget.
But Feisty, isn't this your manner in being critical of others? Read your own posts there Red.
I'd suggest posters who extol the many virtues of tax cuts and more tax cuts take a look at what has happened to the country in the 30 years since Reagan sold it; crumbling infrastructure, crumbling schools, declining middle class, declining wages for all but the favored few but huge increases in defense spending, unfunded wars, investment in the countries we broke by invading them but we cannot imagine raising taxes to invest in this country. People complain that the space program should not be allowed to die. Well, are those complainers willing to pay higher taxes to fund it because we sure as heck can't afford to borrow the money. Why all these problems? Because Government stopped investing in this country; invested way too much in military power to fight some bogeyman who might give us a problem. Those wages would not be declining IF this country could afford to invest in itself and if the citizens of this country decided that too low a tax rate does not solve problems, it actually creates them. Somethings cannot be done by private business or by individuals, it requires local, state and federal governments to do them and in order for that to happen, it means we pay taxes.
Having lived in California for many years, their idiot "referendums" on everything is the state's problem. They elect a House and Senate but just about everything requires the citizens to vote on it; their requirements for a super majority for things that should be a simple majority doesn't help either. California's Congress is the equivalent of the US Senate with the arcane and ridiculous filibuster--it makes government dysfunctional. California, like many other states, suffered as the result of the Great Recession.
Jody, Iowa,
If you lived in CA at one time, then you know the state is always saying that 'what happens in CA filters down to the other states.' - progressive leaders.
Currently, our dysfunctional legislature, controlled by Democrats for years, is spending money faster than money is taken in. Budgets are prepared in a room with smoke and mirrors, for those crazy spending Democrats use questionable accounting methods and unique assumptions to pass budgets.
And for those who love to increase taxes, businesses are relocating out of state to other states like TX and NV to get out of the tax situation. Unemployment here is above the national average but to continue to drive out business, the legislature passed a 'cap and trade' bill that they believe will provide them with funding. Right.
Those crazy democrats also want to tax those crazy people who make $250K a year because they earn too much. No much for crazy CA taxed folks.
Our current governor, Moonbeam II, now wants to spend in excess of $100B for a train to no where. All current studies from independent auditing firms show that it can't happen without large federal government grants (your tax money folks) and ridership can't support the upkeep. But the HSR authority keeps presenting data that will amaze you.
In addition to the spending, we have over 400 State agencies that regulate the snot from you. Each agency is headed by a termed out professional state politician appointed by the current governor, has a staff, and spends money like the GSA!
Yep, it starts in CA and migrates to the Federal Government. Or are the Feds already there?
I guess the republicans would have been happier if we continued losing 750,000 jobs a month like was happening when Bush left office. I guess they wont be happy until every person in this country is unemployed. They keep saying they are worse off today than 4 years ago, guess Obama should have not taken that stimulus to stop the bleeding, then they would truely be worse off and really feeling it.
Why won't the Republicans politicians listen to bipartisan committees that suggest we gradually increase the eligibility age for some of these programs and achieve the needed savings to prevent cuts in Social Security and Medicare? President Obama has recommended this, saying the President Reagan took this approach. Sadly, Paul Ryan can't stand President Reagan's approach.
Why won't Republicans politicians listen to bipartisan committees that suggest $1 in tax increases for every $3 is spending cuts? When Democrats offered $3 trillion in cuts in exchange for $1 triillion in revenue (mostly from wealthy), Republicans cried. Even when Democrats suggest millionaires be banned from paying a lower tax rate than 99% of Americans, Republicans say $46 billion in revenue is nothing.
Only to Republican politicians and their Political Action Committees, is $46 billion nothing. The rest of America calls $46 billion in debt reduction a good start.
Why does the Ryan budget call for increasing military spending and cuts to programs for the poor and elderly?
I'm sorry, but Ryan and Republican politicians (including Romney) know that there are plenty of morally acceptable options. In fact, options that President Obama and President Reagan agree upon. Sadly, Ryan and Romney refuse to listen. Instead they tell lies attempting to gain even more power. If you ask me Ryan and Romney are like the serpent in the Garden of Eden. They tell lies attempting to corrupt and gain power.
Debbie - outstanding comment!
We have to start somewhere and until Republican's lose the all or nothing approach, the status quo will remain.
Debbie, Republicans don't care who starves or has no affordable health care.
As long as Mitt & Co. get to exploit American businesses and there is no uproar, nothing will ever change. Mitt talks as if he put a hard hat on and you know - worked.
He never worked.
Daily Kos: SNAP happens to be one of the programs Republicans plan to cut in order to pay for tax breaks for millionaires and to give the Pentagon more money than it even wants. If Paul Ryan, John Boehner, and their fellow Republican Catholics in Congress think we should be following the moral dictates of the Church, they might want to reconsider those Church-endorsed programs that bishops say address "the needs of the hungry, the homeless and the unemployed first" and "reflect the shared responsibility of government and other institutions to promote the common good of all, especially 'workers and families who struggle to live in dignity in difficult economic times.'"
For the same reason obama did not listen to his own bipartisan commission.
The daily KOS is a rag. A POS!!!!! Anyone who makes blanket statements about people who you know have family and friends that are struggling like many of us are are talking out of their asses and it sticks like sh&t. Put a sock in it Pat and make some reasonable statements and maybe just maybe you might have some validity.
Hey what difference does it make as long as we are winning hearts and minds in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Debbie,
Maybe it is because it isn't fair to listen to excessive spending policy programs.
Well that is mighty Christian of the Bishops, they should poke their nose out of politics altogether or lose their tax free status.
Didn't know that having a tax free status took away one's right to Free Speech. That is an interesting interpretation of the Constitution you have there.
There is a priest that does political commentary on Fox, and they talk politics from the lectern all the time at my parish, I'm sick and tired of politics from preachers and preaching from politicians Ben.
Sounds like you need to find a new Parish there Grump. I don't hear anything of the sort at mine.
That would be too easy Rocco, I have outlasted many a parish priest and will likely outlast this goofy kid. I threw down on him in the back of church a couple of months ago and damn near had him in tears, he knew he was in the wrong about the matter at hand that day, (church finances) he admitted it, after I called him a liar, and asked if he would like for me to hear his confession. If I drop dead and he does the funeral mass the little sh!tazz will probably do a dance when they get to the cemetery. They are scraping the bottom of the barrel for some of these priests nowadays.
If everybody has the same rate, the left won't be happy. They don't want "equality." They claim they do, but they don't. They don't want "fairness." They claim they do, but they don't. They want inequality, and they want unfairness on the people they wanna punish, which is most everybody. But I understand the FairTax, flat tax. Everybody charged the same thing and we're all equal in this, and make it work on the spending side. And I couldn't agree more.
I think the biggest difference is attitude towards what is fair.
Some would say that the most fair is that everyone pay the same dollar amount.
Some would say that the most fair is that everyone pay the same rate.
Some here seem to think the most fair would be that everyone have the same dollar amount left after taxes.
Ben:
Must be those "reasonable" statements have to match what YOU believe is reasonable, eh????? From which side of the bed did you arise today?
If you believe that stating "Republicans don't care who starves or who have affordable health care" whatever that means is a reasonable statement from an intelligent being, then so be it. It is an assine, idiotic, inane statement and I stand by that.
MRWSR, provide examples please...
What examples would you like. Have made several post, not sure which one you are referring to.
Ben,
There used to be thoughtful, moderate republicans who did care about their fellow citizens. They have been gradually purged from the current gop/tp. Heck, Reagan couldn't get elected dogcatcher by the current group.
What we see now is radicals who want to take us back to the time of the robber barons. You're rich because God loves you and poor because he doesn't and you're lazy.
This is not a shock. History has demonstrated, time and time again, that, when things get tough, a certain segment of society will seek to blame the 'other' for problems that exist. Demagouges rise up and play to people's fears and many take the bait. Those who preach tolerance and unity are denounced as subversives. The sorta good news is after reality sets, usually by the fear mongers gaining power and showing their true selves, people begin to calm down and wake up.
The current gop/tp has alienated just about every major voting block. That's not a reult of 'left wing' propaganda, it's the result of their own actions and policies. As conservative commentator P.J. O'Rourke has noted, the right complains about how gov't doesn't work, then gets elected and proves the point.
Nicely worded Jon.
If the Repukes are so damned concerned about our National Debt why don't they stop proposing giving tax breaks to the wealthy so that we have to borrow more money from China,to pay for those tax breaks?We only have so much money to go around,so why do the Repukes keep wanting to give it to China instead of spending it on Americans?The Ryan Budget doesn't balance the budget until 2040,after they have stripped Medicare,Medicaid,Social Security,Education,Transportation,H.U.D.,H.H.S.,the Postal Service,Dept. of Energy,and every other federal program except the Pentagon and they want to cut their healthcare and pensions.
Is it not true the sole responablity for the Government of the United States is to protect the people.
Romney plans to give millionaires more in tax cuts if elected. Republicans voted to retain tax subsidies for the most profitable industry companies in world history. There is nothing left for the poor. They are the cause of the national debt and the lack of a colony on the moon.
It says "In God We Trust" on the money. What more could God want than that?
Utter dishonesty, speaker Boehner. I'd say "shame on you", but I know that you have none.
Cuts to social programs are not a means to an end for Republicans. The cuts are the end goal, in and of themselves. If they were true fiscal conservatives, they would not rule out revenue increases. They would not rule out cuts to military spending. They would not endorse the neoconservative concept of perpetual war overseas. They would not have blown a hole in the budget during the Bush years saying at the time "deficits don't matter". They would not maintain the policy of "starve the beast," which spells out exactly what they really want. They want to cut these programs, not to balance the budget, but rather to simply shrink the federal government.
Republicans like deficits. They like deficits because it gives them an excuse to go pursue their social agenda, which is to eliminate these programs and create a social void which their allies in the church can then fill. To eliminate the individual rights of the people and protections from the federal government so that states may oppress whatever minority group they wish to. To create a population so desperate for work that they'll provide ultra cheap labor to fill the pockets of their allies in the business world, the energy sector, and on Wall Street. Their entire economic platform is actually not about the economy, but about ensuring the most power for their coalition of supporters: the plutocrats, the militants, and the theocrats.
The deficit is the means by which they advance their social agenda to cut government, not the other way around.
Fiscal conservatism is dead. The Democrats don't care for it and the Republicans make a mockery of it by turning it on its head.
Nathan,
Media Matters thanks you for your plug here.
So we will see who/what the cathlics support more, the right for women to have access to birth control or poor people having access to food and housing. You catholics must be so proud.
Boehner along with a multitude of TEA-Republican's harp on debt reduction and do not realize it's a red-herring! That ship won't float! That plane will not fly! Who are they trying to fool? Here's a listing of our debt:
14.Taiwan
U.S. debt holdings: $149.6 billion
13. Caribbean Banking Centers
U.S. debt holdings: $185.3 billion
12. Brazil
U.S. debt holdings: $206.4 billion
11. Oil Exporters
U.S. debt holdings: $232 billion
10. Insurance Companies
U.S. debt holdings: $250.1 billion
9. Depository Institutions
U.S. debt holdings: $284.5 billion
8. The United Kingdom
U.S. debt holdings: $429.4 billion
7. State and Local Governments
U.S. debt holdings: $484.4 billion
6. Mutual Funds
U.S. debt holdings: $653.5 billion
5. Pension Funds
U.S. debt holdings: $842.2 billion
4. Japan
U.S. debt holdings: $1.038 trillion
3. Other Investors/Savings Bonds
U.S. debt holdings $1.107 trillion
2. China
U.S. debt holdings: $1.132 trillion
1. Federal Reserve and Intra-governmental Holdings
U.S. debt holdings: $6.328 trillion
America is good for that debt! Period!
The only reason we are "good for that debt" is because the FED prints money to pay it.(and basically steals from us all by doing so) Other countries are getting smarter about the US debt they hold and know we are abusing the power of being the worlds reserve currency. This is a house of cards that is bound to collapse. As soon as other countries stop buying our debt we are so screwed. How long will we be "good for it" at the rate it is rising? BTW you answered your own question by providing a list of who they think they are fooling. Do you honestly believe we can keep this up without horrifying repercussions?
The group was steadfastly opposed to healthcare reform unless there was a guarantee that no taxpayer money could be involved in subsidizing abortion.
As a Catholic I find it interesting in this quote is that the entire system of guaranteeing health care for the poorest is thrown out by our Bishops because of the smallest sliver of the health care equation that might be used for an abortion. The overwhelming good for what could argueably be 99.9% of the people is discounted by our bishops becasue of this piece. They should be embarrassed, but they remain self-righteous in saying they are standing up for a fetus rather than the poor that Jesus talked about.
Hermanator--I also find it interesting that a group of people is so focused on the fetus and concerned their tax money being spent on abortion, but seem to not worry about their tax money being spent on war and killing the already living! If they can have a say about how their tax money is being spent, why do I not get the same consideration: I don't want my tax money spent on war--why should they be allowed to dictate, but others not? Doesn't "sanctity of life" include those already born? From appearances, I guess it doesn't because once you are born you are on your own--no protections of law or safety net. "We believe in the sanctity of life--but only for the unborn! All others, not so much!"
"We have met the enemy and he is us!" Pogo by Walt Kelly
I don't have an issue with raising taxes but first our government has to show me that they are as careful in spending our money as I am in spending my money.
They show me the opposite every day i.e. GSA, Solyndra, Post Office, Waste in the Military etc.
I believe if they got rid of the waste and fraud they might no even have to raise taxes and even could start paying off the debt.
Right now the way the government is blowing our money they don't deserve any more of it.
For everyone's fyi I'm not just blaming this administration.
Giving government more money is like giving a drug addict more drugs.
It's gone on in prior ones as well.
In my book it has to end now.
Unfortunately in order to end it there will be some pain in the short run.
When an entity is going bankrupt you have to cut spending and economize first in order to preserve the resources you have then you look at getting more revenue.
The federal government should just like state and local government be required to balance their budget, no more deficit spending other than in times of crisis such as war or natural disaster.
Uh Stan, the U.S. Postal service is not funded by any tax dollars. Zip, zero, nada.
Actually it is the opposite. Not only does the post office not get funds from the government but the government passed a law in 2006 that makes the post office PAY THE GOVERNMENT!!! Guess what? That is when the post office started having the worst money problems! We need to shrink government and government spending. It's totally out of control and that is the only way to lower corruption and increase efficiency.
It's time to face the facts: The government has screwed up everything they have touched and it is high time we started slapping their hand when they try to touch more!
Stan don't ask for someone to do something that you haven't. You haven't spent every dime you earned wisely. Long as people want to take the advice of the wolf after he has eaten the chicken and lay blame else where then they will be under a certain strain to find direction.
The Church is at least good about sensing a revolution when there is one coming. They've been good at taking that temperature for thousands of years. Boehner doesn't know nor does he cares, he's either hangover or thinking about the next drink.
Before any of the Grand Pubas of the RC Chruch write letters to members of Congress to announce their 'wants' on this country's politics, I'd like to see said Church sell a few paintings and knick-knacks from the Vatican, to feed the poor that continue to grow in numbers, thanks to the idiotic birth control rules and regulations of the RC's.
Hypocrites, and sanctimonious ones at that.
The GOP's have no use for the poor, they only love the rich i I hope poor people will come out in November and put these good for nothings in their place Romney is anti American
The "poor people" are going to get hit with the state voter suppression laws. Close election....back to a stacked SCOTUS deciding the next POTUS.