Cardinal Dolan’s Paul Ryan Problem
Tags
Related Posts
About the author
In the weeks since Mitt Romney selected Paul Ryan to be his running mate, there has been a lot of talk about whether Ryan will face problems with Catholic voters over the fact that church leaders have repeatedly criticized his budget for its extreme cuts to social programs and “fail[ure] to meet moral criteria.” But there has been very little discussion about the much bigger problem Ryan poses for the U.S. Catholic bishops themselves, especially the man who offered the benediction Thursday night after Romney’s acceptance speech—Cardinal Timothy Dolan.
Dolan is both the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and head of the Archdiocese of New York, a role sometimes referred to as “America’s Pope.” He came to his post in New York from Milwaukee, where he got to know Ryan, who is a Catholic and a Wisconsin congressman. On his radio program two weeks ago, Dolan talked about his friendship with Ryan:
“We go way back, Congressman Paul Ryan and I. I came to know and admire him immensely. And I would consider him a friend. He and his wife Janna and their three kids have been guests in my house; I’ve been a guest at their house. They’re remarkably upright, refreshing people. And he’s a great public servant.”
That admiring relationship must make it awkward for the Cardinal when Ryan does things like misrepresent Catholic social teaching or insist that health care is not a right but a privilege or refer to social programs that the bishops conference itself helps run as a “safety hammock.” After all, when a Catholic Democrat publicly dissents from church teaching or misrepresents it to a large audience, church leaders are quick to call out him or her for the transgression.
In the last presidential campaign, for instance, the Catholic running mate on the Democratic ticket spoke on “Meet the Press” about church teaching regarding conception. Joe Biden said that he was “prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception,” but that it would be “inappropriate in a pluralistic society” to impose that belief on others through law. In response, Bishop Robert Morlino of Madison—who happens to be Ryan’s bishop—devoted his homily to addressing the problem of people who “claim to be Catholic.” When someone has high-profile as Biden talked about his faith in ways that did not appropriately reflect church teaching, argued Morlino, it was confusing for other Catholics. “Prominent Catholics,” he said, “should not be violating the separation of church and state by teaching the wrong thing.”
Morlino insisted that he was not singling out Democrats for criticism. “If Republican candidates were doing precisely that, I would speak out with exactly the same determination.” The Bishop of Madison was joined by Charles Chaput, then the Archbishop of Denver, who put out a statement saying that Catholic politicians in high-profile roles expose themselves to “legitimate scrutiny” when they talk about Catholic beliefs and teachings. “Meet the Press has become a national window on the flawed moral reasoning of some Catholic public servants,” said Chaput.
Four years later, have those church leaders taken Ryan to task for using Catholic social teaching to defend draconian cuts to social welfare programs? Hardly. These days, Morlino is busy protecting Ryan from those who have “unfairly attacked his reputation” by criticizing his enthusiasm for slashing social programs and foreign assistance. The current archbishop of Denver, Samuel Aquila, has written a defense of Ryan’s argument that the best way to help the poor is to reduce our national debt. “Paul Ryan is concerned that America will soon be bankrupt, and so we must make hard choices,” wrote Aquila two weeks ago. “If he is right, and we ignore the message because the consequences seem compassion-less, our sentimental affections may cripple the ones our Lord loves the most—our children.”
Neither prelate addressed Ryan’s role in killing plans to address the debt problem or his record in voting for budget-busting measures during the Bush Administration that exploded the deficit. [More]
SOURCE
Leave a Comment
Photo Archive
-
May 21, 2013 1:32
Church Whistle-Blowers Join Forces on Abuse
-
May 20, 2013 5:17
Maine Catholic church closing its doors
-
May 20, 2013 5:14
Muslim leaders in US facing challenges inside and outside the faith
-
May 17, 2013 5:43
Archbishop clarifies remarks about Cuomo
-
May 17, 2013 5:40
Fr. Gary Meier goes public with clergy experience
-
May 17, 2013 5:37
Predator priests paid to pray for unsuspecting families
-
May 16, 2013 1:56
Cleanup of Bridgeport, Conn., diocese begins in earnest
-
May 16, 2013 1:38
Archbishop Presses Cuomo Over Abortion
-
May 16, 2013 1:26
Deal reached in Catholic lawsuit
-
May 16, 2013 1:13
N.Y. matriarch moves closer to sainthood
74 Comments
Yes, Jim, it is true that your theories are no higher than sixth grade level.
Thanks for agreeing with me, J.O.
IN OUR CHURCH NOW, THEOLOGY EQUALS GYNECOLOGY–FORGET CHRIST.
Your correct Janet especially regarding ordination to Orders.
Janet — Here’s what the Blessed Mother said to Blessed Jacinta: “More souls go to Hell for sins of the flesh than for any other reason.” Do you still think sexual morality is unimportant? Or do you know better than the Blessed Mother? When’s the last time you’ve been to Reconciliation, BTW? Or are you perfect? What do you do when you’re alone, Janet? Hmmnm?
Catholics are not bound to believe in Fatima, it probably was a big halusonation at best or a fraud.
Yep, Tony — 70K people hallucinated. What are you smoking, Tony? PCP induces hallucinations, you know.
I missed you Jim.
Moving to the top.
I was hoping you would try to follow through.
I haven’t decided whether to fall down the rabbit hole, go through the looking glass, or just get out my Orwellian dictionary on doublespeak. I’m a little tired so I will use the doublespeak dictionary to understand what you are trying to say.
Let’s start with a simple question.
Explain to me how you “CUT SPENDING” without cutting jobs.
Got my dictionary out – go for it JIM!!!!
Dennis — for you to ask that question implies that you think all jobs are government jobs — which, of course, is a reflection of your socialist / communist leanings. How about this: we cut food stamps. What jobs does that eliminate? How about this? We reduce spending for Medicare. What jobs will that eliminate? How about this? We eliminate the IRS, and go with a VAT. That does in fact eliminate all the IRS jobs, saves the government (and ultimately the citizens of the USA) tons of money, which in turn is spent elsewhere in the economy, more than offsetting the loss of federal jobs by an even greater increase in private sector jobs. Get your head in the game, Dennis.
Honestly, Dennis, I must confess — it is hard for me to believe you are an economist. A home economist, maybe?
Sorry Jim, you are wrong.
Cut food stamps…. Fewer workers in the food industry but the prisons and hospitals might get a boost???
Reduce spending for Medicare…. Fewer patients, drugs, and medical providers but it might be worth it???
Eliminate the IRS.…. Never thought of it???
“CUTTING SPENDING” means cutting jobs.
Now back to my original question.
Your solution for our economic woes is to cut jobs?
Dennis — cutting food stamps means American taxpayers have more money to spend. They spend that money in the private sector (instead of sending it to the govt in the form of taxes), and it increases private sector jobs. In fact, since the private sector is more efficient that the govt, it will increase private sector jobs by more than the number of jobs that will be lost in government jobs. With regard to fewer workers in the food industry: I can’t believe you can’t see this. Who cares if I spent $1.00 at McDonalds, or spend $1.00 on food via food stamps. Both purchases create jobs. So again, whatever is lost via reduced govt spending will be more than offset by an increase in private sector jobs when that cash is spent in the private sector.
Jim!!!
Throw me a bone.
Do have just one fact you can point to?
Yes — my post above. There is no need for a case study — billions of economists would agree with my post.
Jim.
I like a gut man. Someone whose gut is the source of knowledge.
I think I would have a better chance at getting Romney’s 2009 tax return than getting a fact from you.
Dennis — your request for facts from me is nonsensical. My case is proven by reason. As you have noted, spending creates jobs. I agree. You further assert that government spending “creates” jobs — I’ll even agree with that. Given the foregoing, it follows that private spending also creates jobs — it would be irrational to disagree with that, given your claim that government spending creates jobs. So, then, what is better: govt spending or private spending? Even if they were equally effective, then shifting money from taxes back into the pockets of citizens who would then spend that money in the private sector would have no negative impact on jobs. There is just no point in posting more about this. This is literally grade-school level logic. If you don’t get this, I’m sorry. I do not believe you have the qualifications you say you do, because again, what I am proposing should be understood by an average sixth grader.
Jim let me make it simpler.
The government spends money on goods and services.
The goods are produced by American labor and the services are provided by American labor.
If you cut government spending you cut jobs!
Dennis — let me make is simpler. The American citizen spends money on goods and services, money he did not have to pay in taxes. The goods are produced by American labor and the services are provided by American labor. If you cut taxes you increase money in the pocket of USA citizens, money that will be spent in the private economy and increase private sector jobs. I do not believe you are an economist, Dennis. This isn’t even basic economics. This is like Economics minus 101.
Jim.
So we agree “CUTTING SPENDING” is synonymous with cutting jobs.
You nailed me. I am not an economist.
Jim.
Moving to the top.
Obfuscating the issue does not help your position.
Common sense is all that is needed to figure out:
REVENUE – EXPENSES = SURPLUS or DEFICIT
Increasing revenue will reduce the deficit.
What word are you having trouble with?
Dennis — you avoided my last post, which showed mathematically and irrefutably that we are spending at a socialist level — 45% of our GDP. I can understand why you are avoiding responding to that post — you like to be right, but you are (brace yourself, Dennis) — wrong. I still like you anyway, Dennis. If I didn’t like people who were wrong at least some of the time, I wouldn’t like anyone.
Jim.
Sorry about the delay.
You said:
“if our revenues to the federal govt are 27% of our GDP, this figure must be divided by 0.6, since we are borrowing 40% of all of our federal spending.”
Jim. if government revenues are 27% of our GDP then government revenues are 27% of our GDP. I think you are confusing revenue with expenditures.
And you said:
“you avoided my last post, which showed mathematically and irrefutably that we are spending at a socialist level — 45% of our GDP”
I didn’t know that there was a scale that shows how economic policies are directly related to the level of government expenditures. Please give me the reference for your economic philosophical scale.
Dennis — no confusion on my part at all, but it appears you are confused. As I have said several times, our government does not have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem. We are spending way, way, way too much — the federal govt is spending at a socialist level. If we had a balanced federal budget — which would be much preferable to what we now have — the revenue to the government would be 45% of our GDP — what don’t you understand about that? No obfuscation at all — it’s just straight-forward arithmetic.
With regard to your second question: if we are spending as much as socialist France, we are socialist. Nothing hard to understand about that either.
To put it another way, Dennis — if we did not raise revenue, but instead shrunk spending so that we balanced our federal budget, then in fact our spending would be 27% of our GDP — still way too high, but certainly better than our 45% spending level at present. What makes a country socialist is how much is spent — because in the end, you’ve gotta pay China back — so, effectively, the goverment is collecting 45% of our GDP in a combination of taxes and future (borrowed) taxes.
Jim you are a mental giant.
Well our government revenue (as a % of GDP) is the same as Tonga so following your irrefutable logic:
Since Tonga operates as a constitutional monarchy the USA is a constitutional monarchy.
I have been trying to tell you this for days.
Jim.
BTW. I really would like to see where socialism, capitalism, communism, Marxism, totalitarianism, etc. falls on your economic scale.
Please just give me a reference or a link to a site with reference to a site that has a reference to a reference to your economic”ism” scale.
Pretty please.
Dennis — come on, you’re a smart guy — obviously, there are no precise cut-points for determining when a country has become “socialist.” And frankly, who cares whether or not our country is or is not socialist. What DOES make a difference is the extent to which taxation is strangling our country. Right now, by your figures, revenues are 27% of GDP; but remember, spending is 45% of GDP. The only reason revenues aren’t 45% of GDP is because we’re borrowing the difference between 27% and 45% — which of course sets us up for a horrific outcome, because that money must be paid back. Bottom line is this: anyone who looks at the foregoing data can see that the course we are on clearly is unsustainable, and is going to result in an economic train-wreck in the near future (within the next ten, probably within the next five years). When we wreck economically, everything else is going to fall apart. Without exaggerating, there is going to be gross civil unrest in this country. I literally know people who are preparing for the near future by buying guns — they expect (and so do I) that it’s going to get that bad. When you’re in a USA detention camp, Dennis, it will be too late to say, “Jim was right.”
Morning Jim.
The only solution is to raise revenue.
If you have a different solution let me know.
And if I ended up in the situation you describe I wouldn’t be saying “Jim was right”, I would be saying “this is because of Jim and people like him”.
Now if you have a solution, that doesn’t include raising revenue, let me hear it.
Dennis, Dennis, Dennis — come on, you’re throwing me a straight pitch over the plate at 45 MPH. Try to make your questions more difficult. Ready for the answer? Hold on to your hat ………………………………………………………………………..CUT SPENDING!!!!
Jim, in fact, I lobed it over the plate at about 10 MPH. I wanted you to take a swing because I knew your answer.
So with Step 1 out of the way.
Your solution to fix our struggling economy is to cut jobs. Don’t you think unemployment is high enough?
This is a freebee I think you might like.
“After watching Clint Eastwood’s speech last night at the RNC, I’m voting for the chair. “
Dennis — honestly, are you mentally healthy? Here is what you said: “Your solution to fix our struggling economy is to cut jobs.” Now I challenge you — find that statement in ANY of my posts EVER. Here is what I actually said (look back at my post to see for yourself) We need to CUT SPENDING. I NEVER said to cut jobs. It is you, Dennis, who needs to take your medication.
I can’t even have a conversation with you, Dennis, because you twist reality in provable ways.
With regard to the delay in your response — no problem, I was working on some lunar landing calculations. Also, soon, I’m going to do some Mars landing calculations, then Mass tomorrow A.M. (to pray for you Dennis — and to pray that you go to Reconciliation), so I may not respond for awhile.
A vote for VP candidate Ryan is also a vote for Bishop Morlino and for Cardinal Dolan, who are running sub secreto for shadow VPs.
Florian (and you may call me Flo) would respectfully urge these gentlemen to consider that “a public office is a public TRUST,” a commodity which is in extremely short supply in Congress and the RC church, thanks in no small part to these highly public officials of church and/or state.
Republicans all about irresponsible stewardship of their private property I support the following:
Procurate et Dispenare
Ownership is a social responsibility based upon the ability to care for these resources and to distribute them fairly to insure that they are used to benefit the community as a whole. This type of ownership is not private ownership, but a public stewardship. The use rights carry with it a love of the land that will preserve and conserve the resources, and aid in the natural evolution of the land in a way that benefits the ecosystem of which it is apart and the people dependent on those resources. This would include, but not exclusively, the human community, which is an interactive part of every terrestrial ecosystem on the planet. With wealth come responsibility to the large community because of which wealth became possible.
Tony I agree
I finally figured it out! That’s it! Michael Joseph Francisconi and Tony ACTUALLY are the SAME PERSON! Why didn’t I figure that out before? Hi Tony / MJF.
In case you’re not the same person — Tony, since MJF alwasys agrees with you, I suggest you Google his name and see what he recently supported — it’s on the internet — then Google Bill Ayers Wikipedia article to see that Bill Ayers, as recently as 2004, refused to repudiate his terrorist actions in the 1960s. If MJF supported what I said, Tony, that would give me pause to consider the validity of my position.
I am happy tha MJF agrees with me, most well balanced people do, sorry you don’t.
Well, Tony, sorry for you. I thought better of you than that.
Jim, I don’t care what MJF supported or doesn’t support, for all we know on this website where no verification of identity is required he may not be the same person you think he is. It doesn’t matter. I am here to comment on the articles here and to respond to the comments. It is not my goal to enter into a long term relationship with anyone on here, so Jim, frankly, I don’t give a damn who or what anyone on here aligns himself with.
But you should care when a man who publicly supported an unrepentent terrorist in 2008 (it’s on the net — check it out yourself) consistently agrees with you. And, MJF admitted in one of his prior posts that he is who he says he is — and given how that all come about, my read is that I am fairly confident that MJF really is MJF. If a terrorist supporter liked what I wrote, Tony, I would be concerned.
On the behavior of the German hierarchy during the Nazi period read Robert Ericksen, Complicity in the Holocaust for the record. Aside from the papacy, the role of the Church is nothing to be proud of.
Ignatius — you should be more circumspect in who you read. A man published a book in the 1900s called “Hitler’s Pope” — it was about Pius XII. It made the NY Disgusting Times best seller list. The book was roundly rebuked by virtually everyone as being inaccurate, including non-Catholic historians. So, the idiot who wrote that book hates the Church and wants to rewrite history. The person you suggest I read hates the Church, writes fiction, and calls it history. Get your head out of the sand, Ignatius, and into the game, or else I’m going to sit you on the bench.
It looks like good bishops are also social ethics relativists. If they talked about women’s ordination like they do the national debt, they would be retired the next day.
Of course, if morality consists in making sure that each act of sexual intercourse is exclusively reproductive, then the real conditions under which men and women live is beside the point. The social teaching of the Church is an aside to maintain, at least in public, a relationship to the Gospel. Blessed are those who mourn for they shall be conforted. I hope to be comforted over the failings of our bishops. But, then, they did not stand against slavery or in Germany against the Holocaust.
Ignatius, you are such a hermit that apparently all you read is the garbage NY Times. You know how the saying goes: garbage in = garbage out. The fact is, Pius XII was LAUDED by the secular press during WWII for his support of the Jews. Quit posting lies.
It is bad enough that we have practicing pedophiles in the clergy. Now we have to put up with practicing, lay economists (Archbishop Samuel Aquila – “America will soon be bankrupt”) He needs a lot more practice and maybe a little education.
Looking on the bright side, an ignorant economist isn’t nearly as bad as a pedophile.
National debt now at 16 trillion. I believe our annual GDP = 16 trillion — so, we are now at 100% of our DGP with our debt. We definitely are going to take a bath, and it most definitely won’t be pretty — my prediction is we are going to see things that are as bad, and probably worse, than we saw during WWII. And the Demon-crats are whistling a happy tune while they drive us off the econommic cliff. Money problems gave rise to Hitler’s regime. Money problems may give rise to martial law in the USA, with Obama, Mr. 666, keeping himself in office even though his time is up.
Jim.
I see you like big numbers.
BTW it is 616 not 666.
I will keep it simple for you.
Since you are a follower Ayn Ryan you solution for the debt problem includes:
Increase spending for defense and give the wealthy a lot more money.
How does that reduce the deficit?
Well of course, friend Dennis, your argument is based on faulty premises. I suppose you learned this somewhere in school — it is called the straw man argument. The person mis-states your argument, then attacks what they say is your argument (but which really isn’t). First, one of the Republican speakers (can’t remember who, but might have been Ryan himself) said we need to address unnecessary military spending. Obvioulsy, anyone in their right mind would be in favor of that. So, I am not in favor of increasing the military budget, except we must have enough funding to keep us reasonably safe (complete safety is impossible). With regard to giving the wealthy a lot of money: the Republican budget does NOT ask to GIVE the wealthy a lot of money; it simply asks that the tax cut continue for all Americans. The fact is, the wealthy pay almost all of the federal income tax at the present time; why saddle them with more than is fair? The real problem IS NOT government receipts — they already get tons of money. The problem is with SPENDING. Spending must be brought in line with what can realistically be collected. If you kill off the wealthy, it’s like killing the pilot of your jet — enormously stupid. Yes, you killed that mean pilot, all right — but you have just doomed yourself. Now, back to my calculations ……… e = mc squared x speed of acceleration x ………… (sorry, can’t share the rest of the calculation — it is classified).
Jim.
Nice try at trying to answer my question. And I am glad to see you didn’t let the facts get in your way.
You said:
“I am not in favor of increasing the military budget, except we must have enough funding to keep us reasonably safe.’
Both Romney and Ryan propose increases in defense spending.
“The centerpiece of Mr. Romney’s proposal is a promise to spend at least 4 percent of gross domestic product on military personnel, procurement, operations and maintenance, and research and development. That would add as much as $2.3 trillion to the defense budget over 10 years from projected 2013 spending levels.”
We already spend more money on the military than the rest of the world combined. Is that enough to “ keep us reasonably safe”?
You said:
“the Republican budget does NOT ask to GIVE the wealthy a lot of money; it simply asks that the tax cut continue for all Americans.”
If you are going to use a euphemism for “give the wealthy more tax breaks” (Romney already pays a lower percentage of income taxes than me). Stop calling them wealthy they are now called Job Creators.
The rest of your post is confusing at best. Try to say it more clearly.
Increases in defense spending — against what yardstick are those “increases” being measured? Does “increase” simply mean a smaller cut that Mr. 666 plans?
With regard to the rest of my post being confusing — what is hard to understand about this, Dennis? THE PROBLEM IS NOT INCOME, THE PROBLEM IS OUTGO. The budget problem can be fixed by shrinking spending, not by taxing more. Sorry if your training in economics doesn’t allow you to decode my fourth-grade level of complexity.
Jim you are easy to decode. It just so happens you are wrong – again.
This country can and should increase government revenue.
According to the Heritage Foundation, the US government revenue as a percentage of GDP in 2012 is:
USA – 27%
This compares to:
Denmark – 49%
Sweeden – 47%
Austria – 43%
Germany – 41%
United Kingdom – 39%
Russia – 37%
Israel – 37%
Brazil – 34%
If you need help with the numbers let me know.
Dennis — mmmmmmm, let’s see. Denmark = socialist; Sweeden = socialist; Austria = socialist (are you starting to see a pattern?); Germany (quasi socialist); United Kingdom = stupidly socialist; Russia = recently communist; Israel = surrounded by people who want to eliminate their country, and therefore must spend out the wazoo to stay alive; Brazil = quasi-socialist.
So Dennis, perhaps your point is that we’re not yet socialist. However, HERE’S THE REAL KICKER (I should have thought of this earlier) — if our revenues to the federal govt are 27% of our GDP, this figure must be divided by 0.6, since we are borrowing 40% of all of our federal spending. Therefore, federal SPENDING (the real problem as I’ve said repeatedly) = 45% of our GDP, essentially making us a socialist country. Thank you so much, Dennis, for giving me the smoking-gun evidence I needed to make my point. This is like martial arts, Dennis — you come at me with your fists, and I punch you in the face with your own hands. Chow.
Case closed. Next.
Jim.
Please share your dictionary with us so we understand what the heck you are saying.
Dennis — here’s my dictionary: http://www.dictionary.com — no joke.
Jim, I expected you to try the communist, socialist, Marxist, istist response but it was totally expected.
You took a position that it was not possible to increase government revenue. I pointed out that it is possible based on real world examples.
Dennis — here’s the question: when the USA rose to its economic prominence, was it socialist? Obviously not. With the exception of Germany, none of those countrries you mention are economic powerhouses. The USA will not continue to be strong economically if it continues down this socialist path.
Jim I admire you for your fortitude. You are like a Gila monster – its jaws lock when it bites and they don’t let go even when you cu t off their head.
What countries do consider in the same “ist” class as the USA and I will give you their governments’ revenue to GDP ratio for 2012. I thought Israel at 37% was a pretty neutral “ist”.
Anywhere from three to 20 countries is fine.
Dennis — give me Japan and South Korea. Almost all countries today are socilist, so it’s hard to find ones that aren’t.
Jim as you wish:
Japan – 28%
South Korea – 27%
I’m throwing France in as bonus:
France – 45%
But again, Dennis, our actual figure is .27 / 0.6 (because we currently are borrowing 40% of our federal spending), or 45% — much much higher than Japan and South Korea, who probably are not running a federal deficit. Get your head in the game, Dennis.
In other words, Dennis, our federal spending is equivalent to that of France, a socialist country.
Jim I think you might be “sleep posting”.
How many references would you like – they are endless. Here is one:
“Romney’s proposal to embark on a second straight decade of escalating military spending would be the first time in American history that war preparation and defense spending had increased as a share of overall economic activity for such an extended period,” wrote Merrill Goozner in the Fiscal Times. “When coupled with the 20% cut in taxes he promises, it would require shrinking domestic spending to levels not seen since the Great Depression—before programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid began.” Such cuts, Goozner noted, “would likely throw the U.S. economy back into recession.”
Okay, Dennis, presuming what you have posted is accurate (including the presumption of the accuracy of the person you quote), I agree that I do not support increasing defense spending as this writer claims Romney will do. Let’s put it this way: Mr. 666′s first job was president; Mitt Romney has a track record of success. I’m sure Mr. Romney will make the USA a success story (if anyone can — Mr. 666 may have done our country irrepairable damage).
Jim.
Peace.
End of thread.
Dennis you are to be congratulated for your patience. Your posts are informative. Unfortunately Jim argues from the postion of “head in the sand.” I attempted to “dialogue” with him on the issue of the LCWR. He offered to buy me a drink! Thank you for your posts Dennis and the others who have attempted to talk with Jim.
Ann — scotch on the rocks?
That was a joke, Ann. I know you don’t drink, but I like pulling your ponytail.
The article is very clear that Ryan is a dissenter from Catholic Social teaching.