House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) chastised Catholic bishops at a Wednesday news conference on Capitol Hill, saying they needed to look at the bigger picture after they complained that the GOP budget plan fails to meet "moral criteria."

The bishops had written letters to Capitol Hill, arguing many elements of the Republicans' budget proposal, such as cuts to food stamps, harmed the poor while the wealthy benefitted.

"At a time of great competition for agricultural resources and budgetary constraints, the needs of those who are hungry, poor and vulnerable should come before assistance to those who are relatively well off and powerful," stated one of the letters.

"Just solutions ... must require shared sacrifice by all, including raising adequate revenues, eliminating unnecessary military and other spending, and fairly addressing the long-term costs of health insurance and retirement programs. The House-passed budget resolution fails to meet these moral criteria," they declared in another document.

Boehner, who is a Catholic, acknowledged the bishops' moral authority but suggested their focus was too narrow as they scolded Republicans over cutting assistance to those who are poor, hungry and homeless.

"I want them to take a bigger look," Boehner said. "And the bigger look is, if we don't make decisions, these programs won't exist, and then they'll really have something to worry about."

Boehner gave a detailed defense of the GOP plan, which to achieve most of its savings would cut billions from programs helping poor Americans.

Boehner fails to acknowledge that the cuts come in part because Republicans refuse to increase revenues on those that are well off. That the "shared sacrifice" that the bishops mention is not equal. It is all about cutting on the little people and not on the big people. That was their whole point and he fails to address that.

Must be driving him nuts, majority of Americans support tax increases on the wealthy , women overwhelmingly support the dems, the economy is and has been improving, the Presidents approval rating is rising........no wonder the poor baby is grumpy.

It is an unfair tax on what has already been taxed and should be abolished.

It is nothing more than greedy hyenas stealing what is left when one dies.

Anyone know how the estate tax got started?

The inheritance tax is inherently unfair.

Give up some cigarettes and beer or Starbucks and you too can cremate your loved one.

We don't have estate taxes in Canada however we have a graduated income tax based on income levels.

I'm happier with a tax system that taxes upper income levels at a higher rate than one which imposes a second tax on the same money..

Not that I intend to leave much behind!!!! :-)

*

Ditto.

The goal is to spend the last dime the day I die.

That can be tricky.

So true. And you can skip the enbalming, too. Just get the body into the ground or crematorium within 48 hours and you're good to go ;-)

However, what I said about the family farm is still important. The money or the property that was purchased with the money, has been taxed. And if it's real estate, it was and will continue to be taxed annually. So what's up with penalizing heirs because the former owner of the estate has died? It's not even a good EXCUSE to tax; it's just bogus.

I think if you consider that the Estate Tax affects ordinary folks you must see some merit in what I am saying here.

Or, the original price/cost basis of everything should continue on to the wife and descendants, and taxed at the prevailing capital gains rate when that happens, which is a nightmare.

But seriously... while I agree with the bishops that the Republicans' idea of "austerity" can't all come in the form of taking from the poor and giving to the rich, as has been their continuing modus operandi, and that it's certainly NOT a fair and balanced way to operate the budgeting... I don't think the church, any church, should be mixed up in politics. It's bad enough THEY get a tax exemption for what amounts to more of a business than a charity type of organization.

Boehner is simply off his nut. He has no idea what the common citizen deals with, and is way more worried about protecting his wealthy cronies and the industries and corporations and banks that prop them all up.

I just love it when posters think they know what everyone else spends their money on, when in truth, they have not a clue. It just makes them feel good, I suppose, to trot out the usual stereotypes and throw them down like fake piles of feces or vomit. Oh, it's just ever so funny.

This whole deficit/budget/revenue/austerity thing and how the Republicans want to handle it all, somehow brings to mind the idea that Nero fiddled while Rome burned... I don't know why.

It's just SO obvious where revenue can be had from, and where certain cuts are necessary. It's not rocket science! But then, of course, the Pentagon would have to be accountable for their spending, the unnecessary subsidies would need to stop being handed out, the military branches would need to give up a toy or two, and the uber-wealthy would have to kick in their fair share... as they were before the Reagan era.

The middle class and its surrounding edges, both lower and slightly upper, cannot keep propping up everything financially speaking! Sooner or later... and it's looking more like sooner... there won't be any revenue to be had from these people. Where, I'm wondering, do the corrupt elite and officials think the end of this money train is? Because every train HAS a last car, and when that last one passes them by, what then?

There are a whole lot of very angry people within this nation wondering what it will take to get the message across... we are not an endless source of free money, white babies, and labor! We need certain things in order to keep that money circulating... like jobs, a working infrastructure, certain programs and safety nets to help those in need, a safe and nutritional source of food, clean air and water, and the list goes on...

The truth of the matter is... the playing field is no longer fair, and it hasn't been in some time.

And yet, all we hear about is how everyone has the same opportunities, which no longer holds true... everyone needs to have personal responsibility, which many who are thought not to have DO, or DID, have... and the top of the food chain want to dismantle any protections still left, take away more rights and freedoms, install a police state, and keep taking and taking and taking and taking...

At one point, there will be nothing left to take. What then, I'm wondering? What then?

You LOVE that? Why? And why do you, in your words, suppose that throwing "fake feces or vomit" would make these posters, again your words, "feel good"? This sounds like a pretty gross personal problem, Jodi. Waaaay TMI.

"Will minus intellect constitutes vulgarity."

Arthur Schopenhauer

But the estate tax hurts small businesses; mom-and-pop stores, dry cleaners, back-yard herb farmers!

I read it here on this forum.

And, demi, if you have enough wealth that it would be subject to the estate tax (over $5 million), a good chunk of that has NOT been taxed. It is stock and other property such as real estate that has seen huge growth in the past 50 years. No capital gains taxes have been paid on anything that has not been sold. Only if the entire estate is and was always cash would it already have been taxed.

And yes, the reason for the estate tax was to insure that this country did not turn into a plutocracy, again. The robber baron era was responsible for its being passed.

"Money to get power, and power to guard the money," was the motto of the powerful Medici family in 16th century Florence. It is getting to be a successful modern political strategy for some of America's wealthiest families today.

A new report by Public Citizen and United for a Fair Economy shows how 18 of these families, including the Walton family of Wal-Mart fame, spent millions of dollars to push for the repeal of the estate tax. The estate tax is paid by wealthy heirs when they receive inherited wealth. Using trade associations and influential lobbyists, these extremely wealthy families stand to gain an astounding $71 billion from the repeal.

In the next month or so, the White House and Republican leaders are hoping to permanently get rid of the estate tax. About 99.7 percent of Americans are not rich enough to be affected by the estate tax. The existing exemptions will allow their heirs to get whatever is left to them without paying any taxes.

But that other 0.3 percent increasingly find themselves in the role of "the deciders."

Proponents of repeal have gone to great lengths to convince people that the estate tax is a threat to small businesses and farms. The story of people having to sell the family farm to pay the tax was getting fairly good play until Pulitzer-Prize winning New York Times reporter David Cay Johnston found that there were no known instances of anyone having to sell the family farm due to the estate tax - even though President Bush said he had spoken with such farmers in June 2001." snip end quote

That was in 2006. Of course, these same folks have done very well for themselves in the last 6 years as well, and these amounts are far higher today.

Didn't know about the 2011 change. Great news for us potential <$5 mil heirs ;-)

We've discussed before that the conservatives in the 99% cling to changes like this simply because they dream that one day it will apply to them. Otherwise the 99% would never have any reason to support things like elimination of the estate tax and other high income bracket tax changes.

The unfortunate part of this discussion is how much Elvis will enjoy the debate.

Borrowing from The EDD show what does the average 2 bedroom apartment in your area rent for and making minimum wage which these Fkrs haven't raised in 5 years. Well they say the fair market value of a 2 bedroom apt in NY is around $1283 that must be the state because it sure isn't the City & to afford it and utilities
without paying more than 30% of income on housing a household must earn $4,278 monthly or
$51,337 annually. Assuming a 40-hour work week, 52 weeks per year, this level of income translates into a Housing
Wage of: 24.68.
In New York, a minimum wage worker earns an hourly wage of $7.25. In order to afford the FMR for a two-bedroom
apartment, a minimum wage earner must work 136 hours per week, 52 weeks per year. HMMMN
Whats it in any of the bleeding heart fiscal conservatives areas?

Minnesota continues to be the least affordable state for renters in the Midwest, according to new Out of Reach data for 2012. In order to afford a modest two-bedroom apartment, a minimum wage earner would have to work 86 hours per week or hold 2.1 full time jobs -- in Minnesota.
These are all those income earners who pay no taxes according to some petulant posters!

I'm sure quite a few of the loads believe minimum wage is too high if you liked Baccthing when she was running your vote would have been supporting this idea.

They will eat you one of these days & they may eat me too but I will be providing salt & pepper.

Lets make it clear again those are per week hours

Kind of like how, in his budget, military spending is increased even if the Joint Chiefs of Staff say they don't need it -

Ryan took a similar tack recently when he defended his plan to provide the Pentagon more money than the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified was necessary to promote U.S. strategic interests. He suggested that the generals might have been toeing the Obama administration line and requesting fewer funds from Congress than the military really needs.

"We don't think the generals are giving us their true advice," he said. "We don't think the generals believe that their budget is really the right budget."

Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, fired back, "There's a difference between having someone say they don't believe what you said versus - calling us, collectively, liars," he told reporters. "My response is: I stand by my testimony. This was very much a strategy-driven process to which we mapped the budget."

See? Even the Generals know that continuing to pour money into the already grossly bloated military is counterproductive to their actual role.

video of Rep Ryan informing FOX viewers that the Catholic Church and the Bishops don't know what they're talking about when it comes to the poor and oppressed.

The solution, of course, is getting rid of the tax on capital gains and dividends, while cutting food stamps.

Just solutions, however, must require shared sacrifice by all, including raising adequate revenues, eliminating unnecessary military and other spending, and fairly addressing the long-term costs of health insurance and retirement programs.

And here's the letter regarding the proposed reduction to the food stamp program:

On behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, I write to urge you to resist for moral and human reasons unacceptable cuts to hunger and nutrition programs. The committee has been instructed to reduce agricultural programs by an additional $33.2 billion. In allocating these reductions, the committee should protect essential programs that serve poor and hungry people over subsidies that assist large and relatively well-off agricultural enterprises. Cuts to nutrition programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) will hurt hungry children, poor families, vulnerable seniors and workers who cannot find employment. These cuts are unjustified and wrong. If cuts are necessary, the committee should first look towards reducing and targeting commodity and subsidy programs that disproportionately go to large growers and agribusiness.

SNAP, also known as food stamps, helps feed millions of households; 76 percent of which include a child, senior, or disabled person and many include workers who cannot provide sufficient nutrition for their families. At this time of economic turmoil and growing poverty, the committee should oppose cuts in this effective and efficient anti-hunger program that helps people live in dignity.

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. Given current high commodity prices and federal budget constraints, subsidies and direct payments can be reduced and targeted to small and moderate-sized farms.