@St. Swithin
Why doesn't the government then provide us with everything? Wouldn't that eliminate all the problems?

@J.B. did you even read my post? I will answer your questions when you ask some intelligent ones.

Your right Jesus said .. force that guy by gunpoint to pay the teachers salary to teach the guy to fish ... or do people out of the kindess of their heart teach the guy to fish

@St. Swithin
My Bad, let me ask again.

Why doesn't the government then provide everything? Wouldn't that eliminate all the problems?

Since Ryan's plan doesn't eliminate all government involvement, the level it restricts it to is lower then what you and Victor want. Hence my questions are valid. What is your level of government involvement?

Even knowing how to fish is of no help when a pole costs $50,000, a fishing license costs $1000 a year, and someone else owns all the ponds. Metaphorically speaking.

@J.B. Free $10,000,000.00 loans for all or for none. Agree? http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/free-10-million-loans-for-all-and-other-wall-street-notes-20120419

@Victor
I was and am against government bailouts. I know that some republicans were for them, but nobodies perfect. To big to fail is a false premise. Everything can fail and by adding trillions of dollars in the US debt to save banks we only brought our own country loser to failure.

That idea is stupid on so many levels. First, most of the bailout money went directly on the books as debt. Hence, if you did the same by handing it out to the American people to pay the debt, you would be creating debt to pay off debt. Really??? (I am scratching the side of my head right now) Second, we are going to over tax the American people in order to give it back to them. ( I am still scratching my head) Third, if people not spending is the problem, why do liberal want to raise taxes. ( I am scratching a bald spot on the side of my head to mach the one nature put on top)

Why not just let people keep their money? Instead of creating some large bureaucratic agency that redistributes it in irresponsible ways.

Oh, to answer your question, I disagree.

True. The elephant in the room is that people like Victor don't want to help the poor, or they would propose a bill that helped them in their own countires before they broke the law by entering/residing in our country illegally. What they really want is for people who are breaking the law to prosper.

In fact, people like Victor would object just as much if we deported such people, after giving them each $1,000. That would decrease the future voting bloc.

(For the record, half my relatives are 1st generation legal immigrants from Asia -- Hmong. But one is Jamaican, and another is from Nigeria.)

Its a false choice JB, that's the point. Your doomsday scenario is fiction. However, I'm not anti-Christian, but Ryan's budget sure is. I'm not saying that, the national group that represents the Catholic bishops is saying so. Perhaps u disagree with their version of how Christianity should be practiced. [Note: deleted the original version and reposted to fix a typo: you >> your.]

So Victor we can devalue the dollar at will and keep printing money .. it didn't work for wiemar germany .. oh shoot that is a doomsday senario that actually happened, oh thats right can't happen in America because of??????? enlighten me

@Victor
False choice? Are you attempting to tell me that our country is currently firing on all 8 cylinders and the future is brighter then it has ever been? Therefore Ryan's doomsday plan will bring that all crashing down around us?

The Catholic church's biggest problem has always been its desire to get into politics. It has corrupted them through out history. They should focus on their patrons and less on government policy. That is how Jesus taught. Christ never focused on government policy, but on his people.

It's a false choice because America's net foreign is just a small portion of the debt and very manageable. Everything else is hysterics, completely manufactured issue.

@Victor
So the money we owe ourselves is nothing? Doesn't spending without having money to back it up and then just printing more money the driving force behind inflation. If only a small portion comes from foreign entities, what money tree is the Fed getting the rest of the money from?

I'm getting forced at the point of the same gun to provide guns for our army, so we can play cop to the world. If private charity can help the poor adequately, then why can't private armies go pick on foreigners, er . . .defend us?

@Randy
That silly constitution stills cause you problems. One of the few things actually granted to the government as its job, is a military. However, you liberals want to scratch that out and write welfare/healthcare into the margins.

No, J. B. Defense is one thing. Playing cop to the world is another thing entirely. Countries all over the world have become dependent on the idea that the US will come and fight their battles for them. Some fairly rich countries at that. Why should our elderly suffer so that we can maintain a bloated military to defend the likes of Germany and France in a pinch?

@Randy
That is funny. Isn't that same argument conservatives have for the welfare system? They become dependent?

A will agree that we shouldn't police the world. However, my foreign policy is not as extreme as Ron Paul's.

@J.B. -- What I'm saying is that our very large military spending allows for other nations to spend less on their own armies. And frankly, they're not very grateful, usually.

@Randy
I know what you are saying. What I am saying is that our very large amount of spending on government entitlements allows for some citizens to spend less. And frankly, the teachers and welfare recipients aren't very grateful.

@J.B. -- the two large 'entitlements' of Medicare and Social Security that the Ryan budget seeks to curb are also funded by an even larger source of federal revenue -- FICA. They've been running at a surplus for years. Let's be honest about what has been causing the deficits and where we need to cut.

@Randy
If we cut all discretionary spending, we still run a deficit. So I am not sure what you are talking about.

In that case, fess up and call FICA for what it is -- a regressive tax on earned income that starts on the first dollar earned. Either it's a tax or it isn't. However, that money shouldn't be drained away for other government spending or to fund income tax reductions for the upper brackets.

The postal service is antiquated. Modernize and cut the fat I say. Is there a religious aspect to USPS funding that would make it relevant to this article?

@Mr. Drover -

Is there a religious aspect to a proposed federal government budget? In other words, is this entire article in any way relevant to any hard core factual assertions, or is it merely propagandist fodder in yet another attempt to discredit conservatives by falsely premising that their budgetary proposals are in conflict with their majority religious values?

1. Crickets on USPS? Fine by me.

2. Ryan stepped in it by saying the budget was formed from his Catholic principles: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2012/04/paul-ryan-my-catholic-faith-helped-shape-budget-plan/

3. The point of the article is to advocate separate of church and state. If Ryan had not tried to sell the budget with a religious angle I'd not have written the article.

4. I'm not saying the budget is in conflict. The Catholic church is.

@Victor
What core values dictate your decisions? Can I say we must have separation of those and state? Wouldn't your core set of values be considered your religion?

He is not saying that religion is being create by this bill (which is the constitutional understanding of church and state), so where is the problem.

The USPS has been legislated to pay into its employee pension plan in a way that no other business/agency does. Without that criteria the postal service would operate in the black. The mail is still an important aspect of business operation, it certainly is for me. Not everything can or should be done online.

Steve, we are rarely on the same side of the fence, but like you I don't know what the USCCB was thinking when it brought up that issue. Total non-starter.

Does this mean that if I adopt the guys who cut my lawn, I get a tax break?

I'm in.

Do you have minors cutting your lawn? But heck, if you're paying their rent and their grocery bills, you deserve a tax credit.

The bishops didn't say anything about them being minors. Or miners. Just that they'd like child tax credits issued for them.

We can hash out the details after the invasion from Rome.

A child tax credit is given only to those with qualifying children. Generally that stops at age 18 of if you're putting a child through college. Second, to get a tax credit, you have to have been paying tax in the first place. I wonder how it is that illegal aliens are paying taxes -- usually they're paid under the table -- but if they are, shouldn't they get the same rules as anyone else?

It's just something to think about.

Randy: The father could be here legally, and the rest of the family could be illegal. He pays taxes just like the rest of working citizens. IMO He should be able to use the same credits/breaks/write offs as the rest of us.
Where this gets dicey is if he has dependant children here who are illegal.
Personally I think we are stepping over dollars to pick up nickels.

Excuse me, but are you telling me a legal alien isn't allowed to bring his wife and children with him? What has this country become?

Randy: I worked for a company who hired many people from Mexico. They went to great lengths to be sure they were here legally. Many of the men came to the US to work and support their families back home in Mexico on a green card. Mexican's typically see family as a great responsibility in contrast to some of the many deadbeat dads we have here.
After working and sending checks home to family, eventually they try to find a way to all be together. ( just as you and I would want)
So sometimes that family may end up in the USA without any documentation, but a safe and decent place to live.

Ah, yes. The AA. As usual clueless. The ultimate Judeo-Christian. Using the teachings of Jesus to promote political agendas. Stay home and be quiet.

@ Lyle:
"what do we do with all the children that are born into less than optimum circumstances?"
Are you arguing that people born into less than optimum circumstances do not or cannot go on to live productive lives? Or that they become a drain on society? Herbert Hoover became pres. of the U.S. after growing up as an orphan, at a time in our society that the social net for truly abandoned children was virtually nonexistant. Pres. Obama was an unplanned pregnancy, raised by a single mother in less than optimum circumstances. I know, two cases do not make a rule, yet two people that I know of offhand rising to the highest public position the U.S. has to offer from bad childhood situations at least illustrates that not only are they doomed to poverty, they can and do sometimes rise to extraordinary heights.

@Kath...Two people with special attributes are the exception rather than the rule. You still didn't answer.

@kath -- President Obama's parents were married, and he was raised, in great part, by grandparents. I don't know about Herbert Hoover -- he was not the best of Presidents, that's for sure. Lyle's point is that if you insist on everypotential life being born, you had better be generous about what we used to call'welfare' because how do you expect an individual to prosper with no medical care, poor public schooling, and employment at minimum wage for a lifetime with no ability to save for retirement? Some rare individuals might, but they will be the exception to the rule.

Lyle: I guess that, being a child number six in a seven-child-family, in a family that more often than not qualified for free school lunches, even back in the day, I have faith that others also like me are not defined by their beginnings but appreciate the opportunity to... I dunno, exist? I honestly think you have to define and document the crisis that then, by your logic, existed from the mid-1920s (when domestic policy re: abandoned children approached some kind of humane standard) till 1973. In a country where obesity is a raging epidemic among our poorest, children let to "starve to death" is hardly an honest evaluation even of the worst possible scenario. BTW, even though I disagree with you on the basis for finding children "desirable" (I find all desirable, independent of socio-economic status), I actually don't have a problem with contraception, and I'd vehemently oppose "prohibit(ing) sex".

@Randy1949:
Pres. Obama was still well into the category of "less than optimum circumstances", was he not? Pres. Hoover's policies successes or lack thereof is not my point. Becoming a president AT ALL after bouncing around in what passed for orphanages and foster care, even now, would be a huge accomplishment, let alone in his day. Pres. Lincoln was also born into abject poverty, was motherless rather early on, and moved around.
I don't think you are able to tell the quality of a person by the challenges that they are born into. Sometimes, the individual rises to the occasion. You said:
"poor public schooling, and employment at minimum wage for a lifetime". Though I'm a passionate supporter of parents having lots of choices for their children, I think public schools are not always poor. I received an excellent education at the public high school I attended, and many others do as well. Just because you grow up in poverty or less than comfortable, doesn't mean you're relegated to minimum wage employment for a lifetime, either! Are you arguing that anyone born into poverty (or whatever their challenges are) is never going to amount to anything, or can't hold down a decent job long enough for a promotion? It is up to the individual what happens in their life. There are lots of people who come with every advantage, that waste their life; and those who make the most of every opportunity despite not having much. After all, U.S. promises equal opportunity, not equal results.

@kath -- have you any idea why obesity is an epidemic among our poorest? It is quite possible to 'starve' on poor quality foods that are little more than fat and starch, because they are cheap, available, and they satisfy hunger in the short term. Google the term 'food desert'.

As for 'desirable' -- children deserve parents who want them, or are at least motivated enough to do right by them. There are many children in foster-care whose parents neither wanted them nor cared enough not to neglect them before surrendering them to the system. These children often end up with life-long health and emotional issues that affect their adoptive families and society as a whole.

@Randy1949:
Indeed I do. While I recognize that as a very real problem, please see that the "starve to death" is not generally a problem here domestically.
Also, please see that I am not for the prohibition of "sex and contraception"; only that I am against assuming that you know a person's potential if you know their socioeconomic background, or that they should somehow be judged as less desirable because of it.

@Kath...My parents were children of the Great Depression. People did starve to death and children often were cast out to find their own way. In 1935 the government passed the Social Security Act and the deserving poor, widows and orphans, were covered, but there was another segment that were determined to be the undeserving poor. They continued to suffer. I don't know if you were around during the 50s, 60s and 70s when the full face of poverty finally was brought forward. It is and was endemic in Appalachia, the rural south and Indian reservations. As a society we decided that we could eliminate poverty and made great strides, but it was cut short in the 1970s. Every since the passage of the bills against the war on poverty the conservatives have made every attempt to reverse the programs.

You come from a large family and one could seriously question the reason that your parents choose to have such a large family. Today, a family that large would be the exception rather than the rule. However, this is not the issue. The issue is children of poverty have far less opportunity than children of the middle and upper classes. People complain now that we have a permanent poverty class. I want to know if conservatives will re-implement the undeserving poor status and what exactly does that mean. You nor anyone else have answered the inquiry.

@kath -- I received an excellent public education as well (although nowhere near the quality of the private prep school I attended for my last two years of high school) but I had extremely literate parents and didn't attend MPS. It was also half a century ago when we seemed to get more value for our property tax dollars.

Realistically, how well do you expect a person to do trying to learn in troubled public school districts and with no money to even consider college? Bear in mind, in Abraham Lincoln's day, the lack of a college degree was no bar to advancement as it is today.

And may I ask you -- what decent jobs, with what chance for a promotion? The Horatio Alger days are long gone, if in fact they ever existed.

@Lyle:
"You come from a large family and one could seriously question the reason that your parents choose to have such a large family."
Sheesh! And I thought you were compassionate! Well, there goes that idea. Truth is, I'm thankful to be here, whatever the reason my parents had a large family. While it seems that this is rather personal on your part, I'll ask you to examine your general thought process on the premise that people born into less-than-optimal socioeconomic statuses are less than desirable. We would never (and should never) tolerate you saying, "what would we do with all the ____________ that would be born?", if you fill in the blank with any other descriptive of people as a group. Why should poor be any different? Again, I'm not of the mind-set that sex or contraception should be prohibited (and I somehow guess that my husband would have a real issue with this as well :), but I think it goes towards a bias against the intelligence or capacities of lower-capital individuals.

@kath -- You must be new to these pages if you are unfamiliar with the attitude of the Right, mostly, about people who are in the lowest economic class. Supposedly, they don't pay enough in taxes (they would if they earned enough money) and they are always looking for a handout (they wouldn't need a handout if they earned enough money) and it's their own fault for making poor life choices (probably entering life through the wrong birth canal).

I think you're wrong about Americans having equal opportunity. People born into the impoverished class have less access to decent nutrition, healthcare, and the ability to better themselves through education, and they will have even less under Ryan's principles.

What is that expression, "Some people were born on third base and think they hit a triple."

@Kath...As Randy observed you seem to be new to this discussion. One of the issues continuously brought up by the right is personal responsibility and that people should not bring children into the world that they can't afford. It becomes apparent that they want people to not engage in sex without consequences and if they do and it results in pregnancy they don't think that the rest of society has any responsibility for the unintended births.

Something that you need to be aware of is that this nation has one of the lowest rates of social mobility of all developed nations. The social democratic nations have much better upward social mobility. There is very few who are able to move upwardly from the socioeconomic class they are born into. The social democracies, by guaranteeing a minimum living standard, have a much greater success in increasing peoples living standards. I would suggest that you research Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.

@Randy
What is 'earned enough'? I would like you liberals to define what is rich and what is poor. By world standards our poor are rich.

If by 'not enough taxes' you are speaking of the 50% of American not paying income taxes, then yes, they are not paying enough. Don't blame it on greedy conservative, looking to make the tax system equally shared based on a percentage of your income. Blame the progressive taxation system you liberals have developed they creates numerous loopholes for your rich to slip through.

@Randy and Lyle
Are the two of you waging war on this woman? I thought only republicans did that.

@Lyle & kath -- If I had a nickel for every time one of the usual suspects says, "Why should I pay for some woman to have sex?" I could probably afford health insurance for myself. And once they're born -- they're really on their own.

I don't know, Lyle, someone from a family affluent enough to help them through college has a chance of doing quite well and joining the 1%. It's a slim chance, but it's a chance.

@J.B. -- "What is 'earned enough'? I would like you liberals to define what is rich and what is poor. By world standards our poor are rich."

Earned enough is earned enough to pay for private health insurance when your job doesn't offer it. Earned enough is earning enough so that your kid can go to college, because without it there is no economic advancement. Kath is talking about poor people who became successes in life, and that is a fairy-tale. I would not call President Obama from a 'poor' background.

@Randy
Again you are unable to place a number to that. What about a family man who has a job that has insurance. While the neighbor next to him works less hours and a less advanced job that doesn't provide health insurance but their salaries are the same. Should the neighbor be paid more for less because he lacks insurance? What then prevents the first man from lowering his job status to work less yet receive the same benefits?

The idea that "because without it there is no economic advancement" when speaking of college is bogus. You don't go to college to get a job, you go to college to get educated. If you want a job become an apprentice in the trades, if you want an education pay for college yourself. That is what loans are for. Sure it is expensive, only because of your bogus notion that everyone must go to college and now it is clogged with people who don't belong their. You graduate from high school with a 3.0 or better go to college, if not then get a trades job.

@J.B. Schmidt...The scenario you presented to Randy is meaningless. Need is based on relevance. My answer is that no matter who you are you should have healthcare available because it is a basic human right.

As far as college is concerned, I agree with you. However, advancement shouldn't be based on GPA, but on willingness to work hard to earn it.

@Lyle
Heatlhcare a right? At what level? Everyone currently has access to emergency care. What else? Is it a right that you be given cowboy style care with stick to bite on and 2 shots of whiskey or is it a right that everyone must see the top of the line surgeon? And honestly you aren't talking about access (since it is possible for all to get healthcare) you are saying we must be provided with healthcare. Everyone has the right to FREE healthcare.

As for relative need you only restated Randy's point in different terms. Lets assume some governing body places human needs as X (to include food, housing, clothing and healthcare). Therefore, your household would receive 2X (I am making the assumption your kids have left the roost) and my household would receive 7X. This is given with no consideration to ability or production. Does it really seem fair that my cut is automatically larger then yours while my wife and I have considerably less education and have lower production return then you and your wife? What then stops everyone from reducing production in favor of increasing the needs ratio?

@J.B. Schmidt....Yes, healthcare as a right just as it is in other social democracies. To understand minimum rights, I refer you to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.

@Lyle
Those are minimum needs one must attain for survival. Not needs that must be provided as rights. I don't argue one needs those things. However, they are not guaranteed to you.

Anyway, I though we used the constitution to determine the rights of our republic.

@J.B. Schmidt...So if the constitution doesn't guarantee basic survival needs, then what about in the preamble to provide for the General Welfare. That has been interpreted to be the means to provide entitlements. There is a shared responsibility to all citizens for the benefit of all. Therefore, if we determine that healthcare is for the benefit of all, then it is constitutional.

@Lyle -- If free universal education is supposed to promote the general welfare, I don't see why medical care would be any different. Why should people be forced into bankruptcy simply for getting sick?

@Randy1949...I agree.

@Lyle
That an odd way of stating it especially since 70% of the public is in favor of Voter ID as a way promote general welfare by ensuring our election, suddenly the constitution means something different.

@Randy
And the success of our public education system should deter anyone from wanting the government controlling your healthcare.

@J.B. Schmidt -- And a large percentage of the population are in favor of school prayer as long as it's Christian prayer. Popular doesn't always equal constitutional.

The decline in quality of public education has many causes, but it is not the fact that it is run by the government. The main difference between my youth and now is that parents are no longer doing their job in preparing their children to learn or reinforcing at home what is learned in school. I don't fault them, because they're too busy doing their other jobs -- making a living.

@Randy
It was Lyle who said, "if we determine that healthcare is for the benefit of all, then it is constitutional". Why then is majority rule not also in place for voter ID and prayer in school? Or is it simply liberals wanting what they want regardless of the barriers and prohibiting what they don't want regardless of actual constitutionality?

The governments involvement in school and the desire to establish themselves as pseudo-parents is what has caused parents themselves to back off (it takes a village). I sight the demand that school must teach sex and then couple it with your statement about how countries when they become dependent stop doing things for themselves, as proof of concept. Kids can get breakfast, lunch and possibly dinner at school. The government sets standards for learning and then lowers standards when they can't be met. They don't demand parent involvement, but blame the lifestyles or economic background. Its not about students in the public education sector it is about making sure you get the state/federal funding.

@J.B. Schmidt -- That was a non sequitur, Majority rule has nothing to do with general welfare. You'd be singing quite a different tune about prayer in schools if the majority were Muslim and the prayers were said facing Mecca.

Everyone needs healthcare and education regardless of their religion or political views. I get it -- you're fine with a system under which a necessity of life can be priced for private profit to the point where it's beyond the means of a large segment of the population.

@kath -- The point of the article is that Paul Ryan is a hypocrite. His Ayn Rand inspired, everyone for themselves political philosophy has nothing at all to do with Christianity. I'm not sure why the party of pious piety embraces him.

@kath: It's the USCCB that find the budget nChristian. All I'm saying is that we should ignore church lobbying.

Tonto, could you provide some examples of this? What Democrats have stolen tax money and run off with it?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/20/richer-democratic-states-with-lower-unemployment-got-bulk-of-obama-stimulus - the list is so long you could fill the Patch for years with the theft :(

@Nick
Doesn't "too well educated, too financially well-heeled-sponsored as he is by uber-wealthy PACs;photogenic,writes well" also define our current president of whom you speak so highly of? Doesn't Obama's wealth, connections and the vast donation he has received from wall street, wealthy Hollywood and wealthy academia not also place him in the cross hairs of representing plutocratic oligarchy?

What is hidden is not the efforts of a man (Ryan) willing to place before the public his exact intentions. Instead, those that hide (Democrats) are those that haven't been able to produce a budget for 3 years. For they know America doesn't want to see the ugly face of their Quasimodo like policies.