Pope attacks mega-salaries and wealth gap in peace message

[ishii]

Thanks for the quote. What stands out to me is the “contempt for” the “weakest” and those considered “useless”. In the last year or two, it has hit me like a ton of bricks - this contempt of which the Pope speaks. The uncharitable attitude and frank insults directed at the poor have really been disturbing to me; people, even in the public arena, discussing the poor like the objects of their attacks cannot hear the condescending, dismissive narrative being used to blame them for their own poverty or disadvantage. What makes it even more disturbing is the deafening silence from those who are in a position to say “stop, this isn’t right”. Thank you Papa Francisco.

I noticed that. I bet it happens again on this thread.

Perhaps you both are confusing insults directed toward the failed liberal approaches to dealing with poverty with insults toward the poor. I find insulting the attitude that says, “unless you agree with my solutions to poverty, you are insulting the poor.” You really shouldn’t demonize those with whom you disagree, Seekerz.

Ishii

 

[LisaA]

The problem with this study is limits its analysis to people who come from families in the bottom 20% of income. The problem is, that if you are in the upper part of the income distribution and you get pregnant, your parents will probably take you to the clinic and get the problem solved. So for upper income folks, getting pregnant is not harmful. Same thing for education, the parents likely don’t allow dropping out.

The real question is how to stop this. I personally think we should bring back orphanages. If you have to go on the dole, you have no business having a child in your possession, end of story.

I never argued that more money should be thrown at the problem, unless it is to build orphanges. And that money can be easily taken by making the able bodied people over 65 work instead of collecting social security.

I don’t see any reason to argue with a study when you have no evidence to indicate the findings were not reflective of reality. It doesn’t take a study to demonstrate that poverty in America is based mainly on the failure to make decisions that would provide someone with a brighter future. As I’ve said, I’ve volunteered, been a board member, for numerous social services organizations, some religious, some secular. I have “met the poor” face to face. Almost invariably it’s same song, different verse. Single woman, multiple kids out of wedlock, no involvement much less financial support from baby daddy. Probably a lack of high school diploma or GED. Drugs and/or alcohol… It doesn’t matter if it’s homeless shelter, a drug treatment facility, a domestic violence facility, a corrections facility, a foster home, or children’s services. It’s usually the same story. And it has zero to do with what some CEO is earning. It’s the culture.

Believe it or not I agree with the concept of group housing for children who are neglected or abused. What I see in volunteering is a fragmented and chaotic system of foster homes and social workers where so many children are dragged along behind their parents’ (or more likely mother’s) self destructive lifestyle. So many resources are expended to reunite mom and child and while that sounds nice, the reality is that there are not that many happy endings. I think the children would be better off in a stable living/school situation than the in and out of foster care that actually exists. If mom doesn’t get her act together within a certain time frame the child stays in foster care until he/she ages out and is basicallly abandoned by the state as well. It’s a mess. And you can see that it’s not about the kids but the adults.

Sadly our government is happy to throw money at problems while ignoring potential solutions because it will anger some constituancy or another. I am a strong proponent of school choice. Why poor children should be stuck in failing schools because of their parents’ address is beyond me. Yet the opportunities to get these childeren out of these awful schools is frequently thwarted by the teachers’ unions. Right now the DOJ is suing Louisiana for providing scholarships to low income kids and get them out of horrible schools. They claim because it interferes with “diversity” but it’s really because this interferes with the stranglehold public schools and unions have on these poor kids. Again, it’s not about the kids but the adults…in this case teachers’ unions. Kids don’t vote, don’t lobby and don’t call their Congressman. They are pawns in a giant chess game and they always get taken first.

Lisa

 

[ishii]

I think what is being asked is not an abandonment of capitalism, but examining how free it is and whether it is restricted in a manner that benefits all of society. Unrestricted capitalism has been condemned by previous popes, as has communism. Now we can look at what restrictions work and what do not, but I have to agree with the Holy Father that current compensation disparity is an indication of a broken society.

If anything, we have too many restrictions. Too much red tape and regulations and taxes that stifle initiative and penalize success. We need more restrictions on government. Unrestricted government is something we should be concerned about. Any government which has the power to decide who gets compensated, and set wages and salaries is a government that can take away other freedoms - including the freedom of worship. Be careful what you wish for, pnewton.

Ishii

 

[SuperLuigi]

Since when has the government ever borrowed responsibly?

Maybe never.

I do know that in DC there has never been a government program written into existence that has cost less that its projected value. I once heard all but one exceeded original projections.

And this is all the fault of the left?

HA!

You should have seen all the posts I’ve made about the American “homegrown heartland” or bringing up farm subsidies or funding for football stadiums.

And even if it were just left-wingers spending us into oblivion, I want an explanation as to how even in 1984 4% of republicans voted for Mondale and how Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania all went to Obama not once but twice.

The dirty secret about certain conservatives is that the left would not have been able to accomplish all of this without their help.

 

[SuperLuigi]

=frobert;11491838]Please tell us, if you know, who is trying to cut to the chase, find the root problems and offer solutions. I agree that throwing money at the problem doesn’t solve anything, **just as cutting taxes doesn’t benefit anyone much except for the multi-millionaires and billionaires. **I hear about what nut cases the left are and what nut cases the right are. Maybe the socially conscious politicians on either side have some ideas to solve the problem of poverty without throwing money at it or at reasonable affordable cost but I haven’t heard anything come from them. Before you call me a left wing nut, I am neither right nor left, to me it is obvious that the only differences are the prejudices that they use to soothe their bases while their constituents, the ones they do things for, are the same on the right as on the left.

It really does need to be understood that cutting taxes incentives the rich to make investments that create jobs.

When that money goes to government, it is wasted.

If the rich are overtaxed, they will just funnel their money out of the taxed jurisdiction and any revenue you might have had would be gone.

It’s not about protecting rich people, it’s about incentivizing them to risk their money a little (or a lot) in the market.

 

[ishii]

I don't see any reason to argue with a study when you have no evidence to indicate the findings were not reflective of reality.  It doesn't take a study to demonstrate that poverty in America is based mainly on the failure to make decisions that would provide someone with a brighter future.  As I've said, I've volunteered, been a board member, for numerous social services organizations, some religious, some secular.  I have "met the poor" face to face.  Almost invariably it's same song, different verse.  Single woman, multiple kids out of wedlock, no involvement much less financial support from baby daddy.  Probably a lack of high school diploma or GED.  Drugs and/or alcohol..  It doesn't matter if it's homeless shelter, a drug treatment facility, a domestic violence facility, a corrections facility, a foster home, or children's services.  It's usually the same story.  And it has zero to do with what some CEO is earning.  It's the culture.

Excellent points LisaA - and glad to see you chime in with your particular brand of wisdom on this topic. So much of the problems are due to the culture. But how to reverse the culture? Maybe we need to go back and see where things went wrong. It starts with families. Intact families with a Mom and a Dad. Not the liberal feminist glorification of single motherhood. Not welfare programs that encourage illegitimacy. We need to do something about the kids and Mom’s who are homeless, but we also need to do something to address the root causes of these issues.

Sadly our government is happy to throw money at problems while ignoring potential solutions because it will anger some constituancy or another. I am a strong proponent of school choice. Why poor children should be stuck in failing schools because of their parents’ address is beyond me. Yet the opportunities to get these childeren out of these awful schools is frequently thwarted by the teachers’ unions. Right now the DOJ is suing Louisiana for providing scholarships to low income kids and get them out of horrible schools. They claim because it interferes with “diversity” but it’s really because this interferes with the stranglehold public schools and unions have on these poor kids. Again, it’s not about the kids but the adults…in this case teachers’ unions. Kids don’t vote, don’t lobby and don’t call their Congressman. They are pawns in a giant chess game and they always get taken first.

Lisa

Yes, one of the biggest problems is entrenched liberalism and a DOJ that would sacrifice needy kid’s education at the altar of “diversity.” Its all about maintaining power. But you will hear, on these forums, liberal catholics who defend those types of decisions, because for some, its all about ideology, even when the facts show that the ideology has failed miserably.

Ishii

 

[Darryl1958]

I think what is being asked is not an abandonment of capitalism, but examining how free it is and whether it is restricted in a manner that benefits all of society. Unrestricted capitalism has been condemned by previous popes, as has communism. Now we can look at what restrictions work and what do not, but I have to agree with the Holy Father that current compensation disparity is an indication of a broken society.

I am pretty sure that Catholic teaching is not an abandonment of capitalism, but I am more sure that the post that Estebob responded to was precisely that we need to abandon capitalism in order to be on the side of the pope.

…Those Catholics on the ideological right on economics are going to have to decide: are they on the side of the Church and the Pope or are they on the side of the capitalists? If it’s the Pope, they’re going to have to abandon their capitalist ideology. The first step is to stop pretending that the Pope is being “mistranslated” or that his real message is being somehow corrupted by a scheming media.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Source?

We could start with President Obama spending more money than all of the previous presidents combined.

I appreciate your drive to neutrality, but really some things are just very obvious.

 

[ishii]

It really does need to be understood that cutting taxes incentives the rich to make investments that create jobs.

When that money goes to government, it is wasted.

If the rich are overtaxed, they will just funnel their money out of the taxed jurisdiction and any revenue you might have had would be gone.

It’s not about protecting rich people, it’s about incentivizing them to risk their money a little (or a lot) in the market.

That’s the problem with liberal thinking, SuperLuigi. So many liberal see taxing the rich as not something that should be done because its effective, but because, by golly, the rich deserve it! They are greedy and have too much money and that’s not fair! So we need to take it away. I don’t think their simplistic minds have even thought about the effect of higher taxes might have on the economy. They are interested mainly in punishing the rich - because, in their minds, if someone got rich, it was at the expense of someone else. (which is wrong, of course - a wealthy business owner provides jobs. I should know - I am employed by one!)

Ishii

 

[StudentMI]

The real question is how to stop this. I personally think we should bring back orphanages. If you have to go on the dole, you have no business having a child in your possession, end of story.

Are you being serious? You really think every parent on welfare has no right to keep their children?

 

[pnewton]

Perhaps you both are confusing insults directed toward the failed liberal approaches to dealing with poverty with insults toward the poor. I find insulting the attitude that says, “unless you agree with my solutions to poverty, you are insulting the poor.” You really shouldn’t demonize those with whom you disagree, Seekerz.

Ishii

No, I meant what I said. No confusion. I have seen it too often. I understand the difference between disdain for the poor and the criticism of failed programs. What seekerz was no more demonizing others than your assumption about what she said is demonizing her. It is a pot meet kettle statement.

 

[pnewton]

IBe careful what you wish for, pnewton.

Ishii

You have no idea what I wish for (in this case, I made no wishes). I am often mischaracterized here by those who assume.

 

[pnewton]

I am pretty sure that Catholic teaching is not an abandonment of capitalism, but I am more sure that the post that Estebob responded to was precisely that we need to abandon capitalism in order to be on the side of the pope.

On can appreciate a regulated for of capitalism and not be on the side of capitalists. I think the point in this papal statement is that we have too much institutionalized greed. Now the capitalist idea is that this works well and everyone is better off. I think that is ideal and we do not live in a world where the ideal works. Greed is probably our second greatest mortal sin in the world today. The ideal of capitalism will never work. Thus, we have this increasing wealth disparity between the rich and the poor. It is getting worse, not better. That is why I believe our economy to be sinful and disordered. American style capitalism, if one can even call it capitalism anymore is something I consider evil, to wit, when the rich and powerful can make the salaries they do and keep the working poor in poverty. I think they and those that support them may find themselves looking up at Lazarus one day.

 

[stinkcat_14]

seriously?

I am the source of that statement. Who in government whines the loudest over meager cuts in the budget? Who is more likely to call a reduction in an increase in spending as “draconian”. Who votes for bills so they can find out whats in them?
etc, etc, etc

Neither side cuts spending. each side runs deficits. Both parties are fiscally reckless.

 

[LisaA]

On can appreciate a regulated for of capitalism and not be on the side of capitalists. I think the point in this papal statement is that we have too much institutionalized greed. Now the capitalist idea is that this works well and everyone is better off. I think that is ideal and we do not live in a world where the ideal works. Greed is probably our second greatest mortal sin in the world today. The ideal of capitalism will never work. Thus, we have this increasing wealth disparity between the rich and the poor. It is getting worse, not better. That is why I believe our economy to be sinful and disordered. American style capitalism, if one can even call it capitalism anymore is something I consider evil, to wit, when the rich and powerful can make the salaries they do and keep the working poor in poverty. I think they and those that support them may find themselves looking up at Lazarus one day.

I don’t think you are correct regarding capitalism increasing the disparity between rich and poor. In countries where the economy is/was regulated there is a tiny elite and a huge group of those in poverty. Countries that were so, such as China, have seen a great increase in their standard of living due to removing the government stranglehold on the economy. In contrast free market based countries like America have been characterized by the ability to transition between income levels. “Poor boy makes good” IS the American story. Many Americans can and have transitioned from lower income to upper income. How about Ben Carson for an incredible example? That wouldn’t have happened in the Soviet Union. You can look at the side by side countries and see the difference between free market economies and those regulated by the state.

Our ECONOMY isn’t sinful and disordered, our people are (as are all people). We understand this sinful nature and try to fight it. But there are many who do not. It’s human nature and regulating the economy is not going to change human nature.

Further and for about the tenth time, please show me how some CEO’s salary keeps an inner city single mother poor? What does one have to do with the other? Capitalism or better described a free market economy, would give the woman an opportunity to get out should she be willing and able to take that opportunity. A totalitarian and regulated economy would not. There are no Dr Ben Carson’s in Cuba.

No one believes in totally unregulated capitalism. Safety nets for social ills is one thing. But central planning doesn’t work on human beings. Obamacare anyone?

Lisa

 

[frobert]

.

Further and for about the tenth time, please show me how some CEO’s salary keeps an inner city single mother poor? What does one have to do with the other? Capitalism or better described a free market economy, would give the woman an opportunity to get out should she be willing and able to take that opportunity. A totalitarian and regulated economy would not. There are no Dr Ben Carson’s in Cuba.

Lisa

Lisa,

You are asking for a simple answer to an extremely complex system. Capitalism in itself is neither bad nor good. What is bad is when it becomes Crony Capitalism.

Crony capitalism is a term describing an economy in which success in business depends on close relationships between business people and government officials. It may be exhibited by favoritism in the distribution of legal permits, government grants, special tax breaks, or other forms of dirigisme*. Crony capitalism is believed to arise when political cronyism spills over into the business world; self-serving friendships and family ties between businessmen and the government influence the economy and society to the extent that it corrupts public-serving economic and political ideals.

The CEO salary does not directly effect a poor single mother. It does so indirectly by limiting the opportunities available to the mother.

A result of crony capitalism is the elevation of capital through the devaluation of labor which is happening in the US today. A symptom of crony capitalism is student loans which enrich the financial corporations by exploiting families and through the government guarantees funded by tax payers.

Main street media like Fox News and MSNBC is not going to tell you about crony capitalism because they are owned and controlled by the crony capitalists.

Western Europe, Japan, China, Russia and many other countries have their own systems of Crony capitalism. Read Atlas Shrugged by Ann Rand to get an idea of what our governments have evolved to.

• Dirigisme or dirigism (from Latin dirigere, meaning “to direct”) is an economic system where the state exerts a strong directive influence over investment. It designates a capitalist economy with a strong directive, as opposed to a merely regulatory, role for the state

 

[LisaA]

Lisa,

You are asking for a simple answer to an extremely complex system. Capitalism in itself is neither bad nor good. What is bad is when it becomes Crony Capitalism.

Crony capitalism is a term describing an economy in which success in business depends on close relationships between business people and government officials. It may be exhibited by favoritism in the distribution of legal permits, government grants, special tax breaks, or other forms of dirigisme*. Crony capitalism is believed to arise when political cronyism spills over into the business world; self-serving friendships and family ties between businessmen and the government influence the economy and society to the extent that it corrupts public-serving economic and political ideals.

The CEO salary does not directly effect a poor single mother. It does so indirectly by limiting the opportunities available to the mother.

A result of crony capitalism is the elevation of capital through the devaluation of labor which is happening in the US today. A symptom of crony capitalism is student loans which enrich the financial corporations by exploiting families and through the government guarantees funded by tax payers.

Main street media like Fox News and MSNBC is not going to tell you about crony capitalism because they are owned and controlled by the crony capitalists.

Western Europe, Japan, China, Russia and many other countries have their own systems of Crony capitalism. Read Atlas Shrugged by Ann Rand to get an idea of what our governments have evolved to.

• Dirigisme or dirigism (from Latin dirigere, meaning “to direct”) is an economic system where the state exerts a strong directive influence over investment. It designates a capitalist economy with a strong directive, as opposed to a merely regulatory, role for the state

Oh puh-lease…Fox is where you DO hear about crony capitalism. You must not be watching because the Obama administration’s disgusting transfer of tax dollars to friends, fundraisers and bundlers would do a Soviet dictator proud. How many BILLIONS to failing green energy companies? How many BILLIONS to General Motors? How many MILLIONS to “community groups” to navigate Obamacare? How many BILLIONS to bail out Wall Street and banks and AIG?

And who took over the Student Loan program—THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION through Obamacare!

You are shooting at the wrong enemy. I totally agree that crony capitalism is evil but that’s not what free market advocate support. But it is what Obama is all about. I am totally against all of this favor trading, cronyism and corruption.

But that’s what the American people voted for…TWICE. God help us.

Oh and once again, there is NO correlation between an individual’s poor decision making and what Jeffrey Immelt makes. While I’m not living in dreamland and realize that it’s not easy for someone to rise up out of the kind of government inspired dependency poverty we have established thanks to Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon etc. But it IS possible if the government would also get its stranglehold off of our schools and let children have a choice for education…dare I say a free market approach?

Lisa

PS Agree no anti-Obama administration stories on MSNBC but then no one is watching anyway

 

[Darryl1958]

On can appreciate a regulated for of capitalism and not be on the side of capitalists. I think the point in this papal statement is that we have too much institutionalized greed. Now the capitalist idea is that this works well and everyone is better off. I think that is ideal and we do not live in a world where the ideal works. Greed is probably our second greatest mortal sin in the world today. The ideal of capitalism will never work. Thus, we have this increasing wealth disparity between the rich and the poor. It is getting worse, not better. That is why I believe our economy to be sinful and disordered. American style capitalism, if one can even call it capitalism anymore is something I consider evil, to wit, when the rich and powerful can make the salaries they do and keep the working poor in poverty. I think they and those that support them may find themselves looking up at Lazarus one day.

If there is increasing wealth disparity, this is often not due to the fact that people are becoming more greedy. Greed is part of human nature after all, and has always existed. The increasing disparity is as likely to be cause by regulation as by lack of regulation. Governments do not enter into the game as neutral players, but as people whose allegiances go out to the highest bidder. This is what is skewing the process towards the rich and the powerful.

Calls for more regulation and more government and less capitalism therefore do not alleviate the problem, but increase the problem. It is the role of government in the economy that has gone unchecked and the role of an increasingly powerful and centralized government that is upsetting the balance.

The battle lines as they are drawn now do not pit the rich against the poor, but the rich buy off the poor in a battle against the middle. That cannot be called capitalism any more, but without identifying the problem correctly, by calling for even more powerful government, what is happening is the problem is becoming even more skewed by making the role of government even more unchecked and more unbalanced.

 

[frobert]

Oh puh-lease…Fox is where you DO hear about crony capitalism. You must not be watching because the Obama administration’s disgusting transfer of tax dollars to friends, fundraisers and bundlers would do a Soviet dictator proud. How many BILLIONS to failing green energy companies? How many BILLIONS to General Motors? How many MILLIONS to “community groups” to navigate Obamacare? How many BILLIONS to bail out Wall Street and banks and AIG?

And who took over the Student Loan program—THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION through Obamacare!

You are shooting at the wrong enemy. I totally agree that crony capitalism is evil but that’s not what free market advocate support. But it is what Obama is all about. I am totally against all of this favor trading, cronyism and corruption.

But that’s what the American people voted for…TWICE. God help us.

Oh and once again, there is NO correlation between an individual’s poor decision making and what Jeffrey Immelt makes. While I’m not living in dreamland and realize that it’s not easy for someone to rise up out of the kind of government inspired dependency poverty we have established thanks to Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon etc. But it IS possible if the government would also get its stranglehold off of our schools and let children have a choice for education…dare I say a free market approach?

Lisa

PS Agree no anti-Obama administration stories on MSNBC but then no one is watching anyway

I honestly believe you did not understand one thing I wrote. I also believe that you truly believe what you wrote. So let’s agree to ignore each others posts.

Peace be with you.

 

[frobert]

The battle lines as they are drawn now do not pit the rich against the poor, but the rich buy off the poor in a battle against the middle. That cannot be called capitalism any more, but without identifying the problem correctly, by calling for even more powerful government, what is happening is the problem is becoming even more skewed by making the role of government even more unchecked and more unbalanced.

Very well put.