Pope Francis denounces ‘trickle-down’ economic theories in critique of inequality

[SMGS127]

How about we ponder the fact the Bishops in the US unanimously oppose Obsmacare

The Bishops in the US supported it before it included the HHS mandate, which wasn’t included until much after it had been passed. This is deliberate obfuscation of the truth.

 

[CrossofChrist]

How about we ponder the fact that, despite the imprecations of numerous people within these forums and their ideological fellow travelers elsewhere against the Obama administration, the Holy See has yet to issue any direct message to Catholic parishes in this country dispensing them from any moral obligation to obey and respect the authority of the Obama administration? Or for any American administration, for that matter? Such a measure WAS observed in Germany in the nineteen-thirties when Hitler was in his ascendancy.

Nor has the Holy See ever condemned European healthcare systems or called for their end on the basis that they include insurance coverage for abortion-related services that I am aware of.

I think there IS room to question the correctness of the American bishops’ stance.

In the light of these considerations, it is imperative that the entire Catholic community in the United States come to realize the grave threats to the Church’s public moral witness presented by a radical secularism which finds increasing expression in the political and cultural spheres. The seriousness of these threats needs to be clearly appreciated at every level of ecclesial life. Of particular concern are certain attempts being made to limit that most cherished of American freedoms, the freedom of religion. Many of you have pointed out that concerted efforts have been made to deny the right of conscientious objection on the part of Catholic individuals and institutions with regard to cooperation in intrinsically evil practices. Others have spoken to me of a worrying tendency to reduce religious freedom to mere freedom of worship without guarantees of respect for freedom of conscience. - Pope Benedict XVI

 

[colmywaykurtz]

In the light of these considerations, it is imperative that the entire Catholic community in the United States come to realize the grave threats to the Church’s public moral witness presented by a radical secularism which finds increasing expression in the political and cultural spheres. The seriousness of these threats needs to be clearly appreciated at every level of ecclesial life. Of particular concern are certain attempts being made to limit that most cherished of American freedoms, the freedom of religion. Many of you have pointed out that concerted efforts have been made to deny the right of conscientious objection on the part of Catholic individuals and institutions with regard to cooperation in intrinsically evil practices. Others have spoken to me of a worrying tendency to reduce religious freedom to mere freedom of worship without guarantees of respect for freedom of conscience. - Pope Benedict XVI

That hardly amounts to the same thing as what was happening in Germany in the thirties, and is quite plausibly open to a systemic interpretation with regard to the principals involved. I’d have to walk a good country mile to buy into your interpretation.

 

[Dawnia]

Now wait a minute. The bottom 50%, as you call it, lives from paycheck to paycheck. They spend all of their disposable income. So that means that they pay plenty of taxes. If they pay rent, then they pay property taxes through their rent. One of the fallacies that the commercial property owners like to propagate is that THEY pay the taxes, when in fact their tenants and customers give them the money to pay the taxes. The lower 50 pay sales tax on everything they buy. Sales tax is a regressive tax which taxes the poor at a higher rate than the rich.

Whenever you talk about the truly rich paying taxes, keep in mind that the tax burden is actually being paid by the people who are making that person rich. The tax is passed on down in the form of the price paid for the good or service. Otherwise, there would be no profits. The huge tax burden which the rich complain about is in reality a tax paid by the poor to support them. They are just passing the tax money along, and keeping the rest for themselves.

If, for some reason, the Congress passed a special tax on software company owners tomorrow, then the price of software would go up. The owners would pay the tax out of that higher revenue, and tell us all about how much they pay in taxes. In fact, the taxes would be paid by the higher price paid by the buyers of the software.

The entire idea that the rich pay all the taxes is ludicrous. Where do they get the profits to pay those taxes? It is not self generated. They get money from other people, and pay taxes on that. If you buy something, then the price of that item includes the income taxes and other taxes for every person involved in producing of delivering that item, plus a profit. You pay taxes on the worker who produced it, the person who manufactured it, the accountant, the truck driver, the advertising person… all these taxes are charged to you in the price you pay. It is a fallacious claim that people who don’t file an income tax return don’t pay taxes.

However, much of “wealth creation” is just not taxed. It accrues by holding assets which appreciate.

And the people who pay the rich people and the property owners get their money from someone else too. So what? Everybody gets their money from someone else. (unless you have a money tree or you print your own like the government)

Using your argument, all those poor people don’t pay sales tax either, that tax is paid by whoever gave them their money…their boss through their paycheck, the state through FIP payments, etc.

And if you extend it to it’s final end, all taxes are paid by the government since all money originates with them.

 

[fnr]

A tax on business is a tax on everybody as well, for inasmuch as they need the product they pay that tax in the increased price of the product.

It is a hidden tax, and the extra profit is assumed to go to the business whereas it ends up in the coffers of government.

And a subsidy on corn, soybeans, or any other crop is a subsidy to megafarms, CAFOs, and slaughterhouses that turn up as $1.99/lb steak on sale at the local supermarket. And the destruction of small farms in America and Mexico and the resulting immigrant labor filling the fields and the slaugherhouses and the backs of the restaurants where the subsidies flow is what? Not a tax? Just the price of doing business? What about the xenophobic anti-immigrant policy complex that’s put in place to suppress the same labor market our farm policies subsidize? That’s not a tax? What about the artificial lowering on sugar, that statistically is fairly easy to link with increased obesity, which turns into higher health care costs for everyone through the miracle of insurance? That’s not a tax either?

 

[CrossofChrist]

The Bishops in the US supported it before it included the HHS mandate, which wasn’t included until much after it had been passed. This is deliberate obfuscation of the truth.

*The right of every individual to access health care does not necessarily suppose an obligation on the part of the government to provide it. Yet in our American culture, Catholic teaching about the “right” to healthcare is sometimes confused with the structures of “entitlement.” The teaching of the Universal Church has never been to suggest a government socialization of medical services. Rather, the Church has asserted the rights of every individual to have access to those things most necessary for sustaining and caring for human life, while at the same time insisting on the personal responsibility of each individual to care properly for his or her own health.

Indeed part of the crisis in today’s system stems from various misappropriations within health care insurance systems of exorbitant elective treatments, or the tendencies to regard health care services paid for by insurance as “free,” and to take advantage of services that happen to be available under the insurance plan. Such practices may arguably cripple the ability of small companies to provide necessary opportunities to their employees and significantly increase the cost of health care for everyone.

• • Archbishop Naumann and Bishop Finn

Cardinal Dolan’s take on Evangelii Gaudium and the economy: blog.archny.org/steppingout/

 

[CrossofChrist]

That hardly amounts to the same thing as what was happening in Germany in the thirties,

Agreed.

I’d have to walk a good country mile to buy into your interpretation.

Did I offer my interpretation?

Regardless, I don’t think it’s fair to say that the Holy See has said nothing with regards to Obamacare/HHS Mandate. It is clear from numerous other documents that the Vatican has issued that no Catholic can participate in supporting abortion.

 

[stinkcat_14]

How about we ponder the fact the Bishops in the US unanimously oppose Obsmacare

But mainly because of abortion coverage. A single payer system without abortion coverage would be morally acceptable. It may be imprudent, but it would not be immoral.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

Agreed.

Did I offer my interpretation?

Regardless, I don’t think it’s fair to say that the Holy See has said nothing with regards to Obamacare/HHS Mandate. It is clear from numerous other documents that the Vatican has issued that no Catholic can participate in supporting abortion.

But it has not been specifically delineated in what does “support” consist, or in what does it not consist. Some are taking the position that working poor people, for instance, with few alternatives in the healthcare sphere, are supposed to do without insurance just because their employer’s insurance includes abortion coverage. This is obviously going too far, and shows the discussion has been hijacked by unreasonable expectations, ones which have been given ample camouflage and wiggle room by ambiguity. So yes, it IS fair to question whether the Holy See has denied the ACA’s legitimacy of implementation, and that of the administration, generally.

 

[estesbob]

The Bishops in the US supported it before it included the HHS mandate, which wasn’t included until much after it had been passed. This is deliberate obfuscation of the truth.

So it is not true they unanimously oppose Obamacare? And BTW they opposed it BEFORE it passed because of the rejection of the Stupak amendment.

usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/health-care/upload/health-care-letter-usccb-to-senate-2009-11-20.pdf

 

[estesbob]

But mainly because of abortion coverage. A single payer system without abortion coverage would be morally acceptable. It may be imprudent, but it would not be immoral.

Correct-opposing abortion trumps health care in the eyes of the Church-which should come of no surprise to anyone who knows the teachings of the Church.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

Agreed.

Did I offer my interpretation?

Regardless, I don’t think it’s fair to say that the Holy See has said nothing with regards to Obamacare/HHS Mandate. It is clear from numerous other documents that the Vatican has issued that no Catholic can participate in supporting abortion.

Correct-opposing abortion trumps health care in the eyes of the Church-which should come of no surprise to anyone who knows the teachings of the Church.

So let’s hear the other shoe drop, estesbob. Anyone who receives any benefit under the ACA is automatically “supporting abortion,” right? That’s what the logic of your position is forcing you to say.

 

[estesbob]

So let’s hear the other shoe drop, estesbob. Anyone who receives any benefit under the ACA is automatically “supporting abortion,” right? That’s what the logic of your position is forcing you to say.

How would you possibly come to that conclusion? I was responding to the notion that the Church supported Obamacare.That simply is not the.They made it clear BEFORE it was passed they would not support it if it did not contain strong protections for human life.

 

[ishii]

As borders are breached with technology (ie. the techno and white collar work force is nearly borderless), it seems to me that the need for international standards for labor practices become more important to “level the playing field.”

The excessive greed and corruption in places like Mexico are a worldwide problem. In the US, it is more discrete and hidden. The standard of living (while declining in many ways) is quite high. But the ratio of ownership for the super wealthy in nearly every country is about the same, give or take a few percentage points.

The basic truth, when it comes to wealth, is that a few people acquire the kind of wealth I am talking about, but the very large majority are born into it. Then there is an upper class who tends to think they are rich, but aren’t really compared to the super rich. The super rich own more, by multiples, than everyone else combined, while typically comprising 1-2% of the population.

This may be what Francis is referring to. These fortunes are in the 10’s and 100’s of billions now, perhaps licking at the heels of the trillion dollar range, when you add up entire families. Meanwhile, real wages are flat for decades in many places. It is hard to imagine what a trillion dollars might do to alleviate poverty, if used wisely. Personally, I think that would be a better use of such wealth than buying tropical islands, or large boats and planes, or collecting works of art for 10’s of millions per painting.

Those might be valid points, but they don’t address my basic point of the chronic culture of corruption that has plagued Mexico which prevents the country from progressing and offering more economic opportunities for its citizens.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

Because starvation, disease, illiteracy, etc., are soooo much better. Oh, wait, lemme guess…I’m “patronizing the poor”, right? When the world sees as many Christians angrily fighting hunger as they do abortion, the number of abortions will drop. DRAMATICALLY. Funny how that works. Remove the desperation, people make choices not driven by desperation.

Liberalism is doing quite well, thank you very much. With geniuses like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh spouting off about what Liberals supposedly are, do, and think, our ranks are growing day by day. Thanks, Anne, Rush, and Co.! Keep up the good work!

Ouch. chill out a little, Recon.

fighting hunger in the US? I will tell you this, recon: I wouldn’t want to face my maker when he asks me, “what did you do to end abortion?” and only be able to answer: “but lord, I was for govt. funded school lunches for obese kids.”

Ishii

 

[KSU]

In 1899, Pope Leo XIII penned the encyclical Testem benevolentiae nostrae to suppress certain dangerous developments in America: some Catholic intellectuals and bishops were ignoring Church teaching and finding new theology in American political concepts of democracy.

Leo was not attacking democracy, of course, but he wished to nip the following idea in the bud:
" …in order to more easily attract those who differ from her, the Church should shape her teachings more in accord with the spirit of the age and relax some of her ancient severity and make some concessions to new opinions. Many think that these concessions should be made not only in regard to ways of living, but even in regard to doctrines which belong to the deposit of the faith. They contend that it would be opportune, in order to gain those who differ from us, to omit certain points of her teaching which are of lesser importance, and to tone down the meaning which the Church has always attached to them."

If you have been cringing at what some “Catholic” writers, teachers, politicians, clergy, religious and now even ordinary folks have been espousing the last few years, it is easy to see that Leo, who named this heresy Americanism, failed. In fact, some in the Church say they can’t figure out what the pope was talking about.

So, today, many American “Catholics” no longer want the old and severe Church rules. They prefer modern, compassionate “Catholic” judges and politicians to make the rules concerning economic “justice” and popular sexual morals. For them, freedom of conscience is the up-dated Catholic rule; haven’t you heard of VC II?

This is Saul Alinsky’s “power tactic” Number 3 from his Rules for Radicals: 3. “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat."

This tactic can be employed by quoting merely the title or an out-of-context-statement of an encyclical to justify Big Government over the Church’s rule regarding subsidiarity. The goal is to cause confusion and retreat for orthodox Catholics who haven’t memorized all the encyclicals.

Power tactic Number 4 is: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”

Thus it is a popular tactic in website debates for Progressives to say something akin to, “Jesus commanded us to sell all we have and give it to the poor, yet Conservative Christians don’t even want 99 weeks of unemployment compensation, food stamps, etc. for the poor; they won’t live by their own rules for the poor and they don’t want the Government to help the poor.”

Our Lord, BTW, cannot look favorably upon the misuse of the teaching of His Church.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Some of the passages in the “Evangelii Gaudium” attracted the criticism of ultraconservatives in the USA. As a Pope, what does it feel like to be called a “Marxist”?

“The Marxist ideology is wrong. But I have met many Marxists in my life who are good people, so I don’t feel offended.”

The most striking part of the Exhortation was where it refers to an economy that “kills”…

“There is nothing in the Exhortation that cannot be found in the social Doctrine of the Church. I wasn’t speaking from a technical point of view, what I was trying to do was to give a picture of what is going on. The only specific quote I used was the one regarding the “trickle-down theories” which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and social inclusiveness in the world. The promise was that when the glass was full, it would overflow, benefitting the poor. But what happens instead, is that when the glass is full, it magically gets bigger nothing ever comes out for the poor. This was the only reference to a specific theory. I was not, I repeat, speaking from a technical point of view but according to the Church’s social doctrine. This does not mean being a Marxist.”

lastampa.it/2013/12/14/esteri/vatican-insider/en/never-be-afraid-of-tenderness-5BqUfVs9r7W1CJIMuHqNeI/pagina.html

 

[Elizabeth502]

When the world sees as many Christians angrily fighting hunger as they do abortion, the number of abortions will dro dramatically…Remove the desperation, people make choices not driven by desperation.

The day when the Catholic Church, including her current Pope, ever excuses or rationalizes abortion based on poverty (“desperation”) is the day when Hell will freeze over. The highest population segment of abortion seekers in the U.S. is not the poor but the unmarried. The unmarried, rich and poor, have the most abortions. The married, rich and poor, have the fewest. Throwaway relationships lead to throwaway babies. The statistics show it.

In the meantime, I won’t hold my breath for any hypothetical “dramatic” drop.

 

[estesbob]

Ouch. chill out a little, Recon.

fighting hunger in the US? I will tell you this, recon: I wouldn’t want to face my maker when he asks me, “what did you do to end abortion?” and only be able to answer: “but lord, I was for govt. funded school lunches for obese kids.”

Ishii

Our Church does fight hunger just as hard a we fight abortion. I think we are seeing in this thread a variation of the timeless"better dead than underfed" rationale for supporting pro abortion canidates.

 

[Darryl1958]

Rich nations have rates of abortion higher than poor nations. Women have abortions not due to the fact that they and their unborn face prospects of starvation, but because giving birth to and raising children is a difficult and daunting prospect.

As long as people can pretend and lie to themselves that an unborn child is of no significance, abortion is seen as the more convenient route. For most women who are not psychopathic and without conscience, the ‘fact’ that an unborn child is of no significance is a pretense and a lie leads to a lifetime of guilt.
But only hindsight is 20/20.

Abortion rates will not drop as women get richer. Giving birth and raising a child is a daunting proposition for a richer woman as much as it is for a poor one.It takes a lifetime commitment and sacrifice of both body and soul to have children. Without a full commitment to life itself, more and more of us just cannot be bothered with continuing the cycle of life.

Abortion does not vary with the poverty rate. It varies with the religious conviction of the woman involved. Only God gives people in general sufficient reason and purpose to go through with the full act of living.