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

[seakelp]

America has a system of two parties that has developed into two broad ranges of proposals to deal with solutions. At one time, the umbrella organizations of the Democratic and Republican parties covered that broad range of issues with considerable overlap between the two. That has evolved into a more partisan divide in the last 40 years.

It is not that Republicans don’t address the issue of the poor, but that they do so in terms of stressing human excellence and human potential, and enabling freedom in order for the poor to pull themselves up out of poverty. Republicans stress success, and the possibilities that arise when people are empowered to take command of their own lives.

Democrats for their part stress spending money on those who have fallen through the cracks. Failure is a very real option in a free system, so absolute poverty is something that needs to be tended to.

As long as the balance of power is kept relatively equal, neither have a ‘poor problem’, because both together have the fuller answer.

Once the balance becomes skewed, they both have a poor problem. Neither of them are sufficient to reduce poverty without the other.

Good points, and I agree with the general gist of this.

The problem emerges when neither side can agree to basic, fundamental principles. Republicans who refuse to support ANY wealth redistribution, and Democrats who insist on socially unacceptable policies (i.e., not providing religious exemptions for contraception and abortion for churches).

When ideology takes the place of common sense and pragmatism in politics, it’s no good.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Good points, and I agree with the general gist of this.

The problem emerges when neither side can agree to basic, fundamental principles. Republicans who refuse to support ANY wealth redistribution, and Democrats who insist on socially unacceptable policies (i.e., not providing religious exemptions for contraception and abortion for churches).

When ideology takes the place of common sense and pragmatism in politics, it’s no good.

Actually, this is not true. It was a republican president who push a prescription drug program for medicare which is redistributive. Republicans also support social security and medicare which takes from people who work and gives to people who mostly don’t work. So republicans do support redistribution when it suits them.

 

[seakelp]

Actually, this is not true. It was a republican president who push a prescription drug program for medicare which is redistributive. Republicans also support social security and medicare which takes from people who work and gives to people who mostly don’t work. So republicans do support redistribution when it suits them.

I completely agree: I meant only in a general sense, Republicans are often not fans of the social safety net, and Democrats’ social policies are often immoral.

 

[ProVobis]

So if the babysitter is a single mother of two she should be paid $15 an hour? And even more if the parents own a yacht?

Of course. And if you don’t have the $15 or $20, you borrow it.

 

[estesbob]

Of course. And if you don’t have the $15 or $20, you borrow it.

Or force your neighbors to pay for it.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Or force your neighbors to pay for it.

Or your children and grandchildren. Which is the one thing that most people agree on, most of us would rather have future generations pay the taxes than pay them ourselves.

 

[Havard]

America has a system of two parties that has developed into two broad ranges of proposals to deal with solutions. At one time, the umbrella organizations of the Democratic and Republican parties covered that broad range of issues with considerable overlap between the two. That has evolved into a more partisan divide in the last 40 years.

It is not that Republicans don’t address the issue of the poor, but that they do so in terms of stressing human excellence and human potential, and enabling freedom in order for the poor to pull themselves up out of poverty. Republicans stress success, and the possibilities that arise when people are empowered to take command of their own lives.

Democrats for their part stress spending money on those who have fallen through the cracks. Failure is a very real option in a free system, so absolute poverty is something that needs to be tended to.

As long as the balance of power is kept relatively equal, neither have a ‘poor problem’, because both together have the fuller answer.

Once the balance becomes skewed, they both have a poor problem. Neither of them are sufficient to reduce poverty without the other.

Thank you for your thoughts, however I believe I am well aware of what you have written.

Again, my problem with the GOP is not a policy disagreement. When I mentioned addressing the poor and the issue of poverty, I literally meant that candidates need to speak more about poverty and they need speak more often to the poor. When talking to or about socio-economic constituents, politicians from both parties spend about a majority of their time talking to and about the middle class first. Fine and well there, a thriving middle class is key to a thriving democracy. But at least Democrats directly actively address poverty. Of course, I realize the Democrats have their own issues, as they have their own dysfunctional narrative when it comes the rich, but that wasn’t the point I was making.

 

[ProVobis]

Or force your neighbors to pay for it.

If someone actually paid for it, we wouldn’t be sitting at $17 trillion worth of debt.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Thank you for your thoughts, however I believe I am well aware of what you have written.

Again, my problem with the GOP is not a policy disagreement. When I mentioned addressing the poor and the issue of poverty, I literally meant that candidates need to speak more about poverty and they need speak more often to the poor. When talking to or about socio-economic constituents, politicians from both parties spend about a majority of their time talking to and about the middle class first. Fine and well there, a thriving middle class is key to a thriving democracy. But at least Democrats directly actively address poverty. Of course, I realize the Democrats have their own issues, as they have their own dysfunctional narrative when it comes the rich, but that wasn’t the point I was making.

Jack Kemp used to address poverty more directly than most republicans.

 

[Crossbones]

I’m conservative, and I will fully admit that the GOP has a “poor problem”. That is to say, the GOP fails to address issues concerning the poor directly much at all. I support most Republican policies, but the Party needs to go a lot further in affirmatively addressing poverty, even if their solution is based on a primarily free market / private charity model.

Agreed, but I don’t think the private charity model/free market really can really solve poverty. The policies of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations helped the poverty rate drop from the low 20%'s to the low 10%'s in the 1960s and these were mostly government, not private, solutions.

What I find troubling is the “forcing people to pay” argument. We’re forced to pay taxes to support public education (which reduces poverty), we’re forced to pay taxes for defense, including very expensive wars, we’re forced to pay taxes to give out foreign aide, we’re forced to pay taxes for highways, etc. Somehow, the idea of paying a tax to help the most unfortunate among us is the one that crosses the line.

And this is mostly from my friends that support the right to life as I do. But let’s be clear, if Roe v. Wade is overturned and abortion is outlawed, we’ll all be forced to pay taxes for police to arrest those violating the law, for lawyers to prosecute those who break the law, for judges to try cases involving breaking the law and for jails to put those in prison that are convicted of breaking the law.

 

[SMGS127]

And this is mostly from my friends that support the right to life as I do. But let’s be clear, if Roe v. Wade is overturned and abortion is outlawed, we’ll all be forced to pay taxes for police to arrest those violating the law, for lawyers to prosecute those who break the law, for judges to try cases involving breaking the law and for jails to put those in prison that are convicted of breaking the law.

Not to mention the extra money we have to pay for the welfare of many of those children who are born to broken homes. I’d be glad to pay much more in taxes to help our most-in-need and to help women raise children they otherwise would have killed.

 

[JoeCarpenter]

It should be crystal clear to everyone that Reagen and Coolidge had it right. They created jobs and prosperity.

For those few were not fortunate (many of them by choice), private giving increased substantially under Reagen. I don’t have stats for Coolidge, but I suspect it’s the same because, well, the American people spend their earned money better than someone who uses political force to redistribute it.

Funny how that works, eh?

You have no source that private giving increased substantially under Reagan, but I believe you 100%. Why? Because Reagan was president during an economic boom. Private donations to charities always increase when the economy is good, and drop off significantly when the economy is bad. Exactly when they are needed most.

Donations to private charities are great. I donate to charity, everyone with the means should donate to charity. But donations to charity are not good enough. They can never be as broad or as effective as good government programs. Social Security keeps literally millions of senior citizens above the poverty level. ALL charitable giving in 2011 in the US was $290 billion. Social Security spending in 2011 was over $600 billion, or more than twice as much. It would be simply impossible and unreasonable to expect private charities to be able to have that type of impact.

Pope Francis knows this which is why he said what he did.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Republican presidents have run up the deficits since the 80s, so I am not impressed with their economic policies.

You’re not going to find too many conservatives ultimately defending the Bushes on fiscal issues, although with both of them long out of office, things have cooled and they’ve been reminded over the last 5-7 years just how bad it can get with liberals running things.

Reagen did spend some money, but if his polices were continued, the deficit wouldn’t be as big a problem.

Barack Obama has run up more deficits than all other presidents combined.

The Democrat Party has been utterly destructive to the United States of America.

If you are right about Americans voting economic issues over social issues, which I agree with you, then the fact that Governor Romney lost with the worst economy in the last 70 years to a sitting president suggests that the American people are not impressed either.

 

[SuperLuigi]

You have no source that private giving increased substantially under Reagan, but I believe you 100%. Why? Because Reagan was president during an economic boom. Private donations to charities always increase when the economy is good, and drop off significantly when the economy is bad. Exactly when they are needed most.

Donations to private charities are great. I donate to charity, everyone with the means should donate to charity. But donations to charity are not good enough. They can never be as broad or as effective as good government programs.

Pope Francis knows this which is why he said what he did.

Under Reagen, private charity did increase.

articles.baltimoresun.com/1992-01-23/news/1992023038_1_greed-1955-and-1980-charitable-giving

Reagen also doubled the revenue coming into the government and increased spending on family programs by 15%.

Most people have never heard of Calvin Coolidge, because as one history professor noted “he stayed out of the way of the private sector and kept government at a minimum.”

Social Security keeps literally millions of senior citizens above the poverty level.

That’s interesting, because senior citizens are the richest demographic in the USA by far.

ALL charitable giving in 2011 in the US was $290 billion. Social Security spending in 2011 was over $600 billion, or more than twice as much.

People won’t give as much if there’s too much economic uncertainty. ObamaCare is a huge albatross for the economy, and some folks know that hyperinflation is coming.

Social Security has suffered the same fate as any other federal program: It has gone beyond its intended purpose, spiraled out of control financially, and is rife with fraud and abuse.

Social Security when passed under FDR in the 1930s was done so in an era where there were 12 workers per recipient and it was “intended for widows and orphans” to quote Jason Lewis, not as a retirement fund.

It will probably be a bankrupt program in the next 20-30 years at its current rate.

I’m a younger person and I’m not counting on it.

It would be simply impossible and unreasonable to expect private charities to be able to have that type of impact.

My friend, in the free market private sector you would be amazed at what could happen.

I’m not in favor of scrapping social security or the generic safety net, but I do know that the people who earn their money can spend it much more effectively than any kind of government.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Actually, if we look at Reagan’s policies, we see a mix of different policies. Part of his policy was pure Keynesianism, in that he cut taxes and increased government spending. Another part of his policy mix that affected the economy was a tight monetary policy. Some policies were aimed at the supply side. For example, lowering marginal tax rates probably increased the supply of married women in the labor force. But women were entering the labor force even with higher tax rates, so measuring the true impact of the lower tax rates was difficult.

I am not sure what policies you think he had that were hard hearted.

That’s not Keynesian.

Conservatives know that by lowering taxes, businesses will take the money and invest it. This creates jobs and expands the tax base.

Reagen doubled the revenue stream into government and that’s why he was able to increase spending.

But then again, it was Carter that appointed Volcker, not Reagan.

The FRB wanted to keep printing money. Reagen said no. Recovering from the last 20 years of bad polices was difficult, but things really turned around in 1983.

Reagan also benefited from increasing globalization and favorable demographics which had little to do with his policies.

It had everything to do with Reagen’s policies. I think you are just trying to give credit to anything but free market economics, which work and do not need excuses to do so.

 

[Birdpreacher]

remember when reagan was a pro-choice politician then switched to pro-life when it was politically more popular w/n his party. Man that guy was a good actor, why did he ever leave Hollywood?

 

[canis73]

I´m not american and I do not consider myself a liberal but if this video is accurate I think every catholic should be able to recognize something´s wrong with this picture. It´s not a matter of capitalism vs socialism, but of inequalities and human dignity.
youtube.com/watch?v=f0ehzfQ4hAQ

 

[freeRadical]

Only if there’s a private agreement. I don’t want the government deciding that in sweeping legislation.

Does that mean you are against a minimum wage law?

 

[ishii]

I´m not american and I do not consider myself a liberal but if this video is accurate I think every catholic should be able to recognize something´s wrong with this picture. It´s not a matter of capitalism vs socialism, but of inequalities and human dignity.
youtube.com/watch?v=f0ehzfQ4hAQ

The problem with the video is that it speaks of wealth “distribution” in America. There is no distribution under a capitalist system. There is opportunity and different abilities to take advantage of that opportunity to create wealth. Capitalism doesn’t “distribute” money. To speak of distribution, “inequitable distribution of wealth in America” etc, is to not understand the nature of our economic system. Now, there is re-distribution by the government taxing wealth and then giving it to groups in order to get votes or political support. Those who rob Peter to pay Paul will get the votes of Paul. The biggest mistake that the left makes is to believe that the economy is a finite pie, and that government needs to decide “who gets what” and that the best system is to have a government that forces everyone to be equal. Such a government denies human nature - that is why it is ultimately evil. Capitalism can have evil capitalists - but also good ones. The system itself isn’t evil. But socialism is because it denies human nature.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

That’s not Keynesian.

Conservatives know that by lowering taxes, businesses will take the money and invest it. This creates jobs and expands the tax base.

Reagen doubled the revenue stream into government and that’s why he was able to increase spending.

The FRB wanted to keep printing money. Reagen said no. Recovering from the last 20 years of bad polices was difficult, but things really turned around in 1983.

It had everything to do with Reagen’s policies. I think you are just trying to give credit to anything but free market economics, which work and do not need excuses to do so.

Reagan also tried to cut the budget - but Tip O’neill never allowed that to happen. The Reagan budgets were always “dead on arrival” as the Democrat House would vote in new spending every year. True - Reagan could have fought harder for lower spending and fiscal restraint, but Reagan believed (rightly) that there were more important, pressing concerns - such as rebuilding our military and getting his tax cuts passed.

The idea that Reagan was some kind of hypocrite because he campaigned on fiscal restraint but ended up increasing spending is nonsense - because Reagan didn’t control the congress. And he wisely understood that he wouldn’t be able to pass all of his programs.

Ishii