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

[ishii]

  I am out in the real world working with the poor everyday and I know that 99% of the poor are not lazy and cheaters.

I am out in the real world too, PeopleB4Things. So you not the only one with a valid opinion. How do you know that 99% of the poor are not cheaters? Do you work with 99% of the poor? Or are you saying that 99% of the poor you’ve worked with are not cheaters?

Many people have no clue about the lives of the poor. They make assumptions from the ease and comfort of their living rooms. They hear anecdotes of cheaters from family and friends and think they know what they are talking about. I understand their ignorance and desire to denigrate others to raise their own status. It’s human nature as described by those studies I mentioned. But I don’t agree with the behavior and believe we can overcome our desire to maintain a social hierarchy with education and hands-on experiences. All people are equal in the eyes of God. You and I are no better than the child living out of a car or the man who lives in the streets.

Please don’t insult me when I make the point that government handouts encourage dependency on the handouts. And that redistribution of wealth (aka trickle down charity) is actually detrimental to the poor.

I worked with a single mom of 2 teenaged boys

Yes - being unmarried with kids is one of the biggest factors contributing to poverty. Our welfare programs for decades have encouraged women to have more kids, while discouraging them from taking responsibility for their own actions. Or discouraging them from getting married.

who lost her job because she stole $ to feed her kids. Her kids were put into foster care until she was out of jail. She got out and the state required her to have a job and home before she could get her kids back. She complied and it was agreed upon that she would take 6 months to establish her household before taking back the boys. She could visit them at their foster homes. Her 13 YO was in a good home. Her 15 YO was in an okay home. He was depressed and the foster family was having a hard time dealing with his mental health condition. Before the 6 months was up, before mom could establish herself, the 15YO attempted suicide. He was hospitalized for 2 weeks. The state asked her to take her kids back immediately. She wasn’t ready. Her son lost his healthcare because of an error and the mom was not able to afford her son’s meds when he was released from the hospital. She called social services and they told her that her job working at a hair salon made her ineligible for services, but they sent her a $25 gift card to a grocery store to help out. They also told her that her son was being re-enrolled and that she should pay for the meds herself somehow and submit a claim. It would take about 6 weeks to get him back on the rolls. The mom was desperate. She did a false return at work to get the money to pay for the meds. She was caught. The salon was going to work it out with her saying that she was a hard working, committed employee. However, the state prosecuted because it was her 2nd offense & she was on probation. I talked with her case worker and was told that she really felt for this mom but that her hands were tied. I talked with the children’s court appointed advocate who said that mom and kids had strong bonds, that they loved each other very much and were suffering due to their separation from each other. You may see her as a thief or a cheater especially if you didn’t know the whole story. I see her as a desperate mom way over her head and in need of help, not jail.

That is quite the sad story. You make her out to be a victim, but you would have to agree that she is responsible for her situation, no? I mean, who forced her to get pregnant and have two kids with no father/husband? Mind you, please understand that I am not for taking away the safety net. I am not for leaving people out in the cold with nothing to eat. And I reject and resent your implication that those with whom you disagree on the proper government policies and funding are somehow clueless, callous and don’t care for the poor. Your attitude is typical of those who demonize the people with whom they disagree. It may be subtle, but it is a kind of demonization nonetheless.

This is a real story. Many realities like this are playing out everyday in communities everyday. Yet all people can see are the 1% of cheaters. Sad commentary on America. Even worse when Catholics make excuses for their apathy. It’s not charity when we give to the poor. It’s our duty.

It is also not charity when the government confiscates money and then lets a small amount of that money trickle down to the poor. Trickle down charity. That is a sad commentary on those who advocate income redistribution in place of real charity.

“St. John Chrysostom vigorously recalls: ‘Not to enable the poor to share in our goods is
to steal from them and deprive them of life.** The goods we possess are not ours, but
theirs.’** The demands of justice must be satisfied first of all; **that which is already due in justice is not to be offered as a gift of charity.” **

–Catechism of the Catholic Church

The Church also recognizes private property. I don’t remember St. John Chrysostom calling for confiscation of people’s wealth to redistribute to the “poor.”

Ishii

 

[ishii]

Okay, give me a real world example. Describe one of these families? What are their financial circumstances? What are their sources of income and how much (monthly, including cash paying services and any employment)? If working, what jobs do they hold and where? What is their housing situation like? Where do they live (community or neighborhood, not actual address)? How many people in the family? How many kids? Any vets or disabled? What services are they receiving and at what levels? With this basic info (no personal identifiers, please), we can better discuss one of the cheating families that you know personally. Without this most basic info, we can’t really know what’s going on with this family and anything we assume would be unfounded.

Sure. I know a family with whom I used to work. The mom made 6 figures easily. The dad made like 65k-70k. Between the two of them, they made 170K. That comes out to about $13,000/month. Their 2-3 kids were grown up. I think they rented a house at the time because they weren’t sure where or if the company would relocate them. They had nice enough cars. But one child, had problems - drugs, alcohol, or whatever and was apparently quite the absent parent. (there’s that common denominator for poverty again: unwed parents not taking responsibility for their actions). If memory serves, they became eligible for foodstamps (from the state) because they had taken in their daughter’s child. So my tax dollars went to pay for the foodstamps of a household which made like 3x the amount of money my household makes. Here are some more real-world examples: I personally witnessed (working in retail) people purchasing their food with their foodstamp card (often extravagant, luxury foods) and then in a separate purchase, buy a flat screen TV or some other luxury item. This happened regularly. I recall a foodstamp user get angry because we were taking too long to ring up her order. She had a plane to catch to Hawaii. Now, according to you, she probably was a widow whose husband left her a leather jacket, a diamond ring, and a ticket to fly to Hawaii. More likely, she was one of many who collect these handouts, but have no business doing so. Any program that is set up so that it does not means test sufficiently is part of the problem. And in case you didn’t notice, our federal government and some state governments (California comes to mind) are trillions in debt. Our government is bloated, overly intrusive, and a drain on the economy.

Let’s say you are a widow with 3 kids. You lose your job of 15 years with a company during the recession. You get another job thanks to a friend but it has no healthcare and only pays half of what you were making. You lose childcare because you can’t afford it any longer and that puts a crimp on the hours you can work. You’re struggling. You go on food stamps and you visit your local food bank. You’re about to lose your home and you’re under water. You go to the grocery store in your leather jacket that your husband bought for you ten years ago before his death, when things were good. You’re also wearing your 1.5 carat engagement ring which you wear in honor of your husband. The people behind you see your attire and make assumptions about you. Look, she’s got a rock on her hand and is wearing a $500 jacket and she’s using food stamps! People make this type of judgement everyday totally unaware of what’s really going on. It’s all very sad the way we treat the vulnerable around us.

Problem is, I made no such assumptions. I will see your widow and raise you ten slackers with no motivation, no ambition and no desire to get off food stamps.

We need a safety net to help those in need (including your widow with the leather jacket and rock). We don’t, however, need a trampoline.

 

[ishii]

It sounds as if he’s BEEN out there in the “real” world, I s h I I , with eyes wide open. And IMHO, I think it’s pretty unfair to characterize him as somebody who doesn’t care. I think it’s just ideology he doesn’t care about.

I think we all know how the road to hell was paved. Socialism disguised as charity is still socialism.

Ishii

 

[KSU]

KSU: Well, my friend, I was hoping that I was misunderstanding your ideology, but I was not. You really don’t see any difference between the morality (immorality) of the American system and the rest of the world. And you think the pope feels the same.

What were you hoping for?

I was hoping for objectivity, as well as discernment of the monumental, historically proven good in America’s “trickle-down” system compared to whatever are the derrame (“spillover”) systems in the countries the pope was targeting.

Unlike you, nothing the pope was condemning in section 54 of his Exhortation shouted “American System” to me. Your ideology, together with Reuters’ ideology (regarding which you said: “This is accurate though; neoliberalism has been attacked by previous Popes as well.”), did not allow that discernment.

You are saying, in effect, that the “moral implications” (see 424 of the Compendium) inherent in the American system are so contrary to God’s will that Francis was permitted to circumvent the Compendium’s prohibitions against engaging in politics, just as the popes have been permitted to do regarding the moral implications of Socialism.

Here, for, example, is John Paul: “*n today’s world, among other rights, the right of economic initiative is often suppressed. Yet it is a right that is important not only for the individual but also for the common good. Experience shows us that the denial of this right, or its limitation in the name of an alleged ‘equality’ of everyone in society, diminishes, or in practice absolutely destroys the spirit of initiative, that is to say the creative subjectivity of the citizen.” See more at catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8551

Cross, your ideology is so blinding that you seem not to be able to discern that John Paul and Francis were not condemning America’s economic system. That’s why I said, “Too bad”, my friend.*

 

[freeRadical]

I thought the Church was for free enterprise. Is Pope Francis condemning free enterprise? If so, doesn’t that contradict Church teaching?

 

[KSU]

I thought the Church was for free enterprise. Is Pope Francis condemning free enterprise? If so, doesn’t that contradict Church teaching?

No one in this thread believes the pope is condemning free enterprise–just the market’s (any market’s) lack of compassion for the poor. How should markets have compassion? He didn’t say.

He is being hailed in the media for his plain speaking. Well, may our Lord forgive me but a lot of things Francis says are anything but plain on their face. We have to assume more or less what he is trying to say, but that style of speaking is not for me. Having to guess or assume what God’s spokesman on earth probably means when he speaks in sound bites is dangerous. Just two of a handful:

“The Madonna was human! And perhaps [at the Crucifixion] she had the desire to say: 'Lies! I was tricked”, or

“If someone [a priest] is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?”, or

something akin to , “You atheists get to heaven if you follow your conscience.” (my paraphrase). What about Agnostics and Protestants? He didn’t say.

He knows how his words and meanings are twisted by the Church-hating media, and all the hurt and confusion that causes his trusting, wooly-headed sheep. But it doesn’t seem to faze him. How many weak Catholics will just say, “OK, then I’ll believe only what I feel is right; God in a wafer; I don’t think so. No to contraceptives? Yeah, just try to sell that to my wife!”

We will just have to believe AND PRAY that God watches over old drunks, puppy dogs and well meaning popes with hearts of gold.

 

[freeRadical]

No one in this thread believes the pope is condemning free enterprise–just the market’s (any market’s) lack of compassion for the poor. How should markets have compassion? He didn’t say.

He is being hailed in the media for his plain speaking. Well, may our Lord forgive me but a lot of things Francis says are anything but plain on their face. We have to assume more or less what he is trying to say, but that style of speaking is not for me. Having to guess or assume what God’s spokesman on earth probably means when he speaks in sound bites is dangerous. Just two of a handful:

“The Madonna was human! And perhaps [at the Crucifixion] she had the desire to say: 'Lies! I was tricked”, or

“If someone [a priest] is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?”, or

something akin to , “You atheists get to heaven if you follow your conscience.” (my paraphrase). What about Agnostics and Protestants? He didn’t say.

He knows how his words and meanings are twisted by the Church-hating media, and all the hurt and confusion that causes his trusting, wooly-headed sheep. But it doesn’t seem to faze him. How many weak Catholics will just say, “OK, then I’ll believe only what I feel is right; God in a wafer; I don’t think so. No to contraceptives? Yeah, just try to sell that to my wife!”

We will just have to believe AND PRAY that God watches over old drunks, puppy dogs and well meaning popes with hearts of gold.

Markets can’t have compassion for the poor, they aren’t human. What did the pope say was the solution to helping the poor. The government? If the pope is saying that the government should step in and intervene in the market and restrict the enterprise that people can engage in, then he isn’t for free enterprise.

 

[PeopleB4Things]

Sure. I know a family with whom I used to work. The mom made 6 figures easily. The dad made like 65k-70k. Between the two of them, they made 170K. That comes out to about $13,000/month. Their 2-3 kids were grown up. I think they rented a house at the time because they weren’t sure where or if the company would relocate them. They had nice enough cars. But one child, had problems - drugs, alcohol, or whatever and was apparently quite the absent parent. (there’s that common denominator for poverty again: unwed parents not taking responsibility for their actions). If memory serves, they became eligible for foodstamps (from the state) because they had taken in their daughter’s child. So my tax dollars went to pay for the foodstamps of a household which made like 3x the amount of money my household makes. Here are some more real-world examples: I personally witnessed (working in retail) people purchasing their food with their foodstamp card (often extravagant, luxury foods) and then in a separate purchase, buy a flat screen TV or some other luxury item. This happened regularly. I recall a foodstamp user get angry because we were taking too long to ring up her order. She had a plane to catch to Hawaii. Now, according to you, she probably was a widow whose husband left her a leather jacket, a diamond ring, and a ticket to fly to Hawaii. More likely, she was one of many who collect these handouts, but have no business doing so. Any program that is set up so that it does not means test sufficiently is part of the problem. And in case you didn’t notice, our federal government and some state governments (California comes to mind) are trillions in debt. Our government is bloated, overly intrusive, and a drain on the economy.

Problem is, I made no such assumptions. **I will see your widow and raise you ten slackers with no motivation, no ambition and no desire to get off food stamps.
**

I started to write out a lengthy reply but it’s Christmas Eve and thought it better to let things go. Happy Holidays to you and your family and I hope you have a pleasant Christmas.

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR NOTICE

OK, people

No personal attacks

It’s Christmas; be nice

 

[stinkcat_14]

If the pope is saying that the government should step in and intervene in the market and restrict the enterprise that people can engage in, then he isn’t for free enterprise.

I don’t think anybody is for free enterprise if this is the definition. After all, nobody here believes the government should not restrict the ability of businesses to produce child pornography. The relevant question is, where is is the limit of where the government can step in and restrict what we do. That of course is something that reasonable people can differ on.

 

[ProVobis]

I don’t think anybody is for free enterprise if this is the definition.

I’m guessing the real issue is money printing. If it can be done for the rich banks (whether in the U.S. or Argentina, which just devalued its currency btw), it can be done for the poorer folks as well. Senator Warren must be beaming in delight.

 

[freeRadical]

I don’t think anybody is for free enterprise if this is the definition. After all, nobody here believes the government should not restrict the ability of businesses to produce child pornography. The relevant question is, where is is the limit of where the government can step in and restrict what we do. That of course is something that reasonable people can differ on.

There is a difference between child pornography and the government preventing me from selling my labor at a price I see fit. If I voluntarily choose to sell my labor for $5 an hour and an employer voluntarily accepts that price, how does the government have the right to interfere in that and tell me that I’m not allowed to sell my labor for less than some arbitrary number they set?

 

[stinkcat_14]

There is a difference between child pornography and the government preventing me from selling my labor at a price I see fit. If I voluntarily choose to sell my labor for $5 an hour and an employer voluntarily accepts that price, how does the government have the right to interfere in that and tell me that I’m not allowed to sell my labor for less than some arbitrary number they set?

In both cases, they are interfering with commerce.

 

[freeRadical]

In both cases, they are interfering with commerce.

You can make an argument for the government interfering in the case of child pornography though. You can not make an argument for two adults mutually contracting in a legal activity.

 

[CrossofChrist]

I was hoping for objectivity, as well as discernment of the monumental, historically proven good in America’s “trickle-down” system compared to whatever are the derrame (“spillover”) systems in the countries the pope was targeting.

I thought the general consensus here was that America has “crony capitalism”.

Unlike you, nothing the pope was condemning in section 54 of his Exhortation shouted “American System” to me. Your ideology, together with Reuters’ ideology (regarding which you said: “This is accurate though; neoliberalism has been attacked by previous Popes as well.”), did not allow that discernment.

It’s an established fact that Popes have denounced neoliberalism. So there really is nothing new in Pope Francis’ statement.

You are saying, in effect, that the “moral implications” (see 424 of the Compendium) inherent in the American system are so contrary to God’s will that Francis was permitted to circumvent the Compendium’s prohibitions against engaging in politics, just as the popes have been permitted to do regarding the moral implications of Socialism.

Talking about moral problems arising from individualism and its effect on the economy isn’t “political”.

*2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.” **She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor.*206 Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for "there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market."207 Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.

Here, for, example, is John Paul: "n today’s world, among other rights, the right of economic initiative is often suppressed. Yet it is a right that is important not only for the individual but also for the common good. Experience shows us that the denial of this right, or its limitation in the name of an alleged ‘equality’ of everyone in society, diminishes, or in practice absolutely destroys the spirit of initiative, that is to say the creative subjectivity of the citizen." See more at catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8551

Uh, yeah…

Cross, your ideology is so blinding that you seem not to be able to discern that John Paul and Francis were not condemning** America’s economic system**

. That’s why I said, “Too bad”, my friend.

What do you mean by that? Free enterprise? Of course the Popes haven’t condemned free enterprise; they have condemned abuses within free enterprise though, which is what I’ve been trying to say this entire time.

Hope you had a very Merry Christmas!

 

[Bill1940]

In both cases, they are interfering with commerce.

In that case one could call robbery a form of commerce. Our laws should be based on the natural law, expressed by the Decalogue. If something is tantamount to theft, lying, murder and so on, it should be illegal. Going beyond this concept takes us into the realm of tyranny.

 

[KSU]

I thought the general consensus here was that America has “crony capitalism”.
It’s an established fact that Popes have denounced neoliberalism. So there really is nothing new in Pope Francis’ statement.
Talking about moral problems arising from individualism and its effect on the economy isn’t “political”.
*2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.” **She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor.***206 Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for "there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market."207 Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.
Hope you had a very Merry Christmas!

As for “crony capitalism”, you may have Conservative America confused with the current regime. washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/1/keene-an-obama-renaissance-of-crony-capitalism/

As for the popes denouncing “neoliberalism”, America is not yet a Banana Republic, so you must mean Latin America:
“Neoliberalism as an economic ideology is spreading throughout the world via international financial institutions and transnational corporate hegemony. The effects of this colonial phenomenon is especially acute in Latin America where many nations faced debt crises directly related to the international economic system. In order for many nations in Latin America to deal with this economic crisis, they were forced to cede democratic control of their economies to these international actors. Although democratic procedures exist in most countries in Latin America which are implementing the reforms, real democracy is maimed by international economic interference in policy-making. Procedural democracy legitimizes the damaging effects which ensue from the neoliberal reform process. This is evident when we examine the nature of international lending institutions, the power of international capital, the degradation of worker and peasant lives, and the lack of popular opposition.”
citizenspress.org/editorials/neoliberalism-in-latin-america

At least I got you to admit that Pope Francis was not condemning American Conservatism

As for 2425 of the CCC you may have confused “communism” or “socialism” with American-style Capitalism; i.e., “Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.”

I hope you and yours also had a very Merry Christmas, my friend. I haven’t stopped eating yet.

 

[gnjsdad]

As for “crony capitalism”, you may have Conservative America confused with the current regime.

As I’ve pointed out before, “crony capitalism” is the capitalist system administered by those one doesn’t like politically. I wager that all talk of “crony capitalism” on the right will cease once another Republican is elected president.

I wish I knew what “Conservative America” was – apart from an ideological construct.

 

[Darryl1958]

It is worthwhile pointing out again that the title of this thread is not supported by the popes actual words.
People use the pope in order to justify their own political and economic ideologies. The same tendencies also happen with people who project Jesus himself as being a liberal like them, or a conservative like them.

The popes themselves are apolitical and speak in broad generalities in order to maintain a semblance of neutrality. Whichever type of economic system that we are under, we are to bring our Christian values into our own dealings with others. That is about the sum of what we can glean from any papal message on the economy.

 

[ishii]

It is worthwhile pointing out again that the title of this thread is not supported by the popes actual words.
People use the pope in order to justify their own political and economic ideologies. The same tendencies also happen with people who project Jesus himself as being a liberal like them, or a conservative like them.

The popes themselves are apolitical and speak in broad generalities in order to maintain a semblance of neutrality. Whichever type of economic system that we are under, we are to bring our Christian values into our own dealings with others. That is about the sum of what we can glean from any papal message on the economy.

I see your point, but Popes are influenced by a variety of factors which could be said to shape outlook and perspective. Such factors can change what a Pope might emphasize, or which words they use. For example, Pope John Paul 2 could be said to have been influenced from his experience living in a country that was totalitarian communist, Pope Benedict by living under a Nazi dictatorship and later living in a country divided between free and communist. It is not hard to understand why Pope Francis, having lived under the particular kind of system in Argentina - where there were/are stark inequalities - has so far emphasized the deficiencies in the capitalist systems where it is practiced in certain places around the world. I believe that ideologues will take advantage of the Pope’s words to gain support and justification for beliefs that the Pope has not necessarily endorsed. Conversely, other ideologues have been critical of the Pope without first looking at the context in which he makes his statements. Of course, the clear understanding of the Pope’s words is not served by translations that use politically loaded buzzwords such as “trickle down economics.”

Ishii