Why Warren Buffett and the Pope Drive the Right Crazy

[Nate13]

edit

No one is living up to God’s standards even with all the graces he has bestowed on you.

To set your sight’s lower than God’s standards is a disservice. We are all called to be saints and for us to have our sights any lower is a sin. Your view of humanity presupposes the ability of people to live up to God’s standards. You should give them just as much credit as God does. Instead of doing the hard work of preaching the gospel and informing people, liberals go around behind people’s backs and avoid the hard fights. I’d also say progressives took advantage of the Great Depression to further their agenda. It wasn’t about communities failing to help each other out. People were hurting during the Great Depression and the government took advantage of the situation.

 

[Nec5]

If you have not seen poverty in America, then you have not seen much of America.

Good point.

 

[St_Francis]

If you have not seen poverty in America, then you have not seen much of America.

Howdo you define poverty in America? I live in a rural area, and there are, according to the government, many poor people living here. But guess what? The poor have new cars, teenage drivers, fancy cell phones, etc. Their Section 8 housing is not only in great shape, but their lawns are mowed for them–the price of that is included in the rent which you and I, oh, excuse me, the government pays for. Their state-funded health insurance covers more than I have ever seen any employer-provided health insurance cover: braces, contacts, full dentistry.

Now this is all in an area which 40 years ago was in bad shape. People lived in what we would consider shacks. They bought piglets in the spring, fed them scraps, and butchered it in their yard in the fall. People my age (50s) remember when they got electricity and indoor plumbing. Now we have poor people who think tending a few vegetable plants (which I offered to plant in an area I would till) would be too much trouble.

I have been overseas and seen much more serious poverty than I see in the US. I’m not saying that we don’t have problems here, but they are mostly isolated problems rather than a systemic poverty.

 

[St_Francis]

I think that it is hard for American Catholics to realkze that Church economic teachings do not align well with US politics. The Church requires moderation, a middle road. Consider the eoconomic policies as a continuum with comunism at one end and free market anarchy at the other–each one going to an extreme of subsidiarity or solidarity. The Church condemns both extremes. Why? We must consider why. Certain features of socialism are bad for a society even if it is not fully socialistic, and the same goes for free market anarchy.

Now, in the US there two geoups. Each deplores the policies of the other which they deem too much at the opposite extreme. But the reality is that we have problems on both sides. On the one hand, we do have a disincentivizing social safety net: one could say that it is set too high. On the other hand, we also have a semi-monopolistic control of many businesses, making it hard for people to start up a business; as well as a structure which dissapates moral responsiblity and forces a focus on profit above all.

 

[Abu]

St Francis, #24
The Church requires moderation, a middle road. Consider the eoconomic policies as a continuum with comunism at one end and free market anarchy at the other–each one going to an extreme of subsidiarity or solidarity. The Church condemns both extremes. Why? We must consider why. Certain features of socialism are bad for a society even if it is not fully socialistic, and the same goes for free market anarchy.

There is no “free market anarchy” anywhere, and socialism has been condemned outright.

Post #18 has Bl John Paul II’s support of the free economy, and Pope Benedict’s realization that it is people that cause the problems. That’s the Catholic way: free enterprise, sound laws, and the morals that maketh the man; and that’s why we have laws to seek and punish those who steal, cheat, swindle, and to ensure competition.

It is government finagling to direct an economy that causes booms and busts.

 

[St_Francis]

There is no “free market anarchy” anywhere, and socialism has been condemned outright.

I’m just trying to describe the continuum rather what exists. Whether FMA exists or not, it is simply what I, imho, consider that end of the continuum.

Post #18 has Bl John Paul II’s support of the free economy, and Pope Benedict’s realization that it is people that cause the problems. That’s the Catholic way: free enterprise, sound laws, and the morals that maketh the man; and that’s why we have laws to seek and punish those who steal, cheat, swindle, and to ensure competition.

Yes, but in addition the Church does not frown upon government intervention when it is needed in the social areas. Pope Benedict XVI has spoken in support of the idea that government should ensure access to the right of health care, and while ensuring does not require providing, he certainly has not spoken out against the European governments’ provision, except to warn against immoral excesses.

It is government finagling to direct an economy that causes booms and busts.

Well, I don’t know that that is necessarily true, but I do think the government should not “finagle,” but I think that agricultural price supports, tax reductions for outsourcing, and overseeing the placement of medical centers, etc. count as finagling, and these are things which various sectors of the wide swath known as conservatives support, notto mention the corpprate structure which dissipates moral responsibility…

 

[Wardog]

Ahimsa:
Not that I am a Mitt Romney fan, but legally he is correct, as I learned in college.

corporation n. an organization formed with state governmental approval to act as an artificial person to carry on business (or other activities), which can sue or be sued, and (unless it is non-profit) can issue shares of stock to raise funds with which to start a business or increase its capital.

No, a corporation is not a real person, but it is a separate legal entitity.
Another point is that corporations are made of real people (Stock holders, employees, etc), so regulations and taxes are imposed on a corporation, real people are involved.

And finally, when a corporation is taxed, rarely are these increased costs not passed on to the customers, so when a corporation is taxed the costs are borne by real people, not a fake legal entity.

This has nothing to do with the morality of capitalism or socialism, I just wanted to make sure we understand the definitions of the words involved.

 

[GEddie]

Not that I am a Mitt Romney fan, but legally he is correct, as I learned in college.

corporation n. an organization formed with state governmental approval to act as an artificial person to carry on business (or other activities), which can sue or be sued, and (unless it is non-profit) can issue shares of stock to raise funds with which to start a business or increase its capital.

No, a corporation is not a real person, but it is a separate legal entitity.

This has nothing to do with the morality of capitalism or socialism, I just wanted to make sure we understand the definitions of the words involved.

Indeed, as all you Latin students know already, “corporation” derives from the Latin word for “body.” Body, in the same legality by which you are “somebody.”. The law provides for the corporation to act as “somebody” for legal purposes; this prevents the debts, liabilities, etc, of a failing corporation bring dumped onto physical persons.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Abu]

St Francis
the Church does not frown upon government intervention when it is needed in the social areas. Pope Benedict XVI has spoken in support of the idea that government should ensure access to the right of health care, and while ensuring does not require providing, he certainly has not spoken out against the European governments’ provision, except to warn against immoral excesses.

Papal social teaching emphasises subsidiarity as well as solidarity and a right, such as to health care, does not mean that the government must dictate and provide it.

The Welfare State has been condemned in no uncertain terms and the plight of the Europeans shows the folly.

From Centesimus Annus, #48 (John Paul II, 1991):
“Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State [Welfare State] are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.

“By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending.”

 

[St_Francis]

I think that you and I probably agree for the most part; my main
point is that in the US today, there are excesses on both sides and neither side is addressing its own, just the other side’s.

Papal social teaching emphasises subsidiarity as well as solidarity and a right, such as to health care, does not mean that the government must dictate and provide it.

The Welfare State has been condemned in no uncertain terms and the plight of the Europeans shows the folly.

From Centesimus Annus, #48 (John Paul II, 1991):
“Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State [Welfare State] are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.

“By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending.”

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

I think that it is hard for American Catholics to realkze that Church economic teachings do not align well with US politics. The Church requires moderation, a middle road. Consider the eoconomic policies as a continuum with comunism at one end and free market anarchy at the other–each one going to an extreme of subsidiarity or solidarity. The Church condemns both extremes. Why? We must consider why. Certain features of socialism are bad for a society even if it is not fully socialistic, and the same goes for free market anarchy.

Now, in the US there two geoups. Each deplores the policies of the other which they deem too much at the opposite extreme. But the reality is that we have problems on both sides. On the one hand, we do have a disincentivizing social safety net: one could say that it is set too high. On the other hand, we also have a semi-monopolistic control of many businesses, making it hard for people to start up a business; as well as a structure which dissapates moral responsiblity and forces a focus on profit above all.

Good show.:clapping::clapping:

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Papal social teaching emphasises subsidiarity as well as solidarity and a right, such as to health care, does not mean that the government must dictate and provide it.

The Welfare State has been condemned in no uncertain terms and the plight of the Europeans shows the folly.

From Centesimus Annus, #48 (John Paul II, 1991):
“Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State [Welfare State] are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.

“By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending.”

Good show as well.