Pope Francis rails against income inequality, and excesses in capitalism.

[The Chosen One]

Conservatives are not going to be happy with this AT all.

This actually gives me some hope in the church again. I may actually start attending again if this message trickles down to the local level.

What a guy.

Can't wait for Sarah Palin, Beck, or Rushbo to go on TV/radio and call him a communist dictator.

http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/francis-addresses-excesses-of-capitalism-74604099623

[weso1]

Was the Pope bird walking through the basilica next to his overdressed guards and wearing his excessively expensive robes whilest making his comment about the dangers of excess?

FWIW this is the same message you hear everyday in any christian church when they're passing around the collection plate. This isn't some new brilliant idea.

[Tapate50]

Lol. I don't even know where to begin with that....

[yeezus]

FWIW this is the same message you hear everyday in any christian church when they're passing around the collection plate. This isn't some new brilliant idea.

not quite

[BedellBrave]

He's a Jesuit. They no friends of "unfettered capitalism." And as popes go, this one isn't into the material excesses of the others.

[Metaphysicist]

Was the Pope bird walking through the basilica next to his overdressed guards and wearing his excessively expensive robes whilest making his comment about the dangers of excess?

FWIW this is the same message you hear everyday in any christian church when they're passing around the collection plate. This isn't some new brilliant idea.

Been to a lot of churches recently?

[weso1]

Been to a lot of churches recently?

I go to a hipster church these days. they have really good childcare.

[The Chosen One]

I go to a hipster church these days. they have really good childcare.

Hopefully that childcare didn't get dropped by the insurance companies.

[Metaphysicist]

I go to a hipster church these days. they have really good childcare.

It's a shame your kids will be forced to go on the pill, though.

[goldfly]

FWIW this is the same message you hear everyday in any christian church when they're passing around the collection plate. This isn't some new brilliant idea.

yeah, hearing the same message and actually acting on the message are two things.

as my mom told me, actions speak louder than words

this pope seems to be the real deal

he seems to go past "the idea" and actually does

wish more "Christians" would listen to him

[Hawk]

Well said. This pope, to me, seems to almost transcend religion.

[The Chosen One]

And the first shot has been fired.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/02/rush-limbaugh-vs-the-pope/comment-page-91/#comment-2788661

[goldfly]

And the first shot has been fired.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/02/rush-limbaugh-vs-the-pope/comment-page-91/#comment-2788661

what a horrible fat ****



and nice of Stuart Varney to comment

can't get much dumber than this:


“I go to church to save my soul," said Fox News' Stuart Varney, who is an Episcopalian. "It’s got nothing to do with my vote. Pope Francis has linked the two. He has offered direct criticism of a specific political system. He has characterized negatively that system. I think he wants to influence my politics.”

[Oklahomahawk]

I was kinda on the fence till the Rush-tard chimed in, now I guess I'll have to take the opposite position. I do think this is a perfect example of why the far left AND the far right are effing up this country so badly. I didn't read every last word of what the Pope said, but what I took from it was that he was criticizing out of control, greed on steroids capitalism that allows the wealthy to run roughshod over everyone else, while at the same time putting themselves up as role models for how they pull themselves up by the bootstraps and won that particular game of "business" by working harder than the other fellow, not by rigging the game and screwing the competition by having overwhelming financial firepower, not overwhelming work ethic. To me it all goes back to that old "born on third, or in this case stared the business on third and thought he EARNED a triple".

I don't think any reasonable person or the Pope hates capitalism as such, I think some people just have the courage to speak up again pfarked up capitalism with a dangerously pfarked up wealth distribution at the beginning of the game steamrolling regular folks into the ground. It also shows Rush and the far right's firm belief that there are no limits to what THEY should be able to do/get/obtain, etc. all the limits are for those at the bottom of the spectrum. For the record those who think every rich person is a slimeball and therefore should have go give away everything they have for those (whatever percentage it might be) who don't want to work are pretty effed up too. American became great because there was incentive to try harder.

A capitalistic system where the top 5%-10% have so much that everyone is stuck being in servitude to them is just as pfarked up as communism, which is not a compliment. People need incentive and any system that takes that away sucks IMO.

[The Chosen One]

Be careful Hawk, you're on the verge of sounding like a liberal. :Bunchie1:

[Oklahomahawk]

Be careful Hawk, you're on the verge of sounding like a liberal. :Bunchie1:

Because while I believe everyone who's capable of working should work, but that the "chosen few" at the top of the food chain should have rules and limits just like the majority of us at the bottom do have and have always had?? Yeah I'm used to that. I'm one of those weirdos who thinks everybody should have rights, but also responsibilities, limits, hard work, and that nobody should be able to pfark over everybody else and ruin their lives, and contribute to most of society's ills but instead of being lambasted for it, are treated like some sort of freakin' heroes because they say "it's not personal, it's just business". Where were you during the last decade or so when I used to post a lot, always saying this same basic stuff and being called many different sorts of names (most of them less than complimentary) for not recognizing and properly honoring "my betters"?? The conservatives on this board really have lightened up some, or they just got tired of calling me names for pointing out just how naked the dumbass emperor really is/was...


Oh and Rush Limbaugh really is one of the SUPREME douchebags of the universe, every bit as bad as Michael Moore, Oliver Stone, Jessie and Al, and so on. He says he stands behind regular folks and for what's right but he showed his true colors in this latest rant, where everyone should be able to see it, not that his loyal minions will. In short, if you're not 100% in favor of the few having everything and the rest of us having to "live by their leave" then you're a socialist. How can anything be more anti-the American Dream than favoring an even wider distribution of the wealth than we already have?? They talk about class warfare, but the war is over, their sorry asses already won (since back in the Reagan 80's) the rest of us are already scrambling for the crumbs to fall from their table, but they're slick enough to have us fighting each other rather than turning on the real enemies of the state.

Oh and by the way, one of the top echelon bosses at the University system where I teach came down a while back and talked to us. He seems like a pretty nice guy. His name is Michael Moore (obviously NOT the same one). I went up to my boss after his speech and said, "you know, he looks a lot fatter on TV". This Michael Moore is actually pretty thin. :icon_biggrin:

[acesfull86]

As someone who strongly believes in free market capitalism, I just get frustrated when it gets blamed for things it has nothing to do with.

Corporate welfare isn't free market capitalism. Crony capitalism isn't free market capitalism. Business leaders and politicians getting in bed together for their mutual benefit isn't free market capitalism.

It seems to me that most of the complaints against capitalism from the average Joe on the street have little to do with capitalism at all.

[57Brave]

I get tired of Right Wing Victims

[goldfly]

As someone who strongly believes in free market capitalism, I just get frustrated when it gets blamed for things it has nothing to do with.

Corporate welfare isn't free market capitalism. Crony capitalism isn't free market capitalism. Business leaders and politicians getting in bed together for their mutual benefit isn't free market capitalism.

It seems to me that most of the complaints against capitalism from the average Joe on the street have little to do with capitalism at all.

and when "average joes" or "The Pope" call this what it is and call this out

the so called capitalists and republicans call the people communists

[acesfull86]

I guess the "call this what it is" is where we disagree. I don't think free markets are the cause of the problems the Pope and the average Joes are concerned about.

[zitothebrave]

I guess the "call this what it is" is where we disagree. I don't think free markets are the cause of the problems the Pope and the average Joes are concerned about.

The problem is that the free market is as likely to exist as true socialism. Someone will always game the system with their influence.

[sturg33]

Aces is right as usual... The problems the pope is railing against can be pointed right to our federal government.

[Metaphysicist]

Corporate welfare isn't free market capitalism. Crony capitalism isn't free market capitalism. Business leaders and politicians getting in bed together for their mutual benefit isn't free market capitalism.

These may not be indicators of a perfectly functioning free market (which is not a think that can actually exist), but they are quite plainly ills extant wherever you find a capitalist society. Might be there is some connection...

[jpx7]

I go to church to save my soul," said Fox News' Stuart Varney, who is an Episcopalian. "It’s got nothing to do with my vote. Pope Francis has linked the two. He has offered direct criticism of a specific political system. He has characterized negatively that system. I think he wants to influence my politics.”

Straight out of Henry VIII's play-book.

[Julio3000]

As someone who strongly believes in free market capitalism, I just get frustrated when it gets blamed for things it has nothing to do with.

Corporate welfare isn't free market capitalism. Crony capitalism isn't free market capitalism. Business leaders and politicians getting in bed together for their mutual benefit isn't free market capitalism.

It seems to me that most of the complaints against capitalism from the average Joe on the street have little to do with capitalism at all.

I'm curious to know what you think about Citizens United, then.

I appreciate your idealism, and I get a little chuckle to myself about how liberals get knocked for excess of same, and a certain naivete. ;-)

[BedellBrave]

Here's a somewhat helpful bit on the Pope and Limbaugh (http://www.logosandmuse.com/a-counterblast-to-rush-limbaugh/)

[Oklahomahawk]

Here's a somewhat helpful bit on the Pope and Limbaugh (http://www.logosandmuse.com/a-counterblast-to-rush-limbaugh/)

I do like this quote: Really, folks, I won*der whether Mr. Lim*baugh under*stands what a pope is.

I think Rush is just so full of it and of himself he just sits around with a hair trigger ready to jump all over anyone or anything that questions the God-ordained right of those who already have damn near everything to go ahead and take (by their rigged game if possible but by other means if necessary) everything else. I know this is my opinion and probably my opinion only but to me what Rush and the far far right aholes are really preaching is Manifest Destiny Part Deux.

I do agree though that what the Pope seemed to be attacking was the old Reagan standby of trickle-down-economics, which anyone actually looking into it would see is actually trickling UP not down (ask Will Rogers).

Still a good article, they stood up to Rush but IMO weren't overly harsh.

[acesfull86]

I'm curious to know what you think about Citizens United, then.

I appreciate your idealism, and I get a little chuckle to myself about how liberals get knocked for excess of same, and a certain naivete. ;-)

I think it was the correct ruling, but I have mixed feelings on it. Like most people, I think there is too much big money in politics. But I think that would be the case whether CU were upheld or not. Stop the spending in one direction and it's just going to go in another direction. It's not going to go away. My solution would be to reduce the size and scope of govt...limit its influence on people and there will be less influence to try to buy.

[kendiz]

I think it was the correct ruling, but I have mixed feelings on it. Like most people, I think there is too much big money in politics. But I think that would be the case whether CU were upheld or not. Stop the spending in one direction and it's just going to go in another direction. It's not going to go away. My solution would be to reduce the size and scope of govt...limit its influence on people and there will be less influence to try to buy.

Can you list the things you would limit or expand? And how would you shrink govt? I'm always curious as to what folks would get rid of and why they would.

[Julio3000]

I think it was the correct ruling, but I have mixed feelings on it. Like most people, I think there is too much big money in politics. But I think that would be the case whether CU were upheld or not. Stop the spending in one direction and it's just going to go in another direction. It's not going to go away. My solution would be to reduce the size and scope of govt...limit its influence on people and there will be less influence to try to buy.

Could we reduce the size of government to the point that it would not be worth buying influence? That sounds . . . well, saying "impractical" is the mildest way I can express it. Could you expand on that idea a little bit?

I'm having a hard time squaring your statement that you support free market capitalism, but NOT big money in politics, since it seems to me that the most prominent free marketeers and the biggest winners in American capitalism are the folks who are actively campaigning for unlimited, anonymous political donations.

[goldfly]

https://scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/1471235_10152031601692908_956514811_n.png

[sturg33]

Until people can get it out of their head that the Federal reserve is some solution to our economy, the income distribution will only get worse...

But I forgot, gold is crazy!

[goldfly]

But I forgot, gold is crazy!

:huh

[weso1]

These may not be indicators of a perfectly functioning free market (which is not a think that can actually exist), but they are quite plainly ills extant wherever you find a capitalist society. Might be there is some connection...

I don't think it's a function of capitalism, but a function of our government and like governments. And that's the exact reason libertarians are so extreme in their argument. For it's their believe that virtually any government interference on the market place will slowly snowball into problematic levels of government interference.

I myself believe that libertarianism can't exist in the real world for long due to human nature. It will all snowball eventually anyway.

[acesfull86]

Can you list the things you would limit or expand? And how would you shrink govt? I'm always curious as to what folks would get rid of and why they would.

Despite diverse approaches at trying to tax its citizens, the federal government has collected revenues at an average around 17-19% of GDP most years over the past several decades. So right off the bat, I think government spending at 19% GDP should be the target on the high side. (Hey, I'd prefer it to be under 10% considering it averaged that through most of this country's existence, from the very beginning up to becoming an economic world superpower). In recent years spending has been close to 25%, and I don't buy there is a tax scheme out there that will extract the necessary revenues needed to sustain it.

I'd start with federal subsidy programs. We have over 2,200 right now...we had 1,600 only as far back as 2005...just 1,000 back in 1985. As much as I'd like to live out my libertarian fantasies and dramatically reduce the size/scope of gov't (including radical entitlement reform), we don't have to go that far to make a difference. Food subsidies, farm subsidies, subsidies to foreign governments, subsidies for energy, housing, public broadcasting. I'd like to wipe them out, but even if we could roll back spending to a decade or so ago, it would be a massive improvement over what we have now.

Considering the Department of Education has exploded with no discernible improvement in education, I'd make dramatic cuts there. I think the amount of money we spend on military/defense is beyond excessive, so I'd cut there. I'd end the war on drugs and allow states to make their own decisions regarding how to deal with them so we stop wasting billions of dollars there.

The problem is, any proposed cut is called "draconian." Heck, I started a thread here about the federal government spending taxpayer dollars to plant trees in the front yards of millionaires and had liberals defending that policy! Forget cutting government...we live in an age where if you propose to increase government spending less than it's projected to increase, that's somehow passed off as a spending cut. If I decide I'm going to spend $20 more dollars than I usually do on groceries this week, then I get to the store and only spend $15 more than I usually do, in Washingtonspeak, I just decreased spending $5, rather than increase it $15.

So do I have much hope that we're going to roll back spending at all? No I do not.

[Dalyn]

All I could see in the preview was, "Pope Francis rails a..." Did not go where I thought it was going, thankfully.

[goldfly]

https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/1229959_10201542653548711_424653600_n.jpg

[sturg33]

Despite diverse approaches at trying to tax its citizens, the federal government has collected revenues at an average around 17-19% of GDP most years over the past several decades. So right off the bat, I think government spending at 19% GDP should be the target on the high side. (Hey, I'd prefer it to be under 10% considering it averaged that through most of this country's existence, from the very beginning up to becoming an economic world superpower). In recent years spending has been close to 25%, and I don't buy there is a tax scheme out there that will extract the necessary revenues needed to sustain it.

I'd start with federal subsidy programs. We have over 2,200 right now...we had 1,600 only as far back as 2005...just 1,000 back in 1985. As much as I'd like to live out my libertarian fantasies and dramatically reduce the size/scope of gov't (including radical entitlement reform), we don't have to go that far to make a difference. Food subsidies, farm subsidies, subsidies to foreign governments, subsidies for energy, housing, public broadcasting. I'd like to wipe them out, but even if we could roll back spending to a decade or so ago, it would be a massive improvement over what we have now.

Considering the Department of Education has exploded with no discernible improvement in education, I'd make dramatic cuts there. I think the amount of money we spend on military/defense is beyond excessive, so I'd cut there. I'd end the war on drugs and allow states to make their own decisions regarding how to deal with them so we stop wasting billions of dollars there.

The problem is, any proposed cut is called "draconian." Heck, I started a thread here about the federal government spending taxpayer dollars to plant trees in the front yards of millionaires and had liberals defending that policy! Forget cutting government...we live in an age where if you propose to increase government spending less than it's projected to increase, that's somehow passed off as a spending cut. If I decide I'm going to spend $20 more dollars than I usually do on groceries this week, then I get to the store and only spend $15 more than I usually do, in Washingtonspeak, I just decreased spending $5, rather than increase it $15.

So do I have much hope that we're going to roll back spending at all? No I do not.

Well said

[The Chosen One]

Pope Francis meets POTUS in person for the first time.

No pictures online yet, but man if they start going on income inequality, I can't imagine conservatives being happy about that especially since they're probably not happy with Obama meeting him in the first place.

[Julio3000]

Pope Francis meets POTUS in person for the first time.

No pictures online yet, but man if they start going on income inequality, I can't imagine conservatives being happy about that especially since they're probably not happy with Obama meeting him in the first place.

Hmmm. I wonder if His Holiness knows that Obama is a Muslim.

[Oklahomahawk]

Hmmm. I wonder if His Holiness knows that Obama is a Muslim.

Shhhhhhhh.............

[weso1]

I'm pretty sure the Pope is a muslim actually.