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

[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

 

[Oklahomahawk]

Here's a somewhat helpful bit on the Pope and 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]

 

[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]

 

[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 Tariff King]

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.