The Pope is a Marxist

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
1

Pope Francis to World: Redistribute The Wealth

Pope Francis reaffirmed his plea on Friday for world leaders to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor during an address before top U.N. officials and called for a global initiative to reduce the income gap

Pope Francis on Friday renewed his call on global leaders to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor.

Francis made his plea during an address to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and other U.N. leaders gathered in Rome for an audience with the pope, CBS News reports.

Railing against an â??economy of exclusion,â?? Francis called for a state-led global initiative to close the widening gap between rich and poor through redistribution.

â??Specifically, this involves challenging all forms of injustices and resisting the economy of exclusion, the throwaway culture and the culture of death which nowadays sadly risk becoming passively accepted,â?? Francis said.

The comments were in keeping with the Popeâ??s previous critiques of income inequality at the World Economic Forum in January and in a private March meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama.

The Pope and Ban skirted the issue of an ongoing U.N. investigation into the Vaticanâ??s handling of sexual abuse cases and briefly touched upon the Catholic churchâ??s stances on birth control and abortion.

I guess he’s going to start with the Vatican’s assets?

2

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Pope Francis to World: Redistribute The Wealth

Pope Francis reaffirmed his plea on Friday for world leaders to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor during an address before top U.N. officials and called for a global initiative to reduce the income gap

Pope Francis on Friday renewed his call on global leaders to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor.

Francis made his plea during an address to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and other U.N. leaders gathered in Rome for an audience with the pope, CBS News reports.

Railing against an â??economy of exclusion,â?? Francis called for a state-led global initiative to close the widening gap between rich and poor through redistribution.

â??Specifically, this involves challenging all forms of injustices and resisting the economy of exclusion, the throwaway culture and the culture of death which nowadays sadly risk becoming passively accepted,â?? Francis said.

The comments were in keeping with the Popeâ??s previous critiques of income inequality at the World Economic Forum in January and in a private March meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama.

The Pope and Ban skirted the issue of an ongoing U.N. investigation into the Vaticanâ??s handling of sexual abuse cases and briefly touched upon the Catholic churchâ??s stances on birth control and abortion.

[/quote]

Yep. Liberation theology is making a comeback in the Vatican.

[quote]

I guess he’s going to start with the Vatican’s assets?[/quote]

All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.

(Enter sloth…)

3

Interesting since the Vatican is the third biggest land owner in the world, and has no shortage of money. Are they planning on redistributing it?

4

Cool. Now which sentence is it exactly that talks about confiscating private assets for redistribution?

5

I’ll be waiting.

6

The entire speech. Now, please, quote the statement.

7

Don’t have a dog in this fight but if I had to guess, I’d say this one

and especially towards the end of this one:

8

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Cool. Now which sentence is it exactly that talks about confiscating private assets for redistribution?[/quote]

So when he said the UN should encourage “legitimate redistribution” of wealth what he really meant was the UN should encourage private donations to charity? I would argue that in his mind “legitimate redistribution” would involve something like progressive taxation. Is that an unfair reading of the man?

9

What is “legitimate redistribution” anyhow? Is that like legitimate rape or something? Seriously I have no idea what he means. I can only assume that by adding the qualifier “legitimate” he’s trying to disassociate himself from the Marxist concept of wealth redistribution whilst at the same time openly advocating it.

10

[quote] MattyG35 wrote:

…legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the state.

[/quote]

State redistribution of wealth? What could possibly go wrong?

11

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Cool. Now which sentence is it exactly that talks about confiscating private assets for redistribution?[/quote]

So when he said the UN should encourage “legitimate redistribution” of wealth what he really meant was the UN should encourage private donations to charity? I would argue that in his mind “legitimate redistribution” would involve something like progressive taxation. Is that an unfair reading of the man?[/quote]

As opposed to illegitimate redistribution…

There’s a crapton of room between “Marxism” and social safety nets…

What is you answer to growing economic inequality, exacerbated by fictional multinational/global entities defined and protected by the state? Pretend your society won’t dissolve in the face of it? As an avid supporter of our military might and adventurism, what about that bit of redistribution?

Truth be told, much of Catholic economic though is Distributionist. While Marxism is rejected, Capitalism isn’t heaven on earth. Especially capitalism in a lobbying prone democratic republic. The same system the libertarian rely on to explain away inequality. “Well, it’s not the fault of true Capitalism, but the crony-capitalism that has replaced it.”

Sorry, but your “Marxism” malarky doesn’t fly anymore. There is a problem with today’s “Capitalism.” Where fewer are actually capitalists and small/local business owners, relative to the multinational/global behemoths whose upper echelon no longer live in the same town, if even the same country…Yet reap more and more of the benefit. We’re increasingly a mass of employees living on the paychecks of relatively fewer, distant, insulated figures living in their gated communities.

So, what is the real “capitalism?”

This system (laws, taxation, fictional legal entities) that favors Big corporate/chain and Financial markets? The employee society? Where capitalism turns out to mean, “capitalism for the few.” On one hand the shining example of capitalism for the libertarian. Yet, when pressed, it becomes the dark example of “crony capitalism?” Which is it? The pristine model, or the corrupted monstrosity? Which are you defending?

12

The true enemies of private property and free markets are the ones pretending nothing is wrong, nothing needs to be done, and who therefore, have nothing to say but unrealistic slogans.

13

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
What is “legitimate redistribution” anyhow? Is that like legitimate rape or something? Seriously I have no idea what he means. I can only assume that by adding the qualifier “legitimate” he’s trying to disassociate himself from the Marxist concept of wealth redistribution whilst at the same time openly advocating it.[/quote]

It means, having a social safety net that makes sure the child of dirt poor parents can learn to read and write, and get that emergency operation for hemorrhaging esophageal varices.

14

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Cool. Now which sentence is it exactly that talks about confiscating private assets for redistribution?[/quote]

So when he said the UN should encourage “legitimate redistribution” of wealth what he really meant was the UN should encourage private donations to charity? I would argue that in his mind “legitimate redistribution” would involve something like progressive taxation. Is that an unfair reading of the man?[/quote]

As opposed to illegitimate redistribution…

There’s a crapton of room between “Marxism” and social safety nets…

What is you answer to growing economic inequality, exacerbated by fictional multinational/global entities defined and protected by the state? Pretend your society won’t dissolve in the face of it? As an avid supporter of our military might and adventurism, what about that bit of redistribution?

Truth be told, much of Catholic economic though is Distributionist. While Marxism is rejected, Capitalism isn’t heaven on earth. Especially capitalism in a lobbying prone democratic republic. The same system the libertarian rely on to explain away inequality. “Well, it’s not the fault of true Capitalism, but the crony-capitalism that has replaced it.”

Sorry, but your “Marxism” malarky doesn’t fly anymore. There is a problem with today’s “Capitalism.” Where fewer are actually capitalists and small/local business owners, relative to the multinational/global behemoths whose upper echelon no longer live in the same town, if even the same country…Yet reap more and more of the benefit. We’re increasingly a mass of employees living on the paychecks of relatively fewer distant figures living in their gated communities.

So, what is the real “capitalism?”

This system (laws, taxation, fictional legal entities) that favors Big corporate/chain and Financial markets? The employee society? Where capitalism turns out to mean, “capitalism for the few.” On one hand the shining example of capitalism for the libertarian. Yet, when pressed, it becomes the dark example of “crony capitalism?” Which is it? The pristine model, or the corrupted monstrosity? Which are you defending?
[/quote]

“Just keep finding clever ways of extending household debt spending to make up for wage gaps!”

“Get ya’ credit here!”

“Now watch all these commercials of all the junk we sell/are invested in, that you desperately need in your life!”

15

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I would argue that in his mind “legitimate redistribution” would involve something like progressive taxation. Is that an unfair reading of the man?[/quote]

Progressive taxation? Like, what is in place now?

Are there really human beings who actually believe that today’s wealthy are overburdened? Are there really human beings who think that despite growing inequality lower incomes need to be squeezed more, and the upper class (who’ve captured so much of what recovery there has been, so far) are in dire need?

Wow. Hand that election right on over. Don’t even nominate a candidate. Just forfeit right here and save us all some time.

16

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Don’t have a dog in this fight but if I had to guess, I’d say this one

and especially towards the end of this one:

Funny how the bolded mentions the continuing existence existence of the private sector…

17

[quote]Sloth wrote:

As opposed to illegitimate redistribution…

There’s a crapton of room between “Marxism” and social safety nets…

[/quote]

It would be nice if he had defined what he meant by “legitimate redistribution.” Some people get understandably concerned about calls for redistribution of wealth by the state. The undefined qualifier “legitimate” just doesn’t cut it.

I’m not going to pretend that laissez faire capitalism is perfect or that trickle down economics alone can prevent poverty. But I honestly believe that it is the lesser of evils. I believe that capitalist economies are more stable and provide more wealth and opportunities for people than any other system. I also don’t believe that a classless society is possible. People naturally form into hierarchical orders. You cannot abolish the lower class. Attempts to artificially raise the lower class can only end in mob rule then dictatorship.

I don’t support military adventurism at all. I was against intervention in Libya from the start. Syria is a different question because the outcome of the conflict will have a profound impact on the Middle East. Syria is Hezbollah’s supply line, its strategic depth and Iran’s closest regional ally with contiguous porous borders. A Sunni regime in Syria would be of enormous strategic benefit to the west. Having said that I don’t advocate military intervention. I advocate arming the rebels with anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons. My beliefs on foreign policy are well considered and not in the realm of rash adventurism.

I’m aware of that.

I’m defending free markets as the lesser of evils.

18

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I would argue that in his mind “legitimate redistribution” would involve something like progressive taxation. Is that an unfair reading of the man?[/quote]

Progressive taxation? Like, what is in place now?

Are there really human beings who actually believe that today’s wealthy are overburdened? Are there really human beings who think that despite growing inequality lower incomes need to be squeezed more, and the upper class (who’ve captured so much of what recovery there has been, so far) are in dire need?

Wow. Hand that election right on over. Don’t even nominate a candidate. Just forfeit right here and save us all some time.[/quote]

Come on sloth you’re smarter than that. I advocate less taxation across the board and less government spending.

19

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
What is “legitimate redistribution” anyhow? Is that like legitimate rape or something? Seriously I have no idea what he means. I can only assume that by adding the qualifier “legitimate” he’s trying to disassociate himself from the Marxist concept of wealth redistribution whilst at the same time openly advocating it.[/quote]

It means, having a social safety net that makes sure the child of dirt poor parents can learn to read and write, and get that emergency operation for hemorrhaging esophageal varices.[/quote]

You want better public healthcare then deport the illegals and close the border. And you need to balance the budget. If you don’t do those things the whole economy will collapse and no one will have proper healthcare. It’s as simple as that.

20

Funny, i thought Jesus was pretty non-violent. Charity through guns and the treat of violence…