Obama and Pope Francis vs. America’s Middle Class?

Loading

We await a heavy-handed anti-capitalist measure of therapy about to be unleashed on the world from the supreme seat of power, the Oval Office, as two world leaders link their voices, trumpeting the global redistribution of wealth because of Climate Change. The redistribution of your wealth, you middle-classians.  The Argentinian Pope, Pope Francis, with as much pomp and pageantry as this Administration can muster, will be revered and his presence burnished by our uninformed and un-inquisitive media.

Obama & Pope Francis

 

The redistribution of your cash, borrowed cash that is, will be implemented through misrepresentation of your direct responsibility for climate change. You, middle class America are responsible for the poverty of Africa, Asia and of any of 150+ nations around the globe where people are impoverished. You polluted the air, so you affected the climate, so you made it warmer, so you will pay for climate change.  Since the dots don’t line up on this sham, this Administration knows how to effectively play the middle class, . . . lavish the Pope with as big a dose of ‘pomp’ as you can spend money on, and the media will applaud, filling the Pope’s sails with air.  This will imbue an added measure of credibility  onto Obama’s new co-sponsor on the road to confounding the middle class —  the accommodating media will do the rest.

Not be outdone by Obama, Congress has invited the Pope to a first-ever papal appearance on Capitol Hill.  Boehner and McConnell know not what they do.  Surprising?

Pope Francis has ventured far from his religious province, and has become a politician. The Pope has also conflated capitalism with the financial markets (Wall Street), ignoring that the two have for some time had opposing purposes.  Launched from the intellectual context of a passionately presented ‘concern’ for the poor, the Pope will seek to shame and guilt the American middle class and its capitalist system into accepting responsibility for the ills of 7.2 billion people.

You, the American middle class, should be accountable for the hundreds of millions who cannot economically grow their way out of poverty because you have polluted the environment and raised temperatures to such a degree that potential wealth creating activities such as agriculture, fishing, and forestry are impossible. Ignore the fact that North American air is now cleaner and is aspiring less pollution than at any time in over a century even as the population has exploded. Forget the facts.  You, middle class America are guilty.  What? You didn’t know that your creation of climate change is a religious concern?

In Pope Francis, religious doctrine collides with freedom of the individual, and conflicts with the most positive ecosphere known to man for encouraging natural human self-actualization — open and free capitalism.  Papal decrees are intended for spiritual impressions, not political ideology or even economics, IMHO. His communism-promoting and warm visit with Castro this week is further evidence of his peculiar incursion off the papal path.  It is highly difficult to understand his hate of capitalism, in view of the fact that he lived through the destruction of a very successful and thriving Argentina under the type of government he now espouses.   In becoming so overtly political and straying from being a moral compass housed in the Catholic Church, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, even as he seems well intentioned, exposes himself to being taken advantage of, by very skilful political operatives.

The fallacious sophistry of the Administration with much evidenced disdain for American capitalism and the vast American middle class is about to capitalize on selected slices of Pope Francis’ unusual (unusual for a Pope) personal political canons. Forget about his stance on pressing concerns such as abortion and life’s sanctity, the Obama political team will use the Pope’s stance on ‘climate change’ to power-up Obama’s launch of his latest  legacy-monument — Cap and Trade, Obama Style.

The Obama team is ignorant of the fact that America’s spine is comprised of entrepreneurs. Always has been.  From farmers, to storekeepers, to wheel manufacturers, to software designers, entrepreneurs thrived, forging through new boundaries of creativity and productivity in the creation of jobs, and in the formation of wealth. The Administration’s ignorance has advanced and infringed on the entrepreneur, degrading America’s spine.  Instead of a government providing protection for the individual and the individual’s self-fulfillment through enforcement of laws and judicious oversight, this purposeful ignorance has been allowed to invade and disturb independence of action and of thought.

Energized by an ignorant and crippling Administration, the giant blob of corrupted government bureaucracy has not only smothered the middle class through centrally established directives, killed personal initiative while pretending to protect consumers, and enriched bankers while saving them from the laws of the land, it is blaming the American middle class for the world’s ills.

Open your wallets. Here they come.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
61 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I think the Catholics made a mistake electing Pope Francis, like we made an error with Obama. Hopefully time will correct both situations.

@James Raider: we cannot help but leave a distinct imprint on the earth.

In God’s original plan for humans we were supposed to have ”a distinct imprint on the earth,” as you put it.

Recall God put the first couple into a smallish Garden in Eden.
Big enough for them and a few of their generations of children, but not big enough eventually.
They, and their offspring, would have had God’s blessing as they worked to expand that paradise out to eventually encompass the entire earth.
So, our Original Sin removed God’s blessing from our work.
Still we grew in population and spread all over the earth.
It is just that we do so on our own.
Thus our ”imprint” is as imperfect as we are.
It is only logical.

@old guy #1, raider #2 –

Catholics do not elect the pope. The College of Cardinals elect the pope. While the election of a pope is supposed to be seen as the work of divine revelation, plenty of politics and deals play into the election. And, just because a pope issues an encyclical, it doesn’t mean all of us Catholics follow in lockstep. It is a teaching, a guide, nothing more, nothing less.

Regarding his beliefs, perceptions, and personal politics, remember Francis is a Peronista Socialist. And, Argentinians don’t particularly like America, Americans as a whole. He comes from that background.

My preference in a pope, more like JP II or B16.

obama again bowing; this time to the pope.

@old guy: Catholics don’t elect the pope. They just get notification that he was selected by a bunch of old cardinals.

David #4 and Enchanted #6: I am very aware that there is not a mass election by catholic’s for the pope, but the cardinals are catholic and represent the masses, in this decision correct?

The cardinals don’t represent the “masses”. The cardinals are chosen for more of their ideological agreement with whoever is pope at the time of their selection. You’ll be surprised that the selection of a cardinal, of a pope, is much like choosing a SCOTUS justice. On most things, they’ll comport themselves in the manner how you perceive them. But, there are times when they will completely surprise you.

Most surprising about Francis: being on the “job” for only three years, he’s already thinking retirement, retiring like B16 did. He may found out being the leader, especially of the Catholic Church, is not an easy one. It’s very much like herding cats.

Why is any criticism of the abuses of the capitalist/corporate system always recharacterized as a criticism of America’s middle class? They’re the ones that are being shaken down by the system, aren’t they?

This isn’t a case of a pope going off the rails and suggesting a radical agenda. That we have a fundamental obligation to help the poor isn’t exactly an unprecedented Christian message. All he’s doing is reasserting it, in the face of an aggressive and often predatory economic system that is increasingly imposing its own profit-dominated values on everything and everyone.

That’s his job. He’s the Pope.

Nothing can make an atheistic, Christian-hating liberal find religion like a Pope agreeing with a few of their far left tenets. No doubt the issue of abortion will be avoided at all costs.

If the Pope does not bring it up before Congress, as he ignored the Christians imprisoned in Cuba, we will know how sincere he is about the human condition.

When these altruistic souls endeavor to go forth and help the poor masses, where do they envision the money to fund these efforts comes from? Socialism?

…or they might be someone who advocates a return to a steeper progressive tax schedule, noting that such a state of affairs existed for decades during an era when the middle class was thriving, the economy was rapidly expanding, and the national debt was measured in billions rather than trillions.

Pope Francis has ventured far from his religious province, and has become a politician.

I disagree. Just like Obama he kept fairly quiet about his political aspirations and agenda until after being elected to the Papacy. Immediately upon taking on the mantle, he started to enact his own “transformation” of Catholicism. to the glee of the leftist fringe of the Vatican hierarchy and to the stewing anger of those conservative Cardinals. I think that he is correct that he wont be Pope for long.

A match made in heaven (no pun intended). Two leftists bonding. One lied about supporting religious freedom and the other lied about not being a leftist. One fails to uphold the Constitution and laws he was elected to uphold and the other doesn’t uphold the “law” he is supposed to uphold- “Thou shall not lie.” Both rub elbows with the oppressive communist Castro’s. What a sharp contrast to our Cold War presidents and Pope John Paul II.

@Greg:

…or they might be someone who advocates a return to a steeper progressive tax schedule, noting that such a state of affairs existed for decades during an era when the middle class was thriving, the economy was rapidly expanding, and the national debt was measured in billions rather than trillions.

So you advocate going back to the time of tax loopholes and exemptions where the highest rates were never collected?

Oh, and who presided over driving those deficits up into the trillions and doubling the debt we face?

I’d also advocate closing the loopholes.

@Greg: Then you aren’t using the same taxing system/rates as was used when the economy flourished, are you? As has been predicted, and as Obama has shown, raising taxes on a weak economy stifles growth. Raising taxes on a strong economy stops growth.

You leftists have to ask yourselves if succumbing to your success-envy and punishing those that ARE successful is more important than actually doing something to help the poor.

Success envy is an interesting concept. It misses the fact that everyone doesn’t measure success or worth in terms of dollars. A person can accumulate huge amounts of money and be worse than useless as a human being. Could any well-balanced human being envy a person like Martin Shkreli?

Economic justice doesn’t require that everyone should have the same. It does require that efforts be fairly rewarded, and that exploitation by the powerful not be the road to ever increasing wealth.

@another vet: The Pope is returning to the teachings of Christ’s Church he “sees the face of Christ” when he visits the poor.–A great man who certainly walks the walk.

@Rich Wheeler: One wonders how embracing socialism (a source of much of the world’s misery) is in any way helping the poor. If he was “walking the walk” he would have visited with some of the incarcerated dissidents of Cuba. I haven’t heard yet if he addressed the ongoing embracing of unlimited abortion and the sale of the slag from them by the liberals in charge. We will see if he walks THAT walk.

@Greg:

Success envy is an interesting concept. It misses the fact that everyone doesn’t measure success or worth in terms of dollars.

True. Take George Soros, for example. Or, Warren Buffett, who talks a big game but never seems to put his money where his mouth is. Or, any of the big-hearted Hollywood elitists that promote big spending and taking care of the poor from their gated, armed-guarded mansions. You know, they don’t HAVE to wait until the government demands their money; they can send in as much as they like whenever they like and REALLY feel good about themselves.

When was the last time you were aware of a big-hearted liberal doing just that, Greg?

Big talk, no action, wait around for everyone else to foot the bill for their failed policies.

@Rich Wheeler: He’s against capitalism and supports the redistribution of wealth. That is the definition of Marxism. Ever read Marx’s manifesto? He also supports manmade global warming. Another leftist cause. His immigration stance falls in line with the left and I will wait to see how much he practices what he preaches when he changes the Vatican’s immigration policy to accept their fair share of Syrian refugees as well as any other illegal immigrants wishing to live there. He may be a good man but he is a leftist. `

There are some great lines in this commentary with an infux of dry humor. What a surprise, to get a few laughs from an article about an unholy Socialist alliance. (Nothing against Catholicism, it’s just when two Socialist leaders get together, no one is expecting positive results.)

@Skook:

Nothing against Catholicism, it’s just when two Socialist leaders get together, no one is expecting positive results.

As someone who was born and raised Catholic, I agree. However, I do believe that one of the two is well intentioned and the other is not and is down right power hungry. Any guess as to who is who?

@Bill, #20:

When was the last time you were aware of a big-hearted liberal doing just that, Greg?

“Uncharitable liberals” is also a favorite conservative meme. Perhaps conservatives should publicly present one another with medals and certificates of appreciation the next time they gather at the polling places to vote for candidates who want to cut food stamp and healthcare funding.

@Greg:
Straw man arguments because you don’t acknowledge alternatives proposed or the fact that said programs are not working as touted by liberals

@Greg: So, zero, then. That agrees with my number.

Here’s the thing; it is not conservatives that preach that wealth is evil and it should be given up to the government so that the government can properly distribute it (at which point all wealth will cease to be generated and the poor, who have NOT been helped by the government’s failures, are UTTERLY screwed). It is liberals. Buffet says he does not pay enough taxes (he literally doesn’t; his Berkshire Hathaway owes the government over a billion dollars in taxes). Does he just up and pay more? Nope. He thinks the government should tell him to, first. Soros supports left wing causes, no matter how despicable. Does George use his wealth to create businesses and jobs? No, he supports propaganda outlets that lie and left wing gangs to riot and destroy.

Who are the real villains? People like the Koch bothers who fund schools, cancer research and tens of thousands of jobs. No, this sort of wealth does the exact opposite of how liberals feel wealth should be used; used to further the liberal agenda which only serves to benefit the liberal agenda. The proper use is for the government to take it away, give just enough to those in poverty to keep them alive until the next gratuitous hand out and then squander the rest.

@another vet: If a personality like Mao or Stalin was still alive, I can picture our president falling all over himself to ingratiate himself with the “great” men.

@Skook: He’d have plenty of followers too!

@Greg: Do you EVER have any idea what you are blathering about? Every comment you post escalates the stupid!I If your arguments are the best the left has to offer, you and they are in for a long, rapid decline.

@Greg: You were asked for an example, not a new straw man. Provide an example or concede the point.

@Greg: Cute relational device as you weakly attempt to equate Capitalism with Corporatism. They are quite different.

Capitalism is about free trade with few restrictions or regulations. Corporatism is a system by which the entities which have defined a market beseech the government, through licensing requirements, regulatory red tape and other obstacles erect barriers to entry to any enterprises coming after them.

The closest derivative of capitalism that applies to your equation is “crony capitalism”, and I know few people indeed who agree with that.

Try a new straw man.

@Greg: The pols you prefer are all too happy to buy the indigent vote with the money of the productive.

While your preferred pols have perpetuated a seemingly unending supply of new dependents, and perpetuated a multigenerational cycle of dependence, they have done fuck-all as it relates to alleviating dependence.

That is because, as it has been said well before me, “If you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always rely on Paul’s vote.” All you really need to to is convince Paul that Peter is responsible for Paul’s poverty.

@Greg: Perhaps you should read Skooks essay which references the Masai in Africa. A very poignant, but pertinent, comment from an Elder of a Masai tribe, who laments the activities of tourists who offer candy to Masai children, “thus producing a generation of beggars….” My point being, I doubt if the Elder Masai Warrior could tell the difference between a ‘Capitalist’ or a ‘Communist’, but he knows what will ruin his society!

Watching Francis has emphasized the accuracy of this post to me. All the kindnesses and largesse sought by the Pope will not be a burden to the elites in the nation (read that “liberals”). The cost will be borne by the middle class and it will be the middle class that suffers the most for it.

@Me, #33:

The pols you prefer are all too happy to buy the indigent vote with the money of the productive

Real wages—measured by the purchasing power of a worker’s paycheck—have been stagnant for decades, and in some sectors have actually declined. Employee benefits have steadily decreased, defined pension plans are in danger of extinction, and health insurance and pension promises made to employees who spent 30 or 40 years fulfilling their own end of a bargain have been routinely defaulted upon. Traditional savers—the bedrock of a nation’s economic stability—have been made out as fools, while betting your future security on stock market prices has been characterized as sound planning.

Productive people—the people whose lives revolve around doing the work of the world—are the primary victims of the foregoing shakedown. Increasing demands are being placed upon them from both the bottom and the top.

In general, republicans like to blame the poor for the problems of the middle and working classes and democrats for using taxes to try to improve things. Democrats suggest that voters follow the money trail to see who is most benefiting from the dysfunctional arrangement, and propose increased high-end taxes and a variety of social programs as mechanisms to keep things in a better balance. They belief governing involves maintaining a fair balance that benefits everyone.

That’s an over-simplification, of course, but not so much as Democrats steal the money of the productive to buy the votes of the poor. The other side of that particular coin would be The wealthy use their booty buy the protection of the government.

@Greg:The wealthy EARN their booty, Greg. Politicians who perpetuate a continuous dependent class by holding them at a barely subsistence level and giving them hand outs confiscated from others serve a single purpose. To retain their seats by purchasing those votes in the most cynical imaginable way.

Governing does not mean ruling. Getting the government out of the way will do a great deal more to even the scales than any redistributive measure some politician can cook up. Simply stated, there has been no system yet devised that can lift people from their indigence better or more efficiently than real capitalism and free trade. Further, maintaining a fair balance is contingent upon the definition of “fair”; maintaining a permanent dependent class is by no means “fair”.

@Me, #37:

The wealthy EARN their booty, Greg.

That’s an inaccurate generalization. Some do, some don’t. Predatory capitalism actually exists. So does exploitation. Shakedowns schemes can and do exist while remaining within the letter of the law. Anyone who doesn’t realize this hasn’t been paying close enough attention.

Getting the government out of the way will do a great deal more to even the scales than any redistributive measure some politician can cook up.

Do you believe that to be a law of nature? If so, why?

I believe that if regulations were removed from the financial system, the public would be robbed blind. I believe that if environmental regulations were removed, the environment would be plundered and the population slowly poisoned for quick profits. I believe without product standards the consumer market would be flooded with cheaper but questionable goods and services of every description. Without government, the public has no guardian. The government preforms that task as our servant.

Markets do not hold the public good as the highest value. They’re primarily concerned with profits. Any moral context that they operate within must be imposed by some external entity. The public as consumers cannot effectively do that, because individuals are not in a position to have sufficient information about countless products and services, or about the behavior of companies that produce and supply them. Nor do they have the means without government to challenge the power of billion-dollar corporate entities.

Do you really imagine corporate forces and special interests want the government off their cases so that they’ll be free to treat their employees and their customers better?

@Greg: It is not a law of nature, but rather of human nature. People free to choose will do so based upon parameters which suit them best, individually. The more economic freedom accorded, the more vibrant innovative and dynamic the economy will be, demonstrably throughout history. The more restricted the economic environment, the more stifled the creative, dynamic forces which drive the economy forward.

Free market means just that. Of course there are bad people. The government, public servant or public master, has yet to be able to eliminate them. That does not mean that economic freedom is bad or undesirable.

Predatory practices have always and will always exist. Free market economics means that the consumer can choose which products or services to purchase. Cheaply made flimsy products or shoddily delivered services will not last long, as consumers will not opt for them in the long term. The same is true of con artists who do not deliver what they promise.

As far as environmental regulations are concerned, consumers who value clean air and water will opt to purchase goods and services from sources who share their values. Good marketers will publicize and promote their company’s environmental sensitivity if they perceive that is what the majority of their target demographic esteems.

People who are free to choose usually do a pretty good job of it, and free markets do an excellent job of policing and punishing poor;y-led companies. The punishment being, of course, diminishing market share, and in some cases eventual collapse.

@Greg: Markets do not hold the public good as the highest value. You actually mean “government controlled markets”. Otherwise “markets” has no meaning whatsoever.

Free trade means people can choose, freely, with whom they pursue commerce. In that arena, the market is those who would like to purchase goods and/or services, and those who provide them.

Your idiotic notion that a market, or “Markets” can hold any value above another, much less that the public good is held above all others in any system of commerce once again is weapons-grade stupid!

@James Raider:

This Pope also seems to have missed the point of Jesus concept of:

“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”

Immigration control is an issue belonging to and falling under governments, not the religious establishments. The same goes for taxation and redistribution of government funds, and for environmental law and regulation.

Then again Obama was in the wrong to invite LGBT activists to the White House gathering. The government has no business interjecting into First Amendment protected religious establishments.

@DrJohn:

I’ve been thinking that the real reason why the Pope and many US Catholic leaders are jumping on the pro-illegal immigration bandwagon is because the lower American Nation illegal immigrants tend to be of Catholic affiliation, thus, their migration into the US will theoretically give Catholicism more political power. And thanks to the entitlement freebies Democrats are giving them at the expense of the Middle-Class, the Catholic church will not have to bear the cost of providing food and housing for these illegal immigrant parishioners.

Anyone who has read Marx would know that he had a disdain for the middle class just as he did the upper class. Beware when those on the left who parrot his teachings say they are for the middle class.

@Me, #40:

Free trade means people can choose, freely, with whom they pursue commerce.

Free trade doesn’t mean free choice in an unregulated market taken over by multi-billion dollar corporations. I understand this obvious point because I am not an idiot.

Has the replacement of natural grains with genetically altered grains in virtually every product on grocery store shelves been a consumer decision? Is that why corporations bought political influence to kill labeling requirements that would reveal natural or modified contents? The same thing is true of antibiotic and hormone laced milk.

Corporate America will knowingly continue to sell automobiles with fire-prone fuel tank designs or faulty ignitions so long as the cost of lawsuits is greatly outweighed by the profits made from selling them. It will sell and advertise highly profitable prescription drugs known to have serious hidden dangers until forced to stop. It will sell addictive tobacco products and spend millions in an effort to suppress research revealing that they are not only highly addictive but give their consumers cancer. Corporate America will conceal the facts of credit arrangements to turn credit cards into a shakedown scheme. It will minimize investment risks to optimize the potential profits made on people’s retirement funds.

Do you think free market forces and consumer choice will somehow protect the public from predation? We’ll be driving over bridges held together by faulty bolts cast in China.

@Greg: Apparently you are an idiot demonstrated by your inability to look past the shelves of a large grocery store. The choices available to consumers today far exceed the simplistic examples you cite.

If you do not wish to purchase bread from a huge corporate conglomerate, don’t. If you don’t wish to purchase a car with substantial safety issues, don’t. If you do not wish to smoke tobacco products, don’t. No one is holding a gun to anyone’s head and forcing them to purchase anything in a free market.

Consumers, exercising their own free will, can regulate the market themselves, by voting with their feet.

@Me, #46:

Consumers, exercising their own free will, can regulate the market themselves, by voting with their feet.

As of 2012, 88 percent of all corn and 94 percent of all soy grown in the United States was genetically modified. Is this good or bad for people? Who knows? Some of the genetic tinkering has been done with the intention of making the plants immune to proprietary herbicides and insecticides designed to poison weeds or pest insects. Opinions about the long-term effects on human beings and on the environment are divided. In any case, your opinion doesn’t matter. Labeling does not reveal what’s in the package. People can’t choose when they don’t know. So how does the average consumer “vote with his feet?”

How would you have any clue if a new car you’re considering has hidden safety issues? You probably don’t even know if the wiring in your Chinese toaster cord is copper or aluminum. They copper plate aluminum wire. They put copper-colored enamel on aluminum wire so it looks like copper. How would you know if the prescription medication you’ve just picked up is genuine, or a counterfeit that been slipped into the product stream between the factory and the drugstore? Would you have it tested?

The argument that customers exercising choices in a free market would provide consumers with all the protection they need is ludicrous.

@Greg: Your wailing at, assailing and destroying straw men notwithstanding, as usual you say nothing.

First of all, you ignore the point I was making initially, which was that a relatively free market would have few, but not no regulations. Next you went on a wild goose chase re-litigating some things that are 30 years in the past.

Next, you assume I am referring to you as an idiot, when I simply characterized your opinion as such. Thus far, the shoe seems to fit, so until further notice, I regard you as the same.

Moving forward, it is a simple matter to anyone with an above room temperature IQ to do a bit of research. Regarding an automobile, Consumer Reports, (available at no cost at almost any local library), the same with a Chinese toaster, (race profile much), or almost any other commercially available products.

Otherwise it is still a relatively simple matter to purchase products you prefer by performing a small amount of due diligence. If you choose not to find out what you are purchasing, caveat emptor.

@Greg: Did the government keep veterans safe from VA quotas? Did the government keep the Animas River safe from toxic poisoning? Did the government keep millions and millions of people’s private information safe from hackers?

Has this government kept citizen’s life and property safe from rioters? Has this government kept the nation safe from Islamic extremist terrorists?

And we don’t even get the benefits of the free market in exchange for these government failures.