lawgator1
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2005
- Messages
- 72,041
- Likes
- 42,581
Yep. That is why the poorest states in the Union vote Republican .
The discussion is not easy, nor is it void of danger. It is no easy matter to define the relative rights and mutual duties of the rich and of the poor, of capital and of labor. And the danger lies in this, that crafty agitators are intent on making use of these differences of opinion to pervert men's judgments and to stir up the people to revolt.
The mischief has been increased by rapacious usury, which, although more than once condemned by the Church, is nevertheless, under a different guise, but with like injustice, still practiced by covetous and grasping men. To this must be added that the hiring of labor and the conduct of trade are concentrated in the hands of comparatively few; so that a small number of very rich men have been able to lay upon the teeming masses of the laboring poor a yoke little better than that of slavery itself.
To remedy these wrongs the socialists, working on the poor man's envy of the rich, are striving to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies. They hold that by thus transferring property from private individuals to the community, the present mischievous state of things will be set to rights, inasmuch as each citizen will then get his fair share of whatever there is to enjoy. But their contentions are so clearly powerless to end the controversy that were they carried into effect the working man himself would be among the first to suffer. They are, moreover, emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community.
Who said this?
Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacra*lized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting.
You do know that many dioceses over the past quarter-century have declared bankruptcy, correct? You do know that the Catholic Church does not have liquid assets in the trillions, right? You do know that the Catholic Church spends roughly $170,000,000,000 annually, most of that is spent running hospitals, a smaller, but still large chunk, is spent on running universities. The pensions for Catholic employees are pretty much dry.
And, still, at the end of the day, the Catholic Church spends almost $5 Billion annually on charity.
Yes, the Church would sell the Vatican and everything in it; the Church could focus less on some of the awe-inspiring chapels, cathedrals, and works of art. However, you are assuming many things:
1. There are enough buyers out there to buy these at their estimated values. That is a huge assumption.
2. That in selling these things, the Catholic Church will still retain enough revenue in order to continue spending $98 Billion annually on medical care and hospitals and $5 Billion on straight charity.
3. You are also assuming they will be able to continue to run all the Catholic Schools and Universities; which, by the way, are in large part responsible for later donations back to the Catholic Church (as people are known to right checks to institutions they feel gratitude for).
At one time, yes, the Catholic Church, specifically Rome, was rolling around in gold. That time is long gone.
I'm just saying, the Pope denounces trickle down theory and talks about the poor.... and has his own country, police force, jets, and trillions of dollars.
Seems .... inconsistent.
You do know that many dioceses over the past quarter-century have declared bankruptcy, correct? You do know that the Catholic Church does not have liquid assets in the trillions, right? You do know that the Catholic Church spends roughly $170,000,000,000 annually, most of that is spent running hospitals, a smaller, but still large chunk, is spent on running universities. The pensions for Catholic employees are pretty much dry.
And, still, at the end of the day, the Catholic Church spends almost $5 Billion annually on charity.
Yes, the Church would sell the Vatican and everything in it; the Church could focus less on some of the awe-inspiring chapels, cathedrals, and works of art. However, you are assuming many things:
1. There are enough buyers out there to buy these at their estimated values. That is a huge assumption.
2. That in selling these things, the Catholic Church will still retain enough revenue in order to continue spending $98 Billion annually on medical care and hospitals and $5 Billion on straight charity.
3. You are also assuming they will be able to continue to run all the Catholic Schools and Universities; which, by the way, are in large part responsible for later donations back to the Catholic Church (as people are known to right checks to institutions they feel gratitude for).
At one time, yes, the Catholic Church, specifically Rome, was rolling around in gold. That time is long gone.
How do you know this for sure? Are you the Pope?
I'm sure the Catholic Church is still very much 'rolling around in gold'.