Pope Francis Slams Trickle-Down Economics, Calls Out Republican Economic Policy

Pope FrancisI’ll be honest — I’ve never been a big fan of any Pope, but then again I’m not a huge fan of organized religion at all.  Though I’m a Christian, I think too much is corrupted when an organized religion sinks their claws into faith, manipulating it for their own selfish benefits.

That being said, I must say thus far I have been extremely impressed by Pope Francis.  Granted, he’s far from perfect (and the Vatican is a long way away from fixing even half of the issues I have with that place), but as for what I personally believe as a Christian, I find myself agreeing with this Pope quite often.

After all, when Saran Palin calls the Pope too liberal, he’s probably doing something right.

Well, consider me blown away when I read about Pope Francis essentially annihilating the entire Republican economic platform.  I actually went as far as to triple-check the quote because it seemed almost too good to be true.

In part of an 85-page document, the Pope wrote:

“In this context, 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 naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system.  Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting.”

Again, this was written by the Pope. 

I would love to see Republicans counter this statement.  The party that claims to represent “Christian values” just had their entire economic platform directly called out by the most recognized religious leader on the planet.

Can’t you just see it now?  Republicans standing there, proclaiming that the leader of the Catholic church has Christianity wrong, but people like Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin have it right?  This could get very interesting, and I cannot wait to see the reactions from many of these far-right tea party conservatives responding to this comment from Pope Francis.

The part I especially like is how he basically says that the idea of trickle-down economics has “never been confirmed by the facts.”  Then I love how he goes on to say that people who believe in such an asinine economic theory are more or less naive.  And finally he points out how, despite the rich being richer than ever, “the excluded are still waiting.”

It’s basically what liberals have been saying for decades — trickle-down economics is giant scam.  The facts don’t back up the theory.  We’re headed toward 40 years of trickle-down economics and the only thing it’s managed to accomplish is making the wealthiest among us richer than they’ve ever been before.  Yet, for the vast majority of us, we continue to fall further and further behind.

Trickle-down economics is ridiculously easy to debunk by pointing out cold hard facts and statistics, yet Republicans are so resistant to facts they simply refuse to acknowledge reality.  If trickle-down economics worked, the poor and middle class would be doing better than ever considering the rich are doing better than at any time in our nation’s history.

But that’s not happening because trickle-down economics is a con.  Just think of the premise behind the theory: It’s based on the term “trickle” which is defined as a small flow of liquid.  Hell, the damn theory says what we get back will be small – and that’s exactly what it’s done.  It’s given the rich a massive amount and they’ve “trickled-down” an absurdly small amount back to the rest of us.

So, while Pope Francis still has a long way to go if he hopes to restore the credibility of the Catholic church (if that’s even possible), I’m highly encouraged by what I’ve seen so far.  Let’s hope he continues to point out hypocrisies and urge people to actually follow and understand the book they claim to live by.

The following two tabs change content below.
Allen Clifton is from the Dallas-Fort Worth area and has a degree in Political Science. He is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on both Twitter and Facebook. Have feedback, compliments, criticism or hate mail? You can email him as well.
Did you find this article worthwhile? Please share it!


Facebook comments

  • Kate McCoy

    As a “devout” atheist, anything ANY religious leader writes or says is suspect in my view.

    • William Dean Luke

      a Lot of Chirstians would say the same thing about Atheism, but that would mean they would be putting all Atheists in the same boat, which seems to be what you’ve done here, despite all the good this new Pope has done.

      • southpaugh

        William Dean Luke: Except, that atheists are not in the business of making unsubstantiated assertions about nature, reality and superimposing supernatural influences as a force in everyday life. Atheists are only saying they see no reason to believe those assertions made by any religion without proof to back them up. Religion claims to know all the answers without providing any proof while atheists only accept as true things that can be proven to be real. Faith isn’t good enough. Faith doesn’t cut it in the real world. Regarding trickle down/supply side economics, Pope Francis is citing the proof behind his claims about it being a scam. That’s diametrically opposed to articles of faith.

      • William Dean Luke

        So you’re saying that “Seeing is believing”, right? Well, you can’t see air, but you know it’s there. You can’t see gravity, but you know it’s there. “I have faith in gravity because I can see it’s effects”.

        Well, the same situation stands for theists. “I believe in God because I can see evidence of divine, Intelligent intervention in all of nature, yadda yadda.”

        The basic facts of both Atheism and Theism, is that you get to ~choose~ whether you believe in something or not. You choose not to believe in God because you can’t see, based solely from a critical thinking standpoint, evidence of His divine existence.

        But what if I told you “God” isn’t “God” in the traditional Theist sense?

        What if I told you “God” was the universe’s consciousness manifesting itself in the corporeal?

        As an Atheist, basing all beliefs in scientific fact and theory, you can understand this concept.

        Stephen Hawking wrote that “Data is never lost. It’s simply transformed.” Same goes for energy. It’s never lost, it’s transformed. For every action, there’s an equal and opposite reaction. Why is that? There has to be some reason for this, right? And we can’t just say “It’s just the way it is”, because that’s not a definitive, factual answer.

        What if I told you that the Universe that we know manifested itself from the energies of another universe? Black hole Theory would surmise that anything that gets sucked into the black hole would come out unscathed on the other side, in an alternate dimension from our own. This means that each Black Hole that is “born” creates a “Gateway” to either an existing parallel universe, or creates a new universe.

        Black Holes are the “Death” of stars gone Supernova, so what if our “Big Bang” was merely the expulsion of energy into the Void from the creation of a Black Hole in another universe? There’s a Study that suggests that Black Holes could also be the birthplace of new stars, etc., so it’s well within the realm of possibility that we exist simply as the result of the universe regurgitating it’s energies ad infinitum between alternate dimensions.

        Scientists BELIEVE these theories, but they’re just THEORIES, so how is that anymore plausible than a Higher Intelligence creating the universe as we know it? ANd, as I queried before, how does that translate into our universe?

        Our Brains, for instance, are very…odd..We don’t use even half of our brain functions while we are awake, but when we sleep, there’s all kinds of things going on in our subconscious. We dream….How does one explain this? Nobody has ever really proven why we dream, only theorized. And why do some of us remember our dreams while others do not? Why can some of us control our dreams while others are merely along for the ride?

        There exists some higher plane of existence…some level of consciousness that we cannot yet obtain consciously.

        Spiritualism and Theism are two different things…

        See, I believe that we are all related..all connected..We’re all made of the same stuff the rest of the universe is made of, so that, in and of itself, is a sort of miracle..for human beings, life in general, something so precise, to come from the convoluted chaos of the universe.

        The chances of this happening anywhere else in the universe are incalculable. So how do you explain it without using the THEORY of Evolution?

      • southpaugh

        In typical magical thinking fashion, you’ve injected a large number of irrelevancies and tangents as if they’re central support of your position. First off, you’re basing your position on several crucial misconceptions. Number one, atheism is merely a rejection of a single belief. It is not a belief system of any caliber, size, shape or timbre. Two, adherence to fact is not a question of belief or faith, which is belief in something for which one has no proof, but an acceptance of the validity of hold-in-your-hand proof based on repeated and falsified observation.

        Yes, you can see air, just not with the naked eye. Yes, you can see gravity, just not with the naked eye. It’s not just the effects of air or gravity, light or evolution that we see, test, document and falsify. It is the intrinsic properties described by observation of various types. In evidence by your comments is that you do not understand the basics of empirical proof. Your faith based evaluation of the issues at hand is fundamentally deficient and inaccurately comparing or relating your points to reality. Plainly put, you’re just plain missing the mark. You don’t get it and go on and on trying to justify your myopia.

        You did proffer a crucial postulate: “What if I told you “God” was the universe’s consciousness manifesting itself in the corporeal?” Okay, then: How do you know? Any interaction of a natural or supernatural force or entity with the natural universe will necessarily leave a trace or imprint that can be quantified, tested and observed. Repeatedly. Consistently. There would be no such thing as once off revelation. Nothing about faith offers this option of falsification. All the proof any faithful person presents is no better than assertion, unsubstantiated claims, anecdotal evidence at best, which is far short of empirical proof. Religion offers nothing that can be empirically tested. There are no theories in religion upon which predictions can be made which, in turn, may be tested, increasing knowledge, revealing more details upon which more predictions can be made and tested. Religion doesn’t even begin to approach the reliability of science.

        You said, “…we can’t just say “It’s just the way it is”, because that’s not a definitive, factual answer.” Don’t look now, but that’s the essence, the very definition of every faith based justification and apology for belief there’s ever been. God: it’s just the way it is.

        Further: “…how is that anymore plausible than a Higher Intelligence creating the universe as we know it?” Because for one there is evidence and the other there is no evidence whatsoever.

        Life is amazing and wonderous, but it isn’t magic and it isn’t a miracle. Evolution is about the origin of species and does not address the origin of life. Those are two different issues and your confusion illustrates your fundamental, pivotal lack of understanding. The origin of life is explainable, and evidence points to it being ubiquitous in the Universe. The basic proteins that make up DNA, the foundation of sustained, regenerating life, are even found in meteorites fallen to the earth from outer space. What we don’t yet understand is the mechanism that kick started the continuing regeneration process. The difference is that science keeps looking for the answers rather than falling back on dogma: I don’t know, therefore God. That’s just abdicating understanding. Comforting, perhaps, but what practical problems does it address, much less actually solve?

      • William Dean Luke

        Okay..here’s the real question then. How does someone else’ belief, or disbelief (I still don’t know what to believe, honestly, but that doesn’t make me ignorant or stupid, only curious) really affect you?

        So you base what you believe in scientific fact. that’s your Prerogative. Telling me I don’t understand something because my thought patterns don’t match up with yours is rather condescending. I’m not a Theist, and I’m not an Atheist, either. I believe we were created by something, somehow, at some point in the distant past, but I can’t sit here and say I know for a fact by who or what, and neither can you, as you’ve admitted.

        So isn’t your faith in Science, fact, etc., really nothing more than Faith? I mean, we’re finding new things that challenge what we think we know about the universe, etc.. We JUST discovered a planet that formed in a ~very~ different manner in which we ~thought~ planets were formed, which means we have to take a step back and rethink what we thought we knew.

        Every time we make a new discovery about our universe that doesn’t add up to the equation we’ve come to know and understand, we have to look at it from a fresh perspective.

        Hell, even Hawking admitted he was wrong about his Black Hole theory, which he defended (Wrongly) for 30 years, but it was ultimately Hawking who figured it out and brought us into a new era of thought, as it were, alongside the hundreds of other scientists who work tirelessly to figure out how the universe works.

        So you’re not going to sit here and tell me I’m wrong for believing what I believe, when what you believe in changes every time something new is discovered.

        I can’t just sit by and be like “Welp, this is it, this is all there is, and there’s no explanation for it.”, because that’s ignorant.

        This vast universe, and we’ve only discovered 10% of it, IF that, and somehow you think you have all the answers?

        Don’t think so, bud.

        Intelligent design exists. You can’t convince me otherwise on that. And, as I said..I don’t believe in any Faith, but I do believe that we didn’t just pop out of the void like ‘HERE WE ARE!”…I do believe in Evolution, but I also have my doubts about it..There are still too many unanswered questions in the universe, and to think any one person has those answers is absurd, so I am content to ponder, and to study, and to learn.

        That’s the beauty of Free Will..We can choose whether or not to believe in whatever we see fit to.

      • William Dean Luke

        Also: How do I know?

        Easy. Hawking.

        Energy/matter is never destroyed, only transformed.

        We know that our brains use electrical impulses…Energy…to transmit signals to our bodies. when we die, we are recycled into the earth, whether we are buried or cremated. So where does all that energy go? In the grand, universal scheme of things, all the energy expelled in the “Big Bang”, has manifested itself into the universe we know about 10% of today. All that energy, all that “data”, and somehow, somewhere along the way, we ended up here. We were created by the universe..Wouldn’t that mean, ultimately, the Universe itself is God? The Big Bang is our creator, you could say…but then…

        What created the Big Bang? The newer theory would suggest that before the big bang, there was no “outside”, which meant that everything “outside” was “void”, and everything inside contained the adolescent universe…I like the idea that it’s a constantly expanding, contracting, and re-expanding universe, that it’s reborn every few hundred billion/trillion years. Kinda like reincarnation, which is an idea I can get behind because, when you think about it, Reincarnation is about as close to “life after death” we, and all living things, can get. As I stated..we die, go into the earth, and whatever feeds off of us is given new life, etc.

        If you want to believe in the finite, that’s fine, but I like to think of the infinite. What is, what was, and what will be. what could be. What if?

      • southpaugh

        You seem to be finding offense in what you percieve about my position because of some basic misunderstanding of the nature of what I’ve siad and what it means.

        YOU SAID: “How does someone else’ belief, or disbelief … really affect you?

        RESPONSE: Every aspect of the so-called culture wars, which include women’s privacy, health and reproduction rights, the nature of scientific discovery, climate change and education, employment equality, immigration equality, marriage equality and a host of other issue emenate from a relatively small cadre of religious believers who feel compelled to direct how everybody else in the world would better decide to do things as these believers prefer. These perennially malcontents are pivotally complicit in bringing our government to a standstill, and would reverse every social improvement made to the lives of everyday working people made in the previous two hundred years. The social atmosphere they create through systematic campaigns of disinformation, misinformation, political mischaracterizations and outright lies regarding the nature of reality give a percieved green light to social oppression of women in the workplace, in public and in the home, families prevented from receiving the full complement of government subsidies for families whether their members are citizens in same sex relationships or foreign born heterosexuals, marriage equality, diminished payroll insurance benefits, threatened social security, and verrious surpressed and diminished social safety net programs and benefits. Plus a host of other details too numerous to list here. But, closer to home, this religiously enabled animus toward ‘the other’ has affected me thoroughly. Over the years, I’ve been denied housing, I have been fired from employment. I have been denied new employment. I have been demoted and squeezed out of high profile positions both in the U.S. and in Ireland. My then-boyfriend and I were assaulted by a gang of suburban toughs who said one to another “I told you I’d get one tonight” as they pounced on us literally with jackboots and handhed weapons. I’ve been stopped in the street by a carload of uniformed police officers for the offense of roller skating while gay punishable by taunts among a full range of homophobic epithets. All of this is possible because a 17th century monarch commissioned a translation of holy scripture into the local language with instruction to infuse the results with the “ecclesiasty and attitude” of the local off shoot cult. And, that is how others’ beliefs in supernatural myths and adherence to archaic, anti-social traditiions affect my life. Daily.

        YOU SAID, “I believe we were created by something, somehow, at some point in the distant past, but I can’t sit here and say I know for a fact by who or what, and neither can you, as you’ve admitted.” RESPONSE: There is significant evidence that indicates the nature of the distant past both for our planet and the Universe within which it exists. These are not guesses but a consensus recognition of the significance of observation and repeated tests confirming those observations of many, various aspects of the environment both planetary and Universal. Without such evidence, the best there is on any level is mere guessing, and it’s not even an educated guess, but speculation based on myths, superstition and hearsay. Without proof, any claims about the nature of reality is unsubstantiated assertion, opinion mascarading as fact, assertion substituted for proof. For many, that’s just not good enough.

        YOU SAID, “So isn’t your faith in Science, fact, etc., really nothing more than Faith?” AND “we have to take a step back and rethink what we thought we knew. Every time we make a new discovery about our universe that doesn’t add up to the equation we’ve come to know and understand, we have to look at it from a fresh perspective.” Understanding science has nothing to do with faith. It is understanding the significance of observable trends in nature. Every bit of new data adds to our understanding and enhances what we know. It isn’t so much that what we understood before was wrong as it is that what we are able to understand in light of new evidence is better that what we were able to understand before with less or lesser evidence. Faith is a matter of taking descriptions, claims and assertions at face value without any corroboration or substantiation. How is that in any way better than even a most flimsy understanding based on the most paltry evidence? But, what we understand through science is vastly superior to anything offered by dogma. There’s just no basis or foundation for comparison except the number of people who choose to believe rather than undeerstand. Choosing faith because a lot of people agree rather than understanding the significance of proof is preferring a logical fallacy, a call to popularity. It doesn’t make sense.

        YOU SAID, “So you’re not going to sit here and tell me I’m wrong for believing what I believe, when what you believe in changes every time something new is discovered.” RESPONSE: The nature of science is that it updates its understanding with each new addition of data to support or require adjustment of that understanding. Dogma, by definition, doesn’t do that. An example of a rare exception, is the Catholic Church’s four hundred year delay in recognizing the shift in understanding from the earth being the center of the Universe. You may infer that I’m saying you’re wrong. In fact, I am saying that the evidence at hand indicates that what you believe is not supported by observable reality. If that makes you wrong, that’s for you to decide. Personally, I don’t care one way or the other until and unless somebody who believes as you do tries to change the way society works to support that view of nature unsupported by the available, observable evidence.

        YOU SAID, “I can’t just sit by and be like “Welp, this is it, this is all there is, and there’s no explanation for it.”, because that’s ignorant.” RESPONSE: When science has no explaination, scientists admit that they don’t know, that there is not enough evidence to explain what little is known about a given issue. The faithful response is that we don’t know because God works in mysterious ways. Science is inclinded to disagree. Nothing is beyond ultimate understanding. We just haven’t figured out how to understand the things we don’t yet understand. Step by step, piece by piece. Remember, at one time we didn’t know about the planets, or bacteria and viruses, or animal husbandry or genetics. But, we figured each of those things out with a lot more to come.

        YOU SAID, “This vast universe, and we’ve only discovered 10% of it, IF that, and somehow you think you have all the answers?” RESPONSE: Nobody in science or free thought has every claimed to know all the answers, which is clearly claimed by religion. All that science has ever stated is that science has collected and understands evidence that explains a heck of a lot more than religion could ever hope to reliably or factually explain.

      • MiMg

        I don’t mind if people choose to believe in a god or a religion, but when they try to LEGISLATE THEIR “beliefs” on others, THAT is where there is a HUGE problem

      • MiMg

        While I tend to clump all Republicans with a broad brush, taking that a step further and saying all religious people is going too far, because obviously Democrats don’t win elections with just athiests and agnostics.

    • Skip Patterson

      And considering all the G-d hustler’s we have operating today that is a good idea. However, and this is something I have not seen in a long long time, this Pope is actually pointing out what the foundations of Christianity actually are. And guess what, it’s not persecuting those who you don’t like.

    • regressive rightwing trash

      as an AGNOSTIC I will softly disagree: as some religious “leaders” actually look at economic and social mathematical facts and form a relatively well adjusted opinion based upon that(those) facts. In a way THIS new “leader” is showing progressive acumen which is a BIG relief as nearly all ( especially American) religious scumbag “leaders” are stuck with the garbage they cherry pick from those books of acute superstition that they claim are infallible. I abhor all religion–period

      • Nathan Frigerio

        Nobody gets it when I claim to be a devout Agnostic.

      • southpaugh

        Perhaps because the adjective devout is antithetical to the definition of agnosticism. One cannot feel a religious adherence (devotion or devout) to a concept that rejects the possibility of knowing the existence or nature of a deity, or having a religious experience.

  • strayaway

    Pope Francis slams abortion, calls out Progressive abortion policy-

    “This is not something subject to alleged reforms or ‘modernizations’. It is not ‘progressive’ to try to resolve problems by eliminating a human life.””


    • Skip Patterson

      You really should read your Bible to see what G-d actually says about when life begins.

      • strayaway

        You should have read the article. it read, “I would love to see Republicans counter this statement.” Sometimes I am just the proxy Republican around here so I had to have the Pope speak for himself. Yes, he did speak out against the excesses of capitalism but he also had a word for progressives. Since it is the Pope’s comment and not mine, shouldn’t have said that the Pope should read the Bible? Have your quarrel with him. He said it.

      • Skip Patterson

        Well I’ll have to go back and look at the article but I have seen a previous article where he clearly stated that Christians were way to highly focused on issues of homosexuality and abortion while completely ignoring much more foundational issues within Christianity.

        However, if he has bought into the right wing meme of “life begins at conception,” which has only been around since about the mid 80′s then yes I would suggest to him that he reads his Bible. In fact I already have a short pre-written theological paper that I could send him as well.

      • strayaway

        My guess is that the Pope isn’t influenced by right wing US evangelical factions. However, it wouldn’t hurt to send in what you have. If Pope Francis hears from enough voices, perhaps he will nuance his position.

      • Skip Patterson

        Well it’s not just America that fundamentalism has sunk it claws into. Their are large parts of the rest of the world in which this problem exists. A really good study that was done in the 90′s called the “Fundamentalist Project” a 5 Vol set that was published by The University of Chicago did a great job of looking at this problem on a world wide basis.

        And your right I should write the Pope to show my appreciation for what he is doing for the world. And I had been thinking about doing that because of some work in the Catholic Catechism I had been doing here with the Catholic church. Unfortunately, my health went south and that came to an end. But still I should send him a letter of support.

        However, I have seen nothing yet that says the Pope buys into this creationbirth herring but if I did I would be happy to send him my paper.

      • MiMg

        Most Pope’s are influenced by the right, this one seems to be evolving to be more tolerant and more progressive (fortunately)

    • 2Smart2bGOP

      And what exactly does that have to do with this article?

      • strayaway

        I thought it should be obvious. This article is titled, ”
        Pope Francis Slams Trickle-Down Economics, Calls Out Republican Economic Policy” It had to do with what the Pope had to say about the excesses of capitalism. But the Pope had more to say and to progressives. So I titled my comment, “Pope Francis slams abortion, calls out Progressive abortion policy” and quoted him. Why, did you want to censor the Pope?

      • 2Smart2bGOP

        I would censor no one; just confirming a right wing tactic to distract. Please, do continue. Why not create your own blog page that we can all ignore?

      • strayaway

        I answered you question. If you don’t want answers, it might be best to not ask questions. You need to work at ignoring other points of view.

      • 2Smart2bGOP

        You misunderstand; I got my answer. I know who you are and what you believe. Disregarding you entirely now, but please, as I would never censor anyone, do continue to fart in the wind.

    • MiMg

      While most religions do not believe in abortion, most open minded people recognize the occasional need for those types of services from time to time

      • strayaway

        I agree with you about the occasional need for abortions although the term “open minded” sounds haughty.

      • MiMg

        You see, to be a “religious right wing” or “Christian conservative” means that you can NOT be OPEN MINDED, you are CLOSED minded, which means you HATE gays and you HATE abortions and you HATE the poor and you HATE minorities (you refers to Republicans, not you personally strayaway) =)

      • strayaway

        Gosh, i know some self described Christian conservatives that give a lot of their money and time to charity without any evidence of HATE. Either they are exceptions or you are stereotyping.

  • Skip Patterson

    Well the Pope seems to be speaking the truth so we can more than likely expect many rounds of Catholic bashing by the right like it was in the days leading up to the JFK election.

    • SemperLibertas

      I suspect that when the Pope speaks about economics, those who disagree with him will express their disagreement. Likewise when he speaks about abortion, birth control, etc. The author of this particular posting, Mr. Clifton, himself engages in what could be considered “Catholic bashing” in stating that “while Pope Francis still has a long way to go if he hopes to restore the credibility of the Catholic church (if that’s even possible)”.

      • Elaine U

        How is that bashing? The credibility of the catholic church has long been under scrutiny. They put themselves in thatosition with rampant pedophilia and conspiring to hide the truth about it. Widespread corruption and abuse of their religious power was the undoing of the credibility of the catholic church. Stating that fact isn’t bashing.

      • Skip Patterson

        “Mr. Clifton, himself engages in what could be considered “Catholic bashing” in stating that “while Pope Francis still has a long way to go if he hopes to restore the credibility of the Catholic church ”

        I don’t really see that as Catholic bashing because churches these days don’t preach the Gospel any more. You know that whole think about being of service to others, helping the unfortunate, living a compassionate life. They have been preaching heresy’s like this heretical prosperity gospel. Hey, you too can become filthy rich by playing the capitalist pyramid scam and all you have to do is believe in Jay-sus.

        Now that needs some restoring.

  • Skip Patterson

    “and I cannot wait to see the reactions from many of these far-right tea party conservatives responding to this comment from Pope Francis.”

    Well they have already started calling him a communist on some of the right wing hate blogs. Before long I suspect he will be acting according to the will of Satan.

    Truth never has been the forte of Christian fundamentalist.

    • regressive rightwing trash

      I wanna see which “BRAVE ” scumbag rightwing trash is openly ( ON FOX “news”) anti pope. I wanna see the crybaby trash such as michelle “no tits and hating her life” malkin or sean “puff tummy” Hannity or even the biggest ( most portly also) scumbag mike HUCKSTER Huckabee start bemoaning this popes views as socialist. maybe these scumbag American “CHRISTIANS” will demand to see HIS birth certificate?

      • Nathan Frigerio

        Hannity is a closet peter puffer. Remember, when he is outed, I reported it first. Doesn’t he just set off the closet hypocrite gaydar? Not that it’s wrong……..

      • southpaugh

        It’s the hypocrisy. There’s nothing wrong with being a phallus fluffer. Some of my best friends are pole polishers, and they’re good at it. Believe me: They’re *really* good at it. Anyone doesn’t have any friends that are good willie washers it’s their own damned fault. Maybe if those who are perennially malcontent, like little Seany here, were nicer they’d not be in such desperate need of having their woodies washed.

    • Nathan Frigerio

      There will be few reactions, public, of course. Their positions are just indefensible among critical thinking adults with an 8th grade education. Still, that rules out many Texans, Alabamans, and Mississippians.

    • MiMg

      If you are against the Pope for being FOR the POOR, you are CRAZY

      • SemperLibertas

        There’s nobody “against the Pope for being FOR the POOR”. So that statement is pretty much useless.

      • ChristianEconCom

        Ever heard of conservatives?

      • SemperLibertas

        Yes, I have. The ones I know provide of their time and resources to help the poor. Perhaps if you do likewise, you’ll meet some and can speak based on reality rather than caricature and ad hominems.

  • Tam I Am

    I’ll tell you exactly what the Republicans will say – “well, he’s just a Mary-worshipping, mackerel-snapping pagan Catholic… everyone knows they aren’t REAL Christians anyway.”

    • SemperLibertas

      Interesting, I’ve not heard anyone say that…

  • Dave

    As an economist, what the pope said is right, but you need some learning on your economics. To say the whole theory is wrong based on the word “trickle” is just plain silly. Instead, the economic theory behind such policy is correct. It’s just whether that theory can be empirically applied and actually used. Trickle down economics would actually work, but not in the short-run. It would take 15-20 years to see the impacts of such policy, and those impacts would be absolutely splendid. But politics of 4-8 year terms screws that up completely. Tricke down cannot work with our political system, although in theoretical practice over the long-run, it works.

    • Don

      We’ve had a whole lot more than 15-20 years since Reagan, the con artist who sold America the line of bs called “trickle down economics”. Doesn’t work, hasn’t worked. What has worked: “Greed is good”. The rich keep it for themselves, and use their added wealth to buy even more influence (politicians & lobbyists). The system is broke. Time to change it.

      • Nathan Frigerio

        I think what Dave means is that as a system, it could work, were it not for the slimy leaders we have. Is communism such a bad idea? We will never know, because Stalin & co. were among the most paranoid and corrupt pieces of shit ever allowed to lead. Your system is only as good as those that implement it.

      • Don

        There’s good & bad to capitalism, good & bad to socialism. There’s also room in a civilized society for both. An effective government would oversee the balance between the two. When one or the other becomes too predominant, well, we’ve seen the results.

      • MiMg

        “could” work is WAY to big of gamble because POOR and LOW income people can NOT afford to wait TWENTY YEARS for “improvement”

    • MiMg

      That’s because you are a SUPPLY SIDE economist, REAL economists like Paul Krugman, Robert Reich, David Caye Johnston, etc, they KNOW what they are talking about and their point of view DIRECTLY HELPS the POOR and LOW income NOW, NOT in TWENTY YEARS!

      • strayaway

        Paul Krugman agrees with Dick Cheney that deficits do not matter.

      • MiMg

        NO ONE agrees with that TRAITOR and FELON Dick Cheney!

      • strayaway

        “Deficits don’t matter”. -Dick Cheney

        “Right now, deficits don’t matter — a point borne out by all the evidence.” -Paul Krugman 3/25/11

    • ChristianEconCom

      33 years wasn’t enough? I’m actually surprised at how relatively quickly a free-er market generated a nearly third-world economy.

  • Mark Smeaton

    IF the majority of tea party types lives in GOP/tea-publican-dominated states (and they do), and most of those states are in the bible-belt and the South (and they are), then the majority of the tea party people probably are not catholics, but baptists…or, who knows what else in the non-catholic genre. –and, historically many of those religious cults have always hated catholics for whatever reason. I am doubtful that those who consider themselves ‘tea-publicans’ will give any weight to anything any pope has to say.

  • Don

    Teapublicans aren’t going to let a little thing like a pope’s opinion sway them from their course. Their real god is money, followed closely by their guns.

    • regressive rightwing trash


  • CuteZ

    Economics; wouldn’t that have to do with the state?

  • SemperLibertas

    Actually, I’m not aware of anyone who believes in “trickle down theories” of economics. While John F. Kennedy was fond of saying that “a rising tide lifts all boats”, the description of free markets — that is, individuals engaging in voluntary exchange, absent theft, fraud, or coercion — as “trickle down” represents a fundamental lack of understanding of free market capitalism.

    I’m also unaware of anyone who subscribes to a free market capitalist viewpoint who believes that “greater justice and inclusiveness” is “inevitable”; rather, a requirement of a free market capitalist system is protection against fraud, theft, and coercion. A requirement of a civil society is charity and good will.

    I find it interesting for Mr. Clifton to claim that “the rich” are leaving “such a small amount” for others, seeing as how standard of living is improving for all classes of people, not just the richest. Quality of life is much better today than it was 40 years ago.

    • Dmont

      Actually, 30 years ago I thought my parents were rich. Even at 17 we had it good. Now, our “quality of life” has decreased by 75%.

      • SemperLibertas

        How, specifically, has your “‘quality of life’ decreased by 75%”?

        And, of course, anecdotally, of course not every single person or family doesn’t have it better, but in general, across the scope of demographics, quality of life has improved. For example, access to cable TV, air conditioning, automobiles, cell phones, etc.

      • MiMg

        The fact of the matter is that during the Carter Years 30 years ago 35% of the population was UNIONIZED which is a HUGE LIFT on society causing BETTER PAY and BETTER BENEFITS, not to mention WELFARE which DID exist then (thanks to Repubs, do NOT exist anymore) and the Minimum Wage was MUCH HIGHER compared to the cost of living

      • MiMg

        Well said! And one of the BIGGEST reasons things have gotten MUCH worse for the lower and middle classes is the HUGE DECLINE in Union Membership in the last 30 years!

    • MiMg

      Wow, you aren’t ACTUALLY trying to say the standard of living NOW is BETTER than 30 years ago, are you? PLEASE! NO economist or poll will agree with you on that!

      • SemperLibertas

        More people have air conditioning, microwave ovens, cell phones, CD/DVD players, multiple cars, computers, smart phones, etc. than they did 30 years ago. People tend to live in bigger houses, eat more food, and are more likely to take a trip by airplane. Even the base model cars have air conditioning, power windows, stereos, and air bags now; not so 30 years ago.
        To say that standard of living hasn’t improved is to ignore reality.

  • FD Brian

    I would love for Allen to do an article about why the lady who saves all her newspapers and magazines is a hoarder but the Koch brothers are not hoarders when they have more money than they could ever need.

  • Cathryn Sykes

    People, just the name alone tells you that this is injustice waiting to happen. The rich get a lake….the rest of us get a trickle? Or to put it another way, if we give them enough bread, we’ll get more crumbs? The second I heard the phrase “trickle down economics” I thought, “No one’s going to buy anything so blatantly unfair.” Sadly, I was wrong.

  • david h

    Republican’s have never had a problem with setting the alter of Jesus, right next to their true golden alter of wall streets Babylon the Greats alter. The gave spent decades thre their corporate media brainwashing christians to this end , that capitalism and god work hand in hand, the last thing wall streets wants is for christians to know that wall street is the Babylon the great the global economic system numbered for destruction in gods book and for told by Jesus inte book of Revelations chapter 18. At first read you wouldnt understand it it sounds to scary but let ne give you an overview of the basic interpretation, a feller comes to earth , he lightens up the earth in a new way, he teaches man a new fiery law of magnetic mechanical physics, how to make electrical power without the need for fossil fuels anymore, its a new class of motors that power themselves thru magnetics, its called a permanent field assemblies, inducted
    High voltage field/ field compression motor, the rich and all the worshippers at wall streets golden alter all panic over this and run down to sell all their stocks, bonds, and securities in the same hour, speeding up the destruction and bankruptcy of that global economic system they get burnt by fire, but a fire of technology and knowledge that just burns their wealth. The pope
    Knows this he’s been warned why do you think he’s speaking out against this golden alter of earths subjugation, you better believe the Vatican is selling all its investments, and the Christian’s might be wise to heed the words of Jesus in ch. 18 where he implores his people to come out of Babylon so they not partake in her judgement and sell their’s too.

  • theprozacqueen

    The thing I think is interesting is that a lot of the Sarah Palin right-wing types I know about here in the South don’t consider Catholics to be Christians at all. Ditto Eastern Orthodox. Apparently *they’re* the only ones who have it right and two groups who have been around in some form for 2,000+ years have it wrong. *rolls eyes*.

  • Pingback: Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson Thank Pope Francis for Embracing Science()