Pope Francis Takes On Capitalism And Inequality

[Vance]

You do realize that the Supreme Court ruled that according to the constitution the government DOES have the right to pass laws that intrude into your life.  You also might note that one of the conservative judges wrote the majority opinion.  So for your statement to work, you have to believe that you know and understand more about the constitution than the Supreme Court justices.  But I am sure you do hold such a belief.  I guess we will be able to see how narcissistic you are by your answer.

 

I am not sure what you are asking others to eat, so I will just leave it at that.

Just because five people in black robes say something is "Constitutional" doesn't make so. It doesn't make it right, it just makes it the law of the land (for the time being). The Supreme Court also ruled that Jim Crow laws were constitutional. They were WRONG THEN and they are wrong now. You are failing to grasp a very fundamental feature of human nature,

"39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. "

That is, the unrighteous dominion OF OTHERS!!!!

Socialist, communists, statists, all are in the business of unrighteous dominion.

You, a socialist, are complaining about the fruits of your own politics. So, eat it.

[Vance]

No it doesn't. See Hamilton on the limits of the US Constitution. IE; Two cars meet at the same time at the same uncontrolled intersection, both have the right of way. One has to yield or the results are not pleasant. That is the reason for government, and an expansive view of meeting the current needs of the current population. Exactly what the Founders wanted.

Here is a clue for you, since it is OBVIOUS that you do not understand it.

It is State and local governments that write traffic laws. Not the Federal Government.

If I am wrong, why don't you just point to the specific article and section of the Constitution that supports your position. I won't hold my breath.

 

No I willingly pay for others so that when something bad happens to me they are willing to pay for me. It is a shared responsibility.

That is called insurance, which was available to all BEFORE the Government got into the extortion business.

No, what you are "willing" to do is to use unrighteous dominion through the coercive/extortive force of government over others to force them to pay for things they don't want to and that they have NO MORAL OBLIGATION to.

If all men were angels no government would be necessary. If all men were devils no government would be possible.

Devils gravitate to positions of power. When Governments have too much power it is because devils are seated in position of power.

Tyrants have no problem lying to get more power. "If you like your plan you can keep you plan" comes to mind.

[Stone holm]

FALSE!

The US Constitution LIMITS federal government intrusion into our lives.

Prima facie evidence that you don't understand the Constitution.

Nope! The problem started with the early 20th century progressives fight to destroy the principles in the Constitution. Resulting with Federal Governments unrighteous intrusion into our personal lives.

So eat it socialists, you will reap what you have sown, and it won't be pretty. Unfortunately the rest of us will also suffer for your foolishness.

PS

I noticed that you didn't (can't ) refute what I posted.

The fact remains, you only have to pay for the irresponsibility of others BECAUSE of government intrusion/coercion/extortion.

So, eat it socialists and stop your whining.

 

Yes, the United States Constitution does have limits on what form of intrusion it can have in our lives, and since the Civil War it also has increased limits on how the States can intrude into our lives.  This comes primarily from the Bill of Rights.  However, the Constitution does not enshrine unregulated free market capitalism within its verbiage.  The power to regulate commerce has been clearly enthroned in the Constitution from the beginning, sufficiently so that the Southern States demanded some limits to prevent it being used to ban slavery, which was also clearly enthroned in the Constitution as a result until the Civil War.  There has always been a cultural tension over some of these issues.  Primarily because the Southern Culture developed as basically a feudal society with an educated elite ruling class with slaves, and a subordinate relatively poorly educated lower class which depended on the Plantations to market their goods.  The Plantations basically exporting raw materials to Europe in exchange for other goods.  The Northern Culture had considerable more difficulty surbordinating the lower classes because of the frontier, so it was more dependent upon immigrant labor, but sought protectionism in order to develop its extensive industry and because it was primarily Congregationalist unlike the Anglican South, it tended to favor education.  So these tensions between a private feudal society and a government regulated egalitarian society have existed throughout our history.  The real question we have to ask is do we want policy decided by the vote or by the wallet.  We have over the last thirty years been guided by policy being decided by the wallet, with brief gridlock interruptions.  This isn't really politics, its a cultural struggle and the Constitution is relatively neutral on the subject.

[thesometimesaint]

We disgree on many things, and this is certainly one of them. That is truely one strange definition of intrusion that I have ever heard. Also there is a difference in the Federal Government and the local State and county governments. States have rights that the fed don't IE traffic laws.

 

I'm fine with disagreeing. Being disagreeable not so much. Unfortunately the "States Rights" clarion call has been used by bigots and demagogues alike for generations to condone and outright facilitate every evil known in this country.

 

BTW the Federal law of 55 MPH was Constitutional.

See http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/1989/sg890328.txt

 

Ps; It was also a stupid idea. 55 MPH across Texas isn't an adventure it is a career.

Edited December 16, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Stone holm]

What I am amazed is how long this thread was allowed to stay open. It was political from the start.

 

Not necessarily, economics is a matter of religion as well as a matter of politics.  In fact, it was probably a matter of religion, long before it was a matter of politics.  It only becomes political, if the religion fails to deal with the economics.

[The Nehor]

When the Savior returns and turns his commandments into laws I expect some people here are going to accuse Him of being a socialist. That is assuming they are not burned at his coming for their capitalist/Ayn Rand idolatry.

When did socialism become such a dirty word?

[thesometimesaint]

When the Savior returns and turns his commandments into laws I expect some people here are going to accuse Him of being a socialist. That is assuming they are not burned at his coming for their capitalist/Ayn Rand idolatry.

When did socialism become such a dirty word?

 

It basically started in this country as a reaction to the USSR. The USSR is no more, but for politically expedient reasons some in this country refuse to let it be dead.

[Stone holm]

When the Savior returns and turns his commandments into laws I expect some people here are going to accuse Him of being a socialist. That is assuming they are not burned at his coming for their capitalist/Ayn Rand idolatry.

When did socialism become such a dirty word?

 

Well they can't use "communism" so much anymore because we have located a huge portion of our manufacturing facilities in a communist police state, so now its fashionable to cry "socialism" and say how horrible Europe is.  I suspect that such does not impress Pres. Uchtdorf much, and I also suspect that he was hinting that we need to knock that off, but it was sufficiently subtle that it flew right over a lot of members heads.

[Vance]

Yes, the United States Constitution does have limits on what form of intrusion it can have in our lives, and since the Civil War it also has increased limits on how the States can intrude into our lives.  This comes primarily from the Bill of Rights.  However, the Constitution does not enshrine unregulated free market capitalism within its verbiage.  The power to regulate commerce has been clearly enthroned in the Constitution from the beginning, sufficiently so that the Southern States demanded some limits to prevent it being used to ban slavery, which was also clearly enthroned in the Constitution as a result until the Civil War.

The Federal Government has indeed "stretched" (I would say shredded) the "interstate commerce clause" FAR beyond what the founders intended, to the point to where it is no limitation on federal government at all.

Just because they are currently getting away with it, doesn't make it Constitutional or right. But tyrants don't care. And the people that think they are going to get something for free are supporting them. BUT there are no freebies. The law of the harvest is in full force.

[The Nehor]

Just because they are currently getting away with it, doesn't make it Constitutional or right. But tyrants don't care. And the people that think they are going to get something for free are supporting them. BUT there are no freebies. The law of the harvest is in full force.

 

So you are predicting the fall of freeloading Wal-Mart?

[thesometimesaint]

The Federal Government has indeed "stretched" (I would say shredded) the "interstate commerce clause" FAR beyond what the founders intended, to the point to where it is no limitation on federal government at all.

Just because they are currently getting away with it, doesn't make it Constitutional or right. But tyrants don't care. And the people that think they are going to get something for free are supporting them. BUT there are no freebies. The law of the harvest is in full force.

 

Hamilton and Washington didn't see it that way. http://consortiumnews.com/2012/02/24/madison-father-of-the-commerce-clause/

[Vance]

Hamilton and Washington didn't see it that way. http://consortiumnews.com/2012/02/24/madison-father-of-the-commerce-clause/

You will believe leftist drivel.

Pray tell, does the commerce clause limit the federal government at all? If the federal government can tell you what insurance you have to buy, then they can also tell you kind of gun you have to buy.

"Oh wait!!", screams the leftist nut job, "it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to force me to buy a gun".

What difference is there between making you buy specific health insurance, or making buy a specific ANYTHING??? (gun or car or bed or toilet or tv or radio etc.)

If the federal government can force you to buy health insurance then you are no longer a citizen but a subject to whims of whoever happens to be in power.

[The Nehor]

Hamilton and Washington didn't see it that way. http://consortiumnews.com/2012/02/24/madison-father-of-the-commerce-clause/

Do you really imagine facts about the real Founding Fathers can usurp the place of the fictional Founding Fathers as portrayed by Right Wing radio?

[Vance]

You are failing to understand that the revolution was a fight AGAINST a strong central government (that is what a monarchy is).

It would be asinine to propose a tyrannical strong central government to replace a tyrannical strong central government from which they had just won their independence.

[Stone holm]

Do you really imagine facts about the real Founding Fathers can usurp the place of the fictional Founding Fathers as portrayed by Right Wing radio?

 

It is quite amazing how pious that bunch of Deists have become over the years.  Been to Madison's Montpelier, one of the more interesting slave plantations of the Founding Fathers that I have visited, not as interesting as Monticello mind you, but definitely more interesting than Mount Vernon.

[Vance]

The fact is the STATES created the Federal Government through the Constitution. Said Federal (NOT National) Government was invested BY THE SEVERAL STATES with more power than what the Articles of Confederation initially provided.

So, when Hamilton uses the word "strong", he was simply speaking RELATIVE to the Articles of Confederation, NOT relative to the tyranny they had just freed themselves from.

[Vance]

Do you really imagine facts about the real Founding Fathers can usurp the place of the fictional Founding Fathers as portrayed by Right Wing radio?

Do you really imagine facts about the real Founding Fathers can usurp the place of the fictional Founding Fathers as portrayed by Left Wing sources? Edited December 16, 2013 by Vance

[Vance]

Yes, the United States Constitution does have limits on what form of intrusion it can have in our lives, and since the Civil War it also has increased limits on how the States can intrude into our lives.  This comes primarily from the Bill of Rights.  However, the Constitution does not enshrine unregulated free market capitalism within its verbiage.  The power to regulate commerce has been clearly enthroned in the Constitution from the beginning, sufficiently so that the Southern States demanded some limits to prevent it being used to ban slavery, which was also clearly enthroned in the Constitution as a result until the Civil War.  There has always been a cultural tension over some of these issues.  Primarily because the Southern Culture developed as basically a feudal society with an educated elite ruling class with slaves, and a subordinate relatively poorly educated lower class which depended on the Plantations to market their goods.  The Plantations basically exporting raw materials to Europe in exchange for other goods.  The Northern Culture had considerable more difficulty surbordinating the lower classes because of the frontier, so it was more dependent upon immigrant labor, but sought protectionism in order to develop its extensive industry and because it was primarily Congregationalist unlike the Anglican South, it tended to favor education.  So these tensions between a private feudal society and a government regulated egalitarian society have existed throughout our history.  The real question we have to ask is do we want policy decided by the vote or by the wallet.  We have over the last thirty years been guided by policy being decided by the wallet, with brief gridlock interruptions.  This isn't really politics, its a cultural struggle and the Constitution is relatively neutral on the subject.

"unregulated free market capitalism" is simply left wing rhetorical nonsense! Such a thing has NEVER existed. For a market to be "free" it must abide by moral laws. For example, Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness (or rather Thou shalt not deceive others).

A governments only legitimate purpose is to protect the rights of the individual, not trample upon them.

Free enterprise has done more to alleviate and eliminate poverty in the last 200 years than ANY other system, ever.

Socialists fail to understand that wealth is constantly being consumed and therefore MUST BE CONSTANTLY produced. Socialism has NO vehicle or system for the production of wealth and therefore ALWAYS leads to more poverty for the masses and a larger gap between the "elite" (who are more equal) and the masses.

[Stone holm]

"unregulated free market capitalism" is simply left wing rhetorical nonsense! Such a thing has NEVER existed. For a market to be "free" it must abide by moral laws. For example, Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness (or rather Thou shalt not deceive others).

A governments only legitimate purpose is to protect the rights of the individual, not trample upon them.

Free enterprise has done more to alleviate and eliminate poverty in the last 200 years than ANY other system, ever.

Socialists fail to understand that wealth is constantly being consumed and therefore MUST BE CONSTANTLY produced. Socialism has NO vehicle or system for the production of wealth and therefore ALWAYS leads to more poverty for the masses and a larger gap between the "elite" (who are more equal) and the masses.

 

Actually, we are working pretty good at leading the pack on wealth disparity,  I think there are a few third-world countries left where the disparity gap is worse.  America has been functioning economically like a third world country for about 40 years.  We export raw materials and import manufactured goods.  The difference has been that the middle-class has been hanging onto their consuming power by refinancing their homes and maxing out their credit cards.  Americans have always used their homes as their savings accounts, they have never been particularly good at cash savings -- and frankly, in the past it made more sense to use your home as a savings account because it increased in value faster than the interest on a savings account.  But that all got wiped out in 2008, so the American middle-class no longer has any savings account at all.  For about a decade, my original home state of Indiana led the country in per capita bankruptcies filed.  This was prior to the 2008 crash, but if people had been paying attention to Indiana they would have seen what eventually would happen elsewhere.  Indiana's bankruptcy rate was driven by the fact that housing was strictly a commodity there and as soon as there was any housing pressure, a new subdivision of tract housing would sprout overnight in a cornfield.  As a result, except around the lakes, the price of housing stayed flat.  The people had equity in their homes, but they maxed out their cards, so then they refinanced their homes or took out second mortgages and paid off their cards, then they proceeded to max out their cards.  Since the value of their homes had not increased, they wound up in bankruptcy.  Elsewhere, home values were increasing so they kept refinancing their cards, but then the housing values quit rising and bam, they were in bankruptcy.  Now the middle class is struggling and large numbers are falling out of the middle class, being born middle class is no longer a sure ticket to staying there.  Now we could just write this all off to people living beyond their means, and we would be correct in many respects.  But the problem is, if the middle class finally dies -- then nobody is buying.  At that point, it will (actually it already has) become obvious that "demand side" economics, not supply side economics is what keeps people employed. 

 

How does religion tie into this?  It ties in because what you are striving for in Zion is a place where everyone has a job that suits their abilities and so they can earn their living and raise their family with dignity.  Zion is not a feudal aristocracy with just a few very wealthy, a fair number doiing alright, and the rest basically in  something akin to slavery.  Sure there will always be some inequality in order to motivate people towards excellence, but that does not mean you have to have vast inequality coupled with elites living in almost decadent wealth and the poor sleeping on sidewalks.  Religion is ultimately about people.

[The Nehor]

You will believe leftist drivel.Pray tell, does the commerce clause limit the federal government at all? If the federal government can tell you what insurance you have to buy, then they can also tell you kind of gun you have to buy."Oh wait!!", screams the leftist nut job, "it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to force me to buy a gun".What difference is there between making you buy specific health insurance, or making buy a specific ANYTHING??? (gun or car or bed or toilet or tv or radio etc.)If the federal government can force you to buy health insurance then you are no longer a citizen but a subject to whims of whoever happens to be in power.

The Commerce clause is an enabling power. It does not limit the federal government. It grants it powers. That is what it is there for.

The government forces us to buy all kinds of things. Auto insurance for our cars, permits to build, analysis of land before you build something, experts to make sure buldings and other environments are up to code, passports, business licenses, etc. You can argue Obamacare is a mistake. I would agree. I just hope it transitions to something better but calling it unconstitutional is hysterical talk radio rubbish.

[The Nehor]

Do you really imagine facts about the real Founding Fathers can usurp the place of the fictional Founding Fathers as portrayed by Left Wing sources?

I hope so.

I think you messed that up btw.

[The Nehor]

The fact is the STATES created the Federal Government through the Constitution. Said Federal (NOT National) Government was invested BY THE SEVERAL STATES with more power than what the Articles of Confederation initially provided.So, when Hamilton uses the word "strong", he was simply speaking RELATIVE to the Articles of Confederation, NOT relative to the tyranny they had just freed themselves from.

Hamilton went right to work after the Constitution was ratified to build a STRONG central government. The Founding Fathers were not afraid of strong government (look at what they did at the federal and state levels). They were justly concerned with unlimited government and protecting the minority from dangerous factionalism and temporary extremists (cough) Tea Party (cough).

You have overblown the tyranny of the British. There were legitimate grievances but the word tyranny should be reserved for real tyranny. Taxes less then a third of what people elsewhere in the Empire were paying were not that onerous. While a few seats in Parliament would have been nice calling it tyranny is ridiculous. To put it in perspective Palestinians in Israel today are more disenfranchised then Americans (who were already for all intents and purposes running themselves) were then.

[Vance]

I hope so.

I think you messed that up btw.

Probably, I was in a hurry. Unlike the indolent dolts who live off the government @$%^, I have a real job where I work hard to provide for me and mine, (plus those living off the government dole).

[Vance]

Hamilton went right to work after the Constitution was ratified to build a STRONG central government. The Founding Fathers were not afraid of strong government (look at what they did at the federal and state levels). They were justly concerned with unlimited government and protecting the minority from dangerous factionalism and temporary extremists (cough) Tea Party (cough).

HA HA, So those that want an all powerful central gov aren't the extremist? They bent the rules past the breaking point, they LIED to us the whole time, and we are supposed to think they are benevolent?

HA.

You have overblown the tyranny of the British. There were legitimate grievances but the word tyranny should be reserved for real tyranny.

Like what is going on in this country at this time!

Taxes less then a third of what people elsewhere in the Empire were paying were not that onerous.

Yet the REAL Founding Fathers called it tyranny.

While a few seats in Parliament would have been nice calling it tyranny is ridiculous.

Yet, that is what the REAL Founding Fathers called it.

To put it in perspective Palestinians in Israel today are more disenfranchised then Americans (who were already for all intents and purposes running themselves) were then.

Irrelevant.

[Vance]

It's not tyranny we desire; it's a just, limited, federal government.

Alexander Hamilton

Power over a man's subsistence is power over his will.

Alexander Hamilton

You should not have taken advantage of my sensibility to steal into my affections without my consent.

Alexander Hamilton

In politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.

Alexander Hamilton

Humm, looks like old Alex would not be happy with the Obama regime's IRS persecuting of conservative groups.

A fondness for power is implanted, in most men, and it is natural to abuse it, when acquired.

Alexander Hamilton

As to Taxes, they are evidently inseparable from Government. It is impossible without them to pay the debts of the nation, to protect it from foreign danger, or to secure individuals from lawless violence and rapine.

Alexander Hamilton

What? Nothing about healthcare, childcare, or unemployment bennies?

But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States.

Alexander Hamilton

Energy in the executive is a leading character in the definition of good government. It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks; it is not less essential to the steady administration of the laws; to the protection of property against those irregular and high-handed combinations which sometimes interrupt the ordinary course of justice; to the security of liberty against the enterprises and assaults of ambition, of faction, and of anarchy.

Alexander Hamilton

Good constitutions are formed upon a comparison of the liberty of the individual with the strength of government: If the tone of either be too high, the other will be weakened too much. It is the happiest possible mode of conciliating these objects, to institute one branch peculiarly endowed with sensibility, another with knowledge and firmness. Through the opposition and mutual control of these bodies, the government will reach, in its regular operations, the perfect balance between liberty and power.

Alexander Hamilton,

It is OBVIOUS that leftist/progressives are stripping Hamilton from his context.

Edited December 17, 2013 by Vance