Out of Control U.S. Government

[teeboy]

Is an out of control, overbearing United States Government (one so far from the opinions of the Marshall Court), the price we pay for being immoral?

Is this God’s punishment? Is it similar to the OT Israelites being subjected to the Romans or the Babylonians as a result of their disobidience to God?

I answer my own question, by saying yes to my own post.

 

[Stephen_says]

I’m kind of tentative about the thought of God punishing us on earth.

Punishment seems like an active sort of thing, like “Oh, you won’t listen to me, well then I’m going to DO THIS to you.”

I think this is more of a hands off thing, like “Oh, you want it? Okay, but don’t say I didn’t warn you.”

My point of view is that we punish ourselves.

Also, it seems as though at least some of the immoral people want the overbearing government, so to the people who may ‘deserve’ (excuse my liberal leaning, but I dislike using that word in this context for some reason) punishment, this is paradise.

Maybe instead of only being oppressed by a Babylon-like government, we are transforming into a Babylon-like nation, which is worse.

 

[spedteacherita]

Is an out of control, overbearing United States Government (one so far from the opinions of the Marshall Court), the price we pay for being immoral?

Is this God’s punishment? Is it similar to the OT Israelites being subjected to the Romans or the Babylonians as a result of their disobidience to God?

I answer my own question, by saying yes to my own post.

I’m not so sure it’s a punishment as much as it’s a consequence of our sins of the country. Every action results in a consequence - positive or negative. We are all sinful and that sinfulness results in consequences that we may not like. No matter what we do our world will ultimately end up with Jesus returning to come for us and the end times are not going to be a picnic.

 

[Captain_America]

As an old political scientist, here are my thoughts:

(1) the bureaucracy DOES have a tendency to perpetuate itself, and to find ways to pursue its aims, sometimes in spite of democratic control;

(2) the current administration, and the one prior to it, have latched on to “Security” as a rationale for expanding federal power and control. There are more snoops and more snooping and less individual privacy;

(3) during the Era of Political Correctness, it became “reasonable” to prosecute people for their perceived opinions. This era, I think, is on the wane, as its contradictions are being more clearly seen.

(4) I tend to think the use of government is the price of having society. An advanced society needs more government (for example, to build transportation systems, to improve public health, to regulate the market ((hey, before you knock old Cap, do some reading on the manic activities of wildcat banks)), and to educate the young).

The REAL problem here is that we have a group of Social Engineers in the executive branch who are, inexplicably, not being checked by Congress. Our weak Congress is a real problem.

 

[7_Sorrows]

I’m kind of tentative about the thought of God punishing us on earth.

Punishment seems like an active sort of thing, like “Oh, you won’t listen to me, well then I’m going to DO THIS to you.”

I think this is more of a hands off thing, like “Oh, you want it? Okay, but don’t say I didn’t warn you.”

My point of view is that we punish ourselves.

Also, it seems as though at least some of the immoral people want the overbearing government, so to the people who may ‘deserve’ (excuse my liberal leaning, but I dislike using that word in this context for some reason) punishment, this is paradise.

Maybe instead of only being oppressed by a Babylon-like government, we are transforming into a Babylon-like nation, which is worse.

Sad but true.

 

[teeboy]

As an old political scientist, here are my thoughts:

(1) the bureaucracy DOES have a tendency to perpetuate itself, and to find ways to pursue its aims, sometimes in spite of democratic control;

(2) the current administration, and the one prior to it, have latched on to “Security” as a rationale for expanding federal power and control. There are more snoops and more snooping and less individual privacy;

(3) during the Era of Political Correctness, it became “reasonable” to prosecute people for their perceived opinions. This era, I think, is on the wane, as its contradictions are being more clearly seen.

(4) I tend to think the use of government is the price of having society. An advanced society needs more government (for example, to build transportation systems, to improve public health, to regulate the market ((hey, before you knock old Cap, do some reading on the manic activities of wildcat banks)), and to educate the young).

The REAL problem here is that we have a group of Social Engineers in the executive branch who are, inexplicably, not being checked by Congress. Our weak Congress is a real problem.

Cap, good point on the advanced society’s need for more government.

 

[SonSearcher]

As an old political scientist, here are my thoughts:

(1) the bureaucracy DOES have a tendency to perpetuate itself, and to find ways to pursue its aims, sometimes in spite of democratic control;

(2) the current administration, and the one prior to it, have latched on to “Security” as a rationale for expanding federal power and control. There are more snoops and more snooping and less individual privacy;

(3) during the Era of Political Correctness, it became “reasonable” to prosecute people for their perceived opinions. This era, I think, is on the wane, as its contradictions are being more clearly seen.

(4) I tend to think the use of government is the price of having society. An advanced society needs more government (for example, to build transportation systems, to improve public health, to regulate the market ((hey, before you knock old Cap, do some reading on the manic activities of wildcat banks)), and to educate the young).

The REAL problem here is that we have a group of Social Engineers in the executive branch who are, inexplicably, not being checked by Congress. Our weak Congress is a real problem.

Regarding the OP I don’t really have much, I kind of agree with the second post.

About the above post though I need to say a few things.

I like points 1, 2 and believe 3 is about right…but I have to disagree with 4. I think where we are in this country is because most of us as individuals don’t take on the responsibility required to run a household let alone an enormous federal government that, lets face it, hasn’t truly represented the citizens in decades.

This leads to all sorts of problems…voting for demagogues, relying on the government for things we and our families and Christian brothers and sisters should be providing each other. This then leads to a casting off of further responsibility to the society as a whole, heck I wouldn’t even call what we have a society anymore. I don’t think more society or the society we have requires more government… Maybe a more detailed oriented government, but that doesn’t translate into bigger or more. And specifically handing our children over to be educated by this “thing” is probably the worst thing we ever did.

I think it requires more personal responsibility. More government has never increased the morality or lessened the sinfulness of any society.That takes conversion and the government is only concerned with first as you stated above their own perpetual existence. I think its exactly contrary to personal responsibility and exactly contrary to the growth of any nation, country society or region to have a government like ours.

Of course where you end is right on…the executive seems to want to change and tinker, and congress just wants to keep the status quo and not rock the boat.

 

[exnihilo]

I think in many ways we get the government we deserve. I despise our government but it is in many ways what our people deserve. That is why I believe the fix is moral and not political. A good people would never put up with what we have.

The REAL problem here is that we have a group of Social Engineers in the executive branch who are, inexplicably, not being checked by Congress. Our weak Congress is a real problem.

I think that power naturally flows to the executive. This certainly seems to be the history of the US. I think because politicians naturally want to avoid responsibility the many politicians in Congress have ceded power to the executive. The power to make war is a prime example of this.

By Congress not actually doing anything they can in the next election run as if they supported the executives actions or opposed it. They will take the stance of whichever works best. But they are not directly responsible and thus not to blame.

 

[mikekle]

Its because we let it happen…look at what some of the things our founding fathers did in their days…if anyone were to even attempt the same thing today, they would be quickly labelled a domestic terrorist and jailed, with majority of the population agreeing with law enforcement…how in the world did we get to such a low point? LOL

Our Govt is one of the people, its not the other way around, but sadly the Govt has done this, because it knows most people are not willing to do the things patriots did, and actually ARE REQUIRED to do by our constitution, example, if we know of a corrupt Govt, we are REQUIRED to throw off such Govts and put forth new guards for our future…try that in modern times and see what happens! LOL I can guarantee, no other citizen (or not many) would remain at your side, they would side with Govt/ Law enforcement over their fellow citizen…this is really sad imo.

 

[JSSD]

Is an out of control, overbearing United States Government (one so far from the opinions of the Marshall Court), the price we pay for being immoral?

No, it is the price we pay by not engaging and paying attention. We pay more attention to social media and game shows than we do to our own elections and legislation.

I think in many ways we get the government we deserve. I despise our government but it is in many ways what our people deserve. That is why I believe the fix is moral and not political. A good people would never put up with what we have.

I have to largely agree. The fix is both, but yeah, a good people wouldn’t put up with this.

 

[7_Sorrows]

No, it is the price we pay by not engaging and paying attention. We pay more attention to social media and game shows than we do to our own elections and legislation.

I have to largely agree. The fix is both, but yeah, a good people wouldn’t put up with this.

That is what the government hopes for. The NFL, NBA, reality tv shows, and celebrity gossip and fashion shows will engage the American public so they won’t pay attention to what the government and politicians are doing.

 

[mikekle]

That is what the government hopes for. The NFL, NBA, reality tv shows, and celebrity gossip and fashion shows will engage the American public so they won’t pay attention to what the government and politicians are doing.

I dont think its coincidence all those things became as popular as they are today either, Im sure this benefits the powers that be tremendously, they can basically pass all kinds of crazy things once the public looses interest in being a true american citizen.

People today dont want to be bothered, they want their perfect little cul de sac worlds, common for both parents to work 80+ hours a week, spend all their free time going to and fro, kids soccer games, etc. Im sure our modern society was somewhat engineered this way for a reason.

Todays young people have almost zero interest in anything, if you talk to any number of them, they act like they are so uninterested in just about everything except for social media, video games, etc. Most of them dont want to work, they want and expect things to be given to them, and their kids will be even worse… its becoming a sad country for sure.

 

[Viki63]

No, it is the price we pay by not engaging and paying attention. We pay more attention to social media and game shows than we do to our own elections and legislation.
.

And we vote for people based on superficial characteristics. Our neighbors were a couple living with her two sisters, and all 3 women just voted however the husband told them. Lincoln wouldn’t stand a chance today, not photogenic enough.

Obama was elected because he’s black. While I think a black president is a fine idea, I wish they had found one with some moral fiber.

Next I suppose we’ll have Mrs. Clinton running, and half the country will vote for her because she’s female. Forgetting Benghazi.

 

[CarmelJerome]

The seven decades since the end of WWII suggest that vices flourish in democracies because any attempt to discourage them through government is undermined by the equation of freedom of the will with freedom from restraint. Holding to any form of divine authority is undemocratic, even believing or saying that a vice is a vice is undemocratic. We’re still afflicted with the self - flattering 18th century fantasy that self-government is virtuous; we see in fact that it’s the reverse.

 

[teeboy]

No, it is the price we pay by not engaging and paying attention. We pay more attention to social media and game shows than we do to our own elections and legislation.

I have to largely agree. The fix is both, but yeah, a good people wouldn’t put up with this.

Wanton engagement of entertainment is a sin and is a result of sloth. Therefore, the first word of your first sentence is wrong.

 

[JSSD]

Wanton engagement of entertainment is a sin and is a result of sloth. Therefore, the first word of your first sentence is wrong.

Fair, IFF (if and only if) you assume that it is “wanton engagement” of entertainment precluding political engagement and attention. Political engagement and attention may be approaching zero for many people. Even a game show a week would eclipse that level of political interest but hardly be “wanton engagement” or egregious or sinful. That was just one of any number of examples of potential distractions, some of which actually may be positive and moral. I’m sure you can think of some.

We probably all know plenty of moral people who simply cannot care about politics. You can argue it is our civic and Catholic duty to be involved. That’s fair and true too. Given the political landscape, the rhetoric from both sides, the media-fueled controversy, the lies, the fingerpointing, soundbites, voter fraud and scandal, and the strawmen, it is difficult for me to fault those who have had the interest simply beaten out of them.

As such, I’m going to stand by it, but that’s just my personal opinion.

 

[epan]

Is an out of control, overbearing United States Government (one so far from the opinions of the Marshall Court), the price we pay for being immoral?

Is this God’s punishment? Is it similar to the OT Israelites being subjected to the Romans or the Babylonians as a result of their disobidience to God?

I answer my own question, by saying yes to my own post.

Or, you could look outside the US. The more secular states tend to be the more moral. By that I mean that they promote social justice and human dignity with protection for the poor, universal health care, higher social mobility, more affordable and free education, and so on.

On the other hand, the more religious states tend to be the most oppressive.

Perhaps the problems you refer to have more to do with the rise of the religious right in the US, than the declining role of the secular influences.

However, I have a different view of the US. I believe that Wall Street is calling the shots. Campaigns have become so expensive that all the financial barons need do is finance both sides of the election. Then it doesn’t matter who is elected, nearly every winner is beholden to his/her financiers for their current office, and for their future campaign financing needs.

 

[JSSD]

However, I have a different view of the US. **I believe that Wall Street is calling the shots. **Campaigns have become so expensive that all the financial barons need do is finance both sides of the election. Then it doesn’t matter who is elected, nearly every winner is beholden to his/her financiers for their current office, and for their future campaign financing needs.

I don’t know if I can agree with the bold. (I do agree with most of the rest, even the deleted).
Who is wall street? All of us. Everyone with stock, a retirement plan, a mutual fund, etc. Are you voting your proxies? Probably not.

Even if you limited it to “Wall St Insiders,” what does that mean? Those with a license to trade? Institutional investors? Small investors? C-suite individuals of Fortune 500 companies? At every level mentioned, there are still way too many players and way too many competing interests to get at something unified as suggested when people think of illuminati or skull and bones or anything of that sort. (Not that you are implying the latter, which gets fantastic in the fantasy sense fast.)

 

[epan]

I don’t know if I can agree with the bold. (I do agree with most of the rest, even the deleted).
Who is wall street? All of us. Everyone with stock, a retirement plan, a mutual fund, etc. Are you voting your proxies? Probably not.

Even if you limited it to “Wall St Insiders,” what does that mean? Those with a license to trade? Institutional investors? Small investors? C-suite individuals of Fortune 500 companies? At every level mentioned, there are still way too many players and way too many competing interests to get at something unified as suggested when people think of illuminati or skull and bones or anything of that sort. (Not that you are implying the latter, which gets fantastic in the fantasy sense fast.)

I was using the term “Wall Street” figuratively to mean the big corporate and financial interests. In the US, and other places, but pronouncedly in the US, those interests are in control of the government. This is not speculation. There was a recent academic study which looked at legislative outcomes comparing the public interest to corporate interests.

As an anecdotal example, I would point out that corporate welfare for the huge is alive and well, while it’s a modified form of social darwinism for the individual and the small business person, by comparison. If you look at the revenue percentages for the US gov., there has been a steady shift of tax burden from the corporations to the individual tax payer, etc… Why should we allow corporate interests to spew their waste into our environment, and not include the cleanup costs in their cost of doing business? And, so on…

So, the title of this thread is a bit inaccurate. The US govt is not out of control. It is pretty well controlled. But it is controlled by the money interests, and not the individual voters. Where the idealogical split comes is over some of the individual rights issues, such as gay rights, abortion, etc… But these individual rights do not affect the corporate interests much, and the politicians use them to differentiate themselves from each other.

However, on the core economic issues, they are pretty much playing from the same playbook.

Consider that there were zero prosecutions as a result of the criminal activities leading up to the 2007-08 collapse. Contrast that with the fact that more than 3,000 people were prosecuted as a result of the S&L collapse. This is not a partisan issue. It’s a campaign finance and lobbying issue. Consider that Germany is an export economy (So, is Japan). NAFTA and similar agreements were designed to make hiring cheap labor outside the US safer for US companies, moreso than to open new markets for US companies. These are just a few examples of how the moral bearings of the country have been lost.

I do disagree with some Catholic positions on some social justice issues. However, I applaud Francis in bringing some of these financial issues into focus in his public addresses. Economic fairness provides educational, healthcare and social mobility opportunities (to name a few of the many). It is going to become increasingly important to address these issues.

 

[JSSD]

I was using the term “Wall Street” figuratively to mean the big corporate and financial interests. In the US, and other places, but pronouncedly in the US, those interests are in control of the government. This is not speculation. There was a recent academic study which looked at legislative outcomes comparing the public interest to corporate interests.

I’d be highly skeptical of such a study, FWIW. That’s just my own opinion, though. Economists constantly publish contradictory studies using quite nebulous terms such as that.

Incidentally, what is “corporate welfare?” I hear that perjorative thrown around loosely as if it were an EBT card for companies. Usually, the folks who use it mean “tax breaks” which are available to basically anybody and everybody willing to partake in activities defined in the tax code. Take a look at General Electric’s very interesting taxes over the past few years. We throw “Big Oil” under the bus, but look at the sheer amount they pay in taxes. They get some amount of tax write-off as an innovation incentive and it isn’t a check from us to them, they simply pay the government less of the money that they earned (and the government did not earn, but merely confiscated). That’s “welfare” to some. Crazy.

Curiously, when most of these folks write off mortgage payments, children, and charity, they don’t consider that “welfare” on the individual level.