Pope vows to study US criticism of his anti-capitalist rhetoric

[estesbob]

For those who recall (or bother to do some research), there was this small thing called Congress which resisted spending cuts. Attributing everything to the office of the presidency is kindergarten level political analysis.

The deficit was a small price to pay for ending bringing down the Soviet union, freeing Eastern Europe and ending the Cold war. What did we get for the Obama’s deficit?

 

[stinkcat_14]

The deficit was a small price to pay for ending bringing down the Soviet union, freeing Eastern Europe and ending the Cold war. What did we get for the Obama’s deficit?

Or Bush’s deficit for that matter?

 

[FollowChrist34]

The deficit was a small price to pay for ending bringing down the Soviet union, freeing Eastern Europe and ending the Cold war. What did we get for the Obama’s deficit?

Iranian dominance of the Middle East (next step: regional nuclearization)
Elimination of the State of Israel
Gay marriage
Removal of active Christianity from mainstream society
Neutralization of military, police forces
Solidification of Caliphate State / Islamic terrorism with US, Europe access
Social, political homogenization into politically correct (but hip, wired in) herd
Decimation of what was left of liberal education - the stupider the better (safer, more malleable to social media)

Yes we can!

 

[Ridgerunner]

Your reflexive response is to defense the economic situation there, with tedious caviling, because that arrangement would be presumably more benign that any socialist, agrarian economy at a similar level of economic development. It comes with the rather absurd conclusion that El Salvador’s distribution of resources is equitable, at least relative to the US. Perhaps those peasants should be content with their lot, and not have any sympathies towards the revolutionaries or express any support for substantial land reform.

Note, the Wikipedia quotes “rural population” not “population” and made references to “peasants”, so using the total US population as the denominator is patently specious reasoning if you want to make a comparison to El Salvador. One could also presume that El Salvador is highly rural then and to still highly rural now, with the exception of its textile industry which now dominants its export sector. But how many people own the means of production of those factories?

By the way, how many farm workers own land in the US?

No need to be personally insulting.

Never did I say the distribution of economic assets in El Salvador is just. Never did I say anybody in El Salvador should be content for any reason.

What I did say is that distribution of farm land does not, in itself, tell us very much. Part of the reason is that farming methods and value of products has changed from what it was, say, 100 years ago. Also, urbanization has taken a lot of people off the land. Industrialization does the same thing, particularly, but not limited to, the “industrialization” of agriculture.

It’s possible that land redistribution in El Salvador would work out better than it has in Zimbabwe, where it converted the country from a relatively prosperous exporter of food to an economically devastated importer of food.

And that’s why the popes after Pope Leo XIII have acknowledged in their social encyclicals that the small farm model of wide distribution of productive, inheritable assets is no longer the right model.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Reagan cut taxes and raised spending. If he didn’t realize that would cause a deficit he needed a little remedial economics education.

Actually, growth in real federal income tax revenue (i.e. adjusted for inflation) was rather weak under Reagan, it grew only by 2.2% per year. Real income tax collections grew faster under Carter and Clinton than Reagan. It was particularly faster under Clinton than anyone else. Real income tax collections fell during Bush, Jrs. term.

Revenue growth under Reagan:

heritage.org/~/media/images/reports/b_1544_chart_1lg_4/taxcuts2002.ashx

You only get the 2.2% number if you add in the first two years of his presidence which saw a major decline due to the slow economy given him by Carter.

Revenue grew from 898 billion in 1983 to 1.22 trillion in 1990. That’s a growth of over 5% per year during that period.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Or Bush’s deficit for that matter?

Bush’s deficits were very small compared to those of Obama.

Under Bush we had six years of strong growth. It would have been more if not for the financial meltdown which was due to democratic legislation under Clinton, in particular the CRA.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Bush’s deficits were very small compared to those of Obama.

Under Bush we had six years of strong growth. It would have been more if not for the financial meltdown which was due to democratic legislation under Clinton, in particular the CRA.

Not just the CRA, which was probably nowhere near as responsible as was the Democrat refusal (led by Frank, Schumer and Obama) to reform FNMA and FHLMC so they wouldn’t be a ready market for junk loans. Because FNMA and FHLMC make the market, others had followed suit. Bush and McCain pushed reform, but it was defeated.

 

[Theo520]

Land reform is a very complicated beast.

It worked extremely well in Japan, Korea and Taiwan. In the Philippines, corruption made it a tool of the rich.

What really matters is implementing the Rule Of Law and reducing corruption. I believe El Salvador is lacking in both these areas.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Land reform is a very complicated beast.

It worked extremely well in Japan, Korea and Taiwan. In the Philippines, corruption made it a tool of the rich.

What really matters is implementing the Rule Of Law and reducing corruption. I believe El Salvador is lacking in both these areas.

Sometimes people who acquire small holdings eventually just sell them to larger landowners and move to industrial work in urban areas. Whether they keep any of the money or not is something I have never seen anybody write about.

I have no idea whether that has happened in Japan or South Korea, but their massive industrialization would lead me to think it likely.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Bush’s deficits were very small compared to those of Obama.

Regardless of the size of the deficit, we didn’t get anything of value from the Bush administration. We got two wars that we will make our grandchildren pay for. That is certainly nothing to be proud of, kind of like buying your grandchildren a car and then handing them over the car loan you used to pay for it. There is no way to make that seem like a generous gift.

Under Bush we had six years of strong growth. It would have been more if not for the financial meltdown which was due to democratic legislation under Clinton, in particular the CRA.

How much of the bad lending was due to the CRA? Did the CRA force the banks to make jumbo loans? Did the republicans control the house and senate during the bush years and could have done something about it, but chose not to?

 

[stinkcat_14]

Not just the CRA, which was probably nowhere near as responsible as was the Democrat refusal (led by Frank, Schumer and Obama) to reform FNMA and FHLMC so they wouldn’t be a ready market for junk loans. Because FNMA and FHLMC make the market, others had followed suit. Bush and McCain pushed reform, but it was defeated.

To be fair, there were times when the republicans controlled the house and senate during those years and they didn’t do anything about it either. When there is a republican speaker of the house it is hard to blame Barney for the fact that Fannie wasn’t reigned in.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

How much of the bad lending was due to the CRA? Did the CRA force the banks to make jumbo loans? Did the republicans control the house and senate during the bush years and could have done something about it, but chose not to?

Bush tried, but was blocked by Democrats in Congress:

Published: September 11, 2003
WASHINGTON, Sept. 10— The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios…

Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

‘‘These two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis,’’ said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ‘‘The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.’’

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

‘‘I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,’’ Mr. Watt said.

nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html

 

[Peccavi]

Most of you writing here seem to support Calvinism attitudes where the accumulation of wealth while so many others had nothing could be a Christian goal. I thought we were Catholics ?

 

[stinkcat_14]

Bush tried, but was blocked by Democrats in Congress:

Published: September 11, 2003

During the time of the story you posted, the republicans controlled both the house and senate. So the republicans could have done something if they wanted to. It is hard to blame the minority when you are in the majority.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Most of you writing here seem to support Calvinism attitudes where the accumulation of wealth while so many others had nothing could be a Christian goal. I thought we were Catholics ?

Most Catholics oppose socialism. Do you?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

During the time of the story you posted, the republicans controlled both the house and senate. So the republicans could have done something if they wanted to. It is hard to blame the minority when you are in the majority.

No they couldn’t. The plan was blocked by democrats. Read the article.

 

[Theo520]

Most of you writing here seem to support Calvinism attitudes where the accumulation of wealth while so many others had nothing could be a Christian goal. I thought we were Catholics ?

Calvinism’s focus on our sinful nature is contrary to the Prosperity Gospel I think you are referring to.

Can you restate and expand on the point you are trying to make.

 

[stinkcat_14]

No they couldn’t. The plan was blocked by democrats. Read the article.

What was the vote count on the proposal? The article does not say the dems blocked anything, just that they were against it. Are you saying their was voting fraud on the part of the democrats to block the bill?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

What was the vote count on the proposal? The article does not say the dems blocked anything, just that they were against it. Are you saying their was voting fraud on the part of the democrats to block the bill?

I’m saying that the bill was blocked, led by democrats. As you know, it is not easy to get unanimous support even in the majority of either party.

The point is that Democrats blocked progress on this reform.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I’m saying that the bill was blocked, led by democrats. As you know, it is not easy to get unanimous support even in the majority of either party.

The point is that Democrats blocked progress on this reform.

In other words, the democrats and republicans together blocked the bill. That we can agree on. The democrats could not have blocked it without republican help. So you cannot pin this all on the democrats, the republicans get an equal share of the blame.