L
Lemuel
Guest
Democracy is mob rule. We are not democratic.
And Lincoln was an arch enemy of the Constitution.
And Lincoln was an arch enemy of the Constitution.
Last edited:
- Status
S
Spyridon
Guest
No problem.
Thanks for acknowledging it was a misunderstanding / possible miscommunication on my part.
Thanks for acknowledging it was a misunderstanding / possible miscommunication on my part.
S
Spyridon
Guest
Nobody on Earth is truly “independent”.
In our society in America we are all dependent on each other to a greater or lesser degree. Which is why it’s of the utmost importance to ensure that large segments of our population don’t get neglected, because it will eventually take a negative toll on the population as a whole.
Even if you lived in the Siberian wilderness, you still wouldn’t be “100% independent [of everything]”. You would still be dependent on the environment to provide you clean air to breathe and water to drink. Dependent on nature to provide you animals and vegetation. Dependent on God to provide you life.
Radical independence is an idea which is foreign to Catholic morality and theology. The Church teaches Catholics to be mindful of, and responsible with regard to our mutual dependence on each other and the planet we live on.
In our society in America we are all dependent on each other to a greater or lesser degree. Which is why it’s of the utmost importance to ensure that large segments of our population don’t get neglected, because it will eventually take a negative toll on the population as a whole.
Even if you lived in the Siberian wilderness, you still wouldn’t be “100% independent [of everything]”. You would still be dependent on the environment to provide you clean air to breathe and water to drink. Dependent on nature to provide you animals and vegetation. Dependent on God to provide you life.
Radical independence is an idea which is foreign to Catholic morality and theology. The Church teaches Catholics to be mindful of, and responsible with regard to our mutual dependence on each other and the planet we live on.
S
Spyridon
Guest
President Abraham Lincoln was an arch enemy of the Constitution?
Okay. I see what type of person I’m dealing with here… on that note, there’s no need for me and you to go any further in this discussion.
Okay. I see what type of person I’m dealing with here… on that note, there’s no need for me and you to go any further in this discussion.
Last edited:
J
JamesATyler
Guest
Good points. I do think we should be wary of placing the burden of anonymous dependents through legal force on any citizen as a principle. Though, I do acknowledge that having an interest in the general social welfare is good.
S
Spyridon
Guest
Absolutely.
Nobody should be burdened with more than what is fair to their circumstances of life, while simultaneously the general welfare of the population must ever be kept in mind, especially by those with more power or resources.
It’s a balancing act, definitely. Too far to the right and you end up being guilty of letting the poor and oppressed go unnoticed and not seeing Christ in the sick, imprisoned, naked and homeless. Too far to the left and you end up shackling the entire populace to a form of institutional slavery and subservience to an entity which can easily become tyrannical.
Balance, prudence, temperance, justice, charity - all need to be synthesized and come into play in a society such as ours.
Nobody should be burdened with more than what is fair to their circumstances of life, while simultaneously the general welfare of the population must ever be kept in mind, especially by those with more power or resources.
It’s a balancing act, definitely. Too far to the right and you end up being guilty of letting the poor and oppressed go unnoticed and not seeing Christ in the sick, imprisoned, naked and homeless. Too far to the left and you end up shackling the entire populace to a form of institutional slavery and subservience to an entity which can easily become tyrannical.
Balance, prudence, temperance, justice, charity - all need to be synthesized and come into play in a society such as ours.
K
Kei
Guest
But then the manufacturers of yachts get money, which then goes down to their employees.
If they buy wine to go onto cruises on their new yacht, along with some food, then the manufacturer of the wine gets money, and so does the manufacturer of the food.
But in reality, the rich indeed do invest their money. It is a way to make more money, but it brings more capital to other ventures, which in turn means more employees which means more families fed.
Investors invest in new ventures all the time. In fact, you almost can’t start a new business without an investor.
S
Spyridon
Guest
You do make good points, and obviously the more money people spend the healthier our economy becomes.
But I still think in that situation, a single millionaire getting a million dollar check from tax breaks would not be as commendable as say 100 poor people getting a $10,000 Government check. The 100 poor people would still pump a lot of that money back into the economy.
But I still think in that situation, a single millionaire getting a million dollar check from tax breaks would not be as commendable as say 100 poor people getting a $10,000 Government check. The 100 poor people would still pump a lot of that money back into the economy.
J
JamesATyler
Guest
It is a matter of how much we want to control our citizens spending. Though a man compelled by the government to spend money on clothes for the poor has not shown himself to respond when the Lord asks for clothing. People who pay large taxes can still be goats.
P
PetraG
Guest
“Trickle-down economics” is a vague term. I don’t see how you can “support it” or “oppose it.”
There is no excuse for a business owner to make up a business plan that won’t work unless the owner can figure out how to pay the workers an unfair wage that doesn’t allow them to use their labor to make an honest living.
Behold, the wages you withheld from the workers who harvested your fields are crying aloud, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. You have lived on earth in luxury and pleasure; you have fattened your hearts for the day of slaughter. James 5:4-5
Supporting that kind of economic model is support for business people to keep their workers in misery even though they work for a living and to send themselves straight to Hell. There is no excuse for it. I don’t know how that can be avoided with some fancy “political theories.”
On the other hand, you cannot get blood out of a turnip. Starting and running a business is a significant gamble. The business owner has to risk working hard and maybe losing everything! It would be pure jealousy to begrudge someone material prosperity when they have taken the risks and done the work to start an enterprise that provides goods to the community and a means to make a living to other people.
It is kind of like progressive taxation. There is nothing inherently unjust with taxing some portions of one’s income more heavily that the first portions made, on the grounds that the first amount made is more needed for sustainance than the last. There is a limit, though. At some point, the demand of society for the wealthy to share goes past asking the most fortunate to contribute more and into jealously seizing what rightly belongs to someone else.
There is no excuse for a business owner to make up a business plan that won’t work unless the owner can figure out how to pay the workers an unfair wage that doesn’t allow them to use their labor to make an honest living.
Behold, the wages you withheld from the workers who harvested your fields are crying aloud, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. You have lived on earth in luxury and pleasure; you have fattened your hearts for the day of slaughter. James 5:4-5
Supporting that kind of economic model is support for business people to keep their workers in misery even though they work for a living and to send themselves straight to Hell. There is no excuse for it. I don’t know how that can be avoided with some fancy “political theories.”
On the other hand, you cannot get blood out of a turnip. Starting and running a business is a significant gamble. The business owner has to risk working hard and maybe losing everything! It would be pure jealousy to begrudge someone material prosperity when they have taken the risks and done the work to start an enterprise that provides goods to the community and a means to make a living to other people.
It is kind of like progressive taxation. There is nothing inherently unjust with taxing some portions of one’s income more heavily that the first portions made, on the grounds that the first amount made is more needed for sustainance than the last. There is a limit, though. At some point, the demand of society for the wealthy to share goes past asking the most fortunate to contribute more and into jealously seizing what rightly belongs to someone else.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Spot on.
One should recognize that, in part, wealthy people are wealthy specifically because they didn’t let it “trickle down”. They kept as much as they could.
Last edited:
E
Edward_H
Guest
Trickle down was coined for people to use dismissively without getting into the details of how economics works.
It gives them (they think) a verbal edge. They can quickly dismiss something out of hand, as they tune to PBS/CNN/MSNBC (listening to Charlie Rose or Garrison Keiller or Matt Lauer, or Chris Matthews, or Tavis Smiley, oops).
It gives them (they think) a verbal edge. They can quickly dismiss something out of hand, as they tune to PBS/CNN/MSNBC (listening to Charlie Rose or Garrison Keiller or Matt Lauer, or Chris Matthews, or Tavis Smiley, oops).
P
PetraG
Guest
Well, maybe, but maybe not. Sometimes those who promote these hugely lucrative projects keep as much as they can and they still lose fantastic amounts of money.
Let’s say you are an entertainer. People are willing to pay you a good portion each from their disposable income to enjoy your talents. No one has to see you in order to stay alive. You can be generous with those who help you to put on whatever entertainment you put on and just by the mere numbers you can entertain at once you can make fantastic amounts of money for both yourselves and the promoters–if everything goes right. If it doesn’t, then sometimes the workers get paid, you get nothing, and the investors lose money.
Last edited:
J
JamesATyler
Guest
On the theological side, I think it is important to highlight that the wealthy man can be genourous and a poor man can still be a miser. I like what James wrote but the middle class and poor need to do the best they can to understand when Jesus asks them for drink, food, clothing, etc. That request is real and is how he separates the sheep and the goats. So everyone should keep their eyes open.
P
PetraG
Guest
He’s out of broadcasting now, but Charlie Rose did not go in for simplistic accusations against the wealthy or the business class. He was not a naive believer in communism, for instance. Economics is more complicated than that, and he never denied it.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
No, no. I’m reasonably certain wealth is generated by outflows being smaller that inflows. Gotta minimize that trickle.Vonsalza:
Well, maybe, but maybe not.
I finished my bachelors in finance and a lot of my electives were in econ. Feel free to get as technical as you want.
Last edited:
E
Edward_H
Guest
I watched him for years during the 90s…he had on every democrat there was, and never challenged their use of the term. Obsequiousness was the objective, not teasing out the truth.
P
PetraG
Guest
Here is an excerpt from the Will Roger’s piece that was the origin of the phrase “trickle down economics”:
… You know the people kinder look on our Government to tell ’em and kinder advise ’em. And many an old bird got sore at Coolidge, but could only take it out on Hoover. Big business sure got big, but it got big by selling its stocks and not by selling its products. No scheme was halted by the Government as long as somebody would buy the stock. It could have been a plan to deepen the Atlantic ocean and it would have had the indorsement of the proper department in Washington, and the stocks would have gone on the market.
This election was lost four and five and six years ago not this year. They didn’t start thinking of the old common fellow till just as they started out on the election tour. The money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes that it would trickle down to the needy. Mr. Hoover was an engineer. He knew that water trickled down. Put it uphill and let it go and it will reach the dryest little spot. But he dident know that money trickled up. Give it to the people at the bottom and the people at the top will have it before night anyhow. But it will at least have passed through the poor fellow’s hands. They saved the big banks but the little ones went up the flue.
No Sir, the little fellow felt that he never had a chance, and he dident till November the eighth, and did he grab it? The whole idea of Government relief for the last few years has been to loan somebody more money, so they could go further in debt. It ain’t much relief to just transfer your debts from one party to another adding a little more in the bargain. No, I believe the “Boys” from all they had and hadent done had this coming to ’em.
From "And Here’s How It All Happened (1932), by Will Rogers, as published in the Tulsa Daily World, December 5,1932.
I like Rogers because while he clearly had his own political view he was still free to appreciate those who weren’t in his party and to needle those in his own party who needed to do better. (That, and he famously never met a man he didn’t like,)
… You know the people kinder look on our Government to tell ’em and kinder advise ’em. And many an old bird got sore at Coolidge, but could only take it out on Hoover. Big business sure got big, but it got big by selling its stocks and not by selling its products. No scheme was halted by the Government as long as somebody would buy the stock. It could have been a plan to deepen the Atlantic ocean and it would have had the indorsement of the proper department in Washington, and the stocks would have gone on the market.
This election was lost four and five and six years ago not this year. They didn’t start thinking of the old common fellow till just as they started out on the election tour. The money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes that it would trickle down to the needy. Mr. Hoover was an engineer. He knew that water trickled down. Put it uphill and let it go and it will reach the dryest little spot. But he dident know that money trickled up. Give it to the people at the bottom and the people at the top will have it before night anyhow. But it will at least have passed through the poor fellow’s hands. They saved the big banks but the little ones went up the flue.
No Sir, the little fellow felt that he never had a chance, and he dident till November the eighth, and did he grab it? The whole idea of Government relief for the last few years has been to loan somebody more money, so they could go further in debt. It ain’t much relief to just transfer your debts from one party to another adding a little more in the bargain. No, I believe the “Boys” from all they had and hadent done had this coming to ’em.
From "And Here’s How It All Happened (1932), by Will Rogers, as published in the Tulsa Daily World, December 5,1932.
I like Rogers because while he clearly had his own political view he was still free to appreciate those who weren’t in his party and to needle those in his own party who needed to do better. (That, and he famously never met a man he didn’t like,)
P
PetraG
Guest
If it were that simple, you wouldn’t need to get a bachelor’s degree to understand finance, would you?
After all, even the old wives know that there is such a thing as being penny wise and pound foolish.
K
Kei
Guest
Hm, I feel it’s like “teach a man to fish…” saying.
Think about it.
If a businessman can expand his business to provide employment for 100 more people, I believe it would do more than a momentary relief of needs.
Think about it.
If a businessman can expand his business to provide employment for 100 more people, I believe it would do more than a momentary relief of needs.
- Status