Pope arrives early.....

[Tom]

He snuck over the border about noon today.

[TJDave]

Question:

When we see the Pope holding and kissing small children...are they pre-screened? Kids are sick with colds or flu and other communicable disease every other minute.

[_______]

Question:

When we see the Pope holding and kissing small children...are they pre-screened? Kids are sick with colds or flu and other communicable disease every other minute.

There is a really horrible joke response about pedophile priests that my respect for Pope Francis forbids me from making.

[TJDave]

There is a really horrible joke response about pedophile priests that my respect for Pope Francis forbids me from making.

It was a serious question and I didn't even think about going there. I like this Pope and am concerned for his safety. I'd like him to be around for a good while.

[zico20]

It was a serious question and I didn't even think about going there. I like this Pope and am concerned for his safety. I'd like him to be around for a good while.

Would your liking this Pope have anything to do with the fact he is cozy with the Castro boys? Just curious.

[classhandicapper]

Would your liking this Pope have anything to do with the fact he is cozy with the Castro boys? Just curious.

I'm still trying to figure out if this Pope is actually Catholic. It's sad to go from such an intellectual giant like Benedict to this guy. If they wanted to take a minority, they should have gone with the African guy. He's bright and at least he's Catholic.

[Marshall Bennett]

Overblown, overrated, and I'm an otherwise religious type guy.
Too much goes on in the Catholic church that I either don't understand, or I do and don't like it.

[classhandicapper]

Pat Buchanan makes some very good points in this piece.

http://buchanan.org/blog/us-and-catholicism-in-crisis-124092

[Shemp Howard]

I'm still trying to figure out if this Pope is actually Catholic. It's sad to go from such an intellectual giant like Benedict to this guy. If they wanted to take a minority, they should have gone with the African guy. He's bright and at least he's Catholic.

He's not a Catholic, he's a Jesuit.........big difference.

[Saratoga_Mike]

He's not a Catholic, he's a Jesuit.........big difference.

I see you weren't a Religious Studies major at Harvard.

[LottaKash]

He's not a Catholic, he's a Jesuit.........big difference.

Very big difference...

If anyone is interested, you can look up the sinister history of the Jesuits, and a lot of it doesn't have anything to do with Jesus or Religion....They are really not the nice guys that many have come to believe thru their own ignorance...

Google Malachi Martin....

Anyone ever heard of the "Jesuit General" who is also known as the "Black Pope"... The real power behind the throne of the Pope...

[boxcar]

Would your liking this Pope have anything to do with the fact he is cozy with the Castro boys? Just curious.

Not to mention global warming. TJ loves the politics of this pope.

[FantasticDan]

:lol: :rolleyes: :ThmbUp:

BBNs_6_FXc4

[classhandicapper]

He deserves to get trashed. He commenting on things he has no education in and no understanding of at all.

It would be fine if he was some schmoe on a message board debating economics and horse racing with us. But if you are in a position of authority over a billion people, many of which are looking for guidance from you, your expertise on free market economics should not have come from observing Argentina. :rolleyes: He probably knows less about economics than Obama - which is a scary thought. He could probably even learn something from Krugman and that guy is living in some delusional la la land.

[Tom]

Very Holy man.
Very stupid man, but very Holy man.

If he is so concerned with wealth begin concentrated, he should take a look in the Vatican basement, or attic, or garage.

Lot of wealth there, Pope-eye.
When you'se re-distributated it all, then we cans sits down and talks about capitsalism.

Until then, make like a monk and shut up.

[iceknight]

He deserves to get trashed. He commenting on things he has no education in and no understanding of at all.

It would be fine if he was some schmoe on a message board debating economics and horse racing with us. But if you are in a position of authority over a billion people, many of which are looking for guidance from you, your expertise on free market economics should not have come from observing Argentina. :rolleyes: He probably knows less about economics than Obama - which is a scary thought. He could probably even learn something from Krugman and that guy is living in some delusional la la land.Don't worry. Just in time for guys like you.. he changed his position

http://www.thehorsewhobeatsecretariat.com/article/pope-francis-reverses-position-capitalism-after-se-51363 (http://www.theonion.com/article/pope-francis-reverses-position-capitalism-after-se-51363)

Just fyi: The visible url is play on words. I am not phishing!

[FantasticDan]

Excellent article:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/pope-francis-is-not-a-progressive-or-a-liberalhes-a-priest/406519/

[Tom]

New app is out to track the Papal visit.
You just swipe up, down, left, right.

[LottaKash]

Quote from Samuel Morse, the inventor of the Morse Code of communication:



“Let us examine the operations of this Austrian Society [the St. Leopold Foundation], for it is hard at work all around us, yes, here in this country [i.e., the USA]… With its headquarters in Vienna [Austria], under the immediate direction and inspection of [Austrian Prince] Metternich, …it makes itself already felt through the [American] Republic. Its emissaries are here. And who are these emissaries? They are Jesuits. This [Roman Catholic] society of men, after exerting their tyranny for upwards of two hundred years, at length became so formidable to the world, threatening the entire subversion to all social order, that even the Pope [i.e., Clement XIV], whose devoted subjects they [i.e., the Jesuits] are, and must be, by the vow of their society, was compelled to dissolve them [in 1773].



They had not been suppressed, however, for fifty years, before the waning influence of Popery and Despotism required their useful labors to resist the light of Democratic liberty, and the Pope (Pius VII) simultaneously with the formation of the Holy Alliance [in Europe], revived the order of the Jesuits in all their power. ((Ed. Comment: Pope Pius VII restored the Jesuit Order in 1814 in exchange for his release from prison, where he had spent five years under Jesuit “persuasion”.))



And do Americans need to be told what Jesuits are? If any are ignorant, let them inform themselves of their history without delay; no time is to be lost; their workings are before you in every day’s events; they are a secret society, a sort of Masonic order with super added features of revolting odiousness, and a thousand times more dangerous. They are not merely priests, or priests of one religious creed; they are merchants, and lawyers, and editors, and men of any profession, having no outward badge (in this country [i.e., the USA]) by which to be recognized; they are about in all your society. They can assume any character, that of angels of light, or ministers of darkness, to accomplish their one great end, the service upon which they are sent, whatever that service may be.


The Jesuits are highly educated men, prepared, and sworn to start at any moment, and in any direction, and for any service, commanded by the general of their order [i.e., the Jesuit Superior General, the “Black Pope”], bound to no family, community, or country, by the ordinary ties which bind men; and sold the soul to the cause of the Roman Pontiff.

[hcap]

Damn, now he is embracing that liberal mindset of multcookie diversity of all colors and all bakeries. I still think he should be trashed.

Next thing you know, he will speak more than one language publicly!. :eek: :eek:
Don't worry. Just in time for guys like you.. he changed his position
He deserves to get trashed. He commenting on things he has no education in and no understanding of at all.
http://www.thehorsewhobeatsecretariat.com/article/pope-francis-reverses-position-capitalism-after-se-51363 (http://www.theonion.com/article/pope-francis-reverses-position-capitalism-after-se-51363)

[Tom]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper
He deserves to get trashed. He commenting on things he has no education in and no understanding of at all.

hcap is the POPE???:eek:

[classhandicapper]

Next thing you know, he will speak more than one language publicly!. :eek: :eek:


That would be Benedict who focused his attention on things he knew something about.

>>>How many languages does pope Benedict speak?

In addition to his native German, Benedict XVI fluently speaks French and Italian. He also has a very good command of Latin and speaks English and Spanish adequately, although less perfect than the first three languages mentioned. Furthermore, he has some knowledge of Portuguese. He can read Ancient Greek and biblical Hebrew<<

[ebcorde]

kill the Pope? The Pope is hurting , he looks tired and in pain. They got to stop like everyone wants a piece of him. Let the guy do what he wants when he's rested. Why Obama had to have all that pomp and circumstances was beyond me, the guy is old on a tight schedule.

[ebcorde]

checking out the schedule, How the hell did Mark Whalberg get in on this? He;s meeting with the Pope in Philly.

[FantasticDan]

checking out the schedule, How the hell did Mark Whalberg get in on this? He;s meeting with the Pope in Philly.He's not "meeting" with the Pope (altho I'm sure he will meet him), I guess he's the host of this Philly event:

http://www.worldmeeting2015.org/tickets/festival-of-families/

And seriously Obama, knock it off with the ceremonies. Just show the Pope to the Lincoln bedroom and let him catch some :sleeping: :sleeping: :ThmbUp:

[Tom]

This will all end as soon as someone tell the Idiot N Chief that this not an Ayatollah.

[tucker6]

>>>How many languages does pope Benedict speak?

In addition to his native German, Benedict XVI fluently speaks French and Italian. He also has a very good command of Latin and speaks English and Spanish adequately, although less perfect than the first three languages mentioned. Furthermore, he has some knowledge of Portuguese. He can read Ancient Greek and biblical Hebrew<<
Sounds like a man who had a lot of free time on his hands.

[davew]

If the Pope is against late term abortions, does that mean he is 'waging war on women?' or does that only apply to Republicans?

[hcap]

That would be Benedict who focused his attention on things he knew something about.

>>>How many languages does pope Benedict speak?

In addition to his native German, Benedict XVI fluently speaks French and Italian. He also has a very good command of Latin and speaks English and Spanish adequately, although less perfect than the first three languages mentioned. Furthermore, he has some knowledge of Portuguese. He can read Ancient Greek and biblical Hebrew<<I am not surprised you want to "trash" Francis for anything you deem "liberal". Yo know, liberal Multi-culturalism, (and my satirical jab, it's close relative being multilingual :lol: :jump: :cool: )

Btw, Pope Francis's native language is Spanish but he also speaks Italian, Portuguese, French, German, Ukrainian and Piedmontese (a language spoken in the Piedmont, an area in northern Italy). And of course Latin.
Francis "graduated as a chemical technician" before entering the priesthood, received a degree in philosophy and theology from the Colegio de San José in San Miguel, and taught literature and psychology at both the Immaculate Conception College in Santa Fé and the Colegio del Salvatore in Buenos Aires.


If all of the absurd repub/conservative non scientists can opine on climate change, (idiots like Rick Santorum, and senator Jim Inhofe), and hold ass backwards silly economic theories,similar to your silly math on stereotyping----there is no reason an educated pope can't speak out. The fact that it is against your political persuasion is the real reason you want to "trash" him :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

The rest is window dressing.

[classhandicapper]

A better article on this Pope

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/09/andrew-p-napolitano/is-the-pope-a-false-prophet/

[classhandicapper]

If all of the absurd repub/conservative non scientists can opine on climate change, (idiots like Rick Santorum, and senator Jim Inhofe), and hold ass backwards silly economic theories,similar to your silly math on stereotyping----there is no reason an educated pope can't speak out. The fact that it is against your political persuasion is the real reason you want to "trash" him :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

The rest is window dressing.

There is a difference between nitwits in Washington expressing their views and nitwits from the Vatican expressing their views. Washington is almost universally held in contempt (and should be). The other gives voice to over a billion people and should shut his mouth unless he knows the subject matter well.

I don't really care what you think. You have no impact on me. I care what the Pope thinks because some people are not informed enough to understand he doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to business and economics. He will do further damage if people listen to him.

The reality is that he's generally right that the system is not working for everyone. But like most liberals, he does not understand the system well enough to correctly diagnose the disease and how to cure it. So he is recommending medicine that will kill the patient instead of bringing it back to health.

Our system is like the goose that lays golden eggs.

Liberals like you and the Pope see hungry people and want to kill the goose so you can feed them.

[Robert Fischer]

The tv news just reminded me to not touch or grab the pope.

[hcap]

A better article on this Pope

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/09/andrew-p-napolitano/is-the-pope-a-false-prophet/Slight political bias wouldn't you say....

"Comes now Pope Francis to use moral relativism to take the Church in two dangerous directions. The first is an assault on the family, and the second is an assault on the free market — two favorite political targets of the left."

And yet you say better from a libertarian website :sleeping: :sleeping:

Among Catholics, Francis gets mixed reviews. Among non religious humanitarians and those that consider compassion important, a breath of fresh air.

[classhandicapper]

Slight political bias wouldn't you say....

"Comes now Pope Francis to use moral relativism to take the Church in two dangerous directions. The first is an assault on the family, and the second is an assault on the free market — two favorite political targets of the left."

And yet you say better from a libertarian website :sleeping: :sleeping:

Among Catholics, Francis gets mixed reviews. Among non religious humanitarians and those that consider compassion important, a breath of fresh air.

No question there is a bias there. It's a bias towards what actually works better in our real world.

[Robert Fischer]

News says he's known as the people's pope.

[Tom]

He talked today about the US not fearing taking in immigrants.
Duh.

Did he ever take a history lesson?
And how many Syrian refugees is the Vatican taking in?

Say your Mass and go home.

[Tom]

So he now says we should take in all the refugees coming north to our borders because they seek a better life.

Perhaps he has visited the wrong country this week - maybe his time would be better spend in those southern American countries challenging those leaders to stop making life so unbearable for his people.

I don't thing we need advice from a Pope who refuses to go where he is really needed and fight for his flock.

This guy is a lib......end of story.

[classhandicapper]

He doesn't even comprehend the basics of how much debt the US is already in, the incremental costs of providing services to undereducated and underskilled illegals, the present value of the trillions of dollars of promises our government has already made to our own old, poor, and government workers that it mathematically cannot pay for without destroying the value of the currency or raising taxes to the point it destroys the economy etc...

The US has very major long term economic problems due to the promises made by politicians that cannot be kept.

The Pope's understanding is that the US is a rich country and these are poor people. So just help them. I don't blame him for being ignorant. It's not his job to understand these things. But given that he doesn't, he should not be talking about these issues.

[Magister Ludi]

There is a really horrible joke response about pedophile priests that my respect for Pope Francis forbids me from making.
I hear that Pope Francis is also going to Mount Olive. Popeye's going to be really pissed.

[Tom]

That's all he cans stands 'cause he can'ts stands no more!

[Saratoga_Mike]

He talked today about the US not fearing taking in immigrants.
Duh.

Did he ever take a history lesson?
And how many Syrian refugees is the Vatican taking in?

Say your Mass and go home.

I strongly oppose taking in Syrian refugees en masse because of security concerns. But to be fair to the Pope, Vatican City has taken in at least one family (under his orders). Given the population of Vatican City is around 500, that family represents 1% of their population, or 3 mm in US equiv terms. Again, I strongly oppose Obama/Kerry's absurd/dangerous/insane policy on this matter, but I don't think the Pope is hypocritical on it, just wrong.

[TJDave]

Excellent article:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/pope-francis-is-not-a-progressive-or-a-liberalhes-a-priest/406519/

“My hope,” he wrote in Evangelii Gaudium, “is that we will be moved by the fear of remaining shut up within structures which give us a false sense of security, within rules which make us harsh judges, within habits which make us feel safe, while at our door people are starving and Jesus does not tire of saying to us: ‘Give them something to eat.’”

He acts like I believe a Christian should. I like this guy.

[Fager Fan]

The one image that kept coming to my mind about Obama meeting the pope is that he was probably quaking like Damien in The Omen.

[Tor Ekman]

He's not a Catholic, he's a Jesuit.........big difference.

Nailed it. :ThmbUp:

[FantasticDan]

Pope Francis Kills 3 Hours Milling Around Atlanta Airport During Layover To D.C (http://www.theonion.com/article/pope-francis-kills-3-hours-milling-around-atlanta--51352)

:D :ThmbUp:

[classhandicapper]

“My hope,” he wrote in Evangelii Gaudium, “is that we will be moved by the fear of remaining shut up within structures which give us a false sense of security, within rules which make us harsh judges, within habits which make us feel safe, while at our door people are starving and Jesus does not tire of saying to us: ‘Give them something to eat.’”

He acts like I believe a Christian should. I like this guy.

Most Christians believe the same thing. The difference is what you believe is the correct way to create all the wealth needed to feed them.

1. Some would have us take it from others, give it away as they see fit, and create no new wealth or way to sustain what they are doing.

2. Some would have us create as much new wealth as possible, invest and use it as efficiently as possible to create opportunities for others, try to guide people to make decisions that are more likely to lead to positive results, and invest in people so they can take care of themselves. Then only whoever "legitimately" falls through the cracks is cared for.

Many understand that #2 is the better option but we are badly falling short on the investment side.

Where we are purposely (and insanely) going off course is in not defining objective standards that produce superior results. We are actually criticizing people that are trying to do that. So we are getting progressively worse results.

#2 is the right formula.

[mostpost]

A better article on this Pope

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/09/andrew-p-napolitano/is-the-pope-a-false-prophet/
Better? Better if you want ignorance. What you mean is it is an article that parrots your views.

what Napolitano said in the article and why he is wrong.

Before the monumental Church changes of the 1960s and 1970s that trivialized the Mass and blurred the distinctions between the clergy and the laity, Popes John XXIII and Paul VI consulted their fellow bishops at Vatican II. The consultations were fractious and belligerent, but both popes got what they wanted: a watering down of liturgical practices and an easing of rules safeguarding the sacraments, so as to make the Church more appealing and accessible to former and non-adherents.

The result was a disaster. Fewer Catholics went to Mass, confusion about former theological norms reigned, and a general tenor pervaded the faithful that the Church never really meant what it preached. Former Catholics continued to stay away, new Catholics barely showed up, and many traditional faithful became demoralized.

Before Vatican II people attended mass, after Vatican II people participated in the mass. Before Vatican II the priest spoke the prayers in Latin; only he knew what they meant. The Altar boys had no idea what the responses meant; they were rote memorized. 99% of the congregation could not repeat the Latin prayers, much less interpret them. After Vatican II the prayers were in the vernacular-English in the case of the United States. Responses were given by all the people in a language they used in their daily lives, not just by two bored twelve year old boys.

Fewer people do show up for Mass nowadays, but how many of those who showed up pre-Vatican II did so out of superstitious fear. "Don't go to church on Sunday and you go to hell." The people who attend Mass now know why they are there; they participate; they understand what is going on.

In the past month, without consulting his fellow bishops, the pope has weakened the sacrament of matrimony by making annulments easier to obtain. The Church cannot grant divorces because Our Lord used his own words to declare valid marriages indissoluble. But it does grant annulments.
False on a couple of points. First, the changes were made after a lengthy study conducted by a commission made up of church leaders including laity, bishops and cardinals. The Pope basically implemented their recommendations. Obviously some of the bishops do not agree with the findings of the commission. Tough stuff. You had your chance; you lose.

The Pope's new rules (advocated by the commission on the matter) change the procedures for obtaining an annulment; they do not change the reasons. You still need to prove the same things you needed to prove previously.

The Church has taught for 400 years that abortion is murder. Because the victim of an abortion is always innocent, helpless and uniquely under the control of the mother, abortion removes the participants from access to the sacraments. Until now. Last week, Pope Francis, without consulting his fellow bishops, ordered that any priest may return those who have killed a baby in a womb to the communion of the faithful. He said he did this because he was moved by the anguished cries of mothers contemplating the murder of their babies.

The Church has taught for 400 years that abortion is murder. Because the victim of an abortion is always innocent, helpless and uniquely under the control of the mother, abortion removes the participants from access to the sacraments. Until now. Last week, Pope Francis, without consulting his fellow bishops, ordered that any priest may return those who have killed a baby in a womb to the communion of the faithful. He said he did this because he was moved by the anguished cries of mothers contemplating the murder of their babies.

The Catholic Church has a sacrament called Penance-I think it is now called Reconciliation. The idea of this sacrament is that if you confess your sins to a priest, they will be forgiven. Regardless of what they are. Francis did not say that abortion is no longer a sin in the eyes of the church. He said that a priest can forgive that sin, just as he can forgive any sin.

I doubt he will defend these decisions before Congress. He will, instead, assault the free market, which he blames for poverty, pollution and the mass migrations into Europe away from to worn-torn areas in the Middle East.
I only heard portions of the speech so far, but none of the stories I read mention any attacks on the free market. I would think something like that would be high on the list of things to mention.

When he is in St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City later this week, he should take note of the recent and beautiful $200 million facelift. It was paid in full by rich Catholic capitalists who employed hardworking artisans and laborers to do the work.
I am guessing the work was paid for by contributions from the faithful; some of whom may have been rich capitalists, but many more of whom were poor and middle class. I am guessing-no, I am confident that rich capitalists did what rich capitalists always do in this situation-they made a profit.

ETA: Here is a link where one can contribute to the renovation.
http://saintpatrickscathedral.org/restore-st-patricks-cathedral

Not suggesting that anyone should. Just pointing out that a fund raising campaign does exist. And nowhere does it say, restricted to rich capitalists.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Nailed it. :ThmbUp:

Another theologian, I see.

[Tom]

not just by two bored twelve year old boys.

Not all of them were "bored!" :eek:

[Tom]

Because the victim of an abortion is always innocent, helpless and uniquely under the control of the mother, abortion removes the participants from access to the sacraments.
Not true - not having been baptized, they all have Original Sin.
Perhaps instead of bowing to the murders, he could have addressed the victims.

This Pope is looney tunes off base.
The lineage to Peter has been seriously stretched here.
Hard to accept him as the Vicar Of God on Earth.

Francis did not say that abortion is no longer a sin in the eyes of the church. He said that a priest can forgive that sin, just as he can forgive any sin.
Penance is the part where you prove you are sorry for your sin. I doubt that many truly are. Yes, abortion can be forgiven, but not as casually as that.

Not suggesting that anyone should. Just pointing out that a fund raising campaign does exist. And nowhere does it say, restricted to rich capitalists.

Why would anyone contribute to something as worthless as this when there are people starving at your door? The Church is wrong to put buildings ahead of people. But like any good liberal, he calls on us to give our money while he squanders his own on bling. But I guess his little Fiat makes up for it all.

[classhandicapper]

Good selective use of quotes. You'd make a great political attack consultant. ;)

First, let me say I have way less of a problem with what he says and does on spiritual matters than economics. I know way more about economics and business than he does and he knows way more about God than me. So I'll
defer on the latter. But I'll try to clarify what the objections are about on spiritual matters.

1. Not all masses were in Latin back in the 60 and 70s. When I was a boy in the 60s there were masses in English, Polish (I lived in a primarily Polish parish), and Latin. You could pick and choose. They made an effort to assign priests to parishes just so they could serve the local community in the language they understood. Also, at that time, some young Catholics were educated in Latin. Almost none are now. It was actually better back then.

2. The problem with the new rules on annulments is not that he tried to streamline the process. That was a good idea. It's that he set an arbitrary amount of time to complete the process even though some cases are too complicated to be settled so quickly. So many will get the annulment even if according to tradition they should not. That means he has weakened the process and made the rules more laxed.

3. I have no problem with forgiving women that have had abortions and neither does the Catholic Church. The Church has forgiven that sin ALL ALONG. The change involved WHO can forgive such a "mortal" sin. My understanding is that previously, only a Bishop (or I guess Cardinal) could forgive an "abortion" and only if that Bishop was totally convinced the woman was sorry and had returned to God. The Pope has turned that power over to all priests without a consultation with the Bishops about whether that makes sense in the US. He has essentially arbitrarily reduced the severity of that sin and turned the judgement over to many priests (some of which will forgive everyone regardless of whether they are actually sorry or likely to do it again). I can definitely see how many Catholics might have an issue with that.

IMO, here's the issue summed up.

The idea is to get people back to the Church because they believe the church's teachings are correct and based on eternal truths from God. This guy seems to be trying to get them back by softening the rules and making it easier to be a member.

If you can change the rules midstream just to be more popular, that means they were not eternal truths to begin with. Hence, I can conclude that if I disagree with the Church I can do whatever the hell I want because I think the Church is wrong and just hasn't figured that out yet. That is moral relativism - which imho is the religion of the devil (if there is such a thing). :lol: For example, I think the Church is wrong on birth control in the modern world and will eventually figure that out. But they better come up with a damn good reason for changing course other than popularity .

[TJDave]

Most Christians believe the same thing.

I won't argue the politics except to say that it's always best to 'teach a man to fish'.

My comments were about acts not beliefs. I believe this man to possess a truly charitable soul...a righteous person. I know that 'traditionalists' probably have theological problems with him. Radicals and protestant conservatives probably consider him the antichrist.

Which makes me like him more. ;)

[mostpost]

2. Some would have us create as much new wealth as possible, invest and use it as efficiently as possible to create opportunities for others, try to guide people to make decisions that are more likely to lead to positive results, and invest in people so they can take care of themselves. Then only whoever "legitimately" falls through the cracks is cared for.

I'm trying to figure out what you mean here. This is what it sounds like to me.
You invest your money into a business. That business is successful and makes a profit. So you take that money and invest in another business, perhaps a startup. You use your expertise-so called to advise the owner of that business. In your world, the more successful businesses there are the better. True to a large degree. The problem comes in how you define a successful business and what you do to achieve that goal.

The first thing that is always done when business goes bad is to cut staff. Then you cut benefits. Then you cut salaries. You also curtail the power of unions. What is the result of that? Look at WalMart. No unions equals low wages equals more people on food stamps and other entitlements.
Here is a clue. Trickle down does not work.

[TJDave]

This guy seems to be trying to get them back by softening the rules and making it easier to be a member.

Christianity has been doing this since its inception. Circumcision was the first culprit. ;)

[Grits]

I won't argue the politics except to say that it's always best to 'teach a man to fish'.

My comments were about acts not beliefs. I believe this man to possess a truly charitable soul...a righteous person. I know that 'traditionalists' probably have theological problems with him. Radicals and protestant conservatives probably consider him the antichrist.

Which makes me like him more. ;)

Me, too. :)

"I ask you all please to pray for me. If there are among you any who don't believe or can't pray, send good wishes my way."

--Pope Francis, Washington, DC September 24, 2015

So humble, so inclusive of all.

[Fager Fan]

Wal Mart is never lacking employees. I don't know why they're always the whipping boy.

If someone is paid low wages there is a reason. It's called lack of skills that make you better and worth more as an employee than others.

[classhandicapper]

I'm trying to figure out what you mean here. This is what it sounds like to me.
You invest your money into a business. That business is successful and makes a profit. So you take that money and invest in another business, perhaps a startup. You use your expertise-so called to advise the owner of that business. In your world, the more successful businesses there are the better. True to a large degree. The problem comes in how you define a successful business and what you do to achieve that goal.

The first thing that is always done when business goes bad is to cut staff. Then you cut benefits. Then you cut salaries. You also curtail the power of unions. What is the result of that? Look at WalMart. No unions equals low wages equals more people on food stamps and other entitlements.
Here is a clue. Trickle down does not work.

Here is what I think.

1. Companies justify their existence by earning an adequate rate of return on their investments. If business softens, typically you have to cut costs and get expenses back in line with revenue to stay in business. It's not pretty, but the alternative is often even greater loss of jobs.

2. If a management is abusing workers, reducing the quality of products and services, etc.. to produce ABOVE AVERAGE rates of return, I would define that as unhealthy greed. We have a lot of that now. Long term, IMO there will be costs to those businesses that will make them less successful. The best employees will leave. Consumers will go to the competitor etc.. But markets take time. We have to change the way people think. We have to make them feel a sense of responsibility to workers and customers and not just shareholders. But I don't want laws to force it. That would be a terrible idea. I want a leader (like our president) that understands it all to try to change the thinking, but not by making business the enemy or using class warfare for political gain. Business is good. Some people, not so much.

2. I was initially a fan of globalization but I'm not now. Globalization is great if you own shares in global businesses or if you think of yourself as a global citizen that is just as concerned about the jobs and incomes of other countries as you are of your own. Since we've gone down that path the stock market has done fabulously and we've raised the standard of living of many countries in the world as the jobs left the US in search of cheaper labor, lower taxes, or fewer regulations. The problem is we gutted the US middle class along the way while other countries were getting richer. The upper middle class and rich that owned shares got much wealthier but a boatload of people in the US got killed because local businesses could not compete. IMO in the very very long term we are doing the right thing. Everyone will get richer this way. But screw that. A lot of us will be dead by then and I'm an American. We need way better trade deals that take these things into account. We can't keep screwing American workers.

[mostpost]

2. The problem with the new rules on annulments is not that he tried to streamline the process. That was a good idea. It's that he set an arbitrary amount of time to complete the process even though some cases are too complicated to be settled so quickly. So many will get the annulment even if according to tradition they should not. That means he has weakened the process and made the rules more laxed.
Where did you get that information? Never mind, I know. You got it from Andrew Napolitano and he is wrong.

Fair annulment trials are costly and time consuming, often taking years from the initial filing to the final appeal. Until now. Last week, Pope Francis arbitrarily ordered the entire process to be completed in 45 days or fewer. For contested matters, a fair trial in 45 days is impossible. So, to meet his deadline, more annulments will be granted administratively, not on the merits.

In the first place, the Pope did not say the process should be completed in 45 days or fewer. He said the case should be heard within that time frame.
More importantly, the new rules do not apply to contested cases. They apply to cases in which the facts are morally certain and the two parties agree. The Bishop in each diocese has the option to make an administrative judgement should he deem such action appropriate. But those judgements, whether made by the judge or the bishop will always be based on Canon law which has not changed.

Cases in which the facts are not clear or in which one of the parties is contesting the annulment are not changed, except that there is now only one trial instead of an automatic two before different judges.

I am not certain of this part, but it seems there must be an appeals process. As I interpret this, previously you had to go through two separate trials before you could enter the appeals process. Now you only have to go through one. Again, I am not sure.

[classhandicapper]

Christianity has been doing this since its inception. Circumcision was the first culprit. ;)

I hated that change as a baby. :eek:

[classhandicapper]

Where did you get that information? Never mind, I know. You got it from Andrew Napolitano and he is wrong.

Fair annulment trials are costly and time consuming, often taking years from the initial filing to the final appeal. Until now. Last week, Pope Francis arbitrarily ordered the entire process to be completed in 45 days or fewer. For contested matters, a fair trial in 45 days is impossible. So, to meet his deadline, more annulments will be granted administratively, not on the merits.

In the first place, the Pope did not say the process should be completed in 45 days or fewer. He said the case should be heard within that time frame.
More importantly, the new rules do not apply to contested cases. They apply to cases in which the facts are morally certain and the two parties agree. The Bishop in each diocese has the option to make an administrative judgement should he deem such action appropriate. But those judgements, whether made by the judge or the bishop will always be based on Canon law which has not changed.

Cases in which the facts are not clear or in which one of the parties is contesting the annulment are not changed, except that there is now only one trial instead of an automatic two before different judges.

I am not certain of this part, but it seems there must be an appeals process. As I interpret this, previously you had to go through two separate trials before you could enter the appeals process. Now you only have to go through one. Again, I am not sure.

If you are correct, that doesn't sound too bad to me.

[Tor Ekman]

Another theologian, I see.You obviously know little about the workings of the men belonging to the Society of Jesus. Their mission long ago strayed from the Catholics church's primary purpose of striving to ensure that each person has the means of reaching the eternal life of God after death. The mission of the Jesuits is all about the here and now on Earth, lock step with Marxists, in preaching liberation theology. Go examine the result of their "good works" in Nicaragua.

[TJDave]

You obviously know little about the workings of the men belonging to the Society of Jesus.

Among my friends are Catholics educated at Jesuit Universities. They are smart, tolerant, engaging, generous and loyal. Not a Marxist in the lot.

[Tor Ekman]

Among my friends are Catholics educated at Jesuit Universities. They are smart, tolerant, engaging, generous and loyal. Not a Marxist in the lot.
Your friends educated at a Jesuit university (as was I) are not themselves members of the Society of Jesus. Delve into the recent history of Jesuit priests and you'll be surprised at what this lot has wrought.

[hcap]

There is a difference between nitwits in Washington expressing their views and nitwits from the Vatican expressing their views. Washington is almost universally held in contempt (and should be). The other gives voice to over a billion people and should shut his mouth unless he knows the subject matter well.

I don't really care what you think. You have no impact on me. I care what the Pope thinks because some people are not informed enough to understand he doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to business and economics. He will do further damage if people listen to him.

The reality is that he's generally right that the system is not working for everyone. But like most liberals, he does not understand the system well enough to correctly diagnose the disease and how to cure it. So he is recommending medicine that will kill the patient instead of bringing it back to health.

Our system is like the goose that lays golden eggs.

Liberals like you and the Pope see hungry people and want to kill the goose so you can feed them. You are stuck in your righty political time warp. You take as a given self evident truth your political and economic opinions. Just as you do with climate change and Muslim stereotyping.

You totally miss the larger context. And although many conservative Christians and Catholics interpret, or as I think, "twist" the humanitarian and compassionate message of Christ, and all major religions, into a parody of trickle down economics and Ayn Rand morality(The Virtue of Selfishness), there is an absolute valid case to be made for social justice in Christianity and Cathlocism (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c2a3.htm) Within the bounds of social justice what Francis has said is perfectly acceptable. The conservative echo chamber just hates the Pope's rather liberal social justice humanitarian views. Tough.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/why-pope-francis-sounds-like-a-democrat/407023/

Why Pope Francis Sounds Like a Democrat

Religion writers never tire of reminding us that, as revolutionary as Francis may appear, he actually believes the same things as previous popes. Like his predecessors, Francis is a social conservative who opposes abortion and same-sex marriage. And like Francis, previous popes opposed war and called for helping the poor. If this pontiff seems different, these writers insist, it’s because media outlets have amplified certain stances while downplaying others, or because he has shifted the Church’s emphasis without changing its doctrine.

But what makes Francis different is really a matter of which Catholic beliefs he has elevated to the level of communal concerns—public policy—and which he has framed as individual choices. To Francis, sharing wealth and fixing global warming are matters that governments should address, while not committing homosexual acts or having abortions are individual choices he endorses. (As he famously put it: “Who am I to judge?”) This is quite different from the American Catholic church, which has poured its political energy into laws banning gay marriage and restricting abortion. (The church, often through the Knights of Columbus, was one of the largest funders of anti-gay-marriage ballot initiatives, particularly post-2008, when the Mormons largely stopped funding them.)

The pope’s speech at the White House on Wednesday fit this framework. When it came to religious liberty, a hot-button issue for American conservatives, Francis extolled its virtues in the abstract. But in the case of climate, Francis called for government action: “Mr. President, I find it encouraging that you are proposing an initiative for reducing air pollution,” he said.

[hcap]

/Gc-LJ_3VbUA :lol: :lol: :lol:

[hcap]

More on conservatives belief that their philosophy is a "given self evident TRUTH".

http://www.salon.com/2015/09/24/elizabeth_warren_demolishes_the_myth_of_trickle_do wn_economics_that_is_going_to_destroy_our_country_ unless_we_take_our_country_back/

“I do remember trickle-down economics!” Colbert said. “Rich guys like me, you cut my taxes, and then I spend more and eventually it trickles down to the people who don’t make the kind of money I do.”

Then Warren burst Colbert’s bubble:

“Except the last part never worked. So, what trickle-down economics was all about was saying to the rich and powerful, the government will help you get richer and more powerful… So starting in 1980 when it was all about ‘fire the cops,’ it was called deregulation, cut taxes for those at the top, which means there was less to invest on education, on infrastructure, on basic research. So, what’s happened from 1980 to 2012 … the answer is the 90 percent, everybody not the top ten percent, how much of the growth did they get? That GDP kept going up. How much of the income growth did they get? And the answer is zero! None. Not a bit.”

At this point, the audience was dead silent. Warren continued:

“One hundred percent of income growth in this country since the 1980s has gone to the top ten percent and that’s not only wrong, that is going to destroy our country unless we take our country back!”

The audience went wild.

This is the same kind of populist rhetoric we’ve come to expect from Warren, but with Senator Bernie Sanders overfilling auditoriums on a message of income inequality, the fight for fairness increases in intensity. Some day, they could even ask a question about it at a republican presidential debate!

Watch Senator Warren below:

/K9gW3XQ0wZU?t=106

[classhandicapper]

You are stuck in your righty political time warp. You take as a given self evident truth your political and economic opinions. Just as you do with climate change and Muslim stereotyping.


You don't have to agree with me. I don't want your approval. My positions are well thought out. What I want is for people like you to stay out of my life.

[classhandicapper]

"Trickle Down" economics DID work. We would be in even worse shape if we l had higher taxes.

The reasons we are in position are:

1. The fall of communism was a wonderful thing in one way, but it also had huge economic implications for workers in the USA. It added billions of new workers to the labor force and put US workers in direct competition with people that were bright, hard working, and desperate for the jobs and life of the west. That put significant downward pressure on wages at home. That process is ongoing.

2. Both political parties made horrible trade deals that further gutted our manufacturing base and many of the good jobs that built the middle class in the US. That process is ongoing.

3. We have a flawed monetary system that is used bail out Wall St and to fund our irresponsible federal government. Artificially low interest rates and printed money transfer wealth from middle class savers to Wall St and the economic elite. Most people don't understand this. They've been miseducated to think the Federal Reserve brings stability to the economy. It's actually a mechanism for socializing the risk of banking on the backs of the middle class and taxing citizens without them knowing it. If people would understand that one thing, we could make the world a better place. I say this as someone that has benefited on one end (as an investor) and taken in the butt on the other end (as a saver).

If our taxes were a lot higher, the "gutting" process would have been even worse and we'd have even fewer jobs and less investment in the US.

[hcap]

"Trickle Down" economics DID work. We would be in even worse shape if we l had higher taxes.

The reasons we are in position are:

1. The fall of communism was a wonderful thing in one way, but it also had huge economic implications for workers in the USA. It added billions of new workers to the labor force and put US workers in direct competition with people that were bright, hard working, and desperate for the jobs and life of the west. That put significant downward pressure on wages at home. That process is ongoing.

2. Both political parties made horrible trade deals that further gutted our manufacturing base and many of the good jobs that built the middle class in the US. That process is ongoing.

3. We have a flawed monetary system that is used bail out Wall St and to fund our irresponsible federal government. Artificially low interest rates and printed money transfer wealth from middle class savers to Wall St and the economic elite. Most people don't understand this. They've been miseducated to think the Federal Reserve brings stability to the economy. It's actually a mechanism for socializing the risk of banking on the backs of the middle class and taxing citizens without them knowing it. If people would understand that one thing, we could make the world a better place. I say this as someone that has benefited on one end (as an investor) and taken in the butt on the other end (as a saver).

If our taxes were a lot higher, the "gutting" process would have been even worse and we'd have even fewer jobs and less investment in the US.All of this has been debated 100's of times here and thousands of times out there. There is no "proof" for any of this no matter how many times you jump up and down and insist there is. Nor am I interested in re-visiting your theories except to point out the Pope based on OBVIOUS religious and particularly Catholic views of social justice, has a convincing and compassionate case to be made against what many feel are the abuses of free market capitalism. And it's built in bias for the very rich.

Once again your comment about "trashing" him can not be supported on religious grounds, only on political and economic grounds. THAT IS ONLY YOUR political and economic grounds.

All of your libertarian websites and articles mean squat.

[classhandicapper]

All of this has been debated 100's of times here and thousands of times out there. There is no "proof" for any of this no matter how many times you jump up and down and insist there is. Nor am I interested in re-visiting your theories except to point out the Pope based on OBVIOUS religious and particularly Catholic views of social justice, has a convincing and compassionate case to be made against what many feel are the abuses of free market capitalism. And it's built in bias for the very rich.

Once again your comment about "trashing" him can not be supported on religious grounds, only on political and economic grounds. THAT IS ONLY YOUR political and economic grounds.

All of your libertarian websites and articles mean squat.

No proof? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Where the hell do you think all those jobs went and why?

Do you think all left because their taxes were too low in the US? :lol: :lol: :lol:

I agree with you that my criticisms are mostly on economic grounds. I have a clue and he got his experience in one of the most corrupt 3rd world countries in our hemisphere. He has no clue how to achieve what it is he'd like to accomplish. If anything, it's the policies he is promoting that helped turn Argentina back into a mess after some progress.

[delayjf]

“Except the last part never worked. So, what trickle-down economics was all about was saying to the rich and powerful, the government will help you get richer and more powerful… So starting in 1980 when it was all about ‘fire the cops,’ it was called deregulation, cut taxes for those at the top, which means there was less to invest on education, on infrastructure, on basic research. So, what’s happened from 1980 to 2012 … the answer is the 90 percent, everybody not the top ten percent, how much of the growth did they get? That GDP kept going up. How much of the income growth did they get? And the answer is zero! None. Not a bit.”

So basically Warren is saying that the bottom 90% make the same wages they made in 1980 - Prove it.

[LottaKash]

If anything, it's the policies he is promoting that helped turn Argentina back into a mess after some progress.

That is, who he is, a Jesuit, and that is what they do.... :eek:

[hcap]

No proof? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Where the hell do you think all those jobs went and why?

Do you think all left because their taxes were too low in the US? :lol: :lol: :lol:

I agree with you that my criticisms are mostly on economic grounds. I have a clue and he got his experience in one of the most corrupt 3rd world countries in our hemisphere. He has no clue how to achieve what it is he'd like to accomplish. If anything, it's the policies he is promoting that helped turn Argentina back into a mess after some progress.I am not going to get involved with the jobs issue. It has been debated many, many, times. I said "the Pope based on OBVIOUS religious and particularly Catholic views of social justice, has a convincing and compassionate case to be made against what many feel are the abuses of free market capitalism. And it's built in bias for the very rich.

Inequality is a question of social justice. Ayn Rand's concept of the "nobleness" of selfishness has been a mainstay of conservatism, and a polar opposite to the Church's stand on the poor.

http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catholic-social-teaching/option-for-the-poor-and-vulnerable.cfm
A basic moral test is how our most vulnerable members are faring. In a society marred by deepening divisions between rich and poor, our tradition recalls the story of the Last Judgment (Mt 25:31-46) and instructs us to put the needs of the poor and vulnerable first.

There have been many Church statements on the poor before Francis
Encyclical statements on poverty.
http://www.catholicsocialteaching.org.uk/themes/human-dignity/resources/encyclical-statements-poverty-2/

However I doubt Francis is a threat to regulated Capitalism. Neither was Teddy Roosevelt, :lol: Btw in contrast to the 19th Century, the US already operates on a much-diluted form of pure capitalism. Our markets are not free; they are highly regulated.
So what?

[hcap]

So basically Warren is saying that the bottom 90% make the same wages they made in 1980 - Prove it.

...But a look at five decades’ worth of government wage data suggests that the better question might be, why should now be any different? For most U.S. workers, real wages — that is, after inflation is taken into account — have been flat or even falling for decades, regardless of whether the economy has been adding or subtracting jobs.

Cash money isn’t the only way workers are compensated, of course — health insurance, retirement-account contributions, education and transit subsidies and other benefits all can be part of the package. But wages and salaries are the biggest (about 70%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics) and most visible component of employee compensation.



http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2014/10/Wage_stagnation.png

[Tom]

If you listen to this Pope, we would all be living a Christ-like life.
REALLY Christ-like - sandals, no electricity, living off goats........
Maybe YOU want to live in a cave or a hut (maybe you could bunk with Obama's brother?).

There is only one viable way of life - capitalism.
Look where all those people the Pope want us to take in come from.
Now look where he wants them to go.

You and Pope-Eye thing the the remedy to capitalism is to find shelter for everyone in a capitalist country??????

You both been sipping the Communal Wine?:lol::lol::lol:

[hcap]

I am not a Christian, nor Catholic. It is evident from this website consisting overwhelmingly of conservatives and Christians, you gents got your hands full. Too bad. :lol:

I am glad to see the squirm. :cool:



.

[Tom]

Good thing you like squirming, especially when you hear St. Peter say,"Harry, you got some 'splainin to do!" :lol::lol::lol:

Looks you might be right about global warming after all.....YOUR future certainly has a lot of HEAT in it! :lol::lol::lol:

[hcap]

Good thing you like squirming, especially when you hear St. Peter say,"Harry, you got some 'splainin to do!" :lol::lol::lol:

Looks you might be right about global warming after all.....YOUR future certainly has a lot of HEAT in it! :lol::lol::lol:As do the repug presidential candidates. Hey! I have an great idea, get John Boehner up there with all those other geniuses now that he is out of work. Maybe FOX can introduce a new debate feature. Ya know like a beauty contest, the talent segment. :lol: :lol: Boehner can sing "Cry me a River" , then The Donald can emcee, or fire him.

That way we can have another totally boring thread by the cons on this board about their pathetic candidates until election night. :lol:

St Peter and Christian stuff 'bout hell is a Christians concern, not mine. Jews and Buddhists do not have a "gate" above or below.

Squirm some more. :cool:

[reckless]

I just love it when the lunatics on the left become unhinged because conservatives balk about the liberal phoniness that is forced down our throats on an hourly basis.

This Papal visit is just the latest case where these goof-balls just can't seem to understand why conservatives are upset and not in lock step with this Pope.

Why should conservative Roman Catholics have an issue with this Pope, they ask, anyway?

Here are just a couple of obvious reasons why: Francis visited Marxist murderers, Fidel and Raul Castro, and said not one word to them about all the Catholics in Cuba imprisioned, tortured and murdered by these two icons of the left. Nor did he ask about the millions stolen by the Castro boys these past 55-60 years that created an 1% lifestyle for themselves while the rest of Cuba live in filth, poverty and sickness.

This Pope just spoke to our Congress and basically said the USA was the worst country on earth! That we have destroyed the earth and its stolen its resources, that we don't do enough for the poor, the uneducated, the sick, etc. etc.

A big fat politically motivated Papal lie.

This great USA has been the only country on earth to make this world free of Nazis, Communists and assorted dictators. We've almost single-handedly have saved the entire world from various dangers, fed the hungry, cured the sick, created wealth for those that sought it, and most importantly, have given freedom and hope to millions of people for 200+ years.

Did this Pope say anything these past few days -- or ever -- in outrage against these Muslim s-bags that behead and murder Christians in the Middle East on a daily basis? No he hasn't.

As a practicing Catholic, and one educated at a major Jesuit college, this Pope Francis could go to hell.

[Tor Ekman]

Not to mention performing Mass under the gaze of a murderous thug and symbols of a despotic regime. Can you say hypocrite?

http://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/resource_56017d31ea00a.jpg

[FantasticDan]

This Pope just spoke to our Congress and basically said the USA was the worst country on earth! That we have destroyed the earth and its stolen its resources, that we don't do enough for the poor, the uneducated, the sick, etc. etc. A big fat politically motivated Papal lie.I skimmed the transcript of his speech to Congress, and I was very surprised that I could not find any such references to the claims you made above.

Since you're more familiar with it than I (or why else you would have made such claims), perhaps you could review the transcript yourself and quote back some of the objectionable Anti-American rhetoric?

Thanks! :ThmbUp:

Transcript (http://www.npr.org/2015/09/24/443155716/listen-the-popes-speech-to-congress)

[horses4courses]

If you listen to this Pope, we would all be living a Christ-like life.
REALLY Christ-like - sandals, no electricity, living off goats........
Maybe YOU want to live in a cave or a hut (maybe you could bunk with Obama's brother?).

There is only one viable way of life - capitalism.
Look where all those people the Pope want us to take in come from.
Now look where he wants them to go.

You and Pope-Eye thing the the remedy to capitalism is to find shelter for everyone in a capitalist country??????

You both been sipping the Communal Wine?:lol::lol::lol:

Just over 2015 years ago, you might have posted:
If you listen to this Jesus Christ......
Just substitute Pope for JC. Says it all.

Your usual double standards, chimp.
Save all the month old fetuses, but ignore the poor and needy. :ThmbDown:

[classhandicapper]

It's not that this Pope cares about the poor and needy that is the issue. EVERY Christian is taught that same lesson as a child. The issue is that he does not understand how to create the very wealth we need to do that. He see's a goose laying golden eggs, but his economic philosophy would kill it trying to feed the masses.

Here is a brilliant mind that has experienced both that gets it!

Garry Kasparov ‏@Kasparov63 3h3 hours ago
Capitalism is the greatest destroyer of poverty in world history and socialism its greatest creator, rivaling war.

Garry Kasparov ‏@Kasparov63 3h3 hours ago
Economic inequality is a huge problem, but the free market has not failed us. We have failed the free market with "too big to fail" mindset.

Garry Kasparov ‏@Kasparov63 3h3 hours ago
We'll keep fighting over smaller pieces of a shrinking economic pie (the rich winning) unless we grow new industry with risk & innovation.

[cj's dad]

I will be glad when this is over. The Price is Right has been interrupted 3 days in a row.

[delayjf]

but ignore the poor and needy.

Seriously, Name one other country besides the US that has done more for the poor.

[zico20]

Just over 2015 years ago, you might have posted:
If you listen to this Jesus Christ......
Just substitute Pope for JC. Says it all.

Your usual double standards, chimp.
Save all the month old fetuses, but ignore the poor and needy. :ThmbDown:

Exactly how does the Democrats massive tax increases on things like sales, gasoline, property, tobacco, sugary items, Obamacare, etc, help the poor. I just have never figured this one out, and I have been trying to for decades. Can someone explain this to me.

[MutuelClerk]

Yawn.

Tax the churches.

[Tom]

Just over 2015 years ago, you might have posted:
If you listen to this Jesus Christ......
Just substitute Pope for JC. Says it all.

If I did, it make no sense to anyone but you, and we all know why that is. :sleeping:
Jesus did not talk about global warming.

Run along, now, you need to stock up on bread for the wave of southern immigrants you will obviously be taking in, seeing how much you listen to the Pope.

[Greyfox]

Jesus did not talk about global warming.
.

You're right. He spoke more about afterlife warming, (very warm).

[davew]

Exactly how does the Democrats massive tax increases on things like sales, gasoline, property, tobacco, sugary items, Obamacare, etc, help the poor. I just have never figured this one out, and I have been trying to for decades. Can someone explain this to me.

more money to give the poor - then when that is not enough because everything costs more, repeat again and again - remember to take enough for yourself...

[hcap]

It's not that this Pope cares about the poor and needy that is the issue. EVERY Christian is taught that same lesson as a child. The issue is that he does not understand how to create the very wealth we need to do that. He see's a goose laying golden eggs, but his economic philosophy would kill it trying to feed the masses
Once again your theories on politics and trickle down economics is
not a given self evident truth.

And for the 100th time....

There is no "proof" for the literal joke** of Reaganomics, no matter how many times you jump up and down with your fingers stuck in your ears and eyes closed tightly, and insist there is. :sleeping: :sleeping:


**the phrase trickle down was actually coined by American humorist Will Rogers, who mocked President Herbert Hoover’s Depression-era recovery efforts, saying that "money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes it would trickle down to the needy."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/06/rich-richer_n_4731408.html

Conservatives like to say that "a rising tide lifts all boats." In other words, if an executive makes $20 million a year, his income will eventually trickle down into the rest of the economy and ultimately benefit poor people.

But that theory hasn't exactly proven true. The highest-earning 20 percent of Americans have been making more and more over the past 40 years. Yet no other boats have risen; in fact, they're sinking. Over the same 40 years, the lowest-earning 60 percent of Americans have been making less and less.

Imagine the lines below as tides. As you can see, one is rising, while the others are falling (and one is stagnant):

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2014-02-05-FiveQuintilesIncome.jpg

The chart comes from the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality's recently released 2014 report. The researchers looked at rising poverty and inequality in the U.S., particularly since the 2007-2008 recession.

Other studies have shown a correlation between bigger tax cuts for the 1 percent and income inequality. In the U.S., the top earners have made more money in the last 60 years as the top marginal tax rate has been slashed and as the rising dominance of Wall Street has allowed a few to make enormous profits.

An OECD study in 2013 found that the U.S. had the highest income inequality in the developed world. Out of all nations, only Chile, Mexico and Turkey had higher levels of income inequality, according to the study.

So what does this all mean in actual dollars? It means that more than half of U.S. wage earners made less than $30,000 in 2012, which is not far above the $27,010 federal poverty line for a family of five. Meanwhile, the top 10 percent of earners took more than half of the country's total income in 2012.

In other words, a rising tide has lifted a few big boats and washed the rest aside.

****************************************
http://www.psmag.com/business-economics/trickle-down-economics-is-indeed-a-joke

**The IMF Confirms That 'Trickle-Down' Economics Is, Indeed, a Joke
Like, an actual joke.

Rogers’ joke became economic dogma within two generations, thanks in large part to Reagan. At the center of Reagan’s economic doctrine was the idea that economic gains primarily benefiting the wealthy—investors, businesses, entrepreneurs, and the like—will "trickle-down" to poorer members of society, creating new opportunities for the economically disadvantaged to attain a better standard of living. Prosperity for the rich leads to prosperity for all, the logic goes, so let’s hurry up with those tax cuts already. The legacy of Reaganomics continues to shape modern debates over macroeconomic policy in the United States, from the Bush tax cuts of the mid-2000s to the deficit hawks waging war over the federal budget in Congress.

Now, nearly 80 years later, Rogers’ quip is getting the punchline it deserves: A devastating new report (https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2015/sdn1513.pdf) from the International Monetary Fund has declared the idea of "trickle-down" economics to be as much a joke as he'd imagined.

[hcap]

The original trickle down theroy even before Will Rogers joked about Herbert Hoover and coined that phrase, was called....... :lol: :lol: :lol:

The economist John Kenneth Galbraith noted that "trickle-down economics" had been tried before in the United States in the 1890s under the name "horse and sparrow theory." :lol: :lol: He wrote, "Mr. David Stockman has said that supply-side economics was merely a cover for the trickle-down approach to economic policy—what an older and less elegant generation called the horse-and-sparrow theory: 'If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.'" :lol: :lol: "Galbraith claimed that the horse and sparrow theory was partly to blame for the Panic of 1896.[14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics#Criticisms

From the link

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d1/Distribution-of-average-income-growth-during-expan-1411633032.76-2745898.png/440px-Distribution-of-average-income-growth-during-expan-1411633032.76-2745898.png

Distribution of average income growth between 1949 and 2012. Red - top 10%, Blue - bottom 90%.

[hcap]

Forgot one of the scariest charts

http://images.mic.com/4t05gzq2tt8svutemoaivp7jkiw9sumuyetwttxy5iwig2bm6b gpe8akxt4qzdoi.jpg

http://mic.com/articles/104612/7-charts-show-why-trickle-down-economics-has-been-an-enormous-failure

[hcap]

Historical evidence demonstrates the United States has had some of its strongest periods of economic growth while taxes were high. As the following graph shows, some of our most robust periods of growth in gross domestic product (GDP) actually occurred while taxes were very high:

http://www.decisionsonevidence.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Marginal-Tax-Rates-and-GDP-Growth.png

http://www.decisionsonevidence.com/2011/10/do-tax-cuts-and-trickle-down-economics-work-for-america/

[rastajenk]

I like the Pope's choice of vehicles: a Fiat Pop(e) 500L. I got one of those, without the L, so I got that goin' for me, which is nice.

[Tom]

I believe the Pope's admonishments of world leaders was at the UN.

You know, the Useless Nations.

[ebcorde]

to know the conservatives are incorrect. All I need are examples of Conservative success. Name one country they can refer to as a success of conservative ways? that shuts them up. Same with healthcare, do we see any western nation complaining about their universal healthcare? NO.


When you're in Cathedral in Philly, please speak English, except for the Pope, ONLY he gets a pass. The Catholic Church has a big problem, I like the Pope, but they're sexist, and I submit there is a some connection between failed Latin States and the Catholic Church

[rastajenk]

Name one country they can refer to as a success of conservative waysThe U S of A. Next question?

[boxcar]

A better article on this Pope

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/09/andrew-p-napolitano/is-the-pope-a-false-prophet/

A much better article because of its truthfulness!

It's no wonder so many Protestants believe the coming antichrist or false prophet will emerge from the Vatican. Like this feel-good, moral relativist pope,either of them will have to wear two hats by waxing religious and secular all at once and simultaneously in order to win the favor of this lost, dark world and get the lost to follow after "the beast".

[boxcar]

“My hope,” he wrote in Evangelii Gaudium, “is that we will be moved by the fear of remaining shut up within structures which give us a false sense of security, within rules which make us harsh judges, within habits which make us feel safe, while at our door people are starving and Jesus does not tire of saying to us: ‘Give them something to eat.’”

He acts like I believe a Christian should. I like this guy.

No, he acts far more like the antichrist he is! If he truly behaved as a Christian, he would empty the Vatican's treasuries, sell all the Vatican's possessions, follow Christ and give the money to the poor. But this hypocritical pope won't do that because he thinks he's above his Master who often didn't even have a place to lay his weary head. But I tell you a truth: This pope has his reward in this life like the Rich Man in Hades did but many of the poor will have their eternal reward like poor Lazarus has.
This describes the RCC to a T:

Rev 3:14-18
The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this: 15 'I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I would that you were cold or hot. 16 'So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth. 17 'Because you say, "I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing," and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked, 18 I advise you to buy from Me gold refined by fire, that you may become rich, and white garments, that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and eye salve to anoint your eyes, that you may see.
NASB

[boxcar]

Not true - not having been baptized, they all have Original Sin.
Perhaps instead of bowing to the murders, he could have addressed the victims.

This Pope is looney tunes off base.
The lineage to Peter has been seriously stretched here.
Hard to accept him as the Vicar Of God on Earth.

Much more likely the vicar of the god of this world (2Cor 4:4).

[boxcar]

Christianity has been doing this since its inception. Circumcision was the first culprit. ;)

Actually, Christ made it more difficult since true circumcision, under the New Covenant, is the one done without human hands on the hearts of people. Very few people are willing to submit to that kind of circumcision, including yourself.

[ebcorde]

The U S of A. Next question?

wow. The founding fathers were not conservatives.

[boxcar]

St Peter and Christian stuff 'bout hell is a Christians concern, not mine. Jews and Buddhists do not have a "gate" above or below.

Squirm some more. :cool:

But that is only because non-Christian Jews and Buddhists are self-deceived. Their time to squirm is coming.

[ebcorde]

The U S of A. Next question?

I was thinking more like Somalia. No healthcare, No taxes, Every man for himself. Just the way you people like it, No taxes.

[boxcar]

Seriously, Name one other country besides the US that has done more for the poor.

All the Buddhist countries! Ask Hcap. He'll fill you in with charts and graphs.

[classhandicapper]

Once again your theories on politics and trickle down economics is
[B][I]not a given self evident truth.



You are right.

There is no way to prove that companies and jobs have been leaving the US since the fall of communism and due to faulty trade deals because of various combinations of the labor supply being much greater now, the wages being cheaper elsewhere, the regulations being more relaxed, the taxes being lower etc... That requires common sense and a basic understanding of business.

But only an idiot would think they have been leaving because we cut their US taxes to try to keep the investment here instead.

You are making another basic stats error.

You can't look at just tax policy and economic results and conclude anything because you haven't isolated the impact of that tax policy from everything else that was going on the world that contributed to job creation,, incomes, etc..

All your charts are meaningless. But knowing basic business and asking CEOs why they are leaving is not.

[rastajenk]

I was thinking more like Somalia. No healthcare, No taxes, Every man for himself. Just the way you people like it, No taxes.
Well, then you are thinking wrong.

[ebcorde]

Well, then you are thinking wrong.

Somalia is Heaven for a conservative. No Taxes, No Healthcare and Plenty of Guns. Pack your bags.

[horses4courses]

Somalia is Heaven for a conservative. No Taxes, No Healthcare and Plenty of Guns. Pack your bags.

If you can make it there,
you're gonna make it anywhere......

[hcap]

Once again your theories on politics and trickle down economics is
not a given self evident truth.You are right.
So then please cut the BS about the POPE is not qualified to have an economic opinion when I just demonstrated with many, many sources and charts that he is correct about trickle down being not only ineffective economically, but also an instigator of inequality, and therefore a valid social justice issue, an absolute province of religious and Catholic thought.

The issue up until now has been other than your new wrinkle of"companies leaving the US." You get knocked down and try to wiggle out of prior innacurate statements with new inaccuracies. I could knock you down here also, as I just did on trickle down, but you are no longer worth my time.

Btw, you are even less qualified to opine on economic stats than you are on your stats on stereotyping Muslims or global warming. There is nothing wrong with my stats in all three topics

You just don't like them !! :lol: :lol:

[Tom]

Well, then you are thinking wrong.

You call that thinking? :lol:

[Clocker]

The original trickle down theroy even before Will Rogers joked about Herbert Hoover and coined that phrase, was called....... :lol: :lol: :lol:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics#Criticisms

From the link

From the same link:

Economist Thomas Sowell has made the case that no economist has ever advocated a "trickle-down" theory of economics, which is rather a misnomer attributed to certain economic ideas by political critics who either willfully distort or misunderstand the actual stated goals of their political opponents.

Trickle-down is a political straw man, not an economic theory or policy.

[Clocker]

So then please cut the BS about the POPE is not qualified to have an economic opinion

Anyone is entitled to have an economic opinion. He is not advocating an economic policy, he is advocating a social policy called liberation theology.

It is irresponsible to misrepresent theology as economics in order to sway the voters of other countries.

[Tom]

Trickle-down is a political straw man, not an economic theory or policy.

As was the lie he kept repeating, the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.
And Hillary's ongoing lie,, designed to sway weak minds (which has worked well here!) that she never send any email marked Top Secret, when in fact NO emails are marked with that specific term.

The left is very loose when it comes to truth.
They are high on graphs and colors instead.
Truth is hard to understand, color is a beautiful thing (I know, I know)

[Robert Fischer]

all we can do is pray and hope the Pope answers them

[TJDave]

It is irresponsible to misrepresent theology as economics in order to sway the voters of other countries.

In economic terms, the Catholic church, just in the U.S., spends more than Apple grosses worldwide. The Pope is the CEO of the largest corporation on the planet.

Did I mention zero in taxes?

[LottaKash]

Anyone is entitled to have an economic opinion. He is not advocating an economic policy, he is advocating a social policy called liberation theology.

It is irresponsible to misrepresent theology as economics in order to sway the voters of other countries.

And, that is way too much power and influence for one man to yield, to suit me at least....

He is just a man, nothing more, the secret powers that he thinks he has in his mind, and in the minds of the mindless ones, that think that he is somehow extraordinary in this world, is all made up by man, for man's purpose, and not for the purposes of the deity that they think they serve....

[Clocker]

And, that is way too much power and influence for one man to yield, to suit me at least....

He is just a man, nothing more, the secret powers that he thinks he has in his mind, and in the minds of the mindless ones, that think that he is somehow extraordinary in this world, is all made up by man, for man's purpose

Are you talking about the Pope or the POTUS? :p

[LottaKash]

Are you talking about the Pope or the POTUS? :p

I was referring to PaPa, and not His Majesty, but still, in the idealogy thing of things, they are very close to being identic when it comes to mindset and political ideals... :eek:

Both with a Marxist Agenda...

[classhandicapper]

So then please cut the BS about the POPE is not qualified to have an economic opinion when I just demonstrated with many, many sources and charts that he is correct about trickle down being not only ineffective economically, but also an instigator of inequality, and therefore a valid social justice issue, an absolute province of religious and Catholic thought.

The issue up until now has been other than your new wrinkle of"companies leaving the US." You get knocked down and try to wiggle out of prior innacurate statements with new inaccuracies. I could knock you down here also, as I just did on trickle down, but you are no longer worth my time.

Btw, you are even less qualified to opine on economic stats than you are on your stats on stereotyping Muslims or global warming. There is nothing wrong with my stats in all three topics

You just don't like them !! :lol: :lol:

I've been saying the same things on this subject since the early 90s.

Ross Perot did a good job of explaining it to the public around NAFTA time. You should have listened. You might have learned something. People that actually run businesses will tell you why they do things.

The only thing you keep demonstrating is a lack of understanding of statistics, business, and economics, plus the possession of a strong willingness to post an endless series of politically motivated charts that don't prove the point you are trying to make, without you understanding why.

[mostpost]

I skimmed the transcript of his speech to Congress, and I was very surprised that I could not find any such references to the claims you made above.

Since you're more familiar with it than I (or why else you would have made such claims), perhaps you could review the transcript yourself and quote back some of the objectionable Anti-American rhetoric?

Thanks! :ThmbUp:

Transcript (http://www.npr.org/2015/09/24/443155716/listen-the-popes-speech-to-congress)It seems to me that Reckless did not listen to the speech; nor did he read the transcripts. It seems that he got his information from opinions of what the speech was going to be before it was even given. Opinions which were unfailingly wrong.

Pope Francis, in his address to Congress, talked about personal responsibility and social responsibility. Conservatives are big on personal responsibility, but don't want to hear about social responsibility.

He spoke of the need for legislative activity to satisfy common needs and ensure the growth of the nation. Conservatives hate the idea of government doing anything.

Pope Francis spoke against what he called "Simple reductionism." That is the tendency to reduce everything to simple good or bad. I'm an American. I am good. You are an immigrant. You are bad. I am a Christian. I am good. You are a Muslim. You are bad. I am rich. I am good. You are poor. You are bad. Just read this Forum and you can see how conservatives feel about those ideas.

Francis talked about the effect of unjust structures and conservatives felt he was criticizing capitalism, but here is what he said, “Business is a noble vocation, directed to producing wealth and improving the world. It can be a fruitful source of prosperity for the area in which it operates, especially if it sees the creation of jobs as an essential part of its service to the common good”

Now I know that isn't saying Capitalism is the perfect economic system, totally without flaws, as some here would like to believe. However. it is accurate.

[horses4courses]

It seems to me that Reckless did not listen to the speech; nor did he read the transcripts. It seems that he got his information from opinions of what the speech was going to be before it was even given. Opinions which were unfailingly wrong.

Pope Francis, in his address to Congress, talked about personal responsibility and social responsibility. Conservatives are big on personal responsibility, but don't want to hear about social responsibility.

He spoke of the need for legislative activity to satisfy common needs and ensure the growth of the nation. Conservatives hate the idea of government doing anything.

Pope Francis spoke against what he called "Simple reductionism." That is the tendency to reduce everything to simple good or bad. I'm an American. I am good. You are an immigrant. You are bad. I am a Christian. I am good. You are a Muslim. You are bad. I am rich. I am good. You are poor. You are bad. Just read this Forum and you can see how conservatives feel about those ideas.

Francis talked about the effect of unjust structures and conservatives felt he was criticizing capitalism, but here is what he said, “Business is a noble vocation, directed to producing wealth and improving the world. It can be a fruitful source of prosperity for the area in which it operates, especially if it sees the creation of jobs as an essential part of its service to the common good”

Now I know that isn't saying Capitalism is the perfect economic system, totally without flaws, as some here would like to believe. However. it is accurate.

Well said. :ThmbUp:

Truth is, when you use sound reasoning and make perfect sense,
you can really make yourself unpopular around here............. ;)

[davew]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d1/Distribution-of-average-income-growth-during-expan-1411633032.76-2745898.png/440px-Distribution-of-average-income-growth-during-expan-1411633032.76-2745898.png

Interesting that the only decline (negative on the income growth chart for the bottom 90%) is during 0bamas presidency.

We are so lucky we have such a great president, otherwise who knows how low/bad it would have been...

Is anyone here contributing to help 0bama get his $2 billion for his presidential library?

[horses4courses]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CP7ai3ZWcAAO573.jpg

[mostpost]

You are right.

There is no way to prove that companies and jobs have been leaving the US since the fall of communism and due to faulty trade deals because of various combinations of the labor supply being much greater now, the wages being cheaper elsewhere, the regulations being more relaxed, the taxes being lower etc... That requires common sense and a basic understanding of business.
I don't think you have the basic understanding of business you think you do. I think you have a belief in one theory of business which I find to be faulty. I agree that part of the problem has been trade deals like NAFTA which eliminated common sense protections for our manufacturing. Of course companies have relocated to countries where labor is cheaper, and regulations are less stringent and taxes are lower. But those conditions existed before. The difference now is those companies can sell their goods in the United States without paying import tariffs. Those tariffs should never have been eliminated and should be reinstated.

But only an idiot would think they have been leaving because we cut their US taxes to try to keep the investment here instead.
That above statement is worded very poorly, but here is what I think. NAFTA and such encouraged American business to leave the country because they could find cheaper labor, less regulation and lower taxes in foreign countries. And, they did not have to pay tariffs to return their goods to the USA for sale.

Instead of forcing them to return by restoring the tariffs or by taxing them on income earned abroad, we tried to encourage them to return by lowering taxes here. The effect this had was slow down revenues and increase the debt.

You are making another basic stats error.

You can't look at just tax policy and economic results and conclude anything because you haven't isolated the impact of that tax policy from everything else that was going on the world that contributed to job creation,, incomes, etc..
How about you prove to us that tax policy (higher taxes) did not create prosperity? Here is what I know. In the twenties taxes were low, regulation non existent or at least not enforced. We had a period of false prosperity based on speculation (a bubble). The bubble burst and we had our worst depression. In the early thirties we raised taxes, we established a social safety and we regulated. We began a period of prosperity based on high(er) wages and plentiful jobs. Prosperity creates jobs, but jobs create prosperity.
There was a hiccup in 1937 and 1938 when Roosevelt was persuaded to turn back some of his reforms and we entered another recession. World War II did help to bring about a return to prosperity, but the upturn lasted long beyond the war or the recovery. Then Reagan, and supply side and trickle down came along and the rest is history-bad history.

All your charts are meaningless. But knowing basic business and asking CEOs why they are leaving is not.
Like I said before, you know a flawed theory of business. You know it very well, but that is not a virtue. Asking a CEO anything is like asking Jessie James if he robbed the stagecoach. You will not get an honest answer.

[Greyfox]

Like I said before, you know a flawed theory of business. You know it very well, but that is not a virtue. Asking a CEO anything is like asking Jessie James if he robbed the stagecoach. You will not get an honest answer.

You responded above to classhandicapper in bold print within his own post.
If you had any understanding of business, and in particular marketing, you wouldn't present your arguments that way.
That seems to be a common m.o. for you. Pity. You might have something of value to say, but consumers don't read that type of presentation.

[woodtoo]

You responded above to classhandicapper in bold print within his own post.
If you had any understanding of business, and in particular marketing, you wouldn't present your arguments that way.
That seems to be a common m.o. for you. Pity. You might have something of value to say, but consumers don't read that type of presentation.
Yeah he sounds like the worlds postmaster yelling at everyone.
He thinks he smarter than Obama....well he could be. :lol:

[LottaKash]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CP7ai3ZWcAAO573.jpg

Yes, they are all BS-Artists....

[Tom]

It seems to me that Reckless did not listen to the speech; nor did he read the transcripts. It seems that he got his information from opinions of what the speech was going to be before it was even given. Opinions which were unfailingly wrong.

RIF.

I pointed out earlier that that topic was in the speech at the UN.
Go say 7 Hail Mary's.

[classhandicapper]

Like I said before, you know a flawed theory of business. You know it very well, but that is not a virtue. Asking a CEO anything is like asking Jessie James if he robbed the stagecoach. You will not get an honest answer.

I'm not trying to win a political debate with you. I'm trying to help you understand what's going on. China, eastern Europe etc... opened up when communism fell. Mexico and other places opened up further when the US (both parties) started making trade deals.

Actions speak louder than words.

Ask a bunch of CEOs why they moved their factories to Mexico, China etc... and they will tell you it was because labor was cheaper, regulations were easier to comply with etc...

If you concede that gutting our manufacturing base has hurt middle income workers badly, then you must concede that offsetting any possible income growth from cutting taxes were HUGE SECULAR forces driving wages down in the US.

That's why all your charts are bogus.

They tell us what happened, but they don't tell you why it happened. They are leaving out a once in a century change in the world. That's what all the politicians are missing when they argue these subjects.

When you get to the positive impact of tax cuts, it gets trickier.

If you ask 1000 CEOs (including left wingers like Warren Buffettt) if taxes matter to investment, most will say only marginally. They would be unlikely to make more investments because of a tax cut unless it was down from some oppressive extreme. Warren has said that. Mark Cuban has said that and so have others. That would argue in favor of what you are saying about supply side economics. It's just giving more money to the rich. And to a large extent it is.

HOWEVER, all will also agree that if it's a close choice between making the investment in state "A" or state "B" or country "A" and country "B", tax rates CAN AND OFTEN DO MATTER.

So at the margin, lower taxes must have helped keep some jobs from leaving the US. We just can't isolate how many from all the other factors that impact an economy. We would have to interview every CEO.

You are allowed to argue that cutting taxes on the rich isn't the best way to run an economy. You can argue about tariffs.

But you can't put up charts that don't prove anything and claim they do.

Everyone already knows taxes matter. Even the politicians that lie about it offer tax breaks to companies to keep them or attract them.

[Tom]

Asking a CEO anything is like asking Jessie James if he robbed the stagecoach. You will not get an honest answer.

My, my, what BS you bring here.

[PaceAdvantage]

to know the conservatives are incorrect. All I need are examples of Conservative success. Name one country they can refer to as a success of conservative ways? that shuts them up. Same with healthcare, do we see any western nation complaining about their universal healthcare? NO.


When you're in Cathedral in Philly, please speak English, except for the Pope, ONLY he gets a pass. The Catholic Church has a big problem, I like the Pope, but they're sexist, and I submit there is a some connection between failed Latin States and the Catholic ChurchI'll start naming countries after you start naming one poor US inner city that has transformed itself after DECADES and DECADES of Democrat leadership...

[PaceAdvantage]

I was thinking more like Somalia. No healthcare, No taxes, Every man for himself. Just the way you people like it, No taxes.We love taxes. But only when they're used to fund what the Constitution actually sets the Federal Government up to do...

[mostpost]

RIF.

I pointed out earlier that that topic was in the speech at the UN.
Go say 7 Hail Mary's.
This is what reckless said.
This Pope just spoke to our Congress and basically said the USA was the worst country on earth! That we have destroyed the earth and its stolen its resources, that we don't do enough for the poor, the uneducated, the sick, etc. etc.
That is false. The Pope said nothing of the kind. Nor did he say it at the UN. He did say that we need to be more responsible in how we spend our finite resources. He did say we need to be more charitable in how we treat our less fortunate citizens. I can understand why you and reckless would think that is a terrible thing since neither of you really likes helping anyone.

The Pope is saying we could do better.

[mostpost]

We love taxes. But only when they're used to fund what the Constitution actually sets the Federal Government up to do...
I have explained this over and over. I have now despaired of you ever understanding it. The Constitution does not-is not supposed to address every possible scenario. By your logic Eisenhower should not have built the Interstate highway system because the Constitution does not mention expressways or freeways. We should not have an Air Force because the Constitution does not mention airplanes. ICBM's are illegal. The Constitution says nothing about them. The Constitution authorizes a navy, but says nothing about submarines. I guess we will have to sink them all.

Oh yeah. I don't think you really love taxes.

[mostpost]

I'll start naming countries after you start naming one poor US inner city that has transformed itself after DECADES and DECADES of Democrat leadership...I would say Chicago, but it was always good. It has improved over the years.

The problem with your question is that it is the Republicans who have starved the cities with their foolish ideology.

[hcap]

If you concede that gutting our manufacturing base has hurt middle income workers badly, then you must concede that offsetting any possible income growth from cutting taxes were HUGE SECULAR forces driving wages down in the US.

That's why all your charts are bogus.

They tell us what happened, but they don't tell you why it happened. They are leaving out a once in a century change in the world. That's what all the politicians are missing when they argue these subjects. Globalization no doubt has gutted our manufacturing base and various other industries including IT. But what you are forgetting is that the "free market" is the main driver of globalization, whether both Republicans or Democrats supported it.

....the orthodox recipe for global growth has been embodied in the so-called Washington Consensus. This approach, advocated by the United States and enforced by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), holds that growth is maximized when barriers to the free flow of capital and commerce are dismantled and when individual economies are exposed to the discipline, consumer markets, and entrepreneurs of the world economic system. Proponents of this view have contended that the free-market approach to development will also alleviate poverty, both by raising overall growth rates and by bringing modern capitalism to the world's poorest.

Best laid plans. Etc. Neoliberalism is the failed theory.

Of course the 19th century robber barons and their laissez-faire capitalism were the first instance where globalization reared it's head, but modern day globalization started with Reaganomics based on Neoliberalism
Since the 1980s, the term has been used by scholars in a wide variety of social sciences[3] and critics[4] primarily in reference to the resurgence of 19th century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism. Beginning in the 1970s and 1980s, its advocates supported extensive economic liberalization policies such as privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to enhance the role of the private sector in the economy.[2][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] Neoliberalism is famously associated with the economic policies introduced by Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom and Ronald Reagan in the United States.[5] After WWII, even as the economic changes occurred, however, and despite the re-ignition of Cold War tensions during the some of the Carter and Reagan administrations, ideological shifts occurred that reflected the emerging age of globalization. One was a new international outlook encouraged by better communications, transportation, open borders, deregulation, and the revival of nineteenth-century, laissez-faire liberalism.

So my charts are not wrong. Almost all go back to saint Ronnie. Yes they do reflect job loss going back to Reaganomics and trickle down, and how conservative supply-side voodoo theory got us into this mess.

Again Pope Francis, who has made alleviating poverty a central theme of his papacy, and criticized the “idolatry of money” in the global economy denounced the unfettered free market as the new tyranny, is objecting to unregulated non-humane globalization, not all of capitalism per se.

As the bible says, the love of money is the problem.

[Tom]

I have explained this over and over.

And you will keep doing it until you get it right!

[davew]

I would say Chicago, but it was always good. It has improved over the years.

The problem with your question is that it is the Republicans who have starved the cities with their foolish ideology.


Is it getting better because the bad guys are killing themselves? what about the collateral damage? is there much political corruption there?

[classhandicapper]

Globalization no doubt has gutted our manufacturing base and various other industries including IT. But what you are forgetting is that the "free market" is the main driver of globalization, whether both Republicans or Democrats supported it.



My feelings on globalization are mixed.

If you think in terms of the world, it has been a good thing because we are slowly dragging millions (and eventually billions) of people out of poverty.

If you think in terms of being an American, we are getting screwed out of jobs in a tradeoff for higher corporate profits, higher stock prices, and cheaper goods. That has allowed the rich to get richer but a huge segment of people to get screwed. I think we got the worst of the bargain as a country even though I personally made out well.

On the charts, I'll give you one more example of the problem.

I have a handicapping theory. It says that if a front runner saves ground and slows down the pace it enhances its chances of winning the race. Someone tests it at their home track and it fails badly. They show me all kinds of charts supposedly proving that it failed and that my theory is wrong. I look at the meet and quickly realize he tested it at a track that had a dead rail for virtually the entire meet. Is my theory wrong or was there a rare set of conditions during his test period that overwhelmed the pace and ground loss advantages and distorted the results? It's the latter of course.

[classhandicapper]

I have explained this over and over. I have now despaired of you ever understanding it. The Constitution does not-is not supposed to address every possible scenario. By your logic Eisenhower should not have built the Interstate highway system because the Constitution does not mention expressways or freeways. We should not have an Air Force because the Constitution does not mention airplanes. ICBM's are illegal. The Constitution says nothing about them. The Constitution authorizes a navy, but says nothing about submarines. I guess we will have to sink them all.

Oh yeah. I don't think you really love taxes.

Some categories of spending are subsets of things that are clearly approved by the constitution. You don't need an amendment for every line item of spending within "defense".

The constitution apparently did give the government authority to build interstate highways (at least according to this interpretation), but not to engage in many kinds of construction it eventually did engage in as part of pork barrel projects .

http://constitution.i2i.org/tag/infrastructure-spending/

[Grits]

PMMbS9YY-5E

(The above was performed in Philadelphia on Saturday evening. It brought chills to the thousands present and the millions watching.)

I wish that you, gentlemen, had, while the Pope was here, and now that he's returned to Rome, contemplated a bit more.. what this man truly is about rather than having made him an economic and political football. I wish that you all had stated something positive, something kind about him. If one cannot see the goodness, the selflessness, the heart of this man, where can such be seen or heard?

Contrary to what has been stated in this thread, I am quite far from being a mindless individual because I am a believer in God's love and his mercy. I am grateful for the Pope's visit to our country. There is not a nation on earth in greater need of his message and his presence.

"...God be with you Holy Father. Thank you for coming to us as we needed you. You will remain in our hearts, our minds, our prayers, always." --dg

[LottaKash]

Contrary to what has been stated in this thread, I am quite far from being a mindless individual because I am a believer in God's love and his mercy.

Well I will ask you, if you believe that, then why do you need another man to intercede for you ?....Don't you believe that God hears you?...Then why do we need this god-like mediator to speak for us ?... Do you really believe that he has this special power, that you don't have ?

And he is a Jesuit...And Grits I really don't think that you really are all that familiar with Jesuit history.... You are probably just very good with what "they" tell you, as most Catholics are....

I used to be a Catholic, been an altar boy, and the whole nine yards of rituals and regalia, so I know how to be a good-catholic, and I was, until I read another book other than the Catechism....What an eye-opener, the Bible is... The Bible is replete with "don'ts", and the RC Church does a litany of the don'ts....So who is right, a bunch of guys all dressed up in Gold Crosses, Purple and Scarlet, and Milky White garments, or the Word of God..

[LottaKash]

The Jesuit Oath Exposed


“Go ye, then, into all the world and take possession of all lands in the name of the Pope. He who will not accept him as the Vicar of Jesus and his Vice-Regent on earth, let him be accursed and exterminated.”
Professor Arthur Noble

[The following is the text of the Jesuit Extreme Oath of Induction as recorded in the Journals of the 62nd Congress, 3rd Session, of the United States Congressional Record (House Calendar No. 397, Report No. 1523, 15 February, 1913, pp. 3215-3216), from which it was subsequently torn out. The Oath is also quoted by Charles Didier in his book Subterranean Rome (New York, 1843), translated from the French original. Dr. Alberto Rivera, who escaped from the Jesuit Order in 1967, confirms that the induction ceremony and the text of the Jesuit Oath which he took were identical to what we have cited below. – A. N.]

When a Jesuit of the minor rank is to be elevated to command, he is conducted into the Chapel of the Convent of the Order, where there are only three others present, the principal or Superior standing in front of the altar. On either side stands a monk, one of whom holds a banner of yellow and white, which are the Papal colours, and the other a black banner with a dagger and red cross above a skull and crossbones, with the word INRI, and below them the words IUSTUM NECAR REGES IMPIUS. The meaning of which is: It is just to exterminate or annihilate impious or heretical Kings, Governments, or Rulers.

Upon the floor is a red cross at which the postulant or candidate kneels. The Superior hands him a small black crucifix, which he takes in his left hand and presses to his heart, and the Superior at the same time presents to him a dagger, which he grasps by the blade and holds the point against his heart, the Superior still holding it by the hilt, and thus addresses the postulant:

(The Superior speaks:)

My son, heretofore you have been taught to act the dissembler: among Roman Catholics to be a Roman Catholic, and to be a spy even among your own brethren; to believe no man, to trust no man. Among the Reformers, to be a Reformer; among the Huguenots, to be a Huguenot; among the Calvinists, to be a Calvinist; among other Protestants, generally to be a Protestant; and obtaining their confidence, to seek even to preach from their pulpits, and to denounce with all the vehemence in your nature our Holy Religion and the Pope; and even to descend so low as to become a Jew among Jews, that you might be enabled to gather together all information for the benefit of your Order as a faithful soldier of the Pope. You have been taught to plant insidiously the seeds of jealousy and hatred between communities, provinces, states that were at peace, and to incite them to deeds of blood, involving them in war with each other, and to create revolutions and civil wars in countries that were independent and prosperous, cultivating the arts and the sciences and enjoying the blessings of peace; to take sides with the combatants and to act secretly with your brother Jesuit, who might be engaged on the other side, but openly opposed to that with which you might be connected, only that the Church might be the gainer in the end, in the conditions fixed in the treaties for peace and that the end justifies the means. You have been taught your duty as a spy, to gather all statistics, facts and information in your power from every source; to ingratiate yourself into the confidence of the family circle of Protestants and heretics of every class and character, as well as that of the merchant, the banker, the lawyer, among the schools and universities, in parliaments and legislatures, and the judiciaries and councils of state, and to be all things to all men, for the Pope’s sake, whose servants we are unto death. You have received all your instructions heretofore as a novice, a neophyte, and have served as co-adjurer, confessor and priest, but you have not yet been invested with all that is necessary to command in the Army of Loyola in the service of the Pope. You must serve the proper time as the instrument and executioner as directed by your superiors; for none can command here who has not consecrated his labours with the blood of the heretic; for “without the shedding of blood no man can be saved”. Therefore, to fit yourself for your work and make your own salvation sure, you will, in addition to your former oath of obedience to your order and allegiance to the Pope, repeat after me:

[LottaKash]

(Text of the Oath:)

I_______________ , now in the presence of Almighty God, the blessed Virgin Mary, the blessed St. John the Baptist, the Holy Apostles, St. Peter and St. Paul, and all the saints, sacred host of Heaven, and to you, my Ghostly Father, the superior general of the Society of Jesus, founded by St. Ignatius Loyola, in the pontification of Paul the Third, and continued to the present, do by the womb of the Virgin, the matrix of God, and the rod of Jesus Christ, declare and swear that His Holiness, the Pope, is Christ’s Vice-Regent and is the true and only head of the Catholic or Universal Church throughout the earth; and that by the virtue of the keys of binding and loosing given to His Holiness by my Saviour, Jesus Christ, he hath power to depose heretical Kings, Princes, States, Commonwealths, and Governments, and they may be safely destroyed. Therefore to the utmost of my power I will defend this doctrine and His Holiness’s right and custom against all usurpers of the heretical or Protestant authority whatever, especially the Lutheran Church of Germany, Holland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway, and the now pretended authority and Churches of England and Scotland, and the branches of same now established in Ireland and on the continent of America and elsewhere and all adherents in regard that they may be usurped and heretical, opposing the sacred Mother Church of Rome. I do now denounce and disown any allegiance as due to any heretical king, prince or State, named Protestant or Liberal, or obedience to any of their laws, magistrates or officers. I do further declare the doctrine of the Churches of England and Scotland of the Calvinists, Huguenots, and others of the name of Protestants or Masons to be damnable, and they themselves to be damned who will not forsake the same. I do further declare that I will help, assist, and advise all or any of His Holiness’s agents, in any place where I should be, in Switzerland, Germany, Holland, Ireland or America, or in any other kingdom or territory I shall come to, and do my utmost to extirpate the heretical Protestant or Masonic doctrines and to destroy all their pretended powers, legal or otherwise. I do further promise and declare that, notwithstanding, I am dispensed with to assume any religion heretical for the propagation of the Mother Church’s interest; to keep secret and private all her agents’ counsels from time to time, as they entrust me, and not to divulge, directly or indirectly, by word, writing or circumstances whatever; but to execute all that should be proposed, given in charge, or discovered unto me by you, my Ghostly Father, or any of this sacred order. I do further promise and declare that I will have no opinion or will of my own or any mental reservation whatever, even as a corpse or cadaver (perinde ac cadaver), but will unhesitatingly obey each and every command that I may receive from my superiors in the militia of the Pope and of Jesus Christ. That I will go to any part of the world whithersoever I may be sent, to the frozen regions north, jungles of India, to the centres of civilisation of Europe, or to the wild haunts of the barbarous savages of America without murmuring or repining, and will be submissive in all things, whatsoever is communicated to me. I do further promise and declare that I will, when opportunity presents, make and wage relentless war, secretly and openly, against all heretics, Protestants and Masons, as I am directed to do, to extirpate them from the face of the whole earth; and that I will spare neither age, sex nor condition, and that will hang, burn, waste, boil, flay, strangle, and bury alive these infamous heretics; rip up the stomachs and wombs of their women, and crush their infants’ heads against the walls in order to annihilate their execrable race. That when the same cannot be done openly I will secretly use the poisonous cup, the strangulation cord, the steel of the poniard, or the leaden bullet, regardless of the honour, rank, dignity or authority of the persons, whatever may be their condition in life, either public or private, as I at any time may be directed so to do by any agents of the Pope or Superior of the Brotherhood of the Holy Father of the Society of Jesus. In confirmation of which I hereby dedicate my life, soul, and all corporal powers, and with the dagger which I now receive I will subscribe my name written in my blood in testimony thereof; and should I prove false, or weaken in my determination, may my brethren and fellow soldiers of the militia of the Pope cut off my hands and feet and my throat from ear to ear, my belly be opened and sulphur burned therein with all the punishment that can be inflicted upon me on earth, and my soul shall be tortured by demons in eternal hell forever. That I will in voting always vote for a Knight of Columbus in preference to a Protestant, especially a Mason, and that I will leave my party so to do; that if two Catholics are on the ticket I will satisfy myself which is the better supporter of Mother Church and vote accordingly. That I will not deal with or employ a Protestant if in my power to deal with or employ a Catholic. That I will place Catholic girls in Protestant families that a weekly report may be made of the inner movements of the heretics. That I will provide myself with arms and ammunition that I may be in readiness when the word is passed, or I am commanded to defend the Church either as an individual or with the militia of the Pope. All of which I,_______________, do swear by the blessed Trinity and blessed sacrament which I am now to receive to perform and on part to keep this my oath. In testimony hereof, I take this most holy and blessed sacrament of the Eucharist and witness the same further with my name written with the point of this dagger dipped in my own blood and seal in the face of this holy sacrament.

(He receives the wafer from the Superior and writes his name with the point of his dagger dipped in his own blood taken from over his heart.)

[LottaKash]

(Superior speaks:)

You will now rise to your feet and I will instruct you in the Catechism necessary to make yourself known to any member of the Society of Jesus belonging to this rank. In the first place, you, as a Brother Jesuit, will with another mutually make the ordinary sign of the cross as any ordinary Roman Catholic would; then one crosses his wrists, the palms of his hands open, and the other in answer crosses his feet, one above the other; the first points with forefinger of the right hand to the centre of the palm of the left, the other with the forefinger of the left hand points to the centre of the palm of the right; the first then with his right hand makes a circle around his head, touching it; the other then with the forefinger of his left hand touches the left side of his body just below his heart; the first then with his right hand draws it across the throat of the other, and the latter then with a dagger down the stomach and abdomen of the first. The first then says Iustum; and the other answers Necar; the first Reges; the other answers Impious. The first will then present a small piece of paper folded in a peculiar manner, four times, which the other will cut longitudinally and on opening the name Jesu will be found written upon the head and arms of a cross three times. You will then give and receive with him the following questions and answers:

From whither do you come? Answer: The Holy faith.

Whom do you serve? Answer: The Holy Father at Rome, the Pope, and the Roman Catholic Church Universal throughout the world.

Who commands you? Answer: The Successor of St. Ignatius Loyola, the founder of the Society of Jesus or the Soldiers of Jesus Christ.

Who received you? Answer: A venerable man in white hair.

How? Answer: With a naked dagger, I kneeling upon the cross beneath the banners of the Pope and of our sacred order.

Did you take an oath? Answer: I did, to destroy heretics and their governments and rulers, and to spare neither age, nor sex, nor condition; to be as a corpse without any opinion or will of my own, but to implicitly obey my Superiors in all things without hesitation or murmuring.

Will you do that? Answer: I will.

How do you travel? Answer: In the bark of Peter the fisherman.

Whither do you travel? Answer: To the four quarters of the globe.

For what purpose? Answer: To obey the orders of my General and Superiors and execute the will of the Pope and faithfully fulfil the conditions of my oaths.

Go ye, then, into all the world and take possession of all lands in the name of the Pope. He who will not accept him as the Vicar of Jesus and his Vice-Regent on earth, let him be accursed and exterminated.
========================================

[Note: The following books on (or particularly relevant to) the Jesuits are held by the EIPS Library:

Anon.: The Female Jesuit. London, 1851

Anon.: The Mystery of Jesuitism. London, 1658

Anon.: The Secret Instructions of the Jesuits. London, 1824

Anon.: The Secret Instructions of the Jesuits. London, 1824

Barrett, E.B.: The Jesuit Enigma. London, 1929

Barthel, M: The Jesuits. New York, 1984

Bert, M.P.: Gury’s Doctrines of the Jesuits. London, 1947

Blakeney, R.P.: Alphonsus Liguori. London, 1852

Brodrick, J., S.J.: The Origin of the Jesuits. New York, 1960

Bungener, L.L.F.: The Jesuits in France or The Priest and the Huguenot. London, 1859

Coape, H.C.: In a Jesuit Net. London, no date

Dalton, E.: The Jesuits. London, 1843

De Courson, R.: Concerning Jesuits. London, 1902

Gallahue, J.: The Jesuit. New York, 1973

Goodier, A.: The Jesuits. London, 1929

Griesinger, T.: History of the Jesuits. London, 1903

Groves, H.C.: The Doctrines and Practices of the Jesuits. London, 1889

Hanna, S.: Jesuitism: or Catholic Action. Belfast, 1938

Hastings, M.: Jesuit Child. Newton Abbot, 1972

Hillerbrand, H.: The Reformation. A Narrative History related by Contemporary Observers and Participants. Ann Arbor, 1989

Lathbury, T.: The State of Popery and Jesuitism in England. London, 1838

Lehmann, L.H.: The Secret of Catholic Power. New York, no date

Liguori, A.M.: The Council of Trent. Dublin, 1846

MacPherson, H.: The Jesuits in History. London, 1914

Martin, M.: The Jesuits. New York, 1987

Nicolini, G.B.: History of the Jesuits. London, 1854

Paisley, I.R.K.: The Jesuits. Belfast, no date

Paris, E.: The Secret History of the Jesuits. London, 1975

Ridley, F.A.: The Jesuits: A Study in Counter-Revolution. London, 1938

Roberts, Archbishop, S.J.: Black Popes. London, 1954

Robertson, A.: The Roman Catholic Church in Italy. London, 1903

Seebohm, F.: The Epoch of the Protestant Reformation. London, 1877

Seymour, M.H.: Mornings among the Jesuits at Rome. London, 1850

Steinmetz, A.: History of the Jesuits. London, 1848 (3 Vols.)

Walsh, W.: The Jesuits in Great Britain. New York, 1903

Wild, J.: Canada and the Jesuits. Toronto, 1889

Wylie, J.A.: Jesuitism: Its Rise, Progress and Insidious Workings. London, no date

Ybarra, T.R. (translator): The Kaiser’s Memoirs, by Wilhelm II. New York, 1922]

[TJDave]

I wish that you, gentlemen, had, while the Pope was here, and now that he's returned to Rome, contemplated a bit more.. what this man truly is about rather than having made him an economic and political football. I wish that you all had stated something positive, something kind about him. If one cannot see the goodness, the selflessness, the heart of this man, where can such be seen or heard?

Contrary to what has been stated in this thread, I am quite far from being a mindless individual because I am a believer in God's love and his mercy. I am grateful for the Pope's visit to our country. There is not a nation on earth in greater need of his message and his presence.

...Listen, he's operating on the different axis than the rest of us. We're on a horizontal axis, left/right. He's up and down. And so what he did was to defeat polarization the right way, by uplifting hearts and uplifting souls. And whether you're a Republican or a Democrat, I think everyone felt uplifted. And the big effect of this week is not what he says on global warming.

It's that hundreds of thousands of people will have their hearts opened by his presence. And some percentage, their life will be utterly altered by this week. Today in Philadelphia, there'll be tens of thousands of people whose souls are just exploding. And they will look back on this moment as the moment their life changed.

David Brooks, Meet the Press 9/27

[Grits]

Lotta Kash, you've really gone to a lot of trouble. Rather than be defensive maybe finding one good thing about the Pope's visit would've been an indication of grace, as opposed to bitterness.

I'm not a Catholic. I've been an Episcopalian all my life, since baptism at six weeks of age and confirmation at age 12. While you were an alter boy or a cross bearer, most likely, I was serving as my parish's Altar Guild Director! I assure you, I fully understand the rituals, the seasons and the reasons that we follow them throughout the church's calendar year.

Whether it is found in my Book of Common Prayer, one of the many translations of the Bible, or in various other theological publications by authors, C.S.Lewis, Frederick Buechner, Henri Nouwen, Phillips Brooks, Harry Emerson Fosdick, etc that are on these bookcases... We feel differently as for every don't that you've focused on in scripture, there is a do that you may well have missed. The most valuable being..God does love us all and God does have mercy upon and forgives us for our sins. God is love. God is hope. Pope Francis visited our country to share these assurances, and as TJ Dave's posting of the words of columnist and author, David Brooks, whose best seller, "The Road To Character" has recently been read and added to the bookcase...has eloquently conveyed, many will be touched by these assurances, even changed by them. How this can be translated to anything other than good...is lost to me.

It's ok to think differently. But, I'm not inclined to believe that my thinking is less mindful than your own. I'm sorry you have such negative feelings and memories. Thank you for reading.

[LottaKash]

It's ok to think differently. But, I'm not inclined to believe that my thinking is less mindful than your own. I'm sorry you have such negative feelings and memories. Thank you for reading.

Grits disseminating the truth to someone, is simply that and nothing more to me....If you have trouble believing the truth, than the trouble lies within, I think..

Didn't you read the truth about the Jesuits, that I have just recently posted ?

The truth is. he is a Jesuit, who swore a "blood oath" to defend the Papacy at all costs, no matter how vile or evil the means, and the troubling part for me is; He is a Jesuit, and he is succeeding guy who just retired from that job of PaPa, and when was the last time a PaPa didn't die in office. ?..Too many coincidences since...Something is up... He is the first Jesuit to ever go that high in the game..

The Bible portrays people such as he, with this verse... “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” —Matthew 7:15

Do think that the Papa is going to confess to us that he is a ravening wolf ?

We must learn to read the True Word of God, and that will enable us to "discern the truth" for ourselves...

[horses4courses]

I was raised a Lutheran, and later in the Protestant Church of Ireland.
By my late teens in college, I had my fill of religion, and have never looked back.

Being raised from age 10 in the Republic of Ireland, which is 95% Catholic,
I got a fair insight into the influence of that Church on the Irish people.
From the late 1960s through the mid 80's, I would describe it as repressive.
Domination of the educational system leading to a loyal mass following.
In personal lives, feelings of guilt seemed to abound from a young age.

In fairness, over the years, things appear to have gotten better.
With the advent of the current Pope, I don't see how that won't continue.

The man is like a breath of fresh air - a true man of the people.
His kindness and joyful spirit are uplifting for all, regardless of their faith.
I'd like to think he can truly make a difference, but I'm a skeptic by nature.

After all, he represents one of the most traditionally conservative bodies
imaginable over past centuries. Hard to truly alter such concrete foundations.
He has the makings of a real game changer, though.
Here's hoping he can follow through. :ThmbUp:

[Hank]

It's not that this Pope cares about the poor and needy that is the issue. EVERY Christian is taught that same lesson as a child. The issue is that he does not understand how to create the very wealth we need to do that. He see's a goose laying golden eggs, but his economic philosophy would kill it trying to feed the masses.

Here is a brilliant mind that has experienced both that gets it!

Garry Kasparov ‏@Kasparov63 3h3 hours ago
Capitalism is the greatest destroyer of poverty in world history and socialism its greatest creator, rivaling war.

Garry Kasparov ‏@Kasparov63 3h3 hours ago
Economic inequality is a huge problem, but the free market has not failed us. We have failed the free market with "too big to fail" mindset.

Garry Kasparov ‏@Kasparov63 3h3 hours ago
We'll keep fighting over smaller pieces of a shrinking economic pie (the rich winning) unless we grow new industry with risk & innovation.



Classhndicapper said of the Pope.....[QUOTE]He deserves to get trashed. He commenting on things he has no education in and no understanding of at all

He then trots out the economic, sociological and political opinions of a chess-player who has NO educational credentials with respect to economics sociology or political science. :rolleyes:

[hcap]

On the charts, I'll give you one more example of the problem.

I have a handicapping theory. It says that if a front runner saves ground and slows down the pace it enhances its chances of winning the race. Someone tests it at their home track and it fails badly. They show me all kinds of charts supposedly proving that it failed and that my theory is wrong. I look at the meet and quickly realize he tested it at a track that had a dead rail for virtually the entire meet. Is my theory wrong or was there a rare set of conditions during his test period that overwhelmed the pace and ground loss advantages and distorted the results? It's the latter of course. I gave you links, articles and charts from many sources covering a set of comprehensive economic factors. Including your most recent dodge and misunderstanding about the "free market" roots of globalization and jobs going overseas. I believe I posted six or so links about the failure of trickle down and few references to Saint Ronnie and M. Thatcher helping to enable and hasten modern globalization.

You are once again dismissing an entire political/economic philosophy as worthless. Once again assuming your way is an axiomatic god-given "truth" with unquestionable supporting evidence, tricking you into thinkink Pope Francis was absolutely wrong and deserved to be "trashed".

Lighten up on your conservative ways. I posted many sources that pretty much cast as much doubt on your side as you attempt to cast on mine.

Btw, I am not 100% locked into liberal idealism, having run a 30 man commercial shop for many years when I was younger, I know first hand how some of the problems some mindless governmental regulations inflict on small business. But striving to be a compassionate humanist usually tilts me away from your side. Can we legislate behavior? Partially we can, and we can be aware of how structural modifications to an economic system can help. Pope Francis is aware.

I do not see you admitting your side comes up short so often that "compassionate conservative" has become a joke.

Pope Francis has a point. And it's as valid as yours.

I have a better theory than your handicapping theory above. In fact it is you projecting your "handicapping theories" out to larger broader systems outside the confines of a racetrack---that is your problem. You are an amateur statistician stuck in a simplistic mathematical attitude shaped by horse playing. When we discussed global warming you thought that scientific professionals connected with prestigious governmental agencies, universities and scholarly studies who obviously were at higher levels in the study of statistics and the sciences than either of us, were at the same simplistic level as you when it came to testing prior models and those models outcome.

Economic, political and philosophical systems are not the same as a bunch of animals running around an oval, and we humans consequently attempting to profit from their orders of finish. :lol: :lol:

It reminds me of some simplistic conservatives complaining about US foreign policy being to weak immediately after a difficult event. Immediately dismissing diplomatic moves to settle that dispute by likening our possible antagonists to the famous simplistic dumb "bully-on-the-block theory". The bully on the schoolyard block is a juvenile political theory and mostly non-scalable up to macroscopic global systems. The schoolyard bully story did not equate to Saddam Husein.

Iraq was not the Nazis.

[Tom]

Iraq was not the Nazis.

They were on the side of the nazis and they have been heavily influenced by them. Your comment is hardly representative of reality, no to mention lacking in color.

https://www.google.com/search?q=nazi+connectionto+iraq&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

[hcap]

They were on the side of the nazis and they have been heavily influenced by them. Your comment is hardly representative of reality, no to mention lacking in color.

https://www.google.com/search?q=nazi+connectionto+iraq&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8Well I certainly remember you were so hot to trot gung ho to nuke the before we invaded, and a few years later when Iraqi citizens were not grateful enough to you and other gung ho types for how we invaded them.

[Tom]

What does that have to do with the nazi connection with Iraqi leaders?????

Goren, Part Deux?

[classhandicapper]

I gave you links, articles and charts from many sources covering a set of comprehensive economic factors. Including your most recent dodge and misunderstanding about the "free market" roots of globalization and jobs going overseas. I believe I posted six or so links about the failure of trickle down and few references to Saint Ronnie and M. Thatcher helping to enable and hasten modern globalization.

You are once again dismissing an entire political/economic philosophy as worthless. Once again assuming your way is an axiomatic god-given "truth" with unquestionable supporting evidence, tricking you into thinkink Pope Francis was absolutely wrong and deserved to be "trashed".



I am beginning to think you are hopeless.

I explained with great clarity why every chart you posted is useless for understanding the impact of tax cuts on the middle class and you keep going back to charts and graphs. :bang: :rolleyes:

Your side does have some legitimate arguments for why the policy is not working well, but you are not making them.

Goren has actually made them quite well in the past.

For example, the theory for cutting taxes is to get more money into the hands of private citizens. More importantly, it is extra SAVINGS that gets invested and increases production, improves productivity, and generates wealth and greater incomes for all that is critical long term.

If you cut taxes on the middle class, they spend it. That helps them and creates economic activity, but it doesn't generate significant new savings and investment.

If you cut taxes on the rich, they just save more than they did before. So almost all of it gets invested - which is what you want long term.

Goren correctly pointed out that corporations are not taking the extra cash and investing it in factories etc.. in the US. They are buying back their own shares in the stock market. That may be good for the stockholders, but it's not good for the middle class and poor. So why give them lower taxes?

He asked a great question. :ThmbUp:

I pointed out that for decades they have been taking that money overseas to invest because labor is cheaper, regulations aren't as restrictive etc... So that wasn't helping the poor and middle class of the US either. It was helping China, Mexico etc..

The point of this entire conversation is to show that tax rates do matter to the economy. They change how much money is available to invest and where it gets invested. EVERYONE already knows that part of it. That part of supply side is indisputable. Left wing politicians give out tax breaks all the time to attract business to their cities and states. I saw one last night on Project Greenlight where they were contemplating filming in Georgia instead of LA to get a 35% tax break even though they would have move actors, equipment etc...

What I am saying to you is that results have not been terrific (as your charts point out) for reasons that have nothing to do with the theory that tax cuts help investment. They have helped only minimally because so much money is flowing overseas and into the stock market. That's the part that's not sinking in and no number of bogus charts and wrongheaded articles is ever going to change that reality. We need better trade deals and incentives for investment in the US so that money flows into the US.

The Pope would have us kill the goose that lays the golden egg to feed the poor when the idea is to raise more geese.

[Tom]

For example, the theory for cutting taxes is to get more money into the hands of private citizens. More importantly, it is extra SAVINGS that gets invested and increases production, improves productivity, and generates wealth and greater incomes for all that is critical long term.

Even MORE importantly, is OUR DAMNED MONEY.

[mostpost]

(Superior speaks:)

You will now rise to your feet and I will instruct you in the Catechism necessary to make yourself known to any member of the Society of Jesus belonging to this rank. In the first place, you, as a Brother Jesuit, will with another mutually make the ordinary sign of the cross as any ordinary Roman Catholic would; then one crosses his wrists, the palms of his hands open, and the other in answer crosses his feet, one above the other; the first points with forefinger of the right hand to the centre of the palm of the left, the other with the forefinger of the left hand points to the centre of the palm of the right; the first then with his right hand makes a circle around his head, touching it; the other then with the forefinger of his left hand touches the left side of his body just below his heart; the first then with his right hand draws it across the throat of the other, and the latter then with a dagger down the stomach and abdomen of the first. The first then says Iustum; and the other answers Necar; the first Reges; the other answers Impious. The first will then present a small piece of paper folded in a peculiar manner, four times, which the other will cut longitudinally and on opening the name Jesu will be found written upon the head and arms of a cross three times. You will then give and receive with him the following questions and answers:

From whither do you come? Answer: The Holy faith.

Whom do you serve? Answer: The Holy Father at Rome, the Pope, and the Roman Catholic Church Universal throughout the world.

Who commands you? Answer: The Successor of St. Ignatius Loyola, the founder of the Society of Jesus or the Soldiers of Jesus Christ.

Who received you? Answer: A venerable man in white hair.

How? Answer: With a naked dagger, I kneeling upon the cross beneath the banners of the Pope and of our sacred order.

Did you take an oath? Answer: I did, to destroy heretics and their governments and rulers, and to spare neither age, nor sex, nor condition; to be as a corpse without any opinion or will of my own, but to implicitly obey my Superiors in all things without hesitation or murmuring.

Will you do that? Answer: I will.

How do you travel? Answer: In the bark of Peter the fisherman.

Whither do you travel? Answer: To the four quarters of the globe.

For what purpose? Answer: To obey the orders of my General and Superiors and execute the will of the Pope and faithfully fulfil the conditions of my oaths.

Go ye, then, into all the world and take possession of all lands in the name of the Pope. He who will not accept him as the Vicar of Jesus and his Vice-Regent on earth, let him be accursed and exterminated.
========================================

[Note: The following books on (or particularly relevant to) the Jesuits are held by the EIPS Library:

Anon.: The Female Jesuit. London, 1851

Anon.: The Mystery of Jesuitism. London, 1658

Anon.: The Secret Instructions of the Jesuits. London, 1824

Anon.: The Secret Instructions of the Jesuits. London, 1824

Barrett, E.B.: The Jesuit Enigma. London, 1929

Barthel, M: The Jesuits. New York, 1984

Bert, M.P.: Gury’s Doctrines of the Jesuits. London, 1947

Blakeney, R.P.: Alphonsus Liguori. London, 1852

Brodrick, J., S.J.: The Origin of the Jesuits. New York, 1960

Bungener, L.L.F.: The Jesuits in France or The Priest and the Huguenot. London, 1859

Coape, H.C.: In a Jesuit Net. London, no date

Dalton, E.: The Jesuits. London, 1843

De Courson, R.: Concerning Jesuits. London, 1902

Gallahue, J.: The Jesuit. New York, 1973

Goodier, A.: The Jesuits. London, 1929

Griesinger, T.: History of the Jesuits. London, 1903

Groves, H.C.: The Doctrines and Practices of the Jesuits. London, 1889

Hanna, S.: Jesuitism: or Catholic Action. Belfast, 1938

Hastings, M.: Jesuit Child. Newton Abbot, 1972

Hillerbrand, H.: The Reformation. A Narrative History related by Contemporary Observers and Participants. Ann Arbor, 1989

Lathbury, T.: The State of Popery and Jesuitism in England. London, 1838

Lehmann, L.H.: The Secret of Catholic Power. New York, no date

Liguori, A.M.: The Council of Trent. Dublin, 1846

MacPherson, H.: The Jesuits in History. London, 1914

Martin, M.: The Jesuits. New York, 1987

Nicolini, G.B.: History of the Jesuits. London, 1854

Paisley, I.R.K.: The Jesuits. Belfast, no date

Paris, E.: The Secret History of the Jesuits. London, 1975

Ridley, F.A.: The Jesuits: A Study in Counter-Revolution. London, 1938

Roberts, Archbishop, S.J.: Black Popes. London, 1954

Robertson, A.: The Roman Catholic Church in Italy. London, 1903

Seebohm, F.: The Epoch of the Protestant Reformation. London, 1877

Seymour, M.H.: Mornings among the Jesuits at Rome. London, 1850

Steinmetz, A.: History of the Jesuits. London, 1848 (3 Vols.)

Walsh, W.: The Jesuits in Great Britain. New York, 1903

Wild, J.: Canada and the Jesuits. Toronto, 1889

Wylie, J.A.: Jesuitism: Its Rise, Progress and Insidious Workings. London, no date

Ybarra, T.R. (translator): The Kaiser’s Memoirs, by Wilhelm II. New York, 1922]









That is disgusting. Not the Oath. The Oath does not exist and neither Francis nor any Jesuit has ever taken such an Oath. The whole thing was made up out of whole cloth by Protestant bigots

Not every Protestant is a bigot. In fact almost all of them are not. Since you are the one disseminating this garbage, I must conclude that you are one who is.

[mostpost]

The Jesuit Oath Exposed


“Go ye, then, into all the world and take possession of all lands in the name of the Pope. He who will not accept him as the Vicar of Jesus and his Vice-Regent on earth, let him be accursed and exterminated.”
Professor Arthur Noble

[The following is the text of the Jesuit Extreme Oath of Induction as recorded in the Journals of the 62nd Congress, 3rd Session, of the United States Congressional Record (House Calendar No. 397, Report No. 1523, 15 February, 1913, pp. 3215-3216), from which it was subsequently torn out. The Oath is also quoted by Charles Didier in his book Subterranean Rome (New York, 1843), translated from the French original. Dr. Alberto Rivera, who escaped from the Jesuit Order in 1967, confirms that the induction ceremony and the text of the Jesuit Oath which he took were identical to what we have cited below. – A. N.]

When a Jesuit of the minor rank is to be elevated to command, he is conducted into the Chapel of the Convent of the Order, where there are only three others present, the principal or Superior standing in front of the altar. On either side stands a monk, one of whom holds a banner of yellow and white, which are the Papal colours, and the other a black banner with a dagger and red cross above a skull and crossbones, with the word INRI, and below them the words IUSTUM NECAR REGES IMPIUS. The meaning of which is: It is just to exterminate or annihilate impious or heretical Kings, Governments, or Rulers.

Upon the floor is a red cross at which the postulant or candidate kneels. The Superior hands him a small black crucifix, which he takes in his left hand and presses to his heart, and the Superior at the same time presents to him a dagger, which he grasps by the blade and holds the point against his heart, the Superior still holding it by the hilt, and thus addresses the postulant:

(The Superior speaks:)

My son, heretofore you have been taught to act the dissembler: among Roman Catholics to be a Roman Catholic, and to be a spy even among your own brethren; to believe no man, to trust no man. Among the Reformers, to be a Reformer; among the Huguenots, to be a Huguenot; among the Calvinists, to be a Calvinist; among other Protestants, generally to be a Protestant; and obtaining their confidence, to seek even to preach from their pulpits, and to denounce with all the vehemence in your nature our Holy Religion and the Pope; and even to descend so low as to become a Jew among Jews, that you might be enabled to gather together all information for the benefit of your Order as a faithful soldier of the Pope. You have been taught to plant insidiously the seeds of jealousy and hatred between communities, provinces, states that were at peace, and to incite them to deeds of blood, involving them in war with each other, and to create revolutions and civil wars in countries that were independent and prosperous, cultivating the arts and the sciences and enjoying the blessings of peace; to take sides with the combatants and to act secretly with your brother Jesuit, who might be engaged on the other side, but openly opposed to that with which you might be connected, only that the Church might be the gainer in the end, in the conditions fixed in the treaties for peace and that the end justifies the means. You have been taught your duty as a spy, to gather all statistics, facts and information in your power from every source; to ingratiate yourself into the confidence of the family circle of Protestants and heretics of every class and character, as well as that of the merchant, the banker, the lawyer, among the schools and universities, in parliaments and legislatures, and the judiciaries and councils of state, and to be all things to all men, for the Pope’s sake, whose servants we are unto death. You have received all your instructions heretofore as a novice, a neophyte, and have served as co-adjurer, confessor and priest, but you have not yet been invested with all that is necessary to command in the Army of Loyola in the service of the Pope. You must serve the proper time as the instrument and executioner as directed by your superiors; for none can command here who has not consecrated his labours with the blood of the heretic; for “without the shedding of blood no man can be saved”. Therefore, to fit yourself for your work and make your own salvation sure, you will, in addition to your former oath of obedience to your order and allegiance to the Pope, repeat after me:

So, who is this Professor Arthur Noble? While looking him up, one of the things I found was an article written by him explaining how the European Union was a plot concocted by the Nazis in 1942 and implemented decades later by Nazi sympathizers. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[NJ Stinks]

I am grateful for the Pope's visit to our country. There is not a nation on earth in greater need of his message and his presence.



I'm with you, Grits. When the Pope talked about the importance of family and compassion for others less fortunate - which he did often during his visit here - he delivered a universal message urgently needed here. I'm no churchgoer today myself but Pope Francis made me proud to be a Catholic and I can't remember the last time that happened.

[Fager Fan]

I'm with you, Grits. When the Pope talked about the importance of family and compassion for others less fortunate - which he did often during his visit here - he delivered a universal message urgently needed here. I'm no churchgoer today myself but Pope Francis made me proud to be a Catholic and I can't remember the last time that happened.

He also sided with the woman in KY not giving out marriage licenses. I see more liberals than usual praising this religious figure due to his liberal leanings on some things so wonder what they think of that. Think he's against gay marriage too.

[fast4522]

For a guy 78 years old with one lung he got around good, none of my usual here. For those of you who were comforted by this visit of the Pope I am with you, although I am not Catholic. I figure anytime someone has the opportunity to have more faith instead of less it is a good thing.

[reckless]

I skimmed the transcript of his speech to Congress, and I was very surprised that I could not find any such references to the claims you made above.

Since you're more familiar with it than I (or why else you would have made such claims), perhaps you could review the transcript yourself and quote back some of the objectionable Anti-American rhetoric?

Thanks! :ThmbUp:

Transcript (http://www.npr.org/2015/09/24/443155716/listen-the-popes-speech-to-congress)

I didn't see your post when you first sent it, FanDan, or I would have answered you sooner. I rarely get responses to my posts so I no longer look out for one in general. But trying to catch up the other day, I did see my name being quoted and that made me backtrack to you.

Yes, I made an error by specifically referencing the Pope's talk to a speech to Congress. Yes, you will not directly find a specific 'I hate American' statement made by Francis. I fess up to this but for what it's worth, I did have a few other of his recent speeches in mind. I did watch the speech on ETWN and read it thanks to your link. Different people could watch and listen to the same thing and come to different conclusions. I understand that. I heard and read an extremely coded speech that suggested to me that Francis feels America is a villain and needs to fall in line.

Now, if you look at what the Pope previously said days, weeks and even months earlier, in Cuba, here in Congress, at the UN, at Vatican Square, he has made very pointed references of America needing to do the right thing for the poor of the world. He has referred to the USA as 'The Big Fish' -- a quite compelling description, which, to me, was meant as a very negative description of America.

So, I won't take back any of my opinions that this Pope is trying to carry out a far left radical agenda, and is pointing his finger at America as the enemy or root cause for all the world's problems. Blaming America for all the world's ills is quite common in dictatorships, Europe, and Socialist countries world-wide.

I view his remarks as anti-American, and I won't back away from that. Saying we must open our borders and our resources to refugees (illegal aliens to you and me) while hiding behind a soft and gentle smile is a left wing swerve. He is trying to use our history as the most generous nation on Earth to become another Europe or South America.

A few other things bugged me too, FanDan.

How is it that Pope Francis endorses communist dictator Fidel Castro yet never mentioned in his speech there or to Congress all the Catholics murdered by Fidel and Raul? Or mention all the Catholics in Cuban jails, or those that live in squalor? (Which is everyone else but not the Castros).

Francis also never even mentioned Jesus Christ in his speech. I found that odd, personally.

He did speak of life but never once mentioned the savagery and butchery of Planned Parenthood. How come?

People can nit-pik and parse my very words all they wish. This Pope is anti-American as I see things.

[reckless]

Yeah he (meaning mostpost) sounds like the worlds postmaster yelling at everyone.
He thinks he smarter than Obama....well he could be. :lol:

To me, he usually sounds like a guy with 300 bags of undelivered mail in his basement, sweating it out while waiting for the feds to knock on his door.

Smarter than Obama? Nah, ain't no biggie... Mostpost once said he was smarter than Mark Levin! :lol: :lol:

[thaskalos]

I didn't see your post when you first sent it, FanDan, or I would have answered you sooner. I rarely get responses to my posts so I no longer look out for one in general. But trying to catch up the other day, I did see my name being quoted and that made me backtrack to you.

Yes, I made an error by specifically referencing the Pope's talk to a speech to Congress. Yes, you will not directly find a specific 'I hate American' statement made by Francis. I fess up to this but for what it's worth, I did have a few other of his recent speeches in mind. I did watch the speech on ETWN and read it thanks to your link. Different people could watch and listen to the same thing and come to different conclusions. I understand that. I heard and read an extremely coded speech that suggested to me that Francis feels America is a villain and needs to fall in line.

Now, if you look at what the Pope previously said days, weeks and even months earlier, in Cuba, here in Congress, at the UN, at Vatican Square, he has made very pointed references of America needing to do the right thing for the poor of the world. He has referred to the USA as 'The Big Fish' -- a quite compelling description, which, to me, was meant as a very negative description of America.

So, I won't take back any of my opinions that this Pope is trying to carry out a far left radical agenda, and is pointing his finger at America as the enemy or root cause for all the world's problems. Blaming America for all the world's ills is quite common in dictatorships, Europe, and Socialist countries world-wide.

I view his remarks as anti-American, and I won't back away from that. Saying we must open our borders and our resources to refugees (illegal aliens to you and me) while hiding behind a soft and gentle smile is a left wing swerve. He is trying to use our history as the most generous nation on Earth to become another Europe or South America.

A few other things bugged me too, FanDan.

How is it that Pope Francis endorses communist dictator Fidel Castro yet never mentioned in his speech there or to Congress all the Catholics murdered by Fidel and Raul? Or mention all the Catholics in Cuban jails, or those that live in squalor? (Which is everyone else but not the Castros).

Francis also never even mentioned Jesus Christ in his speech. I found that odd, personally.

He did speak of life but never once mentioned the savagery and butchery of Planned Parenthood. How come?

People can nit-pik and parse my very words all they wish. This Pope is anti-American as I see things.

IMO...the Pope is allowed to be "anti-American"...and you are allowed to be anti-Pope. Neither one of you are seeking public office...so, you should both be free to openly voice your opinions.

[reckless]

It seems to me that Reckless did not listen to the speech; nor did he read the transcripts.

I did listen to the speech and read the transcripts. Yes, I already fessed up to being wrong in accusing Pope Francis of anti-America while talking to Congress. But he did say things in that strongly coded far left speech that still gives credence to my opinion that he is anti-American. That isn't changing.

It seems that he got his information from opinions of what the speech was going to be before it was even given. Opinions which were unfailingly wrong.

Now, now, now .. you should know better, but I'll bet you never do ... everything I post have been solely my thoughts and opinions, and no one elses'.

Pope Francis, in his address to Congress, talked about personal responsibility and social responsibility. Conservatives are big on personal responsibility, but don't want to hear about social responsibility.

Personal responsibility you say. Is it responsible that all those South American latino 'men' who put their wives and young children on boats, busses, trains along very dangerous terrains, to America, without a man to protect them? You mean that kind of responsibility? Or all those Muslim migrants going to Europe (and an American city near you soon) -- young, healthy men leaving their familes for -- other Muslim countries? To the lunatics on the left, that is responsible behavior.

I know you don't mean how America is really big on social responsibility, right? The America that sends billions of aid annually to less than fortunate countries. The America that fought the world's enemies to make that world safe. To take in every s-bag, criminal, uneducated, unskilled person from dozens of countries for over 200 years, giving hope and opportunity... that America you say knows no social responsibility? Hell to you and Francis.

He spoke of the need for legislative activity to satisfy common needs and ensure the growth of the nation. Conservatives hate the idea of government doing anything.

You mean, no wall, open borders, unfettered illegal aliens invading this country and comprehensive immigration reform? Is that what you mean?

Conservatives hate the idea of government doing the wrong thing, not any thing. As in the US Constitution, the federal government must defend our borders and national sovereignty. It's in the US Constitution. Opens borders, amnesty for illegal aliens are not in there.

Common needs? Such as building the future Democrat Party of dependent, unskilled, uneducated, illegal and dangerous voters? You're joking, right? Or did you mean the common needs of the Catholic Church, where millions have left thanks to those deviant, vulgar, criminal gay priests that raped and tortured young boys, only to have those same bastard priests protected by this same Church?

Pope Francis spoke against what he called "Simple reductionism." That is the tendency to reduce everything to simple good or bad. I'm an American. I am good. You are an immigrant. You are bad. I am a Christian. I am good. You are a Muslim. You are bad. I am rich. I am good. You are poor. You are bad. Just read this Forum and you can see how conservatives feel about those ideas.

Actually, life is simple. It is only the arrogant elitism of the left that wants to cloud things up. This way, they can 'solve' all the problems for the poor, uneducated, unwashed, and everyone else. Problems that are created by liberals must only be solved by the same liberals. :lol:

Yes, being American is good. But if you're a bad American, then you're not good. Being an American citizen is very good. And being an illegal alien is not good. Why do the nitwits on the left make these illegal aliens to be so honorable and sacrosanct, while at the same time refer to American citizens as lazy, spoiled, crazy, religious nuts? Muslims that behead Catholics, other Christians, Jews and other Muslims are bad. And those Muslims that rape and torture young, innocent girls are bad too. You know the bad type of Muslims that I mean -- those Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama defends and won't criticise.

[reckless]

IMO...the Pope is allowed to be "anti-American"...and you are allowed to be anti-Pope. Neither one of you are seeking public office...so, you should both be free to openly voice your opinions.

I know that Gus, and I am sure you know that I know all that too. :)

But the Pope --and he alone-- is also a symbol that crosses over thru all faiths, all denominations and cultures. When he sounds like some tin-horned generalisimo from some 3rd-rate South American dictatorship knocking my America and admonishing this great country, I do take offence.

And that's how I heard him and read him, sad to say.

[horses4courses]

I know that Gus, and I am sure you know that I know all that too. :)

But the Pope --and he alone-- is also a symbol that crosses over thru all faiths, all denominations and cultures. When he sounds like some tin-horned generalisimo from some 3rd-rate South American dictatorship knocking my America and admonishing this great country, I do take offence.

And that's how I heard him and read him, sad to say.

US conservatives had their narrow minds made up about
this Pope well before he set foot on our soil.
Wasn't much he could say, or do, to sway you.

Thin skinned, and averse to both advice and criticism.
Pretty much sums it up.

[TJDave]

I did listen to the speech and read the transcripts. Yes, I already fessed up to being wrong in accusing Pope Francis of anti-America while talking to Congress. But he did say things in that strongly coded far left speech that still gives credence to my opinion that he is anti-American. That isn't changing.

The majority of Catholics are not American. Why would you expect their representative to be any different? Did you expect he would be a politician?

Would Jesus?

[thaskalos]

I know that Gus, and I am sure you know that I know all that too. :)

But the Pope --and he alone-- is also a symbol that crosses over thru all faiths, all denominations and cultures. When he sounds like some tin-horned generalisimo from some 3rd-rate South American dictatorship knocking my America and admonishing this great country, I do take offence.

And that's how I heard him and read him, sad to say.
IMO...the Pope is, above all, the spiritual leader of the most popular religion in the world. And, as such, he is obligated to support world peace, and benevolence towards the less fortunate. That's what religious leaders are supposed to do.

Did you expect the Pope to stand up and applaud the virtues of "capitalism"?

[hcap]

I gave you links, articles and charts from many sources covering a set of comprehensive economic factors. Including your most recent dodge and misunderstanding about the "free market" roots of globalization and jobs going overseas. I believe I posted six or so links about the failure of trickle down and few references to Saint Ronnie and M. Thatcher helping to enable and hasten modern globalization.
I am beginning to think you are hopeless. I explained with great clarity why every chart you posted is useless for understanding the impact of tax cuts on the middle class and you keep going back to charts and graphs.You explained nothing you only added to your bull shit! You keep mindlessly repeating nonsense about your political-economic dogma. You either evidently did not read the links and sources I posted,or you are willfully ignoring accurate evidence and the case against you.

As I said those charts are from..."many sources covering a set of comprehensive economic factors. Including your most recent dodge and misunderstanding about the "free market" roots of globalization and jobs going overseas."

Let me re-post this chart you ignored. Just to remind you again-assuming you even look at this chart-the very cornerstone of your mantra, "lower tax rates for the rich = greater growth for everyone nonsense........
http://www.decisionsonevidence.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Marginal-Tax-Rates-and-GDP-Growth.png

Milton Friedman of the Chicago School of Economics was ultimately wrong, and Pope Francis is just pointing out the social justice issues that must be dealt with when the "invisible hand" notion of Adam Smith comes up short in today's economy.“The Chicago School bears the blame for providing a seeming intellectual foundation for the idea that markets are self- adjusting and the best role for government is to do nothing,”

.."the reason that the invisible hand often seems invisible is that it is often not there. Whenever there are "externalities"—where the actions of an individual have impacts on others for which they do not pay, or for which they are not compensated—markets will not work well.

Joseph E. Stiglitz, who received his Nobel in 2001.

[Tom]

IMO...the Pope is, above all, the spiritual leader of the most popular religion in the world. And, as such, he is obligated to support world peace, and benevolence towards the less fortunate. That's what religious leaders are supposed to do.

Did you expect the Pope to stand up and applaud the virtues of "capitalism"?

That is essentially what he did by declaring WE had the obligation to accept the refugees from the south. Capitalism is bad, but we are the ones who need to take care of those form the failed forms of government. Duh.

And who other than us has given more to the world in both people's lives and treasures?

Yeah, he might want to thank those greedy capitalists for their unmatched generosity.

[hcap]

The so-called "free" market has been wrong many times as have conservatives who believe in the myth of the magic of markets inherently self-regulating themselves.

An indisputable condition that occurs when unregulated markets have their way...... United States antitrust law is a collection of federal and state government laws, which regulates the conduct and organization of business corporations, generally to promote fair competition for the benefit of consumers. The main statutes are the Sherman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law) Act 1890, the Clayton Act 1914 and the Federal Trade Commission Act 1914. These Acts, first, restrict the formation of cartels and prohibit other collusive practices regarded as being in restraint of trade. Second, they restrict the mergers and acquisitions of organizations which could substantially lessen competition. Third, they prohibit the creation of a monopoly and the abuse of monopoly power.

"For Republican Sen. John Sherman of Ohio, chief sponsor of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, the power of trusts amounted to ‘a kingly prerogative, inconsistent with our form of government." Sherman reasoned that "if we will not endure a king as a political power, we should not endure a king over the production, transportation and sale of any of the necesaries of life.’"

Sop the "golden goose" of capitalism sometimes lays rotten eggs :lol: :lol:

[hcap]

Just For Your Info, Francis does not hate capitalism.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/09/pope_francis_politics_the_pope_s_visit_was_a_compl ete_rebuke_to_republicans.html

The pope had tough words for everyone, but especially conservatives. Here’s a rundown of the challenges he delivered: a few to the left, and a fistful to the right.

1. Capitalism. Last Tuesday, on his flight from Cuba to Washington, D.C., Francis said he was misperceived as a lefty. In his speech to Congress Thursday, he called business a “noble vocation” and endorsed “the harnessing of the spirit of free enterprise.” But at every stop, he advocated constraints on the free market to protect its underdogs. In Washington, he declared, “There is no social or moral justification, no justification whatsoever, for lack of housing.” In Philadelphia, he praised “the growth of the labor movement.” At the United Nations, he instructed “international financial agencies” to make sure countries “are not subjected to oppressive lending systems.”

[classhandicapper]

You explained nothing you only added to your bull shit! You keep mindlessly repeating nonsense about your political-economic dogma. You either evidently did not read the links and sources I posted,or you are willfully ignoring accurate evidence and the case against you.

As I said those charts are from..."many sources covering a set of comprehensive economic factors. Including your most recent dodge and misunderstanding about the "free market" roots of globalization and jobs going overseas."

Let me re-post this chart you ignored. Just to remind you again-assuming you even look at this chart-the very cornerstone of your mantra, "lower tax rates for the rich = greater growth for everyone nonsense........
http://www.decisionsonevidence.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Marginal-Tax-Rates-and-GDP-Growth.png

Milton Friedman of the Chicago School of Economics was ultimately wrong, and Pope Francis is just pointing out the social justice issues that must be dealt with when the "invisible hand" notion of Adam Smith comes up short in today's economy.

Here's another lesson.

The actual tax rates are not a very significant metric. You have to look at the available writeoffs, which taxes are high or low (taxes on investment, income, or consumption). All these things matter. A chart with just tax rates is pretty close to meaningless.

Here is a mildly more relevant chart that will make the point very clearly. It shows federal tax receipts as a percentage of GDP (some of the mild volatility is related to fluctuations in the economy and not tax rates, especially recently). When you adjust for all the writeoffs, the value of those writeoffs, and tax rates etc.. overall taxes to the government haven't changed much since Roosevelt when they rose sharply. That means taxes haven't changed much at all despite you silly chart showing the tax rates have changed a lot.

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FYFRGDA188S

There are also many other factors impacting our growth rate that have absolutely nothing to do with taxes. You need to ISOLATE a factor to understand what impact it had. Until you understand that basic aspect of statistics you'll keep drawing conclusions that are not valid. We don't have really good data that isolates the impact of taxes in investment that I am aware of. We just know what companies do. The higher the taxes the more likely they are to leave a location and vice versa.

[davew]

IMO...the Pope is allowed to be "anti-American"...and you are allowed to be anti-Pope. Neither one of you are seeking public office...so, you should both be free to openly voice your opinions.


The Pope seems to be PRO-0bama, does that make him anti-American?

[horses4courses]

The Pope seems to be PRO-0bama, does that make him anti-American?

You already know my answer to that.

There are probably 4-6 con versions laced with
sarcasm and hate being typed up as I post this.

[Tom]

The Pope seems to be PRO-0bama, does that make him anti-American?

#7 - Yes, of course! :lol::lol::lol:

[reckless]

IMO...the Pope is, above all, the spiritual leader of the most popular religion in the world. And, as such, he is obligated to support world peace, and benevolence towards the less fortunate. That's what religious leaders are supposed to do. Did you expect the Pope to stand up and applaud the virtues of "capitalism"?

I would be very disappointed and hurt if Pope Francis did not support and promote world peace, Gus.

Do I (or did) expect the Pope to applaud capitalism? Well, no, and that's my point. Why should I (or we) expect the Pope to talk political ideology of any stripe? He is a religious figure, not some government aparatchik spinning policy.

But since everything on earth now has a political bent, like it or not, let me finish with these thoughts:

How could the Pope seek out an invitation (or accept an invitation) from Communist dictators such as the Castro brothers, murderers who stole millions from the Catholic Church and from private businesses in Cuba? Who is more of a symbol of anti-capitalism than Castro?

If Pope Francis is concerned about helping the less fortunate -- and I do not think he doesn't; of course he does -- why should I like it that he primarily wants the USA to foot the entire bill for all these unfortunate souls?

If the Roman Catholic Church under Francis wants to feed all the hungry, provide health care to all the world's sick, to provide a safe haven for all those political and religious migrants that he wants you and me to take in, then maybe he should sell a few of the Renaissance oil paintings worth millions each to raise money. Or maybe he should sell off the extensive and quite profitable world-wide land holdings, or even part with the thousands of pure gold chalices the Church owns.

All suggestions will fetch a lot of money and will help a lot of people, Catholic, Jew, Muslim, atheist.

[reckless]

... Milton Friedman of the Chicago School of Economics was ultimately wrong, and Pope Francis is just pointing out the social justice issues that must be dealt with when the "invisible hand" notion of Adam Smith comes up short in today's economy. ...

So Milton Friedman gets it all wrong while some left wing dolt named Paul Krugman is an economic genius? :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Saratoga_Mike]

US conservatives had their narrow minds made up about
this Pope well before he set foot on our soil.
Wasn't much he could say, or do, to sway you.

Thin skinned, and averse to both advice and criticism.
Pretty much sums it up.

Versus US liberals who are so open-minded...as long as you agree with them

[mostpost]

Here's another lesson.

The actual tax rates are not a very significant metric. You have to look at the available writeoffs, which taxes are high or low (taxes on investment, income, or consumption). All these things matter. A chart with just tax rates is pretty close to meaningless.

Here is a mildly more relevant chart that will make the point very clearly. It shows federal tax receipts as a percentage of GDP (some of the mild volatility is related to fluctuations in the economy and not tax rates, especially recently). When you adjust for all the writeoffs, the value of those writeoffs, and tax rates etc.. overall taxes to the government haven't changed much since Roosevelt when they rose sharply. That means taxes haven't changed much at all despite you silly chart showing the tax rates have changed a lot.

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FYFRGDA188S

There are also many other factors impacting our growth rate that have absolutely nothing to do with taxes. You need to ISOLATE a factor to understand what impact it had. Until you understand that basic aspect of statistics you'll keep drawing conclusions that are not valid. We don't have really good data that isolates the impact of taxes in investment that I am aware of. We just know what companies do. The higher the taxes the more likely they are to leave a location and vice versa.
You do not seem to understand why the taxes were high and the writeoffs, deductions and exemptions were many. In the days of 70-90% top rate, you did not get a deduction for looking good. You got one for investing in your business. Expand your business, pay your employees more etc. You get a deduction. Don't do it and you pay the higher rate.

If you have high taxes with deductions based on how you operate your business or if you have low taxes with no deductions, you are probably paying about the same in taxes. THAT IS NOT THE POINT.

In the first instance, you have to invest-or reinvest in your business in order to reap the benefits. In the second you don't and most don't.

Let's look at two eras. In the first (1947 to 1980) we impose high taxes and reward investment and expansion. In the second, (1981 to 2014) we lower taxes and hope that businesses reinvest instead of buying another yacht.

Figures from the US Department of Commerce:
In the period from 1947 to 1980 Gross Private Domestic Investment increased at an average annual rate of 4.841%. During the low tax years, investment increased at an annual rate of 3.729%. That may not seem like a huge difference, but over 34 years it adds up to a great deal. Also, it should be noted that the latter period included some very good years under President Clinton.

[classhandicapper]

You do not seem to understand why the taxes were high and the writeoffs, deductions and exemptions were many. In the days of 70-90% top rate, you did not get a deduction for looking good. You got one for investing in your business. Expand your business, pay your employees more etc. You get a deduction. Don't do it and you pay the higher rate.

If you have high taxes with deductions based on how you operate your business or if you have low taxes with no deductions, you are probably paying about the same in taxes. THAT IS NOT THE POINT.

In the first instance, you have to invest-or reinvest in your business in order to reap the benefits. In the second you don't and most don't.

Let's look at two eras. In the first (1947 to 1980) we impose high taxes and reward investment and expansion. In the second, (1981 to 2014) we lower taxes and hope that businesses reinvest instead of buying another yacht.

Figures from the US Department of Commerce:
In the period from 1947 to 1980 Gross Private Domestic Investment increased at an average annual rate of 4.841%. During the low tax years, investment increased at an annual rate of 3.729%. That may not seem like a huge difference, but over 34 years it adds up to a great deal. Also, it should be noted that the latter period included some very good years under President Clinton.

Depreciation for investment has always been an expense and writeoff. If anything, depreciation schedules have been ACCELERATED in recent decades to encourage more investment relative to the past.

[thaskalos]

I would be very disappointed and hurt if Pope Francis did not support and promote world peace, Gus.

Do I (or did) expect the Pope to applaud capitalism? Well, no, and that's my point. Why should I (or we) expect the Pope to talk political ideology of any stripe? He is a religious figure, not some government aparatchik spinning policy.

But since everything on earth now has a political bent, like it or not, let me finish with these thoughts:

How could the Pope seek out an invitation (or accept an invitation) from Communist dictators such as the Castro brothers, murderers who stole millions from the Catholic Church and from private businesses in Cuba? Who is more of a symbol of anti-capitalism than Castro?

If Pope Francis is concerned about helping the less fortunate -- and I do not think he doesn't; of course he does -- why should I like it that he primarily wants the USA to foot the entire bill for all these unfortunate souls?

If the Roman Catholic Church under Francis wants to feed all the hungry, provide health care to all the world's sick, to provide a safe haven for all those political and religious migrants that he wants you and me to take in, then maybe he should sell a few of the Renaissance oil paintings worth millions each to raise money. Or maybe he should sell off the extensive and quite profitable world-wide land holdings, or even part with the thousands of pure gold chalices the Church owns.

All suggestions will fetch a lot of money and will help a lot of people, Catholic, Jew, Muslim, atheist.

Here are MY thoughts:

I trust "religious leaders" about as much as I trust politicians. Both TALK a great game...but the actions that are supposed to back up this "talk" never seem to materialize. As the chief representative of the world's largest religion, the Pope is obligated to speak out on the issues that his religion is based on. He agrees to visit Cuba, because "forgiveness" plays a large role in the Christian religion...and he speaks about helping the poor, because Jesus had said that "he who clothes and feeds the poor has clothed and fed ME. And he who has turned his back on the poor, has turned his back on me".

The politicians tell their citizens what the citizens want to hear...and the religious leaders tell their followers what they believe the followers want to hear. The Pope has a role to play when he visits other countries...and he plays this role to the best of his ability. His job is to give hope to the unfortunate by reminding them that their suffering will be rewarded by their heavenly father...and to admonish the rich for not doing enough to help the poor among them.

He says all the "right things"...and then he goes back to the Vatican to count his money.

[hcap]

The actual tax rates are not a very significant metric. You have to look at the available writeoffs, which taxes are high or low (taxes on investment, income, or consumption). All these things matter. A chart with just tax rates is pretty close to meaningless. I stand corrected. Yes effective tax rates are different than marginal. However, if the real tax burden is lower, which it is, why believe lowering it further, would spur the economy? Or raising marginal rates would slow it down? I mean conservatives have consistently claimed that higher tax rates on the wealthy will hold back economic growth, while lowering rates further will spur it forward.

Btw the tax burden falls disproportionately on the lower brackets because for one, generally the services of tax professionals are more affordable for the upper brackets.

An example...

Leona Helmsley's distaste for paying taxes eventually landed her in federal prison. But the rich have little need to break the law to avoid the tax collector. As Martin A. Sullivan of Tax.com recently calculated, a New York janitor making slightly more than $33,000 a year pays an effective tax rate of nearly 25%. And the effective tax rate for a resident of the Park Avenue building named after Helmsley, earning an average of $1.2 million annually? A cool 14.7%.
http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/helmsley.png

[classhandicapper]

So Milton Friedman gets it all wrong while some left wing dolt named Paul Krugman is an economic genius? :lol: :lol: :lol:

What these leftist economists don't understand is that their policies of easy money, easy credit, and deficit spending to strengthen the economy when it weakens are the very policies that create the long term excesses that cause more serious economic consequences long term that they then blame on the free market.

I find the whole debate on economics enlightening in many ways.

There are people out there with IQs in the 150-160 range, multiple advanced degrees, and Nobel Prizes that can observe what is happening in the real world, observe what happens time and time again in markets and on Wall St, but somehow have a mental block to it all because they are unable to escape the model of thinking they either were taught or find politically appealing.

There are also people out there with less intellectual fire power, no degrees, and no prizes that quickly figure out how it all works and use that knowledge to make money in markets and business by avoiding excesses and buying when the markets are correcting them.

There must be a similar phenomenon at the racetrack. I just haven't found it. That could mean I'm the fool. :lol:

[classhandicapper]

I stand corrected. Yes effective tax rates are different than marginal. However, if the real tax burden is lower, which it is, why believe lowering it further, would spur the economy? Or raising marginal rates would slow it down? I mean conservatives have consistently claimed that higher tax rates on the wealthy will hold back economic growth, while lowering rates further will spur it forward.


This is where the two schools differ in their thinking.

The left likes to stimulate growth by encouraging consumption. They want people to spend their incomes and even borrow to spend. That's why they often want to increase government spending to help the economy. This approach DOES increase economic activity in the short term.

The right likes to increase savings and investment. Cutting taxes, especially on the wealthy, increases savings (if you also slow the growth of government spending) because wealthy people don't spend all they earn. So if you give them a tax break they just save more. A larger pool of savings has to get invested somewhere. It is that extra investment that then creates new jobs that help everyone.

IMHO, the approach from the left works, but it is a bad idea if you are a long term thinker even if it helps in the short term.

IMHO, the approach from the right is theoretically correct long term, but it can fail under some conditions. That failure is what I've been trying to explain to you.

It failed because a lot of the extra money was invested in other countries and share repurchases in the stock market. So what happened instead was that the rich got richer, the middle class and poor in the US got screwed, and we helped drag the Chinese, Mexicans etc.. out of poverty instead of helping our own people.

That's what we have to fix.

As much as it pains me to say, Trump has it right. We need to encourage investment in the US by creating better trade deals and somehow encouraging businesses to bring the money home and build plants here instead.

[mostpost]

There are also many other factors impacting our growth rate that have absolutely nothing to do with taxes.
Could you list those factors for us? Since you know they are there, you must know what they are.

When I look at the history of the US economy, the lessons are pretty clear. High taxes-with incentives-equals prosperity and strong growth. Low taxes equals recession and weak growth.

[mostpost]

So Milton Friedman gets it all wrong while some left wing dolt named Paul Krugman is an economic genius? :lol: :lol: :lol:
Finally you get it. Milton Friedman was wrong about everything. Paul Krugman probably is not an economic genius; just smarter than Friedman.

[classhandicapper]

Could you list those factors for us? Since you know they are there, you must know what they are.

When I look at the history of the US economy, the lessons are pretty clear. High taxes-with incentives-equals prosperity and strong growth. Low taxes equals recession and weak growth.

Lots of things

1. Debt levels

2. Population growth

3. Investment levels

4. International trade rules

5. Monetary policy (too easy or too tight)

6. Fiscal policy (how intelligently is government spending money)

7. External shocks

IMO, low taxes and good incentives for investment in physical plant and people (we are bad in the people part too is the best formula long term, but that other stuff can mess things up or vice versa.

[mostpost]

This is where the two schools differ in their thinking.

The left likes to stimulate growth by encouraging consumption. They want people to spend their incomes and even borrow to spend. That's why they often want to increase government spending to help the economy. This approach DOES increase economic activity in the short term.
That is a no brainer. Stock on the shelves does not stimulate the economy. Getting that stock off the shelves does. Consumers spend money which goes to business owners, who spend that money to expand their business and hire more workers and/or increase the pay of their workers, who spend that money etc. It does work in the short term if you consider the short term to be from the 1930's to the 1970's

The right likes to increase savings and investment. Cutting taxes, especially on the wealthy, increases savings (if you also slow the growth of government spending) because wealthy people don't spend all they earn. So if you give them a tax break they just save more. A larger pool of savings has to get invested somewhere. It is that extra investment that then creates new jobs that help everyone.
If you give the wealthy a tax break they just save more. If you keep their taxes high and give them incentives to invest, they invest more. There is a difference between saving and investing.

Oh, the fact that the wealthy don't spend all they earn is the best reason to not give them a tax break. Give that to the less wealthy who do spend all they earn
IMHO, the approach from the left works, but it is a bad idea if you are a long term thinker even if it helps in the short term.

IMHO, the approach from the right is theoretically correct long term, but it can fail under some conditions. That failure is what I've been trying to explain to you.

It failed because a lot of the extra money was invested in other countries and share repurchases in the stock market. So what happened instead was that the rich got richer, the middle class and poor in the US got screwed, and we helped drag the Chinese, Mexicans etc.. out of poverty instead of helping our own people.

That's what we have to fix.

As much as it pains me to say, Trump has it right. We need to encourage investment in the US by creating better trade deals and somehow encouraging businesses to bring the money home and build plants here instead.
Help me understand this. We gave the wealthy a tax break because we knew if we did, they would invest in American business. Except they didn't. They invested in foreign business. Kind of shoots your theory all to hell, doesn't it. How about this idea. We keep the tax rates high, but we tell them if you invest in American business which employs American workers we will reduce your tax burden. Do you think maybe then that investment money will stay at home?

Don't encourage. Require.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Help me understand this. We gave the wealthy a tax break because we knew if we did, they would invest in American business. Except they didn't. They invested in foreign business. Kind of shoots your theory all to hell, doesn't it. How about this idea. We keep the tax rates high, but we tell them if you invest in American business which employs American workers we will reduce your tax burden. Do you think maybe then that investment money will stay at home?

Don't encourage. Require.

Or yourself and a few other like-minded individuals could just make the investment decisions for businesses, directing investments into the right parts of the economy. I think that would work best.

[classhandicapper]

Help me understand this. We gave the wealthy a tax break because we knew if we did, they would invest in American business. Except they didn't. They invested in foreign business. Kind of shoots your theory all to hell, doesn't it. How about this idea. We keep the tax rates high, but we tell them if you invest in American business which employs American workers we will reduce your tax burden. Do you think maybe then that investment money will stay at home?

Don't encourage. Require.

The theory is correct. The greater investment helped drag many foreigners out of poverty. That is a worthy goal too, just not the goal I want. :lol:

It is a VERY BAD idea to force businesses to do anything.

The trade deals were negotiated poorly and have to be fixed. Incentives need to be put in place for people to invest in the US. But the fact remains that if either political party does things that make investment in the US a bad idea, they should and will leave.

[AndyC]

An example...

Leona Helmsley's distaste for paying taxes eventually landed her in federal prison. But the rich have little need to break the law to avoid the tax collector. As Martin A. Sullivan of Tax.com recently calculated, a New York janitor making slightly more than $33,000 a year pays an effective tax rate of nearly 25%. And the effective tax rate for a resident of the Park Avenue building named after Helmsley, earning an average of $1.2 million annually? A cool 14.7%.
http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/helmsley.png

Why stop at taxes? You could show the same disparity for a purchase of a loaf of bread or a gallon of milk. Why is it "fair" that we pay the same price for our daily bread but it's unfair when someone pays taxes at a higher rate?

Why did the author feel it necessary to put in the employer's share of payroll taxes to juice up his argument? Seeing how the payroll taxes are really deposits for the taxpayer's future use is that really a "tax"?

[AndyC]

Help me understand this. We gave the wealthy a tax break because we knew if we did, they would invest in American business. Except they didn't. They invested in foreign business. Kind of shoots your theory all to hell, doesn't it. How about this idea. We keep the tax rates high, but we tell them if you invest in American business which employs American workers we will reduce your tax burden. Do you think maybe then that investment money will stay at home?

Don't encourage. Require.

Really? All the money went to foreign investments. You do realize that the wealthy have to pay taxes on these foreign investments, don't you?

On a similar note, should the US government be sending billions of dollars of support to foreign countries? Kind of ironic that you believe a wealthy person should be restricted from investing in a foreign investment yet the government takes the tax money from the wealthy investor and ships it overseas.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Why stop at taxes? You could show the same disparity for a purchase of a loaf of bread or a gallon of milk. Why is it "fair" that we pay the same price for our daily bread but it's unfair when someone pays taxes at a higher rate?

Why did the author feel it necessary to put in the employer's share of payroll taxes to juice up his argument? Seeing how the payroll taxes are really deposits for the taxpayer's future use is that really a "tax"?

I'm certain HCAP supports an expansion of the food stamp program to address this issue.

I saw the same thing on the FICA piece...sneaky.

[mostpost]

Lots of things

1. Debt levels
We agree that debt levels are too high. We disagree on why.

2. Population growth
Population growth has been fairly steady except for the Baby Boomer era.

3. Investment levels
Are investment levels higher during periods of high taxes or during periods of low taxes? Department of Commerce data gives us the answer and you are not going to like it.

4. International trade rules
I did not realize it at the time, but NAFTA was a mistake. We need to protect American manufacturing done in America by American workers and punish foreign manufacturers and American companies that outsource or move factories overseas. (Punish is not exactly the word I want.)

5. Monetary policy (too easy or too tight)
I'm looking for the thimble where I keep everything I know about monetary policy. Until I find it, I can't comment.

6. Fiscal policy (how intelligently is government spending money)
See 5 above. I will just say that I think you and I have very different ideas of what is or is not intelligent spending.

7. External shocks
Does this mean things such as the Iran Oil Crisis of the seventies and the attacks of 9/11?

IMO, low taxes and good incentives for investment in physical plant and people (we are bad in the people part too is the best formula long term, but that other stuff can mess things up or vice versa.
The things you listed absolutely can have an effect on the economy. But you have shown me no proof that lowering taxes is the best way to react to them when they occur.

[NJ Stinks]

Could you list those factors for us? Since you know they are there, you must know what they are.

When I look at the history of the US economy, the lessons are pretty clear. High taxes-with incentives-equals prosperity and strong growth. Low taxes equals recession and weak growth.

Glad you brought this up, Mostpost. Here's an example supporting your point above.

Starting in 1962 under JFK, Congress passed something called an investment tax credit (nothing to do with the energy credits today). The investment credit was another way besides depreciation deductions to get companies to invest in equipment. An example would be a factory that buys three forklifts for $10,000 in total. The investment credit on the company federal tax return was 7% of the total cost or $700. During it's run the Investment Tax Credit rate was as high as 10% if I remember correctly. Anyway, here's why JFK and Congress passed the investment tax credit:

Congress echoed his [Kennedy's] sentiments by stating that the objective of the credit was “to encourage modernization and expansion of the Nation’s productive facilities and thereby improve the economic potential of the country, with resultant increase in job opportunities and betterment of our competitive position in the world economy” [U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Finance, 1962, p. 11].

Stimulating investment was to be accomplished through two major tax revisions. These were the Treasury’s revision of depre-ciation guidelines and ITC. Congress believed that realistic depreciation rules did not provide sufficient incentive to spur economic growth. An additional incentive in the form of an ITC would stimulate investment in two ways. First, it would reduce the net cost of acquiring depreciable assets. Second, it would increase the cash flow available for investment7 [U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Finance, 1962, p. 11].

OK. So how come most people today never heard of the Investment Tax Credit? Because Ronny Reagan had a better idea - that's why. The Investment Tax Credit was repealed by the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Here's the reason why:

Cultivating investment as a policy goal was not abandoned, but the means of doing so were considerably changed. TRA86 [Tax Reform Act of 1986] was enacted to increase the fairness, efficiency, and simplicity of the tax system [Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, 1986, p. 6]. Congress wished to reduce the role taxes play in investment and consumption decisions. Rather than tar-geting specific forms of investment, Congress believed that the “surest way of encouraging the efficient allocation of all resources and the greatest possible economic growth was by reducing statutory tax rates” [Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, 1986, p. 98]’.


Let's review what happened above.

1) In 1962 Dems wanted to encourage job growth by offering tax incentives. Did it work? You can decide for yourself.

2) In 1986 Republicans wanted to encourage job growth by cutting taxes. Did it work? You can decide for yourself.

I've decided for myself. The GOP is full of chit with this trickle down fantasy of theirs. Meanwhile, the Dems passed a tangible tax law in the 60's that spurred investment and helped create real jobs.

You guys keep saying that there is no difference between the DEMs and the GOP. You are wrong IMO and this is just another reason why.

Almost forgot the link for the quotes above:

http://www.accountingin.com/accounting-historians-journal/volume-27-number-2/the-role-of-depreciation-and-the-investment-tax-credit-in-tax-policy-and-their-influence-on-financial-reporting-during-the-20th-century/

[Tor Ekman]

From today's NY Times:

Kim Davis, Kentucky County Clerk, Met Pope Francis

Pope Francis met privately in Washington last week with Kim Davis, the county clerk in Kentucky who defied a court order to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, a Vatican spokesman confirmed on Wednesday.Ms. Davis, the Rowan County clerk, has been at the center of a nationwide controversy over whether government employees and private businesses have a legal right to refuse to serve same-sex couples. She spent five days in jail for disobeying a federal court order to issue the licenses.

On Tuesday night, her lawyer, Mathew D. Staver, said in a telephone interview that Ms. Davis and her husband, Joe, were sneaked into the Vatican Embassy by car on Thursday afternoon. Francis gave her rosaries and told her to “stay strong,” the lawyer said. The couple met for about 15 minutes with the pope, who was accompanied by security, aides and photographers. Mr. Staver said he expected to receive photographs of the meeting from the Vatican soon.

On Wednesday, the Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, confirmed the meeting, but he declined to elaborate. “I do not deny that the meeting took place, but I have no other comments to add,” he said.Ms. Davis described her meeting with Francis, in an interview on Wednesday with ABC News.

“I put my hand out and he reached and he grabbed it, and I hugged him and he hugged me,” Ms. Davis said. “And he said, ‘Thank you for your courage.’”

“I was crying. I had tears coming out of my eyes,” she said. “I’m just a nobody, so it was really humbling to think he would want to meet or know me.”

Mr. Staver said that Vatican officials had been aware of Ms. Davis, and that the meeting had been arranged through them — not through bishops or the bishops’ conference in the United States. He would not identify the Vatican officials.

In his public addresses in the United States, the pope spoke in broad strokes about the importance of religious freedom. On the plane trip home, an American television reporter asked him about government officials who refused to perform their duties because of religious objections to same-sex marriage.

The pope said that he could not speak specifically about cases but that “conscientious objection is a right that is a part of every human right.”

“It is a right,” he said. “And if a person does not allow others to be a conscientious objector, he denies a right.”

The pope did not mention Ms. Davis by name, but added: “Conscientious objection must enter into every juridical structure because it is a right, a human right. Otherwise, we would end up in a situation where we select what is a right, saying, ‘This right, that has merit; this one does not.’ ”

While in Washington, Francis also made an unscheduled stop to see the Little Sisters of the Poor, an order of nuns that is suing the federal government over the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate.

Ms. Davis and her husband were in Washington anyway to receive an award from the Family Research Council, a conservative advocacy group, in recognition of her stand against same-sex marriage.

During Ms. Davis’s visit to the Vatican Embassy, “the pope came to her and held out his hand,” Mr. Staver said.

Ms. Davis asked the pope to pray for her, which he said he would, and then the pope asked Ms. Davis to pray for him, Mr. Staver said. They spoke in English, he said, and the pope gave the Davises two rosaries. Ms. Davis gave the rosaries to her mother and father, who are Catholics.

Ms. Davis is an Apostolic Christian, a form of Pentecostal Christianity.

“He thanked her for her courage and told her, ‘Stay strong,’ ” Mr. Staver said.

Mr. Staver added that he, the Davises and Vatican officials had agreed to keep the meeting secret until the pope had left the United States because, he said, “we didn’t want the pope’s visit to be focused on Kim Davis.”

The meeting was first reported by Inside the Vatican (http://insidethevatican.com/news/letter-38-2015-kim-and-francis), a publication edited by Robert Moynihan, an American who has covered the Vatican for many years.

[AndyC]

Glad you brought this up, Mostpost. Here's an example supporting your point above.

Starting in 1962 under JFK, Congress passed something called an investment tax credit (nothing to do with the energy credits today). The investment credit was another way besides depreciation deductions to get companies to invest in equipment. An example would be a factory that buys three forklifts for $10,000 in total. The investment credit on the company federal tax return was 7% of the total cost or $700. During it's run the Investment Tax Credit rate was as high as 10% if I remember correctly. Anyway, here's why JFK and Congress passed the investment tax credit:

Congress echoed his [Kennedy's] sentiments by stating that the objective of the credit was “to encourage modernization and expansion of the Nation’s productive facilities and thereby improve the economic potential of the country, with resultant increase in job opportunities and betterment of our competitive position in the world economy” [U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Finance, 1962, p. 11].

Stimulating investment was to be accomplished through two major tax revisions. These were the Treasury’s revision of depre-ciation guidelines and ITC. Congress believed that realistic depreciation rules did not provide sufficient incentive to spur economic growth. An additional incentive in the form of an ITC would stimulate investment in two ways. First, it would reduce the net cost of acquiring depreciable assets. Second, it would increase the cash flow available for investment7 [U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Finance, 1962, p. 11].

OK. So how come most people today never heard of the Investment Tax Credit? Because Ronny Reagan had a better idea - that's why. The Investment Tax Credit was repealed by the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Here's the reason why:

Cultivating investment as a policy goal was not abandoned, but the means of doing so were considerably changed. TRA86 [Tax Reform Act of 1986] was enacted to increase the fairness, efficiency, and simplicity of the tax system [Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, 1986, p. 6]. Congress wished to reduce the role taxes play in investment and consumption decisions. Rather than tar-geting specific forms of investment, Congress believed that the “surest way of encouraging the efficient allocation of all resources and the greatest possible economic growth was by reducing statutory tax rates” [Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, 1986, p. 98]’.


Let's review what happened above.

1) In 1962 Dems wanted to encourage job growth by offering tax incentives. Did it work? You can decide for yourself.

2) In 1986 Republicans wanted to encourage job growth by cutting taxes. Did it work? You can decide for yourself.

I've decided for myself. The GOP is full of chit with this trickle down fantasy of theirs. Meanwhile, the Dems passed a tangible tax law in the 60's that spurred investment and helped create real jobs.

You guys keep saying that there is no difference between the DEMs and the GOP. You are wrong IMO and this is just another reason why.

Almost forgot the link for the quotes above:

http://www.accountingin.com/accounting-historians-journal/volume-27-number-2/the-role-of-depreciation-and-the-investment-tax-credit-in-tax-policy-and-their-influence-on-financial-reporting-during-the-20th-century/

Read the entire article regarding the history of depreciation and the ITC. No where was it concluded that one method of tax incentives was better or worse than another.

[Tom]

Try this.
A business expects to hire X people this year.
Apply for a pre-approved credit to be used against their taxes when they make the actual hires.

If they plant to build a new plant, they can apply for tax credits based on milestones of the program. 10% when they purchase the land, 10% when thy break ground, 10% when contractors are hired......

This is not rocket science. This way, the investment and the tax break are tied together....no oops later on.

[classhandicapper]

The things you listed absolutely can have an effect on the economy. But you have shown me no proof that lowering taxes is the best way to react to them when they occur.

IMO, it is between difficult and impossible to isolate the impact of each individual factor on economic growth. I wouldn't waste time trying.

What we can do is measure the upside and downside to business at various tax rates to see how they should logically act and then observe what they do in real life to see if reality matches theory.

For example, should I invest 50 million in a new factory in Puerto Rico or the US?

There are loads of inputs and outputs that determine the correct thing to do. They include wages, benefits, transportation of goods, political risks, taxes, worker skill etc...

A company will crunch those numbers and see what makes the most sense. If it's a very close call before taxes but there's a bigger difference after taxes, then taxes can change the outcome and where that money and those new jobs will go.

When drug companies were getting huge breaks to go to Puerto Rico, that's where they went. Now they are not and the industry left and the economy collapsed.

It happens all the time.

Companies and investors are not stupid. Money goes to wherever the best risk adjusted after tax returns are available whether it be muni bonds, junk bonds, treasuries, stocks, physical investments etc... Attracting money and investment is a good thing and taxes are part of the formula.

[Tom]

I've decided for myself. The GOP is full of chit with this trickle down fantasy of theirs. Meanwhile, the Dems passed a tangible tax law in the 60's that spurred investment and helped create real jobs.

And today we are almost 20 trillion in the hole.
Where the chit are THOSE jobs?
We spent billions on shovel ready infrastructure jobs yet our roads and bridges are falling apart.

1960 has nothing to do with 2015. You guys have more than proved spending has nothing to with creating jobs.

[classhandicapper]

Read the entire article regarding the history of depreciation and the ITC. No where was it concluded that one method of tax incentives was better or worse than another.

You can argue that giving investment tax credits can sometimes be worse. If the credit targets specific types of investment it will distort the market by favoring some things over others instead of allowing the market to decide what we actually need. The other problem is that unless it's a long term credit, companies will make investments now to take advantage of the credit but then make fewer investments in the future. It's basically borrowing from the future.

[NJ Stinks]

Read the entire article regarding the history of depreciation and the ITC. No where was it concluded that one method of tax incentives was better or worse than another.

Surely you didn't miss Mostpost's (and my) point.

Congress can offer tax incentives to encourage people/companies to invest in their businesses. A tax incentive in this case means that a person/company will reduce it's tax liability by investing more money into it's business. An important by-product of this tax incentive is the creation of more jobs. That's what Kennedy pushed for in 1962.

Or Congress can just cut federal tax rates instead of offering tax incentives. After all, if people/companies have more money after federal taxes are paid, they will invest it back into their businesses. That's what Reagan decided was best for the country in 1986 when he got rid of Kennedy's tax incentive (the Investment Tax Credit) and lowered federal tax rates.

My point is that tax incentives create a much stronger reason to invest - and therefore create more jobs - than cutting tax rates.

[NJ Stinks]

You can argue that giving investment tax credits can sometimes be worse. If the credit targets specific types of investment it will distort the market by favoring some things over others instead of allowing the market to decide what we actually need. The other problem is that unless it's a long term credit, companies will make investments now to take advantage of the credit but then make fewer investments in the future. It's basically borrowing from the future.

If you were on the Titanic, you would have demanded your money back as the ship sank. :rolleyes:

[Tom]

If YOU and mostie were on it, you would be touting the Obama Submarine fleet! :lol::lol::lol:

[Robert Fischer]

I miss the pope already.

[AndyC]

Surely you didn't miss Mostpost's (and my) point.

Congress can offer tax incentives to encourage people/companies to invest in their businesses. A tax incentive in this case means that a person/company will reduce it's tax liability by investing more money into it's business. An important by-product of this tax incentive is the creation of more jobs. That's what Kennedy pushed for in 1962.

Or Congress can just cut federal tax rates instead of offering tax incentives. After all, if people/companies have more money after federal taxes are paid, they will invest it back into their businesses. That's what Reagan decided was best for the country in 1986 when he got rid of Kennedy's tax incentive (the Investment Tax Credit) and lowered federal tax rates.

My point is that tax incentives create a much stronger reason to invest - and therefore create more jobs - than cutting tax rates.


The ITC was halted several times after 1962. As for the by-product of the ITC being job creation that was certainly the talking point. Why would receiving a small credit create more jobs than paying less taxes by lower rates? You assume that businesses bought equipment that they wouldn't have purchased if not for the credit. I don't think any prudent business would go out and purchase something that they didn't need all for a 7-10% price reduction via a tax credit. They would however accelerate purchases that were planned or needed in the near future. Unfortunately accelerating purchases creates a void for the time period where equipment would have been normally replaced.

Your analysis falls a little short when you talk about tax cuts. There are 4 things that will happen when a company has more available income: 1) They will invest in the business, 2) they will pay down debt 3) they will pay it out in exorbitant salaries to executives and 4) put it in the bank or other investments. Surely you would agree that #s 1 & 2 would make the business stronger and is a good result. As for #3, high salaries to executives means big money coming into government from taxes. Is that bad? #4 helps out many people by providing liquidity to capital markets.

[Tom]

I miss the pope already.

Watch the lottery drawing tonight. ;)

[NJ Stinks]

Your analysis falls a little short when you talk about tax cuts. There are 4 things that will happen when a company has more available income: 1) They will invest in the business, 2) they will pay down debt 3) they will pay it out in exorbitant salaries to executives and 4) put it in the bank or other investments. Surely you would agree that #s 1 & 2 would make the business stronger and is a good result. As for #3, high salaries to executives means big money coming into government from taxes. Is that bad? #4 helps out many people by providing liquidity to capital markets.

The questions, Andy, are these. Was the middle class and below doing better when tax incentives were used or when tax cuts were used to stimulate business? Were more jobs created with tax incentives or with tax cuts?

I think the answer is obvious. You apparently don't think the answer is obvious.

[AndyC]

The questions, Andy, are these. Was the middle class and below doing better when tax incentives were used or when tax cuts were used to stimulate business? Were more jobs created with tax incentives or with tax cuts?

I think the answer is obvious. You apparently don't think the answer is obvious.

There is absolutely no evidence that the ITC helped the middle class to more prosperity. Jobs are what lead to prosperity. The ITC did not cause extra business to happen to any extent that would have been a big job creator.

A lower tax rate is a tax incentive. People and businesses looking to start or expand business look at after tax rates of return. Would you be more inclined to invest or start a business with a 20% after tax return or a 10% return. The real world doesn't make large investment decisions based on a things like the ITC.

[NJ Stinks]

There is absolutely no evidence that the ITC helped the middle class to more prosperity. Jobs are what lead to prosperity. The ITC did not cause extra business to happen to any extent that would have been a big job creator.

A lower tax rate is a tax incentive. People and businesses looking to start or expand business look at after tax rates of return. Would you be more inclined to invest or start a business with a 20% after tax return or a 10% return. The real world doesn't make large investment decisions based on a things like the ITC.

The proof is in the pudding. The middle class and below prospered between 1962 and 1985 when tax rates were higher and tax incentives were used to lower a company's tax liability. Starting with Reagan and his tax cuts instead of tax incentives philosphy in the 1980's, the middle class and below have been treading water.

Just because something sounds good doesn't mean it is good.

[classhandicapper]

The proof is in the pudding. The middle class and below prospered between 1962 and 1985 when tax rates were higher and tax incentives were used to lower a company's tax liability. Starting with Reagan and his tax cuts instead of tax incentives philosphy in the 1980's, the middle class and below have been treading water.

Just because something sounds good doesn't mean it is good.

You are doing the same thing as others.

THere is a correlation between the ITC and better performance, but correlation is not causation. There are many things that impact the economy, jobs, and incomes.

For example, when communism fell, that changed everything. Suddenly there were over a billion new low wage workers on the market competing with US workers.

[AndyC]

The proof is in the pudding. The middle class and below prospered between 1962 and 1985 when tax rates were higher and tax incentives were used to lower a company's tax liability. Starting with Reagan and his tax cuts instead of tax incentives philosphy in the 1980's, the middle class and below have been treading water.

Just because something sounds good doesn't mean it is good.

Believe me it wasn't the ITC that made the middle class gain economically.
http://www.cluteinstitute.com/ojs/index.php/JABR/article/viewFile/6204/6282

[mostpost]

Believe me it wasn't the ITC that made the middle class gain economically.
http://www.cluteinstitute.com/ojs/index.php/JABR/article/viewFile/6204/6282
Sorry, I do not believe you. In the introduction to his paper Professor Shoemaker makes the following statements.
"Studies in neoclassical economic theory of capital accumulation (Hall and Jorgenson, 1967, 1971: Jorgenson, 1963,1965; Jorgenson and Siebert, 1968; and Jorgenson and Stephenson, 1967) have concluded that the ITC was a positive stimulus for investment."

"Investment studies using q-theory (Chappel and Cheng, 1982; Salinger and Summers, 1983; Summers, 1981; Tobin and Brainerd, 1977; and Von Furstenberg, 1980) generally concur."

"Accounting studies (Ayres 1987, Maloney 1986; Stout, 1977; and Wunder, 1978) have also found a positive correlation between the ITC and investment, at least in some industries."

So Professor Shoemaker presents us with fifteen studies that confirm that the Investment Tax Credit increased investments and one-his own-which shows it did not. And he expects us to believe his study because??????????

Then, there is this.
http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/11/27/why-researchers-should-avoid-the-clute-institute/

[AndyC]

Sorry, I do not believe you. In the introduction to his paper Professor Shoemaker makes the following statements.
"Studies in neoclassical economic theory of capital accumulation (Hall and Jorgenson, 1967, 1971: Jorgenson, 1963,1965; Jorgenson and Siebert, 1968; and Jorgenson and Stephenson, 1967) have concluded that the ITC was a positive stimulus for investment."

"Investment studies using q-theory (Chappel and Cheng, 1982; Salinger and Summers, 1983; Summers, 1981; Tobin and Brainerd, 1977; and Von Furstenberg, 1980) generally concur."

"Accounting studies (Ayres 1987, Maloney 1986; Stout, 1977; and Wunder, 1978) have also found a positive correlation between the ITC and investment, at least in some industries."

So Professor Shoemaker presents us with fifteen studies that confirm that the Investment Tax Credit increased investments and one-his own-which shows it did not. And he expects us to believe his study because??????????

Then, there is this.
http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/11/27/why-researchers-should-avoid-the-clute-institute/

There is no question that the ITC was an incentive to make a current purchase. There is no evidence to suggest that the purchases would not have been made if not for the ITC. They were merely accelerated.

What is really a reach is that somehow the ITC was the vehicle that propelled the middle class to new economic heights.

The ITC was rightfully stopped. It did not change behavior, it just changed when behavior happened. What did change behavior was energy credits.

[Tom]

From a left-leaning newspaper....at the time.

The two key measures that mark a depression or expansion are jobs and production. Let's look at the records that were set. Creation of jobs. From November 1982, when President Ronald Reagan's new economic program was beginning to take effect, to November 1989, 18.7 million new jobs were created. It was a world record: Never before had so many jobs been created during a comparable time period. The new jobs covered the entire spectrum of work, and more than half of them paid more than $20,000 a year. As total employment grew to 119.5 million, the rate of unemployment fell to slightly over 5 percent, the lowest level in 15 years. Creation of wealth.

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/17/opinion/the-reagan-boom-greatest-ever.html

[Tom]

April 10, 2009Reagan's Legacy: Our 25-Year Boom

By Investor's Business Daily (http://www.realclearmarkets.com/authors/?id=17974)
Golden Age: After 25 years of record-setting economic performance around the world, set off by President Reagan's free-market policies, the world has fallen into a recession. Is this the inevitable end of an era?



2009 - Obama's the POTUS.

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/04/reagans_legacy_our_25year_boom.html

It was Reagan who brought America's capitalist economy roaring back to life, ending energy price controls, slashing income tax rates by 25% and dramatically reducing tax rates on capital gains.

[mostpost]

From a left-leaning newspaper....at the time.



http://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/17/opinion/the-reagan-boom-greatest-ever.html
That article was in the New York Times, it was not from the New York Times. Like many newspapers, the NYT has an oped page. The OPed page is where crazy people from places like the Hoover Institute give their crazy opinions.

[Tom]

Sour grapes, mostie?:lol::lol:

What's ya gonna do, when Reaganmania runs wild on you?

[mostpost]

You are doing the same thing as others.

THere is a correlation between the ITC and better performance, but correlation is not causation. There are many things that impact the economy, jobs, and incomes.

For example, when communism fell, that changed everything. Suddenly there were over a billion new low wage workers on the market competing with US workers.
I say that higher taxes with targeted incentives works better to sustain a high performing economy than does lower taxes with no incentives. You say the opposite.

When I show you historical proof that I am correct, you argue that other factors need to be taken into account. Then why is it that those other factors are always favorable in the periods of higher taxes with incentives and always unfavorable in the periods of lower taxes.

You cannot deny the basic facts. GDP rose faster from 1947 to 1980 than it did between 1981 and 2014. Gross Domestic Private Investment rose at a faster annual rate during the first period than it did during the second. Wages have stagnated. The gap between the poor and the wealthy has widened to a chasm. Did all this happen because of bad luck or do your theories contain a fundamental flaw? The answer is obvious.

[mostpost]

There is no question that the ITC was an incentive to make a current purchase. There is no evidence to suggest that the purchases would not have been made if not for the ITC. They were merely accelerated.

What is really a reach is that somehow the ITC was the vehicle that propelled the middle class to new economic heights.

The ITC was rightfully stopped. It did not change behavior, it just changed when behavior happened. What did change behavior was energy credits.
This is the same specious argument that was made against Cash for Clunkers. People just bought cars sooner than they would have otherwise. The auto industry recovery continued long after C4C had run its course.

During ITC perhaps people did buy sooner than without it. But the next year the same thing happened and so on as long as the program continued. Certainly there were many who upgraded due to the program; those who purchased more sophisticated and expensive machinery because they had the extra money to do so.

[horses4courses]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CP8Ft1tWwAAjRpu.jpg:medium

[classhandicapper]

I say that higher taxes with targeted incentives works better to sustain a high performing economy than does lower taxes with no incentives. You say the opposite.

When I show you historical proof that I am correct, you argue that other factors need to be taken into account. Then why is it that those other factors are always favorable in the periods of higher taxes with incentives and always unfavorable in the periods of lower taxes.

You cannot deny the basic facts. GDP rose faster from 1947 to 1980 than it did between 1981 and 2014. Gross Domestic Private Investment rose at a faster annual rate during the first period than it did during the second. Wages have stagnated. The gap between the poor and the wealthy has widened to a chasm. Did all this happen because of bad luck or do your theories contain a fundamental flaw? The answer is obvious.

TARGETED taxes can shift the timing of investments without actually changing the total amount of investment.

I'm a businessman. I know I will eventually have to spend 10 million to upgrade my plant, but my current equipment has a few years left of useful life. I have budgeted to upgrade in 2018. The democrats come out with a bill that will allow me to upgrade now and save a lot of money. So I recalculate the cost, benefit etc... and decide that even though the current equipment would be OK for another couple of years, I should upgrade now. That increases the economic activity in the short term.

The downside is that if I upgrade now, that means I won't upgrade in 2018. Essentially the economic activity from the bill has been borrowed from the future.

These things are very complex. You aren't going to get the answers by trying to find correlations in the GDP data etc. You have to think in terms of what businesses should do because it's in their best interests to do so and then observe what they actually do to verify it.

[Tom]

The downside is that if I upgrade now, that means I won't upgrade in 2018. Essentially the economic activity from the bill has been borrowed from the future.

Which is what Cash for Clunckers did, as well as decimating the used car industry for a while.

[classhandicapper]

Which is what Cash for Clunckers did, as well as decimating the used car industry for a while.

Exactly.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Glad you brought this up, Mostpost. Here's an example supporting your point above.

Starting in 1962 under JFK, Congress passed something called an investment tax credit (nothing to do with the energy credits today). The investment credit was another way besides depreciation deductions to get companies to invest in equipment. An example would be a factory that buys three forklifts for $10,000 in total. The investment credit on the company federal tax return was 7% of the total cost or $700. During it's run the Investment Tax Credit rate was as high as 10% if I remember correctly. Anyway, here's why JFK and Congress passed the investment tax credit:

]

You should study JFK's overall tax policies. He was a supply-sider. Read "The Growth Experiment," by Larry Lindsey.

[classhandicapper]

You should study JFK's overall tax policies. He was a supply-sider. Read "The Growth Experiment," by Larry Lindsey.

If JFK was alive today, the Obama democrats would classify him as a right wing extremist.

IMO there are some elements on the republican side that are fruit loops and others that war mongering crazies. They prevent me from classifying myself as a republican even though I identify more with the right. If the democrats would put up a guy like JFK, I would be proud to be a democrat even though I wouldn't agree with them 100% either. With Obama in charge, I can't even be proud to be an American. How can I be proud of a leader that has ZERO understanding of markets, business and economics and a delusional understanding of how the world works? I thought this country hit an all time low with Bush 2, but compared to Obama those were the good old days. It's been 7 years of non stop stupidity that can't end too soon.

[Saratoga_Mike]

If JFK was alive today, the Obama democrats would classify him as a right wing extremist.

IMO there are some elements on the republican side that are fruit loops and others that war mongering crazies. They prevent me from classifying myself as a republican even though I identify more with the right. If the democrats would put up a guy like JFK, I would be proud to be a democrat even though I wouldn't agree with them 100% either. With Obama in charge, I can't even be proud to be an American. How can I be proud of a leader that has ZERO understanding of markets, business and economics and a delusional understanding of how the world works? I thought this country hit an all time low with Bush 2, but compared to Obama those were the good old days. It's been 7 years of non stop stupidity that can't end too soon.

On tax policy, I think JFK was more conservative than almost every candidate running for the GOP nomination.

[AndyC]

On tax policy, I think JFK was more conservative than almost every candidate running for the GOP nomination.

Tough judgement to make. The economy of 1960 vs 2015 was vastly different. Far less mandated spending in the budget in those days. In retrospect I sure can't knock his tax plan.

[mostpost]

The downside is that if I upgrade now, that means I won't upgrade in 2018. Essentially the economic activity from the bill has been borrowed from the future.
Marty McFly is a fictional charcter. You can't borrow from the future. This is not a one time deal. The investment tax credit was to be in effect every year, and every year someone would benefit from it. In addition, you are ignoring the possibility that people could use the credit to make more upgrades than they were originally planning.

[mostpost]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom
Which is what Cash for Clunckers did, as well as decimating the used car industry for a while.


Exactly.
Exactly wrong. Here are the annual Auto Sales figure from 2007 to 2015.

2007.........16,154,064

2008.........13,245,718

2009.........10,431,510

2010.........11,589,844

2011.........12,778,885

2012.........14,492,398

2013.........15,582,136

2014.........16,531,070

2015 YTD*..11,611,179
Source: Automakers & ANDC

Wait a minute. Those are figures for new car sales. Surely you must be right if we talk about used car sales.

2007: 41,418,561
2008: 36,530,404
2009: 35,589,149
2010: 36,883,987
2011: 38,792,169
2012: 40,500,000
2013: 41,000,000
2014: 41,250,000

Nope, you are wrong about that too. Cash For Clunkers provided an impetus to sales in 2009 without seriously affecting the market in future years; except in a positive way.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Tough judgement to make. The economy of 1960 vs 2015 was vastly different. Far less mandated spending in the budget in those days. In retrospect I sure can't knock his tax plan.

I was speaking purely to his tax policies, not anything on the spending front. I haven't examined his spending policies as closely.

[AndyC]

Marty McFly is a fictional charcter. You can't borrow from the future. This is not a one time deal. The investment tax credit was to be in effect every year, and every year someone would benefit from it. In addition, you are ignoring the possibility that people could use the credit to make more upgrades than they were originally planning.

The ITC in the 60s gave the taxpayers a 7% reduction in what they were buying. Because depreciation was lost on the credit amount the net was less than 5%. The credit wasn't in effect every year, it was suspended several times. Could it be that the lowered tax rates had a bigger effect than the ITC?

From JFK speech in 1962:"This administration pledged itself last summer to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes to be enacted and become effective in 1963. I am not talking about a quickie or a temporary tax cut which would be more appropriate if a recession were imminent. Nor am I talking about giving the economy a mere shot in the arm to ease some temporary complaint. The federal government's most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities of private expenditures." emphasis added

[Saratoga_Mike]

Nope, you are wrong about that too. Cash For Clunkers provided an impetus to sales in 2009 without seriously affecting the market in future years; except in a positive way.

Your data just shows a cyclical auto recovery. It doesn't disprove Tom's contention, nor can he prove his contention (the counterfactual).

At very least, C4Cs was a waste of taxpayer dollars. And it most likely just moved up some demand by one year. You can't see that, the pull forward, because it's a cyclical recovery.

[AndyC]

I was speaking purely to his tax policies, not anything on the spending front. I haven't examined his spending policies as closely.

Tax policies aren't made in a vacuum. Wouldn't you agree that the revenue target should somewhat be comparable to the expenditure target? At least it was back in the 60s.

[classhandicapper]

You really need to learn something about economics and stats. You keep making the same mistakes.

If someone is planning to buy a car in the future and you give him an incentive to buy it NOW and he does, then you are bringing those sales forward at the expense of the future. No one is going to buy a car now and then buy it again later as they were planning. They buy it once.

The data you are posting represents the normal business cycle variance for car sales that is part of the broader economy. As the economy went into recession in 2008, sales declined from their normal level because people were losing their jobs and scared. They improved again in the recovery from their temporarily depressed level because more people were being employed. To the extent that CFC worked it just shifted the timing of the sales. The data from around the 2009 period would be lower without that program but it would be higher for the subsequent years for a net of close to zero.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Tax policies aren't made in a vacuum. Wouldn't you agree that the revenue target should somewhat be comparable to the expenditure target? At least it was back in the 60s.

My only contention is JFK came into office and shaped tax policy as a supply-sider, not dissimilar to Calvin Coolidge in the 1920s.

[mostpost]

You really need to learn something about economics and stats. You keep making the same mistakes.

If someone is planning to buy a car in the future and you give him an incentive to buy it NOW and he does, then you are bringing those sales forward at the expense of the future. No one is going to buy a car now and then buy it again later as they were planning. They buy it once.
I despair of teaching you anything. If someone buys a car now, they probably will not buy one in two years, but someone will. Probably more someone's than would have done so without the incentives. The fact that you boost sale by 15% today does not preclude you boosting sales 15% tomorrow.

The data you are posting represents the normal business cycle variance for car sales that is part of the broader economy. As the economy went into recession in 2008, sales declined from their normal level because people were losing their jobs and scared. They improved again in the recovery from their temporarily depressed level because more people were being employed. To the extent that CFC worked it just shifted the timing of the sales. The data from around the 2009 period would be lower without that program but it would be higher for the subsequent years for a net of close to zero.
http://www.macrotrends.net/1372/auto-and-light-truck-sales-historical-chart

Look at the chart above: the line post C4C goes up like a rocket ship. It does not go up for a few months then level off, which it would do if your theory was correct.

It wasn't all C4C. The auto company bailouts were a major cause. The truth is the actions taken by Obama-and Bush to some extent-are what caused the recovery in the auto industry.

[Saratoga_Mike]

[ The truth is the actions taken by Obama-and Bush to some extent-are what caused the recovery in the auto industry.

And I thought it was consumers buying more cars. Nope, it was the government.

[classhandicapper]

http://www.macrotrends.net/1372/auto-and-light-truck-sales-historical-chart

Look at the chart above: the line post C4C goes up like a rocket ship. It does not go up for a few months then level off, which it would do if your theory was correct.

It wasn't all C4C. The auto company bailouts were a major cause. The truth is the actions taken by Obama-and Bush to some extent-are what caused the recovery in the auto industry.

No.

CFC is small potatoes compared to what was going on in the economy. It can't be isolated from the overall sales using that chart.

Sales plummeted as the recession took hold with the CFC most likely helping to mitigate the decline as it was intended to do by Obama.

Once we bottomed out in the economy, sales took off again as they always do, but again you can't see what they would have been without CFC. There are WAY TOO many moving parts in the economy.

Instead of posting charts looking for things that can't be isolated, use your head. You are obviously smart enough to understand that if you bought a car because of CFC incentives in 2009 you aren't going to buy another right after that. You just bought it sooner.

[hcap]

I originally took exception to classhandicapper "trashing" the Pope claiming the Pope was sticking his nose into economic matters. As though his criticisms of the obvious abuses of capitalism and specifically "trickle down" versions of capitalism, could not be based on clear humanitarian and compassionate issues. And that conservative assumptions that they have the god-given facts and truth and the other side was absolutely wrong, and the Pope O-MY-GAWD, would destroy the "golden goose" of capitalism by speaking out :sleeping: :sleeping:

Needless to say the continuing conservative bullshit about the Pope having no business criticizing climate change denial is another example of how conservatives are have flipped out and are so delusional.

Extremist Heartland Institute Attacks Pope Francis On Climate, Claims Paganism Has Entered Catholic Church.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/09/22/heartland-institute-attacks-pope-claims-paganism-has-entered-catholic-church

Claims of pagan influence over the Pope and conspiracies by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to suppress climate data were aired by a panel of Heartland Institute speakers.

“There are elements of nature worship, and I would say that contrary to some of the criticism, that this is not communism that has entered the church, it is rather paganism,” Gene Koprowski, marketing director for the Heartland Institute warned a collection of reporters.
“I think that if we have a pope who doesn’t keep things in an orthodox manner, we’re gonna be having forms returning to the religion that are not orthodox,” he added. “I think we are seeing a revelation of a sort of animistic form in the church.”

/behch3XrH1E

[Clocker]

You really need to learn something about economics and stats. You keep making the same mistakes.


Good luck with that.:p

This is the basic problem with the statistically naive just looking at aggregate data. CFC was followed by an increase in car sales, so CFC must have caused the increase. Just like the rooster crowing makes the sun come up.

If you disaggregate the data, there is strong evidence that CFC hurt the industry. There is no indication that total sales were any greater than they would have been, and evidence indicates that total spending was less, because people were influenced to buy smaller, more economical cars than they would have. The libs will say that is a good thing because people don't know what is good for them.

The question is: Did the program work?

According to the careful empirical analysis carried out by the three Texas A&M economists, it did not. Car sales went up during the program, but they went down by enough during the subsequent seven to nine months that the total number of vehicles sold within a year of the start of the program was not affected. And it gets worse than that: because of the environmental agenda embodied in some of the rules of the program, “folks” used their credits to buy smaller, cheaper cars. As a result, total spending on new cars actually went down in 2009-2010, at the height of the recession. The federal government spent $3 billion on Cash for Clunkers, and by doing so it reduced spending on new cars by, you guessed it, $3 billion. The program, which was somehow found to be consistent with the Obama doctrine of “don’t do stupid stuff,” cost both taxpayers and carmakers $3 billion. Staggering.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/2014/08/14/obamas-cash-for-clunkers-stimulus-bailout-failed-car-companies

[LottaKash]

Attacks Pope Francis On Climate, Claims Paganism Has Entered Catholic Church.
[/B]
[

Paganism has been in the RC church for many centuries...

Cardinal Newman, in his book, “The Development of the Christian Religion,” admits that ... “Temples, incense, oil lamps, votive offerings, holy water, holidays and season of devotions, processions, blessing of fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure (of priests and monks and nuns), images ... are all of pagan origin...” (Page 359).
=======================
LIST OF CATHOLIC HERESIES
And HUMAN TRADITIONS
ADOPTED and PERPETUATED by the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH
IN THE COURSE OF 1600 YEARS


(Compiled by Rev. Stephen L. Testa)
“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall
make you free.” —Jesus in John 8:32

Notice: These dates are in many cases approximate. Many of these heresies had been current in the Church years before, but only when they were officially adopted by a Church council and proclaimed by the pope as dogma of faith, did they become binding on Catholics.
And doctrine to be true must conform to the Word of God. “To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” (Isaiah 8:20)

At the Reformation in the 16th Century these heresies were repudiated as having no part in the Religion of Jesus as taught in the New Testament.
Heresy Date

OF ALL THE HUMAN TRADITIONS taught and practiced by the Roman Catholic Church, which are contrary to the Bible, the most ancient are the prayers for the dead and the sign of the Cross. Both began 300 years after Christ. 310

Wax Candles introduced in church 320

Veneration of angels and dead saints 375

The Mass, as a daily celebration, adopted 394

The worship of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and the use of the term, "Mother of God", as applied to her, originated in the Council of Ephesus 431

Priests began to dress differently from the laity 500
Extreme Unction 526
The doctrine of Purgatory was first established by Gregory the Great 593

The Latin language, as the language of prayer and worship in churches, was also imposed by Pope Gregory I. 600 years after Christ

The Word of God forbids praying and teaching in an unknown tongue. (1st Corinthians 14:9). 600

The Bible teaches that we pray to God alone. In the primitive church never were prayers directed to Mary, or to dead saints. This practice began in the Roman Church.
(Matthew 11:28; Luke 1:46; Acts 10:25-26; 14:14-18) 600

The Papacy is of pagan origin. The title of pope or universal bishop, was first given to the bishop of Rome by the wicked emperor Phocas.
This he did to spite Bishop Ciriacus of Constantinople, who had justly excommunicated him for his having caused the assassination of his predecessor emperor Mauritius. Gregory 1, then bishop of Rome, refused the title, but his successor, Boniface III, first assumed title "pope."
Jesus did not appoint Peter to the headship of the apostles and forbade any such notion. (Luke 22:24-26; Ephesians 1:22-23; Colossians 1:18; 1st Corinthians 3:11).
Note: Nor is there any mention in Scripture, nor in history, that Peter ever was in Rome, much less that he was pope there for 25 years; Clement, 3rd bishop of Rome, remarks that "there is no real 1st century evidence that Peter ever was in Rome." 610

The kissing of the Pope's feet
It had been a pagan custom to kiss the feet of emperors. The Word of God forbids such practices. (Read Acts 10:25-26; Revelation 19:10; 22:9). 709

The Temporal power of the Popes
When Pepin, the usurper of the throne of France, descended into Italy, called by Pope Stephen II, to war against the Italian Lombards, he defeated them and gave the city of Rome and surrounding territory to the pope. Jesus expressly forbade such a thing, and He himself refused worldly kingship. (Read Matthew 4:8-9; 20:25-26; John 18:38). 750

Worship of the cross, images and relics was authorized
This was by order of Dowager Empress Irene of Constantinople, who first caused to pluck the eyes of her own son, Constantine VI, and then called a church council at the request of Hadrian I, pope of Rome at that time.
Such practice is called simply IDOLATRY in the Bible, and is severely condemned. (Read Exodus 20:4; 3:17; Deuteronomy 27:15; Psalm 115). 788

Holy Water, mixed with a pinch of salt and blessed by the priest, was authorized 850

The veneration of St. Joseph began 890

The baptism of bells was instituted by Pope John XIV 965

Canonization of dead saints, first by Pope John XV
Every believer and follower of Christ is called saint in the Bible. (Read Romans 1:7; 1st Colossians 1:2). 995

Fasting on Fridays and during Lent were imposed
Imposed by popes said to be interested in the commerce of fish. (Bull, or permit to eat meat), some authorities say, began in the year 700. This is against the plain teaching of the Bible. (Read Matthew 15:10; 1st Corinthians 10:25; 1st Timothy 4:1-3). 998

The Mass was developed gradually as a sacrifice; attendance made obligatory in the 11th century.
The Bible teaches that the sacrifice of Christ was offered once and for all, and is not to be repeated, but only commemorated in the Lord's Supper. (Read Hebrews 7:27; 9:26-28; 10:10-14)
.
The celibacy of the priesthood was decreed by Pope Hildebrand, Boniface VII
Jesus imposed no such rule, nor did any of the apostles. On the contrary, St. Peter was a married man, and St. Paul says that bishops were to have wife and children. (Read 1st Timothy 3:2,5, and 12; Matthew 8:14-15). 1079

The Rosary, or prayer beads was introduced by Peter the Hermit, in the year 1090. Copied from Hindus and Mohammedans

The counting of prayers is a pagan practice and is expressly condemned by Christ. (Matthew 6:5-13). 1090

The Inquisition of heretics was instituted by the Council of Verona in the year 1184. Jesus never taught the use of force to spread His religion 1184
The sale of Indulgences, commonly regarded as a purchase of forgiveness and a permit to indulge in sin.
Christianity, as taught in the Bible, condemns such a traffic and it was the protest against this traffic that brought on the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. 1190

The dogma of Transubstantiation was decreed by Pope Innocent III, in the year
By this doctrine the priest pretends to perform a daily miracle by changing a wafer into the body of Christ, and then he pretends to eat Him alive in the presence of his people during Mass. The Bible condemns such absurdities; for the Lord's Supper is simply a memorial of the sacrifice of Christ. The spiritual presence of Christ is implied in the Lord's Supper. (Read Luke 22:19-20; John 6:35; 1st Corinthians 11:26). 1215

Confession of sin to the priest at least once a year was instituted by Pope Innocent III., in the Lateran Council
The Bible commands us to confess our sins direct to God. (Read Psalm 51:1-10; Luke 7:48; 15:21; 1st John 1:8-9). 1215
The adoration of the wafer (Host), was decreed by Pope Honorius

So the Roman Church worships a God made by human hands. This is plain idolatry and absolutely contrary to the spirit of the Gospel. (Read John 4:24). 1220

The Bible forbidden to laymen and placed in the Index of forbidden books by the Council of Valencia
Jesus commanded that the Scriptures should be read by all. (John 5:39; 1st Timothy 3:15-17). 1229

The Scapular was invented by Simon Stock, and English monk
It is a piece of brown cloth, with the picture of the Virgin and supposed to contain supernatural virtue to protect from all dangers those who wear it on naked skin. This is fetishism. 1287
The Roman Church forbade the cup to the laity, by instituting the communion of one kind in the Council of Constance

The Bible commands us to celebrate the Lord's Supper with unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine. (Read Matthew 26:27; 1st Corinthians 11:26-29). 1414

The doctrine of Purgatory was proclaimed as a dogma of faith by Council of Florence

There is not one word in the Bible that would teach the purgatory of priests. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sins. (Read 1st John 1:7-9; 2:1-2; John 5:24; Romans 8:1). 1439

The doctrine of 7 Sacraments affirmed
The Bible says that Christ instituted only two ordinances, Baptism and the Lord's Supper. (Read Matthew 28:19-20; 26:26-28). 1439

The Ave Maria, part of the last
It was completed 50 years afterward and finally approved by Pope Sixtus V, at the end of the 16th century. 1508

The Council of Trent, held in the year 1545, declared that Tradition is of equal authority with the Bible
By tradition is meant human teachings. The Pharisees believed the same way, and Jesus bitterly condemned them, for by teaching human tradition, they nullified the commandments of God. (Read Mark 7:7-13; Colossians 2:8; Revelation 22:18). 1545

The apocryphal books were added to the Bible also by the Council of Trent
These books were not recognized as canonical by the Jewish Church. (See Revelation 22:8-9). 1546

The Creed of Pope Pius IV was imposed as the official creed 1560 years after Christ and the apostlesTrue Christians retain the Holy Scriptures as their creed. Hence their creed is 1500 years older than the creed of Roman Catholics. (Read Galatians 1:8). 1560

The Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary was proclaimed by Pope Pius IX
The Bible states that all men, with the sole exception of Christ, are sinners. Mary herself had need of a Savior. (Read Romans 3:23; 5:12; Psalm 51:5; Luke 1:30,46,47). 1834

In the year 1870 after Christ, Pope Pius IX proclaimed the dogma of Papal Infallibility....This is a blasphemy and the sign of the apostasy and of the antichrist predicted by St. Paul. (Read 2nd Thessalonians 2:2-12; Revelation 17:1-9; 13:5-8,18).

Many Bible students see the number of the beast (Rev. 13:18), 666 in the Roman letters of the Pope's title: "VICARIVS FILII DEI." -- V-5, I-1; C-100, I-1; V-S, I-1; L-50, I-1; I-1; D-500, I-l — Total, 666. 1870

Pope Plus X, in the year 1907, condemned together with "Modernism", all the discoveries of modern science which are not approved by the Church
Pius IX had done the same thing in the Syllabus of 1864.


In the year 1930 Pius XI, condemned the Public Schools 1930

In the year 1931 the same pope Pius XI, reaffirmed the doctrine that Mary is "the Mother of God"
This doctrine was first invented by the Council of Ephesus in the year 431. This is a heresy contrary by Mary's own words. (Read Luke 1:46-49; John 2: l-5). 1931

In the year 1950 the last dogma was proclaimed by Pope Pius XII, the Assumption of the Virgin Mary 1950

n the year 1950 the last dogma was proclaimed by Pope Pius XII, the Assumption of the Virgin Mary

CONCLUSION
What will be the next invention? The Roman Church says it never changes; yet, it has done nothing else but invent new doctrines which are contrary to the Bible, and has practiced rites and ceremonies taken bodily from paganism.

[Tom]

Sharp post, Kash....just ask Linda Blair about this!

[LottaKash]

The Papa, is a Jesuit, and here are some of the words that were espoused by the Creator of the "Society of Jesus" (the Jesuits), and adherered to by this guy, and the others just like him:

The "Spiritual Exercises," as laid down by their founder, Ignatius Loyola: of the Society of Jesus: "That we may in all things attain the truth, that we may not err in anything, we ought ever to hold as a fixed principle that what I see white I believe to be black, if the superior authorities of the Church define it to be so."



Here are the very words of the so-called Saint Ignatius Loyola, the founder of the Jesuit Society:-

"As for holy obedience, this virtue must be perfect in every point in execution, in will, in intellect; doing which is enjoined with all celerity, spiritual joy and perseverance; persuading ourselves that everything is just, suppressing every repugnant thought and judgment of one's own in a certain obedience; and let every one persuade himself, that he who lives under obedience should be moved and directed, under Divine Providence, by his superior, just as if he were a corpse (perinde asi cadaver esset) which allows itself to be moved and led in every direction, without any resistance."


Bear this always in your mind, that the obedience which you practice to your superior is paid to God. If, then, you receive a command from one who holds the place of God, you should observe it with the same diligence as if it came from God Himself. Blessed Egidus used to say that it is more meritorious to obey man for the love of God than God Himself.

=====================
My opinion:
The Roman Catholic Church teaches the TRADITIONS of men instead of the commandments of God. In so doing, the Vatican has created a non-spirit based religion that offers faithless heathens a structured system of religion from the cradle to the casket. No faith is required to be a Catholic, just do as you are told.

[classhandicapper]

The Roman Catholic Church teaches the TRADITIONS of men instead of the commandments of God. In so doing, the Vatican has created a non-spirit based religion that offers faithless heathens a structured system of religion from the cradle to the casket. No faith is required to be a Catholic, just do as you are told.

I read your entire diatribe and it's clear you don't know much about Catholics.

[LottaKash]

I read your entire diatribe and it's clear you don't know much about Catholics.

It is just information, about the history of that church, and quotes of Bible Scripture as it relates to that sort of churchism, that's all...

It may seem a diatribe to you, but it is all true, all the same....

You can accept it or reject it, read it and draw your own conclusions.... I didn't make any of it up...

And, I am not to judge, just discern, that's all....It is just information...

I believe that I know much more about Catholicism than you may ever imagine....I was one, but I escaped...