Depression

[Anonymous]

“We don’t have to assume it is the one true faith to demand that the cross stay where it is. This country was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs and they are a part of our history.”

No, and yes.

“This monument is a historical treasure.” A bit of an exaggeration?

“These same people would have us remove all references to Christianity out of the Constuitution.”

That’s a good thing, because there aren’t any, and there were never any.

The text of the Constitution is here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/index.html

There are exactly two places in the Constitution which mention religion.

One: “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

Two: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

It is plainly obvious how the adopters of the Constitution in 1791 considered the suitable interaction between the government and religion: keep away.

“I’m sure we’ve all heard that we should choose our battles carefully. Well, when it comes to the ACLU why is it that their lawsuits always seem to target those things that most American hold dear? Like Christmas, Christian historic monuments, the Boy Scouts etc and other fringe issues.”

The ACLU also upholds what many people hold dear: The Bill of Rights. You only hear about a certain fraction of the ACLU cases.

I personally think the Mt Soledad cross is not an important issue.

But if it were an entirely secular monument as some proponents purport, why are there no atheists who really want to keep it? Suppose, for instance, the cross were turned into a white rectangle? Clearly secular and still a veterans memorial. I bet that would make people mad. Why?

[barnaby33]

Because a rectangle is clearly not representative of the one true faith.

Its not a war memorial, its a cross, and its on public land. Nobody I know of wants to remove the memorial portion. I too have not that much interest in its removal, except for the vociferous objections of those that want to keep it, namely Christians.

The sooner the defenders of the cross own up to their true motives, the sooner we can have a more civil discussion of the place of religious symbols in public life.

Mostly I veer away from the more inflamatory subjects ie immigration politics. Not this time. I wonder why? At the base of my soul I really don’t care whether a cross sits on Soledad. I do care that those wanting to defend it have been so disingenuous about it.

Josh

[Anonymous]

It’s in a third place, too, Dr. Chaos; see “Signers” under your link:
“Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth.”

I’m just a graduate of government (public) schools, but I think that means that there was some deference to Christianity by the signers of the U.S. Constitution, or, at at the very least, no aversion to its presence in the public life of the newly-found country.

[vcguy_10]

jg, are you kidding? Since when “lord” became an exclusively christian reference? It may refer to “god” in any monotheistic religion.

But I digress. What we have in “the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven” is nothing more than 1787 AD. As I’m sure you learned in your public school, AD stands for anno domine, literally “year of the lord” and is simply a system for dating. You don’t need to be a christian to use the AD or BC nomenclature when referring to dates.

[PerryChase]

I concur with you, vcguy_10. The Gregorian calendar is simply a dating system. It’s now being used all over the world but people who use it are not necessarily Christians.

[powayseller]

can you guys take your cross discussion to off-topic forum?

[Anonymous]

It just occurred to me this morning, to inflation-adjust the ‘overconsumption’ estimate.

Over ’81-’05, in today’s dollars, we overconsumed $9.9 trillion, cumulatively (as compared to my original calculation of $7.2 trillion in unadjusted dollars; e.g., 1981’s overconsumption of $128 million, in my original calculation = $274 million in today’s dollars, in my revised calculation).

‘Paid back’ (in terms of reduced consumption = increased savings, to make up for past overconsumption) over 5 years, that’s a hit of 16% per year to GDP ($9.9 trillion divided by 5 years = $1.9 trillion per year / ’05 GDP of $12.5 trillion). ‘Paid back’ over 10 years, it’s a hit of 8% per year to GDP.

Scary coincidence, that the revised calculation of $9.9 trillion in overconsumption over ’81-’05 matches the increase in household debt over ’81-’05: household debt moved from $1.5 trillion in ’81 to $11.5 trillion in ’05, an increase of $10 trillion.

[powayseller]

Are you saying that since 1985, we started borrowing from the future to fund our consumption? What happened in 1985 to increase consumption percentage? How long do you think we can keep spending our future? Will our reserve currency status mitigate any negative effects? What happened to the other reserve currencies, such as the British pound – how did they fall? I think fiat currencies typically last 200 years, so the US dollar has little life left. What will be the next reserve currency?

[no_such_reality]

What happened in 1985 to increase consumption percentage?

Ronald Reagan.

Supply side economics.

Cold war victory via defense build-up.

Deficit funding of the US Government.

essentially the entire $7.2 overspending is just the debt the Government has piled up.

It can’t be repaid. The global markets would panic if the US actually started to pay off their debt.

[Anonymous]

[img_assist|nid=1711|title=
Personal Consumption vs. GDP|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=400|height=229]

NSR, as you can see, government spending (pink) as a proportion of U.S. GDP has remained relatively constant. Nice try at pinning it on Reagan (you forgot to mention Star Wars); no cigar.

The $10 trillion increase in debt over ’81-’05 is solely that of households. Separately, over the same ’81-’05 period, the Federal debt moved from $0.8 trillion to $4.7 trillion, an increase of $3.9 trillion.

The $10 trillion increase in household debt over ’81-’05 was all consumed, per my amateur economist calculation, and is arrayed around us in the form of Hummers, A-Rod’s salary, sky-high college tuition and health insurance, and smoky, hazy memories from last year’s overpriced Rolling Stones concert.

[Anonymous]

Yes, PS, exactly as you say (from ’81, not ’85) in your first sentence.

Why? Selfish baby boomers, due to pursuit of materialism instead of religion? That’s my guess.

I know nothing about currencies, PS; I’m a simple guy. I do feel very comfortable in my 100% position in gold mining (UNWPX/VGPMX) mutual funds.

Mark Twain: put your eggs in one basket, and guard that basket!

[poorgradstudent]

Nice to see numbers on how much Americans overspend. Although I disagree a bit with some of the specifics, I agree that Americans spend way too much and spend way too little. The WW II generation would gasp at most 20-60 year old’s financial statements if they saw them. I don’t think a “Depression” will happen, but sooner or later someone is going to pay the piper. I really hope that my generation won’t be expected to bail the Baby Boomers out.

There’s no simple answer either. Of course, on a personal level you can spend within your means, not get saddled with debt, and hope and pray the economy stays afloat enough for you to stay employed.

[sdduuuude]

I must admit, I’m pretty annoyed at the off-topic religious discussion in this thread.

[Anonymous]

Poorgradstudent, you can hope, but you can’t pray, because you’re annoying sdduuuude.

[Anonymous]

right on Bubba the one true lie oops I mean faith, so you can strap on your holster round them chiken nuts you call balls…and feel vindicated in killing anyone that doesn’t worship at your twisted altar…”the last refuge of a coward is his religion and nationalism”…look it up

[Author]

Posts