Conversation of Federal Regulation of Business, Socialism etc

[Nostyle]

BTW, there is no constitutional argument for either system.

[monsoon]

Well that's just not true. The Constitution is pretty clear in its stance on limited government. ...

[Nostyle]

The whole point of the Constitution was to limit government at the federal level and protect the power of individual states and citizens...to never let the federal government become absolutely powerful, as England had been. Pretty much line for line the Constitution outlines how the federal government's role is to be kept minimal. Yet, year after year, we have pushed further and further away from these ideals. Think of in how many ways this country has already turned its back on the Constitution...from banning guns in D.C. to turning our money supply over to the Federal Reserve to going to war without approval by Congress to invading our privacy with the Patriot Act. The federal government has been on a constant power grab for two centuries now, hoping that if they did it slowly enough we, the people wouldn't notice...and controlling society in such a way so that as long as we are all living "the american dream" with our suburban homes, cars, and IPods, we won't have the desire to fight back against a flawed government that is continually stealing power and wealth from us, right before our blind eyes.

EDIT: Rather than put this in a separate post...

I find this quote by Thomas Jefferson quite telling:

"I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government; I mean an additional article taking from the Federal Government the power of borrowing. I now deny their power of making paper money or anything else a legal tender. I know that to pay all proper expenses within the year would, in case of war, be hard on us. But not so hard as ten wars instead of one. For wars could be reduced in that proportion; besides that the State governments would be free to lend their credit in borrowing quotas."

Here is one of the most important people in our nation's history, clearly stating that he wishes the Constitution had prevented the federal government from borrowing money. But what's even more telling is what he says when he elaborated...paraphrasing..."An additional article removing the power to borrow would reduce the size of our government substantially. We've already made sure the federal government cannot print its own money out of thin air, thank goodness, but we should also make sure they can't get themselves over their heads in debt. It would be hard to do this if we were at war, but by staying out of debt we'd avoid future wars over said debt, so it would be worth it in the long run. Besides, this will help keep our state governments in good standing so that they can better handle their fiscal responsibilities without the burden of the federal government."

Think of how Thomas Jefferson must be rolling over in his grave now, with this country trillions of dollars in debt, lacking a gold standard, and printing "legal tender" fiat currency like it's going out of style. Not exactly what our forefathers had in mind.

[monsoon]

The whole point of the Constitution was to limit government at the federal level and protect the power of individual states and citizens...to never let the federal government become absolutely powerful, as England had been. ....

[Nostyle]

I agree 100% which is why I said there are no Constitutional arguments for either Capitalism or Socialism as these are not political systems. I am not sure why you think the two statements are incompatible given the points you just made with the US Constitution which I agree with. The constitution does not dictate either capitalist or socialist economic models or anything in between to be employed in the regulation of business. There has been regulation of business in this country since the day it was founded.

[monsoon]

Well.... The problem with that, is that you are taking a fairly complex topic and using the definition from Websters to draw some conclusion about it. For example Libetarian Socialism, rejects all government involvement in business. The point of this is, is the Constitution does not dictate how commerce is to be performed in this country. Where or not the government getting involved in it is Constitutional is a different argument and that was never my intent. However Section 8, clearly gives the government the right to regulate business, borrow on it's credit, and impose taxes. You can disagree with that, and if you want to discuss it, I suggest opening another topic on the matter.

For the purposes of BofA the Government IS involved now.

[coyotetrickster]

The whole point of the Constitution was to limit government at the federal level and protect the power of individual states and citizens...to never let the federal government become absolutely powerful, as England had been. Pretty much line for line the Constitution outlines how the federal government's role is to be kept minimal. Yet, year after year, we have pushed further and further away from these ideals. Think of in how many ways this country has already turned its back on the Constitution...from banning guns in D.C. to turning our money supply over to the Federal Reserve to going to war without approval by Congress to invading our privacy with the Patriot Act. The federal government has been on a constant power grab for two centuries now, hoping that if they did it slowly enough we, the people wouldn't notice...and controlling society in such a way so that as long as we are all living "the american dream" with our suburban homes, cars, and IPods, we won't have the desire to fight back against a flawed government that is continually stealing power and wealth from us, right before our blind eyes.

EDIT: Rather than put this in a separate post...

I find this quote by Thomas Jefferson quite telling:

"I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government; I mean an additional article taking from the Federal Government the power of borrowing. I now deny their power of making paper money or anything else a legal tender. I know that to pay all proper expenses within the year would, in case of war, be hard on us. But not so hard as ten wars instead of one. For wars could be reduced in that proportion; besides that the State governments would be free to lend their credit in borrowing quotas."

Here is one of the most important people in our nation's history, clearly stating that he wishes the Constitution had prevented the federal government from borrowing money. But what's even more telling is what he says when he elaborated...paraphrasing..."An additional article removing the power to borrow would reduce the size of our government substantially. We've already made sure the federal government cannot print its own money out of thin air, thank goodness, but we should also make sure they can't get themselves over their heads in debt. It would be hard to do this if we were at war, but by staying out of debt we'd avoid future wars over said debt, so it would be worth it in the long run. Besides, this will help keep our state governments in good standing so that they can better handle their fiscal responsibilities without the burden of the federal government."

Think of how Thomas Jefferson must be rolling over in his grave now, with this country trillions of dollars in debt, lacking a gold standard, and printing "legal tender" fiat currency like it's going out of style. Not exactly what our forefathers had in mind.

[Nostyle]

Well.... The problem with that, is that you are taking a fairly complex topic and using the definition from Websters to draw some conclusion about it. For example Libetarian Socialism, rejects all government involvement in business. The point of this is, is the Constitution does not dictate how commerce is to be performed in this country. Where or not the government getting involved in it is Constitutional is a different argument and that was never my intent. However Section 8, clearly gives the government the right to regulate business, borrow on it's credit, and impose taxes. You can disagree with that, and if you want to discuss it, I suggest opening another topic on the matter.

For the purposes of BofA the Government IS involved now.

[Nostyle]

By the way, as to making this its own thread (which I have no problem with) and asking whether or not it applies here, I would certainly say it does, because the Federal Reserve is so closely tied to the banks, and this city lives and dies with its banks.

[monsoon]

Point taken. Changed the comment.

It is rather interesting that both banks in the city now only exist with handouts from the federal government. Handouts, which BTW, are borrowed.

[Nostyle]

Charlotte is, in essence, another example of the bubble the Fed has created via their irresponsible monetary policy. Those skyscrapers are quite symbolic of the current situation.