A Modern Emancipation Proclamation

[Foxfyre]

A loan shark is no one's savior.

You're missing the point. Who we call a "loan shark" is a matter of opinion. How high is too high when it comes to interest rates? As others here have pointed out, being willing to pay higher interest rates is sometimes the only way a person with poor credit can get a loan. Setting legal limits on that is, essentially, setting legal limits on who has access to credit.

Let me put this to you:

I would argue that risk is shared.

If someone buys the house next door to mine, but goes bankrupt and the house falls into disarray and stays vacant, MY property values suffer.

Should there not then be some mechanism to protect me from the foolish risks taken by others? Should the irresponsible behavior of others cost me?

However distressing and unfortunate this situation may be, the only remedy for this situation is for the federal government to stay out of it EXCEPT for requirements of sound money management by the banks. That means the government no longer bullies, threatens, or coerces banks into making risky loans to 'poor' people but insists that the banks return to sound lending practices. Home loans will be made to people who save up for a down payment, who are responsible to pay their debts on time, and who earn enough money to realistically be able to pay their mortgages.

People who have worked hard and developed the discipline to save and have a substantial investment in their homes, as well as having demonstrated the integrity of being honorable in paying their debts are not going to default on their mortgage except in very rare and unusual circumstances..

People who have little or no investment in their homes and little or no credit rating to protect are far more likely to not care if they default on their loans because they don't have anything to lose, most especially if they know the federal goverment may bail them out if they get into trouble.

 

[Foxfyre]

A MODERN EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION​

WHEREAS, Federal spending is out of control to the point that not only is there a lack of will to balance the budget, but it is fast becoming an impossibility, and

WHEREAS, the ability to use other people's money to increase one's personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth makes it irrisistible to avoid doing that, and

WHEREAS, it is human nature to become comfortable and dependent on government benefits we receive, and

WHEREAS, we Americans as a people have long abandoned a concept of restricting government to what the Constitution says it can do and we now allow government to do anything not specifically prohibited by the Constitution, and

WHEREAS, the resulting entitlement mentality at all levels from big corporations to agricultural subsidies to the typical welfare recipient is a pervasive corrupting force infecting both those in government and the beneficiaries of government benevolence,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that a constitutional amendment must be passed to prohibit the federal government at any level from bestowing any form of benevolence or benefit upon any person, group, demographic, or entity that does not equally benefit all regardless of political leanings and/or socioeconomic status.

This amendment will not affect or apply to any policies of state or local governments.

* * * * * *​

Your observations, comments, opinions, objections, and rebuttal follows. . . . .

I understand where you're coming from, but I do see some problems.

First of all, I am on principle not a big fan of constitutional amendments. Let's make the Constitution work, instead of trying to tinker with it (even if with the best intentions).

Second, as it is written your proposal might have unintended consequences. Are we going to outlaw veteran's benefits? (they are a particular group too)

Veteran's benefits are part of the contract we make with those who choose to put their lives on the line in service to their country, and it is a constitutional requirement for the federal government to provide the
common defense. So I see our veterans as not a special interest group, and my hope with the resolution is to attract true public servants back into government who will deal with veteran affairs thoughtfully, compassionately, and responsibly.

As for the Constitution working, the resolution itself makes the argument that it doesn't anymore. For the first 150+ years or so of the USA, those elected to high office were restrained to do only what the Constitution allowed them to do. As the Constitution makes absolutely no allowance for redistribution of wealth or dispensation of the people's treasury to special interest groups, the federal government did none of that.

Beginning with Teddy Roosevelt and snowballing ever since, the leaders decided they would no longer follow the old rules. Rather than be restricted by what the Constitution allowed them to do, they turned that on its head and decided the government could do any damn thing it wanted unless the Constitution specifically prohibited it.

The result, a nation in which 50% of the people are dependent on some form of government subsidy that they are so attached to they elect people who will continue those subsidies rather than elect people dedicated to good government. And we have politicians who are able to use the government to make themselves multi millionaires and that is their primary motivation for everything they do. The result is a nation mired in crushing debt with a downgraded credit rating and teetering on the brink of bankruptcy with no will to correct what would put us back on track.

I think the resolution would fix most of that.

 

[Foxfyre]

LWC posted in his previous post:


In one sense I agree. It would be unconscionably and unjustifiably cruel to abruptly revoke Social Security and Mediare at the federal level after making millions of people dependent on these programs. . . but. . . .

We could begin now to slowly and carefuly back out of these programs at the federal level in small increments just as they have accrued and begin to privatize them.

Except for allocating tracts of unimproved land to homesteaders way back when, I can't think of any case in which government has relieved poverty to any significant degree by giving people stuff. I rather go with Ben Franklin's philosophy that we do people no kindness by making them easier in their poverty, but true compassion is leading or driving them out of it.

NO! NO! NO! A thousand times NO!

Privatizing Social Security is BAD! There is NO PROFIT to be made from it.

It would be better to put a time limit on it, saying that it will continue for so many years and then anyone born after that date will need this new privatized program weve come up with.

But taking the existing system and trying to turn a profit on it will never work.

Agreed. Efforts to "privatize" what were previously government services are often suspect and, when they result in granting "fiefdoms" to private industry, almost always a bad idea in my view. If we decide government doesn't need to be doing something, they should just stop doing it. Perhaps gradually, with plenty of public notice - but granting the controlling power of the state to private enterprise is a cure worse than the disease.

If the states wanted to initiate some sort of social security program for their people, that would be their prerogative. But once we slowly and carefully backed out of the existing programs so that we don't break faith with those the government has already made dependent on them, why not focus government efforts on making it profitable, responsible, and attractive to build your own retirement accounts? Let's get retirement plans out of the hands of corporate America. If people own their own plans, unethical corporate execs can't abscond with the money. There would be nothing stopping an employer from contributing to the plans if they chose to do so, however.

Likewise if the workers and not the company own their health insurance policies, they can take them with them when they change jobs and dont have to worry about a job change costing them their healthcare coverage. If employers want to continue to contribute a certain amount for a worker's health plan, there would be nothing to prohibit them from including that in a compensation package.

There's all kinds of ways to address these problems without the federal government being a nanny state.

 

[Foxfyre]

A MODERN EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION​

WHEREAS, Federal spending is out of control to the point that not only is there a lack of will to balance the budget, but it is fast becoming an impossibility, and

WHEREAS, the ability to use other people's money to increase one's personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth makes it irrisistible to avoid doing that, and

WHEREAS, it is human nature to become comfortable and dependent on government benefits we receive, and

WHEREAS, we Americans as a people have long abandoned a concept of restricting government to what the Constitution says it can do and we now allow government to do anything not specifically prohibited by the Constitution, and

WHEREAS, the resulting entitlement mentality at all levels from big corporations to agricultural subsidies to the typical welfare recipient is a pervasive corrupting force infecting both those in government and the beneficiaries of government benevolence,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that a constitutional amendment must be passed to prohibit the federal government at any level from bestowing any form of benevolence or benefit upon any person, group, demographic, or entity that does not equally benefit all regardless of political leanings and/or socioeconomic status.

This amendment will not affect or apply to any policies of state or local governments.

* * * * * *​

Your observations, comments, opinions, objections, and rebuttal follows. . . . .

While the above is certainly a carefully crafted and well intentioned concept, I must so very, very respectfully suggest that it is perhaps - just perhaps - not entirely practical. The actual implementation of that carefully crafted and well intentioned concept would, it seems in my oh-so-humble opinion, involve many more complications and contradictions with existing obligations than may perhaps - just perhaps - have been considered. Furthermore, the wording of this would-be Amendment seems to leave too wide an avenue for interpretation to avoid politicization to a degree that would render the concept meaningless. All of the foregoing is likely moot in any case since, in my oh-so-so-humble opinion, there is virtually no chance that such an Amendment would pass.

I pray that my comments will not be interpreted as overly aggressive or contrarian, and I humbly beg the forgiveness of anyone who might take them as such.

So, it would be the perfect bill?

LOL.

Seriously though, the whole purpose of the resolution would be to take most of the ability for personal gain at somebody else's expense out of the equation and, while that would not eliminate politics, it would alter the political climate a great deal.

In my opinion it would return politics to honest differences of opinion in how to address problems with both sides serious about actually solving the problem. There would be no personal benefit in intentionally allowing the problem to continue.

 

[Unkotare]

While the above is certainly a carefully crafted and well intentioned concept, I must so very, very respectfully suggest that it is perhaps - just perhaps - not entirely practical. The actual implementation of that carefully crafted and well intentioned concept would, it seems in my oh-so-humble opinion, involve many more complications and contradictions with existing obligations than may perhaps - just perhaps - have been considered. Furthermore, the wording of this would-be Amendment seems to leave too wide an avenue for interpretation to avoid politicization to a degree that would render the concept meaningless. All of the foregoing is likely moot in any case since, in my oh-so-so-humble opinion, there is virtually no chance that such an Amendment would pass.

I pray that my comments will not be interpreted as overly aggressive or contrarian, and I humbly beg the forgiveness of anyone who might take them as such.

So, it would be the perfect bill?

LOL.

Seriously though, the whole purpose of the resolution would be to take most of the ability for personal gain at somebody else's expense out of the equation and, while that would not eliminate politics, it would alter the political climate a great deal.

In my opinion it would return politics to honest differences of opinion in how to address problems with both sides serious about actually solving the problem. There would be no personal benefit in intentionally allowing the problem to continue.

It would alter nothing, becuase it would never pass. If it somehow did pass, it would be meaningless for the reasons outlined above.

 

[Foxfyre]

So, it would be the perfect bill?

LOL.

Seriously though, the whole purpose of the resolution would be to take most of the ability for personal gain at somebody else's expense out of the equation and, while that would not eliminate politics, it would alter the political climate a great deal.

In my opinion it would return politics to honest differences of opinion in how to address problems with both sides serious about actually solving the problem. There would be no personal benefit in intentionally allowing the problem to continue.

It would alter nothing, becuase it would never pass. If it somehow did pass, it would be meaningless for the reasons outlined above.

Are you sure? I would have put good money on lots of things that I believed would never pass and I would have lost a lot of those bets. Are you prepared to say that it is impossible that there are not enough Americans left who love their country to have the conversation and eventually bring it to a vote?

To refuse to even consider an idea, a concept, or possibility because 'it couldn't happen' is one of the best ways I can think of to bring forward progress to a screeching halt.

And you'll have to give me a better argument for how the resolution is 'meaningless' to be taken seriously about that.

 

[Foxfyre]

Quick aside as a reminder to those just entering this thread:

This thread is in the CDZ where civility rules are enforced. Everybody is pretty well sticking within those parameters, but I dont want to lose somebody with an interesting or useful point of view just because they weren't aware.

 

[Unkotare]

Veteran's benefits are part of the contract we make with those who choose to put their lives on the line in service to their country, and it is a constitutional requirement for the federal government to provide the
common defense. So I see our veterans as not a special interest group.

You demonstrate yourself how the whole idea would quickly be reduced to irrelevancy. Any half-assed lawyer could craft an argument that a whole host of other special interest groups are not really special interest groups, etc. And we have a whole bunch of half-assed lawyers in Congress. It would never pass, and would be meaningless in any case.

 

[Unkotare]

LOL.

Seriously though, the whole purpose of the resolution would be to take most of the ability for personal gain at somebody else's expense out of the equation and, while that would not eliminate politics, it would alter the political climate a great deal.

In my opinion it would return politics to honest differences of opinion in how to address problems with both sides serious about actually solving the problem. There would be no personal benefit in intentionally allowing the problem to continue.

It would alter nothing, becuase it would never pass. If it somehow did pass, it would be meaningless for the reasons outlined above.

Are you sure? I would have put good money on lots of things that I believed would never pass and I would have lost a lot of those bets. Are you prepared to say that it is impossible that there are not enough Americans left who love their country to have the conversation and eventually bring it to a vote?

Yes I'm sure, and recognizing that in no way indicates any lack of love of country. That kind of emotive language does nothing to advance the conversation or to make an impracitcal notion any more feasible. I understand the frustration from whence it sprung, but it really isn't a very well thought-out idea.

 

[Unkotare]

And you'll have to give me a better argument for how the resolution is 'meaningless' to be taken seriously about that.

I explained that in my first post on the subject.

 

[Foxfyre]

Veteran's benefits are part of the contract we make with those who choose to put their lives on the line in service to their country, and it is a constitutional requirement for the federal government to provide the
common defense. So I see our veterans as not a special interest group.

You demonstrate yourself how the whole idea would quickly be reduced to irrelevancy. Any half-assed lawyer could craft an argument that a whole host of other special interest groups are not really special interest groups, etc. And we have a whole bunch of half-assed lawyers in Congress. It would never pass, and would be meaningless in any case.

A whole bunch of other people are not essential to the constitutional requirement to provide the common defense. So there is plenty of room to debate what constitutes appropriate contractual agreements for those who choose to put their lives on the line to provide that common defense, and whether that puts them into a special classification, but that is a totally different debate than the concepts in the resolution.

If you find the exercise of debating the concepts in the resolution to be meaningless, why are you participating at all? There's lots and lots of other threads on subjects you might find less meaningless. Just a friendly suggestion.

 

[Unkotare]

Veteran's benefits are part of the contract we make with those who choose to put their lives on the line in service to their country, and it is a constitutional requirement for the federal government to provide the
common defense. So I see our veterans as not a special interest group.

You demonstrate yourself how the whole idea would quickly be reduced to irrelevancy. Any half-assed lawyer could craft an argument that a whole host of other special interest groups are not really special interest groups, etc. And we have a whole bunch of half-assed lawyers in Congress. It would never pass, and would be meaningless in any case.

A whole bunch of other people are not essential to the constitutional requirement to provide the common defense.

Calm down and think for a minute. As I tried to tell you before, anyone with any legal training and/or political experience could find ways to tie any number of other special interest groups to Constitutional obligations, thus putting their chosen group outside the scope of your would-be bill, thus rendering it meaningless for all practical purposes. I mentioned all this in my very first post on the subject.

 

[Vast LWC]

However distressing and unfortunate this situation may be, the only remedy for this situation is for the federal government to stay out of it EXCEPT for requirements of sound money management by the banks. That means the government no longer bullies, threatens, or coerces banks into making risky loans to 'poor' people but insists that the banks return to sound lending practices. Home loans will be made to people who save up for a down payment, who are responsible to pay their debts on time, and who earn enough money to realistically be able to pay their mortgages.

People who have worked hard and developed the discipline to save and have a substantial investment in their homes, as well as having demonstrated the integrity of being honorable in paying their debts are not going to default on their mortgage except in very rare and unusual circumstances..

People who have little or no investment in their homes and little or no credit rating to protect are far more likely to not care if they default on their loans because they don't have anything to lose, most especially if they know the federal goverment may bail them out if they get into trouble.

I agree that the government should not force banks to extend loans to people who obviously will not be able to pay them back.

However, in return, banks should not be allowed to engage in clear usury.

Laws are already on the books, as you mentioned, in most states. It is the federal government that has allowed banks to skirt these usury laws.

 

[Foxfyre]

However distressing and unfortunate this situation may be, the only remedy for this situation is for the federal government to stay out of it EXCEPT for requirements of sound money management by the banks. That means the government no longer bullies, threatens, or coerces banks into making risky loans to 'poor' people but insists that the banks return to sound lending practices. Home loans will be made to people who save up for a down payment, who are responsible to pay their debts on time, and who earn enough money to realistically be able to pay their mortgages.

People who have worked hard and developed the discipline to save and have a substantial investment in their homes, as well as having demonstrated the integrity of being honorable in paying their debts are not going to default on their mortgage except in very rare and unusual circumstances..

People who have little or no investment in their homes and little or no credit rating to protect are far more likely to not care if they default on their loans because they don't have anything to lose, most especially if they know the federal goverment may bail them out if they get into trouble.

I agree that the government should not force banks to extend loans to people who obviously will not be able to pay them back.

However, in return, banks should not be allowed to engage in clear usury.

Laws are already on the books, as you mentioned, in most states. It is the federal government that has allowed banks to skirt these usury laws.

I doubt there are many, if any banks engaged in usury practices. I have taken out a lot of loans over my adult lifetime, and I have never failed to be able to negotiate an acceptable interest rate at any time that I have borrowed for any purpose.

But let's deal with that on its own deserving thread. The OP is already pretty complex and covers a number of concepts without introducing a separate one. The only way interest rates are pertinent to the OP is if the federal government mandated a lower interest rate to be made available to a special interest group and denied it to everybody else.

 

[Foxfyre]

You demonstrate yourself how the whole idea would quickly be reduced to irrelevancy. Any half-assed lawyer could craft an argument that a whole host of other special interest groups are not really special interest groups, etc. And we have a whole bunch of half-assed lawyers in Congress. It would never pass, and would be meaningless in any case.

A whole bunch of other people are not essential to the constitutional requirement to provide the common defense.

Calm down and think for a minute. As I tried to tell you before, anyone with any legal training and/or political experience could find ways to tie any number of other special interest groups to Constitutional obligations, thus putting their chosen group outside the scope of your would-be bill, thus rendering it meaningless for all practical purposes. I mentioned all this in my very first post on the subject.

I don't have a lot of legal training but I have had some. And therefore I can see that the resolution is not a bill nor is it wording for a Constitutional Amendment.

Like the Declaration of Independence was the Foundation for our Constitution, the New Emancipation Proclamation is intended to be a foundation for a conversation on how best to wrest our federal government away from corrupted and opportunisitic politicians and special interests and return it to a concept of securing our unalienable rights and then leaving us alone to govern ourselves.

It is intended to restore the Constitution as a document that limits what government is allowed to do rather than just specify what it is not allowed to do.

 

[Unkotare]

A whole bunch of other people are not essential to the constitutional requirement to provide the common defense.

Calm down and think for a minute. As I tried to tell you before, anyone with any legal training and/or political experience could find ways to tie any number of other special interest groups to Constitutional obligations, thus putting their chosen group outside the scope of your would-be bill, thus rendering it meaningless for all practical purposes. I mentioned all this in my very first post on the subject.

I don't have a lot of legal training but I have had some. And therefore I can see that the resolution is not a bill nor is it wording for a Constitutional Amendment.

Like the Declaration of Independence was the Foundation for our Constitution, the New Emancipation Proclamation is intended to be a foundation for a conversation on how best to wrest our federal government away from corrupted and opportunisitic politicians and special interests and return it to a concept of securing our unalienable rights and then leaving us alone to govern ourselves.

If you want to pick that nit, the title 'New Emancipation Proclamation' is inappropriate. The Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order. Is that what you had in mind? Also, considering what the Emancipation Proclamation really was, your use of it here could be construed as pretty offensive.

 

[Foxfyre]

Calm down and think for a minute. As I tried to tell you before, anyone with any legal training and/or political experience could find ways to tie any number of other special interest groups to Constitutional obligations, thus putting their chosen group outside the scope of your would-be bill, thus rendering it meaningless for all practical purposes. I mentioned all this in my very first post on the subject.

I don't have a lot of legal training but I have had some. And therefore I can see that the resolution is not a bill nor is it wording for a Constitutional Amendment.

Like the Declaration of Independence was the Foundation for our Constitution, the New Emancipation Proclamation is intended to be a foundation for a conversation on how best to wrest our federal government away from corrupted and opportunisitic politicians and special interests and return it to a concept of securing our unalienable rights and then leaving us alone to govern ourselves.

If you want to pick that nit, the title 'New Emancipation Proclamation' is inappropriate. The Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order. Is that what you had in mind? Also, considering what the Emancipation Proclamation really was, your use of it here could be construed as pretty offensive.

No dear, and I don't know how to explain what I had in mind any better than I explained it.

The Emancipation Proclamation was the President's declaration that the slaves would be freed.

The New Emancipation Proclamation is my, and I hope a lot of other people's, declaration that we the people will be freed from a corrupt and ever more manipulative and oppressive government.

And if that offends you, well I can't help that. You might enjoy Q.W.'s thread on being offended that is also active in the CDZ.

 

[Foxfyre]

Cleaning up the election process is being debated in another thread and has absolutely nothing to do with the corruption that exists in the government we have.

The resolution is to reform a system that is broken and that, in my opinion, has created the huge lion's shares of the problems we have at the current time.

 

[Unkotare]

The New Emancipation Proclamation is my, and I hope a lot of other people's, declaration that we the people will be freed from a corrupt and ever more manipulative and oppressive government.

You don't see where equating our need to rein in the overreach of government spending and entitlement programs with the actual condition of slavery is wildly inappropriate? That is taking emoting way, way too far.

 

[Unkotare]

The Emancipation Proclamation was the President's declaration that the slaves would be freed.

Not exactly, but close enough.