And I don't have time to quote the whole chapter anyway. Suffice it to say, you might not like his reasoning, but you can't say he refuses to deal with the reality of human sexual behavior and that has a tendency to make more people- when paragraphs 44-52 in Chapter 4 "THE DEVELOPMENT OF PEOPLE, RIGHTS AND DUTIES,
THE ENVIRONMENT" deal *directly* with that subject.
-------------------------------------
Maximum jobs, not maximum profits.

Yeah, we've been talking about this and midtowng raised it up also as a proposal to solve California's budget crisis.

And you can think of the Pope more as a Servant of the Once and Future King, left in charge of the Kingdom- it's all very monarchial and not very democratic, despite the last 100 Popes or so being chosen by election of the Cardinals (previous to that, they were hand picked by their predecessors).

Actually, the sad part to me (as I've never understood the "Amnesty is all good" position of the US Council of Catholic Bishops, who are supposed to be subordinate to the Holy Father) is that they'll likely see this as being in keeping with their "right to migrate for work or refuge from war and natural disaster". But to Pope Benedict's credit, he foresaw that argument somewhat, and thus included:

43. “The reality of human solidarity, which is a benefit for us, also imposes a duty”[105]. Many people today would claim that they owe nothing to anyone, except to themselves. They are concerned only with their rights, and they often have great difficulty in taking responsibility for their own and other people's integral development. Hence it is important to call for a renewed reflection on how rights presuppose duties, if they are not to become mere licence[106]. Nowadays we are witnessing a grave inconsistency. On the one hand, appeals are made to alleged rights, arbitrary and non-essential in nature, accompanied by the demand that they be recognized and promoted by public structures, while, on the other hand, elementary and basic rights remain unacknowledged and are violated in much of the world[107]. A link has often been noted between claims to a “right to excess”, and even to transgression and vice, within affluent societies, and the lack of food, drinkable water, basic instruction and elementary health care in areas of the underdeveloped world and on the outskirts of large metropolitan centres. The link consists in this: individual rights, when detached from a framework of duties which grants them their full meaning, can run wild, leading to an escalation of demands which is effectively unlimited and indiscriminate. An overemphasis on rights leads to a disregard for duties. Duties set a limit on rights because they point to the anthropological and ethical framework of which rights are a part, in this way ensuring that they do not become licence. Duties thereby reinforce rights and call for their defence and promotion as a task to be undertaken in the service of the common good. Otherwise, if the only basis of human rights is to be found in the deliberations of an assembly of citizens, those rights can be changed at any time, and so the duty to respect and pursue them fades from the common consciousness. Governments and international bodies can then lose sight of the objectivity and “inviolability” of rights. When this happens, the authentic development of peoples is endangered[108]. Such a way of thinking and acting compromises the authority of international bodies, especially in the eyes of those countries most in need of development. Indeed, the latter demand that the international community take up the duty of helping them to be “artisans of their own destiny”[109], that is, to take up duties of their own. The sharing of reciprocal duties is a more powerful incentive to action than the mere assertion of rights.

That, then, should become the argument against the USCCB and other pro-amnesty groups. We should acknowledge the right they demand, the human right to migrate- but we should also insist that right comes with a duty to learn the culture and laws of the country you're migrating to, and to follow that culture and laws rather than the culture and laws of the country you come from. Only in the sharing of reciprocal duty- can we have an economy that lifts all boats.
-------------------------------------
Maximum jobs, not maximum profits.

G-8 Leaders Spar Over Stimulus:

President Barack Obama pressed for the door to remain open to more stimulus measures as a renewed stock-market drop stirred concern that $2 trillion spent worldwide so far hasn’t jolted consumers and businesses back to life.

Pardon my French but this is just f@#king pathetic!

It's not the Stimulus it is how they are distributing the money! Giving money to IBM so they can offshore outsource even more jobs is not Stimulus! Giving money to multinational corporations through some flawed, biased "bidding" process so they can continue their sucking off the government tit, inefficient, wasteful and also....offshore outsource jobs....is not Stimulus!

This is driving me nutso! It's not "Stimulus o no", it is how the Stimulus is implemented. Yet the "debate" is always on the above black and white answer and that is simply not answer at all, except more corporate welfare.

Have you been following this move on regulating oil speculators?.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission said Tuesday it is considering imposing volume limits on energy futures trading investors who have purely financial motives, representing a major change by the Obama administration away from the hands-off policies of the preceding Bush White House, The New York Times reported.

The newspaper said the CFTC has already put in place tougher information requirements meant to identify the role played by hedge funds and traders who swap oil futures contracts outside of regulated exchanges.

"My firm belief is that we must aggressively use all existing authorities to ensure market integrity," Gary Gensler, chairman of the commission, said in a statement. The Times said Gensler indicated the CFTC would also consider imposing federal "speculative limits" on futures contracts for energy products.

for twenty years over the faults in the "global economy" theory. Economists would never accept my theory on declining human capital and its eventual negative effect on society. Such strict numbers people as they were/ are, seemed to think erasing the expense of human capital would, in their minds, always continue to increase profits. They never considered the theory of an economy of people without capital and using debt financial for their daily lives would have a bad end.

In my theory there is a point that wringing out human capital for higher efficiency starts to create inefficacy in the societies economic system. As economists try to reach the impossible efficiency of 100% (human capital) capital there would be less and less capital in the hands of the human capital. They have tried to reach a higher efficency by moving the labor to a lower cost labor market. But that again creates unemployed people. Creating people that lost their jobs in the USA to have less capital.

I like to call them people.

Well while Elvis was making movies, the beatles were conquering the world. While the US is busy, expending money in wealthy middle east countries who shold be able to fiance their own security, and passing bills like the progress killer bill like CAP & TRADE, China is buying up the world natural resources,because the chinese like the rest of the world knows that in order to produce we have to have the raw material,so they make sure they have the raw material so can produce more and cheapper, we will be all making them a profit no matter what.
The US are not investing in manufactoring , in fact the CAP & trade bill will make harder to open up plants here anywhere in the 50 states .China act as a business man, no matter what happens in the world, China dont interferes with it, they do business with any country as long as it brings a profit. Too bad US dont know how to mind its own business....

the U.S. has gone from negative savings to something like 6.8% (sorry if this is inaccurate, it's around there) but the real question is how much of that is Seniors pocketing away their Stimulus rebate and so on?

For your average working person, no job, living on credit cards as credit cards jack up the rates!

Well...well...well, so is this the very same Laura Tyson who was such an strong supporter of NAFTA? Remember her?

The very same Laura Tyson who signed that Bretton Woods Committee letter (I believe it was dated Feb. 9, 2009) sent to Congress which killed the "buy American" clause in the federal stimulus package?

Now, if that clause was sooo bad, how come the Chinese very own stimulus contained a "buy Chinese" clause? Because it prevented the offshoring of Chinese jobs, and ensured the next wave (or tsunami, as it were) of the offshoring of American jobs, while steering the bulk of the stimulus funds to the multinational corporations.

Geez, I really don't give a rat's tail what Laura Tyson thinks about anything, just wonder why the Obama Administration is so uniformly staffed with offshoring evangelists?

Diana Farrell, formerly of McKinsey Global Institute, number one offshoring evangelist and deputy director of Obama's National Economic Council. (She also signed that Bretton Woods Committee letter to Congress.)

Gary Locke, Sec'y of Commerce, when governor of Washington he offshored state jobs in 49 of 51 state agencies.

Rahm Emanuel, formerly of Wasserstein Perella, private equity firm which strongly encouraged (as do all the private equity firms) the offshoring of American jobs, and Emanuel has been a super supporter for every "free trade" act. The list goes on and on.