The transformative path

Free markets have failed and we must now embark on a new transformative path of change. All of our problems are due to the greed of big business, so instead we need wise experts, technocrats, and politicians to make economic decisions for the common good in order to create a fair and prosperous society.

Sounds familiar. Sadly, this experiment never ends well. How unwell it will end in our case depends on how far Obama and his congress take us down the road to serfdom.

There's nothing worse we could do than put politicians in charge of the economy. The argument is an old one, discredited and debunked, but one held as tightly as belief in the trinity, baptism by water, or that buddha is enlightenment; in essence it is this: that business is greedy and the rich are rich because they take wealth from the poor. The history of this nation and of the system of capitalism that has developed over many years says otherwise. Wealth in free capitalist countries benefits rich and poor alike because it is the thing called capital in capitalism that works for society, to improve, invest, and return a higher standard of living to both rich and poor alike.

The truth is that however bad you think free markets are-- political markets are far worse. America is a country that has never been perfect, being peopled by persons of imperfection, but in the combination of freedom, individualism, property rights, classical liberal morality, and dare I say Judeo-Christian morality, we have achieved a standard of living unparalleled by any other civilization in the history of the earth. The poor in the United States live like no other class of poor in history.

It is not by chance or fickle fortune that wealth has accrued to the capitalist system. Even as Marx fundamentally misunderstood what was happening before his eyes he nevertheless recognized that capitalism does indeed produce wealth and this wealth produced higher standards of living for all.

Dismantling the structures of American capitalism and replacing it with the structures of a politicized economy will destroy wealth creation in this country and likely the world economy will follow. The transformation that Obama and his congress are now pursuing is nothing less than a grand looting. Eventually, if we follow it to it's logical conclusion, it will effectively end American democracy and destroy personal freedom.

Posted by Eric Simonson at March 29, 2009 9:16 PM
Comments
Comment #279158

Few men desire liberty; most seek only a fair master.

Unfortunately, history shows that liberty doesn’t survive long. It is usually killed by the people themselves, envious of others and fearful that they might be left behind.

I am a little more hopeful because our populations are well-educated and modern communication technologies gives feeds them information. Government control is wasteful. The few experts can never understand the complexity of society better than the large number of people making decisions for themselves. In the recent past, when governments had better control over information, they could hide the facts. It is harder now.

You see that at work with the big budgets being proposed. The powers-that-be stampeeded people into believing that urgent action was needed. But as people look closer, they understand that most of the big bucks in the budget do not address any urgent problems. And Nancy Pelosi is calling for more money BEFORE the big money spend has a chance to work.

Beyond all that, the economy is starting to recover. In the past, the government could have easily taken credit. In the new age of information, ordinary people can see the inflection points.

It is harder to fool us now and that makes it harder for government to promise security at the expense of liberty. We may be able to take an offramp on that road to serfdom.

Posted by: Christine at March 29, 2009 9:33 PM
Comment #279160

WoW Eric
What a breath taking load of unsupported hogwash. You have outdone yourself.Serfdom? Please. Politicized economy? Hardly.
What we are looking at is a re-regulation of the financial markets. These market have failed largely as a result of,yes,greed and a paucity of oversite. We came out of the depression with a very tightly regulated banking system. Pretty boring,really. Banks would attract depositors by location and service and then lend the money out for a profit. Boring? Yes, but it was also the banking system under which the American standard of living doubled in a single generation. Securites were not bundled and resold and resold again,creating wealth out of air. Banks made loans that had a good possibility of being paid back, There was no great mechanism to avoid risk with credit default swaps etc. Importantly, the size and impact of the financial sector was much smaller. Until 1982 there was not a single financial stock listed on the DOW. A return to some of the regulation that worked well before certainly does not lead us down the road to ruin. Too the contrary it is a big part of getting us out of the trouble caused by the lack of oversite.Don’t panic.

Posted by: bills at March 29, 2009 9:46 PM
Comment #279165

Christine,

That is what I’m hoping as well, that people will begin to register their displeasure at the socialist ‘change’ that was been sold as, among other things, a tax cut for 95% of americans.

Posted by: Eric Simonson at March 29, 2009 10:25 PM
Comment #279166

bills,

Did you happen to notice that Obama fired the CEO of General Motors today?

Posted by: Eric Simonson at March 29, 2009 10:28 PM
Comment #279168

Yes I posted that a little earlier I’m sorry to see that i know he’s been there a long time in good and bad times I think that first trip to DC really poed them off and holding his hand out a very slippery slope with NAFTA and all that free trade China and all and some decisions he made Everyone around here wants to see the top go.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at March 29, 2009 10:58 PM
Comment #279169
What we are looking at is a re-regulation of the financial markets.

If that were the case, we could have done that with a couple of small law changes reversing some of the deregulations that people are complaining about. But that’s not what is happening, is it? Actions speak much louder than words.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 29, 2009 11:18 PM
Comment #279173

Christine

You are correct; we have a better way of communicating today than any other time in history. I might also say that those means of communication that have been found to be biased or false are paying a great price.

But I might also add that any means of communicating the truth will come under attack by the left.

Hence, the fairness doctrine, to shut down conservative thought, which will reach beyond radio, to TV, and eventually internet. Perhaps internet use taxes will be invoked, and at the same time bailouts are needed for MSM and the newspaper industry, to ensure they will continue to spread their lies. Bailouts are already being sought by the Hollywood crowd.

Posted by: Oldguy at March 30, 2009 12:08 AM
Comment #279176

Oldguy-
The Fairness Doctrine is a boogieman brought up by Right Wing pundits to scare people about conservative voices being silenced. But Obama’s opposed its revival outright. The internet’s made it unnecessary, and the Republican advantage from it obsolete.

I think you’re just having a hard time adjusting to the fact that the Republicans, despite having talk radio nearly all to itself, despite having a news channel to flatter its sensibilities, and more aggressive pundits than you can shake a stick at, is losing the message war.

You would like to think you’re not unpopular, just misunderstood, the victim of sinister unfairness on the part of the press. If you just prove yourselves again as purely conservative, certainly the scales will fall from people’s eyes, and the party will be made whole again.

There’s no means of communication, ultimately, that can maintain loyalty in the face of a party that doesn’t deliver on the results that it promises. Republicans promised to win wars, catch terrorists, and support the soldiers. They promised to run the economy better than those regulation happy liberal marxists, showing that the market could police itself, and that low taxes could solve any economic problem.

The Republicans promised a lot, and regardless of what you think of the ideological purity of what they had in terms of ideas, they delivered little, or even worse, brought disasters on American’s heads.

Eric-
You folks had your chance. Perhaps the best chance it was possible for any party to get, to have. You blew it. You want a do-over, a mulligan, a second chance to add to your party’s collection of them, but you folks just plain blew it. You do not have the privilege to run this country into ground with impunity while you toil away to vindicate your politics and philosophies.

It’s our turn to try something. America wants to have the chance to do things differently. When are you going to realize that you’re only pushing that day back further when Republicans will be able to return from the wilderness?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 30, 2009 12:52 AM
Comment #279180

Eric,
A good sale to those who believe in the Trickledown Theory in the Race to the Bottom; however, as President Obama said America is not a Speed Boat, but much like a Cuirse Liner. So please explain to those citizens who are watching the price of everything from A-Z rise in cost how much help the Republicans are?

For as Christine pointed out “Few men desire liberty; most seek only a fair master.” So tell me how the Corporation helped me become more free over the last 30 years?

No, the Democratic Party is not right; however, at least their Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders are willing to listen to Logic and Reason. Can the Conservatives say the same?

Rhinehold,
What I think we are seeing is the Rules of the Game change seeing that some Corporations have shown that they will not act in their own Inherent Best Interest. Something to do with Parents being Parents vs. the Status Quo.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 30, 2009 2:03 AM
Comment #279200

SD

Your statement was, “The Fairness Doctrine is a boogieman brought up by Right Wing pundits to scare people about conservative voices being silenced. But Obama’s opposed its revival outright.”

This is part of the link you posted: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/18/white-house-opposes-fairness-doctrine/

“As the president stated during the campaign, he does not believe the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated,” White House spokesman Ben LaBolt told FOXNews.com.
That was after both senior adviser David Axelrod and White House press secretary Robert Gibbs left open the door on whether Obama would support reinstating the doctrine.
“I’m going to leave that issue to Julius Genachowski, our new head of the FCC … and the president to discuss. So I don’t have an answer for you now,” Axelrod told FOX News Sunday over the weekend when asked about the president’s position.
The debate over the so-called Fairness Doctrine has heated up in recent days as prominent Democratic senators have called for the policies to be reinstated. Conservative talk show hosts, who see the doctrine as an attempt to impose liberal viewpoints on their shows, largely oppose any move to bring it back.
Fueling discussion, a report in the American Spectator this week said aides to Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman, Calif., met last week with staff for the Federal Communications Commission to discuss ways to enact Fairness Doctrine policies. The report said Waxman was also interested in applying those standards to the Internet, which drew ridicule from supporters and opponents of the doctrine.
Both the FCC and Waxman’s office denied the report.
The Fairness Doctrine was adopted in 1949 and held that broadcasters were obligated to provide opposing points of views on controversial issues of national importance. It was halted under the Reagan administration.”

A few of points might be made:

1.BHO lies and has consistantly failed to live up to the promises he made, even to the left, so why should we belive him now?
2.Democratic senators still want to reinstate the doctrine, and it appears Pelosi and Reid are in control.
3.The fairness doctrine was originally imposed by democrats and simply because the discussion is taking place, means they have not forgotten about it.
4.I’m sure you understand, it is not about what people believe, it’s about the ability to have free speech, and liberals want to shut up free speech because they don’t want anyone to even have a chance to tell the truth.

HS

“A good sale to those who believe in the Trickledown Theory in the Race to the Bottom; however, as President Obama said America is not a Speed Boat, but much like a Cuirse Liner.”

I would say America is more like a “Raft” headed for Niagra Falls.

Posted by: Oldguy at March 30, 2009 8:42 AM
Comment #279201

Stephen
You have kind of a refrain that “you folks had your chance…” I remember Democrats blocking Republican reforms, as in Social Security etc. I remember a lot of opposition to President Bush. I recall that Democrats controlled both houses of Congress since 2006. Most importantly, I know that decisions in a democracy are best achieved with a broad consensus. This is especially true with big changes. President Reagan was “lucky” to face Democrats in Congress and a generally hostile media. It moderating his ideas and created a consensus that endured for a quarter century, even though Democrats often controlled congress and a Democrat was president for two terms. If the reforms today are narrowly based, they will be thrown out the next time the election cycle turns.

The idea that we should now follow the opposite of whatever went before is a non-sequitur. We have to make good decisions and take into account all factors. During the Clinton era, we used markets very effectively.

I think you are defining markets too narrowly. A market is merely a mechanism to aggregate autonomous decision making and use information dispersed among a large number of people. The strength of a market is that it can indeed use more intelligence and information than any group of experts could muster and, perhaps even more important, it can provide a diversity of solutions and options. Government has an important role to play in directing the market’s energies, but care must be taken not to destroy the mechanism.
No decision making mechanism is perfect and there are varieties of market failures. Some of them require government intervention. Beyond that, only government can do the really big projects or the projects that benefit the whole society but produce small benefits for any particular person. We have a free rider problem.

In the long run, the political process will produce poor results when it manages the market because of some simple structural problems. First, politics has winners and losers, as you point out. It has limited capacity for cooperation and almost none for synergy. Second, government must impose one-size solutions on everyone. That is the nature of the rule of law. Where a market can allow diversity, a government cannot. Third, government separates decision making from the consequences. Government can impose costs and duties on you w/o giving you the means to manage them.

Anyway, there is more. Government has an important role to play in society and now is an important time to do that. But government has limitations. The best system is one where government, business and society interact w/o any parts becoming too powerful. It will never be perfect, but if you seek perfection, you end up only with misery.

Posted by: Christine at March 30, 2009 8:44 AM
Comment #279210

Oldguy,
I think I heard the same line some 30 years ago only put in more colorful terms.

Christine,
Why you do make a good point about the need for both sides to be heard in the debate held by Government, Business, and Society; however, you left out the Individual Citizen. For why I do not seek a 100% Perfection from My Peers as an American Man I will not accept anything less than 99.9% Prefection from Their Democratic and Republican Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders when it comes to building a Better World.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 30, 2009 10:25 AM
Comment #279220

Regulation is not the be-all and end-all of all reason in markets. It often is the definition of stupidity.

L. Gordon Crovitz makes a good argument for increasing transparency so markets can better self-correct rather than simply empowering bureacratic regulation’s capacity to gum up the economy’s works.

Government is a population chosen not for their skills at what they are chosen to do, but for their capacity to get us to choose them.

That, getting us to choose them, is the principal skill Steven demands we now apply to fixing the economy.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 30, 2009 12:13 PM
Comment #279221

Sorry, Stephen, for misspelling your name.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 30, 2009 12:15 PM
Comment #279223

If transparency was required under Roosevelt, where did it go? I vote for complete transparency for every economic vehicle, even ones not yet invented, and tighter regulation. Both.

Posted by: womanmarine at March 30, 2009 12:27 PM
Comment #279224

Eric writes; “The truth is that however bad you think free markets are— political markets are far worse.

Well Eric…that sums it up quite well in just a few words.

M. Daugherty writes; “It’s our turn to try something. America wants to have the chance to do things differently.”

First, I would like to thank M. Daugherty for the link to Fox News which does appear to support his statement that PO does not support the “Fairness Doctrine” being reinstated. Hurrah for PO. Let us hope that Pelosi, Waxman, and some others get the message and follow it.

And, M. Daugherty is correct…it is the liberals turn to try something new. And, they should expect opposition when the “something new” disagrees with conservative philosophy. Political party opposition is nothing new. Many American’s support PO when he calls for fixing our economy but don’t support his plans for more social engineering. That’s the real battle.

Posted by: Jim M at March 30, 2009 12:34 PM
Comment #279225

Oldguy-
The President explicitly opposes it. He’s taken a position that says to legislators that such legislation won’t have his support, and says to regulators that the boss isn’t interested in bringing back the regulation in his branch.

Your point one needs back up. If anything, the Republican’s problem is that he’s doing exactly what he said he’d do during the election. If he’s come out in opposition to the Fairness Doctrine, he’s probably telling the truth.

Point two neglects the fact that Reid and Pelosi have to deal with considerable numbers in their own party that don’t favor a return. In Reid’s case, there’s little hope he could avoid a filibuster.

Point three neglects why it was imposed: In days past, when the media was radio stations and three broadcast networks and independent stations, the public airwaves constituted a major portion of the public’s voices. Originally, we had the equal time provision, but that proved too onerous. The fairness doctrine really just required that other people, if they wanted, could be afforded a representative ability to respond to the person voicing a political view.

You might have a show with discussion, or you’d have a Rush Limbaugh show, with perhaps a few minutes afterwards for somebody to replay with their opinion.

Or they might cut out the pundits and just do news and shows on cars and home improvement, save themselves the trouble.

But nobody’s spectacularly interested in this.

4) “…liberals want to shut up free speech because they don’t want anyone to even have a chance to tell the truth.”

Right. Let’s dissect this, right here. First, you’re claiming that Liberals agree with your idea of things, but for some reason, say evilness or stupidity, they refuse to concede to points or do the right thing and acknowledge things.

Funny thing. I thought we simply held different opinions.

Second, you claim we’re trying to shut up free speech. This is based on the notion that free speech was interfered with by the fairness doctrine in the first place, and that anything less than the ability of Republicans to completely blockbook public airwaves constitutes a violation of free speech.

I want you to consider something for a second: why can’t you curse on radio, or show frontal nudity, much less sex, in prime time under most circumstances, in broadcast and basic cable?

Then consider something else: where’s your free speech right to broadcast a response on the same channel?

Let me put this plainly: although the airwaves are a public resource, the government licenses a monopoly on that section of the broadcast spectrum to them. Effectively, everybody else’s free speech rights on that spectrum ends, then and there. If you try to transmit a response on that same frequency, you will be arrested and prosecuted, most likely.

Why don’t you hear them lamenting THAT criminalization of free speech? Because, plainly spoken, exceptions are made for the sake of having a forum for free speech at all. Take note that espionage, and revelation of states secrets are not covered by free speech. If America is invaded or occupied, or attacked seriously, it would be disruptive to everything that makes free speech possible. So those substantive breaches of national security are strongly discouraged, where they aren’t outright illegal

In this case, the reason for the restriction of free speech has something to do with the physics of the airwaves. If everybody broadcasted at a spectrum simultaneously, you’d get little better than static. So, we cut out most people’s right to their own airwaves. So what do we compensate for this taking with? We used to compensate by guaranteeing that the communities in question could reply to political speech made on the air. Maybe you can’t run the forum, like the broadcaster does, but you can at least say something back to Rush and his people if you don’t agree with them.

When the fairness doctrine fell, Conservative broadcasters wasted no time using their government imposed monopoly on these airwaves to saturate their lineups with conservative hosts like Limbaugh.

This is not about free speech, in all actuality. It’s about Business. It’s about competition, which the right wing here, in this case, seems deathly afraid of.

The Fairness Doctrine might have a chilling effect on stations which do a whole lot of politicized broadcasting. But then, all they might have to do is just give some guy a few minutes to respond to what Rush has been saying for the last 180 or so. That, or maybe they have to put a liberal host on next, for the next few hours

This is what Republicans seem to be afraid of: that the government imposes competition, when what they want is a monopoly on their viewers time and attention.

Personally, I’ve got only abstract objections to the Right keeping their precious airwaves. Politically speaking, Liberals have other outlets, the one we’re using included. There’s no doubt that what Republicans did with talk radio, Democrats have more than equalled with their online enteprises. Maybe in the mid-nineties, when you folks were shouting everybody else down, it might have been more of an annoyance. But as the media now allows more voices, we’re much happier with the arrangement, and most liberals just yawn at the idea of renewing the fairness doctrine.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 30, 2009 12:39 PM
Comment #279228

SD Tell me about it, I was on AOL political back in 2005 talk about Rubbish then i seen a AD for WatchBlog here and what a Relief.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at March 30, 2009 1:15 PM
Comment #279230

Following is an excerpt from an email I received today from one of my senators…John Cornyn of Texas. What a breath of fresh air. And, to have this amendment passed unanimously by the committee certainly shows promise. This amendment seems to me to be in line with the thinking of PO in that it calls for responsible and efficient government and the reduction of waste and duplication.

“Despite my concerns with the Democrats’ budget and its reckless spending and misguided priorities, I was encouraged that my amendment to bring a little Texas sunshine to Washington unanimously passed the Budget Committee. My measure, based on the successful Texas model, which has led to the elimination of more than 50 agencies and saved Texans more than $700 million, lays the groundwork for the establishment of a Federal Sunset Commission to review federal programs. It will determine their efficiency, and make recommendations on whether they need reform or should be eliminated all together. This bipartisan commission is critical because it will shed light on unnecessary government spending and eliminate ineffective and unnecessary programs.”

Posted by: Jim M at March 30, 2009 1:26 PM
Comment #279234

Jim:

Too bad he couldn’t get that passed when the Republicans were in charge. Shame, isn’t it?

/sarcasm

Posted by: womanmarine at March 30, 2009 2:02 PM
Comment #279236

WM…frankly, I don’t know if he tried at that time. What was your point…if any?

Posted by: Jim M at March 30, 2009 2:22 PM
Comment #279237

Early on, when ‘O’ began his quest, he said that in order to ‘change’ governance for the better, there had to be a hard look at wasteful and duplicated spending. He further emphasized the importance of less pork, and earmark spending, and said he would form a body to study ways to take care of these problems, which he has done. Jim M, you act as though all this is strange to you…perhaps it is because much of it comes from your arch enemy? That a handful of Republicans are starting to climb on board is proof that ‘O’s bipartisan measures are indeed ‘changing’ the way Washington does business.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 30, 2009 2:33 PM
Comment #279247

MD, from your comments one could be lead to believe that congress has no part in spending, or not spending. That PO has said some things I agree with is a start…now, I want to see him walk the walk. It won’t be easy with Pelosi and Reid holding the reins of power over spending and cutting.

To have some federal programs sun-setted, or even reduced will take a miracle in this liberal spending congress. I would give it about the same odds as being eaten alive by a wild animal.

Posted by: Jim M at March 30, 2009 6:01 PM
Comment #279250

Again the question asked but not answered.
In their rush to “reduce government” why did not these same Republican legislators/Senators and President pass a sunset law during their “reign of terror” (errr, 6 years of total power)?

I find it interesting that this item is not even viable until a Democrat is in office, and Democrats are in control of the Congress and yet somehow “it will take a miracle in this liberal spending congress”

Hmmmm — and just WHOM is responsible for tripling the Debt?? in how many years??
And yet it is the LEFT who are free-spenders and economically unsound????
Give me a break, this broken record no longer plays dude!

Posted by: Russ at March 30, 2009 6:50 PM
Comment #279251

Hmmmm — Eric what a load of garbage
Dismantling the structures of American capitalism
Talk about paranoid, and straw-man!! geesh
However — if one were to wish to “Dismantling the structures of American capitalism ” It seems the CEO’s and those responsible for this mess we are currently in did a much better job than anyone who would actually PLAN on trying to do it!!
Good Going Eric the Marxist!! (Hmmm I always suspected you of being a 5th columnist!!)

Posted by: Russ at March 30, 2009 6:54 PM
Comment #279254

“or that buddha is enlightenment”
Dictionary.com:
Buddha   
2. any of a series of teachers in Buddhism, of whom Gautama was the last, who bring enlightenment and wisdom.
3. a person who has attained full prajna, or enlightenment;
Origin:
1675–85;

Posted by: ohrealy at March 30, 2009 7:24 PM
Comment #279255

Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures

* Posted March 24th, 2009 at 10.20am in Ongoing Priorities.

wapoobamabudget1

President Barack Obama has repeatedly claimed that his budget would cut the deficit by half by the end of his term. But as Heritage analyst Brian Riedl has pointed out, given that Obama has already helped quadruple the deficit with his stimulus package, pledging to halve it by 2013 is hardly ambitious. The Washington Post has a great graphic which helps put President Obama’s budget deficits in context of President Bush’s. View graphic at the following link. http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/wapoobamabudget1.jpg

What’s driving Obama’s unprecedented massive deficits? Spending. Riedl details:

* President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
* President Bush began a string of expensive finan­cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
* President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle­ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern­ment health care fund.
* President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi­dent Obama would double it.
* President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in­creased this spending by 20 percent.
* President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.

* President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.

UPDATE: Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above. Also, some Obama defenders are claiming the graphic above represents biased Heritage Foundation numbers. While we stand behind the numbers we put out 100%, the numbers, and the graphic itself, above are from the Washington Post. We originally left out the link to WaPo. It has been now been added.

CLARIFICATION: Of course, this Washington Post graphic does not perfectly delineate budget surpluses and deficits by administration. President Bush took office in January 2001, and therefore played a lead role in crafting the FY 2002-2008 budgets. Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for the FY 2009 budget deficit that overlaps their administrations, before President Obama assumes full budgetary responsibility beginning in FY 2010. Overall, President Obama’s budget would add twice as much debt as President Bush over the same number of years.

For the full article go here; http://townhall.com/columnists/DavidLimbaugh/2009/03/27/budget_smoke_and_mirrors_wheres_the_outrage?page=2

Posted by: Jim M at March 30, 2009 7:30 PM
Comment #279257

Jim M,

I used similar figures a couple of weeks ago (Mine were higher, by $400 million) for the Bush deficit figures. I got them directly from the Treasury department website. They represented the total government-held debt. No cheating, no Heritage Society stuff.

We will drown in Democrat budget imperitives if we let things go as they would have them go.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 30, 2009 7:57 PM
Comment #279263

I’m just wondering what exactly you folks would have done in our place. Let banks collapse, so the free market can bring itself down in perfect harmony with your philosophy? No, Bush did what he did, clumsily and corruptly as he did it, because he did not want the end of his term to have that punctution mark. And I pity the Republican who would not intervene. Yes, you mister; you killed the party for the next half century.

A lot of this crap is Obama having to untangle the mistakes Bush made. A lot of this relates to fact that just suddenly, the floor dropped out of the economy. Good luck being fiscally disciplined when your revenues drop off a cliff. Good luck looking like you’re fiscally disciplined when you add items your predecessor deliberately kept off the budget to make it look better.

But hey, the last eight years were just a fog, a conveniently forgotten time. No use blaming Bush for things Obama showed up just in time to get dropped into his lap. I mean, people calling this the Pelosi Recession… They do realize that the formative events happened while Republicans still had the majority, don’t they? But then, why confuse people by make a distinction between when Democrats were elected, and when they were sworn in?

The Republicans are in full-on deflection and projection mode, waiting for the time when they can get back into power and once again blame events, rather than rivals for the deficits.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 30, 2009 8:33 PM
Comment #279264
They do realize that the formative events happened while Republicans still had the majority, don’t they?

And when the Democrats had the majority they did nothing at all to change those things and avert the ‘disaster’.

The are a lot of reasons the country is the way it today, some of it the fault of the republicans, some of it the fault of the democrats and MOST of it not the fault of either because, up until this point, the government does not control everything.

But the attempt by the republicans to blame everything on Obama is about as shameful as the democrats trying to deflect all responsibility to Bush.

Fortunately for the Dems, no good crisis is going to go untapped. Fortunately for the Reps, they will most likely win back control of the House in 2010.

Unfortunately for the citizens of the US…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 30, 2009 8:47 PM
Comment #279265

Bush failed in fact. The projections for Obama’s economic proposals are just that- projections. If we’re fortunate enough to dodge the bullet of depression, we’ll face debts and deficits and yet another set of unpleasant choices.

You cannot do what conservatives did under Bush and not suffer consequences. You cannot export jobs, cut taxes, increase spending, deregulate, privatize, and fight a war on a credit card without bad things happening. Now, here we are. There’s no doubt about it, we’re in trouble, and there is a very real chance it could be much worse.

Rhinehold,
Do you seriously believe the GOP will win control of the House in 2010? I will bet you the Democrats not only maintain control, but increase their seats yet again. Same in the Senate.

Posted by: phx8 at March 30, 2009 9:03 PM
Comment #279272

Jim M.,
In response to your comment #279224, I wonder if the Old White Man Republican Party is willing to set down with the Young Republican Citizens to discuss the Social Issues openly and honestly?

For why I have to excuse Rush and Rove for not knowing any better. The Battle of Entitlements thanks to President Obama and the Children of the 21st Century should be fought on how “We the People” eliminate the needs for such things IMHO. For anything less is Uncivilized is it not?

Phx8,
If the GOP stays with the “Old White Men in Charge” philosophy than I believe that you are right about 2010 and 2012; however, if the Young Republican Voice is heard over even the objection of the “Old White Men in Chrage” than I believe Rhinehold and other Conservatives stand a chance.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 31, 2009 12:07 AM
Comment #279277

Henry,
It will be very difficult for the Young Republican Voice to make itself heard. Recently McCain’s daughter presented herself very well. I was very impressed with the way she carried herself and expressed her views, despite the fact she was only 24. However, these Young Republicans are liberal on social issues, and they are liberal in their acceptance of science over religion. For this, they are attacked by Limbaugh and Colter and Ingraham and Hannity. Parts of the conservative agenda resonate with the young, but the social stands are utterly irrelevant. I don’t think the older generation of the GOP understands just how completely different the younger generation sees things.

Posted by: phx8 at March 31, 2009 12:54 AM
Comment #279279

Hmmm, fiscally conservative and socially liberal… I wonder who that sounds like…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 31, 2009 1:29 AM
Comment #279281

Phx8,
No comment!

Rhinehold,
try Fiscally Independent and Socially Knowledgable, hmmm…

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 31, 2009 3:01 AM
Comment #279285

>try Fiscally Independent and Socially Knowledgable, hmmm…
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 31, 2009 03:01 AM

Henry…I like it…it has a certain ring to it…a certain charm…a certain flare. Now, if the GOP could just find more than one tiny advocate, they might make some headway…Meghan is not enough, and she’s been shouted down by the ‘voice’ of the party.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 31, 2009 6:31 AM
Comment #279286

Marysdude,
So was Abe, but that did not stop him. In fact, I think the Grand Old Party might want to keep that in mind as 2010 and 2012 approaches.

For why I realize that it may be hard for some of My Elders and Peers to know that America has the technology to become more than Energy Independent as Individuals, a Nation, and a Society. Given that they have folks like Meghan coming up in their ranks, I do believe that the Democratic Party will have some real Loyal Opposition to President Obama Vision for a better tomorrow. Especially since I dare Rush and Company to try and shout down me.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 31, 2009 7:03 AM
Comment #279289

One wee problem with your analysis, Eric. Free markets didn’t fail. Fraud and mercantilism failed, again.

One cannot have free markets without transparency and oversite. When are so-called free marketers actually going to get around to reading Adam Smith?

Posted by: gergle at March 31, 2009 7:17 AM
Comment #279291

I don’t fully understand the criticism of the government intervention in certain businesses.

Should the government have let GM and the many banks be? They would have failed by now. If that is what your arguing come right out and say so.

Should the government fund them with no strings attached? That hasn’t worked well recently.

Posted by: Schwamp at March 31, 2009 8:45 AM
Comment #279299

Schwamp,
Should the government have let GM and the many banks failed due to an Insurance Problem? No! Absolutely not because the shock wave through the Market would be worse than 100 foot Tidal Wave hitting New York City at high tide.

Should the government fund the corporations with no strings attached? No again, but like good paents we need to provide the corporations the freedom to get back on their feet.

Because shouldn’t “We the People” being using the Taxpayers Dollars to help make the American Consumer and Small Business Owner to become more Self-Sufficient? Especially since prices are expected to double in order to handle the inflation of printing money.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 31, 2009 10:10 AM
Comment #279306

phx8,

and they (young Republicans) are liberal in their acceptance of science over religion.
That may be classically “liberal”, but then so is conservatism generally. There is nothing whatsoever irreligious for someone who accepts an omnipotent God to also accept real science. If God truly is omnipotent science can’t tell us anything he does not want us to know.

Bad religion is everywhere. It’s not limited to people who think they believe in God, either.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 31, 2009 11:41 AM
Comment #279313

It seems many of us believe the Obama administration is heading in the right direction with the economy. As confidence is half the battle perhaps the work done to date by this administration has prevented the Country from falling into the abyss as many had feared. It seems doing something, even if it is perceived to be wrong by many of us, is better than doing nothing.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090331/pl_nm/us_obama_poll_economy

Posted by: j2t2 at March 31, 2009 1:26 PM
Comment #279317

j2t2,

Isn’t it nice to know that, no matter how leaders fly in the face of our better judgement, we can fall in love with them when we see everyone else falling in love with them.

There is no better way to promote the abandonment of reason than to lead with polling.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 31, 2009 2:07 PM
Comment #279324

I haven’t heard much about MMGW lately on this blog even though PO and the liberal congress appear to be ready to levy heavy taxes upon every American with cap and trade. Some call it the “light switch” tax and others call it necessary to save the planet.

31,478 American scientists signed a petition rejecting any global warming agreements,
including 9,029 with PhDs. Does anyone still believe there is a consensus among American scientists?

While browsing around I found an excellent paper which stated, “Global warming alarmists will tell you that there is “scientific consensus” that mankind is causing global warming and that only a few scientists disagree. But, there are more than 17,200 scientists who say that, “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Since that’s the case, how can anyone credibly claim that there is “scientific consensus” on the issue? This paragraph referenced the following paper.

Link; http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/Review_Article_HTML.php

Posted by: Jim M at March 31, 2009 2:53 PM
Comment #279325

Lee I guess my point is despite the onslaught of conservative nay saying many Americans have in fact learned from the past 8 years and any comparison between this Administration and Hilter is only in the minds of a few on the far right. Despite the onslaught of conservative nay saying many Americans have decided they are without merit. I mean when you consider the mantra of the repubs/conservatives, formerly known as repubs/conservatives, the past 30 years of “deficts don’t matter” as they ran up the tab, it is hard to understand why the repubs/ conservatives are now in such a tizzy when it is not them doing the spending. This, I believe is reflected in the poll I linked to. Being optimistic, as most Americans are, now that we are all on the same page deficit wise once the economy recovers we can fight the debt problem caused by years of economic, fiscal and financial mismanagement and the resultant massive spending to bring the economy out of the “uber speculative debt funded” economy we have emerged from into an economy for the new century. Hopefully it is not to late and to little for this administration and in turn our Country to succeed.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 31, 2009 3:15 PM
Comment #279326

j2t2,

The deficits don’t matter crowd may have been Republicans but your attribution of the same nonsense to conservatives is simply false and you know it. None of us were saying it. Not Rush, not Hannity, not Ingraham. None of the major conservative voices supported the Republican spendfest.

I didn’t support spendthrift policy when my side did it and I don’t support the gargantuan and disastrous increases the Democrats are foisting on us now. These are apalling and insane committments to the impoverishment of our children and the demise of the U.S. economy. All that wrapped in a program designed to institute a money-drug inducedhigh by spending vast sums of borrowed money in time for the 2010 elections.

In January of last year I wrote an article that, among other things, predicted a great cataclysm in American politics in the next twelve to sixteen years. I see nothing in the confidence of Democrats in the usurpations and spending of this regime to convince me that I was in error in that prediction in any way.

American sociology seems locked into an 80-year cycle of disaster and purging. Obama and his pattern of ignorance populism is a symptom of this cycle.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 31, 2009 3:35 PM
Comment #279334

Jim M,
“Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine”?

Uh huh. I work with major educational and research institutions in the state of Oregon, including OHSU, UO, OSU, and so on. This so-called “Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine” is not a credible organization. I suspect it’s basically a web site with an impressive name that mimics the name of a very impressive organization, OHSU. The web site lists a rural community with a population of about 1300 in a remote region of southwestern Oregon as the location.

In short, Jim, you’ve been had.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

You really should look into sources before citing them.

Posted by: phx8 at March 31, 2009 6:44 PM
Comment #279335

Some of the following signed the petition cited by Jim re Global Warming:
John Grisham
Michael J. Fox
Dr Frank Burns
B. J. Honeycutt
Benjamin Pierce
“Dr. Red Wine”
Geraldine Halliwell

Halliwell was a Spice Girl. Her field of scientific specialization was listed as “biology.”

This stuff is just priceless. Thanks for the laugh!

Posted by: phx8 at March 31, 2009 6:49 PM
Comment #279336

Jim M.,
I wonder if those same 31,478 American scientists would care to spend a year in a biosphere with us reducing the amount of oxygen by half as we increase the CO2 level?

Yes, a Cap & Trade program would add cost to those businesses to dumb to take advantaage of today’s technology and is represented by the Good Old White Men Party as they stand in Loyal Opposition to the Presidents’ Policies by saying no.

However, if they would shut up and listen to the Youth Voice of their party they would find out that a proper Cap & Trade program could allow the American Corporation regain the lead in the Global Market. For are you aware that the smoke one loses out of the smoke stack could provide the company and stockholders with a complete new line of income sources?

Yes, with profits going up in smoke as the Societal Barons and American Consumer are looking at smaller and smaller shares of Natural Resources why would any business person want to own a system that would allow them to begin to recovering all the resouces found in the pollution of the 20th Century Knowledge of Man?

CO2, NO2, SO2, and other elements may sound like strange creatures to us not having a PHD in Chemistry, but if one cares to look beyond the Rushs of the World they will find that under the proper conditions the American Industry can create a Cap & Trade System that will help them discover new resources to the same Old Problems of Man and His Society. Just ask your kids to show you how it is done for it changes to fast today for me to say what is called Proper by My Peers.

Lee,
What if the Elders and Powers-that-Be of the 70’s felt the same way that you do today. Would you and your family have the same opportunities that you enjoy today?

Yes, you should be concerned about how much money is required to turn America away from the Race to the Bottom and in which path forward the Country will take; however, considering that My Peers have spent trillions and billions on products and projects meant to take the Human Race on a one way trip to a Future of Nothing I do believe you will be surprised at the direction that is choosen by your children if they are given the proper guidence. For is President Obama and Congress spending on the Future or are they investing the Taxpayers Money into the Future?

Now, do you care to debate the Intent of Americas’ Democratic and Republican Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders and My Peers?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 31, 2009 6:56 PM
Comment #279337

Jim M, I’m sure the editors here will write about that topic again soon; probably when the cap and trade program starts going through Congress and begins its way to the President’s desk. Regarding the OISM “petition”, that thing is a bunch of bullcrap and is full of fraud. Scientific American did a random poll of 30 names and found only three relevant signers—this extrapolated to about 200 relevant petitioners signing the petition. In any case the authors are a bunch of disgruntled conservative activists with a leader who is just a chemist with training in nutrition and protein chemistry, but no climatological background.

Posted by: Warped Reality at March 31, 2009 7:02 PM
Comment #279338

PS Jim M, I hope that in the future you cite repuable peer-reviewed scientific journals when discussing climate change.

Posted by: Warped Reality at March 31, 2009 7:07 PM
Comment #279340

>there are more than 17,200 scientists who say that, “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.
Posted by: Jim M at March 31, 2009 02:53 PM

17,200 out of how many? How many of the 17,200 are in fields related to ecosystems and global temperature? How many of those who believe there is a problem in this scientific sphere are actually in the field?

Too many questions…not enough answers…I think someone jumped to incorrect conclusions, based on inadequate, or false information.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 31, 2009 7:27 PM
Comment #279341

Henry,

For is President Obama and Congress spending on the Future or are they investing the Taxpayers Money into the Future?
The only thing i can see that Obama is really “investing” in is leveraging the government into control of the private economy.

MY peers, the conservatives, have been claiming that he is a socialist. They are wrong. He is actually following an economic pattern more like National Socialism- hemming in one industrial sector after another either with direct government control or with insolvency driven by an inability to compete with the entities the government has compromised into submission with “bailouts”.

We’re in for a very interesting dozen years or so.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 31, 2009 7:45 PM
Comment #279346

Lee….waaaay too much drama.

I don’t think we’re by any means out of the woods yet, but we are sailing true at the moment. There are many dangerous tides and shallows ahead, but thus far we seem to have found a competent leader. So much for Republican offerings.

I guess when you have no clue about where things are, where they are going, and apparently can’t distinguish where we’ve been…it’s a scary thing.

If a few Republicans would take a breath, read some solid basic economics books, read some basic world history, and turn off Rush, they might calm down a bit.

Posted by: gergle at March 31, 2009 9:45 PM
Comment #279348

Lee,
Why history does a much better job than I can in showing how “Big Brother” was dragged back from the edge in the 1990’s. I see no difference between than and now in a lot of cases. However, hopefully both sides of the Political Coin in America is a little bit smarter and a little wiser and will listen to the Logic and Rason of the Youth as well as explain to them why they to are limited as Individuals, a Nation, and a Society.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 31, 2009 10:17 PM
Comment #279349

Gergle,

If a few Republicans would take a breath, read some solid basic economics books, read some basic world history, and turn off Rush, they might calm down a bit.
You must have gotten your economics at Hogwarts. Where I took mine we dealt with price signals and information passed among members of the marketplace, and production and supply. I see a government badly confusing every aspect of this equation.

Government is granting market advantages to the least efficient entities, thus compromising the effective management of the most efficient companies. Government is actively interfering in market decision-making. For example, they areshutting down the production of 11 out of 20 profitable product lines at GM (Government Motors).

This is a policy either incompetently intended to prevent disaster, or, as I think more likely, intentionally intended to crush the automotive market of the United States.

I know my history pretty well, thank you.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 31, 2009 10:18 PM
Comment #279354

Lee,
Given the Limited Resources of GM and other manufactures I do believe that it is wise to eliminate their product line now so that new Electric/natural gas vehicles with high gas milage can come on line over the next few years.

For could you tell me how many cars were eliminated from the Detroit Bad Boys product line during the 5 years America switched from leaded to unleaded fuel in the 70’s?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at April 1, 2009 12:19 AM
Comment #279357

Lets get some facts straight. Blaming Bush for everything accomplishes nothing. Like when Obama is told his spending is too high, he blames Bush. I was stuck with this problem, that is like saying johnny hit me first, that’s why i shot him. Government can’t fix all of the problems out there, and they create many more. Let’s look at global warming. We complain we use too much dirty coal, but only because were not allowed to develop clean, safe nuclear energy. One accident that the safety devices worked on and they shut down a viable industry. we could be 20 % less carbon producing if not for that. Also the stopping of developing our own gas and oil, safetly would have been better than relying on others. American ingenuity can do it, if governement got out of the way. Bith parties are responsible for deregualtion of financial markets, strted under Clinton. And congress forcing mae and mac to make more risky loans is also to blame. And lets not keep blaming corporate greed for everything. Americans asked for those loans they couldn’t afford, americans demanded larger cars and trucks, and did not buy energy efficient little cars. they demanded extras and speed, stereos and a/c, not more effecient cars. They demanded cheaper prices, and spoke with their credit cards, so jobs went over seas. We got our cheap walmart stores full of chinese crap, we asked for it. we drove american manufacted items supporting high paying union jobs away because we bought the cheap stuff.

sorry for the rambling subjects, but it is time to get going, without tons of governement money which is just going to print money lowering its value. Americans can solve these problems without government assistance. get washington out of the board room. every problem can be solved, but having washington involved will only raise prices, because if they subsidize something, we pay for it in taxes. remember great economic term TANSTAAFL There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.

Posted by: Bruce Peterson at April 1, 2009 4:17 AM
Comment #279359

Lee said,

This is a policy either incompetently intended to prevent disaster, or, as I think more likely, intentionally intended to crush the automotive market of the United States.

I know my history pretty well, thank you.

I have no doubt you do, but based on your analysis, one has to ask that question, because it seems rather baseless. At least here you admit, begrudgingly, that you have some sort of clue about how we got here and what it might take to get us out. I’ll forgive you your complete partisan tilt. Rush is hard to give up. That Oxycontin fog is contagious.

Pssst. Hogwart’s is fiction. There was also a rather large signal last fall.

Posted by: gergle at April 1, 2009 5:38 AM
Comment #279363

Bruce,
Why I can blame President Bush for a lot of things, I do believe that it was under his watch that the SEC allowed the Market to be floated by allowing a 30% Margin Call and nothing was done to warn the Investor. Now, did President Bush have first hand knowledge that what he was doing could be considered by some to be to risky?

Well, given his disconnect after the beginning of 2005 I doubt it; nevertheless, the fact that the Market blew up in his last days instead of waiting until the next president to take office to deal with issues like Iraq is something we all have to live with.

So why you are quick to point out that there is no such things as a free lunch, I wonder how much you are going to tax me for growing my own fruits and vegetables, raising my own stock, and creating my own energy as an American Layman Citizen. Yes, Corporate America may charge a price to play; however, tell the folks who drove or was driven over the cliff that they should pay for the mistakes of the few who attempted to get a free lunch off the backs of My Peers and Their Children Ignorance.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at April 1, 2009 8:31 AM
Comment #279364

Jim M-
The Oregon Petition contains many scientist’s signatures, but only a few of them can be established as climate scientists. Scientists, like everybody else, have specialists, and those specialists keep up better with the evidence and the principles involved than those in other specialties.

You guys includ geologists, physicists, doctors, and other folks, who though having a science background, have it in other fields.

That’s a dead giveaway: it’s a political document. Additionally, a petition is not science. If you had asked people in Einstein’s early career what they thought of General Relativity, they’d be dubious. Where are the observations? Well, they’ve studied black holes now, and have observed it working.

What backs Global Climate change concerns is the science. Those who organized this petition cared more that they could get tens of thousands of scientists together. They did not care whether their experience meant anything concerning their understanding of the science.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 1, 2009 9:08 AM
Comment #279380

To use Henry’s phraseology…for why am I not surprised by my peers and elders that they attack the messengers rather than the message.

Did anyone even bother to read the data presented? If so, what part of it do you find in error? Had those who decry some of the signers of the petition bothered to read the document, rather than ridicule those who agree they may have learned something.

The link I provided also listed the folowing;

Qualifications of Signers

Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.

The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,153 MS; 2,585 MD and DVM; and 12,711 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.

The Petition Project classifies petition signers on the basis of their formal academic training, as summarized below. Scientists often pursue specialized fields of endeavor that are different from their formal education, but their underlying training can be applied to any scientific field in which they become interested.

Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.

1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,803 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.

2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 935 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.

3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,810 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.

4. Chemistry includes 4,818 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.

5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,964 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.

6. Medicine includes 3,046 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.

7. Engineering and general science includes 10,102 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.

The following outline gives a more detailed analysis of the signers’ educations.

Posted by: Jim M at April 1, 2009 1:21 PM
Comment #279381

M. Daugherty writes; “What backs Global Climate change concerns is the science.”

Oh really…I thought it was computer modeling based upon data entered by those seeking to prove something unknown as correct. Why not actually read the report and then we’ll talk about it. I read the pseudo-science that comes out of the UN reports. Come on Daugherty, you can do better.

Posted by: Jim M at April 1, 2009 1:27 PM
Comment #279394

Jim M-
When you appeal to authority, it’s important what kind you appeal to. They can speak of what somebody might know, but when your list includes Veterinarians(that’s what a DVM is), then you know that for them, the key qualification wasn’t knowledge of the subject, it was the label of “scientist”.

You get derisive about models, call it pseudo-science. You complain about the social and political pressures on those who don’t advocate global warming. Before one ounce of science is even cited, you have already made character attacks at the people doing the science.

Scientists model things all the time. It’s how your Weather Channel President makes his living. Is it unscientific? No. Models can be tested for their ability to predict things. Hell, in a technique called “hindcasting”, you can even see if the model can predict the climate shifts that’s already happened from the intitial conditions of observations already made. Models can be tested to establish that their predictive quality is good.

Those models indicated, long before now, that the warming in the arctic, the warming in places where heat tends to escape quickly, would be greater than elsewhere. they also indicated that the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica would melt at a certain pace.

Now the predictions of greater warming at the poles, at night, and during other times where heat gets radiated back more easily have come to pass. But worse than that, the models for the speed of ice sheet melting, at least the UN models have been superseded by observations. Apparently, the IPCC’s conservative estimates were too conservative. The observed melting is occurring faster than predicted.

If solar irradiance were responsible, we’d see a more even warming of the surface of the planet, and the radiation of heat back to space would be largely unaffected.

You can rationalize the PR stunts these constitute all you want to. This is science by press release, true pseudo-science. They have not bothered to, or haven’t been able to prove their alternative theories of global warming. They’ve just thrown questions out in order to raise doubts. That’s what you’re doing here. You have conclusions you wish to see made, conclusions that play to a certain politics. This is as much about defeating liberals as it is about anything else.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 1, 2009 5:15 PM
Comment #279399

M. Daugherty can rationalize the PR stunts performed by the UN all you want as well. The verifiable records presented in the link I provided clearly show the opposite of what the political scientist would like us to believe…and pay for in worldwide poverty.

Further in the link I provided is a relatively inexpensive and immediately available solution to many of our energy and financial problems as excerpted here.

“The U.S. clearly cannot continue to be a large net importer of energy without losing its economic and industrial strength and its political independence. It should, instead, be a net exporter of energy.

There are three realistic technological paths to American energy independence – increased use of hydrocarbon energy, nuclear energy, or both. There are no climatological impediments to increased use of hydrocarbons, although local environmental effects can and must be accommodated. Nuclear energy is, in fact, less expensive and more environmentally benign than hydrocarbon energy, but it too has been the victim of the politics of fear and claimed disadvantages and dangers that are actually negligible.

For example, the “problem” of high-level “nuclear waste” has been given much attention, but this problem has been politically created by U.S. government barriers to American fuel breeding and reprocessing. Spent nuclear fuel can be recycled into new nuclear fuel. It need not be stored in expensive repositories.

Reactor accidents are also much publicized, but there has never been even one human death associated with an American nuclear reactor incident. By contrast, American dependence on automobiles results in more than 40,000 human deaths per year.

All forms of energy generation, including “green” methods, entail industrial deaths in the mining, manufacture, and transport of resources they require. Nuclear energy requires the smallest amount of such resources (124) and therefore has the lowest risk of deaths.

Estimated relative costs of electrical energy production vary with geographical location and underlying assumptions. Figure 26 shows a recent British study, which is typical. At present, 43% of U.S. energy consumption is used for electricity production.

To be sure, future inventions in energy technology may alter the relative economics of nuclear, hydrocarbon, solar, wind, and other methods of energy generation. These inventions cannot, however, be forced by political fiat, nor can they be wished into existence. Alternatively, “conservation,” if practiced so extensively as to be an alternative to hydrocarbon and nuclear power, is merely a politically correct word for “poverty.”

The current untenable situation in which the United States is losing $300 billion per year to pay for foreign oil and gas is not the result of failures of government energy production efforts. The U.S. government does not produce energy. Energy is produced by private industry. Why then has energy production thrived abroad while domestic production has stagnated?

This stagnation has been caused by United States government taxation, regulation, and sponsorship of litigation, which has made the U.S. a very unfavorable place to produce energy. In addition, the U.S. government has spent vast sums of tax money subsidizing inferior energy technologies for political purposes.

It is not necessary to discern in advance the best course to follow. Legislative repeal of taxation, regulation, incentives to litigation, and repeal of all subsidies of energy generation industries would stimulate industrial development, wherein competition could then automatically determine the best paths.

Nuclear power is safer, less expensive, and more environmentally benign than hydrocarbon power, so it is probably the better choice for increased energy production. Solid, liquid and gaseous hydrocarbon fuels provide, however, many conveniences, and a national infrastructure to use them is already in place. Oil from shale or coal liquefaction is less expensive than crude oil at current prices, but its ongoing production costs are higher than those for already developed oil fields. There is, therefore, an investment risk that crude oil prices could drop so low that liquefaction plants could not compete. Nuclear energy does not have this disadvantage, since the operating costs of nuclear power plants are very low.

Figure 27 illustrates, as an example, one practical and environmentally sound path to U.S. energy independence. At present 19% of U.S. electricity is produced by 104 nuclear power reactors with an average generating output in 2006 of 870 megawatts per reactor, for a total of about 90 GWe (gigawatts) (125). If this were increased by 560 GWe, nuclear power could fill all current U.S. electricity requirements and have 230 GWe left over for export as electricity or as hydrocarbon fuels replaced or manufactured.

Figure 26: Delivered cost per kilowatt hour of electrical energy in Great Britain in 2006, without CO2 controls (126). These estimates include all capital and operational expenses for a period of 50 years. Micro wind or solar are units installed for individual homes.

Thus, rather than a $300 billion trade loss, the U.S. would have a $200 billion trade surplus – and installed capacity for future U.S. requirements. Moreover, if heat from additional nuclear reactors were used for coal liquefaction and gasification, the U.S. would not even need to use its oil resources. The U.S. has about 25% of the world’s coal reserves. This heat could also liquify biomass, trash, or other sources of hydrocarbons that might eventually prove practical.

Figure 27: Construction of one Palo Verde installation with 10 reactors in each of the 50 states. Energy trade deficit is reversed by $500 billion per year, resulting in a $200 billion annual surplus. Currently, this solution is not possible owing to misguided government policies, regulations, and taxation and to legal maneuvers available to anti-nuclear activists. These impediments should be legislatively repealed.

The Palo Verde nuclear power station near Phoenix, Arizona, was originally intended to have 10 nuclear reactors with a generating capacity of 1,243 megawatts each. As a result of public hysteria caused by false information – very similar to the human-caused global warming hysteria being spread today, construction at Palo Verde was stopped with only three operating reactors completed. This installation is sited on 4,000 acres of land and is cooled by waste water from the city of Phoenix, which is a few miles away. An area of 4,000 acres is 6.25 square miles or 2.5 miles square. The power station itself occupies only a small part of this total area.

If just one station like Palo Verde were built in each of the 50 states and each installation included 10 reactors as originally planned for Palo Verde, these plants, operating at the current 90% of design capacity, would produce 560 GWe of electricity. Nuclear technology has advanced substantially since Palo Verde was built, so plants constructed today would be even more reliable and efficient.

Assuming a construction cost of $2.3 billion per 1,200 MWe reactor (127) and 15% economies of scale, the total cost of this entire project would be $1 trillion, or 4 months of the current U.S. federal budget. This is 8% of the annual U.S. gross domestic product. Construction costs could be repaid in just a few years by the capital now spent by the people of the United States for foreign oil and by the change from U.S. import to export of energy.

The 50 nuclear installations might be sited on a population basis. If so, California would have six, while Oregon and Idaho together would have one. In view of the great economic value of these facilities, there would be vigorous competition for them.

In addition to these power plants, the U.S. should build fuel reprocessing capability, so that spent nuclear fuel can be reused. This would lower fuel cost and eliminate the storage of high-level nuclear waste. Fuel for the reactors can be assured for 1,000 years (128) by using both ordinary reactors with high breeding ratios and specific breeder reactors, so that more fuel is produced than consumed.

About 33% of the thermal energy in an ordinary nuclear reactor is converted to electricity. Some new designs are as high as 48%. The heat from a 1,243 MWe reactor can produce 38,000 barrels of coal-derived oil per day (129). With one additional Palo Verde installation in each state for oil production, the yearly output would be at least 7 billion barrels per year with a value, at $60 per barrel, of more than $400 billion per year. This is twice the oil production of Saudi Arabia. Current proven coal reserves of the United States are sufficient to sustain this production for 200 years (128). This liquified coal exceeds the proven oil reserves of the entire world. The reactors could produce gaseous hydrocarbons from coal, too.

The remaining heat from nuclear power plants could warm air or water for use in indoor climate control and other purposes.

Nuclear reactors can also be used to produce hydrogen, instead of oil and gas (130,131). The current cost of production and infrastructure is, however, much higher for hydrogen than for oil and gas. Technological advance reduces cost, but usually not abruptly. A prescient call in 1800 for the world to change from wood to methane would have been impracticably ahead of its time, as may be a call today for an abrupt change from oil and gas to hydrogen. In distinguishing the practical from the futuristic, a free market in energy is absolutely essential.

Surely these are better outcomes than are available through international rationing and taxation of energy as has been recently proposed (82,83,97,123). This nuclear energy example demonstrates that current technology can produce abundant inexpensive energy if it is not politically suppressed.

There need be no vast government program to achieve this goal. It could be reached simply by legislatively removing all taxation, most regulation and litigation, and all subsidies from all forms of energy production in the U.S., thereby allowing the free market to build the most practical mixture of methods of energy generation.

With abundant and inexpensive energy, American industry could be revitalized, and the capital and energy required for further industrial and technological advance could be assured. Also assured would be the continued and increased prosperity of all Americans.

The people of the United States need more low-cost energy, not less. If this energy is produced in the United States, it can not only become a very valuable export, but it can also ensure that American industry remains competitive in world markets and that hoped-for American prosperity continues and grows.

In this hope, Americans are not alone. Across the globe, billions of people in poorer nations are struggling to improve their lives. These people need abundant low-cost energy, which is the currency of technological progress.

In newly developing countries, that energy must come largely from the less technologically complicated hydrocarbon sources. It is a moral imperative that this energy be available. Otherwise, the efforts of these peoples will be in vain, and they will slip backwards into lives of poverty, suffering, and early death.

Energy is the foundation of wealth. Inexpensive energy allows people to do wonderful things. For example, there is concern that it may become difficult to grow sufficient food on the available land. Crops grow more abundantly in a warmer, higher CO2 environment, so this can mitigate future problems that may arise (12).

Energy provides, however, an even better food insurance plan. Energy-intensive hydroponic greenhouses are 2,000 times more productive per unit land area than are modern American farming methods (132). Therefore, if energy is abundant and inexpensive, there is no practical limit to world food production.

Fresh water is also believed to be in short supply. With plentiful inexpensive energy, sea water desalination can provide essentially unlimited supplies of fresh water.

During the past 200 years, human ingenuity in the use of energy has produced many technological miracles. These advances have markedly increased the quality, quantity, and length of human life. Technologists of the 21st century need abundant, inexpensive energy with which to continue this advance.

Were this bright future to be prevented by world energy rationing, the result would be tragic indeed. In addition to human loss, the Earth’s environment would be a major victim of such a mistake. Inexpensive energy is essential to environmental health. Prosperous people have the wealth to spare for environmental preservation and enhancement. Poor, impoverished people do not.”

Posted by: Jim M at April 1, 2009 6:35 PM
Comment #279404

Jim:

You really shouldn’t copy and paste whole articles.

Posted by: womanmarine at April 1, 2009 7:29 PM
Comment #279408

Jim M.,
If you are going to use “Henry’s phraseology” to say something, you may want to work on the dilevery.

For why America has used energy for over 200 years, we have not always used oil to meet those demands. In fact, you can look at our history and read how our ancestors were having this same conversation some 100 years ago. Do you remember when the automobile was a strange new invention that went against everything that Community Elders and Parents knew was right?

So, believe that the increase in CO2 levels do not matter, but knowing that some of these same people cannot backup the fact that the lower oxygen levels in the atmosphere is a major concern for all inhabitants of Earth. I wonder if these Old Folks would care to live in a Biosphere where CO2 and oxygen levels will be in the next 20 years if nothing is done today.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at April 1, 2009 8:02 PM
Comment #279415

henry


“So, believe that the increase in CO2 levels do not matter, but knowing that some of these same people cannot backup the fact that the lower oxygen levels in the atmosphere is a major concern for all inhabitants of Earth. I wonder if these Old Folks would care to live in a Biosphere where CO2 and oxygen levels will be in the next 20 years if nothing is done today.”

how did you come up with this conclusion. tell you what henry, i’ll bet you a steak dinner in 2029 that we’re still living here on the surface, and everythings just fine 20 years from now, but it’s only good if i’m not taking a dirt nap OK ?

Posted by: dbs at April 1, 2009 9:01 PM
Comment #279420

Jim M-
The problem with Nuclear Reactors, at least the current fission models, is that you really have to overbuild them to make them safe, and there are only a few companies that can make the kind of reactor vessels necessary to get things going. While Nuclear might work as a supplement, it can’t be the total solution.

Additionally, I don’t have to rationalize any “PR Stunt” on the UN’s part. There’s good science there. It’s not merely some petition with a bunch of random scientists with random fields pasted together, like that petition. Please don’t insult my intelligence by just throwing my own arguments back at me with changed names.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 1, 2009 10:11 PM
Comment #279424

Dbs,
Why wait until 2029 when we can run the numbers and create the atmoephere today? Care to live in a biosphere were there is no new oxygen being produced?

For to quote a friend of mine “Who needs trees anyway?”

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at April 2, 2009 12:43 AM
Comment #279428

Henry,

You do realize that most oxygen in the atmosphere is created by the oceans, right?

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 2, 2009 2:37 AM
Comment #279430

Rhinehold,
However, Humans do not live in the oceans, but on land. Besides, look at the oxygen content of the atmosphere before the deforesting of the last 50-100 years. And are you willing to live on land with only the oxygen produced from the ocean?

Simple fact of math. CO2 consists of one part carbon and two parts oxygen. So at what point of increasing the amount of CO2 and other elements in the atmosphere eliminate enough oxygen as to directly effect a Human in any given area?

Posted by: Henry Schlayman at April 2, 2009 3:05 AM
Comment #279444

Jim:

You really shouldn’t copy and paste whole articles.
Posted by: womanmarine at April 1, 2009 07:29 PM

I agree WM and it is rare when I do. Sometimes, a complex article just doesn’t lend itself to a simple summary.

Posted by: Jim M at April 2, 2009 12:15 PM
Comment #279446

I disagree Jim, you do it a lot. JMHO

Posted by: womanmarine at April 2, 2009 12:40 PM
Comment #279448

Jim M,

Womanmarine is right about the article.

“Fair use” can extend to pertinent portions of articles when they deal with the specific intent of a citation, but it doesn’t extend to the use of entire articles or the bulk of an article. None of us coud expect to win an argument that the extensive use you made above could be defended on those grounds.

In future comments it would be best to post links to articles and exerpt small portions.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at April 2, 2009 1:25 PM
Comment #279453


“You do realize that most oxygen in the atmosphere is created by the oceans,right?”

Wrong!

While it is true that the primary source for most of the oxygen in the atmosphere comes from the ocean, the producers are phytoplankton and nanoplankton. The process is called photosynthesis. The phytoplankton takes in CO2 + Water and converts them into glucose ( carbon, hydrogen and oxygen), water and free oxygen.

I don’t know if scientists have reached conclusions on the effect that the heating of the oceans or the manmade pollutants the we are pouring into the oceans will have on the phytoplankton. I do know that they are vital to the production of atmospheric oxygen, the recycling of carbon dioxide and crucial to the food chain.

Posted by: jlw at April 2, 2009 2:40 PM
Comment #279458

jlw, Actually many of the plankton that inhabit the oceans use calcium carbonate shells, which dissolve if the water becomes too acidic. Unfortunately, the increased CO2 in the atmosphere means that some of the CO2 will react with the sea water to form Carbonic Acid, CO2+H20=H2CO3. This results in less plankton. Fortunately, there a few species that use silica shells instead of calcium carbonate, but no one knows if they will be able to compensate for the loss of calcium carbonate plankton.

Posted by: Warped Reality at April 2, 2009 3:51 PM
Comment #279481

The question is how does man use the elements coming out of the smoke stacks of industry to produce the resources we need and and assist Nature to maintain the Proper Balance?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at April 2, 2009 9:52 PM
Comment #279497

This is JMHO, but don’t think Jim M’s pasted articles are any longer than SD’s written articles. I can understand how a complete article would help to prove a point, because most people would not read the entire link and most certainly would ignore pertinant points.

Posted by: Oldguy at April 3, 2009 8:52 AM
Comment #279507

oldguy

i think the main problem as i understand it, is that it is a copywrite infringement. personally it doesn’t bother me. it is funny though how everyone focused on the legal issue, and didn’t bother to adress the content of the article. guess it took the wind out of thier sails eh.

Posted by: dbs at April 3, 2009 10:57 AM
Comment #279515

oldguy-
Under copyright law, you own what you original author. You don’t even have to register it. It just makes it easier to win a case if somebody plagiarizes you.

When I write an article, most of it’s my writing, which is copyrighted to me. When I quote, I quote just the parts that really pertain to my point. That’s fair use, an exception to copyright law.

It doesn’t matter whether it’d be unlikely for people to read the whole argument: the law says you quote only part with attribution, or you’re plagiarizing.

If you want people to read more of the article, then what you do is you remind them of what should have been read for the article. If you’ve got a solid argument, then you’ll send them back to see what they missed.

There are other potential ways around it: creative commons or public domain. if I were to quote liberally from an old translation of Machiavelli’s prince (new translations would be copyrighted) or from The Adventures of Tom Sawyer (the work’s copyright is lapsed now), nobody could touch me. It would also be the same if somebody copyrighted it under a creative common’s license, or did other similar things to provide permission to readers to copy the work.

The point of all this rigamarole is to make sure that people are creative in their output, not simply mooching off the creative without their permission. It’s lazy just to post the whole article. If you want people to be interested in the source, make your own commentary on it interesting. Otherwise, the law is the law.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 3, 2009 1:11 PM
Comment #279516

Which reminds me: the whole point of Copyright Law does pertain to his subject. He talks about the restriction that government laws place on business. Well, lets ask a question: If it weren’t for patent or copyright law, who would bother to be creative?

These government imposed monopolies form the basis for much of our commerce, and allow people to reap the rewards of their creativity, along with everybody else. If we didn’t have such laws, authors could be mercilessly plagiarized, driving down the value of their writing, and businesses would conceal the methods and mechanics of their inventions, rather than share those with the understanding that for a time they would have sole ability to profit by them.

These regulations, written into the constitution, are an example of where government can clear the way for business, by getting in the way in the right way. A game without rules is one nobody every really wins.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 3, 2009 1:16 PM
Comment #279521

dbs:

You are correct about their focus. I made a statement a few weeks ago, that the left loves to major on the minors. They will ignore the sustance of the post and major on something that does’nt even pertain to the article. Of course I was attacked for my views, but this is a good example.

SD

I don’t think copyright laws have much importance on this site. Do you think our articles are being published in the NYT? You rightfully explain to us the copyright laws that we should abide by, and yet defend an innumerable amount of laws being broken by BHO and his dem liberals in congress. This, my young friend, is called a double standard. If you want people to take you seriously, you have to treat the breaking of laws the same. Which violation is worse: copyright laws being broken or illegals being allowed to just walk into the country, with ICE and border patrol being called of. They call them illegal aliens, because they are illegal, which means breaking the law.

Posted by: Oldguy at April 3, 2009 2:45 PM
Comment #279533

stephen


“These government imposed monopolies form the basis for much of our commerce, and allow people to reap the rewards of their creativity, along with everybody else. If we didn’t have such laws, authors could be mercilessly plagiarized, driving down the value of their writing,”

you argue that copywrite infringement will de incetivise the profession of writing, because it will not allow the author sole ownership of thier intelectual property. at the same time you argue increasing taxes will not do the same thing, thus taking away much of the incentive to work harder and get ahead….interesting.

Posted by: dbs at April 3, 2009 5:06 PM
Comment #279544

Dbs,
As an Individual what I produce out of my own thoughts should remain my intelectual property; however, without the Proper Amount of Taxes being paid in order to protect them how can Government and Society protect the incentives that allow me to drive beyond that which is betond the Common Knowledge and Common Sense of Man?

And yes, Stephen is right that Governments in America and around the World do impose monopolies on Society in order to meet the Needs and Wants of Their Citizens. For as AIG anmd Madoof has shown us. Not all Citizens are educated enough to govern themselves on what they know to be in Their Inherent Best Interest.

So how is it possible one could agrue for the Rights of an Individual and the Rights of a Nations Citizenary at the same time under the same Ideology?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at April 4, 2009 5:32 AM
Comment #279552

henry

“Not all Citizens are educated enough to govern themselves on what they know to be in Their Inherent Best Interest.”

you could use this same argument to prevent certain people from voting. it is each persons right to decide what they feel is in thier own best interest. not yours, mine, or the gov’ts. by this standard the gov’t or you for that matter could also decide what values my children should be raised with.


“So how is it possible one could agrue for the Rights of an Individual and the Rights of a Nations Citizenary at the same time under the same Ideology?”

i argue for the rights of individuals to be protected, and that was the intentions of the founders. to contend that the majority somehow has the right to strip the individual of thier god given rights is one of the hallmarks of socialism. as long as i live and breath i will fight the implementation of socialism in america any way i can.

Posted by: dbs at April 4, 2009 1:26 PM
Comment #279569

Dbs,
Be convicted of a felony (an acy of not acting in your inherent best interest) and you are not allowed to vote.

Ban smoking, drinking, drugs, etc. and you (government and society) are deciding what values my children should be raised with are you not?

So why you may advocate for the rights of the individuals because you believe that was the intention of the Founding Fathers. What about the Rights of Society to ensure that the majority is not ruled by the minority? Should you be subject to Me and My Rules which are Anti-Authoritarian in Nature when the majority of My Peers believe in the Ideology of the Democratic and Republican Leadership.

No, Dbs the question that I asked “how is it possible one could agrue for the Rights of an Individual and the Rights of a Nations Citizenary at the same time under the same Ideology” happens to be a loaded one. For do protect the Rights of the Human or the Citizen by the Laws of Man? And at what price.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at April 4, 2009 7:54 PM
Comment #279571

Oldguy-

I don’t think copyright laws have much importance on this site.

This site could be shut down over violations. Authors could also be accused of plagiarism, which might not be very good for anybody’s reputation.

You rightfully explain to us the copyright laws that we should abide by, and yet defend an innumerable amount of laws being broken by BHO and his dem liberals in congress.

Do I? And what laws are you talking about?

Which violation is worse: copyright laws being broken or illegals being allowed to just walk into the country, with ICE and border patrol being called of. They call them illegal aliens, because they are illegal, which means breaking the law.

I would say the law is the law. We enforce both kinds of laws. But there’s little evidence that the mere bulking up of border agents is doing much good. Illegal Alien immigration skyrocketed, even after the border became more and more the focus of the immigration policy of this country. Many illegal immigrants now either overstay legitimate visas or turn our system against itself by using fake or stolen identities to bypass checks. The question is, how do we deal with those people, when we’re concentrating so heavily on the border? The answer is, we’re not.

Cheer up: the failing economy has encouraged many of them to go home, according to what I’ve heard. So the Right-Wing did succeed, after all, in scaring off illegal aliens. I just have to say, wrecking the economy to do it was just a brilliant bit of lateral thinking on their part.

dbs-

you argue that copywrite infringement will de incetivise the profession of writing, because it will not allow the author sole ownership of thier intelectual property. at the same time you argue increasing taxes will not do the same thing, thus taking away much of the incentive to work harder and get ahead….interesting.

Well, as a point of fact, they would not do the same thing. If somebody steals your work, you get little or nothing if they beat you to market and you have no recourse.

If, however, copyright laws protect you, and you get to enjoy the benefits of a government that enforces copyright, then you only lose the taxes you owe.

More to the point, even as the tax laws used to be written, writers made livings. Many of today’s bestselling authors, filmmakers and artists of different kinds got their starts during periods with much higher taxes. Many of these people became rich, and when the money wasn’t enough for them, they busted their asses and got more.

What’s really interested is that I’m sure many Republicans claimed that what we had here in America was a Capitalist Democracy, but for some reason it, it takes just a few tax hikes and a little growth in government to get the Republicans screaming and carrying on as if the Apocalypse has come and the Four Horsemen are on the march. Which, sad to say, some of the might actually believe.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 4, 2009 8:09 PM
Comment #279596

henry

“What about the Rights of Society to ensure that the majority is not ruled by the minority? Should you be subject to Me and My Rules which are Anti-Authoritarian in Nature when the majority of My Peers believe in the Ideology of the Democratic and Republican Leadership.”

individuals have rights. society doesn’t. so long as i do not do harm to you, i should be allowed to do as i please. how do i rule over you by living my life as i choose. we elect politicians to represent us, but there is always that line drawn by the const. that limits the gov’ts. powers.

gov’ts, and societies have no rights. rights are the sole property of each individual, and those rights are protected in our cont. to argue that the rights of individuals are subserviant to the greater good is to argue for socialism, and this country was not founded on socialist principles.

Posted by: dbs at April 5, 2009 11:42 AM
Comment #279598

dbs writes; “gov’ts, and societies have no rights. rights are the sole property of each individual, and those rights are protected in our cont. to argue that the rights of individuals are subserviant to the greater good is to argue for socialism, and this country was not founded on socialist principles.”

Amen brother…you have that exactly correct. I have been decrying the finding of “new social rights” by liberals in our founding documents for some time.

Rights granted in our constitution are individual rights. “WE” the people is not a reference to the majority who agree, but rather, we…as individuals. The power granted to government is not a “right” but rather the precise manner, with many restrictions, in which those elected to exercise that power must confine themselves.

That our founders words and intentions can be stretched and twisted is obvious when one views some of the things government does today, even with judicial approval. When a government (those exercising power) no longer follows the intent of its founding documents it is no longer legitimate and should be overthrown by the people thru the ballot box if possible or rebellion if necessary.

Posted by: Jim M at April 5, 2009 12:29 PM
Comment #279614

Dbs, and Jim M.,
Why it would be nice to believe that that Government and Society have no rights, unless you are willing to accept being ruled by Complete Anarchy than those who own the Land (government)and govern the factories (Society)will always have Rights over the Common Man.

For to accept your philosophy that means that I can drive through your backyard because the Authority of Man does not have the right to stop me and you cannot interfer with me due to the fact that you have no rights to the land in your bavkyard.

Hence, the King owns the Land; Dukes work the Land; and Knights defend the Land. Something our Founding Fathers knew all to well. Sort of like America today were CEOs and Upper Management get paid bonuses for staying while the Working Man gets laid off.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at April 5, 2009 6:40 PM
Comment #279616

henry

government has no RIGHTS only powers which are granted by the const. that same const. also limits those powers. only individuals possess rights.

“For to accept your philosophy that means that I can drive through your backyard because the Authority of Man does not have the right to stop me and you cannot interfer with me due to the fact that you have no rights to the land in your bavkyard.”

i have property rights which prevent you from doing so if i choose. there are laws that protect my property rights. just like there are laws that protect my right to life. we LOAN gov’t the power to enforce those rights thru law. it is illegal to tresspass, murder is illegal. gov’t has certain powers which WE grant it. one of those powers is NOT the taking the taking of private property unless it is for public use, and then only with just compensation. ie they can’t just take it and say tough luck. the const. does not grant gov’t that power. you are mistaking rights which individuals are endowed with by our creator, with powers WE loan to the gov’t in order to protect our rights.

“Hence, the King owns the Land; Dukes work the Land; and Knights defend the Land. Something our Founding Fathers knew all to well. Sort of like America today were CEOs and Upper Management get paid bonuses for staying while the Working Man gets laid off.”

this makes no sense. the economy slows down and people get laid off, even management gets laid off. you’re comparing a financial institution with a company that manufactures a product. you’re whining about 165 mil. in bonuses while our gov’t wastes 10s, or even 100s of billions, and you say nothing.

Posted by: dbs at April 5, 2009 7:26 PM
Comment #279618

henry

“Why it would be nice to believe that that Government and Society have no rights, unless you are willing to accept being ruled by Complete Anarchy than those who own the Land (government)and govern the factories (Society)will always have Rights over the Common Man.”

you have no right to a job. you have the right to work to persue your goals and dreams, but by no means do you have the RIGHT to a job. you have a right to anything you can provide for yourself, whether that be food, a house, clothing etc. once you earn these things they are yours, and cannot be just willy nilly taken away, and we grant gov’t the power to help you protect them.

money is power henry, is and always will be. you have the freedom to choose who you will or will not work for. no one can force you to work, but if you choose not to, no one is obligated to provide the above mentioned items to you ie, you have no right to them, until you earn them for yourself.

Posted by: dbs at April 5, 2009 7:44 PM
Comment #279621

To All,

Hey all of you trying to figure out who is in control. Let’s take a look at who gives the most money to the puppets. http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

Posted by: chad at April 5, 2009 8:38 PM
Comment #279622

To All,

Notice which ones are niether Republican or Democrat.

Posted by: chad at April 5, 2009 8:40 PM
Comment #279624

Dbs,
What is the difference between the Bank Teller and the Upper Management of the Financial Institute to include the CEO? For both are paid to do a job, yet some want to believe that just because they work in upper management they are to valueable to let go.

You say you have property rights, but who has given you the slip of paper that states that idea? Because why it would be uncivilized to do so what is keeping me from taking it away from you. The Government and Society that you say has no rights? For look at history and discover who and why property rights exist. Certainly taking the Land without permission is wrong is it not?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at April 5, 2009 10:05 PM
Comment #279626

henry

if you don’t realize the difference between the value of a ceo, and a teller i really don’t know what to say. tellers are easily replaced, good ceos are not. i know you don’t think it’s fair, but thats reality.

“You say you have property rights, but who has given you the slip of paper that states that idea?”

it’s called the US constitution.

5th amendment:

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

“Because why it would be uncivilized to do so what is keeping me from taking it away from you.”

actually two things the first being the above mentioned 5th amend or rule of law, and the second being i would defend my life and property with as much force as needed to stop you, up to and including deadly force.

“The Government and Society that you say has no rights?”

the problem i see henry is that you are not understanding the difference between a RIGHT, and a POWER, and thats is where we are having a problem.


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/right[2]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/power[1]

Posted by: dbs at April 5, 2009 11:19 PM
Comment #279629

Dbs,
What you are failing to see is that both a Power and a Right comes from Authority. So by claiming that Government and/or Society have no rights than you are in effect saying that they have no power.

And for your land, you can try to defend it, but if Government and Society sees no value in your land than paying yopu just coompensation means you get nothing. Hence, all one has to do is move to have the property in question condemmed and taking it is a matter of Domain. Besides, if you care to look at the small writting on claims and deeds there does exist a clause that prevents you from owning your own property. Hence, that is why so many people in the 1800’s lost what they thought was their land. And yes you will have to go ask a Lawyer who specializes in Property to explain it becuse this American Layman is strictly forbbiden.

So why you can tell me that I am just mad about the $160 billion being paid by AIG and the likes; however, my argument is not against the Laborers of Upper Management, but directed at the Broad of Directors and the Stockholders. Since if I was allowed to hve my way the whole bunch would be charged with mental-incapacity.

For why should I care if you proerty is sold by the Banks and Financial Institutes in order to pay their debt to the Creditors and the 401ks that you were told by the Elders and Powers-that-Be would help in your retirement. Because why I understand that Government is in the Business of losing money through services and trade I have to wonder if a shareholder or a broad member has the mental capacity to know how to make Profit. And certainingly retaining the same Staff that got one paid less than $.03 cents on the dollar plus paying them millions so that they can do it again opens the door to the Wisdom of such Logic and Reason. For would we not tell someone who after being told not to pick up a Red Hot Coal a few nuts short of a full basket if they kept repeatily pick up the coal?

Oh, and one last thing. In America you are forced to work for a living. How can that be? Just look at the Constitution and the Law of the Land. For unless you give up your rights as a citizens than you are Duty Bound to help the Government & Society build a Better World. After all it is the Country of “We the People” not the “Idiots in Charge” true?

Note: How do you think Welfare to Workfare happened if it was not the case?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at April 6, 2009 12:20 AM
Comment #279654

While Eric’s post here talks about transformative change, one of the long time poster’s here, d.a.n. regularly talks about getting rid of the politicians that commit fraud, and are corrupt. I’m offering this as both an important avenue that Obama should follow and a substantive Republican political issue if he doesn’t. There has obviously been a great deal of fraud committed in the financial system collapse. No one seems to be making much headway investigating it. Why? Is there political protection going on? Of course the Republicans might be afraid of the results of investigations themselves.
I leave these two links:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04032009/profile.html
http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/225823/Mortgage-Fraud-Epidemic-How-the-FBI-Blew-It-and-Why-There%27s-No-%27Perp-Walks%27?tickers=JPM,BAC,XLF,MHP,MCO,WB,FAS?sec=topStories&pos=8&asset=TBD&ccode=TBD

Posted by: gergle at April 6, 2009 3:17 PM
Comment #279755

eric, Unregulated Greed in free markets failed. The free markets are still free to trade within the regulations designed to protect all who participate in those markets. And it is a good thing these unregulated areas of our markets will soon be regulated as they should have been years ago.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 8, 2009 5:14 AM
Comment #279756

gergle, Democrat’s may be afraid of the results of the investigations, as well. Many sat on the oversight committees, and failed to oversee, dating back to the Clinton administration and the passage of the GLB Act without additional regulations put in place to compensate for erasing the Glass Steagal Act for example. Only 8 Senators objected to the GLB Act’s erasing the Glass Steagal Act’s protections. Which meant a lot of Democrat’s hands will come up dirty on these investigations, as well. Especially, when corporate campaign contributions are linked to Democrats on the applicable oversight committees.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 8, 2009 5:19 AM
Comment #279757

dbs, I think you over rate the qualifications of most of America’s CEO’s. The only difference between a CEO of CountryWide or GM and a young MBA with 5 years AVP experience in some corporation’s operations management, is reputation for profits.

Which begs the question, why are so many of these CEO’s responsible for current dramatic losses of profits for shareholders, still CEO’s?

Management math and principles don’t change based on experience. Industry inside insights is all that experience brings with it different from that knowledge base of an MBA grad with only a few years experience.

Many CEO’s come to new positions from entirely different industries, as CEO’s, testament to the key difference not being education or smarts, but, reputation and name recognition. Star power, in other words. Not dissimilar from what takes place in Hollywood, where even poor talent can acquire star power based on looks and attitude alone.

CEO’s are highly over rated, and over paid, as I think the future will bear out, as our better regulated industries are run by CEO’s making substantially less than their predecessors, and more profitably for their corporations in the long run, to boot, as a result of the regulations and new found oversight.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 8, 2009 5:28 AM
Comment #279997

If that were the case, we could have done that with a couple of small law changes reversing some of the deregulations that people are complaining about. But that’s not what is happening, is it? Actions speak much louder than words.

Well, that’s a little like saying that after you remove your smoke detectors and your house is on fire all you need to do is put the smoke detectors back in. First you have to put out the fire, don’t you see? In other words, that comment is not very well thought through. But I guess that’s what happens when “free markets” become an article of faith rather than a pragmatic tool.

Posted by: mentalwimp at April 11, 2009 1:32 AM
Comment #280021

mentalwimp,

You might want to rethink…

The argument is not about doing something to fix the issue, it is about the notion that we are going to ‘overhaul the entire system’ in order to solve the original problem of a single deregulation.

Or to use your analogy, after removing the smoke detectors in the house and it is on fire, raze the building and build a new one with no windows or doors made out of a fire retardant material that will most likely be toxic to humans.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 11, 2009 12:01 PM
Comment #280645

Regulation is the means by which we avoid the elitest system you are describing. If we choose not to bail out companies, the rich will still be rich, but the Middle-Class will suffer and many jobs will be lost.

Posted by: Aaron Hughes at April 20, 2009 7:54 PM
Comment #280647

And that comment about Judeo-Chritian sucess? One of the worst things I’v heard. Our living means may be well but we make them off of immoral and unscrupulous deals and explotation. Most of us do not follow the morals of our own religions and neglect common decency. Many other peoples are much more devoted and moral than us.

Posted by: Aaron Hughes at April 20, 2009 7:57 PM
Post a comment