I Fear For My Country

(A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet)

In 2009 I wrote the following: “I fear for my country. America has gone from a vibrant capitalist society to a dying socialist society almost overnight. We have become an impotent sleeping giant sprawled across the globe whiling away our days dreaming of a socialist utopia that does not exist and never has. If anything, we among all, people are the most to be pitied. How pathetic we have become. We have traded our shining city on a hill for a government low-rent housing project. The worst of it is… we did it of our own free will!

Yes, democracy can be a dangerous way to govern a country as the German people learned when allied bombs were raining down on their cities. They chose the Furher of their own free will and they paid a price no nation should ever have to pay.

For democracy to exist, to thrive, and to survive, it is incumbent, it is REQUIRED, that the electorate is intelligent, learned, and knowledgeable people. Because it is they who decide, by their votes, whether democracy, in a free country, lives or dies.

The overriding question today is… Can America even survive? The answer, realistically, is… NO, she cannot… not if she continues the course she chose in 2008. Having said that, we must also say that YES, America can survive… IF she changes course and returns to her roots as a capitalist, democratic representative republic.

There is likely to be a historic internal struggle in America over the next few years to decide the issue of whether America lives or dies. It will be ugly as such struggles always are. The first indication of which form of government Americans really want is likely to come in 2010 when Americans return to the polls. If socialist candidates are thrown out and defeated, there is REAL HOPE. If not, rest assured the struggle will go on for many decades into the future. America will be a troubled land for our grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

Old America is gone. This New America cannot hold a candle to the greatness of the old America.”

Earlier this week we learned that China’s economy will surpass that of the US by 2016. In an article by Brett Arends, MarketWatch, entitled: “IMF bombshell: Age of America nears end” Mr. Arends says: “According to the latest IMF official forecasts, China’s economy will surpass that of America in real terms in 2016 — just five years from now.

Put that in your calendar.

It provides a painful context for the budget wrangling taking place in Washington right now. It raises enormous questions about what the international security system is going to look like in just a handful of years. And it casts a deepening cloud over both the U.S. dollar and the giant Treasury market, which have been propped up for decades by their privileged status as the liabilities of the world’s hegemonic power.”

Mr. Arends goes on to say: “According to the IMF forecast, whoever is elected U.S. president next year — Obama? Mitt Romney? Donald Trump? — will be the last to preside over the world’s largest economy.” (You may read the entire article HERE.)


Well, there it is. I actually never thought I would live to see America brought low. But, what we are experiencing here in America is the death of our country at our own hands. It is suicide.

It has been known, for an exceedingly long time, that democracies have a few fatal flaws. In the case of America, we have murdered our country through the use of two of those fatal flaws. Number one: As soon as the electorate realizes it can vote itself money from the country’s treasury, it will break itself, financially, and thus collapse. Number two: In a democracy, it is entirely possible to elect leadership that is not interested in the betterment of the country. In our case, we elected leadership determined to “fundamentally change” America. He has kept his promise.

Honestly, I don’t think we CAN save America. I think the only hope for a free country, on these shores, rests with a small nucleus of Americans who saw this coming, warned, and warned, and warned -- anyone who would listen -- that it WAS COMING, and are now considered a threat to those elements of the US government who fear, now that their façade has broken and fallen away, that those freedom lovers just might, through political resistance, impede their progress in continuing to disassemble America and remake it into a communist/marxist third-world dung heap.

And don’t forget this: If you think the world has been troubled before, wait until there is NO American leadership. We are getting a taste of it right now in the Middle East.

The point is – the decline of America means the decline of the world … period. We can expect a world in chaos, utter and complete.

So, once more I am going to issue my warning: The stage has been set for a one-world government (Global Governance) to take charge of all the countries of the world. It will be dictatorial – it must be. Preparations have been underway for such a global government for many years now.

Such a government will bring nothing but continued war around the globe. The so-called “Responsibility to Protect” will guarantee it. In a hundred years, or less, the planet will resemble a cinder pockmarked by the ravages of multiple wars raging simultaneously on this once beautiful jewel of our solar system.

This is what America chose. This is what the WORLD chose.

Is there hope? Keep your eye on the remnant.

Posted by J. D. Longstreet at April 26, 2011 7:43 AM
Comments
Comment #322266

JDL
You have put in a capsule what many people have been saying and you repeated that in your commentary. The UN will play a very active role in any world government. The sad thing is that this has been foretold in the Bible and people have chosen to reject and neglect the theaching therein. We have in our modern society seen the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy and yet people don’t get it. If there is a source of information that has integrity one should study it more and used that information because it does contain truth. If someone wants to rely on shaky information, that is their choice, but it will lead to making bad decisions; ones that have eternal consequences.

Thank you for one more warning.

Posted by: tom humes at April 26, 2011 10:01 AM
Comment #322269

On the one hand, you say that China will rise to the preeminent power in a few years. On the other hand, you say that it will be a one world government that will be the preeminent power. Why would China cede its interests to a one world government? The US certainly hasn’t. Why would China?

Posted by: Rich at April 26, 2011 10:49 AM
Comment #322270

Good and timely post Mr. Longstrret. I fear we have gone beyond the point of return. Tom Humes is correct about Biblical prophecy and the world stage. It is out of our hands at this point. For rich, I say this; the Bible speaks of major powers, the western confederacy under the Anti-Christ and the Kings of the East (refering to China). It is these 2 powers who oppose each other at Armegeddon. So rich, having a world government and a major China power does not go against Biblical teaching.

Posted by: 1776 at April 26, 2011 11:11 AM
Comment #322271

JDL,

Firstly, Welcome to WatchBlog!

Secondly, I see a lot of muddle is what your wrote, but little substance. You say something changed our nation fundamentally during the 2008-2009 period, but fail to specify what it was that spooked you so much. Let me try for you; feel free to point out where I go wrong:

After the economy recovers from the recession, our two biggest problems will be managing our energy needs as well as mitigating our deficit. Our energy policy today is practically identical to the policy we’ve followed for the last few decades, and our deficit is mainly caused by historically low tax revenues as well as out-of-control spending on our military and entitlements. Entitlement spending has been on the same course for decades, but tax revenues dropping to less than 15% GDP have been unheard of since WWII. Perhaps the low tax revenues are your complaint? Or is it the out-of-control military spending? Please help me out here because you are very vague identifying what you think the problem is.

For over two hundred years, we have existed with a mix of capitalism and socialism, usually with more of the former than the latter. I admit the PPACA probably changed that mix a little, but that surely no longer the most pressing issue right now (the current recession, our fiscal deficit and our mismanagement of our energy resources rank much higher in my opinion). Right now, we are in the process of fundamentally rethinking the role government plays in our lives. For the last 75 years, it was commonly accepted that the government should play an active role in mitigating poverty in certain circumstances, notably the poverty of the eldery. Nowadays, we have a large faction of people ready to do away with that and return government to the role it played in the Gilded Age. I think the current crop of GOP policy proposals would fundamentally change the nature of our country far more than anything that was done over the last two or three years.

1776 & TH,
Personally, I try to avoid eschatology; especially when discussing current political events. Matthew 24 claims that Christ says that nobody knows the day or hour of the End of Time, which is how I tend to live my life. When the Messiah arrives, I am certain everyone will be surprised. People have tried to correlate Biblical Prophesy with historical events for millenia to no avail. I am pretty sure the same will come to current speculations.

Posted by: Warped Reality at April 26, 2011 12:13 PM
Comment #322274

Warped Reality,
You wrote what I was about to say, so I will keep this brief.

JD,
The article is unclear. I’m not sure what you are saying. Like Warped Reality, I take it that you believe something happened in 2008, and that since then, America has embarked upon a socialist path which will threaten democracy with One World rule. Something like that?

First, unless you understand what led to the economic collapse in 2007 - 2008, there is little hope of being able to make an accurate assessment of the future. What do you think caused the collapse of 2008?

At the time, there were two clear choices: let the United States and the rest of the world fall into a deep economic depression, or engage in a massive and very expensive government intervention in hopes of propping up the domestic and world economy. Which choice did you prefer? Why?

For the past decades, the United States has been falling behind its competitors. We spend more on defense than the competition- much more- and we spend less on social programs. Our private health insurance costs 17% of GDP, while most industrialized countries spend about half as much, yet by virtually any measure, such as universal coverage, lower infant mortality, and longer life expectancy, competitors using ‘socialist’ models work better at providing for their populations. The same applies towards education, investments in infrastructure, development of green technologies, and so on. How do you explain this?

In the economic collapse of 2008, the US relied upon foreign governments like Germany and China to bail out America.

The US exports jobs, manufacturing, and even entire industries. The US has low union membership as a percentage of households. Other industrialized countries such as Germany do not outsource, yet they have high union membership. Why are countries with unions doing so much better than America?

I have my own opinions, of course. Personally, I think what is really going on here is that you mean well, but you are being misled. Corporations control the conservative movement and the GOP and yes, some of the Democratic party too, and they convince many people, possibly including you, to protest the resulting debts and deficits of the past decades without protesting or even understanding the causes. They encourage you to protest taxes and regulation and oversight because that is in their interest, and many people like yourself become afraid and confused by terms like socialism. Multinational corporations are motivated by profit, not patriotism, yet they convince many that anything impeding their profit is an attack upon personal freedom, hence the constant confusion between terms like socialism, marxism, taxation, big government, and so on.

Feel free to prove me wrong.

Posted by: phx8 at April 26, 2011 12:52 PM
Comment #322277

Tom and 1776-

If you’re in to that kind of thinking then surely you know that none of this matters. October 21 2011 is just around the corner. Like Warped, I’ve always been a little more Matthew than John.

Speaking of Warped, “Nowadays, we have a large faction of people ready to do away with that and return government to the role it played in the Gilded Age.”

A little over the top, right? I mean even Ryan’s bill doesn’t get back to 20% of GDP until 2022. Nobody is talking about a single year-to-year budget reduction, just a slowing of the growth and that’s from a relatively high growth period starting point (in terms of GDP).

Posted by: George at April 26, 2011 1:06 PM
Comment #322279

We’re in deep ****, no doubt, but not the deepest our country’s been in. If our ancestors can do better with worse, there is nothing but our own lack of self-confidence to attribute our failure to match them to.

Folks didn’t worry about running away from big government when we were building our way up to being the richest, most powerful nation in the world. They voted for the government they wanted, and when it got too much, they said no more. For decades, we were able to keep reasonable levels of debt and keep the deficits in check.

Then folks got the idea that they could get something for nothing through the treasury, and it wasn’t a Keynesian that pushed that idea. It was Arthur Laffer who pushed the notion that if you stopped collecting so much taxes, the economy would rebound, and the rebound in turn would feed revenue back to replace what was lost.

Since then, we’ve had several major tax cuts, and none of them have prompted the promised economic recovery. For some odd reason, it seems the rich prefer to keep their money, rather than employ more people in a burst of uncharacteristic altruism.

I think we’re better off when we face the fact that what we want is isn’t free.

I also think that fostering a culture were people think they’re second-rate, which celebrates that, in fact, as an ideal way to live your life, is a bad idea.

I’m sick of people being down on Americans, on our kids, on our society. Ever since we started hyperventilating over social issue, and barging into people’s private lives, this country’s gone downhill. We’ve paid too much attention to what folks should be left to themselves how to decide, and too little to subjects of general interest.

We’ve let our ambitions in space become third rate, and squandered our science, technology, and engineering advantages, in no small part because some want folks to adopt their religious or corporate worldview, rather than be swayed by secular or skeptical principles.

If we are destined to take second to China as the largest economy in the world, so be it. But if so, I plan to give them a run for their money everytime I get the chance.

America needs to quit confusing business friendly policy with productive economic policy, corruption with cooperation, the good fortunes of the rich alone with national prosperity.

We need to remember a time where Americans were problem solvers, where we dared great things as a nation, rather than just line the pockets of a lucky few.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 26, 2011 1:55 PM
Comment #322281

Mr. Longstreet, as I said before, a good and timely message. I find nothing muddling about what you wrote. Liberals will welcome you and then begin to tell you how you are wrong, according to their thinking. It has been said before on WB, “If they can’t dazzle you with their brilliance, they will baffle you with BS”

WR said:

“1776 & TH, Personally, I try to avoid eschatology; especially when discussing current political events. Matthew 24 claims that Christ says that nobody knows the day or hour of the End of Time, which is how I tend to live my life. When the Messiah arrives, I am certain everyone will be surprised. People have tried to correlate Biblical Prophesy with historical events for millenia to no avail. I am pretty sure the same will come to current speculations.”

Of course WR is being less than truthful, because even though he tries to avoid eschatology; he goes on to throw his 2 cents worth into the conversation. Mr. Longstreet will learn that the left on WB are experts in all fields. Tom Humes and I both agreed that the events in the world are right in line with what is taught in Biblical Prophecy and the left attempts to rebut by quoting the Bible, of which they absolutely do not believe. Great quote WR, but what do we do with these verses:

“1Th 5:1 But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. 1Th 5:2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. 1Th 5:3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. 1Th 5:4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.”

I don’t believe Tom or I were trying to predict a day or hour, I believe we were simply understanding that we “are not in darkness, that that day should overtake” us as a thief. The real reason for immediate attacks on Christians for quoting verses from the Bible is the left’s absolute hatred for Christians and the Word of God.

SD understands we are in big trouble, but he also believes we need more of the same thing to get us out of the trouble. Which, many would consider stupid, but that’s what makes them liberals.

Posted by: 1776 at April 26, 2011 2:29 PM
Comment #322290
Liberals will welcome you and then begin to tell you how you are wrong, according to their thinking.

It’s a two-way street. If you are at WatchBlog looking for tunnel vision or mindless talking points, then you are at the wrong place.

We are here to have intelligent and civil debate with reasoned arguments, backed up by facts, around politics and political issues. It is the founding principle of WatchBlog.

Posted by: WatchBlog Publisher at April 26, 2011 4:46 PM
Comment #322292

1776-
There’s a difference between saying you try to avoid it (which would mean an isolated incident would be a contradiction), and saying you try to avoid it (which means you’ll typically avoid it, making this time a reasonable exception.)

I’ve offered my opinions before on religious subjects, and I think you’ll get all kinds of views on all kinds of subject. This is a free forum. EVERYBODY has an opinion, and much of the time, people have done research on their own, and will bring it to bear.

If you expect Liberals to simply remain nice and quiet while Republicans offer up their views, you miss the point of this site. It’s a feature of the system, not a bug!

But as for this?

I don’t believe Tom or I were trying to predict a day or hour, I believe we were simply understanding that we “are not in darkness, that that day should overtake” us as a thief. The real reason for immediate attacks on Christians for quoting verses from the Bible is the left’s absolute hatred for Christians and the Word of God.

The word of God is what made a Christian out of me, when I encountered his transcendant insights into human behavior. One insight is that you will be attacked, as a Christian, and that you shouldn’t mind this. Instead, you should take it, and give love back instead. The devil tricks us by convincing us that our hostility and hatred towards other people is only just considering theirs towards us.

But God tells us no such thing. He tells us to love our enemy, for how else do things in this world improve? Jesus understands that if you simply trade one blow for another, the contention never ends, and peace never comes. That is the true meaning of turning the other cheek: to demand respect without needing to strike back. I stand as your equal here, and so does any Liberal, whether they are Christian or not. You should treat them as such.

If you would see us as human beings, you would understand that many of us believe, as Jesus did in his time, that those who make a great show of their religion, but do not practice its virtues of charity, compassion, mercy, and forgiveness should not be taken seriously as religious leaders.

SD understands we are in big trouble, but he also believes we need more of the same thing to get us out of the trouble. Which, many would consider stupid, but that’s what makes them liberals.

If we weren’t in the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression, I would be calling for austerity measures, including the complete repeal of the Bush tax cuts, and the reform of Medicare in order to produce more cost savings.

But my judgment depends on context. It is not the same thing to spend a lot to stimulate the economy when the economy is healthy, as it is to do so when it’s in need of help. It is not the same thing to raise taxes when the economy is weak and the cashflow in the economy too low, as it is when the economy can absorb the costs.

I want our government and our politics to adapt to the circusmtances, not cause more pain and suffering by remaining brainlessly the same, to try and avoid complaints of inconsistency that would likely be made anyways.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 26, 2011 5:06 PM
Comment #322301

Mr. Daugherty said:

“The word of God is what made a Christian out of me, when I encountered his transcendant insights into human behavior.”

I’m confused again Mr. Daugherty; how did something mythical make a Christian out of you? You have stated on numerous occasions that you do not believe the Bible is the Word of God.

The rest of your post doesn’t make any sense. If you believe we are in serious financial trouble, pray tell us what Obama and his admin have done in the past 2 ½ years to correct this problem. I’m giving you the opportunity to write an essay…without blaming everything on past administrations.

If Obama has turned everything around, as I am sure you will say, why has the S&P lowered the US debt to negative? Why is the Chinese economy expected to surpass the US in 2016? Hmm, tough questions, especially when you have to answer them without blaming someone else, right Stephen?

Posted by: 1776 at April 26, 2011 7:40 PM
Comment #322321

What happened around 2007-8, well there was an election with a lot of controversy concerning candidates right to run for office, what banks and housing markets were not doing, and more jobs heading out of country where labor and operating costs are cheaper. All of these have worked to undermine the economic stability of this country. It didn’t happen in just one presidency but over several. My state once have a thriving textile and lumber industry. The textiles are gone as are most of the lumber mills and rail yards that supported them.

Of course you all don’t need a course in economics but bear with me. It only stands to reason that tax revenue decreases as wages decrease and fewer consumer goods are purchased. This of course causes a cascading effect of business closures usually starting with the mom & pop stores then the smaller retail/merchandise outlets. Once the large discount stores cropped up that further weakened the business arena by reducing even further the small speciality stores; the demise of many downtown areas followed.

What need is there for unions that want higher wages for their workers, that in turn is put on the consumer as the cost they have to pay for goods they purchase. Our auto industry is a case in point. They operate at a much higher cost per vehicle manufactured than Toyota or say Mitsubishi because of the cost incurred by the needs of the union to “benefit” workers. Unions have overstayed their day and need to go.

Now don’t forget that many places have lost those well paying jobs that once ensured that bills and basic needs were at least covered. The jobs left have created a new upper class of working poor, formerly known as the middle class worker. There are now tent cities of homeless working families and the poor who are just drifting from place to place as if they were gypsies.

Now the CPI has risen more than 2% in just a couple months, there is talk of pay freezes just as the cost of food is rising. Fuel to get to work is now a premium bill to pay. Dental care is a foregone hope for many let alone a simple visit to the doctors office. I personally don’t see an end to this anytime soon as I read, research trends and watch patterns develope.

There is no magic cure to fix this as many wish. There are just too many factors in play right now. From last years crop failures, the political upheaval in the Middle East and Africa to nature creating havoc here and in Japan. The US can not afford to spread itself across all of the trouble spots in the world. We don’t have the personnel, resources and we sure don’t need to keep raising the debt ceiling - robbing Peter to pay Paul! That is just insane and suicidal at this time. Yeah it will be a bitter pill when China and anyone else calls in their markers; it is our own damn fault to be in this mess. Live with it and try to learn from it.

Should we let the whole system collapse and restructure it? Who knows if that is the best way or not. Sometimes you have to wipe the slate clean and start over. It isn’t as if the countries in Europe and elswhere haven’t done the same thing at some point in history. Or are we so arrogant to think that it can’t happen to US the babies on the block?

New World Order - Rockerfellers and eugenics - Kissinger and his saying “He who controls the food controls the people” hmmm or was that the chap over in England using the command center located at the cliffs of Dover? Obama and the birth certificate controversy truth or speculation? So many things going on, so many things to ponder.

Posted by: Kathryn at April 26, 2011 10:32 PM
Comment #322326

Kathyrn, if what you say is true, it sounds to me like Obama and the dems are screwed. What think you liberals on WB, does Kathyrn have a valid point?

Posted by: Mike at April 26, 2011 11:17 PM
Comment #322334
Speaking of Warped, “Nowadays, we have a large faction of people ready to do away with that and return government to the role it played in the Gilded Age.”

A little over the top, right? I mean even Ryan’s bill doesn’t get back to 20% of GDP until 2022. Nobody is talking about a single year-to-year budget reduction, just a slowing of the growth and that’s from a relatively high growth period starting point (in terms of GDP).

If we don’t raise the debt ceiling then the effect will be “a single year-to-year budget reduction”; enough of a reduction to warrant labeling it as a return to the Gilded Age, in my opinion. However, I do realize that most Republicans do indeed want to raise the debt ceiling (Ryan’s budget requires it to be raised); nonetheless, there remains a large faction of people advocating that Congress not raise the ceiling.

Kathyrn,

Thank you for your comment. You did what JDL refused to do, which is to identify the events of the past three years that may have lead to JDL’s apocalyptic language. Obviously, the deepest recession since WWII will bring tremendous stress on our nation’s psyche, which you clearly identify. The spectacular failure of the deregulated financial industry to prevent the implosion of their industry certainly disrupted many people’s belief that capitalism should be the predominant economic system in this country. Thankfully, George Bush, Congress and Barack Obama undertook extreme measures to preserve our mostly capitalist society. Unfortunately, many Americans never fully understood the economic justifications for TARP and the ARRA. Meanwhile, the recession has once again awoken the long standing trend away from middle-class manufacturing jobs requiring nothing more than a High School degree. Technological innovations have dramatically increased productivity, leading to layoffs. Although their is a Luddite temptation to return to the nostalgia of the economy of half a century ago, we must press forward and embrace the way technology is changing our economy.

You are also correct to identify both political parties for the mess we are in. This has been brewing for the last 30 or 40 years. It is this period when people stopped caring about each other or caring for their country. Both sides of the political divide have promoted “me first” attitudes that have only served to bloat government spending while refusing to raise taxes in order to pay for the expenditures. Similarly, this attitude has convinced many Americans to wreak wanton destruction on our planet’s future, leading to unbridled consumption of resources in the present at the expense of the future’s economy. This carries a lot of the blame for the rise in gasoline prices in recent years.

Posted by: Warped Reality at April 27, 2011 12:27 AM
Comment #322335

1776-
I’m a big believer in complexity theory, synchronicity, a world where God operates on a level of complexity that boggles the human mind.

I’m also a person who’s spent much of his life considering the role stories play in people’s lives.

My position about the bible is this: the absolute truth of what goes on in the bible is not half as important as the reason why God tells us these particular stories, and what he wants us to learn from it.

As a person who has long studied the way people tell stories, the way we process what we told, and how we retell it often revolves around what compels us in the story. When we retell it, our subjective position about things things affects the story we pass on.

Feed that effect back through generation after generation, and the story becomes less about the absolute facts, and more about the human element in the story, and/or the experiential element of what that story says about the circumstances and events of our life. Thus, the wandering of the tribe of Israel in the bible, which in history might have been them leading a nomadic existence for a while, becomes something else, something symbolic about the way we wander ourselves as a result of the mistakes and misdeeds of our parents and grandparents. How much conflict and strife does the consequences of slavery’s tolerance in the original constitution echoes to this day in its consequences.

I think God can easily use his subtle influence to make sure that the stories that a sometimes nomadic, sometimes settled Middle Eas culture told about itself, would evolve to have a richer, deeper meaning.

I don’t subscribe to theories that rely on words describing the real world one hundred percent, because in my view, in my philosophy, and in reality, words cannot fully encompass, nor permanently and perfectly correspond to realities. They are but a map to events, not the events themselves.

God is drawing us a map, writing us a guide to ourselves, and living in this imperfect world. Like any map, it will leave things out, and sometimes completely oversimplify and overreduce what is actually there. But that doesn’t make maps useless, that they don’t completely correspond to reality. Our brains and our eyes do the rest, taking the landmarkets, the symbols of the map, and using their guidance to navigate the real things they represent.

So, I don’t have to believe that everything happened just like it was written. I only have to believe that God took somebody’s meaningful experience of that, and helped form a story whose underlying truths about human nature would guide me.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 27, 2011 1:07 AM
Comment #322337

1776-

If you believe we are in serious financial trouble, pray tell us what Obama and his admin have done in the past 2 ½ years to correct this problem. I’m giving you the opportunity to write an essay…without blaming everything on past administrations.

Well, if you want to understand what a difference we’re talking about in terms of policy, it helps to look at the actions of the Bush Adminsitration in that last year.

The trouble with our markets is that a lot of the assets were just derivatives contract bets made on other company’s actions, or worse, on other party’s bets. They weren’t real wealth.

But even if they weren’t real wealth, they were treated as such by the banks, who lent as if their balance sheets were alright. That’s how you had such low unemployment.

Things didn’t come apart until circumstances forced the markets to acknowledge how much of their wealth was really wishful thinking and reckless bets. The insolvency of a number of institutions, including investment banks and big insurance and housing lenders brought us to a financial tipping point.

The bankruptcy of Lehman brothers is what made it such a sudden and incredible disaster. The foolish act of letting the markets do the correction here basically struck a match in a room full of gas. All the people that Lehman Brothers had counterparty obligations to, now were out of that money, the contract signed with them worthless. That in turn drug everybody’s assets sheets lower, and with the insane degree to which they had allowed themselves to leverage off of each other, that meant the shockwaves were reverberating and resonating throughout the rest of the system, threatening everybody’s solvency.

TARP was imperfect, mismanaged, created with too few strings attached, and not enough requirement that lending be done with the money. If it had, I think it would have been worth another stimulus on top of what we got later. But it did save the banks sufficiently to keep the rest of the economy from basically collapsing as the biggest lenders and transactors of financial activity collapsed. Supporting that meant preventing further damage, and the Democrats and Obama did.

I know the sentiment is that the markets should have let these people be punished and saved taxpayers the money, but that’s sort of like letting a suicide bomber’s explosives go off in a crowded room because the bomber needs to be taught not to mess with C4. America needed a functional economy more than it needed everybody taught a lesson.

But a problem remained. The economy of Jan. 2008 was very different from the economy of Jan. 2009. There was a hell of a lot of workers, equipment, and capacity to produce that was sitting idle, going to waste, because the wealth to drive it, to encourage it was no longer there. Or put another way, the economic downturn caused by this wiped out a whole decade’s worth of economic gains, and was worse in its overall effects than all of the postwar recessions combined. The recession would have continued and worsened at this rate, idling more economic capacity.

So, the President got people back to work. Government job or private job, it was still work, and it meant that people were using our productive capacity rather than letting it remain idle, and just as the loss of jobs and wealth can have a negative effect on the direction of the economy, so can the artificial restoration of the same. It can’t last forever and be sustainable, but the point is not that it must. The point is to break the momentum of the downturn, and catalyze the usage of our economic resources.

How does this resolve a deficit? Consider that nearly forty percent of the 2009 deficit was just the effects of the economic downturn alone. Now if we got ourselves quickly back to normal, we wouldn’t have to deal with year after year of having that failure of revenues on our balance sheet.

There are two issues with the stimulus that need to be frankly faced. The first is that it did work, but that it was designed for an economic downturn that was weaker. The second was that it was half what was recommended to deal with the great recession’s economic toll, mostly for political reasons- that is, Obama needed to actually pass the stimulus through a Congress where Republicans were trying to foce an impasse, thanks to their filibuster.

But whatever happened, the fever broke, and America got back to business. But then you had the auto companies threatening to go under. Again you could argue that they should be allowed to fail, but that collapse would mean literally millions of jobs lost in those industries alone, and that would have economic ripple effects elsewhere.

But Obama did more than just bail them out, in the end. In the end, he used the government’s leverage to force those businesses to reorganize, become leaner, become self-sustainable. By doing that, he savide millions of jobs not just now, but for the long term. Cash for Clunkers caused more of stimulus there, as brought people back around to the dealerships.

Healthcare reform did it’s part, too, in creating provisions that made it easier for small businesses to handle the costs of healthcare.

Wall Street and credit reforms are both necessary steps, and at this point incomplete. If your aim is not to let secondary effects swamp your system, you eventually end up bailing out your banks and financial institution. But if taxpayers are going to be on the line for that, the misbehavior that made it necessary has to be stopped or inhibited.

A big factor in this, is that every time we try to do something to improve the situation, the Republicans are there to limit or stop it. You might see that as a positive, but with no Republican alternative, and the Republican unwilling to negotiate compromises, we end up seeing everything watered down or even outright prevented.

The Chinese spared no such expense, though it’s an open question as to whether they went too far, but at least they made the economy and jobs in their country the priority, rather than satisfying some ideological and moralistic need to have everybody be taught lessons.

If Republicans are concerned about the Chinese surpassing us economically, then they should look at their own actions, and figure out whether being competitive is more important to them than satisfying some abstract ideological wishlist.

Obama and the Democrats at least put the nation’s money where its mouth is, when it come to increasing economic activity. The data basically supports the contention that if we want to get out of our output gap and high unemployment, we need economic growth to be much fiercer. We can fret about inflation when it’s real. For now our problem is that we’re fighting China and our other competitors with one hand tied behind our back, and the GOP is the party doing the knots.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 27, 2011 7:45 AM
Comment #322339
“This has been brewing for the last 30 or 40 years….. Both sides of the political divide have promoted “me first” attitudes that have only served to bloat government spending while refusing to raise taxes in order to pay for the expenditures.”

Warped,

The above statement is not entirely true. The deficit spending and huge tax cuts of the early Reagan administration were followed by substantial tax increases and tax reform during subsequent years of Reagan’s administration, although not sufficient to avoid a massive increase in government public debt. As a consequence, GH Bush was forced to raise taxes despite his “read my lips” pledge. Bill Clinton proposed and signed into law the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993 which not only raised taxes in a progressive manner but cut government expenditures over a multi year basis. The Clinton period produced a budget surplus and was marked by explosive economic growth. That was only a decade ago. If history is repeated, the huge tax cuts of the GW Bush period will be eventually followed with compensating tax increases and expenditure control. Rigidity in ideology eventually yields to practical necessity.

Posted by: Rich at April 27, 2011 8:15 AM
Comment #322340

I think that SD’s point that government deficit spending and tax policies need to be discussed within the context of the national economy is well taken. Ignoring the interplay between the public and private sector is a huge mistake. The explosive deficit spending of the last few years was primarily a result of the collapse of the national economy. It was not the cause of the collapse and helped mitigate some of the negative effects. It helped restore GDP to a moderate growth trajectory. But that is only a short term strategy. Ultimately, solutions to the deficit problem are dependent upon a fully functioning national economy. Budget policy should be evaluated by its impact on the general economy and not in isolation, as so often is the case. I would like to hear less talk about deficits and more talk about solving some very difficult structural problems with our economy.

Posted by: Rich at April 27, 2011 9:09 AM
Comment #322350

SD wrote; “I know the sentiment is that the markets should have let these people be punished and saved taxpayers the money, but that’s sort of like letting a suicide bomber’s explosives go off in a crowded room because the bomber needs to be taught not to mess with C4. America needed a functional economy more than it needed everybody taught a lesson.”

Nope, poor analogy. The person(s) in the room who crapped his/their pants should have been forced to leave the room and clean up his/their own mess.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 27, 2011 2:03 PM
Comment #322351

SD writes; “Obama and the Democrats at least put the nation’s money where its mouth is, when it come to increasing economic activity.”

What an outrageous comment. The “nation’s money” reference clearly outlines the major difference between conservative and liberal political philosophy.

Is SD speaking of tax revenues, printed money, or borrowed money?

Conservatives understand that the nation has no money of its own beyond that collected from its citizens.

Democrat’s put borrowed money in the pockets of those they favor to win votes and to retain power.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 27, 2011 2:10 PM
Comment #322352

J.D. wrote; “Old America is gone. This New America cannot hold a candle to the greatness of the old America.”

Here’s an article from the NY Times that provides a look at just one more nail in the national coffin.

U.S. atheist chaplain part of larger move toward toleration of atheists in armed forces

“Strange as it sounds, groups representing atheists and secular humanists are pushing for the appointment of one of their own to the chaplaincy…”

http://life.nationalpost.com/2011/04/27/u-s-atheist-chaplain-part-of-larger-move-toward-toleration-of-atheists-in-armed-forces/

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 27, 2011 2:23 PM
Comment #322354

Stephen said:

“1776- I’m a big believer in complexity theory, synchronicity, a world where God operates on a level of complexity that boggles the human mind. I’m also a person who’s spent much of his life considering the role stories play in people’s lives. My position about the bible is this: the absolute truth of what goes on in the bible is not half as important as the reason why God tells us these particular stories, and what he wants us to learn from it.”

It was the Popes of the Catholic Empire that did not allow the laity own Bibles. If they wanted to know what the Bible said, they were to ask the priests. Why, because the Bible was too difficult for the stupid people to understand. Now we have Pope or Father Stephen (whichever) telling God’s Word is a “complexity theory, synchronicity, a world where God operates on a level of complexity that boggles the human mind”.

Speak for yourself Mr. Daugherty; do not include others in your interpretation that God has written a book that man cannot understand. I’m glad it is your interpretation that the Bible is “the absolute truth of what goes on in the bible is not half as important as the reason why God tells us these particular stories, and what he wants us to learn from it.” Because Evangelical Born-Again Christians actually believe the Bible is God’s inspired Word and was meant for us to believe. This conversation has taken place many, many times and you continue to try to tell us you believe the Bible and then you always go on to say it’s not really God’s Word. It is a waste of time to quote verses to you, because you don’t believe them, but:

“2Pe 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
2Pe 1:17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
2Pe 1:18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
2Pe 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”

You have violated verse 16 by being guilty of telling cunningly devised fables. You have violated verse 20 by making a private interpretation of Scripture. You violate verse 21 by denying God as being the author of Scripture.

You try to convince us of your belief in God and at the same time tell us God’s Word is fables. I’m really having a problem with your logic. Jesus said “Joh 14:6 , Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” What do you think this means? Does it mean that the way to God or Heaven can be many ways, or does it mean “only through Christ”? I realize you love to think you know about everything Stephen, but trust me; you have no idea what you are talking about. Your beliefs are contradictory; you cannot say you believe God’s Word and in the same breath, say it does not exist. And this is what you are doing.

Listen to your statements:

“Thus, the wandering of the tribe of Israel in the bible, which in history might have been them leading a nomadic existence for a while, becomes something else, something symbolic about the way we wander ourselves as a result of the mistakes and misdeeds of our parents and grandparents. How much conflict and strife does the consequences of slavery’s tolerance in the original constitution echoes to this day in its consequences. I think God can easily use his subtle influence to make sure that the stories that a sometimes nomadic, sometimes settled Middle Eas culture told about itself, would evolve to have a richer, deeper meaning. I don’t subscribe to theories that rely on words describing the real world one hundred percent, because in my view, in my philosophy, and in reality, words cannot fully encompass, nor permanently and perfectly correspond to realities. They are but a map to events, not the events themselves. God is drawing us a map, writing us a guide to ourselves, and living in this imperfect world. Like any map, it will leave things out, and sometimes completely oversimplify and overreduce what is actually there. But that doesn’t make maps useless, that they don’t completely correspond to reality. Our brains and our eyes do the rest, taking the landmarkets, the symbols of the map, and using their guidance to navigate the real things they represent. So, I don’t have to believe that everything happened just like it was written. I only have to believe that God took somebody’s meaningful experience of that, and helped form a story whose underlying truths about human nature would guide me.”

Your comments mean nothing; they are your opinions and nothing more. “Opinions are like assholes; everybody has one”. What solid fact do you base your opinions on? Read this verse very carefully Stephen, it applies to you, “Pro 16:25 There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.”

This is you, you claim to know what God says to mankind, but you beliefs are based on nothing but your personal opinion. Unless God has spoken to you personally and told you this truth, your opinions are simply yours; on the other hand a Christian’s beliefs are based upon the Word of God, which was written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Posted by: 1776 at April 27, 2011 3:39 PM
Comment #322357

Royal Flush-
Why is that poor analogy? Under what economic model does the failure of the big banks not leave our economy cratered?

On the subject of putting our money where our mouth is? Look, if you want to endure an underperforming market for years to come, and the federal deficits that come with that, be my guest. But I believe in a strong economy, and a strong America. Whether we spend deficit dollars, printed dollars, or tax revenues, we should seek the greatest return on investment, especially if we don’t want to print dollars or borrow them forever.

Conservatives understand that the nation has no money of its own beyond that collected from its citizens.

Is that so? Then why does the constitution have provisions that allow Congress to debt-finance government operations? Your political economics are pure fantasy. The government issues debts in times of need. We got two wars and the after affects of the worst recession in about eighty years weighing on us.

J.D. wrote; “Old America is gone. This New America cannot hold a candle to the greatness of the old America.”

My hatred is fierce for such rhetoric. If those people had reigned in the America of that time, we wouldn’t have had that old America they’re so enamored of. America’s greatness is still growing, and we can raise it still higher, if we’re not too busy digging our heads into the sand of worshipful nostalgia.

Our best years are still ahead of us, but it will take hard work and intelligence to get there, not slavish imitation of styles of government that were left behind as relics of history for good reasons.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 27, 2011 4:48 PM
Comment #322360

SD writes; “Is that so? Then why does the constitution have provisions that allow Congress to debt-finance government operations? Your political economics are pure fantasy. The government issues debts in times of need.”

His “Is that so?” was in response to my comment…”Conservatives understand that the nation has no money of its own beyond that collected from its citizens.”

Short answer, YES, it is so. Who does SD believe pays government debt if not taxpayers? And, then, SD calls my economics pure fantasy.

I am always amused by the contortions liberals must endure to defend their socialist policies. When contortions don’t work, outright lies are employed.

SD writes; “But I believe in a strong economy, and a strong America.”

That comment is pure hyperbole. With $14.5 trillion in deficits we have neither a strong economy or strong America. SD and his liberal friends in congress would like Americans to believe that only by going ever deeper into debt to support ever increasing interest group spending can we recover and survive.

To remake America in their liberal/socialist image the plan calls for first destroying this nation. The weapons of destruction are everywhere evident for those with eyes to see and ears to hear.

I enjoyed 1776’s critique of SD’s professed beliefs about the Bible and God’s intentions for us as spelled out in that book. It seems to me that SD looks upon the Holy Bible with about as much respect and admiration as he does our Constitution. His comments lead me to believe that he considers both just paper with words to be manipulated to promote his agenda.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 27, 2011 5:46 PM
Comment #322359

1776-
I object to the bible being treated like a legalistic code that must be parsed and analyzed to death in fully literal form in order to be understood or considered legitimate. My attitude here is, “What are the morals of these stories? What is the meaning of this action, or this statement by the person in question? What does this behavior mean in the context of that ancient society, so different from my own?”

I think to try and force it to be some super-perfect document puts it to too fierce of a test. The bible wasn’t written by or for the scientifically literate. The bible wasn’t written by or for people of a time where our sense of comprehensively sourced and corroborated history held true.

It was written for people who were much different than us on many counts, of a much different culture and time.

People started on this perfect literalism thing because they feared the power of science to change people’s minds, to draw them away from the ancient, traditional way of looking at things.

But what they really did in that process, in my opinion, was add a modern harshness, greek-tragedy lack of forgiveness, unwillingness to settle grudges. Christianity became more about fighting modernity, than learning the insights and wisdom of our ancient forebears.

It’s a pity you think you have to beat me up about this. You really don’t, and you really don’t profit by it.

All I seek to do is reconcile truth to truth. To do this, I accept two complementary propositions:

1) That there a truths that we humans are equipped to learn, and that we can learn those truths by rational methods. This does not exclude the possibility that events may occur that are beyond nature, but we should not expect miracles or our faith to be supported on this kind of a basis.

2) That there are truths that are beyond our understanding, our ability to verify, beyond nature itself, and that these truths require a different kind of thinking to contemplate, and address different aspects of our existence, for the most part.

What science has covered, we let science cover. Science is no different in principle than any other kind of secular process we develop to deal with the hard reality of this world. It shows us what choices we might make, but doesn’t require that we make them. But science can’t do our thinking for us because we have to consider things by way our our own conscience and sense of responsbility before we do anything anyways.

It’s for the best, morally, that we understand science well enough to understand that the implications of our actions are, when we use it to fulfil our needs in this world. When we distort science in an attempt to reimpose traditional morality, we miss something very important: that science and technlogy have changed the consequences of many of our actions, and many of the things we have to do to take care of our needs. It’s changed the environment within which we make moral choices.

I believe the truth of the bible is best applicable, if we can understand the underlying truths about humanity that it offers for us, about how we deal with each other, and so understanding things at their core, call on our knowledge and wisdom from the secular world to successfully express the core principles of that morality in the world itself.

The fortunate thing is that there’s a great deal of timelessness to the messages and the situations of the bible, but some elements are decidedly relics of their time. Nobody, for example, is buying slaves, much less punching holes in their ears agaisnt a doorpost.

I think God intended us to think about things, think about right and wrong, to develop our own judgment. I think insisting on literal intepretations is an attempt to avoid something that cannot be mistaken, for the the sake of something that cannot be grasped.

Human beings are fallible, and literally interpreting the bible will not make them less so. In fact, if their judgment about a literal interpretation is wrong, not only are they mistaken, but the philosophy they adhere to will tend to lead them to adhere to that mistake, rather than reconsider it. If, after all, you believe your interpretation is literal and true, who can tell you different, and tell you what’s true?

And there we approach a particularly pernicious issue: that at the end, the authority a person may rely upon might still be their own judgment, only they will not be ready to admit that this may be.

As long as you buy the idea that the bible can be perfectly interpreted, you run into the reality that it will never be.

I have the feeling that whatever philosophy we adopt, none of us will intepret things perfectly. We can either make our peace with that, or fight over the differences.

I’ve made my peace with the human imperfections of the system, and have made my choice as to how I will proceed. I cannot say for sure how I will be judged, and will not presume to second-guess his opinion when the time comes. But I will trust the conscience and the mind he gave me, and the grace he bestows to guide me. If you differ from me on this, fine, follow your own conscience. But remember this: I don’t practice my religion to please you, nor would I be practicing it right if I did.

You go with God’s blessing whereever you go, and remember that there are folks of conscience in all walks of life, who deserve better than to be condemned for trying their best to do what Jesus told them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 27, 2011 5:46 PM
Comment #322362

Royal Flush-
I have, multiple times in the past, emphasized the fact that deficit spending must be paid back.

I said “Is that so?” and followed up with the answer that the framers built in the ability to borrow money on the credit of the United States, with our kind of trying times in mind.

I am always amused by the contortions liberals must endure to defend their socialist policies.
And I’m always puzzled by the unwillingness of some to discuss policies on their merits, rather than backstop their own by dumping insults on the competition. You call it socialist because you don’t really want to discuss what capitalism really is or should be.
SD writes; “But I believe in a strong economy, and a strong America.”

That comment is pure hyperbole. With $14.5 trillion in deficits we have neither a strong economy or strong America. SD and his liberal friends in congress would like Americans to believe that only by going ever deeper into debt to support ever increasing interest group spending can we recover and survive.

Good old Royal Flush. Always there to remedy my ignorance of my own thoughts and feelings.

It wasn’t hyperbole.

Be honest, RF: Your policies aren’t reducing the deficit anytime soon. It’s not going to stop paying the medicare payouts to current enrollees, nor roll back the tax cuts which help keep the deficit high. It’s not going to end the wars sooner either.

What it’s going to do, is violate the promise this government made to people, that Reagan had Baby-boomers, Gen-Xers, and Millenials paying for decades into the system to earn and enjoy the benefits of.

The entitlements you love to hate are not freely given by the government, but are earned by the millions who work and pay FICA, Social Security, and Medicare taxes. But your party sees that all as their own personal piggy-bank, to feed to insurance companies as the ultimate in corporate welfare.

And people are reacting appropriately, as they hear about it. People are realizing that like the Social Security Reform plan, it had nothing to do with real solvency or real cost-cutting, and everything to do with rewarding contributors with government-endowed riches that they don’t have to spend their own resources to get.

Nearly every time the Republicans have had the choice to make, they have “liberally” (in the old sense) given out money to healthcare companies, pharmaceutical companies, energy companies, and the new industry of military support. This corrupt practice, lampooned as a bad joke in the 1980’s movie Robocop, has become actual reality for Americans in this day and age, and today’s Republicans don’t even grasp the irony.

So don’t lecture me on the spending habits of Democrats, or on free markets. The Democratic Party hasn’t sunk to the depths necessary to merit such a comparison to the GOP, and I’ll be fighting to make sure it never does.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 27, 2011 6:04 PM
Comment #322366

SD writes; “The entitlements you love to hate are not freely given by the government. “Good old Royal Flush. Always there to remedy my ignorance of my own thoughts and feeling.”

False statement. Sd has no idea of what I love or hate. And yet, he proclaims I attempt to remedy his ignorance of what he believes…incredible. I believe there is a word, which I won’t write, for the game he plays.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 27, 2011 6:41 PM
Comment #322368

A good question might be ‘are we better off now than at _________? Audit the FED.

Otherwise, - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at April 27, 2011 6:52 PM
Comment #322369

Royal Flush-
First, haven’t you said that it’s fundamentally wrong for the government to take money from other people to be charitable to others?

And if I was wrong (I freely admit to guessing my opponent’s states of mind, not authoritatively correcting them on it) Aren’t you still wrong for doing the same thing?

The weakness of the tu quoque argument is that it flips just as easy the other way. If I’m wrong as well, you’re still wrong even then. If you’re wrong, my point still stands on the logic of it.

What is it that you truly believe about Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security and Unemployment benefits? How have I erred in my guess as to what you believe?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 27, 2011 7:47 PM
Comment #322374

Royal Flush, you hit the nail on the head. SD wants to treat the Bible the same as he does the Constitution. He treats it as an evolving document. The left have had their heads filled with the mush of humanism. There are no absolutes and everything is changing. Our Constitution was written by Godly men who created a document that would stand the test of time for thousands of years. God allowed America to come into existence for a great purpose. America was an experiment; a nation of mixed cultures who came together for the purpose of being free and supporting your family without the “by your leave of an aristocracy”. In the same sense, they cannot submit themselves to the authority of God’s Word. The premise of the Bible is right or wrong, black or white; there is no almost right or almost wrong and there is no grey. The left cannot stand this, because they want to bend the will of God to fit their own lives. God says, “all have sinned and come short of His glory”, but the natural man says every man has a spark of divinity within him. I pity those like SD, who will never understand the grace of God. They spend their whole lives searching for the elusive truth: “2Ti 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. ..2Ti 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” I thank God for His Word, “it s a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path”.

SD also says, “Is that so? Then why does the constitution have provisions that allow Congress to debt-finance government operations? Your political economics are pure fantasy. The government issues debts in times of need.”

Yes, and I have enough credit cards to probably borrow a couple hundred thousand dollars, but I would be very stupid to do it, if I had limited income.

I believe we are dealing with absolute idiots on the left. They think everything can be fixed by raising taxes. If we took all the income of all the rich in America, we still would not have enough money to get us out of the trouble we are in. We are in trouble because politicians looked at tax dollars as their own personal bank book. The money was not spent to make men’s lives better; it was spent in order to buy votes, and I am willing to say on both sides of the isle, which is more than Mr. Daugherty is willing to do. We are receiving warning signs of every side and yet the left still defends the right to spend more money.


Since SD likes to talk about the benefits of entitlements, this latest Gallup is very interesting:

“A new Gallup/USA Today poll contains a counterintuitive finding: the age group most receptive to House Budget Chair Paul Ryan’s plan to deal with the budget - seniors.

The poll finds 48 percent of seniors (those 65 and over) support Ryan’s plan over President Obama’s plan, while 42 percent back the president.

That’s the highest total among the age groups tested - a 47 percent plurality between the ages of 50 and 64 backed Ryan, and a 45 percent plurality of those between 30-49 backed Ryan. But young voters overwhelmingly sided with Obama by a 23-point margin, 53 to 30 percent.”

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2011/04/gallup-seniors.php

What we are witnessing is a senior citizenry who are no longer believing the lies from the left about losing Medicare and SS, but we are finding seniors who realize where the problem lies and are willing to do something about it. This also means that Obama is losing the seniors as well as the independents.

Posted by: 1776 at April 27, 2011 8:41 PM
Comment #322375

J.D. wrote; “Old America is gone. This New America cannot hold a candle to the greatness of the old America.”
My hatred is fierce for such rhetoric. If those people had reigned in the America of that time, we wouldn’t have had that old America they’re so enamored of. America’s greatness is still growing, and we can raise it still higher, if we’re not too busy digging our heads into the sand of worshipful nostalgia.

Our best years are still ahead of us, but it will take hard work and intelligence to get there, not slavish imitation of styles of government that were left behind as relics of history for good reasons.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 27, 2011 04:48 PM

And by the way SD; our best years are behind us and we will never reach the greatness we once had. I know you hate to hear this, because it don’t fit your version of the Bible, but: but God raises up kingdoms and God puts them down. And as the title of the post refers; I fear our days are finished.

Posted by: 1776 at April 27, 2011 8:53 PM
Comment #322383

Personally, I think God is amazed at the arrogance of the Bible quoting “Christians” here on Watchblog. To say outright or imply others cannot be Christian because they don’t believe as you do is the height of arrogance. Our beliefs are between us and God, not those of you decrying another’s beliefs. How about we leave it between each of us and our God. This is a political, not a religious site.

Posted by: womanmarine at April 28, 2011 6:36 AM
Comment #322385

1776-
I deal with them differently. The bible is holy book, filled with divine inspiration, but written by the hand of man, and interpreted by other men. But to what would I turn, if I cannot turn so absolutely to the bible?

To God! I rely on faith. Faith doesn’t require the bible to be utterly rational. If the stories are completely true, so be it. If they are not, if they are purely symbolic, so be it there, too. I’m not concerned that if the bible isn’t completely and utterly and literally true, that God might not exist, might not be good, might not want about it says he wants in there.

As for the Constitution, it was written by men who were preachers, and it was written by men who barely believed in anything at all. Thomas Jefferson edited out all the miracles in the bible, considering them poppycock- this the man who said that all men were create equal, and endowed by their creator with inalienable rights!

There, too, I have faith that there is a place for religion in a country whose origins are mixed religiously. I don’t have to justify my Christianity on the basis of all the Founding Fathers being devout Christians. Many were not, but luckily, those great people gave me the freedom, the real freedom not to care, and to set my own life! I do not have to appeal to their authority to justify my religion.

As for what the Constitution says? Sonny-Jim, this is the real world, and nobody could interpret merely the letter of the constitutional law, and come out with something that made sense. The spirit and intent of that law are important to, as are the circumstances under which it’s carried out. More to the point, the constitution has changed since the time of the framers, and as per their instructions within the Constitutions, those changes are considered part of the constitution itself as if it had been written that way.

The will of God will not be bent. But I don’t think I don’t believe that your beliefs necessarily reflect the will of God. I differ from your opinion, and thank God this country allows me to follow my conscience.

I believe we are dealing with absolute idiots on the left. They think everything can be fixed by raising taxes.

That is a factual statement that can be instantly discredited by a look at my own comments, which say that a combination of spending cuts and tax increases will be necessary. What you say is provably untrue.

I think you put too much faith in the accuracy of your own rhetoric, and it blinds you and others to the fact that most of us were content to let things stand as they were during the Clinton years. With everybody prospering, the budget in surplus, what need was there to ask for more?

It’s the fault of those who only now, when a Democrat in office, declare that spending what you don’t have is offensive, that we’re now in a position where the rich may have to pay more, take on more of the burden. It’s only fair, since Americans had to pay hundreds of billions of dollars to the rich people to keep the economy from cratering. I’ll be damned if I’m going to sit here quietly, and let your crew dump the liability for that bailout on the average person who did nothing to deserve the cost.

That’s more or less who your budget squeezes, even as you, improbably enough, and against the sentiments of most Americans, move to cut the taxes of corporation and the wealthy once more.

You can talk about the lies of the left, but it’s the right who have failed to fulfil their promises. Your record tax cuts neither recovered their own revenue, nor created more jobs.

Why is it that your policies can repeatedly fail to deliver results, but when ours don’t deliver exactly what was promised, yours is the more honest?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 28, 2011 8:26 AM
Comment #322386

1776-
As for America’s best days being behind it?

You know, if it is, it will be because of your policies, your ruinous wars, ill-advised tax cuts, and reckless separation of spending and taxation in general. It will because you were more invested in the good of corporations that did not necessarily return the loyalty we gave their interests, rather than working towards the national and public good, with the body intended to do it.

It will be because your side fostered the kind of paranoia and self-hatred in this country that undermines even the best civilization.

That is, if it happens. I have more faith in America and Americans than to believe that we’re done for. America is still the wealthiest country in the world, and still has millions of people who, if they had the right encouragement and resources at their hands, could take the lead once again.

You’re so obsessed with getting this country back to the way you like it, and mourning that it doesn’t seem to be cooperating with your vision, that you can no longer see the vast and great potential Americans have, if only it is led by those with the vision to look beyond the next ninety days.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 28, 2011 8:32 AM
Comment #322397

SD

If there is only one way to Christ, then whey does it take so many words on your part to say “that ain’t so”. In so doing you have tried to make God a liar. That will not work. Either the Bible is truth or not. When you take each page of the Bible you want to disagree with and rip it out of the binding. You will soon left with a page that contains John 11:35.

Your economic view never has added up to prosperity for the country. Instead or raising the debt ceiling, there should be a spending ceiling. Nobody can continually increase their debt and become wealthy. It does not happen that way. It is simple add and subtract math. You know the math you learned in elementary school. That math must be applied properly to the debt question for the country to come out of this chasm. There is room to cut spending this year by $2trillion very easily. And it would cause the economy to rally like never before. And no I’m not going to give you a list, because my list takes up over 200 pages. The only clue is that a small item like learning the sexual habits of an insect is taking millions. If someone gets a grant from private sources to do that, got for it. But to use my money, is absolutely and totally wrong. That sample is multiplied by millions the spending that can be eliminated and reach into the trillions of dollars.

Posted by: tom humes at April 28, 2011 11:39 AM
Comment #322422

womanmarine, maybe your comments will find a willing ear……it hasn’t done much good for some of the rest of us. It seems that no subject can stand on its’ own merits in here any more, without it being hijacked and made into a “religious” rant. Am sure you’ve noticed that most of the old-timers have given up and left for saner sites. Too bad..but it’s hard to walk away from acquaintances and decent conversations that were shared for many years.

Posted by: jane doe at April 28, 2011 3:36 PM
Comment #322439


Unlike some of the liberals, I had no problem understanding the author because it is the same basic message of conservatives. It wasn’t Reaganomics, deregulation, or Bushonomics; it was the Democratic/Socialist Party that destroyed the greatness of America even though America’s greatness came after the Progressive Movement and before Reagan.

He says that democracy cannot work unless the electorate is “intelligent, learned and knowledgeable” even though those less educated are more likely to be conservative.

I think the author is also blaming that same Democratic/Socialist Party for leading us down the path of a New World Order, and one world dictatorial government even though it was promoted by corporations, the market and the Republican Party before Clinton and many of the liberals jumped on board.

He goes on to explain that if we don’t maintain dictatorial power in the world it will end in Armageddon.

Posted by: jlw at April 28, 2011 5:59 PM
Post a comment