Third Party & Independents Archives

March 25, 2009

Obama's Way, or Bust !

If America doesn’t pursue Pres. Obama’s agenda, there is no agenda to follow to meet America’s crises and challenges. And if there is no agenda to follow for the next 4 years, America will fail. This is a reality of current events which critics of Obama and his administration refuse to acknowledge, rendering all their criticism irrelevant. Let’s examine the veracity and logic of these statements.

Let's look at the first statement; 'If America doesn't pursue Pres. Obama's agenda, there is no agenda to follow...' If America does not follow Pres. Obama's policy directions to address our challenges, whose policies would take the place of Obama's over the next 4 years to address our challenges? With a democratic majority in Congress, surely the answer is not Sen. McCain's or any other Republican's policies. The simple reality is, there is no Republican in federal government capable of asserting their policy prescription in place of Obama's over the next 4 years.

How about the policy prescriptions of Congressional Democrats, in place of Obama's, should America reject Obama's policies? If America rejects Obama's prescriptions, would America embrace those of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid? Given the Blue Dog Democrats vocal intentions to oppose Pelosi and Reid's spending prescriptions, wasteful earmarks, and expansion of social spending for every Democratic district, it is doubtful Pelosi or Reid's policies would get the 60 votes needed in the Senate to override a Republican/Blue Dog (conservative) Democrat filibuster. Of course, I am putting aside the obvious likelihood of Pres. Obama's veto of their policy agendas which differed markedly from his own.

What about an independent voice arising from the electorate and commanding protracted medial buy time and attention like a reincarnation of Ross Perot? Could such a person from the private sector replace Obama's policy agenda by way of a massive public polling of support for a new policy agenda instead of Obama's? In reality, there is no such voice gaining public support. And even if there were, how likely is it, the American public, more than 60% of whom support Obama's overall approach, would shift allegiance in the absence of an improving economy in 2010 and 2011?

Therefore, if there are no other's policy agendas capable of garnering the support and power of the office of President to lead our country in overcoming the challenges facing us, why is there so much effort and expense being launched at eroding Pres. Obama's public support? Unless one has designs on impeaching Pres. Obama, what good is served by attempts to cripple Pres. Obama's efforts to rescue the financial markets upon which our economy depends, end the recession, and invest in a more productive and prosperous opportunities in the economy after the recession ends?

Let's examine the second statement in the introductory paragraph: 'And if there is no agenda to follow for the next 4 years, America will fail." What would happen if Obama's critics succeeded in crippling Obama's presidency and policy prescriptions? The financial industry would at least partially collapse, which in turn would choke off capital lending to businesses and employers, which would cause the recession to worsen, rather than improve, and dramatically reduce even further the revenues coming into the federal government, making deficits and debt even larger. So, again, the question is begged, why are Obama's critics so intent on seeing our country's economy and future fail over these next 4 years?

There really are only 2 logical rationale's for Obama's critic's actions. One is to preserve their own notion of how the nation should be run. The worst thing that could happen for these critics is to allow the public to witness Obama''s policies succeed in restoring financial health to the private sector and reductions in unemployment. If Pres. Obama's policies are successful in large part, the hopes of these critics to one day impose their own beliefs on how our economic system should work in such times, will be dashed.

The second rationale is purely political. The goal of a political party is to win the electorate's favor of their wielding power and distributing portions of the nation's enormous wealth according to their own ideas of who is deserving of receiving it. Pres. Bush, for example, deemed that the Iraqis should be the beneficiaries of 100's of billions of American working family's tax dollars, and he justified that distribution on the basis of Iraq posing a national security threat toward the U.S.

Pres. Obama, as a counter example, deems energy independence from foreign oil imports vital to our future national security as well as economic stability. And hence, he has targeted billions of American tax dollars to be spent on research and development of alternative energy sources and distribution infrastructure by American companies capable of such research and development.

Political parties exist to win the power to make decisions. And it can be argued, that the merit of the decisions they would make, is less important to a political party than winning the power to make those decisions. The evidence of this argument was the rise of Republican led government in which their actions bore little resemblance to the merit of their campaign promises of what they would do if elected.

Finally, let's examine the third statement in the opening paragraph: 'This is a reality of current events which critics of Obama and his administration refuse to acknowledge, rendering all their criticism irrelevant.' There simply is no other policy agenda to pursue other than that which Pres. Obama presents and promised during his election in Nov. of 2008, for the next 4 years at least. And it is both wise and important for readers and listener's of Obama's critics to remember that if Pres. Obama's policy agenda is brought down, without removing Obama from office, our nation will be without direction and applied focus in addressing the very pressing and emergency challenges now facing our us and our future.

Pres. Obama is remarkable in his willingness to listen and consider the suggestions and input of his opponents and critics. But, the last thing the American people really want is a President whose direction and agenda is so compromised, so watered down, so inconsistent or contradictory as to completely fail to address, and overcome, the emergency nature of the economic frailties which threaten us all. We really don't want Pres. Obama to fail in his objectives to prevent a financial sector collapse, avert this recession from deepening or elongating into something far worse, and to insure a growing, more secure, and less costly economic future after this recession ends.

To the extent that people seek to improve upon Pres. Obama's policies with their input, America can and will move as one toward solving our crises. To the extent that people are successful in obstructing the success of Pres. Obama's policies and agenda, in order to preserve their view of how things should be or, to garner power for themselves going forward, our nation will surely suffer and fail in its common hopes and aspirations for our future, at the hands of such self-serving critics. It is crucially important to our nation's success that Americans distinguish between those serving to strengthen Obama's success as our president, and those vested in insuring his, and our nation's, failure, when listening to or, reading Obama critiques.

Posted by David R. Remer at March 25, 2009 07:11 PM
Comments
Comment #278640

David,
I do believe that the critics of President Obama who want to obstruct his policies are doing it more out of fear that he will succed in changing their Trickledown Theory to a Trickle Up Economy than out of loyalty to the Country.

For why would you want the President of the U.S.A to fail in changing Health Care, Education, and Energy policies if not to keep the personal gains some citizens have made over the last 30 years in exploiting the system?

Yes, the No-Nothing Party may cry that President Obama is leading America toward a more social nation, but seeing that the Private Sector cannot and/or will not bring the products to Market that will naturally allow the American Consumer and Small Business Owner to peacefully come into the 21st Century. I believe the Actions and Words of Our Ancestors at the turn of the last century and those of the Great Depression prove that Government Spending if done properly leads to more opprtunities for profit not less.

So I wonder if the Leaders of the No-Nothing Party would care to show us what a 10 year Federal Budget of doing nothing would cost Americans.

And so why I look at President Obamas’ proposal more as a Federal Investment Plan than a Federal Budget, I’ll leave others to debate the play on words. For if America does not lower the cost of government through means other than downsizing and budget cuts I fear the inflation that we saw when gas was $4.00/gallon will be only the tip of things to come.

For why you can say spending and I can say investing $3.9 trillion to fix Health Crare, Education, and Energy in America. I have yet hear a single critic say how not solving these problems is better for America.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 25, 2009 10:21 PM
Comment #278644

The premise of the entire article is flawed. The US will not ‘bust’ if we don’t do what Obama wants us to do, though I understand a statist like yourself believing that.

The worst part is that by suggesting such lunacy, you are no better than the Republicans saying we had to give up all of our rights to fight the war on terror.

We, the people, will still work with each other and continue to function as a country no matter what does or doesn’t happen in DC. If your argument is that we ‘HAVE’ to have the federal government in our lives in order to function in any way, then we have lost already.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 25, 2009 11:07 PM
Comment #278646

BTW, let me explain how REACTIONARY federal government is because of the bureaucracy and politics involved.

For example, we have a post office but the real advances come from private companies like FedEx, UPS and DHL.

We are talking about green technologies when companies like Konarka, Tesla and Zap have been working towards these technologies for years already.

We are talking about buying toxic assets when we already have companies in place doing this, like pennyMac, etc.

The leaders will almost always be private industry because they have more motivation and mobility, something federal government lacks.

The only ONLY benefit that government has over private industry is that they can FORCE people to do something. If you are the kind of person who has no trouble in using that force (like a statist, socialist or communist) then more and more government is the desire. If you don’t think that the people of a society should be under that kind of force in their lives, well, the current path should be fought.

And let me be clear. A longer recession (which I doubt would be the case, I contend that not enacting many of Obama’s policies would lessen the recession and we can get into details later) would be a small cost in order to save our children a chance to have a reasonable quality of life, a stronger dollar and economy and the freedom to live their lives without nearly as much government intervention into their lives. WE would be paying the cost NOW in order to give our children something more instead of making our lives better now and making our children pay for it.

That you can belittle anyone who disagrees with Obama as being political hacks or evil idiots in order to attempt to invalidate their arguments is akin to calling those who were against the war as being unpatriotic. They were wrong and so are you.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 25, 2009 11:20 PM
Comment #278647
And even if there were, how likely is it, the American public, more than 60% of whom support Obama’s overall approach, would shift allegiance in the absence of an improving economy in 2010 and 2011?

If you aren’t paying attention to the numbers to see that Obama’s support has been decreasing a lot during his first 60 days and want to ignore the polling data that says that most americans (around 57%) want us to follow the ways of smaller government as an overall policy, you are going to be very upset when by the end of this year there will be people who will be rallying those who understand the dangers of what is being laid down now. Keep your head in the sand if you want, that’s your right.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 25, 2009 11:23 PM
Comment #278648

Rhinehold,
You state “If your argument is that we ‘HAVE’ to have the federal government in our lives in order to function in any way, then we have lost already”

Do you take the same stance against State and Local Government as well?

For why I do not believe that to be the case I do understand and can remember when communities were ran by the Boss Hoggs of the World. Is that what you are advocating for?

Now, if you are saying that the Elite of Society can build a Better World than “We the People” than you and me have a debate. For if that was the case when “We the People” gave the Elite of Society a tax cut in 2001 and 2003 shouldn’t America have seen a Better World than the one that we have now?

And why President Obama does not hold all the answers to all the questions asked by the Children of the 21st Century. Shouldn’t they be given the same opportunity that was given to the Youth of the 60’s and Silver Spons of the 70’s by their Parents and Grandparents?

Yes, an investment of $3.9 trillion in Health, Education, and Energy sounds like a lot of money; however, compared to the money wasted over the last 8 years the amount is small. For why I can guess that America has lost about half of the value of Hers’ Assets. Given the choice of doing nothing or working within the Framework of the Founding Fathers so every American can become Economically Viable and Financially Independent through a Trickle Up Economy is at least a Noble Cause.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 25, 2009 11:26 PM
Comment #278652
Do you take the same stance against State and Local Government as well?

To a lesser degree. It depends upon the state or locality. But the state or locality is better to know what their locality needs than a federal oligarchy.

For why I do not believe that to be the case I do understand and can remember when communities were ran by the Boss Hoggs of the World. Is that what you are advocating for?

Of course not, you are under the misguided impression that, in this day and age, such a thing is even possible. It isn’t the 30’s anymore, we have way too much information available for something like that too happen. And if it were to occur for some reason or another, THEN is the purpose of the federal government to oversee those situations. A last line of defense used only when needed. However, now we have it all being managed at a federal level with no one being charged with watching them. That is why we end up with things like the labor board being completely incompetent and inept in doing their job, being 8 months behind in even attempting to look into things they are charged with overseeing at best and at worst, telling people to ‘just deal with it’.

For if that was the case when “We the People” gave the Elite of Society a tax cut in 2001 and 2003 shouldn’t America have seen a Better World than the one that we have now?

Considering the shape of the economy when Bush took over office (recession) and the subsequent hits we took on 9/11, the manipulation kept us going. Between the tax cuts that actually got the economy going again when it looked like we were at a standstill on 9/12/01 and the fed (irresponsibly) manipulating our banking industry just to try to get us to a point where we could come out of it, we are better off than we could have been had we done nothing, had not cut taxes for everyone. The money is better off in the hands of those who earn it, not in Washington.

It is during these times that the technologies that give us Konarka, Tesla and Zap were developed, not during a socialist utopia.

Shouldn’t they be given the same opportunity that was given to the Youth of the 60’s and Silver Spons of the 70’s by their Parents and Grandparents?

Silver spoons of the 70s? Do you not remember what the 70s were like?

But yes, we should be doing everything we can to make our kid’s lives better for them, that is why NOT saddling them with crushing debt is the better way to go, why WE should be strong and take the hits that we need to take NOW so that our future society isn’t ground into dust…

Yes, an investment of $3.9 trillion in Health, Education, and Energy sounds like a lot of money; however, compared to the money wasted over the last 8 years the amount is small.

The problem has never been money in education. Bush spent over 58% MORE than the rate of inflation on education. That Obama wants to spend even more is a waste of money when it is obvious to all, except the initiated, that the problem is not a lack of funds. We need better education, but we need to find real solutions, not sinking money into a flawed and futile system.

Given the choice of doing nothing or working within the Framework of the Founding Fathers so every American can become Economically Viable and Financially Independent through a Trickle Up Economy is at least a Noble Cause.

I’m all for working within the framework of the Founding Fathers. Too bad what we have today isn’t that. :(

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 25, 2009 11:45 PM
Comment #278663

Thank you Rhinehold. Your comments unequivocally fall in the category I describe in the article, as those which cannot afford to acknowledge the reality of our current economic crises or Obama’s policies as the solution. Perhaps I should have referred to them as Ostriches, shutting out the real world around them by burying their heads in their talking points and ideology.

Appreciate the candor. Your comments absolutely fit in the category I describe in the article as:

There really are only 2 logical rationale’s for Obama’s critic’s actions. One is to preserve their own notion of how the nation should be run. The worst thing that could happen for these critics is to allow the public to witness Obama”s policies succeed in restoring financial health to the private sector and reductions in unemployment. If Pres. Obama’s policies are successful in large part, the hopes of these critics to one day impose their own beliefs on how our economic system should work in such times, will be dashed.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 26, 2009 12:59 AM
Comment #278664

David,

You words do not compute. It is not ‘being an ostrich’ to not agree with Obama or the doomsdayers who say that we must dash all sense of individual rights in order to ‘save the world’. It is called disagreeing.

Are you willing to admit that YOU were in the category that you have created when Bush and the Republicans were running the country, sticking your head in the sand and hoping for them to fail because their success would have prevented for the attempted hijacking of our society for the way YOU think that it should be run?

And, as a result, your attitude of superiority that you want to use to silence any opposition is founded in the ethereal?

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 26, 2009 01:04 AM
Comment #278665

BTW, you continue to ignore the possibility that there are people who feel that what Obama is doing will make our economy and society worse than if we did nothing. You apparently don’t think this a valid option, but that doesn’t make that view impossible for someone to have.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 26, 2009 01:06 AM
Comment #278666

Rinehold,
You asked “Do you not remember what the 70s were like?” Well, I never said that we were all smart in those days?

No, I agree with you that putting more money into the adminstration of the education system is Pure BS. However, I also reconize that a lot of these so-called Learning Institutes (Schools) need to be brought into the 21st Century so that Americas’ Students can learn to function in Society. So, why I know that some funds must be given to the School Adminstrations for operations expenses I do believe that the building and renovation of local schools will do wonders for the Younger Generation.

And yes, there does exist a way to do it through a Private-Public Corporation; however, that is why God created Lawyers. For that is one Political Solution that I will say Americas’ Democratic and Republican Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders excel in.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 26, 2009 01:15 AM
Comment #278668

Henry,

Those schools should be funded locally, not federally. Besides the fact that there is no provision in the Constitution to allow for the federal government to even get involved in education in the first place, federal management of local resources, such as schools, makes no sense. The states and counties are much better equipped to determine how those schools should be funded and advanced.

For all the talk of funding education, my old high school is on the block to close. The students would be shipped to 4 other schools, further away from their community, to learn. It is going to be harder on the students. We should be handling this at the state and local level to reverse the decision, not have the federal government mandating the codes that are calling for that local school to be closed, and money collected should be collected locally and stay local, not up for fighting by the senators to see who can play the game of getting more money for their state at the expense of other states, causing the children in those states that ‘lose out’ to be less equipped than those who are on the right political side.

Central management is good for some things, that is why those things are detailed out in the federal constitution. But some things make much more sense to be handled at a local level.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 26, 2009 01:52 AM
Comment #278670

Rhinehold,
Why I am not old enough to remember the Education Battle of the 60’s and am glad that I did not have to go through that BS. I do believe that it was Deemed that the Federal Government was/is suppose to take care of the School Buildings (Build and Maintian through Funding) because Central Management is good. And the Local Authorities was suppose to be in charge of the Lessons Learned by the Children.

So spending or investing money into new school buildings and renovating the existing stock to an Education Code of the 21st Century would be within the Framework of “We the People” would it not?

And why I take a different approach to that Argument I do believe that the goal of My Peers and Their Children should be to ensure that their Grandchildren not only learn the Lesson of Society, but also include a very Strong Knowledge Base of Man’s Known Universe.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 26, 2009 02:12 AM
Comment #278673

Rhinehold said: “It is not ‘being an ostrich’ to not agree with Obama or the doomsdayers who say that we must dash all sense of individual rights in order to ‘save the world’.”

It is being ostrich-like to deny that our economy would be more prone to failure without the interventions to date by the Fed Reserve and Congress under the Obama administration, in terms of employment, consumer capacity, and preservation of the broad middle class.

There is a reality here. Obama’s actions to date have boosted confidence in our corporation’s profitability going forward, prevented greater business and personal bankruptcies going forward, and hence, preserved a larger portion of the middle class from falling out of the middle class going forward, than would otherwise have been the case had he proposed cutting taxes across the board, as well as discretionary spending necessary to bring the deficit to zero, which according to your comment’s view, would have expanded “individual rights” to freedom from taxation.

Your logic simply fails regarding my positions toward the Bush and Republican leadership years. I was critiquing actual failures in policy in to abide by the Constitution, as some of your own commentary did, and actual failures to prevent this economy from tanking as a result of lack of regulation enforcement and new regulations for whole sectors of financial transactions which were going unregulated and creating a bubble in the real estate markets. There is a difference between critiquing actual failures, as opposed to to working to produce failure for others in order pursue personal gains, whether those gains be political power or the benefits of ideological policies.

What makes Obama unique, is the pragmatism inherent in his agenda. Investing in lower cost universal access to health care today will improve the health and well being of 10’s of billions of Americans going forward. Investing in non-carbon based energies will reduce CO2 emissions, diminish our dependence upon foreign oil, and create new jobs in new industries which are American based. Rescuing this economy and investing in education which can support a more productive and innovative future economy will benefit those seeking employment in the future and a growing future economy will increase the federal government’s revenues, better positioning it to deal with deficit elimination. This is a pragmatic agenda.

Unless one views taxation with representation as an assault upon individual rights, an absurd postulation by historical American definition, then none of these agenda’s of Obama’s infringe upon individual rights. Of course, you can posit such policies infringe upon undefined rights, which by virtue of being undefined only you or another individual can illogically define as infringed upon without empirical test of any kind.

But, that is an entirely illogical argument from a public policy point of view in which rights MUST be defined in order to empirically test whether or not they are being infringed upon.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 26, 2009 02:45 AM
Comment #278674

David,
There is a way the Republicans could object to President Obamas’ Agenda, but to do that Rush and Company would have to admit that they are wrong. Hence, the problem faced by the Republicans. For why Conservatives are busy saying no to Americas’ Business Leaders the Democratic Leadership and Liberals in Washington are telling the American Business Man to get ready.

Not to mention a whole bunch of My Peers that has been waiting a lifetime for this debate to happen.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 26, 2009 03:02 AM
Comment #278675
Obama’s actions to date have boosted confidence in our corporation’s profitability going forward

Except it hasn’t. The consumer is still around where it was last October.

prevented greater business and personal bankruptcies going forward

Except it hasn’t. Foreclosures are up this past month (under Obama) than they were previous months. Foreclosures nationwide up 30 percent last month. Bankruptcy Filings Spike in February.

There is a difference between critiquing actual failures, as opposed to to working to produce failure for others in order pursue personal gains, whether those gains be political power or the benefits of ideological policies.

Sorry David, but if I believe that Obama’s actions are worse and will cause more failures, then we are of the same mind. Of course, I opposed much of Bush’s manipulation of the markets as well, but it is interesting to note that you find your ‘obstructionism’ to be well founded when you feel it is right and irresponsible when you think it wrong. That’s a bit of superiority that I find disturbing in anyone…

Investing in lower cost universal access to health care today will improve the health and well being of 10’s of billions of Americans going forward.

You assume it will be lower cost, why? First, we haven’t seen the plan so we don’t know but you are making assumptions that are not based on fact, but on faith. I am not of the faithful, I examine what is being done on the merits, or lack there of, of what is being proposed. THAT is being pragmatic, not the sheeplike following of a man who is proving more and more as time goes on that he is not what people thought him to be. And people are starting to see it too. Daily Presidential Tracking.

Investing in non-carbon based energies will reduce CO2 emissions, diminish our dependence upon foreign oil, and create new jobs in new industries which are American based.

At what cost when these industries are already gearing up and in the market long before he took office?

Rescuing this economy and investing in education which can support a more productive and innovative future economy will benefit those seeking employment in the future and a growing future economy will increase the federal government’s revenues, better positioning it to deal with deficit elimination.

I’m sorry, but I do not buy the borrow now so we can be richer tomorrow religion. As we have stated before, spending more on education is NOT the answer, finding better ways to teach is the answer. Nothing in his plan addresses it, the belief that more money spent on something will solve the answer is not pragmatic, it is a matter of faith. Just as it is a matter of faith that pumping more money into the economy, at his discresion, will make the economy better.

The fact is that our economy was not failing, we had a collapse in one area of the financial sector that has ripple effects, but that does not mean that the rest of the economy is not strong and will not keep going strong, recovering as the financial markets recover. Stepping in at this time and doing an untested, unproven, overhaul that is not necessary is a dangerous tact. And it is *NOT* pragmatic in the least. Even I, who does want to change a lot of things as well, would never suggest doing it all at once like this…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 26, 2009 03:18 AM
Comment #278678

Rhinehold,
Your last line “Even I, who does want to change a lot of things as well, would never suggest doing it all at once like this…” seems to be what seperates good presidents from great presidents acording to History. And as Americans do we not have a saying “Go Big or Stay Home.” So which is it, do “We the People” living in the 21st Century take the same Leap of Faith as the Youth of the 60’s and Silver Spoons of the 70’s or do ou tell your children they have to stay on the proach? For Economic, Energy, and Environmentally Independence is just a stone throw away.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 26, 2009 03:33 AM
Comment #278680

Rhinehold said: “BTW, you continue to ignore the possibility that there are people who feel that what Obama is doing will make our economy and society worse than if we did nothing.”

People are entitled to ‘feel’ whatever they hell they want to feel. But, if they intend to critique public policy, they had better be able to defend such critique with logic, relevant data and assumptions, not vague personal feelings, if they want to be persuasive.

I frankly have difficulty following the Libertarian line of defense against the following fact set. Our government and economy have evolved from a Constitution, and a host of challenges and tests beset upon it, and a host of democratically elected representatives, whether by legislative vote or popular vote, based on perceived qualifications for office. And this system has resulted in undeniable growth of the nation, commensurate growth of government, and incredible economic growth and wealth and quality of life improvements, as well as expansion of defined and protected individual rights from unjust wielding of power by officials in government and their agents. Why then, are Libertarians so adamant about altering this history from this point forward?

I understand their longing for being born at the beginning of the industrial revolution when the population was smaller and had less voice in industry and government, and fewer rights at the hands of employers or protections from police powers, and the growth of government and its power to regulate in order protect individuals from the predation of other’s. It is a longing inherent in the Libertarian call for a return to the past’s smaller government and greater freedom to predate upon unsuspecting employees, consumers, and investors. Those were the good old Libertarian days, I guess, when there was no limit to the power, wealth, and wishes fulfilled by the likes of Morgan, Vanderbilt, Gould, Carnegie, Rockefeller, Astor, and Cooke’s. Those good old Libertarian days of perpetual debt to the company’s store, child labor and sweat shops, sexual exploitation for employment, and no company benefits or compensation for black lung, broken bodies, or death caused on the job.

The simple fact of the matter is, larger government accompanied protections against such enormous and heinous exploitations of individuals of those good old days. One can no more separate the growth of government from the growth in quality of life for our vast middle class, than one can separate Libertarian ideology from that of the political ideology of post civil war era through to the stock market crash of 1929 and the Great Depression and Great Dust Bowls which bankrupted even our agricultural base back then. Government implementation of soil conservation measures along with financial aid to assist farmers in reclaiming their farms for sustainable production, ended the Great Dust Bowl era.

And the most massive growth in government to that date with the advent of WWII and that massive deficit spending and national debt to win that war by putting all of Americans willing to work to work in the war effort, ended the Great Depression. These are irreconcilable facts of history with Libertarian ideology, and therefore, it is a history which Libertarians create enormous and elaborate gymnastics to reject, deny, and refute.

Which leaves me, with no choice but to reject the Libertarian Party and its leadership as a party I would ever want in power and in control of our nation’s future. To reject the darker realities of history is to commit to replicating them as unintended consequences. Just as this ‘too big to fail’ financial crisis arose as a result 92 Senators voting for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which negated the Glass Steagal Act. To have ignored the reasons and rationale for the Glass Steagal Act of the 1930’s by passage of the G-L-B Act, was to recreate an enormously costly destabilization of the financial sector and its threat to the nation’s economy, as was the case in 1929 and years following.

This nostalgia Libertarians have with the good old days of smaller government makes ostriches of its supporters by their surgical removal from history and memory all the darker and more heinous aspects of society governed by the captain’s of industry and a government too small and in the pockets of those captain’s to address the horrible lack of individual rights which were part and parcel of that past, before Miranda Rights, child labor laws, sexual harassment and racial discrimination laws, and before government protection of unions which permitted unions to sue and petition for employee compensation for injury or death caused by the employer’s lack of due diligence in protecting the health and safety of its workers.

My argument does not posit that larger government does not carry with it inherent costs and losses of opportunity. It surely does. Larger government results in greater government inefficiency and commensurate growth in the costs of government. On balance however, the rise of population growth is inextricably linked historically with the growth of government and its interface with that population, whether in China, India, or the United States. And with the growth of population and government, comes a greater threat of revolution and civil disorder with the advent of government failure to return perceived benefit for the taxes it collects from its non-wealthy citizens whose hardships are increased by such taxation (see Mao’s Revolution in China or America’s Revolutionary War or Civil War as examples).

If Libertarians were running this federal government today, there would likely be revolt and insurrection in America’s streets within a year, caused by the Libertarians allowing the financial institutions to fail for lack of government infusions of loans and cash, causing this recession to deepen and elongate over many years to come, putting as many as half of America’s workers out of jobs, out of homes, and out of colleges, and without a health care system to even begin to address the diseases and unsanitary conditions that would be created by ad hoc tent cities of homeless congregating around free supplies of drinking water and relatively mild winters. All this in the name of cutting government spending, eliminating deficits during a recession, and ideology intent upon lowering the national debt regardless of the cost to the quality of life of America’s middle class. That middle class would quickly perceive the benefits of a Libertarian government vastly inferior to the costs of taxes such a government would collect to fund its Libertarian government.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 26, 2009 03:47 AM
Comment #278681

Rhinehold said: ” Obama’s actions to date have boosted confidence in our corporation’s profitability going forward

Except it hasn’t. The consumer is still around where it was last October.”

Your comment that the consumer is still around where they were in October has no bearing whatsoever as a reply to my statement that “Obama’s actions to date have boosted confidence in our corporation’s profitability going forward”

What has the state of the consumer have to do with the confidence of corporate profits going forward? Confidence in profitability is contingent upon a host of factors besides consumer activity. Lowering overhead and operating costs can boost confidence in future profits even when consumption is not growing. Anticipating the end of a recession based on Ben Bernanke’s remarks or other data can boost corporate expectations of renewed profitability.

Your reply makes no sense as a rebuttal to my comment which you quoted, and demonstrates a lack of awareness of even basic math principles regarding business profitability.

Consumer confidence has risen a couple months in a row. Stock markets have rallied beyond the level of what was considered a bear market rally a week ago. New home and existing home sales are up, instead of continuing their rate of descent. Financing of home sales by credit worthy consumers is no longer the impediment it was the last half of 2008.

I can’t tell if your comment is selectively ignoring this data or just ignorant of its existence. Before positing nebulous statements without definition or factual basis, your future comments will gain credibility by bringing more than just incomplete responses to the table. Verify the data I just recited, all taken from reliable news reporting agencies like CNBC, Bloomberg, or CBO, GAO, or other government or nog-governmental reporting agencies engaged in such statistics reporting. This data supports my statement empirically.

Consumers with jobs will continue to save, consume, and carry on, with more thrift guiding their consumption. Those who will lose their jobs, will suffer greater privations, even if they recognize that the economy will improve over the rest of this year and next.

But, they will be able to rely upon government assistance in the form of unemployment benefits, COBRA susbidies for continuing their health care coverage, and if they were not carrying such debt obligations as to consumer the limits of their paychecks previously, they are likely to be able to avoid bankruptcy and foreclosure through the rest of this year One of those perceived benefits of government that prevents revolution or insurrection.

Job losses btw, typically continue many months after a recession ends, even though consumer confidence increases at the same time, due to recognition that businesses have halted their declining rate of failure, and profits return as balance sheets are rectified. With profits foreseeable, employment rate increases also become foreseeable. Which affords optimism to even the unemployed.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 26, 2009 04:07 AM
Comment #278683
I frankly have difficulty following the Libertarian line of defense against the following fact set.

Well, considering that you don’t really understand what Libertarians stand for and continually write articles and comments that are very opposite to the views of the Libertarian party, that’s not a surprise. I’ll explain a bit more in detail as we go on.

Our government and economy have evolved from a Constitution, and a host of challenges and tests beset upon it, and a host of democratically elected representatives, whether by legislative vote or popular vote, based on perceived qualifications for office. And this system has resulted in undeniable growth of the nation, commensurate growth of government, and incredible economic growth and wealth and quality of life improvements, as well as expansion of defined and protected individual rights from unjust wielding of power by officials in government and their agents. Why then, are Libertarians so adamant about altering this history from this point forward?

You make the mistake of thinking that Libertarians want to ‘turn back the clock’ to 1800. That is just simply not the case. All Libertarians want to do is ensure that our government works within the rules that was set upon it. If there is going to be a change to the constitution, it should be done as intended, through admendment, not just ignoring the parts of the constitution that are ‘tricky’. This is the first of your fallacies on the Libertarian party, it isn’t the last.

I understand their longing for being born at the beginning of the industrial revolution when the population was smaller and had less voice in industry and government, and fewer rights at the hands of employers or protections from police powers, and the growth of government and its power to regulate in order protect individuals from the predation of other’s. It is a longing inherent in the Libertarian call for a return to the past’s smaller government and greater freedom to predate upon unsuspecting employees, consumers, and investors. Those were the good old Libertarian days, I guess, when there was no limit to the power, wealth, and wishes fulfilled by the likes of Morgan, Vanderbilt, Gould, Carnegie, Rockefeller, Astor, and Cooke’s. Those good old Libertarian days of perpetual debt to the company’s store, child labor and sweat shops, sexual exploitation for employment, and no company benefits or compensation for black lung, broken bodies, or death caused on the job.

Again, you are talking a lot of bull here. Libertarians do not want to ‘return to the beginning of the industrial revolution, put kids to work, remove rights of workers, etc. That is just tired old rhetoric, similar to calling all republicans fascists and all democrats communist. It isn’t accurate, it isn’t based in fact and it shows a fundamental PURPOSEFUL lack of understanding of what the libertarian platform is.

The simple fact of the matter is, larger government accompanied protections against such enormous and heinous exploitations of individuals of those good old days.

It didn’t require larger government, it required a change in the implementation of the government to fix things that were broken. In some cases it calls for the government to grow, but it did not necessarily have to be the federal government. Our states should be more imporant to an individual’s life than the country IMO.

One can no more separate the growth of government from the growth in quality of life for our vast middle class, than one can separate Libertarian ideology from that of the political ideology of post civil war era through to the stock market crash of 1929 and the Great Depression and Great Dust Bowls which bankrupted even our agricultural base back then.

Oh dear, what a complete and total load of crap. You realize that most Libertarian views are more similar that of the Democrats in the 1920s, not the republicans, right?

And the most massive growth in government to that date with the advent of WWII and that massive deficit spending and national debt to win that war by putting all of Americans willing to work to work in the war effort, ended the Great Depression. These are irreconcilable facts of history with Libertarian ideology, and therefore, it is a history which Libertarians create enormous and elaborate gymnastics to reject, deny, and refute.

We refute it because it isn’t true. If it was the war effort, putting everyone to work making things for the war, why didn’t it all fall apart when the war was over and that effort was no longer needed? It was the ending of the protectionist tarrifs and attacks on wealth that ended the Great Depression, and they were dropped because 1) it was no longer tenable with a war on and 2) the presidency changed hands. Even those involved AT THE TIME admitted that the spending that they had done didn’t work.

Which leaves me, with no choice but to reject the Libertarian Party and its leadership as a party I would ever want in power and in control of our nation’s future. To reject the darker realities of history is to commit to replicating them as unintended consequences. Just as this ‘too big to fail’ financial crisis arose as a result 92 Senators voting for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which negated the Glass Steagal Act. To have ignored the reasons and rationale for the Glass Steagal Act of the 1930’s by passage of the G-L-B Act, was to recreate an enormously costly destabilization of the financial sector and its threat to the nation’s economy, as was the case in 1929 and years following.

You realize that Obama’s own economic advisors supported that action at the time as well, right?

This nostalgia Libertarians have with the good old days of smaller government makes ostriches of its supporters by their surgical removal from history and memory all the darker and more heinous aspects of society governed by the captain’s of industry and a government too small and in the pockets of those captain’s to address the horrible lack of individual rights which were part and parcel of that past, before Miranda Rights, child labor laws, sexual harassment and racial discrimination laws, and before government protection of unions which permitted unions to sue and petition for employee compensation for injury or death caused by the employer’s lack of due diligence in protecting the health and safety of its workers.

Again, Libertarians do not have a ‘nostalgia’ of the good old days, we just want individual liberty to be the main concern when considering governance, not an ‘end justfies the means, anything goes’ approach that results in the mess we have now. If larger government is so good, why have things gotten so worse since the Great Society was implemented, expanding government into more and more areas of our lives? Perhaps on the pendulum of things we have gone a bit too far in the wrong direction? And you want it to be MORE?

If Libertarians were running this federal government today

We most likely wouldn’t be in this mess.

Now you are just inventing information to defend against my argument. Consumer confidence has risen a couple months in a row. Stock markets have rallied beyond the level of what would been considered a bear market rally. New home and existing home sales are up, instead of continuing their long trek downward. Financing of home sales by credit worthy consumers is no longer the impediment it was the last half of 2008.

I’m inventing nothing, I provided links to the data. The stock market is in a ‘bear market rally’? Financing of home sales by credit worthy consumers was never a problem, I myself purhcased a home in November of last year. It was not an issue then, if your credit was worthy, it is the unworthy credit buyer that has no assistance now.

I can’t tell if your comment is selectively ignoring this data or just ignorant of its existence. Before positing nebulous statements without definition or factual basis, your future comments will gain credibility by verifying the data I just recited, all taken from reliable news reporting agencies like CNBC, Bloomberg, or CBO, GAO, or other government or nog-governmental reporting agencies engaged in such statistics reporting.

You could have just checked the links that I gave you, noting that you provided no links to any data…

Consumers with jobs will continue to save, consume, and carry on with more thrift guiding their consumption.

Yes, this is already happening. And I’m glad. But it is bad for the economy because there is more saving and less spending. It is going to mean less growth in the economy, far below that Obama is predicting in his economic plan and it will mean much more debt with less growth to help pay it off.

The problem is that while there is undoubtedly spending that can and should be done, the amount for the things that Obama is spending on it way too much. The focus should be on taking care of things that need taken care of, allow the private markets to purchase the toxic assets, like pennymac is doing, temporarily lift the mark to market that should have been lifted when this all started and would have made this a mild downturn instead of a recession and put aside money to assure the people that their deposits are safe through FDIC. Loans to the likes of AIG and other institutions are ok, but just dumping trillions and then trying to enact sweeping changes to every area of our government before the results are seen is a bad idea and likely to get us into much more trouble than we are already in. We are already worse off than we should be because the Democratically controlled congress was more interested in winning a presidency than fixing the economy, you’ll have to forgive me for not having any faith in their ability to do anything that doesn’t help them personally.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 26, 2009 04:53 AM
Comment #278686

RH
Your criticisms are more felexive than thought out. Good job of making DR’s original point. Have you any actual basis for BHO’s rescue plan as dimishing freedom? Does extending unemployment benefits for those put out of work for no fault of their own deny them the freedom to beg,whore, or starve? Does improving highways and bridges deprive people the freedom to drive on cow trails? Do investments in energy reseach risk depriving people the freedom to get ripped off at the pump or the freedom of having the country held hostage by OPEC et al.Does healthcare reform deprive Americans from the freedom to pay $5000 dollars for a procedure that would cost $50 in any other industrial democracy?
Education? The problem with purely local funding is that it condemns poor children to poor schools. This happens too much even with the very limited amount of federal funding and guidelines. Constitutionally this is covered by the general welfare clause among others. I suppose you could point out there is no specific mention of education. There is no specific mention of the Air Force either. Its just blah, blah. We are doing what we need to do to remain competitive.
It is a good idea to be suspicious of government but also realize that sometimes government can enhance freedom(internet,penicillun) and sometimes private institutions can destroy it (chattel slavery, company stores etc). Concerns should be case sensitive.
As for BHO bank policy, I am not too thrilled either with what is called the “Giethner Put”. At best it could be a necessary political step before we finally adopt temporary nationalization, pay off the depositors, sell any assets. Put them out of our misery. However just doing nothing is not an option. A modern state can no more afford the banking sector to fail than allow agriculture to fail.The Constitution,even if it expressly forbad intervention, is not a suicide pact.

DR
One of the reasons the “trickle down”view is so stubborn is that the concept is the more politically correct heir of the “devine right of kings” precept that has enslaved humans for about as long as we have suffered headlice.

Posted by: bills at March 26, 2009 07:11 AM
Comment #278693

David,
You act as if Rhinehold is wrong to want to know that his Individual Rights will not be stepped on by the changes President Obama is wanting?

Rhinehold,
You act as if David wants to use President Obamas’ Agenda to take away your Individual Rights?

Well, I have a question for both of you. Is not one of the many hats worn by the President of the United States of America that of the Average American Layman Citizen?

So why I realize that Congress can and probably will add language suitable to “We the Corporation” doesn’t President Obamas’ Agenda by defualt become making America Energy Independent, dealing with Health Care in an Adukt manner, and bring the education of Americas’ Children into the 21st Century if “We the People” all agree that change is needed?

Thus, are we going to debate how to use the 3rd Generational Debate to Americas’ Advantage or allow the Elders and Powers-that-Be of the 21st Century tell the Children of the 70’s and Their Children what the Elite of Society will do for us over the next 30 years?

Bill,
I think it is the Devine Right of the Individual be them King or Bum that matters.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 26, 2009 09:10 AM
Comment #278701

David,

The article is based on the false premise that if Obama’s vision is not realized no vision will be realized. That ignores the many visions of the population that could be foreclosed forever if he does get what he wants.

Even conceding his assertion that 1.3 trillion dollars of the current deficit are “Bush’s fault” he will have, by the next presidential elections, added debt to the nation’s coffers equal to that added in Bush’s two terms.

I personally don’t concede that. Democrat congressional policies had much to do with the collapse and now they will spend trillions on things having nothing to do with recovery, investment, or growth.

It’s the people’s country. The agenda ultimately is theirs. It is as easy to see his getting his way as a coup as it is to accept the radical and destabilizing changes he wishes to impose upon us.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 26, 2009 10:29 AM
Comment #278713

DRR,

Jay Bookman, a columnist for the Atlanta Journal Constitution, has an oped this morning that sums up much of what you have written here, so you are not alone…righties are probably cutting off their collective noses, to spite their two-faces.

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/bookman/stories/2009/03/26/bookmaned_0326.html

He says, in part…”it is not just faith in capitalism that is being tested in this crisis. Public faith in government has collapsed as well. Obama is trying to resurrect the reputations of both simultaneously, understanding that you can’t save one without the other.”

The rest of his oped is spot on as well, if you have the time to read it.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 26, 2009 12:37 PM
Comment #278721

ブログがんばってくださいね。

Posted by: アットローン at March 26, 2009 01:41 PM
Comment #278723
Constitutionally this is covered by the general welfare clause among others. I suppose you could point out there is no specific mention of education. There is no specific mention of the Air Force either. Its just blah, blah. We are doing what we need to do to remain competitive.

May I point to what Thomas Jefferson said on just those points?

First, the most important quote:

“I hope our courts will never countenance the sweeping pretensions which have been set up under the words ‘general defence and public welfare.’ These words only express the motives which induced the Convention to give to the ordinary legislature certain specified powers which they enumerate, and which they thought might be trusted to the ordinary legislature, and not to give them the unspecified also; or why any specification? They could not be so awkward in language as to mean, as we say, ‘all and some.’ And should this construction prevail, all limits to the federal government are done away.” —Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1815. ME 14:350

Alas, his hope was dashed. :(

No one is saying that the constitution shouldn’t be changed to give additional powers as needed through the years, but that process is called for through amending the constitution, not ignoring or bypassing it.

More on this specific attempt to use the phrase as a right to do all.

“The construction applied… to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress a power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States,” and “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof,” goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to [the General Government’s] power by the Constitution… Words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers ought not to be construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument.” —Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:385

“To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, “to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare.” For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union.” —Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:147

Aided by a little sophistry on the words “general welfare,” [the federal branch claim] a right to do not only the acts to effect that which are specifically enumerated and permitted, but whatsoever they shall think or pretend will be for the general welfare.” —Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1825. ME 16:147

“They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please… Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.” —Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148

“[If] it [were] assumed that the general government has a right to exercise all powers which may be for the ‘general welfare,’ that [would include] all the legitimate powers of government, since no government has a legitimate right to do what is not for the welfare of the governed.” —Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1792. ME 8:397

Our tenet ever was… that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money.” —Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1817. ME 15:133

“If, wherever the Constitution assumes a single power out of many which belong to the same subject, we should consider it as assuming the whole, it would vest the General Government with a mass of powers never contemplated. On the contrary, the assumption of particular powers seems an exclusion of all not assumed.” —Thomas Jefferson to Joseph C. Cabell, 1814. ME 14:83

This phrase,… by a mere grammatical quibble, has countenanced the General Government in a claim of universal power. For in the phrase, ‘to lay taxes, to pay the debts and provide for the general welfare,’ it is a mere question of syntax, whether the two last infinitives are governed by the first or are distinct and coordinate powers; a question unequivocally decided by the exact definition of powers immediately following.” —Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1817. ME 15:133

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 26, 2009 01:53 PM
Comment #278728

Those letters exchanged between the framers and the general public were much like this blog site. Each of the contributors to the Constitution had their own ideas and agenda. It is a miracle document for that very reason…but, to say the document itself can be explained by some letters between friends, after the ratification, is not quite spot on. What did Madison, Adams, et al say on the same subject (after the fact)? And, a better question…what difference is one man’s opinion of what transpired in a barely controlled, argumentative environment wherein powerful people threw fits, stalked out, had hissys, pounded tables, etc.?

Posted by: Marysdude at March 26, 2009 02:21 PM
Comment #278732

Madison in Federalist 41 stated:

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms “to raise money for the general welfare.”

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are “their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare.” The terms of article eighth are still more identical: “All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury,” etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!

Basically, he says that there is no way anyone could mistake those clauses to mean that the legislature could make up any law it wanted by just saying it took care of the ‘general welfare’. He was responding to anti-federalists who feared that just that would happen (and they were right).

In fact, NO ONE was arguing at the time that there should be such broad powers. Everyone agreed that the powers of the federal government should be limited and that the general welfare clause was a qualifier as to why the laying of taxes was allowed. What they were arguing was whether or not they should specifically say that or if the language was good enough. Much like with the inclusion of a bill or rights being misinterpreted by later generations (Hi David) as the only rights that people had.

Unfortunately, in the 1930s (specifically 1936 and 1937 after FDR attempted to pack the court because much of the sweeping changes were unconstitutional and could not be enacted until after the ‘switch in time that saved nine’ took place) our Supreme Court changed the entire meaning and purpose of the constitution on its ear and did exactly what the framers of the constitution said would never be done, proving the anti-federalists right.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 26, 2009 03:05 PM
Comment #278733

Rhinehold, what do you think the phrse “provide for the common welfare” means?

From my perspective, TJ seems to be saying he thinks that Congress can “provide of the the common welfare” only through the powers given to it in other parts of the Constitution. Congress is given the power to tax income in the sixteenth amendment and it also is given the power to spend money in various parts of the Constitution.

In any case, (esp in light of Marysdude’s comment) I think these comments from TJ might be just the partisan rhetoric of the day, I’d like to see what the Federalists thought about the General Welfare clause.

Posted by: Warped Reality at March 26, 2009 03:11 PM
Comment #278735

WR, see the previous comment. In fact, there is a lot written by the framers about this, it is not ‘conjecture’. This was changed in 1936 and 1937 by a Supreme Court afraid of FDR.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_switch_in_time_that_saved_nine

Specifically, Justice Owen J Roberts.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 26, 2009 03:15 PM
Comment #278736

And yes, while Roberts changed his views before the announcement of the court packing bill being introduced, there was discussion on the issue before that Fireside chat that most likely led to Robert’s switch. It is possible that Roberts just had a ‘change of heart’ and did not change his views under pressure, but the end result is still the same. The court, who previously would not agree to the changing of the meaning of the constitution now approved this change and we have been the victims of this ever since.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 26, 2009 03:20 PM
Comment #278739

Shoot, I left out the a in “phrase” and I didn’t see Rhinehold’s most recent comment.

Nevertheless, I found this opinion from Alexander Hamilton

the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and “general Welfare.” The terms “general Welfare” were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded;

I haven’t had a chance to dissect the entirety of AH’s opinion, but I’d like to share it with everyone anyway.

As I already said, this is an issue that has been debated since the eighteenth century and was one of the key issues that led to the initial schism of our politics into two political parties, with AH and the Federalists advocating for a broader government and TJ and the D/R’s advocating for a more limited government. The D/R platform seemed fit nicely with the agrarian, agricultural society that America was during the early nineteenth century, but I think it fails to adequately govern in the context of an industrialized society.

Posted by: Warped Reality at March 26, 2009 03:32 PM
Comment #278740
The D/R platform seemed fit nicely with the agrarian, agricultural society that America was during the early nineteenth century, but I think it fails to adequately govern in the context of an industrialized society.

This is the exact opposite of my opinion, obviously. Unfortunately, while I hear this ‘view’ from many, very few actually qualify it with reasoning, simply stating it as a matter of faith.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 26, 2009 03:37 PM
Comment #278741

Btw, you should read the rest of the view by AH. It states at the end:

No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.
Posted by: Rhinehold at March 26, 2009 03:39 PM
Comment #278745

Crap, I missed your most recent comment again; I need to check back here before I hit the post button. I’ll need to brush up on Roosevelt’s court packing policies before I comment as this is not something I’m an expert at, but I thought his proposal became moot because a reactionary justice retired and Roosevelt was able to replace him with a progressive one.

Regarding an industrialized society, I think the biggest cause of the inadequacy of the D/R platform today is this:
Before industrialization, there was a greater equality inherent in the distribution of information regarding products and services. Nearly every farmer knew (or at least should have known) what a good horse should look like. It was much harder to commit fraud by selling a sick horse for the price of a healthy one because only a complete fool would take the offer. Today, we use many products and services that we do not know many details about, therefore we trust the seller of said good or service to be honest. Unfortunately, many people are willing to exploit that trust. We need a broad government system in order to make back up that trust and make sure it is not breached. For example, the FDA makes sure that food I buy is free from disease.

Regarding, the last sentence of AH’s opinion, I think AH is saying that the phrase “general welfare” is limited to only the taxation/appropriation powers of Congress and not to the lawmaking authority. So I guess this means that AH would consider laws prohibiting things like Marijuana, Cocaine, trans fats, etc unconstitutional unless the Constitution was amended (like the eighteenth amendment).

Posted by: Warped Reality at March 26, 2009 04:09 PM
Comment #278746

Rhinehold said: “This is the exact opposite of my opinion, obviously. Unfortunately, while I hear this ‘view’ from many, very few actually qualify it with reasoning, simply stating it as a matter of faith.”

What rubbish! Your comment refuses even the slightest effort to see the reality of the relationship between growth of government with population and industrialization.

One glaring example is sufficient to prove your comments apparent deliberate ignoring of reality, as reality conflicts with your comments ideological view of the world, creating cognitive dissonance that can only be resolved through denial of reality.

With industrialization comes the growth of urban centers and with the growth of urban centers comes significantly greater demand and need for government services like police, fire departments, sanitation infrastructure development, roads and bridges, traffic lights, licensing of drivers to insure adequate safety, etc. etc. etc.

It is truly amazing what obvious realities people will choose to ignore, or refuse to acknowledge, when reality conflicts with their nice neat ideological view of how the world should be if they could force others to yield to their view. Democratic consensus can be such an obstacle to individual, minority, and even majority ideological fads, when they just don’t make logical sense or fail miserably when applied, like conservative opposition to government regulation of the private sector for the last several decades which culminated in the financial crises now costing our economy and people trillions in lost wages, investments, and savings.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 26, 2009 04:16 PM
Comment #278748

Lee said:”The article is based on the false premise that if Obama’s vision is not realized no vision will be realized. That ignores the many visions of the population that could be foreclosed forever if he does get what he wants.”

Sorry, your reply entirely ignores the consequence of his policies not being realized. Vastly greater unemployment, defaults, foreclosures, homelessness, disease, tent cities with no sanitation.

For more, read up on how just 25% of the unemployed and dislocated population tried to make do in the 1930’s. Check out the Great Dust Bowl’s impact on the migration to California and inhuman conditions that sprang up out there.

I am slightly surprised that you oppose his agenda of energy independence, education quality improvements, and health care cost reduction, and ending this recession as soon as possible. I am sure you are aware that the single most devastating economy buster facing our nation is health care inflation. And your comment posits his agenda would be devastating. I find your comment unfathomable, save for its obvious partisan opposition to anything non-Republican in leadership.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 26, 2009 04:29 PM
Comment #278749

Don’t get all warm and Fuzzy Just yet but, “”A group of financial wizards looked into their crystal ball Tuesday and saw some good news.

The recession will ease by the end of this year and companies will begin adding workers, signaling the end of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.”“

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Financial-experts-say-apf-14734171.html

Posted by: Rodney Brown at March 26, 2009 04:36 PM
Comment #278750

Henry said: “You act as if Rhinehold is wrong to want to know that his Individual Rights will not be stepped on by the changes President Obama is wanting?”

No, I questioned Rhinehold as to what individual rights he was talking about. He has in the past referred to undefined rights also known as unenumerated rights, as this undefined threat posed by those whose views he doesn’t like. What individual rights save for increased taxation on the wealthy, does Rhinehold view as threatened by Obama’s policy agenda?

The instant Rhinehold enumerates the rights to which he refers, we can have a debate as to the validity of his fears. Getting Rhinehold to enumerate his undefined rights though, is like trying to wish oneself into a parallel universe on mental power alone. The comment sections of many of my and his articles are littered with such attempts to get Rhinehold to define the rights he claims are being abused or threatened with abuse.

Bottom line is, there are no political rights which can be defended by government until they are defined in law, Constitutional amendment, or court precedential ruling. A position Rhinehold refutes without logical or empirical evidence to support his refutation.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 26, 2009 04:39 PM
Comment #278752

Rhinehold said: “Well, considering that you don’t really understand what Libertarians stand for “

That is becoming a classic Rhinehold response. It is the same as my saying the only reason you object to Obama’s policy agenda is because you don’t really understand it.

It is a weak and flawed response, Rhinehold. But, a Rhinehold classic in the making to be sure. Rather than debate the facts against empirically observable tests and data, your comment resorts to questioning the mental awareness of the person who disagrees with you point of view. This is one more reason why Libertarians simply cannot garner wide public support.

To garner widespread public support, one has to appeal to their rational capacity to perceive a cogent agenda which addresses their concerns. I can assure you, the public is not concerned about their mental awareness. So attempting to persuade by questioning their understanding of Libertarian ideology admits at the onset that the Libertarian ideology does not make sense to those people who don’t, according to you, really understand it. It is a circular argument.

If people don’t agree with my ideology, then they don’t understand it as I do. If people don’t understand it as I do, they won’t accept my ideology. Therefore, I have to convince them that they “really don’t understand” my ideology by telling them they really don’t understand it. Which precludes their even wanting to hear anymore defense of it.

Your comments, Rhinehold, would do well to drop this line of defense against those who don’t agree with Libertarian ideology. It advances acceptance of Libertarian ideology not one iota.

What the hell is an iota, anyway? :-)

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 26, 2009 04:54 PM
Comment #278753
So I guess this means that AH would consider laws prohibiting things like Marijuana, Cocaine, trans fats, etc unconstitutional unless the Constitution was amended (like the eighteenth amendment)

Well, that is technically the way the constitution is written and the reason why we had to have an 18th and 21st amendment.

Do you not agree with this view?

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 26, 2009 04:56 PM
Comment #278754
Today, we use many products and services that we do not know many details about, therefore we trust the seller of said good or service to be honest. Unfortunately, many people are willing to exploit that trust. We need a broad government system in order to make back up that trust and make sure it is not breached. For example, the FDA makes sure that food I buy is free from disease.

But we have a non-governmental agency making sure that other things we buy are safe, Underwriters Labratories. There is no reason why a FDA-like agency couldn’t be doing the same thing as the UL is doing in that area. And people would be able to purchase objects, foods, drugs that were not ‘approved’ having informed consent because of it. Do you not think that UL does an adequate job?

BTW, there are already laws on the books in dealing with anyone who KNOWINGLY sells a bad product, drugs and otherwise. It would allow for people who want to try experimental drugs the ability to do so, unlike now where dying AIDS patients are not allowed to try experimental drugs.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 26, 2009 05:00 PM
Comment #278755
What rubbish! Your comment refuses even the slightest effort to see the reality of the relationship between growth of government with population and industrialization.

No, what is rubbish is your unsubstantiated argument that we would not have had those effects with a smaller government. In fact, the government WAS much smaller in the 50s and 60s, those boom years you mention, than the behemoth we have today, thanks to advances by Johnson and Nixon.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 26, 2009 05:02 PM
Comment #278756
With industrialization comes the growth of urban centers and with the growth of urban centers comes significantly greater demand and need for government services like police, fire departments, sanitation infrastructure development, roads and bridges, traffic lights, licensing of drivers to insure adequate safety, etc. etc. etc.

Yes, exactly, and those urban centers should be administering them as they see fit. However, what you ignore is that around half of the people in the US do not live in one of those urban centers, yet are subjected to the same FEDERAL laws as those that do. That is the exact point I am trying to make about the problems with a large centralized federal government, the same arguments that were valid in the times of our forefathers who, apparently, did NOT have urban centers, like NY, Philadelphia, etc.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 26, 2009 05:04 PM
Comment #278757
Bottom line is, there are no political rights which can be defended by government until they are defined in law, Constitutional amendment, or court precedential ruling. A position Rhinehold refutes without logical or empirical evidence to support his refutation.

No, David, as I have stated before it is not rights that are defending by government but rights that are defended FROM government. That is where you continually make your mistake. I’ve made my point in the past with the right to privacy, a right specifically not enumerated in the Constitution and existing before it was defended by the Supreme Court through the use of the 9th and 10th amendments. Since you ignore that example, what value does me presenting others offer?

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 26, 2009 05:08 PM
Comment #278758

Marysdude, thanks for the link. He sums up Republican’s and Libertarian’s worst case political nightmare when he writes:

“Quite the contrary, instead of undoing capitalism, Obama is trying desperately to reform and save it. If it works, he will end up being capitalism’s best friend and hero.”

And Republicans and Libertarians the great underminers insisting on that age old refrain, laissez faire, laissez faire, laissez faire. And of course anything not purely laissez faire is “SOCIALIST” and “evil” at its core, motive, and ends. Yadda, Yadda, Yadda!

That said, beware the Congressional Democrats should they resolve their disunity with the Blue Dog’s and move to reconciliation methodology in passing bills by a simple majority. They could wear Obama’s veto pen down to nothing, and force government shut down in defense of reelection spending and signing on lobbyist campaign contributions, vetoed by Obama.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 26, 2009 05:08 PM
Comment #278759
Rhinehold said: “Well, considering that you don’t really understand what Libertarians stand for “

That is becoming a classic Rhinehold response. It is the same as my saying the only reason you object to Obama’s policy agenda is because you don’t really understand it.

It is only classic, in reference to you, David, because you continually try to assert that Libertarians are ‘mountain men’ who was to ‘take us back to the 18th century’ when it is simply not the case. It is obvious when you try to say that the Libertarian party was founded in Indiana (it wasn’t) and was part of the racist KKK movement (which it wasn’t). I have given you evidence to the contrary, which you ignore, and then restate the same tired, illogical, ignorant and invalid assertions.

The real problem is that, as a statist, you are entirely at odds with the ideals of the Founding Fathers AND the Libertarian Party so you appear to continually go out of your way to disparage and libel the party whenever you think you can. Anyone who read what you wrote in these comments about the Libertarian party and knows anything about them would see what you have attempted to do, unfortunately others will believe what you say and not take the time to look it up for themselves.

And yes, it does get tiring to have to spend this time refuting all of the lies you continue to try to spread about Libertarianism, so I don’t bother with you on that area anymore, do you find that shocking?

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 26, 2009 05:13 PM
Comment #278765

David Remer,

What rubbish! Your comment refuses even the slightest effort to see the reality of the relationship between growth of government with population and industrialization.
This comment is irrelevant to the issues Hamilton and Jefferson address. The mechanism for amending the Constitution to deal with the exigencies of the times are clearly stated in the Constitution. Using the court to amend the document by fiat was a violation of the people’s contract with the government. The fact that the government would not punish itself for its violations of law when those violations give it more power over the people are not surprising.

Further fiat amendations to deal with any problem, however pressing, are further violations of the Constitution. As I said earlier, it is a coup.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 26, 2009 05:36 PM
Comment #278766

There are many parts to the total solution, and there is more than one way to solve this problem.

However, the problems are likely to get worse if the debt is already now, and allowed to grow more untenable.

Until some of these questions are answered, the debt is most likely already untenable:

  • (a) Is there any historical precedent of any nation so deep into debt ever successfully solving a massive debt-bubble with more debt, borrowing, new money, and spending?

  • (b) Is there any macro economics model that states that a massive debt-bubble can solved with more debt, borrowing, new money, and spending?

  • (c) Is there any mathematical rationale that demonstrates how any nation so ridiculously deep into debt (much less the biggest debtor nation on the planet) has ever successfully solved a massive debt-bubble with more debt, borrowing, new money, and spending?

  • (d) If the current debt is untenable, how is growing it bigger going to help?

and the strategy to solve massive and untenable debt with more massive debt, borrowing, new money out of thin air, and irresponsible spending will almost certainly turn a bad situation into something much worse by debauching the currency, which will destroy all savings, 401Ks, pensions, entitlements, and wages.

$225,000 of nation-wide per-capita, amortized at only a 4.0% interest rate and every American paying $760 per month (an amount required to stop the debt from growing larger) would take 50 years to merely reduce the principal by $20,000 per-capita (with $205,006 per-capita still remaining).

  • Year _ Month _ PrincipalRemaining

  • 2009 __ 00 _____ $225,000

  • 2009 __ 01 _____ $224,990

  • 2009 __ 02 _____ $225,980

  • 2009 __ 03 _____ $224,970

  • 2009 __ 04 _____ $224,960

  • 2009 __ 05 _____ $224,950

  • 2009 __ 06 _____ $224,940

  • 2009 __ 07 _____ $224,929

  • 2009 __ 08 _____ $224,919

  • 2009 __ 09 _____ $224,908

  • 2009 __ 10 _____ $224,898

  • 2009 __ 11 _____ $224,888

  • 2009 __ 12 _____ $224,878

  • 2010 __ 01 _____ $224,867

  • … … … . .

  • … … … . .

  • … … … . .

  • 2059 __ 09 _____ $205,235

  • 2059 __ 10 _____ $205,159

  • 2059 __ 11 _____ $205,083

  • 2059 __ 12 _____ $205,006
See above; the principal was only reduced by a mere $20,000 in 50 years (from $225,000 to $205,006)!

Amortize the $11.1 Trillion National debt at only 4.0% and see what happens.
It would take $37 Billion per month ($444 Billion per year) for 50 years (at only a 4.0% interest rate) to merely reduce the $11.1 Trillion national debt to 10.3 Trillion.
It would take $37 Billion per month ($444 Billion per year) for 100 years (at only a 4.0% interest rate) to merely reduce the $11.1 Trillion national debt to about half ($5.5 Trillion by year 2059).
What are the chances of that sort of discipline now, with 52 consecutive years of deficit spending?

  • Year _ Month _ PrincipalRemaining
  • 2009 __ 00 _____ $11,000,000,000,000 (i.e. $11 Trillion)
  • 2009 __ 01 _____ $10,999,666,666,666.70
  • 2009 __ 02 _____ $10,999,332,222,222.20
  • 2009 __ 03 _____ $10,998,996,662,963.00
  • 2009 __ 04 _____ $10,998,659,985,172.80
  • 2009 __ 05 _____ $10,998,322,185,123.40
  • 2009 __ 06 _____ $10,997,983,259,073.80
  • 2009 __ 07 _____ $10,997,643,203,270.70
  • 2009 __ 08 _____ $10,997,302,013,948.30
  • 2009 __ 09 _____ $10,996,959,687,328.10
  • 2009 __ 10 _____ $10,996,616,219,619.20
  • 2009 __ 11 _____ $10,996,271,607,018.00
  • 2009 __ 12 _____ $10,995,925,845,708.00
  • 2010 __ 01 _____ $10,995,578,931,860.40
  • … … … . .
  • … … … . .
  • … … … . .
  • 2059 __ 09 _____ $10,341,157,419,224.30
  • 2059 __ 10 _____ $10,338,627,943,955.00
  • 2059 __ 11 _____ $10,336,090,037,101.60
  • 2059 __ 12 _____ $10,333,543,670,558.60
See above; the principal was only reduced by a mere $666 Billion in 50 years (from $11 Trillion to $10.444 Trillion by year 2059)!

If the discipline existed to continue paying the $444 Billion per year, it would take 433 years to pay down the $11 Trillion of National Debt.
And that does not even include the $12.8 Trillion borrowed from Social Security, leaving it pay-as-you-go, with a 78 Million baby-boomer bubble approaching (source: www.socialsecurity.org/reformandyou/faqs.html#2).

To see calculations, see:

  • One-Simple-Idea.com/$11Trillion.xls

  • One-Simple-Idea.com/$225K_NationWideDebt_PerCapita.xls

If inflation climbs to 25% (not even considerd hyperinflation by most standards), a single 2009 Dollar would become worth 6 cents by year 2019 (in 2009 Dollars).
Or what now costs $1 Dollar in year 2009 would cost $9.31 by year 2019 (almost 10 times more).

  • _________ 25% INFLATION _________

  • YEAR _ FuturePrice _ FutureWorth

  • 2009: _ $1.00 __________ $1.00

  • 2010: _ $1.25 __________ $0.75

  • 2011: _ $1.56 __________ $0.56

  • 2012: _ $1.95 __________ $0.42

  • 2013: _ $2.44 __________ $0.32

  • 2014: _ $3.05 __________ $0.24

  • 2015: _ $3.81 __________ $0.18

  • 2016: _ $4.77 __________ $0.13

  • 2017: _ $5.96 __________ $0.10

  • 2018: _ $7.45 __________ $0.08

  • 2019: _ $9.31 __________ $0.06

Based on pre-1983 CPI (inflation) measurement calculations, inflation as of MAR-2009 is 7.5% (source: www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data).

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, inflation reached 15% (source: www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data ).

That could very easily happen again, with recent record-levels of spending (source: www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aZchK__XUF84 ).

At 15% inflation (as it was in year 1980), a single 2009 U.S. dollar could be worth only 20 cents by year 2019.

  • _________ 15% INFLATION _________

  • YEAR _ FuturePrice _ FutureWorth

  • 2009: _ $1.00 __________ $1.00

  • 2010: _ $1.15 __________ $0.85

  • 2011: _ $1.32 __________ $0.72

  • 2012: _ $1.52 __________ $0.61

  • 2013: _ $1.75 __________ $0.52

  • 2014: _ $2.01 __________ $0.44

  • 2015: _ $2.31 __________ $0.38

  • 2016: _ $2.66 __________ $0.32

  • 2017: _ $3.06 __________ $0.27

  • 2018: _ $3.52 __________ $0.23

  • 2019: _ $4.05 __________ $0.20

Inflation is good if you have a LOT of debt, are not still growing the debt ever larger, and still have adequate income and revenues to still service (and reduce) the existing debt. It’s not rocket science.
However, that is the problem today; the debt continues to grow ever larger beyond nightmare proportions.
Debt is very bad if deficit spending continues to grow the debt ever larger (such as the proposed $1+ Trillion per year for several years to come).
Time and inflation can help reduce a debt faster, but not if the debt is still growing at record rates.
It is especially bad if additional borrowing is used to merely pay the interest on the debt year after year, as we have seen happening for many years.

And reports of more borrowing and much larger deficit spending for several years into the future is ample cause for concern.
As it is already, it would take centuries to pay down the $11 Trillion National Debt. Even if the federal government had the extraordinary discipline to stop deficit spending (as it has been for the last 52 consecutive years), it would currently require about $495 Billion per year in interest alone (over $41 Billion per month) at only 4.5% interest, to simply stop the $11 Trillion federal debt from growing ever larger. It would take 180 YEARS of extraordinary discipline to pay off the current $11 Trillion debt (as of 3-MAR-2009). Yet, there’s now an estimated $1.7 Trillion deficit for fiscal year 2009, and $1 Trillion dollar deficits schedule for several years into the future.

Who really believes the debt can grow much larger?

Again, there are most likely better ways to resolve this nation’s massive debt problem, and growing the debt larger isn’t one of them.
SOLUTIONS (One-Simple-Idea.com/Solutions1.htm):

  • (01) Stop these 10 abuses.

  • (02) Stop the dishonest, usurious, predatory, lending practices of the banks, and Stop the Federal Reserve’s Ponzi-scheme which steeply leverages debt-to-reserves (i.e. 9-to-1 fractional lending; 90% of every new loan to a member bank is new money created out of thin air). Banks are essentially loan-sharking, jacking up adjustable rate mortgages (foreclosures be damned) with ridiculously high interest rates (commonly up to 10%-to-20% and as high as 64%) and other predetory lending practices. Banks are also preying on the young, poor, minorities, financially naive, and people deep in debt due to outrageously expensive medical fees. As a result, usury has helped widen the wealth disparity gap. 1% of the wealthiest now own 40% of all wealth, while 80% of Americans own only 17% of all wealth. The gap has never been larger since the Great Depression. 40% of Americans have essentially (on average) ZERO net worth. As a result of the Federal Reserve’s Ponzi-scheme, nation-wide debt has never been larger and has steadily grown (now over $67 Trillion; $220,000 per-capita) for decades from 100% of GDP in year 1956 to almost 500% of GDP in 2008. 90%-to-95% of all U.S. Dollars in existence in the U.S. exists as debt. Also, as a result of excessive creation of new money out of thin air, the U.S. has had 52 consecutive years of incessant inflation. A 1950 Dollar is now worth only 10 cents.

  • (03) Stop rampant, irresponsible, wasteful federal spending. The federal government has been deficit spending for 52 consecutive years. The National Debt is now over $11 Trillion (as of 22-MAR-2009). It has never been larger in size or per-capita ($36,066 per-capita as of 9-MAR-2009), and is 66% higher than the previous record-high ($21,719 per-capita in 2008 inflation-adjusted dollars) in year 1945, after World War II, and that does not even include the $12.8 Trillion borrowed from Social Security, leaving it pay-as-you-go, with a 78 Million baby-boomer bubble approaching.

  • (04) Stop growing and eliminate all of the massive bloat and waste (www.akdart.com/gov1.html) in the federal government now. Prioritize and focus on making the U.S. more energy independent. Prioritize and focus on the most important projects. Create jobs to research, develop, and implement better and more renewable energy resources and rebuild and improve the nation’s infrastructure (which will create long-term savings and benefits). Go through the federal budget with a fine-tooth comb and cut all unnecessary spending and waste. Shift unnecessary spending to spending on highest priority projects.
    For example, cut spending:
      With the federal government’s $2.4 Trillion in annual revenues, change the spending as follows:
    • $700 [$590] Billion for Health and Human Services (including $432 Billion for Medicare)

    • $660 [$522] Billion for Social Security

    • $640 [$447] Billion for Department of Defense
    • (leave Iraq; and reduce military presence in 132 foreign nations).
    • $100 [$30] Billion for Department of Education

    • $100 [$30] Billion for Department of Agriculture

    • $85 [$100] Billion for Veteran Affairs (no cuts here)

    • $75 [$75] Billion for Homeland Security (no cuts here)

    • $56 [$10] Billion for Department of Transporation

    • $50 [$10] Billion for Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

    • $60 [$30] Billion for Office of Personnel Management

    • $550 [$550] Billion for Treasury Department (including $430 [$500] Billion for Interest on the National Debt).

    • ____________________________________________________________________

    • $3.074 [$2.4] Trillion ($574 [$0] Billion over total revenues of $2.4 [$2.4] Trillion in 2008 [2009])

    • What’s wrong with that?
      The federal government is the biggest employer in the nation, and will still be even after those spending cuts.
      More people are employed by the government than all manufacturing (nation-wide).

  • (05) Stop the U.S. presence in Iraq;

  • (06) Stop the U.S. military presence in 132 nations around the world. That costs a LOT! Is all of that necessary?

  • (07) Stop throwing money, subsidies, tax breaks, and welfare at failing banks, financial corporations, the wealthy, and Wall Street; stop rewarding failure, which is also unfair to competitors;

  • (08) Stop rampant corruption by increasing and enforcing more transparency and accountability (e.g. One-Purpose-Per-BILL, stop Constitutional violations, etc.);

  • (09) Stop Constitutional violations; reduce lawlessness; enforce existing laws (e.g. Article V);

  • (10) Stop illegal immigration and enforce E-Verify, and stop the $70-to-$327 Billion in annual net losses due to illegal immigration; prosecute greedy illegal employers;

  • (11) Stop H-1/2B abuse and stop importing 1.5 Million (AmericanWorker.org) foreign H-1B workers per year, when there are 12-to-28 Million (www.ShadowStats.com) unemployed American workers.

  • (12) Stop despicably pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for votes and profits, disguised as compassion (severely misplaced compassion at best); prosecute greedy illegal employers;

  • (13) Stop unfair trade practices; set tarrifs on foreign imports into the U.S. at least equal to other nations’ imports tarrifs imposed on U.S. exports.

  • (14) Stop plundering Social Security surpluses; $12.8 Trillion has been borrowed and spent, leaving Social Security pay-as-you-go, with 78 Million baby-boomer bubble approaching;

  • (15) Stop regressive taxation (One-Simple-Idea.com/DisparityTrend.htm#Taxes). This would also save tax payers tens and possibly hundreds of billions per year by eliminating (or greatly reducing) the cost of calculating taxes, cost of tax software, cost of accounting and record keeping, and the cost of storage of many previous years of tax records.

  • (16) Stop killing 195,000 per year due to preventable medical mistakes. Between 1999 and 2004, over 1.5 million people were killed by preventable medical mistakes. That is more than all the American soldiers killed in the American Revolution (4,435), the War of 1812 (2,260), the Indian Wars (1,000), the Mexican War (1,733), the Civil War (462,000), the Spanish American War (385), WWI (53,402), WWII (291,557), Vietnam War (58,209), Korean War (36,574), the Iraq Gulf War (529), and the current Iraq war 19-Mar-2003-to-24-Jan-2009 (4,232), combined! Create a non-profit national health insurance system (get rid of the millions of costly unnecessary middlemen); build more non-profit hospitals and clinics.

  • (17) Stop Congress from rewarding itself with a raise almost every year (Congress recently gave itself the 10th raise in 12 years and $93,000 per Congress person for petty cash and expenses; the raises are actually automitic and a BILL is required to stop the automatic raise; must be nice, eh?). Is that necessary? No. What arrogance! ? ! Especially when U.S. Troops go without armor, adequate medical care, promised benefits, and have to do 2, 3, or 4+ tours in Iraq and/or Afghanistan.

  • (18) Stop pandering politicians who are virtually FOR-SALE. Allow only equal public financing of elections. Otherwise, politicians will continue to sell-out most Americans!

  • (19) Stop pork-barrel; pass a ONE-PURPOSE-PER-BILL amendment; Congress needs a transparent system for prioritizing spending, which it obviously does not have. Currently, most (if not all) Congress persons are more concerned about bringing the pork-barrel home, than solving the nation’s most pressing problems, growing dangerously in number and severity, and threatening the future and security of the nation.

  • (20) Stop career politicians and judges; pass TERM LIMITS for all offices;

  • (21) Stop the unfair incumbent advantages: One-Simple-Idea.com/FAQ.htm#UnfairAdvantages

  • (22) Stop the deterioration of public education; eliminate the bloated, over-paid, and incompetent adminstrative staff; limit education administrative costs to a sepcific percentage of the budget. More education solutions: One-Simple-Idea.com/Education.htm

  • (23) Stop repeatedly rewarding irresponsible, FOR-SALE, incompetent, and/or corrupt incumbent politicians with 85%-to-90% re-election rates. Stop rewarding corruption, or suffer the painful consequences: One-Simple-Idea.com/NeverWorse.htm

There are lots of solutions and ideas.

Unfortunately, Congress appears to be where good ideas and solutions go to die.

It appears too many people in Congress and this administration have decided it is best to not question the debt issue, regardless of the potential outcome, and regardless of the fact that there are many ways to solve this problem. Unfortunately, as it was when the previous IN-PARTY, the same thing is now happening with the new IN-PARTY. If you disagree, you must be unpatriotic and an enemy of the Republic. And some people wonder why some people say there is little (if any) differnce between the two main parties, beyond there to equally pathetic extremes each go to:

  • Extreme #1: One extreme wants regressive taxation, unfettered capitalism and freedom to explore and wallow in every manifestation of unchecked greed (which we have seen plenty of lately).

  • Extreme #2: The other extreme wants a nanny-state with citizens increasingly dependent on the government; with massive cradle-to-grave government programs (which are usually severely mismanaged) that nurture a sense of entitlement and dependency on government; wants to grow government ever larger (despite the already current nightmare proportions); rewards failure and laziness; and perpetuates the myth that we can somehow all live at the expense of everyone else.

But, perhaps there is hope yet?
Even some Democrats are recently beginning to wonder about the tenability of the debt and continued deficit spending.
Good.
They should, if they simply take a few minutes to see how dismal the math truly is.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 26, 2009 05:38 PM
Comment #278767

David, good article. I would have to say at this time their is no other plan available to follow. The repubs are saying “what problem” and they are the only other game in town. IMHO this is a good thing as the repubs have not had a plan that benefits Americans in many years.
The thing that impresses me the most about the Obama administration plan is the fact that they have realized that we cannot continue to sustain an economy based upon credit card debt and rabid speculation, whether it be housing or unregulated securities. I believe that is why the costs are bigger now and it must be done now and not at some unspecified time in the distant future.
To continue to believe that tax cuts for corporate America is the answer to all of our problems is foolish. To continue to believe unwarranted criticism as demonstrated by the repubs for 60 days now is a plan is foolish.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 26, 2009 05:40 PM
Comment #278769

Lee,

Exactly. If we want to change the meaning of the constitution and ‘usher in the era of big government’ it should have been done with constitutional amendments, not a single judge changing his mind.

The problem is that even with the perceived popularity of FDR during that time there was no way it would have made it through the amendment process because that requires The People to agree to it, not just a few federal bureaucrats deciding to give themselves more power.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 26, 2009 05:41 PM
Comment #278770

j2t2,

You do realize that the corporate taxes you admire so much are really just taxes on the middle and lower income people (they get passed on in the cost of goods and services) and as a result increase the tax burden on them disproportionally, right?

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 26, 2009 05:46 PM
Comment #278776

Yes, corporate taxes are like a hidden, regressive sales tax on consumers.

I think we’d be better off if they were gradually reduced and/or phased out (e.g. 35%, 27%, 20%, 23%, 16%, 09%, 04%, 0%).

Of course, this ain’t likely to happen, but a NO-TAX System is theoretically possible.

The current tax system is reqressive.

At the very least, a system with a flat 17% tax on all types of income, only on income above the poverty level, and elimination of all tax loopholes would probably raise enough taxes. If not, cut spending (since there’s plenty of bloat and waste that can be cut).

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 26, 2009 06:15 PM
Comment #278779

M. Remer writes an interesting paragraph as follows; “To the extent that people seek to improve upon Pres. Obama’s policies with their input, America can and will move as one toward solving our crises. To the extent that people are successful in obstructing the success of Pres. Obama’s policies and agenda, in order to preserve their view of how things should be or, to garner power for themselves going forward, our nation will surely suffer and fail in its common hopes and aspirations for our future, at the hands of such self-serving critics.”

As I read it the two key words here are “Improve” and “Obstruct”. M. Remer uses the word improve in the sense of “agreement” and the word obstruct as “disagreement”. He allows no middle ground.

I am not sure what exactly conservatives could do, consistent with their own values, and the values of their constituents, that would “improve” upon PO’s policies. Any improvements they would suggest, if not then adopted by PO, would necessarily, under Remer’s definition be…”disagreement” and obstructionist. Using that logic, if true, would merely mean that when conservatives agree, they are working for the good of the country and when they disagree they are working for the demise of the country.

I would ask M. Remer…is that what you believe? One may hear PO call for conservatives to make suggestions and, when they do, and they fail his test, then they are obstructionists.

I call for conservative legislators to continue to hold with their values, and the values that got them elected. If they can compromise with liberals, which means that neither gets everything they want, and they believe it will help the country, they should do that.

Finally, M. Remer labels those who disagree with PO and the liberal congress…”self-serving critics”. I believe that is over the top and an outright lie. How would he know the mind and motive of those who disagree with PO and liberals in congress? Would he also write that those who agree with the liberal philosophy to just get along are “self-serving robots”.

Posted by: Jim M at March 26, 2009 06:43 PM
Comment #278781

Henry writes; “So, why I know that some funds must be given to the School Adminstrations for operations expenses I do believe that the building and renovation of local schools will do wonders for the Younger Generation.”

Henry, why do you believe that? Is it buildings and fresh paint that will do the job?

Posted by: Jim M at March 26, 2009 06:55 PM
Comment #278783

M. Remer writes; “Investing in lower cost universal access to health care today will improve the health and well being of 10’s of billions of Americans going forward.”

Nonsense. Government now provides over 50% of all health care in this country and prices continue to rocket upwards. Why would I believe that when government controls 100% all of a sudden there will be savings?

Imagined savings of such a plan can only come from rationing health care as is done in those countries who have already experimented in this failed idea.

Are you suggesting the only way to cut costs is to have health care totally run by government? Please cite the examples where this has worked. Has it worked with SS, Medicare, Medicaid? Are these three, deep in the red, government run social programs the shining example you would use?

Posted by: Jim M at March 26, 2009 07:05 PM
Comment #278784

Jim M, why am I not surprised at your reply’s failure to respond to my own words, rather than words of your own choosing.

You quote my words. But, then go on to give them an interpretation all your own, bearing no resemblance to the meaning blatantly obvious in my own words.

Input does not equate with agreement. And disagreement does not equate with obstruction. These terms are not synonymous as any dictionary will point out. It appears clear the intent of your comment was to distort and obfuscate what I wrote. So, responding further would serve no good end.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 26, 2009 07:06 PM
Comment #278785

j2t2, I generally agree with your comments to me, and thanks.

For clarification, when you say: “To continue to believe unwarranted criticism as demonstrated by the repubs for 60 days now is a plan is foolish.”, I am a bit confused by the general nature of the terms.

For example, I believe it is warranted criticism for Libertarians and Republicans to warn the administration of the potential dangers inherent with a rapidly growing national debt. That said, I think it is foolish of these same critics to pretend that Obama and his economic staff are unaware of this.

But, yes, I agree, for Republicans to pretend that criticism, tax cuts for all, or zeroing out deficit spending now that Dem’s are in control this year, are alternative plans with any merit, is foolish indeed, revealing the blatantly obvious political nature of the motives behind such criticism and cartoons of police shooting the chimp in the White House as merely humor.


Posted by: David R. Remer at March 26, 2009 07:18 PM
Comment #278787

Lee said: “Using the court to amend the document by fiat was a violation of the people’s contract with the government. “

Pure conservative clap trap. Since, the Constitution also made the Supreme Court the final arbiter and interpreter of the Constitution. Combine this Constitutional fact with the other fact that the Constitution is vague and general in many places leaving definition to future generations and courts, the claim that court interpretation is a violation of the people’s contract with government is absurd on its face. It is a political claim, not one supported by the Constitution itself.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 26, 2009 07:23 PM
Comment #278788

Rhinehold misrepresents reality truth with his comment: “It is only classic, in reference to you, David, because you continually try to assert that Libertarians are ‘mountain men’”

I made that assertion only once, and in the context of a more specific contextual argument. If the only way your comments can rebut is by fabrication and distortion of reality, your comments only serve to reinforce mine.

I thank you though for the compliment on the potency of some of my arguments, given your recall of them after only one iteration and so long ago, with quoted verbage yet, if incomplete and out of context. Appreciate it.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 26, 2009 07:29 PM
Comment #278789

Rhinehold, there you go again throwing the rules of logic out the window in favor of ideological viewpoint, when you say:

“No, David, as I have stated before it is not rights that are defending by government but rights that are defended FROM government. That is where you continually make your mistake.”

As if protections from government are NOT to be enforced BY government. If, as you posit, rights are protected from government power (true, some are, NOT ALL), and NOT enforceable by government, then why do the Bill of Rights have the force of law, law residing in the government, and why does government enforce the bill of rights, even against itself, as has many times been the case?

Your comment’s abandonment of logic is remarkable, and thus, I remark upon it.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 26, 2009 07:36 PM
Comment #278790

Rhinehold responded to my comment: ” With industrialization comes the growth of urban centers and with the growth of urban centers comes significantly greater demand and need for government services like police, fire departments, sanitation infrastructure development, roads and bridges, traffic lights, licensing of drivers to insure adequate safety, etc. etc. etc.”

with the following comment of his own:

“Yes, exactly, and those urban centers should be administering them as they see fit.”

Do you not recognize the need for federal law as set out in the Constitution to at the very least, deal with cross jurisdictional application of law where jurisdictional applications are either insufficient to insure domestic tranquility, or worse, contradict each other resulting in the law becoming unknowable and unpredictable from one jurisdiction to another?

Your statement reflects an argument in favor of local government while negating the clear proscription in the Constitution for a federal law applicable and consistent across ALL jurisdictions.

Is it that your comments fail to comprehend the complexity of our Constitution, or that they simply reject the Constitution as a basis for Libertarian government? Sometimes, it is hard to tell from comments like yours quoted above.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 26, 2009 07:44 PM
Comment #278796

Rhinehold yes you are correct I should have said tax cuts for the wealthy, not tax cuts for corporate America.

I also agree corporate taxes need to be looked at carefully and perhaps all corporate taxes should be paid by shareholders based upon the shareholders tax bracket as Robert Reich has previously proposed.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 26, 2009 08:35 PM
Comment #278797

“For clarification, when you say: “To continue to believe unwarranted criticism as demonstrated by the repubs for 60 days now is a plan is foolish.”, I am a bit confused by the general nature of the terms.”

David I was thinking of the cries of socialism and other half truths I have heard from elected representatives.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 26, 2009 08:40 PM
Comment #278809
I made that assertion only once, and in the context of a more specific contextual argument. If the only way your comments can rebut is by fabrication and distortion of reality, your comments only serve to reinforce mine.

I’m sorry David but you made that reference to me, specifically, on more than one occasion. In fact, it comes out just about every time the word Libertarian pops up in your comments oever the past 3 years.

That you can’t remember those times in telling indeed.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 26, 2009 10:17 PM
Comment #278811
As if protections from government are NOT to be enforced BY government. If, as you posit, rights are protected from government power (true, some are, NOT ALL), and NOT enforceable by government, then why do the Bill of Rights have the force of law, law residing in the government, and why does government enforce the bill of rights, even against itself, as has many times been the case?

Please tell me of a ‘right’ listed in the Bill of Rights that are not directed at the citizens being protected by the government. Freedom of speech is against government (you do not have the right to say anything on private property), Freedom of press is against government interaction with the press, Right to bear arms is against government laws against guns, private property owners can allow or disallow guns on their proeprty….

I don’t think it is me that is confused.

Now, can you answer the specific question of where the Right to Privacy exists since it is not enumerated in the Constitution anywhere. Did it exist before it was ruled upon? Was the ruling flawed since it stated that the right existed in the 9th and 10th amendments?

I’ve asked for your answer to this before and for some reason never get an answer. You want specifics, I provide them, and then you go on to pretend that I have never done so…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 26, 2009 10:23 PM
Comment #278812
Do you not recognize the need for federal law as set out in the Constitution to at the very least, deal with cross jurisdictional application of law where jurisdictional applications are either insufficient to insure domestic tranquility, or worse, contradict each other resulting in the law becoming unknowable and unpredictable from one jurisdiction to another?

Your statement reflects an argument in favor of local government while negating the clear proscription in the Constitution for a federal law applicable and consistent across ALL jurisdictions.

I don’t think you’ll ever find any reference to me saying that there should be NO federal government. In fact, that is THE purpose of the federal government to handle things that are cross-jurisdiction or should be administered globally across all states. That list should be small, it currently is NOT.

You also say that the constitution is ‘vague’. Actually, it isn’t. In fact, it is very specific. Unfortunately, for it to be specific would mean that many of the things that those who want a centralized planning of our lives would be wanting things they can’t have.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 26, 2009 10:26 PM
Comment #278813

David,

Pure conservative clap trap. Since, the Constitution also made the Supreme Court the final arbiter and interpreter of the Constitution. Combine this Constitutional fact with the other fact that the Constitution is vague and general in many places leaving definition to future generations and courts, the claim that court interpretation is a violation of the people’s contract with government is absurd on its face. It is a political claim, not one supported by the Constitution itself.
What you interpret as “vague and general” was, for a century and a half, interpreted by the Court as absent. As Jefferson and Hamilton argued (and even Madison’s conception of review does not diminish) the powers not specifically granted did not exist. At least the didn’t exist until Roosevelt bullied the court into becoming a political entity- precisely what John Marshall had sought to avoid in Marbury v. Madison in 1803.

From Answers.com:

Roosevelt, angry at the conservative justices for blocking his reforms, proposed legislation that would add new appointees to the Court, so as to create a liberal majority. This “court- packing” plan aroused bipartisan opposition and ultimately failed. But the Court may have gotten Roosevelt’s message, for in 1937 it made an abrupt turnabout: a majority of the Court abandoned the substantive due process doctrine and voted to uphold the Wagner Act, which guaranteed to industrial workers the right to unionize and bargain collectively (National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1, 57 S. Ct. 615, 81 L. Ed. 893 [1937]).
An article at the Heritage Society notes the transition this way:
After 1937, buttressed by eight Roosevelt appointments to the Supreme Court over the next seven years, the Court consistently upheld economic regulation against challenges based on both due process and the Commerce Clause.
One of the distinctive features of this first era of judicial activism—the reason why I describe it as “transitional”—was the justices’ apparent conviction that they were merely carrying out their traditional task of enforcing the Constitution: according to the terms of Federalist No. 78, exercising “judgment” rather than “will.” There was little trace of either the argument that what the Court was doing was changing or modifying the Constitution in light of changing circumstances or the argument that the task of judges was fundamentally legislative.
There is no question whatever that Roosevelt intended his appointments to exercise “will”. That is the fundamental agency in the conversion of the court from an interpretive, deliberative body to a slow swinging political punching bag merely rubber-stamping the usurpations of presidents and congresses.

The court today is just a means to steal power from the people without their consent. It is a coup.

Until it becomes a deliberative and interpretive body again and forces the usurpers to live within a rule of law the government will continually drift toward tyrrany.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 26, 2009 10:31 PM
Comment #278822

David,

Oh, and thanks for the “claptrap” remark. I feel like a conservative again.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 26, 2009 10:57 PM
Comment #278828

>Your statement reflects an argument in favor of local government while negating the clear proscription in the Constitution for a federal law applicable and consistent across ALL jurisdictions.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 26, 2009 07:44 PM

You are right, David, nation-states went out in fifteenth century Italy…it was a failed system.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 27, 2009 12:01 AM
Comment #278839

Lee, your are still delivering claptrap.

Your comments imply that either the revered founding fathers royally screwed up creating the supreme court with the power to deliberate and interpret the Constitution, as they themselves agreed, or, the founding fathers royally screwed up by not stipulating specifically that the Justices must always rule by precedent regardless of the needs and new demands of a growing nation to keep the ideals in Declaration of Independence in balance.

What your comments imply is dogmatic, ideological, and completely lacking empirically in the Constitution as an edict, limiting the power of the Supreme Court. There are NO prohibitions on the Supreme Court in the Constitution regarding their power to interpret and even reinterpret the Constitution in the context of a changing nation, when questions and contests regarding interpretation are accepted by the court for review.

Which is quite remarkable in light of your insistence that we more strictly adhere to the Constitution.

You said: “Until it [The Supreme Ct.] becomes a deliberative and interpretive body again and forces the usurpers to live within a rule of law the government will continually drift toward tyrrany.”

As if the Wagner Act were not deliberated, resulting in an interpretation by the Supreme Court of its day. Claptrap. Illogical claptrap, by your own word usage.

And you further err in positing the Supreme Court with enforcement authority of the law, which is clearly posited in the Executive Branch, not the Supreme Court.

Perhaps a refresher in American government would be helpful?

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 27, 2009 01:04 AM
Comment #278841

Rhinehold said: “I’m sorry David but you made that reference to me, specifically, on more than one occasion.”

Prove it. Provide the links. Otherwise, discontinue asserting lies about other writer’s actions here at Watchblog.

The single and only reference of mine to you regarding mountain men is found in this link.

My previous sentence is empirically demonstrable as a true statement by a search of the WatchBlog archives. Which makes your assertion above either a lie or, faulty memory. Either way, your comment is factually in error.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 27, 2009 01:11 AM
Comment #278847

David, here are a couple I found doing a quick search

www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/005913.html#249706

The LP is pedaling liberty and independence, and the majority of voters seek cooperation and interaction toward common and shared goals. Philosophically, the LP is well suited to Mountain Men of the 19th century. Very ill suited to urban and incredibly inter-reliant and inter-dependent citizenry seeking a common shared middle class future at the very least.

www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/005384.html#228966

Your live free ‘Mountain Man’ ideology can work reasonably well for a small nation with a small population and a small government where private charity can remove suffering and destitution and misfortune of others from our sight through charitable assistance, or when the plight of Native Americans, for example, can be removed from public sight on reservations far from daily experience and passings of voters.

www.watchblog.com/democrats/archives/006435.html (this was directed towards kctim, but he was defending LP principles)

Your comment reflects a Mountain Man philosophy which is not at all the foundation of our nation’s founding documents or government construct.

I found others directed at other people, but I think I have made my point. Let’s look at some other examples of your lies about the Libertarian Party?

www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/005913.html#249815

I am probably more versed in the history of the LP than you are. With Indiana as the LP’s birthplace and home of the rise of the KKK, the original intents of the LP still ring true today with their mantra of to each his own fortune make and if you happen to be Black, well, that’s your parents fault.

Indiana was not the birthplace of the LP, it was founded in Colorado (easily found by doing a look at wikipedia, btw, or any other website having to do with the LP).

As for the KKK, as I said then, “Ignoring, btw, that the KKK started in Tennessee and the second KKK was founded in Georgia, the fact that some Hoosiers seeking to enact prohibition joined their ranks (and turned over membership quickly) does not accurately paint Indiana as a ‘hotbed of racism’ I’m afraid.”

Here the intent is obvious for all to see, well the LP is racist! A stunningly ignorant, spiteful and abhorrent assertion.

Your ‘objectivity’ on the LP is laughable. When the party I belong to is called racist by someone, it really deters me at that point from trying to rationally discuss the party platform with them.

(I had to remove the hyperlinks, the comment system was eating it)

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 27, 2009 03:53 AM
Comment #278848

DR
All hail the LP. You should be encouraging them as much as possible. The more members they have the more possible votes are marginalized from real politics,at least in the primaries in most states. It is important to keep their selfish,simplistic and dangerious political influence as far from power as possible and if they insist it helping the process along by devoting their energy and money to yet another impotent third party who are we to stand in their way.

Lee
Does that explain why the currently conservative stacked SC has not overturned RvW? That would be legislating from the bench?Judicial activism?I doubt that is the reason. More likely it is because their wealthy masters do not want their mistresses to have any trouble getting abortions. Similar to the conservative opposition to the Wagner Act. Their wealthy masters did not want to pay higher wages to empowered workers. Then again ,perhaps they are just a bit gun shy after reaching the hieght of judicial activism by interfereing in a presidential election and getting away with it.

Posted by: bills at March 27, 2009 04:53 AM
Comment #278852

Somebody probably doesn’t like my reference to ‘bark shooters’, or ‘rugged individualists’ when I’m talking about the ‘I hate taxes’ and the ‘every one of them is on welfare’ bunch either.

Live in the woods, hate someone, i.e., all blacks, all Jews, all FBI agents, all Tmen, all ATF agents…run around in cammies, shooting the bark off of trees and cussin’ the gov’ment, and screaming their love for God and the Constitution…the same Constitution that created the gov’ment, allowed the taxation and allowed individual rights, even for blacks, Jews and those who work for the gov’ment, and allowed citizens not to worship a God…

Posted by: Marysdude at March 27, 2009 06:07 AM
Comment #278853

David R. Remer,
I have a lot to say but in a pretty far reaching and wandering manner, I hope you can see the application to this article. My problem is that I don’t just want people to talk about change (Obama). I want people to actually do something about the banking industry and clean up our economic practices. The Federal Reserve is illegal. We need to take away it’s power. Greenspan said it is above the law. If the bank is above the law we are all slaves to it. I see there is a fundamental difference in the way that I and Mr. Obama approach or receive the Federal Reserve. I would think getting the currency back in the hands of the people would be a change and would solve future economic problems. I would think that letting a company control it without any real threat of punishment for their actions is just a perpetuation of the system that allowed for this situation to arise in the first place.

The fact of the matter is what is good for Wall St. is not always good for Main St. What Obama has done is placed Wall St. minded individuals into positions of power all throughout Washington. These people are looking at securing Wall St. as the center of the worth of the USD. Not small businesses run by Mom and Pop that get their products from local producers, but large corporations who gather products from overseas suppliers at a lower cost than can be produced domestically. This causes subjugation to the large Wall St. based companies, franchises. Although the small business owner may have rights over the franchised business it still fuels a global market, which weakens the American dollar and pushes us toward a new world currency, or at least a world bank. When the banks finally get a hold of the Companies in all the markets around the world they will dictate the direction of every single market, through controlling the currency. What you and I have are pennies compared to the people who are all looking to gain power through the acquisition and consolidation of the world markets. They have billions of dollars, literally, and we work for them as long as the banks have the power to dictate currency production. When we ask these bankers who they work for they can say they work for such and such a bank, and they have this position and yada yada yada, but they work for their money. They work to stay rich and powerful. That is it.

Simply put, the President is a puppet, it doesn’t matter what party they are, they are just puppets. The Bilderberg Group has a hold of the post and dictates the actions of the post. The President is used to manipulate us into accepting the dictates of the heads of the Banks/Bilderberg Group. The 125 richest and most powerful individuals in the world are all a part of this Group. They are in control whatever directive that Obama sponsors they sponsor. It doesn’t matter who gets into the Presidency, they all just submit to these people, or they die. Kennedy was the last President that tried to abolish the Federal Reserve, then he was killed. Nobody has tried since. We continue to have cycles of prosperity followed by a recession, in these downturns the fed makes money off of loan defaults and increased interest rates. Everybody else except the reserve bank hates economic downturns. It makes them money and gets them more real estate. The coordination between the world markets is out of our hands and the only continent left to be governed and profited from is Africa. Africa is the next place to be subjugated to the will of the Banks. With a world currency they can do this. To globalize the currency is to control the world, as we can see now the currency dictates our freedoms. If you have enough money you are free to do pretty much anything. Money is essentially freedom. That was something that aristocrats in the US Presidency knew over a hundred years ago, and fought to keep in the hands of the people/congress, but it was taken away when Wilson made the Fed in 1913. Since then it has been the same story over and over again and again, money followed by no money.

Sadly, I don’t see how the bailouts are any different than just printing the money and handing it out on the street for us, it is all going to get consolidated at the top anyway. But, I don’t think my subjugation to the globalists has a chance of being mended because people are not able to get educated on any of this stuff. People are controlled through mainstream media, who is owned by the people who need to be taken down. Until the Federal Reserve is gone, we are just subjects to a shadow government, who owes an allegiance to the almighty currency that gives them power. Our currency says in God we trust, well if the banks are God, then that statement is true. I have gone a little off topic here but I just had to get this out there. I know most people who read this forum won’t get all the way through my thoughts, but…

Posted by: chad at March 27, 2009 06:31 AM
Comment #278855

David,
As for your comment #278750 I find it interesting why you and Rhinehold differ on how one can look at the Constitution, And why I understand your Freewill to serve the side that you do. I do believe that if you read Rhineholds’ post #278757 you will see the issue.

For why Rhinehold states “it is not rights that are defending by government but rights that are defended FROM government.” If I am not mistaken are not both sides considered Politically Accetable with being Politically Correct somewhere in the middle?

Jim M.,
Why I do not have children myself. I do know that if My Peers really wants to make a difference in Their Children Lives than using part of Americas’ Recovery and Reinvestnment Plan as well as the Federal Investment Plan to build schools worthy of being title Learning Centers of the 21st Century should be Priority #1 IMHO!

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 27, 2009 08:33 AM
Comment #278865

Chad, agree that the Fed Rsv has been a continuing problem. It is only natural that money, or the source of it, will always be a contentious issue, a power struggle. Andrew Jackson, our first populist President, dealt with it very nicely I thought. There are two problems, corporations and banking that have been thorns in the side of the Republic. Often I write about there being too much democracy in this country. Only from having too much democracy did we acquire such laws as ‘corporate personhood’ and ‘money is free speech’. Corporations and the banking industry exemplify the tail wagging the dog. Reform is needed to change some things. But, you won’t get reform from this government as your government IS corporations and banking. Reform can only be gained through a 3rd party such as Republic Sentry. Here is an excerpt from our VISION for the USA page.

A 17% flat tax is adopted based on gross income with no taxation below the poverty level. Deductions, depreciation, and subsidies are abolished. Offshore tax havens are illegal under the law. A usury law is in effect.

Government is more transparent to the public. Information retrieved through the Freedom of Information Act is made available within two weeks of the request. Unclassified meeting and conference areas of congress are considered public access through the media. Media is notified of impending meetings and conferences.

The Federal Reserve has been relegated to a program office within, and subordinate to, the Treasury Dept.
All Department and Agency head positions are filled with senior government staff executives. Assignments to these positions are selected by the President and may be rotated on a four-year basis.

Also, some bullets out there about abolishing corporate personhood and money is free speech. Check it out at www.republicsentry.com.

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.

Posted by: roy ellis at March 27, 2009 11:01 AM
Comment #278884

M. Remer writes; “It appears clear the intent of your comment was to distort and obfuscate what I wrote.”

It would appear M. Remer’s comment was to end a discussion in which some of his statements are indefensible.

In his pomposity, beginning with the title of his article…”Obama’s Way, or Bust!, implying that only PO knows what is good for the country, he describes PO as some sort of all-knowing savior who must be followed to avoid collapse. Then in an exercise in hyperbole he labels those who disagree with PO and the liberal congress…”self-serving critics”.

M. Remer’s bleak outlook for our country involves feverish spending for all manner of liberal goodies today at the expense of tomorrow and would have us believe that unless we follow in lock-step with the mad piper we are all doomed.

He reminds me of the little kid in the neighborhood who says it’s my football and we’ll play by my rules or I’ll take my football home and then you’ll be sorry.

Posted by: Jim M at March 27, 2009 12:07 PM
Comment #278901
David R. Remer wrote: There simply is no other policy agenda to pursue other than that which Pres. Obama presents and promised during his election in Nov. of 2008, for the next 4 years at least.
Probably true.

But just because there is no other plan doesn’t mean the current plan is any better than no plan. In fact, it could be worse.

I know we disagree completely on this. In my opinipon, it appears this Administration, the Give-Ourselves-Another-Raise-Congress, and the Ponzi-Scheme-Federal-Reserve are determined to try to solve a massive debt problem with more massive debt, borrowing, new money, and rampant spending for many years to come (i.e. with the current $11.1 Trillion National Debt growing to $20.3 Trillion by year 2019). That is almost certainly doomed to fail, since the current debt is already untenable as evidenced by these 20 reasons.

That’s what is scary, because the current plan seems very risky, since the following questions are being avoided like the black plague, and that avoidance in itself is revealing and disturbing:

  • (a) Is there any historical precedent of any nation so deep into debt ever successfully solving a massive debt-bubble with more debt, borrowing, new money, and spending?

  • (b) Is there any macro economics model that states that a massive debt-bubble can solved with more debt, borrowing, new money, and spending?

  • (c) Is there any mathematical rationale that demonstrates how any nation so ridiculously deep into debt (much less the biggest debtor nation on the planet) has ever successfully solved a massive debt-bubble with more debt, borrowing, new money, and spending?

  • (d) If the current debt is untenable, how is growing it bigger going to help?

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at March 27, 2009 01:13 PM
Comment #278912

d.a.n said: “But just because there is no other plan doesn’t mean the current plan is any better than no plan. In fact, it could be worse.”

In the hypothetical, it could be. True enough.

The majority of Americans so far, however, in this real world circumstance, don’t believe this is the case with the Obama administration. One either believes in democracy and therefore trusts it, or one does not. The majority are not always right. But, majority consensus usually is over the long run.

BTW, I reject those who are now becoming very vocal in the media exercising scare tactics about Obama’s budget costing 10 trillion dollars in additional national debt over the next 10 years.

The budget Obama is presenting is for ONE, note that, ONE year, and this one budget for this one year adds 1.4 trillion dollars to the national debt. Next year’s budget will be fashioned around next years data and circumstances, which can be vastly improved or vastly worse than this year, as a comparison of our economic forecast in March of 2008 compared to March of 2009, illustrates amply. Or fer even starker contrast, Mar. 2007 and Mar. 2008.

NO ONE can predict what the economic circumstances will be in five years, let alone 10. So, all this B.S. about Obama’s budget adding 10 trillion dollars to the national debt over the next 10 years is pure B.S. and falsely based scare tactics.

CBO estimates assume no full recovery in economic activity (by 2007 standards) anywhere in the foreseeable future, and build there federal revenue estimates on that assumption. In reality however, if the pattern in history following recessions holds true going forward, the economic activity growth over the next 5 years could be huge, and generate vastly more revenues than CBO currently estimates.

It is important for sanity and rationality, for folks to recognize that those who claim to know the future are charlatans at the very least. Those who work and hope for a better future are the ones to listen to and follow. The power of self-fulfilling prophecy should not be dismissed.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 27, 2009 01:49 PM
Comment #278916

Jim M, how can anyone take your comments seriously when you contradict yourself in the same comment.

First you say: “In his pomposity, beginning with the title of his article…”Obama’s Way, or Bust!, implying that only PO knows what is good for the country, he describes PO as some sort of all-knowing savior who must be followed to avoid collapse.”

Then you in the very next paragraph you claim: “M. Remer’s bleak outlook for our country involves feverish spending…”

So, which contradiction is true, Jim M? Does Remer believe the future is fine because Pres. Obama is at the helm as you say in your first quote above, or, does Remer hold a very bleak outlook for our country because Pres. Obama is at the helm as you state in your second quote above?

Such contradictory passages in the same comment leave no routes to credibility. Thank you for participating however. But, beware of calling people at WB pompous. It violates WB’s rules.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 27, 2009 01:58 PM
Comment #278918

Chad, I read all of it, and there were MANY good points.
You’re right. Bank and monetary system reforms are badly needed. Simply rebooting the same corrupt system won’t solve anything.

Roy Ellis, You’ve got a lot of good ideas there at RepublicSentry.com.

Chad, Roy Ellis, some people are telling us that we must want Obama to fail (which is TOTALLY false), simply because we disagree on the solutions being attempted thus far.

I noticed the very same tactics when the current OUT-PARTY was the previous IN-PARTY.
Now that the new IN-PARTY is using a lot of the very same lame and tired tactics and rhetoric:


  • But if you disagree, you must be unpatriotic.

  • But if you disagree, you must want Obama to fail.

  • But if you disagree, you must be a Republican.

  • But if you disagree, you must nefarious motives.

  • But if you disagree, you must be wrong.

  • But if you disagree, you must want perfection (i.e. you should accept mediocrity or worse).

  • But if you disagree, you must be unreasonalbe.

  • But if you disagree, you must a sad human being with no hope (despite hoping for other better solutions).

  • But if you disagree, you must hate the United States.

  • But if you disagree, you must be a whiner and you don’t have any solutions of your own.

  • But if you disagree, you are told there are no better solutions (whichy is false), or other solutions are impossible.

  • But if you disagree, you are Dr. Doom & Gloom, Chicken Little, or Mr. Sky-is-Falling.

  • But if you disagree, all of your questions are obstructionist.

  • But if you disagree, your facts don’t matter; the dismal math doesn’t matter; you are told your concerns are useless because you aren’t clairvoyant.

  • But if you disagree, and claim promises have been broken, your proof is irrelevant.

  • But if you disagree, and demonstrate that it would take 50 years and $444 Billion per year to merely reduce the $11 Trillion National Debt by less than 7%, you are told GDP will grow to out-pace the debt. Never mind Congress’ lack of discipline and 52 consecutive years of deficit spending and incessant inflation.

  • But if you disagree, and you want illegal employers for employing illegal aliens, you are a selfish, heartless racist.

  • But if you disagree that there is only a credit problem, and also note that there is a serious debt problem, you are told that stopping deficit spending is impossible. You are told the only way to stop the debt from growing larger is to borrow more, create more new money, and spend more money (of which none of it is pork-barrel anymore).

  • But if you disagree, and you want E-Verify enforced, you are a selfish, heartless racist.

  • But if you disagree, and you think the federal and non-federal debt is untenable and growing it bigger makes no sense, and you pose questions about inflation, debt, centuries to pay down, and the absolutely dismal math, your questions are ignored.

  • But if you disagree, and say there is pork-barrel, the definition of pork-barrel changes such that it no longer exists.

  • But if you disagree, you must be demented, deficient, or evil in some way.

  • But if you disagree, it’s the highway for you, if it’s not the IN-PARTY way.
It would all be funny if it weren’t so serious.

Many of the very same people who railed against the previous IN-PARTY using those tactics, are now many of the very same people doing it on behalf of the new IN-PARTY.
What become very apparent is that many who railed against the previous EXTREME were simply waiting for the pendulum to swing back to THEIR EXTREME, where:

  • Extreme #1: One extreme wants regressive taxation, unfettered capitalism and freedom to explore and wallow in every manifestation of unchecked greed (which we have seen plenty of lately).

  • Extreme #2: The other extreme wants a nanny-state with citizens increasingly dependent on the government; with massive cradle-to-grave government programs (which are usually severely mismanaged) that nurture a sense of entitlement and dependency on government; wants to grow government ever larger (despite the already current nightmare proportions); rewards failure and laziness; and perpetuates the myth that we can somehow all live at the expense of everyone else.
Partisan loyalties are powerfully strong, and there are actually simple, basic, fundamental reasons to explain it. It is rooted basically rooted in selfishness and laziness. It’s easier to let someone else do the thinking, to pull the party-lever, to conform to the IN-PARTY consensus, to go-along-to-get-along, … at least until that all finally becomes too painful. And it (almost) aways does eventually. It runs in cycles (revolution, civil are, Great Depression, etc.). What was the root problem in each of those crises? But too few are willing to admit it until there is sufficient pain and misery to provide adequate motivation.

And the new OUT-PARTY is doing the same old crap as the previous OUT-PARTY, such as trying to undermine everything the IN-PARTY wants.
And the new IN-PARTY and its minions seem to want us to believe that new OUT-PARTY, by undermining the new IN-PARTY, is doing something the previous OUT-PARTY never did.
It’s sad, and proves that too many Americans love THEIR party and THEIR favorite politician(s) more than their country … at least until that finally becomes too painful.

And there is a very strange silence about illegal immigration, costing most American tax payers an estimated $70-to-$327 Billion annually in net losses (not even including the untold cost of crime). It’s fascinating (and sad) how partisan objectives trump national interests … at least until that finally becomes too painful. So don’t worry Roy. Eventually, when things get bad enough, the two party duopoly will most likely be ousted by the hundreds as they were in years 1927, 1929, 1931, and 1933 (when a whopping 206 members of Congress were voted-out of office (source: One-Simple-Idea.com/CongressMakeUp_1855_2011.htm).

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at March 27, 2009 02:05 PM
Comment #278919

Rhinehold, nice attempt at deception there in your comment.

The references you provide are all references (note the quote marks), to my original statement about mountain man ideology. Your are pulling quotes from the same article’s comment thread, in which my original statement about mountain man ideology became a topic for several comments referring to it.

However, I will defer in that several comments in the same thread to one article contain the words mountain man, and technically represents my reference to that concept several times.

As for your reference to my lie: “I am probably more versed in the history of the LP than you are. With Indiana as the LP’s birthplace and home of the rise of the KKK, the original intents of the LP still ring true today with their mantra of to each his own fortune make and if you happen to be Black, well, that’s your parents fault.”

My typing of word order was incorrect, referring to Indiana as the BP of the LP, when, clearly, Indiana was the BP of the KKK. I reversed the order. I should have written, and no doubt intended to write correctly, ‘With Indiana as the KKK’s birthplace and home of the rise of the LP, the original intents of the LP still ring true today with their mantra of to each his own fortune make and if you happen to be Black, well, that’s your parents fault.”

That is a factually correct statement, and the nouns were mistakenly transposed. That was an accident in typing, not a lie. As reversing the transposed nouns makes that references in that part of the sentence true.

I thank you for giving me the opportunity to review and correct that misstyped statement for the record.

There were many local racist organizations throughout the country at the turn of the 20th century, and several of them called themselves KKK in differing locales. But, the birth place of the national organization of the KKK, as reported by the FBI, was Indiana, Rhinehold. You can verify that if you choose.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 27, 2009 02:21 PM
Comment #278920

Rhinehold said: “Your ‘objectivity’ on the LP is laughable.”

My traits, qualities, or characteristics are not open for critique on this web site, as the rules clearly state. If you wish to critique the objectivity contained within my comments, that is fine. But, critiquing MY objectivity, will result in your comment privileges being suspended as a violation of WB’s rules.

Critique the message, not the messenger.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 27, 2009 02:27 PM
Comment #278924
David R. Remer wrote:
  • d.a.n said: “But just because there is no other plan doesn’t mean the current plan is any better than no plan. In fact, it could be worse.”
In the hypothetical, it could be. True enough. The majority of Americans so far, however, in this real world circumstance, don’t believe this is the case with the Obama administration.
Not true, based on polls. For example …

Some Polling Report polls (2/20-22/09) shows the following (source: www.pollingreport.com/budget.htm)

    Regardless of whether you favor or oppose the economic stimulus bill that Congress passed, do you think it would have been better for the government to spend more money to stimulate the economy, better for the government to spend less money, or is the amount of spending in the bill about right?”
    • Better to Spend More: 14%
    • Better to Spend Less: 41%
    • About Right: 40%
    • Unsure: 1%
    In thinking about the trade-offs between spending government money to improve the economy versus adding considerable amounts of money to the federal debt, which do you think is the greater risk: spending too little to improve the economy or adding too much to the federal debt?”
    • Spending too little: 37%
    • Adding too much to debt: 59%
    • About Right: 4%
    “Regardless of whether you favor or oppose the steps the government has taken in recent months to address economic problems, how worried are you about each of the following: very worried, somewhat worried, not too worried, or not worried at all? How about [see below]?”
      “The amount of money being added to the federal debt”:
    • Very worried: 54%
    • Somewhat worried: 28%
    • Not too worried: 11%
    • Not at all worried: 5%
    • Unsure: 1%
      “The possibility these steps might not work and the economy will get worse”:
    • Very worried: 46%
    • Somewhat worried: 37%
    • Not too worried: 11%
    • Not at all worried: 6%
    • Unsure: 1%
      “The possibility that increased government borrowing could produce inflation”:
    • Very worried: 43%
    • Somewhat worried: 35%
    • Not too worried: 14%
    • Not at all worried: 6%
    • Unsure: 2%
      “The increasing role of the government in the U.S. economy”:
    • Very worried: 34%
    • Somewhat worried: 35%
    • Not too worried: 19%
    • Not at all worried: 10%
    • Unsure: 2%
So, most people polled seem to be against growing the debt larger. And it’s extremely unlikely that GDP growth (which is currently negative) will outpace the debt growth under the current strategy of growing debt much larger.
David R. Remer wrote: One either believes in democracy and therefore trusts it, or one does not. The majority are not always right. But, majority consensus usually is over the long run.
OHHHHhhhhhh … I left that off my list above.

  • But if you disagree, you must not believe in democracy, and have no trust in democracy.
  • UUMMMMMMmmm … does that poll above reveal majority consensus.
    So, obviously, a vote for Obama does not equate to a consensus on all policies.

    By the way, we aren’t supposed to be a pure democracy.
    We are supposed to be a democratic republic.

    Any way, you are right that Obama and his administration have the power to do what they want, just as Bush did, and those before them.
    But just because people have the power to do what they want does not equate to a consensus, and your logic is therefore flawed in that respect.
    If you are trying to call others’ disagreement unpatriotic, or obstructionist, or portray them as haters of America, then that sort of rhetoric and tactics is just as pathetic as the same rhetoric and tactics used by the previous IN-PARTY.

    David R. Remer wrote: BTW, I reject those who are now becoming very vocal in the media exercising scare tactics about Obama’s budget costing 10 trillion dollars in additional national debt over the next 10 years.
    We will see. The budget isn’t final yet is it?
    David R. Remer wrote: The budget Obama is presenting is for ONE, note that, ONE year, and this one budget for this one year adds 1.4 trillion dollars to the national debt.
    I read $1.8 Trillion for year 2009 (source: www.dollarsandsense.org/blog/2009/02/obamas-17-trn-deficit-first-budget.html)

    But these days, what’s a few hundred billion?

    David R. Remer wrote: Next year’s budget will be fashioned around next years data and circumstances, which can be vastly improved or vastly worse than this year, as a comparison of our economic forecast in March of 2008 compared to March of 2009, illustrates amply. Or fer even starker contrast, Mar. 2007 and Mar. 2008. NO ONE can predict what the economic circumstances will be in five years, let alone 10. So, all this B.S. about Obama’s budget adding 10 trillion dollars to the national debt over the next 10 years is pure B.S. and falsely based scare tactics.
    Again, we will see.

    Obama says he will cut the annual deficit to 50% by 2012.
    Others say the National Debt could grow to $20.3 Trillion by 2019 unless major cuts in spending are made somewhere.
    By the way, total federal tax receipts for 2009 are expected to be down to $2.1 Trillion (down from $2.4 Trillion in year 2007).

    Personally, I don’t think a $600 Billion deficit (in 2009 dollars) by year 2012 is a lot to brag about, and not good at all if the current debt is already untenable.

    Any way, 10 years from now is probably too long to predict with any decent level of accuracy.
    But with 52 consecutive years of deficit spending and incessant inflation already, voters are justified to be worried.
    And based on the polls above, they are worried.
    And based on the polls above, merely voting for someone does not equate to a consensus on policies.

    David R. Remer wrote: CBO estimates assume no full recovery in economic activity (by 2007 standards) anywhere in the foreseeable future, and build there federal revenue estimates on that assumption. In reality however, if the pattern in history following recessions holds true going forward, the economic activity growth over the next 5 years could be huge, and generate vastly more revenues than CBO currently estimates.
    Perhaps, but not likely, because there’s one big difference between most past recessions and today:
    • BOTH total federal and total non-federal debt that are both larger than ever before in size, per-capita, and as a percentage of GDP.
    David R. Remer wrote: It is important for sanity and rationality, for folks to recognize that those who claim to know the future are charlatans at the very least.
    OHHHHhhhhhh … I left that off my list above.
    • But if you disagree, you must be a charlatan.
    David R. Remer wrote: Those who work and hope for a better future are the ones to listen to and follow. The power of self-fulfilling prophecy should not be dismissed.
    OHHHHhhhhhh … that was on my list.
    • But if you disagree, you must a sad human being with no hope (despite hoping for other better solutions).
    • But if you disagree, you must hate the United States.
    • But if you disagree, you must be a whiner and you don’t have any solutions of your own.
    • But if you disagree, you are told there are no better solutions (which is false), or other solutions are impossible.
    • But if you disagree, you are Dr. Doom & Gloom, Chicken Little, or Mr. Sky-is-Falling.
    • But if you disagree, you are not one of the people that want a better future; you should not be listened to or followed.

    But, I guess we can add the following …

    • But if you disagree, you must want a self-fullfilling prophecy of doom to come true.

    If there ever was any nonsensiccal “clap trap”, it’s that sort of demonizing of any dissenters (as above).

    How that $#!+ works, when the IN-PARTY and OUT-PARTY swap places, would be funny if it weren’t so sad.
    It is disappointing to see some people now fueling and wallowing in the petty, circular, partisan warfare, and also resorting to the same sorry, lame, tactics the OTHER party used when it had the majority, to demonize dissenters (especially dissenters with other solutions, numerous reasons for concerns of the current path, and many unanwered questions).

    At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

    Posted by: d.a.n at March 27, 2009 02:58 PM
    Comment #278928
    Rhinehold, nice attempt at deception there in your comment.

    There has been no deception.

    The references you provide are all references (note the quote marks), to my original statement about mountain man ideology. Your are pulling quotes from the same article’s comment thread, in which my original statement about mountain man ideology became a topic for several comments referring to it.

    Um, no. Let’s list them again.

    You displayed a comment in article number 5675 (LP Platform: Freedom of Religion)

    I then pull comments from article number 5913 (Mike Gravel - Libertarian), 5384 (Change: Accept It, Manage It.) and 6435 (No Retreat, No Surrender, Just a lot of Friendly Fire). These are all three separate articles, two in the midle column and the last in the blue column.

    So, again you are wrong.

    However, I will defer in that several comments in the same thread to one article contain the words mountain man, and technically represents my reference to that concept several times.

    As I pointed out, this is factually incorrect. You made the comment in the comments section of at least 4 different articles, 3 directed at me, and I found references in other articles that I did not post.

    As for your reference to my lie: “I am probably more versed in the history of the LP than you are. With Indiana as the LP’s birthplace and home of the rise of the KKK, the original intents of the LP still ring true today with their mantra of to each his own fortune make and if you happen to be Black, well, that’s your parents fault.”

    My typing of word order was incorrect, referring to Indiana as the BP of the LP, when, clearly, Indiana was the BP of the KKK. I reversed the order. I should have written, and no doubt intended to write correctly, ‘With Indiana as the KKK’s birthplace and home of the rise of the LP, the original intents of the LP still ring true today with their mantra of to each his own fortune make and if you happen to be Black, well, that’s your parents fault.”

    That is a factually correct statement, and the nouns were mistakenly transposed. That was an accident in typing, not a lie. As reversing the transposed nouns makes that references in that part of the sentence true.

    Well, let me point out where you are wrong AGAIN.

    Six middle-class Confederate veterans from Pulaski, Tennessee, created the original Ku Klux Klan on December 24, 1865, in the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War.

    In an 1867 meeting in Nashville, Tennessee, Klan members gathered to try to create a hierarchical organization with local chapters eventually reporting up to a national headquarters. While they were there they voted for Brian A. Scates to be the Leader and President of this organization.

    The second Klan rose in response to urbanization and industrialization, massive immigration from eastern and southern Europe, the Great Migration of African Americans to the North, and the migration of African Americans and whites from rural areas to Southern cities. The Klan grew most rapidly in cities which had high growth rates between 1910 and 1930, such as Detroit, Memphis, Dayton, Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston.

    Tennesee and Indiana are somewhat close to each other (Kentucky provides a bit of a buffer) but I’m sorry, that is not good enough.

    Pulaski, TN even had a plaque stating this up until 1990. If you have evidence to the contrary, I would, as a Hoosier, LOVE to see it. Could you provide this for me?

    Secondly you say that the LP rose in popularity in Indiana. While there are a fair number of libertarians in Indiana, the states of Colorado, Alaska and New Hampshire far exceed Indiana in the LP’s popularity.

    You continue to make an attempt to equate the LP with the KKK and racism, which is despicable.

    There were many local racist organizations throughout the country at the turn of the 20th century, and several of them called themselves KKK in differing locales. But, the birth place of the national organization of the KKK, as reported by the FBI, was Indiana, Rhinehold. You can verify that if you choose.

    Well, no where on any searching on the internet shows me anything but Pulaski, TN as the birthplace of the KKK. Again, if you have other evidence that I do not have access too, I would love to see it. I do not expect to see you say you were wrong though…

    However, beyond the factual errors in both the LP and the KKK’s birthplace, your attempt to tie the two organizations together was, and still is, abhorrent, disgusting and offensive.

    Posted by: Rhinehold at March 27, 2009 03:23 PM
    Comment #278933

    Chad, thank you for your thoughtful response to the article.

    Obama and Congress are doing something about the banking system. Obama is continuing the rescue effort to insure that the financial institutions who so royally screwed up in the management of their own affairs and those of their shareholders, are not permitted to bring the entire economy to its knees as well, affecting most Americans in very difficult ways.

    And Congress is conducting hearings and getting feedback on proposed rule and oversight changes proposed by the Obama administration, industry leaders, and consumer groups before legislating changes designed to prevent this from happening again, until those ignorant of history rise to power again and reverse the safeguards put in place, again, as Gramm-Leach-Bliley, all but 8 Senators and Pres. Clinton did. Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are destined to repeat them.

    It is true, that financial industry leaders have been brought into the Obama administration to administer agencies responsible for oversight and regulation of the financial industry. But, let me ask you this. Would you bring in a carpenter to oversee quality control and ethical obligations of doctors? Of course not.

    One more thing. Take a carpenter. He can build a house of wood that will stand for centuries. Or, he can build a house of wood for a movie production that can be blown to smithereens for a shot with little more than a bundle of firecrackers. Same carpenter, same skills, same knowledge. Only difference is the mission for which he was hired. The same can be said of Geithner and Summers, Obama’s treasury and economic advisors. When paid by Goldman Sachs, they will maximize profits for Goldman Sachs. That is the job for which they were hired. And they demonstrated they were knowledgeable about how to do that. When paid by the Obama administration to oversee and regulate the financial industry to insure their profit motives do not exceed their legal and ethical requirements, they are equally knowledgeable and capable of that job as well.

    Both of these men could profit far more working in the private sector than in their current government positions. It is a safe bet, they are in these government agency positions with the best and most honorable intentions to prevent our economy from collapsing under the weight of the greed motives of the private sector.

    You say the president is a puppet. This president, or all presidents without Ph.D’s in economics, relying upon their expert advisors from their fields of expertise. You could make a valid logical argument that all presidents are puppets of their advisors. But, that argument does not negate the president’s power to dictate the objectives to their advisors on the people’s behalf, and fire those persons who fail the President’s objectives, black marking their reputation and potentially their future careers.

    I am not so nearly concerned about Pres. Obama being a puppet in the hands of his economic advisors. Obama still controls what it is they are to achieve, the advisors merely influence how to achieve, and Congress and the courts will largely insure that how they achieve is by legal means. Obama’s directives are simple, rescue the economy from years of protracted credit freeze and recession. I am confident from what I have heard from Summers and Geithner in their testimony before Congressional committees, that they are seeking to accomplish Obama’s directives with the best of intentions and expertise their backgrounds can bring to the job.

    There was not much need for a federal reserve system prior to the industrial revolution and post Civil War era, when local banks could handle the lion’s share of business and consumer needs. With the advent however, of the industrial magnates mergers and acquisitions and the 1929 stock market crash and series of boom bust cycles since the Civil War, the Federal Reserve system or some body approximating its responsibilities became necessary and essential to the future growth of our nation’s economy.

    The fact that the Federal Reserve is independent and NOT subject to the political whims of President’s GW Bush and Barack Obama, is, trust me on this, a very, very much more positive quality of our Federal Reserve Banking system. Otherwise, presidents would be inextricably be pulled to manipulate the nation’s banking system for very short term reelection purposes, instead of the nation’s long term financial strength and resiliency in the face of economic challenges.

    I share your concerns regarding the globalized international corporation’s power to influence heads of state, congress’ and parliaments, for their own ends to the exclusion of the general welfare of the world’s people. That is a challenge for voter’s, politicians, and consumer advocacy associations to confront squarely and devise checks and balances for. But, there is an element of inevitability to the globalization of goods and services production and delivery and consumption with the rise of capitalism throughout all the world’s major nations, including China and now Russia.

    There is no such thing as a perfect economic system always in balance and harmony with the objective of the perfection of the human species. Economic systems function best which provide for the greatest social stability of nations with the least harm to individual dignity and welfare. And economic systems cannot be viewed or managed separately from the political framework which governs and enforces contractual obligations.

    Democratic political systems are far from perfect and carry within them horrible inefficiencies and failures to manage certain challenges optimally. The same can be said of capitalism, except in reverse. Capitalism carries within it the potential for extreme efficiencies in producing short term profitability for some at enormous long term cost for vastly larger numbers of others.

    Since, democracies will lean toward policies which appease the electorate masses, and capitalism leans toward appeasing the greed of much smaller numbers of captains of industry, the marrying of the two, so far, has proved to be the best check and balance marriage between political and economic systems. But, it will forever be a tempestuous marriage, with many fights and disappointments and failures of each other’s expectations of each other.

    As global communications and massive quantity transportation methodologies became reality, globalization through international corporatization of trade, became an inevitable evolution in human civilization. We can no more turn the clock back on globalization than we can turn the clock back in the U.S. on civil rights, universal suffrage, or the Federal Reserve System with the transition from a largely agrarian society to a largely industrialized urban society.

    It is the obligation of each generation to meet the challenges of the weaknesses inherent in the civilization structures handed them, or failing that, live through the destruction or collapse of their civilization opening the way for reinventing it from scratch, as has happened many times in human history. Such scenarios have been playing out at least since at least 4000 B.C. if you take cities to mean civilization, and 10,000 BC if you take organized, specialized occupational roles as the definition of civilization.

    Posted by: David R. Remer at March 27, 2009 03:46 PM
    Comment #278934

    Rhinehold, I made several references. It is a waste of my time to tit for your tat on who said what to whom and when. I concede I made several references to Libertarian Mountain Man ideology. Doesn’t negate the efficacy of the analogy between mountain men living relatively solitary lives having little need for society save for a market for their furs and rendevous with a prostitute to top off their trade, and Libertarian ideology that constantly attacks government on the basis of its people electing to aid and support their fellow citizens in times of need and crisis.

    The analogy is valid. Regardless of where or when it was made.

    Posted by: David R. Remer at March 27, 2009 03:54 PM
    Comment #278935

    Well, Rhinehold, thank you for alerting me to the many differing versions of the history of the KKK. Seems with all the revisionist history, we may never have a definitive resolution to our dispute over the birthplace of the national KKK organization. I will not be so declarative in assigning such a birthplace in the future, and I thank you for the opportunity to learn this. Goes to show, the History Channel and FBI are not the last word on history.

    Posted by: David R. Remer at March 27, 2009 03:58 PM
    Comment #278936

    So, which contradiction is true, Jim M? Does Remer believe the future is fine because Pres. Obama is at the helm as you say in your first quote above, or, does Remer hold a very bleak outlook for our country because Pres. Obama is at the helm as you state in your second quote above?

    Such contradictory passages in the same comment leave no routes to credibility. Thank you for participating however. But, beware of calling people at WB pompous. It violates WB’s rules. S
    Posted by: David R. Remer at March 27, 2009 01:58 PM

    Contradictory…hardly. That I don’t take ten paragraphs to make a point may confuse you by it’s simplicity. I summed up what I believe you wrote as; Obama’s way and hope for the best. Any other way is doomed. And…those who disagree with PO are “self-serving critics”.

    YOu caution me against using the word “pompous” to describe the messenger. Should I have written; “M. Remer’s message is “pompous”?

    Posted by: Jim M at March 27, 2009 04:02 PM
    Comment #278940

    M. Remer wrote; “To the extent that people are successful in obstructing the success of Pres. Obama’s policies and agenda,…our nation will surely suffer and fail in its common hopes and aspirations for our future”

    M. Remer also wrote on 9/12/06

    “Succumbing to fear and allowing it to dictate one’s decisions and actions is to give power to the fear and those who promote it. And for those Americans who wish to live free, giving power to our own government, which seeks to make us afraid, is as inherently dangerous as giving power to terrorists. For they both seek to deprive us of our liberty.”

    Hmmm. I wonder if anyone besides me would consider this contradictory?

    Posted by: Jim M at March 27, 2009 04:25 PM
    Comment #278943
    I concede I made several references to Libertarian Mountain Man ideology. Doesn’t negate the efficacy of the analogy between mountain men living relatively solitary lives having little need for society save for a market for their furs and rendevous with a prostitute to top off their trade, and Libertarian ideology that constantly attacks government on the basis of its people electing to aid and support their fellow citizens in times of need and crisis.

    The analogy is valid. Regardless of where or when it was made.

    Actually, it isn’t. Libertarians (not anarch-capitalists) very much want to live in society, a free society, with everyone else. When someone needs help they are most often than most the first ones to lend a hand. It is the use of the government to force these interactions, because of the nature of how they have to occur and who is doing the forcing, that they oppose. Not the helping, but the use of force to do so.

    Take my Underwriters Labratories example, why can’t the FDA work like UL, as a private organization, that does not force people to go through black market means to get their untested foods and drugs but would give them the choice, an INFORMED choice, about those items? Why force people to be charitable when even after we are doing that forcing people are STILL willing to give to charity to do so? Want to have the Government direct those funds because you, as a statist, think the federal government is the most efficient way of doing that? Then fine, let the money going for those actions be voluntary, not forced, and let the government be the directing force of that charity. You don’t want that because the idea is not helping people, it is forcing others to help if you are going to. Which is, IMO, selfish.

    Your analogy is not only incorrect but it is also insulting. It displays a complete lack of understanding about the basis of the LP and their values, which has been my point all along. You seem to have determined that, since the party is in direct opposition to how you think things should be, that they are a bunch of racist isolationist xenophobes that should be ridiculed and denigrated every chance that you get. It is no different than the republican who calls all democrats communists or the democrat who calls all the republicans racist fascists. There is no place in the discourse for such incorrect generalities that miss the mark in logic and reality.

    And I’ll say it again as simply as I can. Not wanting the federal government to control everything with their singular right to use force on the citizenry is not the same as wanting to be divested from society. Society != Government, we can and have many interactions between us that are not predicated on being able to lock someone away with the threat of death.

    And the fact that we now have 10% of our population in jail is a pretty good example of how much that ‘right’ of the government has been used.

    Posted by: Rhinehold at March 27, 2009 05:03 PM
    Comment #278961

    Rhinehold said: “Actually, it isn’t. Libertarians (not anarch-capitalists) “

    And what about the Liberarian anarch-capitalists?

    This sounds like a distinction between between Republicans who are pro-choice and those who are anti-abortion. They are all still Republicans. They vote Republican.

    You continue to assert a definition for Libertarians which does not include many Libertarian voters. A party is what its constituents represent. A party platform does not make a political party. The commonly held values and priorities of those values amongst that party’s voters is what defines a party. Party platforms don’t vote. Party voters do. A party is its constituents.

    My mountain men reference did NOT refer to people who can’t stand other people, but, people whose independent lifestyles shape their intolerance for democratic assistance by the majority to individuals in need in their society. Just as Mountain Men mythology posits that mountain men didn’t look to others for their livlihood or rescue if facing imminent death. The analogy holds.

    To oppose the will of the majority is to generally oppose democratic decision making, whether that decision making occurs at the legislative level or amongst the electorate in a referendum or popular election of a candidate making certain promises on policy if elected.

    Libertarians make all kinds of statements that disregard the validity of the democratic process, despite the Constitution embracing democratic processes in various aspects of the government which it calls forth.

    Posted by: David R. Remer at March 27, 2009 07:06 PM
    Comment #278962

    Rhinehold said: “And I’ll say it again as simply as I can. Not wanting the federal government to control everything with their singular right to use force on the citizenry”

    There your comment goes with unfactual hyperbolic statements. The federal government does not control everything. Does it control when you crap in your own home? Does it choose what foods you must eat at meal time? Does it choose what mode of transportation you must use?

    Make your comment factual and specific, Rhinehold. What aspect of federal government control do you oppose and why? Which is another way of asking what aspect of our democratic representative government do you oppose and why?

    Posted by: David R. Remer at March 27, 2009 07:10 PM
    Comment #278966

    d.a.n.,
    You said about all the rediculous accusations, “It would all be funny if it weren’t so serious.” That made me laugh, which actually made them all very funny. And thank you for reading all the way through, I am use to people just overlooking my longer posts.

    Posted by: chad at March 27, 2009 07:21 PM
    Comment #278979

    Jim M asked: “Should I have written; “M. Remer’s message is “pompous”?”

    Yes, quite right! That would be in keeping with WB’s most clearly stated rule, Critique the Message, not the Messenger.

    Posted by: David R. Remer at March 27, 2009 08:18 PM
    Comment #278980

    David R. Remer,
    I really can’t argue with anything that you said. You have a wonderful way of putting things out that must be aknowledged as excellent. That isn’t to say I completely agree with you. The idea that we are ultimately responsible for what happens, I agree with. The idea that these guys took these positions of power to save the US out of their own patriotism seems like a bit of a stretch. These people have already made their money for the most part and took these posts for the prestige it gives them after they get out of their posts in 4-8 years, or less. If they are connected to the banking industry and look to secure the Fed insured banks spot in our marketplace, then those banks owe these people a great deal. After these people leave their positions they will either retire or assimilate back into the banking industry, and benifit from the economic climate they helped restore/create. So, to say they are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, is a bit of a stretch in my eyes.

    As fas the, “We can no more turn the clock back on globalization than we can turn the clock back in the U.S. on civil rights, universal suffrage, or the Federal Reserve System with the transition from a largely agrarian society to a largely industrialized urban society,” comment. I beg to differ. People will go where the money is and as long as the government encourages urbanization and globalization it will generate the largest amount of money and participation. If the government gave more of an economic incentive for people to move into the aggricultural realm, rather than promote corporate aggriculture, maybe we could take a step back. But there is not a consolidated lobby that can rival the corporate lobby. Money once again dictating our direction as a people through the whims of a coporate over-class. I can see that you have an inner power to keep faith in the constitution that got us to here and feel that it’s ability to keep the checks and balences in place are worth your faith. But as you pointed out there were presidents that existed before the Fed that had to deal with economic peril. The thing is that industrialization created greater diversity in the marketplace, or greater diversity of interests. Lobbyists went from cotton growers and corn growers, to iron refiners and railroad companies. This change in the industrial climate caused new money to have a greater influence in politics. It wasn’t the will of the people to create the Fed, it was the will of the Fed. Wlson apologized for his actions in 1926, he said he should have never signed the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. We had a succession of weak presidents from Abe Lincoln until TR. After TR we had presidents that slowly gained more and more executive powers. The political climate has change dramatically in America over the last 100-150 years, and the responsiblities/powers of the president have altered just as much. Ike said we neede to watch out for the industrial-war-complex. Now it is in full operation. The people didn’t vote for war, they just got it. Why? Could it be that there is a private sector manufacturing war making devices that can only turn a great profit when there is a war, so they have a lobby promoting consumption of their products? Globalization perpetuates change, no doubt. Is Obama just as neo-jingoist? Was W? Does our country have a jingoist outlook? I can’t say we are or are not.
    The government has been overtaken by private interest groups that suggest actions based on their company’s/industry’s capablities. The politicians then act as delegates to decide what we would choose out of all of these choices if we were in their position. Money and campaign contributions play an active role in deciding which to choose, just as it would if we were in their position. We would want money to get re-elected. The US has selfish people running it, who look at their political views as a carreer choice. Not a responsibility granted to them by their like minded people. The politicians in power today want to be there because of the power they are granted with their position. “Would you bring in a carpenter to oversee quality control and ethical obligations of doctors?” I guess it would depend on what that carpenter thought about moals and obligations. I know you were trying to point out how people in one industry should not be placed to oversee an industry they should know nothing about. I get it, but we don’t know how these people look at our civil liberties, and how the view freedom, or where their loyalties truly lay. I would rather a regular guy who doesn’t know exactly what is going on who is of the people, than a guy who knows exactly what is up and wishes to keep things status quo, while he lines the pockets of the people in his squash club. Wouldn’t you rather have a guy that is looking to line your pockets, who has an allegiance to the common man? An Ivy leaguer probably doesn’t know what it is like to be common, or what a common person would want.
    Finally, “But, there is an element of inevitability to the globalization of goods and services production and delivery and consumption with the rise of capitalism throughout all the world’s major nations, including China and now Russia.” You are right, you are 100% right, those countries have willingly adopted our idea. Our large amounts of money made them do it. We also didn’t have to attack them and make them do it either. If we want to branch out and have a larger market and be the leader in creating a broader marketplace then it should be in the open and given to the people to decide on it’s direction. It is sad to me that we can do nothing but vote for people to make decisions for us rather than vote for what our people do for us. I have always imagined a world where we are connected to our reps, and they communicate with us daily and show us their work. This is just a dream, then I wake up.

    Posted by: chad at March 27, 2009 08:24 PM
    Comment #278987

    Chad, thank you for the compliment.

    When you say: “These people have already made their money for the most part and took these posts for the prestige it gives them after they get out of their posts in 4-8 years, or less.” referring to Obama’s economic advisors from Wall St., I have to ask myself if doctors, very well paid indeed, are doctors only for the prestige and money they will accumulate over their careers? Or, in addition to the money and prestige, they also truly want to heal people?

    If money and prestige were all that motivated Summers and Geithner, there was far more of that to be had in the present in the private sector without ever risking their reputations on the public spotlight of a political position which carries the responsibility for the welfare of the entire of nation. The most important crucial thing I learned from college education was what knowledge there was out there that I didn’t know. Learning what I don’t know far, far outweighed what I did learn.

    And I don’t think people like Geithner or Summers are unaware of the risks to their reputation and integrity posed by taking the positions they did. Why take such risks for less pay, unless one is committed to excellence in the responsibilities associated with that role, which is the only means of insuring their reputation upon leaving it?

    I just can’t fathom Obama selecting individuals such as these based on their self-serving motives. Nor, can I fathom Obama having selected these individuals on the basis of their ego needs. Obama’s reputation rests on their counsel and advice and insights. Seems to me, Obama would have selected the very most competent and responsible people available for these positions. Not knowing either of these men personally, I will defer to Obama’s judgment on having selected persons who are committed to rescuing and enhancing this critical economy for the benefit of the nation and all her citizen’s best interests.

    That said, Chad, I cannot ever forget the Peter Principle, which says that people will rise in their careers to their level of incompetence, where their rise will abruptly cease to rise because of their incompetence. Geithner and Summers may prove to be incompetent when all is said and done. Time will tell.

    I think one can make a logical argument that any economic advisor to FDR would have been at least somewhat incompetent in addressing the Great Depression, since no one in living memory had ever tackled such a monumental reconstruction of a failed economy. I think one could make a similar argument for today.

    Einstein was viewed as an incompetent student, before he mastered the theory of relativity, and again after he attempted a unified theory which rejected the evidence of quantum mechanics. When dealing in areas of the unknown and probability, everyone is incompetent to some extent, until experience and conversion of the unknown to the known, is accomplished.

    You said you differ with me on: “As fas the, “We can no more turn the clock back on globalization than we can turn the clock back in the U.S. on civil rights, universal suffrage, or the Federal Reserve System with the transition from a largely agrarian society to a largely industrialized urban society,” comment. I beg to differ.”

    OK, we differ on this one. That’s fine. But, I see no evidence whatsoever of any nation or consensus of people in any nation, seeking to turn the clock back on globalization. There is the world of what we wish, and then there is reality. In reality, there is no evidence of any movement with the power to undo globalization.

    That is not to say undoing globalization is not possible. It most certainly is. A meteor strike which reduces the human population by 80% would certainly do it. Global nuclear war would certainly do it. And a global economic depression lasting a decade or more would likely do it. None of these would scenarios for really turning the globalization clock back, would be my first choice however, nor yours I suspect.

    You said: “It wasn’t the will of the people to create the Fed, it was the will of the Fed.

    I’m sorry, my history books say it was an act of Congress (will of the people) and the President of the day, that created the Federal Reserve Banking System. Perhaps the apparent difference in perspective lies in semantics. If one sees Congress and the President as bought and paid for throughout history by the wealthy special interests, then one could make logically true the statement that the Fed created the Fed.

    But, if the premise were true that Congress and presidents have always been the puppets of the wealthy special interests, then how is it the Glass Steagal Act ever passed, or the SEC, or the IG office within the SEC? These were surely not the voluntary acts of the corporate puppeteers.

    I think one has to accept that evidence that politicians can be influenced by the corporate world and they can be influenced by the electorate, and they can be influenced by the sincere desire to make this nation greater than it was. And which of these influences has sway over Congressional or Presidential actions depends very much on the unique circumstances and point of history in which they find themselves at the moment that decide in favor of one influence over the others.

    I think the Federal Reserve System was created by Congress and the President because the previous banking system had so failed the nation and the Congress and the previous President. Various options were debated and discussed from many vantage points, not just those of Wall St. Bankers, and a consensus was reached.

    That consensus was that a politically independent (or as politically independent as possible), organization be created with a board of governors of regional banks whom were disallowed by penalty of law, from having any personal vested interests in the banks and financial institutions they were to govern, to govern and oversee the continued solvency of the banking system and insure that the economy continued to have access to readily available capital for loans, mergers and acquisitions, and business start ups, thus helping to insure the future stability of the economy and banking system hence forth.

    Has the Federal Reserve Board of Governors made some bad calls in its history? You bet. There is no guarantee that consensus will always produce the right answers. Only that consensus will generally produce more consistently right answers than any one individual, political party, or president.

    Greenspan was enormously influential over his board of governors, having only a couple of dissenters in the group. Hence, when Greenspan got it wrong, so did the entire Federal Reserve system. Ben Bernanke is not nearly so lucky. Ben Bernanke stepped into a board of governors reticent to accept Bernanke’s lean or opinion without evidence. Group Think is not all that uncommon in organizations and gets the best of them from time to time.

    Like the 92 Senators who voted for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999 or 98. One dissenting Senator then in public that passage of this bill will likely result in the government having to bail out the banking system in 10 years. I forget that Senator’s name at the moment, but, he was spot on, and ignored by 92 other Senators and Pres. Bill Clinton.

    Posted by: David R. Remer at March 27, 2009 09:55 PM
    Comment #278997

    David R. Remer,
    You said, “That is not to say undoing globalization is not possible. It most certainly is. A meteor strike which reduces the human population by 80% would certainly do it.” I literally laughed out loud when I read that. I can see we do not see eye to eye on the legitimacy of the government and the politicians set to represent us. You, like I said before, have faith that their motives are somewhat righteous, whereas I do not. I think the Dr. analogy was a bit of a stretch but I know some doctors who have some questionable motives. The motives of a plastic surgeon won’t be in alignment with the motives of a pediatricion, just saying.
    I really want to agree with you and I really want to believe what you are saying, but the military took that away from me. I lost hope in our government and now I just want our rights to be restored to the glory that those before us must have relished in. I wish we could walk down the street without fear of being harassed by the police. Sadly my education is just begining and I am not as well read as you are. You have a great manner in expressing your points, that make me want to just agree with you. But I don’t. Which is absolutely fine with me, I really enjoy reading your opinions because I think your concepts have merit.
    You said, “I cannot ever forget the Peter Principle, which says that people will rise in their careers to their level of incompetence, where their rise will abruptly cease to rise because of their incompetence. Geithner and Summers may prove to be incompetent when all is said and done.” I fear it may be at our expense. It already may be. We really don’t know what all of this cash pumped into our economy is going to do. If the Weimar Republic can be compared to us then maybe we should worry. I don’t know if that is a stretch or not. I am not certain what the motives were for the printing of those deustche marks, but it did bring about hyperinflation due to the lack of a gold standard. Do you consider the USD to be a fiat currency that can fall as the deustche mark did, or do you think that American industry acts as a proper backing for our currency? I don’t. I think in 12 months those people who don’t have tangible assets like gold and silver are going to be screwed.
    You don’t have to answer this if you don’t want to, but where did you go to college? I am in the market for a university and I don’t really want to stay in Texas. My history prof is a genius, who got his doctorate from Rice and said with the proper GPA (I have a 4.0 at the moment) he would be able to get us (the Honors students) in if we really wanted. I thought about California but that is so expensive, and Columbia keeps sending me stuff, I am torn. I was wondering what you think of the collegiate education system. I know this is way off topic but the college comment got me thinking about it again. U of H i can walk into, know Mizzou would take me in a heartbeat, I love Colorado, I just don’t know what to pick. It is somewhat rediculous that I am even asking you, a stranger for advice on this, but I am lost. I don’t know if I should try New York and attempt to get that Columbia degree or go to Colorado and hope I don’t go skiing one time and decide to just stay. This whole economic crisis… I am sorry for rambling on about this but it has been on my mind a lot lately. Everybody keeps saying try to do the Columbia thing and if that doesn’t workout do the Rice thing, if all else fails just pick a state college. This doesn’t help me.
    You said, “if the premise were true that Congress and presidents have always been the puppets of the wealthy special interests, then how is it the Glass Steagal Act ever passed, or the SEC, or the IG office within the SEC? These were surely not the voluntary acts of the corporate puppeteers.” Very true, unless they know they can put who they choose in those positions, via the aforementioned puppets. Like I said before, I think that there is a large conglomerate of powerful people who use the government and the media to manipulate public opinion of the government. In order to hide what is really conspiring behind closed doors. I feel like we’ve been sold out by our own people and the banks are the core of the problem, with Wall St. corporations being a close second due to their allegiance to the stockholder. We all should have a greater allegiance to the dollar than anything else, but Wall St. looks at the dollar like it is meaningless, because even if it falls their stocks will still be worth money. Actually more money due to inflation. Maybe I’m am wrong. I don’t think so, but maybe.

    Posted by: chad at March 28, 2009 02:26 AM
    Comment #278998

    David,
    In response to ypur comment to Rhinehold #278962 I do believe that you and Mr. Rhinehold need to consider something. For why I will not speak for him or anyone else, I do wonder if President Obama is going to side with Big Business instead of the Individual when it comes to making America Enrgy Independent.

    For why you two can debate the pros and cons of having the Hierarchy of Society and Parents using the Establishment of the Late 60’s and Early 70’s. IMHO, I do see where a shack-up on Wall Street and in Washington could do My Peers and Their Children good. Because if you two can get past that point, isn’t there Hope for Americas’ Democratic and Republican Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders?

    Chad,
    Keep the Faith! For our Elected Officials are not wrong. Their just Politically Ignorant.

    Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 28, 2009 03:22 AM
    Comment #279000

    “We have it in our power to begin the world over again.”
    -Thomas Paine-

    Posted by: chad at March 28, 2009 04:09 AM
    Comment #279016

    Chad, some good political educational articles at this site. Look for essential reading tab on left hand side main page.

    http://www.hearmythunder.org


    Posted by: Roy Ellis at March 28, 2009 11:01 AM
    Comment #279074

    Henry said: “I do wonder if President Obama is going to side with Big Business instead of the Individual when it comes to making America Enrgy Independent.”

    Me too, Henry. So, far I hear him talking about macro energy generation primarily by corporate energy providers, far more than micro energy generation in which homeowners provide the bulk of their own energy sources, wind, geo-thermal, and solar heat and electricity generation. Where is his discussion of subsidizing, and thereby driving down the cost through economies of scale and competitive pricing, the individual homeowners and small businesses who are willing and desirous to install energy generation products for their residences and small businesses?

    It would be a one time government investment per household or small business, that would pay the economy dividends in perpetuity of the property, driving the overall economic cost for energy way down in the long term.

    Given that taxes will have to go up in the future to pay down the national debt, reducing the costs of living for energy is a perfect compensatory economic strategy for insuring those tax increases do not make worker’s poorer in the future, by lowering the net monthly outlays for energy by at least the amount of tax increases.

    I think I will submit this idea to Obama through their public input website. Thanks for the comment and idea.

    Posted by: David R. Remer at March 28, 2009 08:29 PM
    Comment #279082

    Chad, regarding colleges. Specific colleges or universities will be more beneficial to certain professional careers than others. If one is aspiring to be a Chief Justice, Harvard should likely be one’s target, though I doubt all Chief Justices began their undergrad work at Harvard.

    If one knows what one’s major is, then selecting the best school for that major is a relatively easy look up, by determining the school most of the recognized professionals in that field were schooled at.

    If however, one does not know what one’s major shall be, there are two strategies. Shoot for the best schools in the country if one can afford to and qualify for them, or, go cheap, and attend a local in state university or college or even community college for the first 2 years, until one decides on one’s major. Transferring from lesser known colleges to top notch universities is not a problem provided one’s grades, SAT scores, and personal recommendations are top notch. Save a bundle with this latter strategy.

    I attended junior colleges for a year, and then transferred to University of Texas at San Antonio majoring in psychology. However, upon graduation, I had more hours in philosophy matriculated than in psychology and sociology. That was due to a pair of philosophy professors who were there briefly of the highest caliber. One was a genius with 3 Ph.D’s by the age of 32 if I recall correctly and his B.A. before he was 20. He needed to write a book and left Harvard to teach at UTSA so he would have a light teaching load with sufficient income to afford him the time to write his book. Incredible fortunate timing for me that I chose his class for one of elective requirements. I took every philosophy course he taught that I could before graduation. He had a Ph.D in physics, philosophy, and something else, I forget what.

    The more I learn of human history, the more I move away from black and white, this or that, perspectives, in favor of views which involve taking in the dynamics and fluidity of influences in the sociological, cultural, political, and economic processes of a given people at a given time of human evolution.

    Attempts to nail down a perfect economic system, I no longer view as a productive exercise. Same with political and psychological health systems. There are negative and positive influences in all these areas of human activity. I don’t mean negative and positive in the good and evil sense, but, in the sense of resistance to change and improvement and demand for change and improvement. At any given time in a society, its population can be categorized into these two camps on any given issue, as can the structural components of that society, (the government vs. the people in a tug of war over change and status quo or even reversion as in the case of many Libertarians and so called, strict Constitutionalists.)

    These larger more general groups seek the same ends, but are individually predisposed toward differing means depending on factors like age, income group, education level and in what field, along with a near infinite number of other variables, like learning capacity, childhood indoctrination and role models, etc.

    Within those groups however, are the leaders of the groups, and that is where the most productive study can be obtained. And within these smaller leadership groups, a host of other factors come into play like personal and organizational values, which constrain or liberate their possible choice set of behaviors and activities which they will employ to achieve their group’s or personal objectives. These choice sets are often referred to as their principles, but, such principles, are rarely if ever immutable and immune from compromise, especially if failing to meet one’s objectives looms large.

    The more I study the details of the history and current events of these groups, the more drawn I am to employ a ying yang or taoist perspective on the direction and pace of historical events present and future. And the more I learn of the leaders of such positive and negative forces for social and cultural direction, the more I draw upon my education in psychology and sociology to explain the otherwise inexplicable in so many such leaders.

    I am afforded by these perspectives, a more holistic sense of understanding as an experience. Doesn’t mean my perspectives are intrinsically correct or right in any absolute way, only more satisfying in appeasing my appetite for understanding and making sense of my species and its actions at both the micro-individual and macro-international and time line levels of change.

    We are all changing in response to our lives and life in the societies in which we participate. Yet, we all have a sense of being the same person from birth to death. It is a paradox, just as applicable to national conscience and self-awareness as for the individuals, and is not easy for me to understand without a paradigm shift in perspective from discrete western empirical thought and measures. Yet, I rely upon the Ancient Greeks a lot for establishing first movers, and the underlying principles of what and why things are as they are.

    Knowledge itself seems to be subject to the Heisenburg Principle. To examine oneself is to alter the perception of oneself. To examine sociological, economic, political, and cultural causes and outcomes, alters the reality, too broad and infinite to grasp with a discrete mind, forcing one to either accept subsets of reality as the whole, and hence, subject to gross representational error, or, to shift perspective to one more holistic and capable of taking in the whole of it, and witnessing the direction of the snake and not being confused by the sideward directional movements of its body’s segments, mistaking them for the direction of the snake, their being angular and even perpendicular to true direction of the snake’s whole.

    I see evolution and progress extending from the pre-Big Bang to the infinite reaches of time beyond what our telescopes can view in the form of wavelengths. Where others see dismay, chaos, and lack of direction in human events present and future, finding security only in the past which they are aware of, as being certain, sound, and having purpose and direction, which of course, it is not, as historians well know who admit to what they don’t know and that which is inaccessible to their knowing.

    I find my growing views of evolution and progress extremely satisfying and fulfilling for my own needs, regardless of whether my perspective is true or false by other’s measures against their own perspectives. This for me is the ultimate goal of education and knowledge, and the true wealth to be enjoyed during this briefest period of awareness we call life.

    Political Parties are poor substitutes and shorthand for ignorant followers, by choice or limitation, for self-direction and choices based on personal experience, research, and awareness. In other words, political parties are no more than specialists upon whom voters rely for choices they themselves are ill-equipped to make or even understand, by virtue of their own specialized and therefore limited, education, experience, and knowledge. Anywhere one finds specialists upon whom vast numbers rely, one will find human error and foibles disappointing such reliance. The current banking system crisis is but one of a host of examples of which I speak.

    Yet, I believe America will continue and will progress from where it is and has been, as will the Chinese, the Indians, the Malaysians, and peoples of most nations, not all, in the world today. In fact, the only peoples I know of today who have achieved and maintain a degree of social prefection, are the Amazonian aboriginal tribes whose micro societies, environments, and cultures just received Brazilian National Government protections in the last month or so. I would love to visit one of these tribes for a month, but then, visiting them would destroy their perfection, so I won’t.

    Posted by: David R. Remer at March 28, 2009 09:44 PM
    Comment #279103

    David,
    Thank you for a moment I thaught I was hearing things that lead me to believe President Obama and the Democratic Party was stepping over their boundaries. For why I can rationalize why My Peers and Their Children would rather trust a Corporation to supply the National Power Grid with a steady stream of Electricity. I can also rationalize why some of My Peers and Their Children would fear about talking about Every Americans Guaranteed Civil and Constitutional Rights to be Self-Sufficient through generating their Fair Share of Energy required by Government and Society.

    For why good on the micro level, who would want to do the work required by the Corporations if not for the money? And at what age do we stop letting citizens be millionaries when today we have them as young as 8-year-old owning their own business?

    Yes, I can use a Federal Investment Plan to prove that Every American can become Economically Viable and Financially Independent on the path to making America Energy Independent. Just as President Obama can prove that his Federal Budget can go a long way in developing a Private-Public Contract (IMHO a Wierd Beast of Nature)that allows My Peers and Their Children to do the same thing. Nevertheless, I have to wonder where are the Leaders of the Right (i.e. Conservatives) who are willing to stand up for the Individuals, Local and State Governments Rights to invest in a Better Tomorrow?

    Surely they do not believe that 15 pages of blank numbers will stop the Political Winds of Change from blowing do they?

    Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 29, 2009 08:29 AM
    Comment #279142

    GM CEO Wagoner to step down at White House request… http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/gm_wagoner

    Posted by: Rodney Brown at March 29, 2009 06:12 PM
    Comment #279259

    David R. Remer,
    Thank you for that reply. I do need to really decide what I want to be before I go and run off to some college so far from everyone I know just to say I did it. I really liked this portion of what you said regarding the current representation we all enjoy, “Political Parties are poor substitutes and shorthand for ignorant followers, by choice or limitation, for self-direction and choices based on personal experience, research, and awareness. In other words, political parties are no more than specialists upon whom voters rely for choices they themselves are ill-equipped to make or even understand, by virtue of their own specialized and therefore limited, education, experience, and knowledge. Anywhere one finds specialists upon whom vast numbers rely, one will find human error and foibles disappointing such reliance. The current banking system crisis is but one of a host of examples of which I speak.” Brilliance.

    As for everything else that you said, I really do appreciate your honesty regerding your perspective. You are very consistant in your views which makes understanding them much easier. You, unlike many many others, do not change your opinion to win an argument and would rather I of you as wrong, rather than comprimise your integrity for the sake of winning the debate.

    What was that prof’s name?

    Posted by: chad at March 30, 2009 08:14 PM
    Comment #279392

    Nikhil Bhattacharya

    Posted by: David R. Remer at April 1, 2009 05:03 PM
    Post a comment