Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny?

[..]

The author
http://www.tsowell.com/

When Adolf Hitler was building up the Nazi movement in the 1920s, leading up to his taking power in the 1930s, he deliberately sought to activate people who did not normally pay much attention to politics.

Such people were a valuable addition to his political base, since they were particularly susceptible to Hitler's rhetoric and had far less basis for questioning his assumptions or his conclusions.

"Useful idiots" was the term supposedly coined by V.I. Lenin to describe similarly unthinking supporters of his dictatorship in the Soviet Union.

Put differently, a democracy needs informed citizens if it is to thrive, or ultimately even survive.

In our times, American democracy is being dismantled, piece by piece, before our very eyes by the current administration in Washington, and few people seem to be concerned about it.

The president's poll numbers are going down because increasing numbers of people disagree with particular policies of his, but the damage being done to the fundamental structure of this nation goes far beyond particular counterproductive policies.

Just where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that a president has the authority to extract vast sums of money from a private enterprise and distribute it as he sees fit to whomever he deems worthy of compensation? Nowhere.

And yet that is precisely what is happening with a $20 billion fund to be provided by BP to compensate people harmed by their oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Many among the public and in the media may think that the issue is simply whether BP's oil spill has damaged many people, who ought to be compensated.

But our government is supposed to be "a government of laws and not of men."

If our laws and our institutions determine that BP ought to pay $20 billion — or $50 billion or $100 billion — then so be it.

But the Constitution says that private property is not to be confiscated by the government without "due process of law."

Technically, it has not been confiscated by Barack Obama, but that is a distinction without a difference.

With vastly expanded powers of government available at the discretion of politicians and bureaucrats, private individuals and organizations can be forced into accepting the imposition of powers that were never granted to the government by the Constitution.

If you believe that the end justifies the means, then you don't believe in constitutional government.
And, without constitutional government, freedom cannot endure. There will always be a "crisis" — which, as the president's chief of staff has said, cannot be allowed to "go to waste" as an opportunity to expand the government's power.

That power will of course not be confined to BP or to the particular period of crisis that gave rise to the use of that power, much less to the particular issues.

When Franklin D. Roosevelt arbitrarily took the United States off the gold standard, he cited a law passed during the First World War to prevent trading with the country's wartime enemies. But there was no war when FDR ended the gold standard's restrictions on the printing of money.

At about the same time, during the worldwide Great Depression, the German Reichstag passed a law "for the relief of the German people."

That law gave Hitler dictatorial powers that were used for things going far beyond the relief of the German people — indeed, powers that ultimately brought a rain of destruction down on the German people and on others.

If the agreement with BP was an isolated event, perhaps we might hope that it would not be a precedent. But there is nothing isolated about it.

The man appointed by President Obama to dispense BP's money as the administration sees fit, to whomever it sees fit, is only the latest in a long line of presidentially appointed "czars" controlling different parts of the economy, without even having to be confirmed by the Senate, as Cabinet members are.

Those who cannot see beyond the immediate events to the issues of arbitrary power — vs. the rule of law and the preservation of freedom — are the "useful idiots" of our time. But useful to whom?

[PAVALKER]

Ya know.. I don't like or agree with how that all went down either. I am sure we don't have all the specific legal details, if any.  And some can wonder if that wasn't a "payoff" for a "cap amount" to protect BP from further costs. No legal system or court involvement in that "damage award".  Of course, when government is involved with any program that involves money.... you know there is going to be mass mismanagement and it will end up costing the U.S. Taxpayer even more in the long run.....

 

[RoadKill]

"....the damage being done to the fundamental structure of this nation goes far beyond particular counterproductive policies."

Who could possibly argue with that?  Problem is that the structural damage has been going on for DECADES!

[Walküre]

Right now, BP's total LEGAL liability, under current US law, enacted in 1990, after the Exxon disaster, is 75 million - a mere drop in the bucket. the $20B "start" was offered by BP, and accepted by the President. The $20B was designed to IMMEDIATELY help those affected as of now, such as the fishermen, and those who's paycheck is gone, as a direct result of BP's spill.

Personally, I'm pretty GD fed up, with all the people that can do nothing, except criticize the "current administration", no matter what - if nothing is done, they bitch, if something is done, they bitch. There are no 100% answers in ANY of the problems facing us. But I can't help but feel a HUGE amount of discontent with the President, is because he is...BLACK!! I have heard "ni**er used in reference to our President, hundreds of times, from people I would not expect it from. "He's not a citizen...he's a Muslim...he's a Nazi...He's a communist...he's taking away our guns/bibles/grandma's..." Where are the death panels, folks? He actually ALLOWED guns in National Parks. The Nazi party was "Socialist" in name only...

Yet those same people will run off to WalMart, which IS one of the worst things to ever happen in this country, and continue to send MORE money off to China. It's probably WAY too late, to bring any manufacturing back to the US, but we CAN slow the bleeding of American Greenbacks overseas. If you are SERIOUS about learning what faces us, read the following:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_34/b3948401.htm

As for the oil spill, I think it would be VERY difficult, on the world scene, to pass a "retroactive" law, increasing liability. BP could VERY well, just throw up their hands, and say, here's $75 million, YOU deal with it! The biggest reason they don't, is the huge stake they have in the US, with all their holdings, owning Amoco, etc, etc. There WILL come a point, that the expenditures due to the spill, can conceivably overcome ANY profits BP is looking at, and could destroy profits for many years. When that point is reached, I think we will probably see BP wash their hands of the whole thing. I REALLY hope it doesn't come to that!

I didn't see a hundredth of complaints, when Dubya took us into a war, based solely on falsehoods, out and out lies, and aspirations to avenge threats against his father. And that war, and it's associated costs, were the very beginnings of what has come to be the worst financial disaster ever. And I don't see us coming out of this, for a VERY long time, regardless of WHO is in power.

I think the biggest giveaway, that most of this is based on HATE for President Obama, is that the anger is ALL directed at him, personally. With previous presidents, it usually is directed at others around them, as well. With Clinton, Hillary was included, as well as a lot of his cabinet. With Dubya, he was grouped with Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft. With Obama, I hear a little about the rest of his cabinet, but not much at all. And the things they call him - there's NO END to the names.

Regardless, he is still the President of the United States, whether anyone approves or not. And, the American way, is to vote, either reelecting him, or replacing him.

If the $20B is such a BAD thing, are you willing to go and take the "relief" that many have already received, away from them?

RC

[Jeff K]

Right now, BP's total LEGAL liability, under current US law, enacted in 1990, after the Exxon disaster, is 75 million - a mere drop in the bucket. the $20B "start" was offered by BP, and accepted by the President. The $20B was designed to IMMEDIATELY help those affected as of now, such as the fishermen, and those who's paycheck is gone, as a direct result of BP's spill.

Personally, I'm pretty GD fed up, with all the people that can do nothing, except criticize the "current administration", no matter what - if nothing is done, they bitch, if something is done, they bitch. There are no 100% answers in ANY of the problems facing us. But I can't help but feel a HUGE amount of discontent with the President, is because he is...BLACK!!

No, Obama demanded the 20 billion and BP agreed. That is not legal.
I am tired of people saying that we didn't want bp to put up the 20billion. That is not true.
I am tired of people saying that by calling this a "shakedown" we want to let BP off the hook. That is not true.
The action of a president demanding money from a private company was not, is not, within his power.

And most of all...

I am tired of the race card being brought out EVERY TIME  ANYONE says ANYTHING negative about this President.

If you don't agree with EVERYTHING he says and does, it's purely because he's black.
Surely it's not because he stands for everything I stand against, and surely it's not because he lies, and surely it has nothing to do with him dragging this country down into the abyss. It's strictly because he is black. Give it a rest. I'd hate what this guy is doing to our country if he was a white hooters girl.

[RoadKill]

"I'd hate what this guy is doing to our country if he was a white hooters girl."

Pelosi and Reid are his BIG BOOBS ! !   They are not black! 

[sugarbee]

"Personally, I'm pretty GD fed up, with all the people that can do nothing, except criticize the "current administration", no matter what - if nothing is done, they bitch, if something is done, they bitch. There are no 100% answers in ANY of the problems facing us. But I can't help but feel a HUGE amount of discontent with the President, is because he is...BLACK!! "

I REALLY try to stay out of these kinds of posts, but....these are my thoughts

-every administration gets critized the same way, regardless of the President's skin color

-personally, I'm tired of the race card being brought into this all the time

-didn't I read somewhere that O'Bama is half white?  Maybe the predjudice is because he is half white?

-Our country has been going down for a long time and it did not just happen overnight, and it did not just happen when O'Bama took office.

These are my own thoughts, but I feel we are in for one heck of a judgement day.

[Mickey Runie]

I'd hate what this guy is doing to our country if he was a white hooters girl.

Now wait just a dad-blasted minute there Jeff!  You went one step TOO far.   I agree 100% with the rest of your post, but if he were a Hooter's girl, I might/could find it in my heart to show a smidgen of forgiveness.  (depending upon size and all)

[PAVALKER]

Black President??  Only by his own declaration, since he and everyone else claims him to be black instead of half black and half white.  There is a term for that ....  it's called "mulatto"... but how often have we heard anyone say...  First Mulatto President???  There is a prejudice there.... but against the white half I believe.

And I too might be a little more forgiving if our President was a Hooter's Girl (regardless of color of course)..... but yes it would depend more so on Hooters qualification.....

[fstsix]

Yawn ......Dubya...Dubya....Dubya...Housing sales lowest this last 90 days sense they have been keeping records,...Thanks Acorn.. Dodd..Bawney..but remember if we didn't do what these special interest made the Banks loan good money for Bad customers WITH NO DOWN PAYMENT and stated INCOME would just call us Racist....this has BK'd this Country!!.. Thanks Fannie...and Freddy!!...Jed took the words right off my mind today................................................................................................Former Florida GOP Gov. Jeb Bush has grown tired of listening to Barack Obama blame his brother, telling the New York Times he finds the president’s behavior “childish.”

In an interview with the paper, Bush said that he has had enough of Obama frequently pointing back to his brother George W. Bush’s tenure to explain economic and budget problems, as well as failed oversight of the oil industry.

“It’s kind of like a kid coming to school saying, ‘The dog ate my homework,’” the former governor said of the president. “It’s childish. This is what children do until they mature. They don’t accept responsibility.”

“He apparently likes to act like he’s still campaigning, and he likes to blame George’s administration for everything,” Bush added.

Bush went on to criticize the president’s own stewardship of the economy, calling Obama “Hubert Humphrey on steroids.”

“I don’t think there’s much newness in spending more money as the solution to every problem,” Bush said.

The former governor also suggested that Obama be less focused on how he is perceived in Washington, telling the paper that the president “really seems like he’s getting caught up in what people are writing about him.”

“I mean, good God, man, read a book!” Bush said. “Go watch ESPN!”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38910.html#ixzz0riOLE23r
 

[RoadKill]

I am a VRCC-aholic. And I have NEVER heard a racist comment on here but since YOU bring it up ,rcav8or ,  Can you name ANY other president that received more votes ONLY because of the color of his skin? He got the anti bush vote,the anti-Republican vote and he DAMN SURE collected on the ANTI-WHITE vote! So YES ,YES it was a RACIST election but I never heard a VRCC member whine about it untill now! 

If Condi Rice would have run I would have cast my vote for a black WOMAN for president! Colin Powell would have done a hell of alot better than the jack ass we have now! Why do you imagine Powell gave his endorsement to a democrat in '08,rcav8or ?  I'm sure it was an anti Bush endorsement!

[PAVALKER]

If Condi Rice would have run I would have cast my vote for a black WOMAN for president! Colin Powell would have done a hell of alot better than the jack ass we have now! Why do you imagine Powell gave his endorsement to a democrat in '08,rcav8or ?  I'm sure it was an anti Bush endorsement!

I agree with the Condi vote.... she has more experience and would have done well.... and I believe had she run she would have hit a home run and got elected.

[Jess from VA]

I would remind everyone that... extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.

And that...... moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

[fiddle mike]

Started in 1962 when the Kennedys sent US Marshals to Alabama to force the  duly elected Governor to accept Federal edict over the will of the voters.

[fiddle mike]

I would have voted for Condi....or Colin either one......but NOT Hillary.....it's not a "color" issue to me....Nobama just doesn't have the experience to run a hotdog stand, let alone the Country...and I think it's becoming clear to a few folks that voted for him....

You made it color issue with the pc cop-out.

[Skinhead]

And most of all...

I am tired of the race card being brought out EVERY TIME  ANYONE says ANYTHING negative about this President.

If you don't agree with EVERYTHING he says and does, it's purely because he's black.
Surely it's not because he stands for everything I stand against, and surely it's not because he lies, and surely it has nothing to do with him dragging this country down into the abyss. It's strictly because he is black. Give it a rest. I'd hate what this guy is doing to our country if he was a white hooters girl.

+100

RCav8tr, I can't believe you believe what you wrote.  I can't stand Obama, and it has nothing to do with his race!  There are plenty of red, white, yellow, brown people I dislike, but it has nothing to do with race, they just happen to be that color.  Obama is a lier by definition, he's a politician!  And I'd hate him if he was rainbow colored.

[John Schmidt]

Spectacularly unprepared for office....by Peter Heck:
To say I was dumbfounded would be an understatement. About a week before the 2008 presidential election, I was talking to a friend who had just informed me he had decided to vote for Barack Obama.  "Why, given the most serious state of national and international affairs we were facing, would you be so willing to roll the dice on a political novice like Obama?" I asked.  His incredible response: "Sarah Palin."

It was his concern that she was unprepared to be just a heartbeat away from the presidency, and if something were to happen to John McCain, she might be thrust into a role where inexperience can be deadly. So his solution was to vote into that very office a man who had far less experience than even Palin. Amazing.

I have often wondered if 18 months into the tenure of what is quite apparently the most woefully unprepared president the United States has ever known, my friend is among the ever-growing majority of Americans who regret the Obama gamble.

Domestically, we have seen Obama take the staggering deficit and debt he inherited and double down on it. Even now, as studies show our debt preparing to overtake our Gross Domestic Product (a watershed moment that virtually guarantees an economic calamity on par with the meltdown occurring in Greece), rather than declaring a national economic emergency that requires deep cuts in government spending, President Obama is attempting to add billions more to his unsustainable budget.

We have witnessed the man whose primary constitutional responsibility is to carry out the laws of Congress utterly fail to enforce those laws regarding border security and immigration. As a result of his flagrant dereliction of duty, Americans are being killed and individual border states like Arizona have had to assume the task of doing it themselves, only to be criticized by the negligent president himself.

Then, in dealing with the environmental disaster occurring in the Gulf of Mexico, our President has looked like a deer in the headlights. He vacationed in the early days until media reports hammered him for not visiting the region. So he visited, and then declared a moratorium on all offshore drilling, destroying thousands of American jobs. Then when media reports suggested he wasn't being tough enough on those responsible, the President went on the Today show and cussed. Impressive stuff.

Then came last week's bizarre Oval Office address. Such speeches are historically reserved for wars, which is appropriate given that Obama announced the next front in his war on the American middle class. Outlining nothing meaningful to the problem in the Gulf, the President called for a massive national energy tax that if enacted will increase the average family's cost of living by thousands of dollars per year, completely destroy the auto and manufacturing industries in our country, and send the economy into a tailspin from which it will never recover.

On the positive side, BP – the original architects of the energy tax Obama proposes – will benefit tremendously.

And yet if it's possible, the President has proven to be worse in the dangerous world of foreign affairs. He has foolishly sided with thug communists like Castro, Chavez, and Ortega over the democratic demands of the Honduran people; stood shamefully silent while freedom-loving Iranian citizens were beaten to death in their streets; and has joined the jackals in condemning Israel's completely rational and legal right to defend itself from annihilation. And despite promising how his departure from Bush's "go-it-alone" strategy would bring the world to our side, the record is unmistakable: Bush led the U.N. to unanimously condemn Iran's nuclear plans three times. Obama's best effort failed to convince even two close allies.

We're learning the hard way: Barack Obama was spectacularly unprepared for this office.

Following that recent Oval Office address on the Gulf oil spill, even President Obama's most ardent supporters seemed baffled at his incompetence. MSNBC's tag team of Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews could barely find words to explain how pathetic the president's speech was. Olbermann stammered, "It was a great speech if you were on another planet for the last 57 days....nothing specific was said at all." And Matthews – the same man who just 19 months ago was getting thrills up his leg at the mere sound of Obama's voice – concluded, "No direction....I don't sense executive command."

The reason for that, Chris, is that there is none. The man who now occupies the White House is overmatched, overwhelmed, and overcome by the responsibilities of an office he was not equipped to assume. An office that is now – much to the chagrin of an embarrassed nation – utterly dwarfing him.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

And regarding the deficit he keeps yapping about inheriting, well....if the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets. If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.

In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.

[RoadKill]

Call bush an Idiot and I will agree.
But Imagine for just a moment that John Kerry ,Bill Clinton or the current 'tard in office had to deal with 9/11/01   
INACTION of the 10th degree would have followed.
" those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it " 

"The reason for that, Chris, is that there is none. The man who now occupies the White House is overmatched, overwhelmed, and overcome by the responsibilities of an office he was not equipped to assume. An office that is now – much to the chagrin of an embarrassed nation – utterly dwarfing him.

[JimC]

RC
In response to your post, I detest the typical response that my (or others) mistrust in the current administration is race based. I like to think that I am well above that. I for one feel that we are being led not down a slippery slope, but off the cliff. watch the attached video and then try to convince me that what they are doing is the right thing for our country.

	powered by Aeva

This is just a small example of what they want to do, health care, amnesty for  all the illegal immigrants, the original post about the Nazi's was not too far off in my mind. Its called power and votes.
Jim

[fstsix]

What would Reagan say if he heard this weak statement ? 

Reagan Tells Obama To Shut Up!	powered by Aeva

[RoadKill]

JimC

I dont know where we got confused...My response was to rcav8tor and his pulling out the race card. I dont care about color...hell ,maybe I'm green skinned and from another planet or possibly black as the ace of spades...Wrong is wrong and inept is is INEPT! What does that have to do with RACE ?

[big turkey]

Not a thing, Road Kill, not a thing.

When people run out of words or are language challenged they cuss.

When people run out of Ideas and are at a Impass, it can't be there fault, someone does not

like me because I am, Black , Brown, Yellow, Red, Malato, White, it goes on and on , always has

always will.

Big AL

[Charlie]

What would Reagan say if he heard this weak statement ?  Reagan Tells Obama To Shut Up!

Why would anyone care what Reagan would say?  He was no gem either.

[Walküre]

Boy, leave for an evening, seems like you leave for a lifetime...

Bring it on, folks - broad shoulders, I can handle it.

There is a huge difference between "prejudice" and "racist". I, also, am tired of anytime ANYthing is mentioned about race, the "race card" rears it's ugly head. That's a cop-out, plain and simple. There IS a question of race. I do regret using the word "most" - more apropos would be "many". With the response I got, you would think there is NO prejudices whatsoever. NONE!! Wow, that's great! But, the reality is, there ARE prejudices. I work for the most diverse company to work for, in the world. And I hear many, many insults, from many, many people, directed at people of color. I guess it's just the Valk owners, that are completely void of any prejudice whatsoever.

As for "mulatto" - that is a term, coined by whites, predominantly slave owners, from "mula" - half horse, half ass. As it is one race, determining a name for another race, it has become a derogatory term, and the more accepted term is biracial, or mixed. Similar to "colored". Although I still hear "colored" used quite often.

I will be 57 years old, soon. I have been following politics my entire life. And while it's true, that all politicians are seen in different lights by different people, I have NEVER seen a concerted effort to undermine EVERYthing a President has done, as now. 10 years ago, I worried that the next war, would be a Civil War. I still wonder if I was far off from the truth. There is a chasm in today's politics, and culture, that I'm not sure is surmountable.

I rarely go into politics, or religion, on any forums, as most forums I am on, are very careful to prohibit such things. However, when a forum DOES allow it, I feel I have to speak my piece. It's not usually a very popular opinion, but that I CAN state my opinion, is what I spent 6 years in the military for. this IS a free country, and I DO have freedoms. While my opinions may (probably) are in direct opposition to yours, I still have the right of expression. You can counter my opinion, but you cannot stifle my opinion.

As for Reagan, how soon we forget...we had a saying, "Think Reagan-omics is working??? Ask everyone who isn't!!!". the Reagan era was the beginning of the shift from a lot of people having well-paying jobs in manufacturing, and the such, to lot's of people working at Burger King, Walmart, and the such. When he made it a LOT easier, for the wealthy to sit around, watching their money make money, instead of WORK making money, a lot of them took the easy way out.

I think one thing we can ALL agree on - we are on a steady downhill trend. I don't have the answers - I don't think ANYone has the answers. And I don't think any group has the answers. And I'm beginning to wonder if there ARE any answers. Every great civilization, has been reduced to mediocrity. It would be nice to think we are above that, but I find it difficult to have much faith in the return to the Golden Age of America. You can blame it on the debt, the leaders, the people, the culture - but our strength has always been our  production. And we don't produce any more - it has all gone overseas, where people who live just above the poverty level, are more than happy to produce products 12 hours a day, for less than minimum wages. And now, because of that, we have a huge portion of OUR population who are working just above the poverty level, and NOT producing products - they are making burgers, or stocking the shelves with the products made in other countries, or, right now, many aren't working at all!! I try to buy American, whenever possible. Yet, I walk around my house, looking at all I own, and very little of it is made in America, because it's just not available! I would have to say, that people who DON'T make that effort, have even less American made products. the Valk is my one concession, made in America, but profits sent to Japan, my other vehicles are a '51 Ford truck, '03 Silverado, '05 Malibu, '97 Caddy, '06 Aveo. I even have a "Made in America" Dixon mower...

Now, you REALLY don't want my take on "religion"...



And one last thing - I try to never say anything, as an insult to any one person. And I regret any person taking what I say, as an insult.

[Charlie]

Boy, leave for an evening, seems like you leave for a lifetime...

Bring it on, folks - broad shoulders, I can handle it.

There is a huge difference between "prejudice" and "racist". I, also, am tired of anytime ANYthing is mentioned about race, the "race card" rears it's ugly head. That's a cop-out, plain and simple. There IS a question of race. I do regret using the word "most" - more apropos would be "many". With the response I got, you would think there is NO prejudices whatsoever. NONE!! Wow, that's great! But, the reality is, there ARE prejudices. I work for the most diverse company to work for, in the world. And I hear many, many insults, from many, many people, directed at people of color. I guess it's just the Valk owners, that are completely void of any prejudice whatsoever.

As for "mulatto" - that is a term, coined by whites, predominantly slave owners, from "mula" - half horse, half ass. As it is one race, determining a name for another race, it has become a derogatory term, and the more accepted term is biracial, or mixed. Similar to "colored". Although I still hear "colored" used quite often.

I will be 57 years old, soon. I have been following politics my entire life. And while it's true, that all politicians are seen in different lights by different people, I have NEVER seen a concerted effort to undermine EVERYthing a President has done, as now. 10 years ago, I worried that the next war, would be a Civil War. I still wonder if I was far off from the truth. There is a chasm in today's politics, and culture, that I'm not sure is surmountable.

I rarely go into politics, or religion, on any forums, as most forums I am on, are very careful to prohibit such things. However, when a forum DOES allow it, I feel I have to speak my piece. It's not usually a very popular opinion, but that I CAN state my opinion, is what I spent 6 years in the military for. this IS a free country, and I DO have freedoms. While my opinions may (probably) are in direct opposition to yours, I still have the right of expression. You can counter my opinion, but you cannot stifle my opinion.

As for Reagan, how soon we forget...we had a saying, "Think Reagan-omics is working??? Ask everyone who isn't!!!". the Reagan era was the beginning of the shift from a lot of people having well-paying jobs in manufacturing, and the such, to lot's of people working at Burger King, Walmart, and the such. When he made it a LOT easier, for the wealthy to sit around, watching their money make money, instead of WORK making money, a lot of them took the easy way out.

I think one thing we can ALL agree on - we are on a steady downhill trend. I don't have the answers - I don't think ANYone has the answers. And I don't think any group has the answers. And I'm beginning to wonder if there ARE any answers. Every great civilization, has been reduced to mediocrity. It would be nice to think we are above that, but I find it difficult to have much faith in the return to the Golden Age of America. You can blame it on the debt, the leaders, the people, the culture - but our strength has always been our  production. And we don't produce any more - it has all gone overseas, where people who live just above the poverty level, are more than happy to produce products 12 hours a day, for less than minimum wages. And now, because of that, we have a huge portion of OUR population who are working just above the poverty level, and NOT producing products - they are making burgers, or stocking the shelves with the products made in other countries, or, right now, many aren't working at all!! I try to buy American, whenever possible. Yet, I walk around my house, looking at all I own, and very little of it is made in America, because it's just not available! I would have to say, that people who DON'T make that effort, have even less American made products. the Valk is my one concession, made in America, but profits sent to Japan, my other vehicles are a '51 Ford truck, '03 Silverado, '05 Malibu, '97 Caddy, '06 Aveo. I even have a "Made in America" Dixon mower...

Now, you REALLY don't want my take on "religion"...



And one last thing - I try to never say anything, as an insult to any one person. And I regret any person taking what I say, as an insult.

Well stated, Roger.  We are not that far off from our thinking.  You should plan on people here calling you a liberal along with other comments that are intended to upset you.  Don't let it happen brother.  You make good sense.

[big turkey]

You have a nice red and black bike too.

Big AL

[Walküre]

You have a nice red and black bike too.

Big AL

that's funny, Big Al - swore I'd NEVER own a red vehicle, of any sort. I now own a red Chevy truck, a red box trailer, and now, the red (and black) Valk. Plus, I'm leaning towards red with black fenders on the '51 Ford truck (copying a fire truck I saw). And I STILL don't like red! Just coincidence....

But thanks, glad you like it. I do to, but I do know it will change colors, sometime in the future. Right now I'm just enjoying it. 

[Bobbo]

Really good post, rcav8or.

Now, let's hear those views on religion!!    

[Billy]

Good posts rcav8or.

[fstsix]

Yawn again..............................................................................................Opinion
from the Institute for Policy Innovation
By: Peter Ferrara   
Published Outlet:
   
02/11/2009
URL to original published op/ed:    
Original:
Obama's Failed and Tired Ideas From the Past
The following op/ed appeared in American Spectator online on February 11, 2009

The entire U.S. GDP is roughly $14 trillion. The government currently spends roughly $3.5 trillion of that. In his stimulus plan, Obama proposes effectively to borrow another $1 trillion from the private economy to add to $1 trillion in still further government spending.

How exactly is that supposed to stimulate economic growth and recovery? Is America's economic growth and prosperity produced by increased government spending, deficits, and debt? I don't think so. The American people don't either.

But Barack Obama thinks it is so obvious it's funny. Speaking before a laughing House Democrat Caucus last week, he said, "So then you get the argument, well, this is not a stimulus bill, this is a spending bill. What do you think a stimulus is? [HaHa]. That's the whole point. [HaHa]. No, seriously. That's the whole point. [HaHaHa]."

As the Wall Street Journal said over the weekend:

So there it is: Mr. Obama is now endorsing a sort of reductionist Keynesianism that argues that any government spending is an economic stimulus. This is so manifestly false that we doubt Mr. Obama really believes it.

In fact, there is no net gain to the economy from this stimulus fraud, which is all the more obvious when you look at what Obama and his hopeless liberals spend the money on. There is funding for federal baby sitting programs, for needles for drug addicts, for federal birth control programs and condoms, for the National Endowment for the Arts, and for increased welfare. In fact, 30% of the stimulus spending is for increased welfare. Is this the foundation for future American prosperity?"

As the Journal further explained:

A dollar doled out in jobless benefits may well be spent by the worker who receives it. That $1 of spending will count as economic activity and add to GDP. But that same dollar can't be conjured out of thin air. The government has to take that dollar away from someone else -- either in higher taxes, or by issuing new debt in the form of a bond. The person who is taxed or buys the bond will have $1 less to spend. If the beneficiary of that $1 spends it on something less productive than the taxed American or the lender would have, then the net impact on growth will be negative.

Moreover, as I have emphasized in this column, what drives economic growth is incentives to save, invest, start or expand businesses, create jobs, take risks, and work. Incentives are increased through reductions in tax rates and unnecessary regulatory costs, which allows people to keep a higher percentage of what they produce. But for the government to borrow a trillion dollars from the private economy to increase government spending by a trillion dollars does nothing to increase such incentives.

Keynesian Economics

Keynesian economics was born in the 1930s, was always a failure in life, even though it was heavily favored because it justified expanded government power, and died at the end of the 1970s, when it was slayed by Ronald Reagan in self-defense.

Keynesian theory argued that the way to stimulate the economy was precisely to increase government spending and deficits, because this would increase total aggregate demand in the economy, stimulating producers to produce more to meet this demand. The discussion above shows why this theory is wrong. Keynesians failed to consider where the government would get the money for its increased spending, and the offsetting economic impact of that. Moreover, they failed to appreciate that it is economic incentives that drive the economy.

That is why it has always failed over and over. FDR embraced Keynesian economics as the cornerstone of his New Deal. As a result, federal spending soared during the 1930s to the equivalent of a trillion dollars a year today. Yet Census Bureau data shows that the unemployment rate for nonfarm sectors never fell below 20% during the decade. By the end of the 1930s, the U.S. economy was still 10% smaller than it was in 1929. The stock market did not return to its 1929 levels until 1954.

Amity Shlaes told this revealing story recently in the Washington Post:

One evening in the 1930s, a 13-year-old named William Troeller hanged himself from the transom of his bedroom in Greenpoint, Brooklyn. William's father was laid up in Kings County Hospital awaiting surgery for an injury he'd suffered on the job at Brooklyn Edison. A federal jobs program was paying William's older brother Harold for temporary work. But the amount wasn't nearly enough to make ends meet. Gas and electricity to the family's apartment had been shut off for half a year. Harold told a New York Times reporter that both hunger and modesty had driven William to act. 'He was reluctant about asking for food,' read the headline in the paper….The surprising part is that William Troeller killed himself not in 1930, when Herbert Hoover was president, but in 1937, in Franklin D. Roosevelt's second term. The New Deal was almost five years old, but the economy was not back. In fact, the country seemed farther from recovery than before.

By the end of the 1930s, even FDR's Treasury Secretary and close personal friend Henry Morgenthau told the House Ways and Means Committee, "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work.…I say, after eight years of this administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started…and an enormous debt to boot."

For a more recent example, Japan suffered an economic crisis in 1991 very similar to what the U.S. is suffering now, with collapsing stock and housing bubbles. They turned to old-fashioned Keynesian economics, increasing government spending by the equivalent of $900 billion in the U.S. today. As a result, Japan fell backwards during the 1990s just as the U.S. fell backwards in the 1930s. Japan's per capita national income fell from 86% of the U.S. level in 1991 to 74% in 2000.

Obama has repeatedly told us in recent days that he will not return to the old, failed, tired ideas of the past to address America's economic problems. But that is exactly what he is doing in subjecting America to the outdated, failed theories of Keynesian economics from the 1930s. He even proposes now to bring back FDR's old Works Progress Administration (WPA), which spent the equivalent of hundreds of billions today building the infrastructure of the 1930s. As we saw above, it did not work to revive the economy.

Harvard economist Robert Barro recently wrote that we have learned a lot about macroeconomics since 1936, when the father of Keynesianism, British Economist John Maynard Keynes, wrote The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money. But none of it seems to have seeped through to Barack Obama. Joe DiMaggio was a rookie in 1936, and Babe Ruth had just retired.

Supply-Side Economics

By the end of the 1970s, Keynesian economics was killing the American economy, with double-digit interest rates, double-digit inflation, and soon double-digit unemployment. It was called stagflation -- stagnant economic growth along with roaring inflation. According to Keynesian theory, this result was impossible. You couldn't be both overspending to cause inflation and underspending to cause stagnation.

Reagan did the right thing for all concerned, and put Keynesian economics out of its misery. He adopted tight, anti-inflation monetary policies that worked spectacularly to reduce inflation to 3% by 1983. Then to get economic growth booming, he adopted sharp cuts in marginal tax rates, reducing the top marginal income tax rate from 70% first to 50%, then cutting it further all the way down to 28%, with just one more rate of 15% for middle income workers and below. He also adopted sharp cuts in corporate income tax rates and capital gains tax rates, as well as a thorough program of deregulation reducing business costs.

The Keynesian economists of the time all laughed, with one of the smartest making the celebrated comment that the Reagan economic plan was the equivalent of tying locomotives to both ends of the same train facing opposite directions and sending them both forward full throttle. Under Keynesian analysis, this is, indeed, what it was.

But besides the rapid elimination of serious inflation, the result was what economists Art Laffer and Steve Moore have recently explained was a 25-year economic boom, from 1982 to 2007, disrupted only by two short, shallow recessions. In their new book, The End of Prosperity, Laffer and Moore write,

"We call this period, 1982-2007, the twenty-five year boom -- the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet. Adjusting for inflation, more wealth was created in America in the twenty-five year boom than in the previous two hundred years."

Indeed, the result was a worldwide boom lifting many nations towards greater prosperity, aided by spreading global adoption of the same policies. These policies were called "supply-side" economics, because they focused on increasing supply instead of the Keynesian focus on increasing aggregate demand.

Obama's No-Growth Tax Cuts

Obama and his defenders keep saying his stimulus package includes a balance of tax cuts as well as increased government spending, alleging that "We can't rely on a losing formula that offers only tax cuts as the answer to all our problems." But Obama's tax cuts are Keynesian "garbage" as well, as Barro recently called them.

The centerpiece of Obama's tax cuts is, again, the $500 per worker tax credit. But that credit is the equivalent of just sending a welfare check of $500 to everyone, as far as economic stimulus is concerned. It is just another way of trying to increase overall spending, just like the Bush stimulus "tax" rebates adopted early in 2008, which also failed utterly to revive the economy. Neither those Bush rebates nor the Obama credits do anything to change the fundamental incentives that govern the economy, the incentives to save, invest, start or expand a business, take risks, etc. That requires supply-side tax cuts which reduce tax rates, as we have seen.

But for Obama, time stopped in 1979, and he talks and acts as if Reagan and everything he did never happened. While he says he is interested only in what works, not ideology, just the opposite is true. He won't consider the tax rate cuts that worked spectacularly for Reagan, and Kennedy, and Bush also, because of his unreconstructed liberal/left ideology. Instead he is embracing just what that ideology commands, a trillion dollar addition to spending, the deficit, and Big Government. Obama is developing a pattern of saying the opposite of what he is doing, which is another Saul Alinsky tactic.

The Gingrich Revolution

In sharp contrast to Obama and his ideological delusions, Newt Gingrich has recently offered an economic recovery plan that is based on modern economics and what would work. It includes a reduction in the federal corporate income tax rate from 35% to the 12.5% rate that over the past 20 years has lifted the standard of living in Ireland from the bottom of the EU to the top. It would eliminate the capital gains tax to match China, Singapore, and other international competitors, enticing capital investment from the world over to America. It would provide middle class tax relief by reducing the 25% income tax bracket to 15%, establishing a flat rate tax of 15% for close to 90% of American workers. He would also cut the payroll tax by 50% for 2 years.

Gingrich also proposes to control government spending to balance the budget, something he achieved when he was Speaker of the House. He would adopt a real, comprehensive energy program that would allow production of domestic U.S. oil and natural gas, as well as nuclear power, clean coal, ethanol, and renewable fuels. He would also protect the current federal right of workers to decide in a secret ballot election whether to join a union, replace the extremely costly, heavy-handed Sarbanes-Oxley regulation that has crippled entrepreneurial start-ups in America, and abolish the death tax, among other provisions.

If Congress were adopting these reforms this week instead of the retro Obama "stimulus" package, the American economy would be off on another historic boom before the end of the year. Maybe we need a new President already.

Party Like It's 1979

Obama's ideological nostalgia for the liberal salad days of pre-Reagan 1979 is going to take the entire U.S. economy back there. Over time, we will find that Obama's policies have led us back to persistently high unemployment, resurgent inflation, double digit interest rates, stagnating growth, even gas shortages and the high gas prices he supports as good for the environment. And that will also effectively be another pre-Reagan moment as well.

Peter Ferrara is director of budget and entitlement policy at the Institute for Policy Innovation and general counsel for the American Civil Rights Union. He formerly served in President Reagan's White House Office of Policy Development, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under the first President Bush. He is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. Please keep typing we can do this for a few months  

[Skinhead]

Boy, leave for an evening, seems like you leave for a lifetime...

Bring it on, folks - broad shoulders, I can handle it.



I rarely go into politics, or religion, on any forums, as most forums I am on, are very careful to prohibit such things. However, when a forum DOES allow it, I feel I have to speak my piece. It's not usually a very popular opinion, but that I CAN state my opinion, is what I spent 6 years in the military for. this IS a free country, and I DO have freedoms. While my opinions may (probably) are in direct opposition to yours, I still have the right of expression. You can counter my opinion, but you cannot stifle my opinion.


And one last thing - I try to never say anything, as an insult to any one person. And I regret any person taking what I say, as an insult.

I don't think anyone was insulted or meant to insult you.  I personally was doing just what you did, express my opinion.  I also served to protect that right for you.  I wish our present president would do less changing and more supporting of the constitution and the rights of our citizens. 

As far as the race card goes, when it is played, murderers get off, and bad/criminal behavior is rewarded instead of punished. 

[Scanner]

What would Reagan say if he heard this weak statement ?  

He'd probably say the same thing he said over and over in his testimony when they were investigating his selling weapons to Iranian terrorists..."I don't recall"

[fstsix]

What would Reagan say if he heard this weak statement ?  

He'd probably say the same thing he said when they were investigating his selling weapons to Iranian terrorists..."I don't recall"

Step daddy gonna be a lot investigations after November