Beating Back Obamanomics (Dedicated to Road Dawg)

Beating Back Obamanomics

Mises Daily by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. | Posted on 3/6/2009 12:00:00 AM

It's raining, pouring, economic fallacies by the hour, followed by a flood of horrible policy that is driving us ever further into economic depression. The regime in charge has really gone nuts, revealing itself as both deeply ignorant and horribly evil.

We find ourselves facing the horror of what has always been the Achilles heel of the left wing: its abysmal ignorance of economic science. The ideological tendency has gone from Keynesianism to outright socialism in a matter of a few weeks.

And the trajectory seems to be accelerated mainly by the logic of the interventionist cycle: bad policy leads to bad results that are addressed through bad policy, and so on, straight down the fast track to serfdom.

Obama's attachment to "transparency" ? the buzzword of the day ? allows all intelligent people to observe the sickening sight in real time, and to the cheers of the kept class of intellectual phonies like Ben Bernanke and Paul Krugman.

The encouraging thing ? and perhaps this too was inevitable ? is that the right wing is getting its act together. It has suddenly discovered that economics matters. You can cheer on the hot wars, fight the culture wars, and crack down on political dissidents all you want. But in the end, what makes for the good society is a sound economy. Without it, all the rest falls apart.

Thus all our favorite conservatives are starting to make sense. The American Spectator is alarmed. Rush Limbaugh sounds like LRC. The American Conservative has temporarily dropped its love of protectionism to warn of dollar inflation. The love of war has gone AWOL at National Review.

The Heritage Foundation is warning that government spending and taxation are driving us to ruin. Pat Buchanan is defending the free market!

Where were these people during the last eight years of Bush's misrule?

Asleep or seeking preferment or something. It's not as if Obama caused this crisis; he is only making it worse. In any case, the Right has begun to turn to the side of truth and justice, precisely as they did during Clinton's rule, and this is all to the good, in general.

But just in case we are observing yet another expedient shift, it might be a good idea to understand precisely why socialism is a bad idea. The Obama administration doesn't seem to get it. And there is plenty to get. Socialism crushes human rights, builds the state, impinges on the liberty of conscience, and breeds social, cultural, and economic degeneration.

People have made those points for hundreds of years. Somehow, and for whatever reason, many people rejected these critics. No, they said, all of this sounds plausible, but you don't understand how the sheer glory of the socialist ideal, with perfect equality and social justice, will bring about a new sense of things. Mankind will be inspired to share, create, work, and obey by the astonishing emergence of a completely new form of social organization.

Ludwig von Mises in 1920, however, added something special and new to the critique of socialism. He said that socialism in all its forms cannot accommodate any economic development beyond the hunter-gatherer stage. And the reason has to do with the socialist attack on the ownership and exchange of capital goods. Without ownership, there is no exchange, and so prices do not emerge. Here is his 1920 essay, which says it all.

Without market prices for capital goods, accounting is not possible. You don't know if you are making money or losing money, saving resources or wasting them, doing the right thing or not doing the right thing. Think of all the decisions that have to be made on the production end that require you to know whether you are wasting resources or not. With steel, do you make more buildings or trains? Or do you make cutlery or computers? Or cars or cables?

You can't just rely on assessing consumer demand. The demand for stuff is infinite. What matters are choices in light of foregone alternatives. These can't be discerned with polls or intuition. What matters here is the weighting of all alternative uses of resources. They can only be worked out in real time, in light of the choices of consumers and the profitable production decisions of producers.

None of this is possible if you don't have real market prices providing the real stuff that makes cost accounting possible. Collectivize property and you abolish the market for capital goods. No prices emerge. Every choice you make is arbitrary. There is no more rationality remaining. You just end up groping around in the dark.

No socialist has ever been able to provide an answer to Mises's devastating point. And why? Because no socialist has seriously thought through how their cockamamie system would work. Lenin used to say, oh whatever, just run the whole economy the same way the post office is run. But notice: the post office has a problem with innovation, pricing, cost accounting, and making ends meet. Its only source of life comes from the competition provided by private competitors. The post-officeization of the entire economy would mean a return to barbarism.

Mises's illustration of the failure of socialism provides a fantastic means to discover what is right about markets and wrong about all forms of collectivized economic planning. It shows what happens when you nationalize banks and credit. But it also shows what is wrong with all bureaucracies.

Mises put all his criticism together in a single book, a book that remains the definitive refutation of the entire intellectual apparatus of socialism. It is a classic, a must-read, a treasure for all ages. To read it is to be amazed. It has changed the minds of millions of people since it appeared in 1922. It is the one book that utterly crushes the economic agenda of the Left, revealing what fools they really are.

Mises's point has also been a fruitful one for further theorizing about all forms of collectivism. See, for example, Hans-Hermann Hoppe's Theory of Socialism and Capitalism.

And look: it's not as if socialism is a new idea. It was tried in the 20th century. It produced economic stagnation and despair. In its purest form, it extinguished more than one hundred million people. That's why The Black Book of Communism must be owned and read and understood by every thinking person. It is the most terrifying book you will ever read. It is a standing rebuke to any living soul who claims that economic understanding doesn't matter.

Take this seriously: it is where the Obama tendency is leading us.
 

scrimmage

What you contemplate you imitate
Re: Beating Back Obamanomics (Dedicated to Road Dawg)

Who writes this guys material for him?
It's hard to believe that late in life ex-crooner Pat Boone suddenly resurfaces as a Christian right-wing political pundit.
He's obviously someone with vestiges of fame in certain circles,who can be useful in herding the group he appeals to,and help in keeping them thought controlled,for those who've convnced him to lend his name/image to this modest endeavour.




<HR noShade SIZE=1><!-- end option --><!-- leadin graphic --> <!-- end leadin graphic -->

<HR noShade SIZE=1><!-- head -->[FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=+2]How to handle a crisis[/FONT]
<!-- end head -->

<HR SIZE=1>[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Posted: February 07, 2009
[SIZE=-1]1:00 am Eastern[/SIZE]

<!--- copywrite only show on NON commentary pages as per joseph meeting 8/23/06 ------>[SIZE=-1]<!-- copyright -->? 2009 [/SIZE][/SIZE]

...Why can't our lawmakers, the elected extensions of our families, do the same? Wouldn't you expect, and shouldn't we demand, that these representatives do the same for us as they hopefully would do for their own families?

It is absolutely appalling that either our new president or his selected brain trust of advisers, together with the Democrat-controlled Congress, have proposed another 850 billion of taxpayer funds ? in what they're calling an "emergency stimulus package" ? that contains billions in pork, special favors and funding for a tremendous shopping list of extras that will serve to "pay back" many of those individuals and organizations that helped elect the president! And there appears to have been little effort to disguise or hide all this pork, because the creators of the package have assumed that they can railroad it through while the general public is clamoring for "emergency" relief. How could any Republican oppose a "stimulus package" that President Obama assures us we must enact immediately, lest the sky fall on all of us?

Well, thank God, there are a lot of Republican senators with families, and they are unanimously opposing the stimulus package, the way it's been written and proposed. When it was exposed that hundreds of executives of the very banks that precipitated the near collapse of our whole economy were paying themselves $18 billion in bonuses, even President Obama, to his credit, condemned the abuse and decreed that no executive of any of the offending banks could collect more that a half million in salary until we taxpayers have received ? in full ? all the 350 billion those banks got in the first huge "bailout," with apparently no guidelines or demands that that money be made available to customers in loans.

But tremendous and immediate surgery is needed to carve out all the self-serving and inexcusable pork and bloat in the stimulus package. While some of the proposed expenditures may be worthy down the road, the purpose of the unprecedented billions is to quickly prop up and energize the economy that is wheezing and threatening to fail us all. Since all these billions must be themselves borrowed, likely from our Chinese and Indian creditors, we simply cannot afford to borrow one penny more than we really need to survive!

And every penny we do borrow and dole out must be specifically targeted for projects and programs that will immediately employ and pay Americans for work that really needs to be done ? and won't just aim to make some politician look good back home. And each program or project must answer to stringent checks and accountability.

Finally, just like a household suffering crisis, we could sure use some help from God here, and individual and collective prayer remain the American way, the most powerful "stimulus" there is. His name is still on our currency, isn't it?
Excerpts from:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=88193

PAT BOONE -Remember You're Mine
<EMBED src=http://www.youtube.com/v/ywUOVE3zUUQ&hl=en&fs=1 width=425 height=344 type=application/x-shockwave-flash allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always"></EMBED>
another video!
Charles Eugene Patrick Boone (known as Pat Boone, born June 1, 1934) is a singer whose smooth style made him a popular performer of the 1950s. His cover versions of African-American rhythm and blues hits had a noticeable impact on the development of the broad popularity of rock and roll. He is also an actor, a motivational speaker, a television personality, and a conservative political commentator.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywUOVE3zUUQ

 

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
Re: Beating Back Obamanomics (Dedicated to Road Dawg)

April 9, 2010

<TABLE width="95%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD align=left width="80%">Krugman Strikes Again
By Peter Schiff
</TD><TD align=right></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
In a commentary two weeks ago, I rebutted dangerously silly arguments put forward by New York Times columnist Paul Krugman about how the United States should pressure China to drop its support for the U.S. dollar (click here to view). Although there is far more happening in the world outside of Mr. Krugman?s brain than within it, fresh drivel from the acclaimed Nobel Prize winner compels me to turn my focus there once again.

In today?s column, Krugman analyzes the Greek debt crisis, arguing that the best solution for Athens would be to simply inflate away its debt burden with printing press money. Krugman laments that this sensible option is being foreclosed by the monetary priggishness of the German heavyweights in the European Union, who are ?foolishly? seeking to prevent inflation and impose fiscal discipline.

His theoretical justification is put forward in a familiar Keynesian recipe: deficit spending leads to inflation and growth, which leads to greater employment and rising GDP, which makes debt payments much easier to bear in relative terms. He laments that Greece does not control its own currency and is therefore unable to pursue such a policy on its own accord. He implores U.S. policy makers, who do control their own monetary policy, to take heed of the danger and avoid such a course.

In simple terms, Krugman believes that inflation is the best cure for burdensome debt problems. To prove his arguments, he points to the course followed by the Unites States in the decade after the Second World War. In 1946, due to unprecedented military spending during the war, U.S. public debt as a percentage of GDP came in at a staggering 122 percent ? which is even higher than the 113 percent currently weighing on Greece.

Krugman endorses U.S. policy at the time which, he claims, concentrated on fostering growth instead of taking measures to drastically cut the post-war debt. He notes that by the end of 1956, the federal debt had not diminished in nominal terms, but had become much easier to bear because of the decade of GDP growth that inflationary policies had created.

He neglects to mention that during the five years from 1945 to 1949, federal spending dropped by 58% and taxes fell by 12%. Meanwhile, the budget deficit fell by 66% in 1946 and was in surplus from 1947 to 1949. In other words, although we did not pay down our nominal debt in the decade after the war, we did succeed in massively shrinking government and the burden that it places on society. Could it be that this had something to do with the post-war boom, or should we give all the credit to the monetary policy? (It is important to point out that our national debt did initially decline from 1945 to 1949, but the extra spending necessary to finance the Korean War reversed that trend.)

Also, after the war ended, American factories quickly retooled production from military hardware to consumer goods. The products not only created a domestic boom in living standards, but were also in high demand in war-ravaged Europe. The late 1940?s and 1950?s produced some of the largest U.S. trade surpluses (in relative terms) in our history.

Today, government spending is rising at the fastest pace on record (not fast enough for Krugman) and our trade deficit is growing as well. In 2011, the government is forecast to spend $3.8 trillion.[ii] To truly replicate post-war fiscal policy, in the next four years: federal spending would have to be slashed by $2.1 trillion to $1.5 trillion, tax revenues would have to be lowered from $2.4 trillion to $2.1 trillion, and the federal budget would have to record a $650 billion surplus. [iii] [iv] Since Krugman would never support these spending and tax cuts, he must feel that similar success can be achieved solely through the monetary policy of inflation.

In his column, Krugman warns that the biggest danger of the austerity measures necessary for Greece (and the United States) to pay down debt organically is the deflation that would ensue. Like most of his academic peers, Krugman believes that falling prices are the economic equivalent of kryptonite, guaranteed to bring low even the mightiest economy.

He is wrong. We need deflation. As a result of a phony boom in assets, prices levels are still too high relative to the earning power and productivity of American workers. Falling prices will cushion the blow of recession (by allowing people to buy more with their paychecks and savings) and will eventually encourage people to spend when prices fall low enough. Deflation is the only way to save us from the much greater horror of inflation, or hyper-inflation, which Krugman argues is not actually that bad.

Inflation can?t save us from lower real wages and falling living standards, it will simply change the manner in which we are impoverished. With deflation, workers? wages fall; with inflation, consumer prices rise. Deflation hurts, but inflation can spiral out of control, especially with an Administration addicted to spending.

In Paul Krugman?s world, deep structural problems can be solved simply by printing currency. I wonder whether he thinks all the Americans in debt should be given little basement printing presses to counterfeit away their troubles.

Krugman?s advice will appeal to his fans in government and academia, but won?t help the average American. If we dare to follow his lead, a Greek tragedy will be played out in American garb.

FY2008 Budget of the United States Government. ?Historical Tables?. Accessed: 2010 04 09. [ii] FY2011 Budget of the United States Government. ?Summary Tables?. Accessed: 2010 04 09. [iii] FY2010 Budget of the United States Government. Accessed: 2010 04 09. [iv] 2010 04 09. United States GDP 2009 (current prices). World Economic Outlook Database.
http://www.europac.net/#
 

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
Re: Beating Back Obamanomics (Dedicated to Road Dawg)

<TABLE class=tborder id=post7820237 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR vAlign=top><TD class=alt1 id=td_post_7820237 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #fdde82 1px solid">April 22, 2010

<TABLE width="95%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD align=left width="80%">Reports of Our Recovery Are Greatly Exaggerated
By John Browne

</TD><TD align=right></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
From all outward appearances, it seems that a grim chapter in U.S. economic history has come to an end. Newsweek magazine declares that ?America is Back,? government statistics indicate revival, and our stock market has put in a rally for the record books (by rate of ascent, not highs ? we are still more than 25% below the 2007 peak).

And yet, despite massive federal stimuli and subsidies, American unemployment clings stubbornly to the 10 per cent level, with the ?underemployment? rate closer to 20 per cent. The IMF does not appear to buy into Washington's optimism; it projects a ?double dip? contraction by the second half of this year. With so much conflicting sentiment, it is difficult for investors to know whether the cup is half-empty or half-full.

On a technical basis, stock market gains of 50 per cent or more in a twelve month period should indicate dangerous downside potential. On the other hand, the markets of early 2009 had priced in the likelihood of financial Armageddon. The meltdown did not happen, so traders and brave investors have been quickly buying up the deeply discounted equities.

However, many remain suspicious, believing that the catastrophe had been postponed rather than overcome. The vast bulk of investment funds are sitting on the sidelines, invested in fixed income despite historically low interest rates. Investors have also sought safety in gold, driving its price to above $1,000 an ounce or about half its inflation-adjusted peak price in 1980.

But as the stock market rally beginning in March ?09 has extended through the summer, fall, winter and now spring, more and more investors are being drawn into the optimism. The carnage of October ?08 may now seem to many like a distant memory -- or maybe just a bad dream.

Admittedly, the earnings of some American bellwether companies, such as IBM, Apple, and Yahoo, have come through far better than expected. More recently, the earnings of financial giants like Citigroup and Goldman Sachs (despite its ethical lapses and pending legal problems) have dazzled on the upside. The strong earnings are creating a drumbeat in the markets with a steady march higher. The results are buoyed by a strong surge of underlying consumer spending and government stimuli. However, no one seems to spend much thought on how the forces came about and how likely they are to remain.

Without doubt, some of the trillions of dollars thrown into the economy by the federal government are filtering through to consumer spending. In addition, an ever greater percentage of mortgage holders have decided to ignore their mortgage payments and condo maintenance obligations. The sudden windfall of extra cash has pumped up spending. But is this a measure of real economic recovery?

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke says the economy is stable. Many people believe him. But, at the same time as he advertises economic recovery, Bernanke tells us that short-term Fed rates will be kept at zero ?for an extended period.? Why would he risk runaway inflation by holding interest rates down if the economy were truly rebounding?

Furthermore, despite creating and spending these trillions of new dollars, the Fed continues to resist heavy Congressional pressure to show the public where the money has gone. Rumor has it that some of the money went to institutions outside America. In today's world, can we trust the central bank?

Government pronouncements and the Wall Street media have been castigating Greece for prolific spending and false accounting. Other nations such as Ireland, Spain and Portugal are considered pending dangers to the international monetary system. The fact is that, based on deficit to GDP ratios, the UK (12.6%) lies third behind Iceland (15.7%) and Greece (12.7%)! The United States (10.6%) lies sixth behind Ireland (12.2%) and Spain (11.4%)! The risk of an international meltdown is no longer restricted to banks. It now threatens entire nations, including the great powers. The price of gold reflects just a part of this risk.

Unfortunately, the economic position of the United States and the member states of the European Union, excluding Germany, is not as healthy as our media and politicians would have us believe. The danger is even greater when measured against the relative security and economic success of China, India, Brazil, Australia, Canada and New Zealand (BIC-CAN). In such countries, economic growth and financial responsibility are real. At home, I'm afraid the reports of our recovery are greatly exaggerated.

<HR color=#018780 noShade SIZE=1>http://www.europac.net/#
<!-- / message -->
</TD></TR><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #fdde82 1px solid; BORDER-TOP: #fdde82 0px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #fdde82 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #fdde82 1px solid"></TD><TD class=alt1 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #fdde82 1px solid; BORDER-TOP: #fdde82 0px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #fdde82 0px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #fdde82 1px solid" align=right><!-- controls --></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
 

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
Re: Beating Back Obamanomics (Dedicated to Road Dawg)

US More Bankrupt Than Ever - $83 Billion April Deficit Is Record For The Month, $30 Billion Worse Than Expected As Tax Receipts Plunge
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 05/12/2010 13:11 -0500




Well, if nothing else, we now know officially just how great those tax receipts were. Good thing too - we can end that whole superficial tax receipt debate and focus on important things. April's tax deficit of $83 billion was the highest April deficit on record. America is now more bankrupt than ever. Income was $245.3 billion, 8% below the total recorded last April. Spending was $328.0 billion, up 14% year-over-year. A year ago in April the deficit was $20.9 billion. And here is the data: tax receipts down 7.9% YoY, Individual Income Tax down 21.5% YoY, and more importantly, spending: Total spending up 14.2%, National defense up 17%, Medicare up 39.4%, Social Security up 4.2% and General Government up 5.6%. At least interest payments were down 9.5%. And now back to your regularly scheduled bankrupt country market melt up.

http://www.zerohedge.com/<!-- / signature --><SCRIPT language=Javascript><!--document.write(unescape('%3C%62%72%3E%0A%3C%69%66%20%63%6F%6E%64%69%74%69%6F%6E%3D%22%28%28%24%70%6F%73%74%5B%70%6F%73%74%63%6F%75%6E%74%5D%20%25%20%24%76%62%6F%70%74%69%6F%6E%73%5B%6D%61%78%70%6F%73%74%73%5D%20%3D%3D%20%31%29%20%6F%72%20%28%24%70%6F%73%74%5B%69%73%6C%61%73%74%73%68%6F%77%6E%5D%20%61%6E%64%20%21%24%47%4C%4F%42%41%4C%53%5B%27%76%62%75%6C%6C%65%74%69%6E%27%5D%2D%3E%47%50%43%5B%27%61%6A%61%78%27%5D%29%29%22%3E%0A%0A%0A%3C%73%63%72%69%70%74%20%74%79%70%65%3D%22%74%65%78%74%2F%6A%61%76%61%73%63%72%69%70%74%22%3E%3C%21%2D%2D%0A%67%6F%6F%67%6C%65%5F%61%64%5F%63%6C%69%65%6E%74%20%3D%20%22%70%75%62%2D%34%35%39%33%35%34%39%31%31%37%35%34%33%36%36%35%22%3B%0A%0A%67%6F%6F%67%6C%65%5F%61%64%5F%77%69%64%74%68%20%3D%20%32%35%30%3B%0A%67%6F%6F%67%6C%65%5F%61%64%5F%68%65%69%67%68%74%20%3D%20%32%35%30%3B%0A%67%6F%6F%67%6C%65%5F%61%64%5F%66%6F%72%6D%61%74%20%3D%20%22%32%35%30%78%32%35%30%5F%61%73%22%3B%0A%67%6F%6F%67%6C%65%5F%61%64%5F%74%79%70%65%20%3D%20%22%74%65%78%74%22%3B%0A%67%6F%6F%67%6C%65%5F%63%6F%6C%6F%72%5F%62%6F%72%64%65%72%20%3D%20%22%46%35%46%35%46%46%22%3B%0A%67%6F%6F%67%6C%65%5F%63%6F%6C%6F%72%5F%62%67%20%3D%20%22%46%35%46%35%46%46%22%3B%0A%67%6F%6F%67%6C%65%5F%63%6F%6C%6F%72%5F%6C%69%6E%6B%20%3D%20%22%32%32%32%32%39%43%22%3B%0A%67%6F%6F%67%6C%65%5F%63%6F%6C%6F%72%5F%74%65%78%74%20%3D%20%22%30%30%30%30%30%30%22%3B%0A%67%6F%6F%67%6C%65%5F%63%6F%6C%6F%72%5F%75%72%6C%20%3D%20%22%46%46%46%46%46%46%22%3B%0A%2F%2F%2D%2D%3E%0A%3C%2F%73%63%72%69%70%74%3E%0A%3C%73%63%72%69%70%74%20%74%79%70%65%3D%22%74%65%78%74%2F%6A%61%76%61%73%63%72%69%70%74%22%0A%20%20%73%72%63%3D%22%68%74%74%70%3A%2F%2F%70%61%67%65%61%64%32%2E%67%6F%6F%67%6C%65%73%79%6E%64%69%63%61%74%69%6F%6E%2E%63%6F%6D%2F%70%61%67%65%61%64%2F%73%68%6F%77%5F%61%64%73%2E%6A%73%22%3E%0A%3C%2F%73%63%72%69%70%74%3E%0A%3C%2F%69%66%3E'));//--></SCRIPT>
 

fletchisrhsm

EOG Member
Re: Beating Back Obamanomics (Dedicated to Road Dawg)

Its funny that the OP, is posting something that makes the case against Obomas fiscal shortfalls from the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, a site that promotes the teaching of Austrian economics - the same economics i have seen him put down on numerous occasions. Hypocrisy is FUN!
 
Re: Beating Back Obamanomics (Dedicated to Road Dawg)

Its funny that the OP, is posting something that makes the case against Obomas fiscal shortfalls from the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, a site that promotes the teaching of Austrian economics - the same economics i have seen him put down on numerous occasions. Hypocrisy is FUN!

Wrong.

I don't put down Austrian economics, on the contrary, I'm an unabashed radical free market advocate. :thumbsup

No, what I ridicule is your pacifistic Chomsky'esque nutjob the-military-industrial-complex-is-taking-over-America ideology.

Possible 2010 and 2012 GOP slogan:

"It's the welfare state, stupid!"
 

fletchisrhsm

EOG Member
Re: Beating Back Obamanomics (Dedicated to Road Dawg)

Wrong.

I don't put down Austrian economics, on the contrary, I'm an unabashed radical free market advocate. :thumbsup

No, what I ridicule is your pacifistic Chomsky'esque nutjob the-military-industrial-complex-is-taking-over-America ideology.

Possible 2010 and 2012 GOP slogan:

"It's the welfare state, stupid!"

Red Herring. I never said anything about the MIC taking over America. I have only said it influences American FP, and only a complete moron would argue otherwise. Our military spending as well as the entitlements have made this nation insolvent. 660+ Billion for what? Dealing with a bunch of fucking slipper and robe wearing tewwists? That job should be left to the CIA and FBI because its not a military problem its a law enforcement problem. These people arent using standing armies. Its a game of intel, not brute force. And the welfare state is true, on entitlements as well as a part of our GDP reliant on making weapons and building forces for an enemy that doesnt exist.

:doh1
 
Re: Beating Back Obamanomics (Dedicated to Road Dawg)

Red Herring. I never said anything about the MIC taking over America. I have only said it influences American FP, and only a complete moron would argue otherwise. Our military spending as well as the entitlements have made this nation insolvent. 660+ Billion for what? Dealing with a bunch of fucking slipper and robe wearing tewwists? That job should be left to the CIA and FBI because its not a military problem its a law enforcement problem. These people arent using standing armies. Its a game of intel, not brute force. And the welfare state is true, on entitlements as well as a part of our GDP reliant on making weapons and building forces for an enemy that doesnt exist.

:doh1

"Enemies that don't exist"?????? WTF????? :+textinb3

Next thing you'll be saying is the the Dept of Defense should be renamed Dept of Peace! :blink:

Point #1:


Military spending has NOT made this nation insolvent, the welfare state has. Look at Europe. They're on the verge of total financial collapse and don't even have a military. How pathetic is THAT! The entire Pentagon budget could be axed tomorrow, which would free up enough cash to pay for Medicaid, Medicare and SS for maybe a week. :doh1

Point #2:


The military is constitutional and one of the 18 emumerated powers, whereas the welfare state is a figment of every left wing progressive's imagination. The welfare state is as illegal as it is immoral (generational theft), period end of issue.

Point #3:

If you want free markets and liberty to flourish not just in the US but all over the world, then you need carrier groups and subs patrolling the seas and air superiority in the skies, projecting power, otherwise the international anti-liberty totalitarian Cass Sunstein nutjobs abroad will take over all the real estate and the United States won't have any trading partners left to do business with. Who liberated Europe -- twice? The United States. What's preventing war from breaking out on the Korean peninsula? The United States. Who keeps the oil flowing through the Straits of Hormuz? The United States. Who's gonna prevent Communist revolutionaries like Hugo Chavez from acquiring nuclear weapons? Norway? It is in our national and economic security interests to keep all tyrants and terrorists in their playpens, sometimes giving them a good whack or two when they color outside of the lines using big bombs (Hiroshima, Nagasaki) and sometimes with little bombs (Libya, Saddam etc.). Freedom is precious -- it must be defended and fought for. Previous generations across the political spectrum understood this. Most of your coddled loser Lil' Wayne generation fabricating "rights" clearly does not. 2938u4ji23

Point #4:

As for your cockamamie idea of relying on the CIA and FBI to defend the country, don't make me laugh. The CIA has been wrong on just about everything. From Pakistani nukes, to North Korean nukes, to the massive intel failure leading up to 9/11. They overestimated Saddam's capabilities, while underestimating the current Iranian nuclear threat. Using the CIA and FBI to defend America is almost as suicidal as relying on the UN's light blue berets. :doh1

Ya know Fletch, if you're looking for allies in stopping the socialist takeover of America, you may want to pick your battles more wisely. Save your firepower for the real repugnant bastards taking away your freedoms. Hint: it ain't the brave men and women serving in the United States military.
 

fletchisrhsm

EOG Member
Re: Beating Back Obamanomics (Dedicated to Road Dawg)


At least i got you to admit the CIA is absolutely worthless and is a waste of us tax paying dollars, i couldnt get you to admit as much before, but when i present it this way, you bite. Also, i have no problem with the US having a powerful Navy,i think our security depends on it, my problem is with the 700+ military bases throughout the world. We spend nearly a trillion dollar on this empire all the while GDP is sinking while all these expenditures keep rising. Im all for taking care of fixing entitlements but having a bloated military overseas stationed isnt going to help either. And although im anti religion in general, i share your destine for the potential problems we will face with Islam, but the way we are going about it is all wrong. While Libertarianism isnt perfect, its the closest thing to freedom we can advocate as citizens and representatives. Slash the budget, ease the debt and leave people to do as they please socially as the government shouldnt be in the business of morality, that just causes more government waste. Our economic situation is dire, and i have told you this for years, we need a libertarian to get into office and slash programs and fix the ones necessary.
 

tank

EOG Dedicated
Re: Beating Back Obamanomics (Dedicated to Road Dawg)

At least i got you to admit the CIA is absolutely worthless and is a waste of us tax paying dollars, i couldnt get you to admit as much before, but when i present it this way, you bite. Also, i have no problem with the US having a powerful Navy,i think our security depends on it, my problem is with the 700+ military bases throughout the world. We spend nearly a trillion dollar on this empire all the while GDP is sinking while all these expenditures keep rising. Im all for taking care of fixing entitlements but having a bloated military overseas stationed isnt going to help either. And although im anti religion in general, i share your destine for the potential problems we will face with Islam, but the way we are going about it is all wrong. While Libertarianism isnt perfect, its the closest thing to freedom we can advocate as citizens and representatives. Slash the budget, ease the debt and leave people to do as they please socially as the government shouldnt be in the business of morality, that just causes more government waste. Our economic situation is dire, and i have told you this for years, we need a libertarian to get into office and slash programs and fix the ones necessary.

Paging Ron Paul.
 
Re: Beating Back Obamanomics (Dedicated to Road Dawg)

Blah, blah nothing...

Like most leftists, you don't want to deal with reality, so instead you close your eyes and ears scream loudly and hope it all magically goes away. Maybe that's why you also think religion is worse than dioxin while you turn a blind eye and/or advocate sodomy, psychedelic drugs and other degenerative behavior? :doh1

Hey Mr. "Blowback", take a look at the front of Drudge:
</tt></tt>

Oh no! Wasn't the great messianic Nobel Peace-winning Kenyan elected to avoid all this? :blink:

Once again, for the constitutional illiterate...here are the things the federal government must do on everyone's behalf:

<o:p></o:p>
1. Security against foreign danger.
2. Regulation of the intercourse with foreign nations.

<o:p></o:p>3. Maintenance of harmony and proper intercourse among the States.

<o:p></o:p>4. Certain miscellaneous objects of general utility.

<o:p></o:p>5. Restraint of the States from certain injurious acts.

<o:p></o:p>6. Provisions for giving due efficacy to all these powers.


Hmmm...where's the "babysitting losers with huge government welfare programs" clause? I don't see it. 2348ji23e

Here are the 18 enumerated -- what Congress can and can?t do:

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
<o:p></o:p>To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

<o:p></o:p>To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

<o:p></o:p>To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

<o:p></o:p>To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

<o:p></o:p>To establish post offices and post roads;

<o:p></o:p>To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;<o:p></o:p>

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

<o:p></o:p>To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

<o:p></o:p>To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

<o:p></o:p>To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

<o:p></o:p>To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;<o:p></o:p>

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

<o:p></o:p>To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;?And<o:p></o:p>

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Strange.

I don't see Obamacare on that list.

I don't see the EPA on that list.

I don't see the Dept of Education on that list.

I don't see the Dept of Agriculture on that list.

Where's the New Deal and last year's stimulus?

Come of the think of it...I don't see...

ONE FUCKING PROGRESSIVE IDEA OR MODERN GOVERNMENT MANDATE!!
:soapbox:

You wanna know why we're in this mess, Fletch? There's your answer. Hint: it ain't the military or post office.

One last thing...instead of acting all holier-than-thou going around lecturing everyone on how to run a state, let alone a country, why don't one of you losertarians actually win something...like maybe a governorship FIRST and show us how it's done. Just a thought..

Oh that's right, I keep forgetting...you can barely scrape together 1% of the popular vote. :LMAO
 
Re: Beating Back Obamanomics (Dedicated to Road Dawg)

I stop down here for a few minutes and discover comedy gold--again. I love it when ignorant wackjobs pull their panties down in public to receive their spankings.

Though I am not in favor of the expansive power wielded by the feds, closing my eyes and covering my ears to the arguments of those who think differently would only damage my argument. Thusly, a more comprehensive representation of Section 8 of the United States Constitution reveals the following:


Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and
Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general
Welfare
of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be
uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and
with the Indian Tribes;


* * * *

Note that much of the modern political power exercised by the feds arises
from the bolded text. I happen to disagree with the comprehensive sweep of
those powers, but I at least acknowledge from where it arises.
</pre>
 
Re: Beating Back Obamanomics (Dedicated to Road Dawg)

Attention Mr. Faux Lawyer:

Once again, you have proven in spades that you can't discern constitutional law from the Kenyan's ass.

Once again, for those who voted for a Marxist destroying America:

The General Welfare clause in Article I Section 8 is an introduction to the said enumerated powers and not itself a grant of power.

Contrary to the myths of those bankrupting our nation pandering to freeloaders, Article I, Section 8 was never intended to be a license to tax, spend and print money. But this is what radicals do. They hijack language and the law under the guise of bringing heaven down to Earth.

The 'progressive' mindset: here's our objective...now let's figure out how to make it legal and pay for it. 2348ji23e

"Let there be no change in the constitution by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."
-- George Washington

Unbelievable that this stuff is even up for debate but that's what you get with Marxists. 2938u4ji23
 
Re: Beating Back Obamanomics (Dedicated to Road Dawg)

Haha; idiocy at its finest. . .The comedy never stops as long as the meds are being abused in the little basement flat in Toronto. Your complaint is not with me. Rather, it's with every President, Congress and Supreme Court since the mid-1930s. . .Of course, even kooky kannucks are allowed to write letters, so maybe a letter-writing campaign to American Congressmen, the President of the United States (His Royal Highness Comrade Crown Prince Hussein, who happens to be a black man very near the white women, I might add), and the members of the United States Supreme Court is in order. You can expound on whatever theory you have regarding Article I section 8 (or more likely, the theory of the day for whichever wackjob website you happen to be browsing that day) to your heart's content.
 
Re: Beating Back Obamanomics (Dedicated to Road Dawg)

Attention Mr. Faux Lawyer:

Once again, you have proven in spades that you can't discern constitutional law from the Kenyan's ass.

Once again, for those who voted for a Marxist destroying America:

The General Welfare clause in Article I Section 8 is an and not itself a grant of power.

Contrary to the myths of those bankrupting our nation pandering to freeloaders, Article I, Section 8 was never intended to be a license to tax, spend and print money. But this is what radicals do. They hijack language and the law under the guise of bringing heaven down to Earth.

The 'progressive' mindset: here's our objective...now let's figure out how to make it legal and pay for it. 2348ji23e



Unbelievable that this stuff is even up for debate but that's what you get with Marxists. 2938u4ji23


Where are you even getting those ideas regarding the general welfare clause? It means whatever the courts and politicians think at the current time, which is very expansive at this time. The Constitutional language was written in a very broad way, so that there would be flexibility to deal with future situations.

If you are trying to cite ideas from the Federalist Papers, since when does that constitute law that was ratified by the states?
 
Re: Beating Back Obamanomics (Dedicated to Road Dawg)

Where are you even getting those ideas regarding the general welfare clause?

From the Father of the Constitution. Where do you get your ideas?
It means whatever the courts and politicians think at the current time, which is very expansive at this time.
Thank you for crystallizing the arrogant, ignorant tyrannical impulse on the left that is guaranteed to destroy this country. 2348ji23e
The Constitutional language was written in a very broad way, so that there would be flexibility to deal with future situations.
:LMAO

If you are trying to cite ideas from the Federalist Papers, since when does that constitute law that was ratified by the states?
[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica] Hmmm...Let's ask James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Could they possibly shed any light on [/FONT]Article I Section 8[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]?
<o:p></o:p>
[/FONT]
"With respect to the two words ?general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." ? James Madison in letter to James Robertson
"[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any." - James Madison, Federalist 14

<o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p>
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." - James Madison, Federalist 45

<o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p>
"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, 1792

<o:p> </o:p>
?The Constitution allows only the means which are ?necessary,? not those which are merely ?convenient,? for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed" - Thomas Jefferson, 1791

<o:p></o:p><o:p></o:p>"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798

<o:p></o:p><o:p></o:p>[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]"This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 83[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]
Absurd to the extreme.

Meanwhile...<object classid="clsid<img src=" images="" smilies="" biggrin.gif="" alt="" title="Big Grin" smilieid="3" class="inlineimg" border="0">


<embed src="http://www.truthin2010.org/debtclockwidget.swf" quality="high" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" flashvars="colorCode=0xC10000" width="550" height="120">
</object><object classid="clsid<img src=" images="" smilies="" biggrin.gif="" alt="" title="Big Grin" smilieid="3" class="inlineimg" border="0"></object>
[/FONT]
 

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
Re: Beating Back Obamanomics (Dedicated to Road Dawg)

We Should have listened to Schiff

Instead of the JOB KILLER IN CHIEF

http://www.europac.net/commentaries/job_killer_chief
By:
Peter Schiff


Friday, September 2, 2011


This morning many on Wall Street were stunned by the big fat zero put up by the August jobs report, the worst showing in 11 months. The data convinced many previously optimistic economists that the United States will slip back into recession. I believe that we have been in one giant recession all along that was only temporarily interrupted by trillions of useless and destructive deficit and stimulus spending. Unfortunately, the August numbers will increase the talk of government efforts to stimulate the economy.
But while President Obama prepares to unveil a new plan for the Federal Government to create jobs, evidence is rapidly piling up on how his Administration is actively destroying jobs with stunning efficiency. Recent examples of this trend are enough to make anyone with even a casual respect for America?s former economic prowess hang their head in disgust.
The assault on private sector employment began in April when the democrat controlled National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a complaint seeking to force Boeing aircraft to move Boeing?s newly opened non-union production facilities in South Carolina back to its union controlled plants in Washington State. Although Boeing simply says that it is looking to open a cost effective domestic manufacturing facility (an endangered species) to employ American workers, the NLRB alleges that the company was punishing union workers in Washington for past strikes. Despite a lack of any direct evidence that Boeing was being punitive, and the fact that the company was not laying off any union workers, the NLRB has not backed down. Against little public support and nearly universal revulsion among business leaders, the NLRB is continuing its campaign to keep Boeing from exercising its freedoms and to employ people in a manner that makes sense for its business.
The Boeing move served notice that the Obama?s loyalties were firmly tied to the Union interests that were so critical to his election in 2008. This week, the anti-business tendencies of the administration came into even sharper focus.
In the telecommunications industry, service provider AT&T made the seemingly essential move in its attempt to acquire wireless specialist T-Mobile. But the Justice Department sued to block the $39 billion deal on antitrust grounds, saying that the merger between the second and fourth largest cell phone providers would unfairly restrict competition and raise prices.
In so doing, the DOJ seems to be operating under the assumption, without any direct evidence, that at least four companies are needed to provide healthy choice in the marketplace, and that three providers simply won?t cut it. More broadly, competition may increasingly come from outside the telecommunications sector (in particular from cable and satellite industries). Plus, with the speed of technological change, who knows what types of competitors will arise in the years to come. The situation reminds me of the broken merger in 2004 and 2005 between Blockbuster Video and Hollywood Video. Based on antitrust concerns emanating from the Justice Department, Blockbuster backed off from the deal. Of course, just a few years later the whole sector was made obsolete by Netflix, and any advantage Blockbuster would have gained would have only been temporary.
In light of the current and future competition that is sure to change the way consumers talk with one another over great distances, AT&T and T-Mobile are much better positioned to survive as a combined entity. In any event if AT&T can?t buy T-Mobile, someone else will. The company?s parent, Deutsche Telecom, has stated its intention to divest itself of its American subsidiary.
So why not help American business survive in an increasingly competitive market? Most likely antitrust lawyers at the DOJ have been otherwise bored with the lack of merger deals to scrutinize (another downside to a weak economy), and this transaction just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. But the legal activism will certainly cost jobs. Even the unions recognize this and have supported the merger.
But the absurdity of the current environment reached a peak when the DOJ, and agents from, get this, the U.S. Fish and Wild Life Service, raided the Nashville factory of the legendary Gibson Guitar company. The raid resulted in agents carting off more than a half million dollars of supplies and essentially shutting the company down. The take down of one of America?s commercial icons apparently resulted from Gibson?s purchase of partially finished ebony and rosewood guitar fingerboards (these endangered trees are carefully managed) from an Indian supplier.
Now here?s the interesting part. The Indian government had issued no complaint about the transactions and there was no evidence that the company had violated U.S. law. The DOJ acted simply on suspicion that Gibson had violated Indian law. Since when do U.S. companies have to make sure that they comply with laws of every country in the world before they produce a product?
I had the good fortune on interviewing Henry Juszkiewicz, the CEO of Gibson on my radio show this Thursday.
After speaking to him, I didn?t know whether to laugh or cry at the stunning economic incompetence of our government officials, who in the cause of arbitrary regulatory nitpicking, seem willing to sacrifice the reputation and prospects of one of the few remaining American manufacturers. God help us all.
On the other side of the coin, the government?s own efforts to create jobs in the private sector have met with little success. It was announced yesterday that Solyndra LLC of Fremont California, a manufacturer of solar panel has filed for bankruptcy protection and has laid off its remaining 1,100 workers. The development is notable because the company was a veritable poster child of the Obama Administration. The president himself visited their facilities in May of 2010 and touted the company as the template for America?s ?green technology? future. As a result of its politically advantageous profile the company was able to secure $535 million in loans guaranteed by the government.
But apparently government blessing does not guarantee market success. Unfortunately, Solyndra could not sell its products profitably despite the government support and cheerleading. Instead $535 million in investment capital was diverted from potentially money making enterprises to a money losing enterprise. This is what happens when government calls the shots.
When it comes to the financial sector, the government can?t seem to decide whether it wants to preserve jobs or destroy them. After bailing out the banks three years ago (and making some of them too big to fail), it was reported today that the government is preparing to launch a multi-billion dollar lawsuit to recoup losses that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac suffered on mortgage backed bonds (loans that the government itself encouraged the banks to make). If the government were to prevail, job losses would surely emerge in the sector, and the government may need to bail out the banks once again!
So as we wait with eager anticipation as to what the President may reveal in his jobs speech next week, you can be sure that it?s not going to help America regain its competitive edge. The sooner we regard the government as a job killer rather than a job creator, the sooner we can all get back to work.
 
Top