About Us

Name:
Email: jmdearras@ynic.org
Name: flipsidedon
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Stimulus Packages Are Destined To Fail Even Without The Pork That Is The Majority of The Cost

The U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Franz (boy, is that name predictive of his financial judgment) Geithner) is speaking in a press conference right now as I write this about the need for a trillion dollar "stimulus package, a package that the Senate will vote to pass in less than an hour even though it is still having pork barrel projects added to it, making it clear the Senate has not even read the thing and NO ONE including our Senators even knows half of what it contains, such as the fact that it sets up a government office that has to approve medical procedures before your doctor or a hospital can provide them to you.

And this is occurring just three months after our government decided to spend a trillion dollars on the Wall Street bail-out that was passed three months ago to "solve the financial crisis". Of course, that first bail out was to restore the economy, which has dropped precipitously by 40%, along with 3 million jobs being lost, since that obligation to American taxpayers was passed!

So, now we are told that this new trillion dollar boondoggle is absolutely necessary—immediately! And Geithner is telling us that another trillion dollars AFTER this one will be needed to bail out banks. And then there’s the bail out of auto makers. And there will be many more to come. The estimate right now, and the number is growing every day, of everything that is being planned "to save America’s economy" is a total of 9.6 trillion dollars. That is enough to pay off 80% of ALL THE HOME MORTGAGES IN THE ENTIRE WORLD!

The Power Force in Politics Today Is Not "Do It For The Children." Rather, it is "For Our Wants, Do It To Our Children and Their Children!"

Do you remember the hysteria a few years ago when the national debt reached 500 billion. Now we are talking about a national debt of 12 billion dollars, eleven million of which will have been incurred by the Democrat controlled congress over a ninth month period that began three months ago.

There are many things that are troubling about this so called Stimulus Package.

In this and entries to follow, I want to discuss five of those things that are particularly troubling about what is presently taking place in Washington:

(1) This contradicts all the economic reality evidenced in history,
(2) This destines our children and grandchildren to impoverishment and to a world in which America cannot provide security for either them or other free peoples in the world,
(3) This contradicts the laws not only of economics, but also the laws of nature, and it therefore is destined to failure, as any persistent behavior that is opposed to nature will ultimately have nature smack it down or smite it,
(4) This is the annihilation of worker’s rights, establishing that the government has all the rights and the workers exist and receive the rewards of their labor at the whim of the government, and
(5) This is the height of arrogance that this administration and congress can make an economic theory that has led to economic catastrophe and/or a totalitarian government every time it has been attempted. Their explanation for this is either that THEY are a lot smarter than all the other generations of political leaders who have attempted this approach to increasing prosperity or that all the prior attempts failed because they did not spend enough money that would indebt future generations.

So, first is the fact that those advocating that this boondoggle will help the economy either are deprived of a decent high school level education in economics or they are lying through their teeth. Either way, the reality of the total $ 9+ trillion that is the cost of all this pork barrel bribery of voters, bailouts of failed businesses, temporary make-work jobs, and socialist wish list programs that have been and are being passed by the previous and present Democrat controlled congress will not help the economy or jobs. Rather, it removes more than 9 trillion dollars from the productive free market and transfers it to the wasteful government sector which produces no wealth.

All the evidence of history shows that increased spending and taxing by government depresses an economy and jobs rather than helping. And all the evidence of history demonstrates that decreasing taxes and government control of the economy stimulates economic growth and jobs. This occurred in the 1920’s when, under the guidance of Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon, the Harding and Coolidge administered reduced the top tax rate of 73% three times until it was down to 25 %. Consequently, the economy grew by 59% from 1921 to 1929 with an annual growth rate of over 6%; tax revenues received by the government went up from $719 million in 1921 to $1,160 million in 1928; and the percentage of the tax burden paid by the rich rose from 44.2% to 78.4%.

These same three things—(1) increased economic health and prosperity, (2) real increase in tax revenues received by the government, and (3) the share of the federal budget carried by the wealthy--happen every time taxes and the size and control of government are reduced.

It happened during President Kennedy tax reductions in the first half of the ‘60’s bringing the optimum tax rate down from a high of 91% to 75%.

It happened in the 80’s when President Reagan reduced the optimum tax rate from 70% in 1980 to 28% in 1988. This initiated 28 years of continuous growth in the American economy, the taxes received by government almost doubled, and the percentage of taxes paid by the wealthy increased dramatically.

It happened in Ireland when they learned from America, and reduced their optimum tax rates by 12.5% in the 1990’s. The boom that resulted led to Ireland becoming known as the roaring tiger of Europe.

Also, after the fall of the Soviet Union, Eastern European nations that reduced their taxes very significantly saw the same result. Slovakia adopted a flat tax of 19% and the economic boom there is perhaps the greatest of all examples of all examples. As soon as Slovakia reduced their tax burden on the people, Slovakia became the Hong Kong of Europe in the first five years of the 21st century.

The same three results occurred in the first half of the 1990’s when New Zealand, which had a plummeting economy after decades of liberal economic policy, reduced taxes to an optimum 15% tax rate and reduced the size of government by 66%. The economic boom that resulted was in full effect within two years after the decrease in taxes and size of government went into effect.

This constant pattern occurs because wealth and money are mobile. Look at the states with the most government intervention in the free market and the highest taxes, California being the foremost example. It is about to fail economically and people, jobs, businesses, and capitol are fleeing the state. Like our major cities with socialist agendas and ever increasing taxes, California is becoming a state of less skilled people and an ever decreasing tax base.

Just think about it. If a man can run a company that produces a thousand widgets in CA for one million dollars, and he can produce the same 1,000 widgets in Alabama for $750 thousand dollars, where do you think he is going to build his factory? And if he can produce the same number and quality of widgets in Ireland or Slovakia for $500 thousand dollars, in which nation do you believe he will build his next plant? And why would you criticize this man for this. If you can buy a dress for $100 at XYZ clothiers, and you can buy the identical dress at Wal-Mart for $65, where do you shop? It seems clear by the explosion of Wal-Marts that occurred twenty years ago reveals the choice of most people, as does the more recent phenomenal growth of Home Depot and Lowe’s home improvement centers.

The Mobility of Money and Business From Nation To Nation Is Not A New Phenomenon in History!

From the time of the Roman Empire through the thirteenth century, Great Britain was the backwater of Europe culturally, in life-expectancy, educationally, technologically, and economically. However, in the 15th and 16th centuries this began to turn around. By the beginning of the 18th century, the technological revolution was transforming Britain so that it was exporting more produced goods than raw materials to the rest of the world.

This growth continued during the 18th century until Britain became the economic powerhouse of the world, becoming the world’s greatest exporter of major industrial products such as steam engines, trains, presses, ships, etc. to other nations across the earth. Then in two centuries Britain became the richest most powerful nation on earth. One of, if not the most important factor was London’s economic policy was so stable that merchants from all over the world trusted that their investments and money were safe there. So merchants from around the world began pouring money and investments into the British economy.

If you would like to read further on this phenomenon of the growth of British economic power, Dr. Thomas Sowell of the Hoover Institution at Stamford University documents it in his book, Conquest and Cultures, Chapter 2, "The British". In that chapter, Dr. Sowell describes many factors that contributed to this rapid economic growth, not the least of which was low taxes and stable economic policy that made the wealthy all over the world trust that they could safely build businesses and invest money in British banks without risk of the British government seizing their properties, or suddenly changing its monetary policies.

But this all began to change in the latter part of the 18th century because of welfare programs through which the British starting taking more and more funds from wage earners and redistributing the wealth to non-workers. Benjamin Franklin while living in London as a representative of the Pennsylvania colony to the King of England (1764-75) wrote about the ever increasing welfare system that was developing in Britain. He believed at that time that it was already undermining incentive in British workers and weakening its economic strength so that America’s work ethic would ultimately lead to America surpassing Britain. This projection took a while to come to fruition, but in time it did occur.

That is precisely what has happened in America. For her first 143 years, America had a very stable economic policy and very limited taxes. Although she has continued to grow in prosperity and strength, circa 1933-36, the low taxes, free market, and stable economic policy that were the basis of her growth began to be undermined. So, now payday for using taxes and give-aways as the way to buy power from voters has come due as the ever increasing control by a bloated government and tax rates are driving investors, businesses, people, and prosperity to less expensive places in the world to do business. And the bailouts, stimulus packages, and plethora of new government programs will never stop it. They are the cause.

After showing the world how to prosper, we right now are living through the demolition of American greatness, prosperity, and economic health—and America’s security as well because security requires wealth (just ask the Soviet Union about this).

This Betrays Economic Principles Told To Elementary Aged Kids.

I remember as a primary school child hearing the story of the king who killed the goose that laid the golden eggs. And at the time, I thought, "Why, that is so stupid that no one would ever be that dumb." Well, I was wrong. It is astoundingly stupid, but it is precisely what America is doing right now. And if we don’t stop it, America as a great nation will end, and with it our freedom and the freedom of many innocents in the world will be lost for generations to come, if not forever.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Re Abuse: The Five Supremes, the MSM, and the Left's Rampant Unreality, Absolutism, and Naiveté

Remember on 9/11/01 the time period between the plane crashing into the 2nd tower and all passenger flights in the U.S. having been accounted for-- including the identifying of United flight 93’s crash site? It was during that terrifying interim that President Bush gave the Air Force permission to shoot down any unaccounted for aircraft that was approaching Washington, D.C., without responding to warnings.

If United flight 93’s passengers had not fought back that day and the flight had reached Washington, and our Air Force had shot it down, would the President be guilty of crimes against humanity for killng the 40 innocent passengers? If not, why not?

 Especially in light of the mainstream media and the radical left’s constant denials that moral absolutes exist, it has been astounding for me to watch their absolutist moral judgments of America, the President, and our military related to alleged abuse of and denial of habeas corpus for captured terrorist combatants. It seems that absolutism is verboten except when it comes to the U.S. military and the security of the free world.

This is not only sheer intellectual and moral absurdity, but furthermore is the suicidal ranting of autovorous, self-masticating, Western elites living in a psychological Utopian Oz totally unrelated to the real world. Such a Never-Never Land fantasy (or delusion?) has nothing to do with morality, for morality essentially has to do with ethical dilemmas that face real people in real life struggles in the real world.

What Are The Moral Realities Of The Real World?

 First, in the real world, choices must be made between good and evil. For the sake of the secularists out there, let’s define "good" simply as "doing things that respect and preserve innocent persons’ rights to life, liberty, or property"; and let’s define "evil" simply as "doing things that rob innocent persons’ of those rights."

Second, in the real world, the use of physical force is amoral—the use of force is inherently neither moral nor immoral. Rather, the morality of force depends on whether it is used to do good or to do evil. To use force to respect or preserve innocent persons' rights is not only morally permissible, but in circumstances in which force is the only way to preserve innocent persons’ rights, force may be a moral necessity. On the other hand, to use force to do evil, to eviscerate an innocent person’s rights, is evil.

Third, in the real world, because of the perversity of evil and evil-doers, reality is that there are times when there is no good option available for good people. At times, the evil done by evil persons can limit the options available to good persons to only those that cause the loss of the rights to life, liberty, or property of some person(s).

One example is that of Nazi officers in WW II who were separating people to be loaded either into cars for concentration camps or cars for the ovens; and they would make a Jewish, Polish, or other unfavored woman choose from among her children one who would live while the others would die. If a woman refused to make the choice, all the children would be killed before her eyes.

So, the mother with indescribable horror of soul, picked her child that she thought had the best chance of surviving the camps as the one who should live. She did so with wretched horror, knowing that the moral choice--when there was no good choice available--was to make the least evil choice available was to allow at least one of her children to have life rather than having all of them killed.

Another example is our soldiers in wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and elsewhere who are confronted with a child on whom terrorists have strapped a bomb and then have made the child approach the soldiers’ position where the terrorists will explode the bomb, killing the child, the troops, and any innocent civilians near the troops. So, do our soldiers shoot the child before she gets to their position?

A decent soldier (or a non-combatant facing this situation) has no good choice. All he has are horrific alternatives all of which lead to some innocent(s) dying. So, in the real world, as unimaginable and soul-wrenching as it is to all of us who are protected from such choices by our soldiers, the soldier must make a moral decision that the least evil thing be done—either that the innocent child must die or that the child plus a number of other innocents die (by his bullet, but not by his hand—it is the barbarian who created this evil situation specifically to use the decency of our soldiers as a psychological weapon against them.

The problem is most of us in our society cannot fathom this kind of evil, but it is a reality in the real world. There are real people who are so evil that they use the decency of good people as a weapon to defeat them, to defeat us. When they do so, all we as decent people can do is to choose the lesser evil. To refuse to choose is to make a choice.

This is why police exist and have weapons. This is why we have the second ammendment. This is why our Declaration of Independence was written. It is why we we have an armed military, fight wars, and have nuclear weapons. All these things acknowledge the reality that at times we can only choose the least evil alternative from among a number of evil options.

With this reality in mind, let’s return to our original questions about United Flight 93 on 9/11.

Imagine for a moment two alternative scenarios about that day.
 
Scenario 1 -- What if a Special Forces or CIA officer had been on that flight and had been ordered by the President to kill the perpetrators and rescue the passengers? Would the President or the agent be tried for war crimes? If not, why not?

Scenario 2 -- What if a government agent had learned of the plot ahead of time, captured one of the perpetrators and learned of the plan, but the captive has refused to give the flight numbers? Would it be a war crime for the agent to abuse the captive or for the President to approve the agent doing so?

For clarity concerning these questions, let’s use these three definitions of terms:

(1) harassment is engaging in acts (the sole purpose of which is to obtain information that would enable good people to stop a current or imminent attack against innocent civilians or combatants who are defending innocent civilians) that may cause the victim emotional or physical discomfort, but which cause the victim neither severe pain nor any physical injuries.

(2) Abuse is engaging in activities (the sole purpose of which is to obtain information that would enable good people to stop a current or imminent attack against innocent civilians or combatants who are defending innocent civilians), which activities result in the victim receiving only temporary pain (the painful activity ends at least as soon as the immediate threat has concluded AND the pain does not endure beyond 15 minutes after the cessation of the activity) and/or only superficial injuries.

(3) torture is to engage in activities that cause prolonged pain or injuries that persist significantly beyond the conclusion of the known imminent threat OR a pattern of repeated abusive activities occurring over an extended period of time unrelated to any known, specific threat.

Based on these definitions, in Scenario 2, would it be a war crime for the agent to engage in harassment or abuse (but not torture) to gain the information required to save the lives of 40 innocent passengers? Whether or not it is a crime, should the agent do so anyway?

Scenario 3 – Suppose it is not just passengers on Flight 93 that are threatened, but a large cruise ship with hundreds of passengers controlled by terrorists and a large dirty bomb or nuclear weapon on board. The agent has learned from the captive terrorist that the ship is going to enter New York City’s harbor and then detonate the bomb. Would it be moral for our agent to harass and abuse (not torture) one or more captives in order to discover what ship will carry the terrorists into the port of our greatest city and annihilate so many innocents that it would make 9/11 seem trivial in comparison? If it is moral for the agent to do so (or even monstrously immoral to refuse to do so), should it be a crime? And if so, why would it not be a crime to shoot down a flight with 40 innocents on board as the lesser evil, but it would be a crime to torture rather than kill the evil perpetrators?

Scenario 4 – This is the same as scenario 3, with two exceptions. First, you are the agent involved. Second, your wife, children, entire extended family, and most of your friends live in the New York City area. You know that if you don’t get the necessary information in the next 24 hours, many of them will die immediately—along with 100’s of thousands of others—with several times as many dying slow, excruciatingly painful deaths.

What would you do? What is moral for you to do? If you do that, should you be a criminal under federal or international law? Should you be a hero whose action saved millions of lives and yet, for the same decision, be legally charged for horrific crimes against humanity?

If your answers concerning the morality of the decision differ from your answers about what the laws should be related to this decision, then you are in the curious position of saying that those who risk their lives to protect the rest of us and who face the psychological burden of making such horrific choices should have the additional burden placed upon them of having to choose between doing what is right and humane or doing the the thing that keeps them out of criminal trouble. I ask you, "Is it just possibly immoral for us to put those who lay down their lives in order to do good, i.e., to fight to protect the lives, liberty, and property of innocents from evil aggressors, in the position of having to make such an untenable choice?"

I believe such unrealistic condemnation of all harassment and abuse as being war crimes is not merely incredibly naive, but is delusional to the point of psychosis, is despicably evil, and most importantly, is flagrantly dangerous for free peoples when we are at war for our survival against monstrously barbarous totalitarian fascists. Rather than attacking and interrogating our soldiers and security forces, we the people need to begin interrogating our politicians, prosecutors, judges who take these positions and annulling the powers that we the people bestowed upon them for the principle purpose of protecting our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

don – 7/17/08

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Congressmen Suffer from Munchausen’s Proxy Or Are Pyromaniacs With A Savior Complex

The only way to understand the U.S. Congress, and especially the liberal and moderate Democrats who control it with the few Republican liberals is that they suffer from some desperate obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) that causes them to create a crisis for American citizens in order to be able to be the heroes who rush in and try to save us from the crisis. Then to save us, they create a worse crisis which will again require them to again save us in an even bigger way.

That is the only way to understand their repeated behavior with the economy, jobs, energy, national defense, NAFTA, forest fires and natural catastrophes, medical care and insurance, ad infinitum is that they have a disorder like Munchausen’s where they create a problem in order to get the attention (and bribes) they desire when they rush in to save the public from the condition they created. Or maybe they have an OCD like pyromaniacs with savior complexes like the volunteer fireman who starts apartment buildings on fire in order to gain the attention they acquire for rushing in the middle of the night to announce the fire and rescue victims.

For instance:

The economy: The economy is booming, so they say that businesses are making too much money, and they increase taxes. This causes the economy to slow down, so we have federal or state budget deficits. So, to save the government, they increase taxes. Which causes business ventures and investment to dramatically slow, so money going to government decreases further and businesses begin to leave to more business-friendly economies, which puts people out of work and decreases tax revenues? So, they again increase taxes.

Jobs: Their economic and tax decisions, as just discussed, decrease domestic production and jobs, so the supply of workers decreases as the jobs available decrease. This results in lower wages. So, the pyromaniacs that started the fire rush to the rescue, installing higher minimum wages. Which causes employers to move more jobs overseas where more laborers are available at lower wages, or businesses replace workers with automated machines that now cost less than the workers. So, Congress threatens to punish corporations for such decisions, which causes the corporations to move more jobs overseas where the businesses are appreciated rather than vilified.

National Defense: Liberals and leftists in congress and the media attack the U.S. as seeming too "unfriendly" and imperialistic when we use our military to defend innocents in the world from totalitarians. So, congress, to prove we are not the evil empire, withdraws our troops from protecting some innocent peoples. Thus, the totalitarians increase those who join their side with the evidence that America will not defend itself or its allies. So, attacks increase against America. So, liberals in congress announce it is because our might has made the world dislike us, and they promise to reduce our might and to talk more with the aggressors. Which weakness encourages more attacks against us, requiring the liberals to save us from our aggressive tendencies and to further disengage in the world and to disarm our military.

NAFTA: The lack of free trade is hurting us and making products cost more. So, we open the doors to 3rd world producers who have to meet none of the fiduciary, safety, environmental, or regulatory standards that our domestic producers must meet. So, they undercut the costs of our domestic producers, putting domestic producers out of business. So, we are flooded with dangerous products are products whose production in 3rd world countries does immense damage to the environment, and we put our workers out of work. So, our companies that have to survive begin to move production overseas, which Congress will save us from by creating penalties on companies that do so, driving more companies and jobs overseas, and forcing us to depend on more and more products than contaminate the environment or that are themselves dangerously contaminated.

Forest Fires and Natural Catastrophes: Congress, because it increases their tax base, allow homes and businesses to build up in areas that place inhabitants at high risk due to hurricanes that will flood these areas and close off avenues of escape (e.g., New Orleans, Texas coast south of Houston, etc.), to mud slides, flooding rivers, earth quakes, etc. So, millions move into these areas. And a catastrophe happens, placing thousands out of homes. So, Congress pays to rebuild those same areas, bringing millions back into the areas at huge cost, only to have those populations grow, and increase the numbers of inhabitants at great risk, only to have to show we care by rebuilding all over again. Or Congress and the EPA restrict home owners from cleaning out brush in fire prone areas, only to have billions in property lost and lives lost, only to rebuild again.

Medical Care and Insurance: Congress lectures companies for not providing care and insurance to high risk individuals at no extra cost, and requires companies to cover people for all kinds of risks for which they may not be at risk--a one covers all policy, rather than allowing individuals to shop for the coverage they need without having to pay for things they don't need. So, costs go up. So congress lectures companies, and forces them to care for, cover, or sell to people who are at high risk, greatly increasing costs for everyone. Then congress drags the companies in and lectures them about their outrageous costs.

Energy: Congress prevents energy companies from producing energy with oil, coal, gas, and nuclear development and refining. So, the supply decreases, and we become dependent upon nations intent on destroying us who can use our funds to build up their military and supplying of terrorists who war against us. And they impose endless regulation on domestic suppliers that cause their costs to soar, when international suppliers do not suffer those regulations and related costs. So, our costs for energy soar. And congress then brings in our energy suppliers, ridicule and blame them, and increase their costs again by increasing the taxes they have to pay. Which results in domestic companies like Amoco to go out of business, selling out to companies like BP.? And then Congress and liberal candidates for President threaten to punish companies that move overseas.

The only hope we have is that there are new miracle drugs for OCD that frequently do not even require therapy and can cause people to overcome OCD's they have of which they are not even aware. I suggest that we require all water fountains in Washington, D.C., and the entire beltway areas to use a water source which has these therapeutic drugs for OCD to be injected into the water supply.

The crises from which we might be delivered could potentially save America and move our economy to even higher planes than yet achieved.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »