Open Wide and Say….It’s Tea Time!
It’s tea party time in Washington!
As the democratic leadership prepares to shove a health care bill down the throats of Americans who don’t want it, the Tea Party Movement isn’t opening it’s mouth to say “aahh”.
There’s a big rally In Washington D.C. today (March 16th) designed to let undecided congressmen see live faces of the people..the face of the voters on this most important issue.
One of the most visible has been Jenny Beth Martin, National Coordinator of the Tea Party Patriots
Today, guest host Steve Noble, host of the nationally-syndicated radio program Called to Action This Week welcomes Jenny Beth to the broadcast. Give us a call, or feel free to leave your comments online.
FOR TODAY’S SHOW PLEASE CALL
1-877-44-TRUTH.
Stay connected!
132 Comments on “Open Wide and Say….It’s Tea Time!”
Parroting Fox News talking points again. I do believe this site quotes Fox News more often than the Bible. Since when is an “up or down” vote shoving something down the throats of America?
kash:”Parroting Fox News talking points again. I do believe this site quotes Fox News more often than the Bible. Since when is an “up or down” vote shoving something down the throats of America?”
The tactics being used have been used for minor bills and adjustments to spending bills. It has never been used to impliment a major piece of legislation that will alter the landscape. You know full well that this is not an up or down vote on a bill that has been agreed upon by both houses.
kash, you continually repeat the liberal left talking points either because you do not know any better or because you choose to repeat the lies.
As for Parroting Fox News, they are not the only ones presenting the disgusting character of the proposed procedures to ram what will be Government run healthcare down the throats of the American people.
With 78 million Baby Boomers entering the Medicare system over the next two decades, how can government cut $500 billion from the program and still say the quality of care will not change.
There is hardly a government program to “assist” people that is not loaded up with fraud and abuse.
But all that is irrelevent. Just go to the US debt clock link I provided and tell me what you think will be the fate of the US dollar as the debt continues to rise exponentially? What happens to a nation whose currency is debauched? IT’S CALLED POVERTY FOR ALL except the elites who have their property overseas, works of art, investment advisors, and yes they have been buying precious metals.
Here is the issue from the Associate Press, which I am sure kash will claim is a right wing agency, while we know that it generally goes along with the mainstream press….it is part of the mainstream press.
”
updated 11:45 a.m. PT, Tues., March. 16, 2010
WASHINGTON – Democrats defended plans to push massive health care legislation through the House without a direct vote and Republicans assailed the strategy Tuesday, as both parties fenced ferociously over the health overhaul end game.
House Majority Leader, Steny Hoyer said that no final decision had been made on the complex parliamentary strategy, which would allow House Democrats to pass the Senate’s health care legislation without voting on the bill itself. Instead House members, who dislike the Senate bill, would vote on a rule for debate that would deem the bill passed once a smaller package of fixes also had passed.
Hoyer defended the austere procedure, noting that it had been used in the past by both parties, and more often by Republicans, and that regardless of the approach, the House would be passing the Senate legislation……………………..
Shield vote
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to shield lawmakers from having to vote directly on the Senate-passed health care bill because it’s unpopular with House Democrats.
“Nobody wanted to vote for the Senate bill,” Pelosi, D-Calif., explained in a round-table meeting with liberal bloggers Monday.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35890744/ns/politics-health_care_reform/
So kash what does Steny Hoyer mean when he states, “House Majority Leader, Steny Hoyer said that no final decision had been made on the complex parliamentary strategy, which would allow House Democrats to pass the Senate’s health care legislation without voting on the bill itself.”? This statement alone seems to conflict with your LIE, “Since when is an “up or down” vote shoving something down the throats of America?”
And yes kash, what you stated was an outright lie.
At the precinct level we can take back the country. kash, you will notice that I advocate for people to get active at the precinct level regardless of political party. I am not an ideologue. My faith is in Christ not the state. I trust the American people more than I trust the elitists that would be our masters. It seems that so far you adhere to the Statist montra and as such you continue to be a useful idiot.
I still get tickled at how you “brothers and sisters in Christ” go after each other so[smile].
For example, I have co-workers who have completely different viewpoints than I on topics like sports or religion, but if I’m debating with someone over the concept of the Biblical Trinity, I don’t ever come to a point where I’m saying something like “Well! Your just a pawn of the Republican Right! You were probably even HOMEschooled! Well you just keep enjoying that thar Kool Aid!”, to them[grin].
Mike, if you’re so passionate about this sort of a topic, don’t you ever feel as if you are wasting your time here telling all of us about this when you don’t get that much feed-back? Is it because it’s your way of showing us how much you care about our futures?
John: “Mike, if you’re so passionate about this sort of a topic, don’t you ever feel as if you are wasting your time here telling all of us about this when you don’t get that much feed-back? ”
No because it is my hope…my prayer that people will awake to what is taking place.
The problem with most Americans is that when they travel oversea, especially to less developed nations, they are blinded to the actual living conditions of the people living in those countries. Most, not all, seem to believe that this is the station in life for these “backward” nations. What they fail to see is that it is the governments of those nations, many of which we support, that keep their own citizens in poverty and abject misery.
Most Americans cannot fathom the pain a mother or father feel when one or more of their children turn to prostitution in order for the family to survive. I’ve seen this close up and personal in my many visits to Cuba, which was once the most advanced nation of Latin America even though it was governed by a brutal dictator, Batista. Under Castro, underage girls prostitute themselves to foreigners in order to get foreign currencies that have value as the Cuban peso is basically worthless.
Just this past weekend one of my neighbors was evicted from his home. Both husband and wife have lost their jobs and all they could find was part time. They were unable to keep up payments and out they went.
Now John, if you have taken the time to read or watch the video on Brooksley Born, watched the 60 Minutes program this past weekend, watched the Video on the Lehman Brothers collapse, I don’t see how that would not enrage you. Do you not understand that a handful of people, seeking to enrich themselves beyond belief, with the ASSISTANCE OF GOVERNMENT, both Democrat and Republican, have brought this disaster upon us. Furthermore, they are still at it, which means the next catastrophe is right around the corner….NOTHING HAS CHANGED.
I am a student of history but I come at from a different point of view. I try to feel what the people must have felt at that time. History is what happens to PEOPLE, it is not stories told in a book. So when I read about the Battan Death March, I try to imagine what it must have been like for the captured Americans and Philipinos. When I read about the Great Depression, I try to visualize myself as a midwest farmer that has lost everything and has to send one or two of his teenage children off because he can no longer feed them.
My disdain for big government goes all the way back to the 1960s. Many of my friends were drafted (I wasn’t because my draft number was too high) and went off to that worthless / senseless war in Southeast Asia. A few did not come back, and some came back either broken in body or in spirit.
No one has challenged any of the links I have provided. No one has stated, “Mike you are wrong because here is the evidence that government was not involved in the subprime crisis or in the fraud generated by the Banksters.”
kash, who is suppose to be a Christian, continues to support the very people….the very system that have brought so much misery to this country and that misery is only beginning.
Even before the first word was spoken on the program today, she was on the attack…..hitting where she knows to hit; the source. She has done this over and over again. Forget the message attack the messanger. She appears to be a devout / fanaticaly / radical Statist. She believes in big government and the goodness of the state. I and Doug Tjaden first tried to reason with her over a year ago. Just go to this Truth Talk show and follow the discussion. Don’t read my stuff, read what Doug tried to show kash, and then read her responses. She blocked, not with logic or historical fact, every attempt Doug made to get her to rethink her position. I also tried and made several predictions which thus far continue to unfold just as I said they would.
Am I fanatical about the issues? You bet I am. The country my children and grandchildren as well as those of everyone else is at stake here. I for one am not willing to turn this nation over to a handful of greedy / power hungry elitist while the rest of the nation has a lower standard of living. I’ve seen to much of this in other countries and in the land of my ancestors, Cuba. I saw the transformation from an island where there was at least some liberty and prosperity to land that is now desolate.
I am involved, I have joined the battle. Too many Americans that came before me paid the ultimate price for the freedom I have enjoyed all my years. I am not going to go quietly into the night. I will also call a spade a spade and a statist a statist.
I am not equating myself with Jesus here; but he told the religious leaders of his day exactly what they were; blind guides, hypocrites, and a brood of vipers. His arrest followed his attack on the money changers.
John: “I don’t ever come to a point where I’m saying something like “Well! Your just a pawn of the Republican Right! You were probably even HOMEschooled! Well you just keep enjoying that thar Kool Aid!”, to them[grin].”
No one can say that because I attack the Republicans more than I do the Democrats. My disdain for George Bush’s policies during his administration are greater than my disdain of what Clinton did while he was in office (exception was the persecution of Brooksley Born, who I consider a true American hero.)
I am not partisan in this debate. My focus of my attack is on the system which is now ruled by Wall Street, which is now destroying Main Street.
Everywhere you turn, be it Greece, Iceland, and many of our own states you see Goldman Sachs. The connection between GS and OTC derivatives could not be clearer……more important is the connection between GS and the US government.
kash is the Democrat ideologue in this debate, not me. I am neither Republican or Democrat although at one time in my life I was a member of each of the parties.
At the end of George Orwell’s Animal Farm, the animals gazed upon the humans and the pigs, and they could not tell the difference. I feel the same way about the Republicans and the Democrats. Both have brought this nation down to where we are today. All that is left is the complete collapse of the US dollar. When that happens, you will not recognize this country.
Watch “The Last Days of Lehman” produced by that reactionary rightwing group the BBC. There is some language that might be offensive and this is a docudrama, but it is accurate.
http://www.zshare.net/video/653263971f8f6b0a/
BTW, you have to scroll down to the video once you X out of the ad.
The video uses language that I object to, but it is indicative that the people running the show are Godless. They are selfcentered and have no respect for the Lord…..no respect for they fellow human beings.
Is it too late for me to wish that you all have a happy St. Patrick’s Day tomorrow[smile]?
So, because Mike is convinced that our currency is “debauched”, we must continue to put up with insurance companies increasing premiums at a extortionary rate, being denied insurance for pre-existing conditions, being dropped from insurance plans after getting sick even when you have paid the extortionary premium for 20+ years, very little competition in the health insurance market because of the way one or if you are lucky two insurance providers tend to dominate a state or region, etc. Would-be entrepreneurs must continue to stay in dead end jobs instead of stirking out on their own to create businesses (and jobs) because they can’t afford individual insurance. Hey MIke, used your medicare lately?
Christianity has been the single largest influence on western society. America’s Founding Fathers had the benefit of thousands of years of history to draw on when establishing their government. They could see what had failed in the past. There had been times when the state had absolute authority and persecuted the church. At other times the church had effective control of the state. The founders saw that neither of these extremes were ideal. They developed a system that stood the test of time. Observers everywhere generally agree that American’s Founding Fathers achieved a solid balance between church and state, one consistent with biblical concepts.
But many people today reject the notion that the Bible should be used as a basis for law. “Narrow minded and outdated!” they say. Ideas have consequences. Let’s examine the implications if the Bible is or is not the standard for society and its legal system.
Without an objective standard of truth upon which to base society, the result is that whoever gains the most political power will dominate. Christians believe that the Bible offers ultimate, objective, and absolute truth—as opposed to relative “truth” (i.e., arbitrary “absolutes”). There was a general consensus on this point in America from the earliest settlers until only very recently.
Founding Father and educator Noah Webster (1758-1843) had this to say: “The moral principles and precepts contained in the scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.”
So it was natural for the early Americans to turn to the Bible for guidance as to how to make civil law. This was the standard for law beginning with the Mayflower Compact all the way through the constitutions of all 50 states. By the way, what was the stated purpose of the Pilgrims as expressed in the Mayflower Compact? Contrary to revisionist history, their purpose was not to find reigious freedom—they already had found religious freedom in Holland. Their purpose is clearly stated as being for the “Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith.” The Pilgrims were missionaries.
The first state constitution was the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut (1639). You may read this document at http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/orders.html. The framers of this document desired that every aspect of it be based on the Bible. This document was a model for other constitutions including the U.S. Consitution which followed. The above table outlines the wide spread influence of biblical thought on America’s legal system.
Biblical absolutes enshrined into law offered a consensus that meant freedom without chaos. One aspect of this is that, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, there exists “unalienable rights” of men. Rights were unalienable because they were given by God. This is very significant because in most societies up until that time (and indeed even today), rights are only conferred by whoever is in power at the time.
Because the American consensus was that the Bible was TRUTH, the tyranny of a few or even the tyranny of the majority could be overcome by one person standing up and appealing to the Bible. The freedom of expression in general in America is a result of our biblical system. Those people who feel free today to condemn the Bible are, ironically, among those who benefit most by the freedoms inherant in our biblical system!
An important aspect of our system of government is that it is based on the Rule of Law. This concept is a direct descendant of Hebrew law and the Ten Commandments. Together with the concept of unalienable rights from God, these concepts helped ensure a way of life that respected the dignity of every individual.
It is helpful to contrast the American Revolution of 1776 with the French Revolution of 1789. While the American revolution began with an appeal to the sovereinty of God, the French Revolution was founded on the sovereignty of man. The French movement was a product of Voltaire’s philosophy which specifically attempted to replace biblical Christianity with man’s reason as the ultimate standard.
But the French revolution was a disaster. Anarchy and tyranny reigned with 40,000 people being murdered, the favorite method being the guillotine. Their new constitution only lasted 2 years. Indeed, France has had 7 constitutions during the time that America has only had one.
Another important aspect to America’s constitution is that it has as its basis the distinctly Christian idea that man is basically sinful. Every one of our founding fathers understood this truth. It has been said that the 16th century Protestant reformer John Calvin, who is the theologian most associated with the biblical doctrine of man’s “depravity,” was the single most influential person to our Constitution. The result was that the founders built into the Constitution an elaborate system of checks and balances. This is evident in the horizontal plane of executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. It is also evident in the vertical plane of federalism—states’ powers versus federal powers.
Again, let’s look at the evidence by contrasting the American system with other systems. Other systems are based on the idea that man is basically good, or at least perfectable by law and education. This is the basis for communism as well as the religious states of Islam. But states based on these utopian ideas are always failures and particularly repressive to their citizens. These governments end up as a police state and take away rights of the citizens.
It has been said that America has never been a Christian nation, or that our founders were a bunch of atheists, agnostics, and deists. But consider the facts. At least 50 of the 55 framers of the U. S. Constitution were Christians. Every single American president has taken his oath on the Bible and has referenced God in his inaugural address. Every one of the 50 state constitutions call on God for support. The Supreme Court, in 1892 after a an exhaustive 10-year study of the matter, said: “This is a relgious people. This is a Christian nation.” See Holy Trinity Decision. Even today, the Supreme Court opens each session with the verbal declaration, “God save the United States of America.”
Perhaps the most famous statement in America’s Declaration of Independence is, “All men are created equal.” The concept of universal human rights and equality comes exclusively from the biblical ideas that all people are created in the image of God and from Jesus’ sacrificial death for all. This concept was unkown in history outside of biblically based cultures.
There are, however, two areas in which the American system failed— (1) racial slavery and (2) compassionateless wealth. But both of these flaws are failures to implement biblical Christianity, rather than being caused by it.
A few comments about slavery are important because so many people throw it in the face of Christians. Racial slavery is not a biblical ethic. Yes, a form of slavery—indentured servitude— is condoned in the Bible. But this was a method in which people could pay off debts and was not what we think of as racial slavery. In fact, the Bible specifically condemns the slave trade (Exodus 21:16; 1 Timothy 1:10). The Bible offers a unique framework for people as being equals: We were all are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27) and we are all equal in God’s sight (1 Corinthians 12:13, Galatians 3:28). Race, interestingly, is never even mentioned in the Bible.
Historian Glenn Sunshine in his book Why You Think the Way You Do explains that, “Christians were the first people in history to oppose slavery systematically. Early Christians purchased slaves in the markets simply to set them free.”
Professing Christians who held slaves prostituted the Bible by letting culture influence their faith (just as some unfaithful Christians today have abortions). Yet, the abolition movement was primarily a Christian movement. Slavery was stopped in England largely as a result of the tireless efforts of an evangelical Christian by the name of William Wilburforce. Through his work in Parliament, England stopped the slave trade in 1807 and abolished slavery totally in 1833. Unfortunately, there was no such early dynamic abolitionist leader in America.
The other problem in western culture has been unredistributed wealth. Neither the Bible (Mark 14:7) nor the American system seeks to have all people have equal outcomes. We are all created equal and we all have an equal opportunity to pursue our dreams, but we are not expected to all achieve equally.
Yet, the industrialization of the West brought great wealth to a few, while some were victimized. It can be argued that the working class was victimized to a degree in the early days of the industrial revolution. Fortunately, laws are now in place that protect the worker. And we have child labor laws, for example.
The issue is unrestrained capitalism. Later in our history, America instituted anti-trust laws and environmental laws. These laws can be seen as consistent with biblical capitalism as opposed to darwinian capitalism. Instead of capitalism based solely on the survival of the fittest, modern American capitalism uses law to make the playing field more equal and provide equal protection under the law—while still enouraging entrepeneurism.
A free society must have an objective moral constraint upon its people. This moral constraint, as John Adams insisted (above quote) will destroy not only government but business as well. Politicians without such constraint will find ways to destroy the Constitution to suit their desire for power. It is such moral constraint that monitors business people as well to charge a fair price, pay a fair wage, not cheat customers or employees, to help the needy, etc. We once asked an applicant applying for a job whether he believed in moral absolutes. Reflecting the secular attitude of his business school background, he quickly repied, “No.” We then asked him, “Then how do we know you won’t cheat our customers?” He was stunned by the question and had no realistic answer.
As a general statement, it is an inherent truth of capitalism that in the long run people succeed in business if they provide services and goods that people want. Biblical capitalism—even more so—emphasizes service over strict selfish ambition.
It should be emphasized that capitalism has its roots in Christianity. Historian Glenn Sunshine in his book Why You Think the Way You Do points out that the work ethic in Christianity is rooted in the Bible. God himself works, so Christians have seen an inherent goodness in labor and productivity. Another key component of capitalism is property rights. The Old Testament focuses on rules for property ownership. Throughout history, societies influenced by Christianity have had a stronger emphasis on property rights than other cultures. The idea that people are entitled to the fruits of their labor, together with property rights and the rule of law, laid a firm foundation for capitalism.
So again, the flaws in American society are not in biblical Christianity, rather in the failure to implement it. If the voluntary individual compassion of Christ were to dominate society, poverty—while it would never disappear (Mark 14:7)—would be lessened. The solution is not forced redistribution of wealth, which is tantamount to stealing. The solution is public emphasis on biblical ethics.
In summary, let’s refer to our nation’s creed—The Pledge of Allegiance—which sums up our way of life. It is a based on a three-legged stool of God, liberty, and justice. All three must be there. If God is not there, ethics and rights are defined by whoever has the most power. And in order to have liberty, we must have justice. The first role of government is to prevent evil (Romans 13:1-5, 1 Peter 2:13-17) so that the rest of society can live in peace. Evil is only meaningful within a biblical context.
When our culture desparately needs what Christianity offers, the courts are foolishly removing the Bible. Liberty demands ethical obligation. We must have a common understanding of moral absolutes, or as John Adams said, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
America is grounded in the idea of “self government.” What does this mean? To say that self-government is only the ability of citizens to vote and to elect their representatives is to have an incomplete notion of self-government. Government in biblical thought is not just civil government. In fact, civil government is the least important aspect of government. Government is first that of the individual to govern himself. This is why religion must be encouraged, as John Adams noted. The founding fathers of America clearly understood this. The second most important level of government is the family. The third is the church. Last is civil government.
And within civil government, our Founding Fathers understood that local and state government was more important than federal government. Our Constitution specifically limits the powers of the federal government, even though this precept hs been continually usurped.
The Founders referenced 2 Corinthians 3:17 in support of freedom above all else. This passage states, “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” The Liberty Bell declares from Leviticus 25:10: “Proclaim Liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof.”
Liberals and secularists have it backwards. They think that the federal government is the most important. This is consistent with totalitarianism, but not with the American concept of self-government. Big government socialism is not consistent with the Bible. Not only is the government inefficient in delivering most services, it more often than not hurts those it is intended to help. The welfare mess is classic case in point, now proven over decades of failure.
Libertarians are also wrong about government. There is no warrant for everyone being allowed to do whatever they want without restraint. Objective moral values exist. Nobody has the right to do wrong. Taken to its logical conclusion, libertarianism is anarchy. Even in a society that does not accept the Bible as the standard of truth, America’s founders believed, as codified in the Declaration of Independence, that objective moral values can be determined at least by reason. The Bible itself (first 3 chapters of Romans) affirms that by nature and conscience all men understand the existence of objective moral values. In government, this is sometimes referred to as “natural law.”
What is the purpose of civil government, according to the Bible? The purpose of civil government is very simply to be God’s servant to restrain evil and reward good (Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-14). Christians are (a) to pray for and obey governmental authority (1 Timothy 2:1-4), (b) unless it forbids what God requires or requires what God forbids, in which case Christians cannot submit, and some form of civil disobedience becomes inescapable (Acts 4:18-31, 5:17-29), (c) to influence government because all of life is under God’s authority (Psalm 24:1; Psalm 83:18; Isaiah 42:8; Matthew 28:18-20; 2 Corinthians 10:5). In a participatory democracy, Christians are under obligation to participate in civil government (Matthew 22:21).
As put by Dinesh D’Souza in his book What’s So Great about Christianity, “Christianity enhanced the notion of political and social accountability by providing a new model: that of servant leadership. In ancient Greece and Rome no one would have dreamed of considering political leaders anyone’s servants. The job of the leader was to lead. But Christ invented the notion that the way to lead is by serving the needs of others, especially those who are the most needy. Mark 10:43 quotes Christ:’Whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant…for even the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve.’ And in Luke 22:27 we hear Jesus say, ‘Who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.’ In the new Christian framework, leaders are judged by how well they respond to the concerns and welfare of the people. Over time, people once known as ‘followers’ or ’subjects’ become ‘customers’ and ‘constituents’.”
Should Christians be involved in politics and government? We argue that Christians should care about politics because, ultimately, we care about people. Government has an increasingly large influence on the lives of people, thus we cannot ignore politics. Further, almost every law reflects someone’s idea of morality. Since God’s morality is ultimate and universal, society benefits by the Christian’s participation in the public square. That is, society benefits when biblical truth is reflected in law. Indeed, Christians should be involved in all aspects of society, including law, art, music, economics, science, etc.
He thought the message was so nice that he copied it twice[grin]! You still never answered my questions, Paul. Did you find my post within the other site to you about my freedoms….satisfactory? As you have not yet responded back, I can only guess.
It was worth reposting absolutely! This is after all the truth “From a Biblical Perspective” like the web site is all about.
kash continues to distort and lie….lie and distort: “So, because Mike is convinced that our currency is “debauched”, we must continue to put up with insurance companies increasing premiums at a extortionary rate, being denied insurance for pre-existing conditions, being dropped from insurance plans after getting sick even when you have paid the extortionary premium for 20+ years, very little competition in the health insurance market because of the way one or if you are lucky two insurance providers tend to dominate a state or region, etc. Would-be entrepreneurs must continue to stay in dead end jobs instead of stirking out on their own to create businesses (and jobs) because they can’t afford individual insurance. Hey MIke, used your medicare lately?”
I never said we did not need healthcare reform….NEVER….now listen carefully kash as I state….THE US IS INDEED IN NEED OF HEALTHCARE REFORM, but I favor free market solutions. Not one where we pay for 4 years before we get any benefits as the one proposed by Congress. This healthcare plan is FATALLY FLAWED and will create more problems for people than it solves.
The is no mention of tort reform which increases costs as doctors practice defensive medicine. Medicare does not even cover all of the cost of its patients so we the insured have to pay more so doctors and hospitals have to stay in business. There is no free and open competition across state lines and I would actually make all foreign countries to compete for healthcare programs. Let people pick the programs that suit them the best. Provide for health savings accounts. Allow people to sell their organs at death instead of donating them to reduce healthcare costs. After all kash do we not own our own bodies. Besides if I….or should I say my family could sell my organs at death, I might be inclined to take better care of myself. Everybody makes money in the organ transplant business except the family of the person that dies. It would also go a long way towards cutting the shortage of available organs.
MY OBJECTION TO YOUR SOLUTIONS is that it relies on government…..Big Government…..VERY VERY BIG DANGEROUS GOVERNMENT. I also object to your distortions and outright misrepresentations (lies…..LIES) that you make when repeating what I and others have said. If you believe in “Thou Shalt not bear false witness against they neighbor,” then stop doing it.
kash:”So, because Mike is convinced that our currency is “debauched”
It is not my delusion kash, it is reality. Notice that with an economy that is in the worst recession since the Great Depression and I still say we are in Depression now, prices for things we need every day to survive, have not come down. My electricity and water RATES are UP, the price of gasoline is up year over year, food prices continue to rise as do TAXES and all this in a rotten economy. I thought a slow economy was suppose to bring prices down as demand declines. The only thing not going up is wages, so the average American family is under more and more stress. So government deficits, which use to be measured in the billions, are now in the trillions. Quatitative Easying ( nice words for money printing out the yang yang) is going to infinity. Only in your delusional world is that not considered debauching the currency by exploding its quantitiy.
Even as this crisis has unfolded, the way I and Doug said it would, and you argued against our position, you are still in denial.
I must give you credit, you stick to your religious beliefs (Statism) with a passion of a Muslim jihadist.
kash, it is not just I that am convinced of the dollar’s inevitable decline; it is others as this little article will tell you:
(Note: The world is in denial. When denial meets reality confidence fails.)
Corporate Debt Coming Due May Squeeze Credit
By NELSON D. SCHWARTZ
Published: March 15, 2010
When the Mayans envisioned the world coming to an end in 2012 — at least in the Hollywood telling — they didn’t count junk bonds among the perils that would lead to worldwide disaster.
Maybe they should have, because 2012 also is the beginning of a three-year period in which more than $700 billion in risky, high-yield corporate debt begins to come due, an extraordinary surge that some analysts fear could overload the debt markets.
With huge bills about to hit corporations and the federal government around the same time, the worry is that some companies will have trouble getting new loans, spurring defaults and a wave of bankruptcies.
The United States government alone will need to borrow nearly $2 trillion in 2012, to bridge the projected budget deficit for that year and to refinance existing debt.
Indeed, worries about the growth of national, or sovereign, debt prompted Moody’s Investors Service to warn on Monday that the United States and other Western nations were moving “substantially” closer to losing their top-notch Aaa credit ratings.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/16/business/16debt.html?adxnnl=1&ref=general&src=me&adxnnlx=1268800014-IyIdaW6uKWVycbn8lWPJrg
Do you have any idea of what would happen to the stock of the USA should its credit rating drop below Aaa? Do you have any idea what the stock of the USA is? FYI, the stock of any nation is its currency. Got that, its currency. But of course you see over $100,000,000,000,000 in unfunded liabilities and a total debt of $12,000,000,000,000 as a good thing. You know my aunt doesn’t have a problem with these statistics either….but she is schizophrenic.
kash here is proof that healthcare cost are going up due to government:
“Walgreens: no new Medicaid patients as of April 16
Walgreens will stop taking new Medicaid patients in Washington state as of April 16, saying it loses money filling their prescriptions.
By Janet I. Tu
Seattle Times staff reporter
Effective April 16, Walgreens drugstores across the state won’t take any new Medicaid patients, saying that filling their prescriptions is a money-losing proposition — the latest development in an ongoing dispute over Medicaid reimbursement.
The company, which operates 121 stores in the state, will continue filling Medicaid prescriptions for current patients.
In a news release, Walgreens said its decision to not take new Medicaid patients stemmed from a “continued reduction in reimbursement” under the state’s Medicaid program, which reimburses it at less than the break-even point for 95 percent of brand-name medications dispensed to Medicaid patents.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011367936_walgreens18m.html
At the very core of rising healthcare costs is the fact that people with insurance never consider the cost of even minor treatment. Imagine if your homeowners insurance covered a leaky faucet or a clogged toilet. Would anyone bother on finding the least expensive plumber and would plumbers compete for prices as well as providing good service.
Insurance is to be used for unforseen catastrophic events, not for regular check ups or the annual flu shot. If government taxed health plans as they do income, workers would opt to get the cash and find their own health insurance. They could be assisted by government by providing health savings accounts which would be tax free and allow people to use that money to cover the heafty deductible for serious illnesses.
Government could also standardize forms to reduce paper work. Government should get out of the healthcare business altogether and provide subsidies for those who could not afford it, but let them chose their own insurance. Laws should be instituted that prevent insurance companies from dropping individuals that get sick, but at the same time if a person chooses to go without insurance then gets critically ill the insurance companies should not be required to cover them. That would be like allowing people to insure their homes after the place has burned down.
There are real solutions to rising healthcare costs but getting the government further involved in the system will only guarantee higher costs and unsatisfactory services.
kash, if you want government healthcare, go live in Cuba.
“kash, if you want government healthcare, go live in Cuba.” Yeah, right, because Cuba is the only country in the world with single payer health care. In case you haven’t noticed, single payer health care isn’t in the bill currently being debated, and speaking of distorting people’s words, when did I say I wanted government health care? I just don’t want to be kicked off my private health care as soon as I get sick, which is what has happened to several of my familiy members. People who played by the rules, payed their premiums for years, then got a chronic illness and were dumped after a year of treatment and unable to get any other insurance because, of course, it was a pre-existing condition. That’s what free market health insurance gets you. Because that’s how you maximize your profit. Only offer health insurance to healthy people, and as soon as they get sick, dump them.
As far as health savings accounts, my husband and I looked into that as an alternative to health insurance when our premiums went up 30% a few years ago. (Since we are both self-employed, we pay a lot for insurance anyway because we have to buy it as an individual family and not through where we work, so we get reamed.) The problem is that you would have to have half a million dollars in your savings plan to cover one unexpected catastrophe, like a bad car accident or cancer.
You know, MIke, I could just as easily say to you, “If you want small government, go live in Hong Kong”. The spirit of being an American is to debate, discuss, and then vote, not try to run everybody who disagrees with you out of the country.
First of all Kash all you ever do is give anecdotal examples to the problem never anything practical. Second healthcare is not a right it’s a service that requires people to pay for. Third that is the whole reason for the idea behind health savings accounts is because you can’t INSURE a pre-existing condition, that would never work unless you steal other peoples money and even that would run out.Fourth, you keep saying that this heathcare bill (that by the way is a dictate and violates the constitution) wouldn’t create a single payer system, but that is exactly what it would do. If you don’t understand this yet and everyone else does, then you should understand why some of us hear keep calling you a statist or socialist and the all that. It’s weird I know people that don’t even think about this kind of stuff much and if they are telling me all about how upsetting this unconstitutional government takover is and how it is a dictate, then you can figure it out. And limited government, you wouldn’t understand that at all since it’s not even in your vocabulary.
Paul: “First of all Kash all you ever do is give anecdotal examples to the problem never anything practical.” I know someone else who used anecdotal evidence: Jesus. And as far as practical, I think there are alot of practical ways to keep private insurance companies from sticking it to their clients: regulation. Just because you disagree with my solutions doesn’t mean I don’t provide them.
“Second healthcare is not a right it’s a service that requires people to pay for.” And when they get sick, to take away even though they paid for it.
“Fourth, you keep saying that this heathcare bill (that by the way is a dictate and violates the constitution) wouldn’t create a single payer system, but that is exactly what it would do.” No, you are lying. It absolutely unequivocally does not create a single payer system. “And limited government, you wouldn’t understand that at all since it’s not even in your vocabulary.” You idea of limited government is every man for himself and to the victor go all the spoils. Civilization doesn’t seem to be in your vocabulary.
As a Christian, I would never feel at peace living in a society where only the wealthy can afford comprehensive health care and everyone else is stuck waiting until a minor problem becomes a major illness and going to the emergency room (which drives up costs for everyone, by the way). As a Christian and an American, I expect my government to regulate the health care industry because health care is too important to the health of our nation as a whole to leave solely profit-driven practices. If you can not see how you benefit from everyone in your community being able to receive good comprehensive, preventitive health care, you are extremely short sighted, among other things.
Kash: “regulation. Just because you disagree with my solutions doesn’t mean I don’t provide them.” Still not explaining and still anecdotal.
“And when they get sick, to take away even though they paid for it.” Still anecdotal.
“No, you are lying. It absolutely unequivocally does not create a single payer system.” No I’m not lying you are or else you are ignorant how things work with bills.
Envy is not the same as jealousy or covetousness. The covetous person says, “I wish I had what he has, and I’m miserable that I don’t have it.” Envy is quantitatively different. “I’d like to have what he has, but I know I can never get it. Nobody should be allowed to have it or at least that much of it. I’ll work to destroy it. Maybe I can get the government to make it illegal to own or too expensive to keep.” This is why the Bible describes envy as “rottenness of the bones” (Prov. 14:30).
You totally misunderstand the motivation behind a person’s support for social welfare programs if you think it has to do with being envious of those who have too much. I am not envious of anyone. God has blessed me with more than I need. Most people who support health care reform do so because they recognize that the current system is neither efficient, effective, or fair. We pay far more than we should and get far less, and many get none at all. That is simply wrong. The industry will not fix itself, it must be forced to deal with the very real problems it has. If you think that I am the only one who knows of people who have been poorly treated by their health insurance companies, you are not paying attention. And as you well know, if you are not happy with your health insurace you can’t simply go to the market and pick a different one, because even if you were healthy when you started paying your premiums, when you are sick they deny coverage and then drive up your premiums and if you try to go somewhere else you now have a “pre-existing condition”. So insurance companies have no incentive to compete for lower costs and better service because their effectively is no competition.
Quote me the language from the bill that has anything to do with “single payer system.”
Kash: I never said nothing needed to be fixed! You say “Quote me the language from the bill that has anything to do with “single payer system.”
If you want exact wording “single payer” it’s not there and you know it! The bill as it’s written makes it that after implamentation, just because it doesn’t say some exact wording you think it won’t happen, that would be foolishness to think this way. Mike has said it before and he’s right your way of looking at thing’s is not compassionate at all, it may some good to a certain extent if a person doesn’t think about it, but it’s not.
Also your ideas always end up violating the Word of God in some way or the other.
“You idea of limited government is every man for himself and to the victor go all the spoils. Civilization doesn’t seem to be in your vocabulary.” Wrong again Kash.
America is grounded in the idea of “self government.” What does this mean? To say that self-government is only the ability of citizens to vote and to elect their representatives is to have an incomplete notion of self-government. Government in biblical thought is not just civil government. In fact, civil government is the least important aspect of government. Government is first that of the individual to govern himself. This is why religion must be encouraged, as John Adams noted. The founding fathers of America clearly understood this. The second most important level of government is the family. The third is the church. Last is civil government.
And within civil government, our Founding Fathers understood that local and state government was more important than federal government. Our Constitution specifically limits the powers of the federal government, even though this precept hs been continually usurped.
The Founders referenced 2 Corinthians 3:17 in support of freedom above all else. This passage states, “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” The Liberty Bell declares from Leviticus 25:10: “Proclaim Liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof.”
Liberals and secularists have it backwards. They think that the federal government is the most important. This is consistent with totalitarianism, but not with the American concept of self-government. Big government socialism is not consistent with the Bible. Not only is the government inefficient in delivering most services, it more often than not hurts those it is intended to help. The welfare mess is classic case in point, now proven over decades of failure.
“Also your ideas always end up violating the Word of God in some way or the other.” So says you, but you are not my authority on the word of God by a long shot.
“The bill as it’s written makes it that after implamentation, just because it doesn’t say some exact wording you think it won’t happen, that would be foolishness to think this way.” That’s just what you think is going to happen. It is not in the bill now, so lets just stick to the facts of the bill that is being discussed instead of scary “what ifs” that your side deals in.
” I never said nothing needed to be fixed!” But you have also never said how you think we can fix the problems with health care other than to say that its not a right, its a privilege. As far as Mike, tort reform and cross state competition might help some, but it won’t solve the problem of needing to cover more people and needing to keep insurance companies from dropping the sick. Also, it won’t help with small businesses and individuals needing a way to band together and bargain collectively to get the lower rates that the big companies get from the private insurance industry.
Again, Paul, I don’t think taxes impinge my liberty. You apparently do – at least, you do when they are being used to help people in your community rather than bomb people overseas.
kash:”We pay far more than we should and get far less, and many get none at all. That is simply wrong.” Which is why you should oppose the government plan to reform HEALTH INSURANCE. They are not reforming healthcare although that is what they call it. I guarantee you that this plan will make matters worse not better as you so state. How can insurance get better when they are cutting $500 billion from medicare then they turn around and double count that money by using said amount to shore up medicare and pay for covering additional people under their plan. They do this with other programs as well. The whole thing regarding costs is smoke and mirrors and no one is going to see health insurance costs go down. Why are earth do you think these politicians are using a back door method to get it passed. It is not a straight up or down vote as you say it is.
Are you so idealistic…..so naive…that you believe the politicians’ promises of a “perfect system.” This bill is a monstrosity. I and others have provided what would amount to real health insurance reform but you do not give one inch.
Paul, you are wrong if you think this has to do with envy or any such thing. kash is a died in wool statist…that is her religion and she is as faithful as any jihadist. Like a broken record she keeps returning to the talking points for her argument. She makes no comments or refutes any of the evidence that the system no longer represents the people or even cares about the welfare of the average citizen. She is like those demonstrators in Russia that carried pictures of Stalin, a man who was a worse butcher of humanity than Hitler.
I do believe that kash is incapable of thinking for her self when it comes to these issues. In her own mind, the government…Big Government is the solution…end of story.
“Are you so idealistic…..so naive…that you believe the politicians’ promises of a “perfect system.”” No, but neither am I so cynical and selfish that I oppose any attempt to make the world a better place.
“She is like those demonstrators in Russia that carried pictures of Stalin, a man who was a worse butcher of humanity than Hitler.” Everyone who disagrees with Mike is a Nazi Stalinist. “Like a broken record she keeps returning to the talking points for her argument.” Well if that isn’t the pot calling the kettle black, hahaha!
“I do believe that kash is incapable of thinking for her self when it comes to these issues.” No, but I am incapable of thinking about it like you do.
Mike: I agree with you. I still think there is some envy just under the surface, unless she want’s everyone to be under some evil dictate on purpose. Like I said to Kash, I know staunch democrat’s that understand how evil this bill is.
“I still think there is some envy just under the surface,” That’s called projection. I am wealthy beyond my wildest dreams, but then, I’ve never dreamed of being materially wealthy.
What you and Paul can’t seem to fathom is that I don’t hold these position because I need the government help, I hold these positions because there are so many in my church and community that need government help. I have health care, I can afford to go to the dentist even though I don’t have dental insurance, I can afford $18,000 a year health care premiums for my family of four. It is OTHER people I am worried about.
BTW, it is not just I that have provided real health insurance reform but several that are in Congress. The problem with getting it even considered is that real reform only involves the government passing two basic laws; 1. insurance companies cannot drop someone just because they get a serious illness 2. health insurance must universally available which means it can be purchased from any company on the planet. Of course government would have to make sure that companies have to assets to back their plans and the playing field is level. Then to bring down cost, we need tort reform. I am no lawyer so I leave the specifics of that up to those that do know how best to change the system.
I also believe that people that choose to go without health insurance should pay the consequences of their choices. The poor could be insured by providing them subsidies so they could obtain their own insurance and there by select the best plan for themselves and their families.
Under the government proposed plan, enforcement of the new legislation would fall to that compassionate segment of government the IRS. I think it would call for thousands of new IRS workers to impose fines and garnish wages of those that do not insure.
Finally, kash has not addressed the problem that the government would be collecting new taxes for 4 years before any of their measures would go into effect. Right now the American people are crying out for jobs and what the government is proposing is new taxes in an already distressed economy.
But like I said, kash does not think she merely believes. She believes in the goodness of government and if there is an injustice anywhere in the nation, the government will make it all better. It is the classic nanny state kash so worships. She feels pious because her compassion is such that she is willing to surrender her freedoms, those of her children and grandchildren, and all of ours by giving the State more and more power to run our lives.
From pleasecutthecrap.com “Let me repeat that for the benefit of any hardcore Republican who might happen upon this little tome, and who probably think this ridiculous “argument” makes sense on some level; our health care system already costs us $2.5 trillion per year. What part of “one-sixth of the economy” do these folks not understand, despite the fact that they keep repeating it ad nauseum, as part of their meme decrying what they envision as a “government takeover” of health care? The number of people who don’t pay for health insurance keeps growing, which means more people are going without care until they need far more expensive, chronic treatment, more people are seeing economic ruin, and those who continue to pay for insurance are paying an increasing proportion of the bill.”
and “Overall, the total amount of medical malpractice awards was $30.7 billion in 2007. The total amount spent on health care that year was $2.1 trillion. Do the math, Republicans; if you eliminated all medical malpractice altogether, you would cut costs by less than one-half of one percent. If their constant invocation of tort reform as a necessary element of health insurance reform isn’t a red herring, nothing is.”
Yes Kash let’s cut the crap, you act as if we just dream up or like your blurb from that website “they envision a “government takeover” of health care” No this is based in reallity. If people can get coverage from the government (via this bill passing) for pre-existing conditions, who anywhere is going to get any coverage beforehand. Without having to use the exact word’s “single payer ” in the bill, this would effectively accomplish this goal. This would also effectively put any idea of private sector insurance out of business.
“If people can get coverage from the government (via this bill passing) for pre-existing conditions, who anywhere is going to get any coverage beforehand.” Everybody, because its mandated. And everybody who is smart enough to know that you get health care to help pay for the routine preventative stuff and just in case you have a chronic or catastrophic condition develop. I have carried insurance my entire life and i have no chronic conditions and have been lucky enough not to develop a catastrophic one. You think with the lowest common denominator.
Tell me something, Paul, did you get your children on your plan as soon as they were born, or did you wait to see if they were going to be healthy? Most people who have it available carry health insurance. The pre-existing condition happens when they lose their job, lose their health insurance, and THEN have to try and get back on a plan. Its not that they never had it in the first place and waited until they got sick. You have such a low opinion of your fellow man.
kash:” “Overall, the total amount of medical malpractice awards was $30.7 billion in 2007. The total amount spent on health care that year was $2.1 trillion.”
Oh kash, the problem is not just the awards, it is the cost of defensive medicine and the high cost of Malpractice insurance doctors must pay. Doctors order procedures that they might not order if it were not for the fear of malpractice lawsuits. You little piece from your left wing rag is full of holes. Besides there are other issues which drive up healthcare costs. Let me explain ONCE AGAIN what needs to be done:
1.
Congress needs to amend the McCarran-Ferguson Act to allow interstate competition in health insurance. Congress needs to eliminate the antitrust exemption protecting health insurance companies from competition. If Democrats really wanted to put pressure on insurance companies, they’d make insurers compete.
2. The exclusive regulator of insurance companies should be the state where the company’s home office is. Every insurance company in the country would incorporate in the state with the fewest government mandates. Why do you think most corporations are based in Delaware today. That’s the only way to bypass state mandates, requiring all insurance plans offered in the state to cover things like the Zone Diet, sex-change operations, hair implants, etc.
3. Prohibit the federal government from regulating insurance companies, except for normal laws and regulations that apply to all companies. This would free companies from onerous state and federal mandates turning insurance companies into public utilities, insurers would be allowed to offer a variety of insurance plans, giving consumers a choice. Why should my insurance coverage also cover fertility treatments or Viagra if I do not see the need for either. If there is no mental health issues in my family, why should I have to pay for that coverage. It appears to me that tayloring policies to the needs of the consumers would go along way to lowering costs. So instead of insurance companies complying with the politicians bought by healthcare lobbyists, they would be at the mercy of hundreds of millions of Americans buying health insurance on the free market.
4. Eliminate the deduction employers get for covering their employees or tax the benefits. Why should an employee not pay taxes on healthcare benefits while a person that owns their own business does get the same break. This system was devised during FDR’s administration when he raise the top marginal rate to 94%. Corporations offered free medicial insurance to attract workers. Under a free and open system as I described, the competition would bring down costs while workers would get higher wages since the employers would no longer pay their insurance. A basically healthy young individual could get a plan that covers the basics and has a high deductible. Throw in tax free medical savings accounts and the incentive to “take care” of your health would be increased considerably.
A free market in health insurance program would produce major tax savings. Layers of government bureaucrats, unnecessary to medical service in America, would get fired.
As for pre-existing conditions, an insurance company has to be able to refuse new customers with “pre-existing conditions.” If they couldn’t then people would just wait to get sick to buy insurance. It’s the same reason you can’t buy fire insurance on a house that’s already on fire. Now I would favor prohibiting an insurance company from using “pre-existing condition” to deny coverage to a current policy holder who’s been paying into the plan, year after year. Any insurance company operating in the free market that pulled that stunt wouldn’t stay in business long. Did you know that insurance companies, under current rules, are protected by government regulations from having to honor their contracts. Violating contracts isn’t so easy when competitors, in a true free market, are ready to steal customers.
Add tort reform, medical savings accounts, streamlining compensation to providers, and subsidies for the truly needed; and presto you have universal healthcare available to all citizens with the citizens in control NOT THE GOVERNMENT. But then again kash, you would anguish over all those jobs lost in the downsizing of the government bureaucracy.
I expect a response from you but I doubt it will have anything to do with each and every item I mentioned. Just as you never responded to my links to Brooksley Born, the 7 minute video on government’s role in Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers / subprime / now total real estate crisis. All across the land government agencies have let us down…..the SEC was provided all the evidence it needed to bring down Madoff and they did nothing. Naked short selling is epidemic and is destroying companies and capital, and government still does nothing….as a matter of fact these criminals make fortunes destroying companies then legally pay no taxes on their ill gotten gains. In 2004, during the Bush administration, the uptick rule was eliminated which made naked short selling even easier. Notice how I am an equal opportunity criticisor, unlike you who like to make this a Republican vs. Democrat issue.
The 2000 page health insurance legislation is a monstrosity that will only make things worse not better. It will cost jobs, increase taxes, and result in higher costs as the size of government will increase. Furthermore the quality of care will decline.
kash, I read through your position with Paul, and you still seem come from the point of view that Paul wants the status quo. No one in their right minds wants the status quo. The difference between what you support and what Paul and I are supporting is that you want MORE government intervention while we support the free market.
You stated, ” And everybody who is smart enough to know that you get health care to help pay for the routine preventative stuff and just in case you have a chronic or catastrophic condition develop.” Does you homeowners insurance cover preventive maintanence on your home, such as cleaning gutters or painting? Does your automobile insurance cover brake inspections, tires, or power steering fluid checks? If they did, do you think that maybe your insurance cost might rise…might actually get to the point where you could not afford homeowners insurance or auto insurance. If they did cover these things would homeowners and car owners seek the best price for maintenance as they do now when it comes out of their pockets?
I already addressed pre-existing conditions and what needs to be done there. You cannot expect a person to go without insurance for years then when he gets a serious illness, get insurance for a pre-existing condition.
I too went most of my life paying for insurance that I never used. I was basically healthy. Then when I turned 55 I got type 2 diabetes. I was not overweight it was inherited from my father’s side of the family. Now I take pills and insulin for my diabetes as well as high blood pressure and cholesterol as well. We all know that most heathcare costs come during one’s senior years. Now the government plans to impose a $900 fine on those that do not get health insurance. That would be far cheaper than buying it, my plan cost over $900 per month to cover just 2 people. If I were in good health, I could just pay the fine and should I get a serious illness, I would then force an insurance company to cover me. It would not be long before insurance companies would go out of business and all that would be left is the government single payer plan.
Now you might think that government bureaucrats have a heart of gold, but I am not so trusting.
Go back to the plan I and others have presented but has never been discussed in the Halls of Congress, and see if you can pick it apart. And please do not just go to another Statist supporting website and cut and paste some article which addresses nothing of what I have stated.
kash:” Most people who have it available carry health insurance. The pre-existing condition happens when they lose their job, lose their health insurance, and THEN have to try and get back on a plan. Its not that they never had it in the first place and waited until they got sick. You have such a low opinion of your fellow man.”
You are the one with the low opinion of your fellow man, which is why you believe government needs to take care of “the less fortunate.” In the plan I offered, such a person would be covered under a government reimbursement plan, but the person would shop for his own insurance. The money paid by government would be based on a sliding scale giving the person receiving it the opportunity to shop for the plan that suits him best. He could then keep any extra money he manages to save. The other added benefit of the free market I have described is the incentive for people to take care of themselves. The healthier the individual the more money the person gets to keep in his health savings account because there will be fewer trips to the doctor. People would probably opt to go to their local Wal Mart for flu shots instead of a higher cost doctor visit if they had to pay the full expense of routine maintenance. This would all come under the Tax Free Medical savings account.
This is how to truly lower costs while improving the health of US citizens, not creating a whole new bureaucracy in the Federal Government. But then of course you would go into a deep depression because you would not feel so pious and good knowing that you supported the government plan that is taking care of everyone.
The last time you gave a website that laid out the plan you support, I did discuss ite merits and drawbacks point by point. However, that was back over the summer. Where is the substance of the plan you support? I will be glad to take another look at it, even though you will simply call me a fool if I do anything but slobber my support for it all over my computer keys. As far as my house, my car, etc, my husband and I do purchase preventive maintenance plans rather than just waiting for something to break. But I also think there is a fundamental difference between health insurance, which benefits the children of God, and insurance of non-animate THINGS. And again: most people want to carry insurance. The un-insured are rarely the stupid or foolhardy (they usually carry some insurance, just not enough), they are mostly those between jobs or those who have been denied insurance (sometimes for medically spurious reasons), or the insurance they can get one their own is cost-prohibitive.
Ok, I see that you laid out some stuff in post 42. I’ll get to it later, gotta go back to work.
kash: ” But I also think there is a fundamental difference between health insurance, which benefits the children of God, and insurance of non-animate THINGS. And again: most people want to carry insurance. The un-insured are rarely the stupid or foolhardy (they usually carry some insurance, just not enough), they are mostly those between jobs or those who have been denied insurance (sometimes for medically spurious reasons), or the insurance they can get one their own is cost-prohibitive.”
The plan I have stated provides everyone with the opportunity to have health insurance. The difference is between who is providing it and at what cost. My plan would give the individual the power to decide what he or she wants rather than the state.
My example of homeowner’s insurance and automobile insurance were to provide an example of what would happen if these policies were like health insurance which now are required to cover everything. As for routine checkups, that would be part of the medical savings accounts. You see I cover it all WITHOUT THE STATE assuming enormous dictatorial powers like is currently being proposed.
The difference between you and me is that I trust the people while your faith and trust is in Government.
The plan I offered would take care of every issue regarding healthcare costs. Costs would come down without the loss of services. The added benefit would be that might actually have a healthier society as there would be $$$ incentives to take care of one’s health.
There is one question on my mind that I think I have the answer to but am not 100% certain, only 90% certain. Why didn’t the Republicans offer the plan I mentioned when they held the reigns of power? Why didn’t the Democrats when they had it all during the early days of Clinton but chose Hillarycare which bombed out. NOTE: You will also notice that her meeting were secret and involved massive government intervention.
The answer I believe is that the healthcare lobbyist (pharmaceutical companies, health insurance companies, lawyers, etc.) didn’t want it. It has been my contention for years that our politicians no longer represent “We the People,” they represent the special interest that donate to their campaigns and get them re-elected. The political parties are both run by elitists that look down on “We the People.” These elitists want to rule over us and thus turning the population into their servants. Please stop being a useful idiot.
What happens to the welfare state when government runs out of money? States cannot print their own currency so at some point lower revenues have to lead to reduced expenditures. Now that the people of Mass. have been conditioned to the nanny state, what happens to them when the nanny is broke. Here it is:
More cuts loom as state faces $295m in red ink
MassHealth, other services blamed for drain on coffers
Massachusetts is potentially facing a new budget gap of up to $295 million this year, a grim forecast that state officials said could spell yet another round of painful cuts before the fiscal year ends in June.
Patrick administration officials blamed the gap on rising demand for the joint state and federal health care program for low-income residents known as MassHealth, increasing demand for homeless shelters, and on below-projected revenue from state fees and federal aid.
Massachusetts, like other states, has grappled with more than two years of declining revenue as a result of the global economic downturn, which prompted Governor Deval Patrick to make midyear budget cuts four times last fiscal year and once already this year, in October.
Jay Gonzalez, secretary of administration and finance, said that officials were monitoring the situation and that the gap could ultimately be as low as $195 million.
He said officials would decide in the next few weeks how to find savings, with the potential for further cuts and additional withdrawals from the state’s dwindling reserve fund.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/03/19/more_cuts_loom_as_state_faces_295m_in_red_ink/?s_campaign=8315
Of course everyone is suffering. Right next door to kash’s Alabama is Mississippi. Here government is trying to do the right thing….we everyone except the Legislature, the so called servants of the people:
The Formula grinds on as the public sleeps.
The media has put all those that listen into total denial of reality.
Gov. Barbour trims another $40.6M from FY 2010 budget
Posted: Mar 17, 2010 2:13 PM Updated: Mar 17, 2010 2:31 PM
JACKSON, MS (WLOX) – Governor Haley Barbour has ordered another $40.6 million in budget cuts for the current fiscal year after the state revenue estimating committee lowered its projection for Fiscal Year 2010. This reduction brings the total amount of cuts this year to $499.1 million.
Wednesday’s budget cuts mean nearly every state government account, except those exempt by statute, have been cut by almost 9.5 percent.
Among those cut were the budgets for the Governor’s Mansion and Governor’s Office. But a news release from Barbour pointed out “the Legislature’s budget has not been reduced, as it has exempted itself from being subjected to budget cuts.”
“I must reiterate that this deficit, coupled with continued lower revenues, means we must take a serious look at how Mississippi government is structured,” Governor Barbour said. “Real changes will be necessary if we are to continue providing essential services to our citizens while prudently spending our reserve funds and achieving a balanced budget.”
Governor Barbour asked lawmakers to give agency heads the authority to be flexible with the additional cuts. The Senate quickly agreed, but the House did not.
http://www.wlox.com/global/story.asp?s=12157707
Now why would the Fed want to keep its activities secret? Why did Dem. Rep. Mell Watts of NC gut H.R. 1207 to fully audit the Fed? How on earth any sane human being knowing what is taking place can continue to have faith in Big government is beyond me? How anyone can even begin to think that expanding government role in healthcare is going to make matters better defies all logic. The fact that the party in control of Congress is using a tactic known as Deem and Pass, which is Constitutionally questionable for a bill of this nature, should raise all sorts of questions in the normal mind. But then again there are those that do not have normal minds.
(Note: Keep in mind that the Fed bailout could legally have been used not only for financial institutions but for partnerships, hedge funds and individuals.
I suspect this will reach the Supreme Court.)
Federal Reserve Must Disclose Bank Bailout Records
By David Glovin and Bob Van Voris
March 19 (Bloomberg) — The Federal Reserve Board must disclose documents identifying financial firms that might have collapsed without the largest ever U.S. government bailout, a federal appeals court said.
The U.S. Court of Appeals in Manhattan ruled today that the Fed must release records of the unprecedented $2 trillion U.S. loan program launched primarily after the 2008 collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. The ruling upholds a decision of a lower-court judge, who in August ordered that the information be released.
The Fed had argued that it could withhold the information under an exemption that allows federal agencies to refuse disclosure of “trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential.”
The U.S. Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, “sets forth no basis for the exemption the Board asks us to read into it,” U.S. Circuit Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs wrote in the opinion. “If the Board believes such an exemption would better serve the national interest, it should ask Congress to amend the statute.”
The opinion may not be the final word in the bid for the documents, which was launched by Bloomberg LP, the parent of Bloomberg News, with a November 2008 lawsuit. The Fed may seek a rehearing or appeal to the full appeals court and eventually petition the U.S. Supreme Court.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a2rzjENZQV5k
Finally, the Fed can print money then loan it governmnet to fund all sorts of projects. The only problem is that this Quantitative Easing inflates the currency, which in turn leads to higher prices, which if continued leads to hyperinflation and a collapse of the currency, which leads to economic chaos and misery for the vast majority of people, especially the elderly and children.
Is this what you support kash? It seems like it is. Over the past year you have witnessed the unfolding of the formula just as I said it would unfold. With the continuation…make that expansion of the system that created the crisis in the first place (big government, the Fed, and the unholy alliance with the banksters and BIG corporate America) this nation is now peddle to the metal headed for financial collapse.
Some how you completely ignore this issue. I told you over a year ago when Doug was on the show that this is where we were headed. YOu see it but still deny it. The suffering is all around you and what you want is more of the same. I don’t get it. I just don’t see how you can support the very people that are the cause of our current problems….and furthermore you want to grant them even more power. This would be like a Christian living in 65 AD supporting Nero and his administration.
Ok Mike, regarding post 42:
Point 1: I don’t necessarily disagree, but I don’t think it will do as much good as you think it will. Federal and state insurance coverage mandates do increase premiums, but more recent evaluations by independent research organizations (e.g. Commonwealth Fund) are necessary to determine the magnitude of this increase, as there is substantial disagreement within the academic community.
nFuther, not all health care mandates are bad, for example, most would agree that mandated coverage for treatments of certain diseases such as Autism and Alzheimer has a sound basis.
Point 2: Again, I don’t necessarily disagree, but think Republicans tend to way overstate how much this would affect premiums. The most recent Census Bureau data (2007) indicate that there are currently 253.4 million people who have health insurance. Of these individuals, 27.8% have government-provided insurance (e.g. Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, etc.), 59.3% have employer-provided insurance, and only 8.9% of those who have insurance bought their coverage directly in the insurance market. It’s important to note that large employers–generally those who have more than 100 employees–self-insure, which means that while they may use a 3rd party to administer the benefits, they don’t actually buy packages from state-licensed providers like Humana or Aetna. The people who do buy from these companies are individuals who are either self-employed or work in a small business that does not provide health insurance. If the small business DOES provide insurance, it also usually buys a package from a commercial provider. Thus, while the percentage of individuals/small groups that would even be affected by this proposal is higher than 8.9%, we need to remember that only a relatively small minority of individuals actually participate in the market in question. The vast majority of consumers either has government-provided health care or receives employer benefits that would be virtually unaffected. So, allowing interstate competition would only be a small part of the effort that is needed to achieve an effective and long-term health care overhaul.
More in a later post…
I think your post #3 is an erroneous assumption that the bill in question is going to force people to carry one type of insurance. You will still be able to choose what type of insurance you carry, you won’t be forced to buy a plan that covers Viagra. If I am not understanding you, please clarify, without name calling if that is possible for you.
“Eliminate the deduction employers get for covering their employees or tax the benefits. Why should an employee not pay taxes on healthcare benefits while a person that owns their own business does get the same break.” Is it just me or is this sentence unclear? “Under a free and open system as I described, the competition would bring down costs” debatable “while workers would get higher wages since the employers would no longer pay their insurance.” I don’t know anyone with employer provided insurance that wants their employer to stop offerring it. The reason the health care crisis is hitting now is because as health care costs sore, fewer employers are able to offer insurance. When most people could get good insurance through their job, most people were happy. Why mess up the one part of US health care that actually works? We just need to make it easier and cheaper for smaller employers to offer insurance, plus a safety net for those between jobs or striking out on their own. “A basically healthy young individual could get a plan that covers the basics and has a high deductible.” They may already choose that in their employer-covered plans. Employers offer multiple plans with varying deductibles.
One last note to all of you that expect to be taken care of by medicare. According to the plan proposed medicare reimbursements to doctors will be cut 21% and a similar amount to hospitals.
I would guess that many doctors, especially specialists like cardiologists, will drop medicare patients as they will be losing money on every medicare patient. According to the law if a doctor takes even one medicare patient he must accept all others so those that have Medigap policies will also likely get dropped. This means that only the lowest tier doctors will be accepting medicare patients and the same will be true for hospitals.
I would guess that under such a system, Insurance companies will offer individual policies to the elderly in order for them to get the best care. In other words the wealthy will be able to afford the quality care while all those on medicare will be like the people living in government assisted housing projects…they will get the “bottom of the barrel” care.
My nephew is about to begin his residency at Temple in surgery. This will mean an additional 4 years of training. When he graduates in May he will owe nearly $200,000 in student loans, and this with family members having helped pay part of his costs. Some of his classmates will have double the loan burden. Do you think for one minute he will be able to afford to serve Medicare patients, where he loses money on each one he serves? Even now, medicare barely covers doctor expenses, imagine what happens when Medicare reimbursements are cut by 21%.
What this means is that we will have a two tier system. The wealthy and those that can afford private health insurance will get good healthcare while the poor and many of the lower middle class get the worst healthcare.
kash, you do not like to deal with the details. You live in a world where if it sounds good then it is good so long as it is one of your party that is promoting the belief.
I have given, ad nauseum, example after example of why this legislation is going to our undoing, while all you do is provide your little platitudes about “providing for God’s children.” Even the process is corrupt as Senators and Congressmen have been given special benefits for their states in order to get their votes. For example the medicare benefits for Kansas will be lifted while the rest of the states carry the burden. Lousianna gets billions in this bill because of Katrina, but Mississippi does not (its states that suffered catastrophes between certain dates – I think Hawaii is included because of an earthquake.)
At the beginning of this discussion you said, “What is wrong with an up or down vote?” The problem is that it is NOT an up or down vote and does not follow the Constitutional process where a Bill must be voted on exactly as written by both Houses. The Deem and Pass rule by passes the whole Constitutional process. Why kash, when the Democrats have huge majorities in both Houses are they having to get this thing through a back door, which may be proven to be unconstitutional?
These are the FACTS. I deal in facts. I back all my opinions with facts. Children can deal in platitudes but that is why children are not allowed to vote. We as citizens need to weigh the FACTS then put the pressure on our elected officials to do the right thing.
What you advocate is the worst of all worlds for the people (the poor / elderly / children) that you SAY you are so dearly concerned about. The proposed legislation is right out of hell and it will create, in time, a hell for all those that do not have the means to acquire the best healthcare.
Here is a good article that summarizes why one way or another, we must expand coverage. Pay attention to the following: “Fiscal hawks will still ask why we can’t contain cost growth first and expand coverage later. This is a fair question — although the Congressional Budget Office has determined that both the House and Senate health care bills reduce the deficit, and a choice that forces the growing number of uninsured to wait another decade would, in my view, be immoral. Nevertheless, the simple answer to the hawks’ question is that it is not feasible to tackle costs without tackling coverage. Our delivery system could not withstand the stress. Two thirds of hospitals lose money on Medicare now. Virtually all lose money because of Medicaid underpayment. To impose serious delivery reform and incentive realignment while leaving hospitals on the hook for the mounting billions of dollars in uncompensated care would bankrupt many and strain most to the breaking point. With expanded coverage, we’ll get absolutely essential hospital cooperation. Without expanded coverage, hospitals will have to protect themselves from change, and their local communities will want them to.” from http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=3092
Mike, health care reform will enable your nephew be able to serve far MORE people for far higher payments. Why can you not see that? “According to the plan proposed medicare reimbursements to doctors will be cut 21% and a similar amount to hospitals.” This type of ridiculous statement must be cited, so we can judge the reliability of the source!
From the same article I stated earlier, the previous paragraph: “Aside from the stunningly effective misinformation campaign, the substantive issue that has stalled health care reform is economic: Can we afford this new promise to ourselves, now? The objective truth is that we cannot begin to get our fiscal house in order until we control the growth of costs in Medicare, Medicaid, and the entire health care system. We cannot achieve this without government action. Not a government takeover, but government action. Only government can rewrite the rules of private insurance markets so that insurers thrive by helping enrollees find high-value care, not by excluding the sick. Government must initiate payment reform and develop comparative performance databases that the private sector can use and improve. Government is the only buyer strong enough to lead locally dominant providers through payment reform.1 And payment reform that rewards quality over volume is the key to using market forces to align incentives for patients, providers, and payers while reducing cost growth for taxpayers.”
Now I’m off to the grocery store and then to watch NCAA basketball. Have a good weekend everyone!
kash: “You will still be able to choose what type of insurance you carry, you won’t be forced to buy a plan that covers Viagra. If I am not understanding you, please clarify, without name calling if that is possible for you.”
You do not understand. In some states all health insurance companies must provide Viagra or they cannot sell insurance in that state. One state in New England even requires hair transplants to be covered. So even if a person has a full head of hair or does not care if he is bald he must still pay for that coverage. States legislatures are pressured by insurance companies to require certain coverage. This reduces competition and raises costs. Why is it that I can buy life insurance from any state in the union but I am limited in my healthcare insurance by state laws.
The rest of your comments are just opinions backed up by no facts. My plan is comprehensive and I show exactly how it would bring down costs, which is what the debate is all about. If I am a small businessman why do I pay taxes on income that I use to buy health insurance, while someone else that works for a company gets it free or partially paid for. That employee may be making more money than I do. I have a friend that is painter and he has to provide his own health insurance. He GETS NO TAX break (other than limited deductions) for this even though there are others that make 3 or 4 times his salary that get their insurance coverage and do not pay taxes on that benefit.
Read my post #54. It outlines exactly what I think will happen should this current legislation pass.
Your response to my and other recommendations to reform health insurance is to quote some statistics based on how the system is currently working!!! I also noticed how once again you bring in the Republicans…..I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN….GOT THAT I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN.
The current legislation requires we pay for it for 4 years before we get the benefits!!! There is no discussing this with you. You are a hopeless ideologue. Statism is your religion. You were unable to refute my plan. Of course no single element will bring down costs dramatically but taken as a whole costs would decline, services would remain high, and everyone would be covered without expanding the massive Federal Bureaucracy. As I understand it there will be thousands (I’ve heard as many as 16,000) additional IRS employees to administer part of the system. Now I suppose you are going to tell me that everyone you know loves the IRS.
kash, you want proof of 21% cuts but proof means nothing to you. Just Google the subject and you will find 6,700,000+ articles on the subject. But here is one just to save you some time.
Will Congress stop Medicare physician payment cuts?
March 1, 2010 — 1:56pm ET | By Caralyn Davis A 21 percent reduction in Medicare Part B physician payments officially takes effect today after the Senate last week failed to follow in the House’s footsteps and approve a measure to provide a temporary 30-day reprieve. However, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) anticipates that a deal will be worked out.
Late Friday afternoon, CMS issued an email message saying it would give Congress some wiggle room: “We believe Congress is working to avoid the negative update that will take effect March 1. Consequently, CMS has instructed its contactors to hold claims containing services paid under the MPFS [Medicare Physician Fee Schedule] for the first 10 business days of March. The holding of MPFS claims will only affect claims with dates of service March 1, 2010, and forward. This hold should have a minimum impact on provider cash flow because, under current law, clean electronic claims are not paid any sooner than 14 calendar days (29 for paper claims) after the date of receipt.”
A lone Republican, Sen. Jim Bunning (Ky.), stalled the Senate’s efforts to delay the pay cut by issuing repeated objections. The stop-gap pay cut measure is part of a $10 billion bill to extend unemployment benefits and other expiring federal programs. Bunning declines to support a bill that he says isn’t paid for.
The American Medical Association (AMA) describes the Senate’s failure as the impetus for a “Medicare meltdown” that will “forc[e] many physicians to limit the number of Medicare and TRICARE patients they see in order to keep their practice doors open.”
The Senate will reconvene this week to consider a bill that would delay the cut more than 30 days, according to a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, Nev.). Details of the new bill are yet to be announced, but earlier proposals included pushing the pay cut back to Oct. 1.
The sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula that Medicare uses to set Part B reimbursement rates has mandated significant annual cuts for most of the last decade. As a result, physicians are seeking a permanent correction rather than continued temporary stays of execution from reduced Medicare reimbursements.
For more:
- see the American Medical News article
- see the MedPage Today article
- see the AMA press release
Read more: http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/story/will-congress-stop-medicare-physician-payment-cuts/2010-03-01#ixzz0ig08kZjh
kash, “Aside from the stunningly effective misinformation campaign, the substantive issue that has stalled health care reform is economic: Can we afford this new promise to ourselves, now? The objective truth is that we cannot begin to get our fiscal house in order until we control the growth of costs in Medicare, Medicaid, and the entire health care system. We cannot achieve this without government action. ” Government action. Oh you mean like the government’s actions to stop Bernie Madoff even when all the facts were brought forth to the SEC by Markopolos. Or government action when the SEC eliminated the uptick rule thus making it easier to counterfeit stock certificates so the criminal short sellers (those that sell short naked) could make billions while destroying American companies. Or do you mean government action like when Greenspan, Rubin, and Larry Summers along with their congressional buddies ran Brooksley Born out of her position as CFTC chair because she wanted to regulate OTC derivatives which she knew would bring on a catastrophic economic crisis. You mean government action as when Congress, with almost unanamous approval repealed the Glass Stegal Act which set up a firewall to prevent Commercial Banks from doing the very things that nearly brought down the global economy.
Or do you mean government action as when the government for the past 3 decades has been taking money from Social Security and other Federal Agencies in order to fund every day operations, which if any business did this its executives would be in prison. Or do you mean government action as the double accounting that is being used as smoke and mirrors when the true costs of this monstrous healthcare plan is passed. You are familiar with off balance sheet accounting aren’t you. Enron used it and people went to prison. Unfortunately for Enron they were just mimicking what the government does in its accounting.
Maybe this will help you: “Off-balance-sheet federal liabilities
Just how much has the U.S. government promised to pay?
Total public debt outstanding of the U.S. Federal Government is currently $11,490 billion, or $124,000 per taxpayer. But a fair chunk of that total public debt– $4,350 B to be exact– is money that the government owes to itself, about half to the Social Security Trust Fund, and the remainder to other government accounts such as Civil Service Retirement and Disability, Military Retirement, Medicare, and Unemployment Insurance Trust Funds. The debt actually held by the public is “only” $7,140 billion, which amounts to half of last year’s GDP. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that debt held by the public will rise to 56.6% of GDP by the end of this year. http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2009/07/offbalancesheet.html”
Just look at the charts in this article. Only a person with absolutely no sense of accounting…..and I mean no sense…would look at the statistics and not realize that the Bus has gone off the cliff. These are the people you want to trust? Or do you mean as in the Federal Reserve which brought interest rates down to rediculous levels and created the dot com bubble and when that blew up they lowered rates again to 1.5% and created the housing bubble (of course while letting the banks and Wall Street create bundle and sell toxic loans all over the planet.) You know the same Fed which now has interest rates under 1% is lending unlimited money to the banks who then turn around and loan the money to treasury by buying US government bonds so they can reliquify. Or how about, the people in Congress that are fighting tooth and nail to keep the Fed from being audited; are these the people you want to trust with the healthcare of America.
kash, I am sick and tired of your platitudes and your outright denial of reality. You are a hopeless case. You have adopted a false religion and have built your idol to the state. Unfortunately the full consequences of this legislation will not be felt for several years. By then, I am sure you will find a way to excuse the horrible consequences has healthcare costs continue to rise and the quality of services declines.
So far all you have offered is “glittering generalities” which is a form of propaganda. You are never specific in how government intervention will provide quality care at lower costs. Yes the government can impose some akin to price controls but every time price controls have been tried, it has resulted in poor quality, and eventually higher costs.
So go enjoy the performance at the Circus Maximus while The USA burns….the fire you helped to supply the fuel for.
Here is another little tid bit from the Wall Street Journal:
“It seems the Senate Banking Committee has discovered the advantages of what one might call off-balance-sheet financing. In the latest version of the financial-regulatory bill unveiled by Chairman Chris Dodd on Monday, the committee shifts the budgets of all financial consumer-protection activities from half a dozen federal agencies to the Fed — and then makes explicit that the Fed would have little say over what the new consumer bureau, to be headed by a presidential appointee, would do.
Then there’s a new Office of Financial Research to be established inside the Treasury to advise a new council of regulators. The Treasury budget, of course, is appropriated by Congress, but not this office.
The Fed would foot the bill for the next two years, then the Treasury secretary is to assess the largest financial institutions to cover the costs. “To the extent that the assessments…do not fully cover
the total expenses of the office, the [Federal Reserve] Board of Governors shall provide to the office an amount sufficient to cover the difference,” the Dodd bill says.” Bottom line, Dodd has opened a major new avenue for scamming. It is a very complex method to hide the simple fact that the Fed will be required to print money to finance parts of government operations. It is a highly inflationary method, and Dodd has shown Congress the way. One has to wonder how many other programs in the future will be financed in this very destructive way. Guess what the Healthcare reform legislation that you support is full of double accounting / smoke and mirrors. Your god, the State, commends you kash, “well done good and faithful servant of the State.”
I like the folks at Casey Research. While I do not subscribe to any newsletters (I do my own research on companies and the economy) I do get familiar with the free articles posted by the greatest minds (those that saw this disaster coming and tried to warn us) and pick their brains for gems of information. Here is the latest Freebee from The Casey folks:
“In the Shadow of the Castle
David Galland
Managing Director, Casey Research
Mar 19, 2010
These days it takes very little to set me off on yet another rant against the American political class – a proxy for governments the world over.
On occasion, I’m tempted to apologize for these rants. Not so much for the message, but for the frequency.
Unfortunately, when surveying the landscape on which our hovels rest, the king’s castle looms large in the foreground.
I am not an envious person by nature and so wouldn’t begrudge the king his fine trappings, provided they were honestly earned.
But therein lies Ye Olde Rub.
Ever more frequently these days, the drawbridge comes down and a troop of the king’s finest sallies forth to extort from me more than half of my crops, and to read new royal proclamations whose net result is to add to the daily burden of trying to provide sustenance for family and jobs for workers.
Should I protest, say, by grabbing a pitchfork and telling the soldiers to clear off my land, or refuse to fill their wagons with the best of my crops – each leaf of which represents time and investment on my part – they would grab me by the shoulders, drag me to the king’s dungeon, and confiscate my property.
In fact, all that has changed since the days of yore is that the king’s knights tend to no longer rape, as well as pillage.
To be fair, the annals of history contain rare instances of kind and intelligent monarchs, the sort who understand that overburdening the peasants ultimately reduces crop production, leading to unnecessary and unproductive hardship and, in time, even revolt. Though, by temperament, I resist authority of any description, I suppose I could live comfortably under the rule of a fair and benign monarch.
The problem with that notion, of course, is that the corruptive nature of power leads to the near certainty that Baldash the Not So Bad will be followed by Norbit the Nasty.
And all of a sudden, instead of politely requesting I kick in some reasonable percentage of my crops to help maintain a constabulary, courts, and maybe the highways, Norbit’s men are kicking in my doors and we’re back to ox carts full of my produce being confiscated to provide a new set of gold plates and to pay the cost of invading neighboring lands.
While some among you will protest, there is, I would contend, little difference between a degraded monarch and a degraded democracy. In the monarchy, a single leader directs his minions in their ruinous acts; in a democracy, the directions come from professional politicians, as well versed in gaining and keeping power as any royalty of a bygone era. (Sir Robert Byrd held high office in this nation for 57 years.)
Far from being benign, the nation’s leadership, masters at appealing to the self-interest of an unprincipled voter class, have led us to a perilous situation where the fields are being left unplanted.
And an increasing percentage of the citizenry is now muttering angry curses as the king’s men ride by in their shiny black limo-horses.
For a clear understanding of just how poorly ruled this country has been, look no further than the latest budget projections. In his January article, “America’s Impending Master Class Dictatorship,” Stewart Dougherty does just that, analyzing the government’s wanton spending and penning some notable, and quotable, words on the topic.
One stark and sobering way to frame the crisis is this: if the United States government were to nationalize (in other words, steal) every penny of private wealth accumulated by America’s citizens since the nation’s founding 235 years ago, the government would remain totally bankrupt.
Recently our stalwart CEO Olivier Garret sent over an insider doc from the Republicans’ Study Committee that provides talking points for candidates to use in the unending struggle for control of the castle. While I think the color of flag flapping over the battlements is at this point almost irrelevant, the document contains some interesting data points.
For instance:
$13.5 Trillion of New Debt: The president’s budget proposes to increase the national debt from today’s level of $12.3 trillion to $25.8 trillion in FY 2020 – an increase of $13.5 trillion or 109.8%. The amount of new debt proposed by this budget is larger than the total amount of debt accumulated by the federal government from 1789 to today (even including the $3.6 trillion of new debt over the last three years)
.
$2.8 Trillion Tax Increase: The president’s budget submission increases taxes by $2.8 trillion over ten years. This includes allowing many of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to expire at the end of this year, such as allowing the top rate (which is often paid by small businesses) to increase from 35% to 39.6%, and allowing the top capital gains tax rate to return to 20%. These tax increases would take effect in an economy that, according to many economists, will still have an unemployment rate around 10%
.
Mandatory Spending: Increases from last year’s level of $2.1 trillion to $3.4 trillion in 2020, an increase of $1.3 trillion or 59.4%. Within that amount: Medicare spending increases from $425 billion in 2009 to $953 billion in 2020 – an increase of $528 billion or 124.2%; Social Security spending increases from $678 billion in 2009 to $1.20 trillion in 2020 – an increase of $523 billion or 77.1%; and Medicaid spending increases from $251 billion in 2009 to $487 billion in 2020 – an increase of $236 billion or 94.0%
.
Interest Payments on the Debt: Increases from $187 billion in FY 2009 to $840 billion in FY 2020 – an increase of $653 billion or 349.2%
As mentioned yesterday, the projection on interest costs is far too conservative. While the government’s always flawed projections don’t anticipate it, both Bud Conrad and Doug Casey see strongly rising interest rates as a certainty in the foreseeable future. At that point, the debt death spiral begins in earnest, and the whole charade begins to come apart.
But it won’t take soaring interest rates to bring the economy down. That’s just going to accelerate things. And, of course, the worse things get, the worse the monarchy will act – demanding ever higher taxes and further debasing the currency, as they now certainly must.
How can you protect yourself? It really depends on where you are from.
One obvious solution would be to move to a different kingdom, one that treats you and your money better. Or that pretty much ignores you altogether. If you are from the U.S., the king’s tax collectors will follow you wherever you go – but even so, there are modest tax advantages you can gain by expatriation. Ask your tax counsel for details.
If, on the other hand, you live in a kingdom that doesn’t tax foreign-derived income (yet), becoming a citizen of the world can offer serious advantages and is well worth considering. The situation in most of the developed kingdoms, where easy money and quick mortgages greatly exacerbated the levels of debt, is only going to get more dire as the rulers cast a wider and stronger net in the quest for more revenue.
Even if you aren’t in a position to move, however, you’ll benefit from clearly understanding one key point about the king. While he may dress well and speak in dulcet and pleasing tones, he doesn’t actually produce anything. What money he has to spend must first be taken off the productive elements of the peasantry.
But there are limits to how much he and his men can squeeze out of the citizenry. We are nearing those limits.
That means that all that is left to the monarchy is for it to issue IOUs. And given the levels of their debts and ongoing spending, lots and lots of IOUs. Those IOUs are called dollars, or pounds, or pesos, or yen, or…
While there will be no straight line up or down for any asset class in the unsettled times we will live through, using periods of weakness to build your exposure to tangible assets – most notably gold, whose primary and best use is as sound money – is the only way to protect yourself from the Great Debasement that’s coming.”
Here is another one of my favorites, having read all his books and supporting his Senate race in Conn. A true man of the people and one that offers a great deal of information at his website at europac.com.
From the desk of Peter Schiff:
“Paul Krugman Versus Reality
Peter Schiff
Mar 19, 2010
In his latest weekly New York Times column, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman put forward arguments that were so nonsensical that the award committee should ask for its medal back.
Recent rhetoric from Washington has put the economic relationship between the U.S. and China squarely on the front burner, and Krugman is demanding that we crank up the flame. This week 130 members of Congress sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner demanding that the Obama administration designate China as a “currency manipulator”. Following that, a bipartisan group of senators introduced a bill that looks to force the Obama administration’s hand. For its own part, Beijing invites criticism by continuing to deny its utterly obvious currency agenda.
As these tensions escalate, most economists urge Washington to tread lightly because of the negative fallout for America if China were to begin selling its enormous cache of U.S. Treasury bonds. Krugman pushes back, asserting that the U.S. risks little by playing hardball, and that China has more to lose. He asserts that a Chinese decision to end its purchases of U.S. Treasury debt would make only a marginal impact on long-term interest rates. Did you hear that Stockholm?
According to Krugman, our secret weapon of economic invincibility is the Fed’s ability to print dollars endlessly. If China were to foolishly decide to attack us by selling our debt, the Fed could simply step in and buy the excess with newly printed greenbacks. (In other words, Krugman sees no difference between funding the debt and monetizing it. See my latest video blog on the subject.). For Krugman, China would gain little from such an attack, but would lose the ability to export to its best customer and suffer severe losses in the value of its dollar holdings. Krugman’s worldview is reassuring – but it has absolutely nothing to do with reality.
There is a huge difference between selling your debt to another and “selling” it to yourself. When China buys our debt, it uses its own savings. In order to purchase a trillion dollars of U.S. Treasuries, the Fed would have to expand our money supply by a corresponding amount. Even Krugman acknowledges that this would cause the dollar to lose value; however, he feels that a weaker dollar is good for America and bad for China.
Krugman does not believe that a tanking dollar will translate into higher interest rates or higher consumer prices at home. No matter how many dollars the Fed creates, or how much value those dollars lose relative to other currencies, he is confident that as long as unemployment remains high, rates will stay low and inflation will remain under control. This is absurd.
If the dollar were to nosedive, the Fed would normally look to protect the currency by raising interest rates, thereby increasing foreign demand for the currency. But with an economy currently on crutches, the Fed will ignore a weakening dollar and continue to try to boost employment with near-zero rates.
But keeping the Fed Funds rate low only holds rates down for U.S. government debt. If the dollar weakens substantially, other rates offered to other borrowers will rise as investors demand greater returns to compensate for inflation. To keep rates low for homeowners, credit card borrowers, corporations, municipalities, and state governments, the Fed would be forced to buy, or guarantee, all forms of dollar-denominated debt. The Fed would become the lender of only resort.
Once the Fed shows that its commitment to low rates is limitless (the value of the dollar be damned), private creditors will quit the game. Even average Americans would hit the Fed’s bid. It would be a race for the exits, with no one wanting to be left holding a bag of worthless paper dollars.
Most economists, Krugman included, see cheap money as a panacea for all ills. And while it’s true that a falling dollar, by lowering the real value of U.S. wages, would help make U.S. goods more competitive, it would also lead to skyrocketing consumer prices, rapidly rising interest rates, and a collapse in American living standards. Make no mistake: this is the end game of Krugman’s “get tough on China” policy.
This apocalyptic scenario can only be avoided if Washington jealously guards the status quo, avoiding confrontation with China at all costs. Yet, even that is an outcome that no one can rationally expect. Given exploding U.S. government deficits and the inability of U.S. citizens and corporations to repair their balance sheets, the United States faces financing needs that even China’s gargantuan savings stockpile will be unable to cover.
Krugman is right about one thing – China’s currency peg is destabilizing the global economy and must end. But he fails utterly to understand the implications for the U.S. and China. If China were to reverse its role in the U.S. Treasury market, both economies would be destabilized in the short-term. But in the medium- and long-term, China would clearly emerge as the winner.
Absent Treasury-bond purchases, the value of the Chinese currency would rise sharply, causing goods prices to tumble in China. This long-delayed increase in purchasing power for everyday Chinese will unleash pent-up demand in what is already the largest middle class in the world. Chinese factories would retool in order to produce goods for their own citizens to consume. In RMB terms, commodity prices would plunge, making it easier for China to produce all kinds of stuff, such as automobiles, while also making it cheaper for the Chinese to buy gas. Millions will trade in bikes for cars, and Chinese oil imports will swell.
The opposite would occur in America, where an artificial, consumer-based economy, supported by Chinese lending, will come tumbling down. Without the ability to import cheap goods from overseas, Americans will pay more and get less. While gas and food become cheaper for the Chinese, they will simultaneously become much more expensive for Americans – so too will automobiles, consumer electronics, furniture, and just about every other product we want or need (even those few we still make ourselves).
Washington’s best option is to recognize that the current relationship is unsustainable and to plan, as best as possible, for a more viable future. We Americans also must be honest with ourselves and recognize that we have been living beyond our means and that our lifestyle has been largely financed by austerity in China. We must conceive of a plan that weans us from this dependence without provoking China to pull the rug out from under us before we have a firm footing. To construct a policy around Krugman’s ridiculous assumption that we benefit China more than they benefit us is to invite catastrophe on an unimaginable scale.”
If anyone disagrees with Peter Schiff or the folks from Casey Research, let me know and be sure to be specific as to why you disagree.
Ladies and Gentlemen; “This is it!! It is now!! Are you prepared to defend yourselves and your loved ones??” The US dollar is doomed…it is going to wind up in the trash bin of fiat currencies.
End of Fiat currency! A sign of things to come? Maybe…..possibly….probably. When confidence is lost the fiat currency implodes. Interesting developments in Idaho.
House approves Hart’s proposal to allow Idahoans to pay taxes with silver
Idahoans are one step closer to being able to pay their state taxes with state-created medallions. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Phil Hart, R-Athol, was approved by House members on a vote of 51-14. The legislation also seeks to bring silver processing operations to the state by providing tax breaks for companies that would process the silver needed for the coin.
Hart said the bill serves several purposes, including creating jobs in Idaho, as well as giving citizens in the state a way to store wealth in what he believes is a more stable form of currency. Hart said that though the U.S. Constitution dictates that the government should use nothing but gold or silver for public currency, the federal government has essentially left that provision “in the rear view mirror.” The bill would give the state treasurer the ability to work with silver processing companies to develop a state medallion that the state would then be forced to accept as payment for taxes.
That, Hart believes, could bring hundreds, if not thousands of job to the state. In conjunction with the creation of the medallion, Hart’s bill would also try to lure silver processing companies to Idaho, and in particular, north Idaho, which, according to Hart, was once called “the silver capital of the world.” The bill would give companies that come to Idaho to process silver for the medallion a 10-year exemption from income taxes, as well as property taxes. The exemption would be open for 20 years and would sunset after that period of time.
The bill could also serve a third purpose that would be beneficial to the environment in the Kellogg area. Hart said that 14 years ago, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) put highly toxic material left over from the Bunker Hill Mine in what he called a large “plastic baggy.” The material inside is a silver-like substance that Hart believes could be used in production by high-tech industries. The material has an estimated worth of $200 million. The state owns that material and needs to deal with it soon because there is concern that the “baggy” is beginning to corrode and wear thin, which, if it happens, would negatively affect the water table of the area.
The coin would not have a face value determined by the state, however, because Hart believes that would violate the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits states from coining money. The price of the coin would alternatively be determined by market prices, though the value would also be pegged to the American Eagle Medallion.
http://www.idahoreporter.com/2010/house-approves-harts-proposal-to-allow-idahoans-to-pay-taxes-with-silver/
kash demands proof, here it is. Let’s see if this article changes anything in her mind regarding the health insurance scam being run by the Democrats and the Obama Administration. I must warn you kash that if you read this article, which I doubt you will, you may begin to question your primary religion of Statism. Oh and you can of course try your usual trick of shooting the messanger but in this case you will have to fire a very big gun to take down The New England Journal of Medicine. Here it is:
The Specter of Financial Armageddon — Health Care and Federal Debt in the United States
Michael E. Chernew, Ph.D., Katherine Baicker, Ph.D., and John Hsu, M.D., M.B.A., M.S.C.E.
The most important force shaping the U.S. health care system over the coming decades may well be the federal debt. The government now pays for approximately half of all health care costs in the United States, and projections of growing federal debt largely reflect anticipated increases in health care spending. Because federal debt and health care policy in the United States are so deeply entwined, it is important to understand the basics of deficits and debt and their implications for health care reform.
The deficit is the gap between expenditures and revenues in any given year ($1.4 trillion in the . . . [Full Text of this Article]
Source Information
From the Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School (M.E.C., J.H.); the Department of Health Economics, Harvard School of Public Health (K.B.); and the Mongan Institute for Health Policy, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School (J.H.) — all in Boston.
This article (10.1056/NEJMp1002873) was published on March 17, 2010, at NEJM.org.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/NEJMp1002873v1?rss=1&query=current
You want proof, well here it is. Let’s see how well you can twist this one or will you just ignore it and be silent.
I know I am being awfully sarcastic and that is very unChristian like, but thus far you have refused to see what taking place before your very eyes. You once claimed that Government stimulus a la Keynesian model will stimulate this economy, and yet the economy, while popping a bit is beginning to soften. The government, I am sure will do more to stimulate but all that will do is eventually crash the currency leading to a final collapse. Is this what you want to see for yourself, your community, your loved ones, and future generations? or ARe you so faithful to Statism that it all does not matter…just as a Muslim jihadist would sacrifice himself and his children for his faith….for Allah. Is the State your god…your Allah? You defend it as if it were, especially when the Democrats are running it.
Why would I have to twist anything? The end of the article you stated lists what they see as necessary for reigning in health care costs to help reduce the deficit, as health care costs under the current flawed system are contributing to it. Most of their suggestions ARE in the current bill.
“The goals of health care reform must therefore be addressed in light of our short-term and long-term fiscal situation. Our current debt is manageable, and we can afford projected deficits for several years, but our structural deficits place us on a path of debt growth that is unsustainable, largely because of health care programs. The sooner we start to rein in health care spending, the less painful the changes may be (since slowing spending now will help us avoid drastic cuts in the future), and the more time we will have to find the most effective strategies. Physicians and the health care community must play a strong role in this process, preparing their practices for the inevitable changes that will come as we address spending growth and helping to identify clinically informed strategies that permit quality to improve in an environment of slower spending growth.
Proposed Strategies for Reducing Health Care Spending.*
Establish insurance exchanges.
Reduce excessive Medicare payments.
Shift from a volume-based to a value-based payment system in Medicare.
Tax generous insurance plans.
Empower an independent Medicare advisory board.
Address and reduce fraud and abuse within the Medicare program.
Enact malpractice reform.
Invest in information technology and comparative-effectiveness research.
Invest in prevention.”
“Invest in information technology and comparative-effectiveness research.” This is the computerized health records and studies looking at which expensive technologies may not be as necessary as we are led to think that many were so afraid of over the summer.
“Establish insurance exchanges” This is what Obama has wanted to do from the beginning, but the Insurance lobby fought against tooth and nail. “Address and reduce fraud and abuse within the Medicare program.” This is in the bill, which will save billions but the Republicans try to scare seniors that it means they will get less medicare coverage.
”
Empower an independent Medicare advisory board.” It was in the original bill, but has been weakened because of Republicans claiming it would be “government deciding what procedures you could have done.” Not true, of course, but then, Republicans WANT medicare to fail because they have always opposed it so naturally anything that made medicare better they would be against.
Tax generous insurance plans. This is in the current bill.
Invest in prevention. This is in the current bill.
Enact malpractice reform. This is in the current bill, albeit in a weaker form than what Republicans wanted.
kash, you failed to see the point these people are making. What’s more the bill says NOTHING about “Enact malpractice reform.” As for the issues regarding fraud and abuse which is all part of overpayments; thus far the government has failed miserably at this with Medicare, which is much smaller, as well as in other agencies of government. You want to entrust the nations healthcare system to an expanded bureaucracy, which will certainly increase costs. The $500 billion they are taking from medicare is being double counted; first to fix medicare and make it solvent and also to pay for the added beneficiaries.
Your problem continues to be that you see things through the Worldview of a Statist. You believe the State will fix it, when the track record of the State is horrible in these endeavors.
This health insurance bill if enacted will lead to a faster bankruptcy of the US. The is what the NEJM is trying to tell people. They do not support this bill because it does not address their concerns regarding rising healthcare costs. Besides, people will have to pay into the system for four years before receiving benefits. Added to this the tax increases, (sunset of the Bush tax cuts) and it will put further pressure on the economy and we will lose more jobs. Catepillar has already announced that this legislation will cost the company an additional $100 million, which will make them less competitive in the world markets.
Apparently you will only be satisfied when the US dollar collapses, and the nation lies in ruins. But true to your religion, you will blame someone other than the state for the collapse.
I keep noticing how continually bring in party politics. About the only thing the Republicans have done right is oppose this legislation and some have presented some excellent alternatives which never made it into the arena of public discussion.
My conclusion is that your are as much a Democrat party hack as you are a Statist.
Just one question, why is it that the Democrats have had to bribe members of their own party with favorite treatment for their states (Kan. and La. just to name 2) to get even close to getting this measure passed. And now they are using “Deem and Pass” where they DO NOT VOTE on the Senate plan as written but just certain parts then consider the Bill passed. This is not how our Constitution states that legislation is to be enacted.
There are already several States that plan on challenging the Constitutionality of this legislation and the process by which it was passed. This process smells an awful lot like what happens to “democratic republics” that get taken over by a dictatorship. Some might think my comments extreme here but keep in mind that thousands of new IRS agents will be hired to insure that everyone gets insurance, whether or not they want it.
Freedom is rarely lost all at once….it is generally lost one right at a time.
This is the part kash fails to understand or even consider, “Because federal debt and health care policy in the United States are so deeply entwined, it is important to understand the basics of deficits and debt and their implications for health care reform. ”
But as a good Keynesian Statist I would not expect her to understand.
This is an interesting piece by a Republican of all people. Note how he is condemning a process which has gone on for decades (under both Dem. and Repub. leadership) and continues to this day. This man has it right… and his conclusion is correct. Empires can fall quickly and I expect the US will do just that. I also expect kash to shoot the messanger. Here is the article, read it an weep:
The Offshored Economy
By Paul Craig Roberts
In the 20th century, Detroit, Mich., symbolized American industrial might. Today it symbolizes the offshored economy.
Detroit’s population has declined by half. A quarter of the city—35 square miles—is desolate with only a few houses still standing on largely abandoned streets. If the local government can get the money from Washington, urban planners are going to shrink the city and establish rural areas or green zones where neighborhoods used to be.
President Obama and economists provide platitudes about recovery. But how does an economy recover when its economic leaders have spent more than a decade moving high productivity, high value-added middle class jobs offshore along with the Gross Domestic Product associated with them?
Some very discouraging reports have been issued this month from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. There have been record declines in both jobs and hours worked. At the end of last year, the U.S. economy had fewer jobs than at the end of 1997, twelve years ago. Hours worked at the end of last year were less than at the end of 1995, fourteen years ago.
The average workweek is falling and currently stands at 33.1 hours for non-supervisory workers.
In a major problem for economic theory, labor productivity or output per man hour and labor compensation have diverged markedly over the last decade. Wages are not rising with productivity. Perhaps the explanation lies in the productivity data. Susan Houseman found that U.S. labor productivity statistics might actually be reflecting the low wages paid to offshored labor. An American company with production in the U.S. and China, for example, produces aggregate results in labor output and labor compensation. The productivity statistics thus measure the labor productivity of global corporations, not that of U.S. labor.
Charles McMillion has pointed out that unit labor costs actually fell during 2009, but that non-labor costs have been rising throughout the decade. The rise in non-labor costs perhaps reflects the decline in the dollar’s foreign exchange value and the increased dependence on imported factors of production.
Economists and policymakers tend to blame auto management and unions for Detroit’s fall. However, American manufacturing has declined across the board. Evergreen Solar recently announced that it is shifting its production of solar fabrication and assembly from Massachusetts to China.
A U.S. Department of Commerce study of the precision machine tool industry has found that the U.S. comes in last. The U.S. industry has a shrinking market share and the smallest increase in export value. The Commerce Department surveyed American end-users of precision machine tools and found that imports accounted for 70 percent of purchases. Some U.S. distributors of precision machine tools do not even carry U.S. brands.
The financial economy which was to replace the industrial economy is nowhere in sight. The U.S. has only five banks in the world’s top 50 by size of assets. The largest U.S. bank, JPMorgan Chase ranks seventh. Germany has seven banks in the top 50, and the United Kingdom and France each have six. Japan and China each have five banks in the top 50, and together the small countries of Switzerland and the Netherlands have six with combined assets $1.185 trillion more than the five largest U.S. banks.
Moreover, after the derivative fraud perpetrated on the world’s banks by the U.S. investment banks, there is no prospect of any country trusting American financial leadership.
The American economic and political leadership has used its power to serve its own interests at the expense of the American people and their economic prospects. By enriching themselves in the short-run, banksters and politicians have driven the U.S. economy into the ground. The U.S. is on a path to becoming a Third World economy.
Paul Craig Roberts [email him] was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan’s first term. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University, and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He was awarded the Legion of Honor by French President Francois Mitterrand. He is the author of Supply-Side Revolution : An Insider’s Account of Policymaking in Washington; Alienation and the Soviet Economy and Meltdown: Inside the Soviet Economy, and is the co-author with Lawrence M. Stratton of The Tyranny of Good Intentions : How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice. Click here for Peter Brimelow’s Forbes Magazine interview with Roberts about the epidemic of prosecutorial misconduct. His latest book, How The Economy Was Lost, has just been published by CounterPunch/AK Press.
“This health insurance bill if enacted will lead to a faster bankruptcy of the US. The is what the NEJM is trying to tell people.” No, that is not what they are trying to tell people. They are warning that if we don’t figure out a real solution to health care problems they will contribute to the growing deficit of the United States. Remember, this bill cuts the deficit by over a trillion over 20 years. Sure, that won’t be good enough for you, but other than a total collapse and everyone going back to gold coin, nothing would be good enough for you.
“There are already several States that plan on challenging the Constitutionality of this legislation and the process by which it was passed.” Yep. And the fact that they were already planning on it even before it had passed or it was known what “process” was going to be used shows that they don’t really care about constitutionality, they only care about politics.
“And now they are using “Deem and Pass” where they DO NOT VOTE on the Senate plan as written but just certain parts then consider the Bill passed.” They are not going to use Deem and Pass. Try to keep up, Mike.
kash: “Try to keep up, Mike”
I suggest it is you that needs to keep up kash.
The process is corrupt kash and you know it (more on this later). “If Democratic leaders prevail on all three House votes, Obama could sign the Senate version of the bill into law. The bill of “fixes” would go to the Senate, which hopes to pass it within the week under a procedure called reconciliation that requires only 50 votes in the 100-member body.” Major legislation is suppose to pass in identical form in both houses BEFORE they go to the President. This is a Pass this and we will fix it later. The antiabortion wing of the Demcrat party is finding cover in this promise, “A key anti-abortion lawmaker, Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, also stepped from undecided to a “yes” vote because she believes the bill would not allow federal money to be used for elective abortions. ” Let’s see the key words here are ELECTIVE ABORTIONS. But we all know that abortions can be justified for the “health and welfare of the mother”, which means if it causes any undo anxiety for Mom you can kill the kid. All this is in a MSNBC article which by the way is not totally objective. They seem to skip over some important details. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35961584/ns/politics-health_care_reform/
kash:”“There are already several States that plan on challenging the Constitutionality of this legislation and the process by which it was passed.” Yep. And the fact that they were already planning on it even before it had passed or it was known what “process” was going to be used shows that they don’t really care about constitutionality, they only care about politics.”
kash, you are an economic moron. The states are sick and tired of the Federal government using the Interstate commerce clause to impose all sorts of mandates on them that are bankrupting the states. Calif. has a $21 billion shortfall this year of which at least $8 billion comes from Federal mandates for government healthcare.
There are about 35 states that are ready to challenge this legislation, and this includes many that are run by Democrats. Michigan is one of them. I keep saying that no one can be this stupid but each and every time you surprise me. You know nothing except the talking points and the general arguments on a topic.
kash:” They are warning that if we don’t figure out a real solution to health care problems they will contribute to the growing deficit of the United States. Remember, this bill cuts the deficit by over a trillion over 20 years.” YOU CAN’T BE THIS IGNORANT…you can’t… it is not possible. You believe exactly what you want to believe and reject any data or opinions by some of the most brilliant economists of our time….here I am talking about the ones that foresaw this current catastrophe years before it started. Read on.
The Hidden cost are all over this healthcare bill. There is double counting and all sorts of smoke and mirrors being used.
This legislation is already leading to Political civil war and a virtual secession by states as they begin to rebell against Federal Regulations; from the growth of marijuana and firearms laws, and whether or not states will even abide by this healthcare law. States are beginning to tell the Federal Government to “Stick it” you cannot use the Interstate commerce clause to do whatever you want. States rejecting all or parts of this healthcare plan. A new revolution is coming. I recall the protests of the 60s and I can assure you that we will see at least a repeat. Remember, people actually died in those protests.
This proposed legislation is nothing short of Financial Malpractice. Here are some facts kash, which I know you are not interested in:
1. Last year’s deficit (the gap between what you take in and what you spend) was $1.4 Trillion. Last months deficit was $221 Billion. There are cyclical deficits and structural deficits. Do you know the difference kash? I think not. It is the structural deficits ( I will explain the difference to anyone that does not know. I know for a fact that kash does not know the difference but I am sure she will look it up.)
2. Last year’s deficit was 10% of GDP and this years looks to be 12%. By the end of the decade the interest on the debt will be 15% to 20% of the governments deficit and that if interest rates do not rise.
3. Whenever you get the debt levels of 90% of GDP, you create great economic harm and eventual economic collapse.
Even under the Obama Administration’s optimistic assumptions which are:
1. We will have 3% economic growth for the rest of the decade.
2. We will not have another recession during the next 10 years.
3. We will have near zero interest rates as they are now for 10 years. (Moodys and other rating agencies are warning that the US is in danger of losing its Aaa rating. If so interest rates will rise and rise fast. Just look at Greece. Greek bonds now have twice the interest rates of the German bonds. If Japan or China do not show up at our treasury auction we are in a heap of trouble. We fund all sorts of programs with debt and are heavily dependent on foreigners for funding.)
4. The unemployment will be cut in half.
So even if these 4 things are in place over the next 10 years, by the year 2020 the deficit will be 90% of GDP. This is under the best case scenario mentioned in 1-4. What are the chances that all four will occur as expected? How about zero.
Now kash has FAITH that the government will do as it says, especially if the Democrats are kept in power. I trust neither party. So let me present the following:
kash, whatever happened to Pay Go, which was passed by these very Democrats and promoted by the Obama Administration. Sine it was passed they approved $47 billion in new spending programs that are UNFUNDED. The numbers we are dealing with in the structural deficit are so mind boggling that people cannot comprehend them. Congress just increased the debt ceiling to $14 trillion.
Here are some more interesting stats: Between now and 2015 the number of people reaching 65 accelerates to double digit levels. $38 trillion of unfunded liabilities for Soc. Sec. and another $38 billion for Medicare. The proposed legislation, HR. 4872 expands spending $1 trillion plus another $1/2 trillion in tax hikes plus uses another $1/2 trillion in Medicare cuts (which are double counted). The true costs of this plan is $2.4 trillion. The way they, the Democrats, get it to work is by:
1. The tax increases come up front. So called Cadillac plans are taxed except Union Cadillac plans are not subject to increased taxation. So much for equal justice under the law.
2. The Top marginal tax rate would go up to 42.5 %
3. A 3.8% medicare tax on interest, capital gains, payments from annuities, and rents.
4. Capital gains taxes would go to 22.9%.
All costs are front loaded and by the time 2015 comes around, our debt will be such that the US is likely to be in a Solvency crisis.
35 states are filing lawsuits. Why? States are already having difficulty with their budgets. These mandates will put more burdens on the states. Read the article that speaks of the shortfalls in pension liabilities by the states. Calif. has a $21 Billion deficit. $8 billion is for medicare and medicade mandates.
Should the Republicans gain back the House or Senate you can bet there will be investigations into the whole healthcare process. Remember, not a single Republican voted for it so they can claim “clean hands.” Unfortunately they’re hands are filthy in so many other areas but I’ve already covered that. This is a Democrat Bill, pure and simple.
It will be interesting to see the coming investigations regarding the process of this bill. The bribes and back room deals to lobbyists etc……it’s going to be a real drama.
Read what Carmen M. Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff or Niall Ferguson have to say about America’s debt problem and kash thinks this will be solved by another entitlement.
Gee this sounds almost like the 1999 movie “Rollover”.
The last time the US behaved this recklessly was the 1960s when during the Vietnam War we added Medicare and the Great Society to the balance sheet which caused a run on the bank. At that time Germany and France, demanded payment in gold, which led to Nixon closing the gold window. This time the run will come in the form of nations refusing to lend us money by not buying our bonds. Since we fund almost all of our government programs through debt (these days it is short term debt which means we have the equivelence of an adjustable rate mortgage), such an event would lead to almost instant insolvency. The US would be bankrupt.
I will repeat this again, by the time 2014 comes around and the healthcare bill kicks in, the US may be in a sovereign debt crisis which will lead to a sovereign debt crisis which will lead to a currency crisis. President Obama’s legacy will be that he is the President that led to the US insolvency.
For more information I will refer people to the following.
March/April issue of Foreign Affairs Mag. Niall Ferguson’s article “Decline and Fall When the American Empire Falls it is likely to go quickly.”
http://modern-us-history.suite101.com/article.cfm/decline-and-fall-of-the-american-empire
Now kash go shoot Dr. Ferguson, but again you will need a big gun; he is the author of “The Ascent of Money” a book and a PBS special, which I am sure you know nothing about.
Or read the following “The collapse of the American Empire: Quick, silent, and Certain.”
Here is a brief quote by Dr. Ferguson, “Now, Harvard’s Niall Ferguson, one of the world’s leading financial historians, echoes Diamond’s warning: “Imperial collapse may come much more suddenly than many historians imagine. A combination of fiscal deficits and military overstretch suggests that the United States may be the next empire on the precipice.” Yes, America is on the edge.”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103×523069
This is what the Statists like kash have brought to American Society. The current healthcare bill is a giant step towards the end of the American Empire. We will see, as we are currently seeing, a dramatic change in our way of life. But I remain hopeful in that I believe that by the middle of this next decade the American people will see the folly of the social welfare state and we can begin to rebuild for our grandchildren and great grandchildren. Unfortunately the suffering will be wide spread.
keep up kash, here is someone else that sees the lies behind this legislation:
Schlafly: Health Care Vote Set to Expose the Myth of the ‘Pro-Life Democrat’
WASHINGTON, March 21 –
WASHINGTON, March 21 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Phyllis Schlafly, president and founder of the conservative grassroots public policy organization Eagle Forum, made the following remarks after the public announcement that formerly pro-life Democrat Bart Stupak (D-MI) will cast a “yes” vote for the Senate health care bill today in the House:
“It is naive for any elected official, especially one who describes himself as ‘pro-life,’ to expect that a promise to issue an Executive Order that reasserts the intentions of the Hyde Amendment will be fulfilled by the most pro-abortion president to ever sit in the White House. Perhaps Mr. Stupak and his fellow pro-life Democrats forget that President Obama’s first Executive Order was the repeal of the Mexico City Policy to allow for international funding of abortion.”
“Not only would an Executive Order be rendered meaningless in the face of Congress passing legislation which actively provides for the massive expansion and funding of abortion services, but anyone who doubts the abortion tsunami which awaits this bill becoming law lives in a fantasy world.”
“Barack Obama has lined every existing federal agency with the most dedicated pro-abortion ideologues, and we know that he will continue this pattern of pro-abortion appointments when it comes time for him to fill the over-100 bureaucracies created to administer his socialized health care program.”
“Any formerly pro-life Democrat who casts a ‘Yes’ vote for this Senate health care bill tonight will be forever remembered as being among the deciding votes which facilitated the largest expansion of abortion services since Roe v. Wade.”
“Mr. Stupak and his Democrat followers have now clarified that you cannot be pro-life and be a Democrat. If abortion was truly their biggest issue, they wouldn’t willfully align themselves with the Party of Death.”
“This vote will expose the myth of the ‘pro-life Democrat.’ With this single vote, the Democratic Party will divide our nation into the Party of Death and the Party of Life, and future elections will never be the same.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20100321/pl_usnw/DC74083_1
Hmmmm…..the Democratic Party, the Party of Death. Hey they can trade in the donkey for the Grim Reaper.
Phyllis Schlafly. Enough said.
kash: “Phyllis Schlafly. Enough said.”
kash, you are so predictable; you shot the messanger. Of course you only take shots at small game. I noticed you did not even try to refute Dr. Ferguson or any of the other people I have mentioned, which another one of your tactics; i.e., ignore. You fit perfectly within the group of religious fanatics. Statism and the Democratic party are your idols and you use Christianity as a support mechanism for your beliefs.
Congrats to you and your party on yesterday’s vote….you won. The American people lost and the US Constitution, what is left of it, took another hit.
Contrary to popular belief this is not an immediate government take over of health care but it will lead to it. The tax increases, especially given the fragility of the US economy, will certainly have a negative impact in the long run. Short run is unknown as this is an election year and politicians will do whatever it takes to stimulate the economy to get re-elected even if it means destroying said economy in the long run. After all, when things go wrong they are experts at off loading the blame on anyone but themselves.
For those of you that are Republicans out there, I blame the Republicans, especially George W. Bush, for what has taken place these past 4 years. He was the most fiscally irresponsible President we have had since LBJ. He was no conservative and he, along with the Republican Controlled Congress accelerated this nations eventual decline and the American people rightfully threw their butts out. Unfortunately, all we did was put in near absolute power a party that was more radical than any we have ever seen. I believe the Democrats misread the American people in believing that suddenly the nation wanted even more government intervention in their affairs. President Obama is just G.W. Bush on steriods. The Democrats ran on a platform of transparency, statesmanship, and engagement with the people. Instead we got more back room deals, more partisanship, and no change as far as Wall Street’s control over the government that is suppose to serve us.
The Tea Party movement is just one of the shots being fired in the New American Revolution. The Republicans think they now have the upper hand because the people are so angry. The Democrats are talking about doing the Will of the American people. Both are wrong, and the people are not angry; they are in a rage…..A rage that will spill onto the streets as our economy slides further into depression and inflation gets worse. Watch gold; it is the canary in the coal mine. People move to gold when there is uncertainty. In the short run it will fluctuate in price as it runs up then consolidates those gains, but make no mistake about it the trend is UP and that does not bode well for the US dollar. Remember, a nation’s currency represents its stock. A fiat currency is dependent on confidence….the full faith and credit of the nation. Once “full faith and credit” is lost the currency dies and what follows is economic chaos, civil unrest, rising crime, and poverty for the vast majority of people but especially the elderly.
I pray I am wrong, but I know I’m not. I pray that the Lord will lift up a leader with Godly principles that will bring this nation back to its roots, and those roots are deeply set in the Bible.
I know I have been rough in my language with kash, calling her a Useful Idiot, a Democrat hack, a Statist, etc. The Lord said be angry but do not sin. Is it a sin to call someone what they are or appear to be? I call myself an alcoholic because my desire to drink is still strong. I once told my pastor he was a hypocrite because he railed against alcoholism but not against gluttony (he is morbidly overweight and has stated privately that he cannot control his appetite for food.) I am not comparing myself to Jesus, but was it sin for Him to call the Pharisees hypocrits, blind guides, and a brood of vipers? Did Jesus sin when He made a whip and destroyed property when He went after the money changers? My anger and frustration at kash has to do with my perception that she cannot tell the difference between the Church’s mandate and the State’s. She takes what the Bible says we should do as believers and then gives that authority to government. If government was following the dictates of the Bible, would that not be a theocracy?
America took the wrong turn nearly 100 years ago. We abandoned sound money, real money, for man made / man controlled currency. This allowed for the rapid expansion of government which then began to take away our freedom. We have now reached the end of that road and the American people are finally waking up to the drug induced coma that comes with fiat currency. This time it will be different. The government will not be able to fix things and economic distress is baked into the cake. You can be delusional for a while, but eventually reality will make its presence known. Reality is here and within the next 3 to 5 years ALLl Americans will be awakened to it.
Mike: I agree, now we start on the march to take back our country. After all we have a good solid foundation to re-build on.
This is an article on being partisan: The One Pre-Existing Condition Getting a Cure
By C. Edmund Wright
We have the debate over ObamaCare to thank for one thing at least: the treating of the pre-existing child-like delusion that bi-partisanship is possible, let alone desirable, when the other side is the Obama Democrats.
It is neither. And it never has been nor ever will be as long as there is a segment of a society that wishes to control the wealth and activities of other segments of society. With such people there are only two options. You either defeat them — or they defeat you. If you strive to get along with them, you will awaken one day to the fact that they have won. Period.
This little reality is blurred by poll questions designed to bait Americans into answers that fall into the “can’t we all just get along” category. Of course everybody wants that — in a theoretical vacuum. The problem is, we don’t live in a theoretical vacuum. We live in a world where you are either controlled by yourself or by someone else.
Conservatives desire a control of one’s own destiny. Liberals seek to control everyone else’s destiny. These two desires by definition cannot co-exist peacefully. To pretend they can, in the spirit of bi-partisanship, is frankly infantile. Yet so many purporting to be the brightest still cling to that notion.
But finally, the control freaks of the left have so exposed themselves for who they have always been that even folks unengaged enough to qualify for a Frank Luntz Focus Group are waking up to reality.
Welcome folks, but what took you so damned long? You had plenty of warning shots.
For some inexplicable reason, the disaster of four dollar gas was not blamed on the control designs of the left, yet it is clear that decades of liberal energy policy were collectively the reason for this economy-killing problem. Since before we knew the name Michael Jordan, let alone Google, liberals have blocked the production of nuclear power plants and any meaningful offshore drilling. Thus, liberal control of the means of energy production put America on the wrong side of that little law known as supply and demand. Our supplies were static or shrinking while our demand — as well as the demand of others –was soaring. Oops. Four bucks, please.
And no, the sixteen cents profit is not the problem. But in the name of bi-partisanship, too many folks who knew better went along to get along with that premise.
That little financial shock at the gas pump caused a lot of folks — who should not have had mortgages — to start defaulting on those mortgages. After all, if a family budget is tight while gas is two dollars, then something has to give when it doubles. What “gave” was the home that they moved into with no down payment thanks to a sub prime mortgage.
Now where in the world did these undeserving folks get those mortgages? They got them from lenders flush with cash and under severe liberal pressure to loan to the “underserved” community. Now one would think that folks who are “not credit worthy” should indeed by “underserved” in the world of lending, but that is not how the liberal mind works. And again, in the name of bi-partisanship, too many politicians who knew better went along to get along.
Chalk it up to Cloward-Piven- or Saul Alinsky-inspired bad intentions — or simply liberal bleeding heart -inspired unintended consequences — the bottom line is that statist attempts to control the markets involving home ownership and mortgages crashed both. And at the bottom of the mess are the left wing fiefdoms of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who managed to enrich liberal cronies like Franklin Raines and Jamie Gorelick while ruining millions of families’ financial futures.
And yet the McCain Campaign, a towering example of colossal incompetence if ever there were one, thought the answer was to blame “unfettered capitalism” and to “reach across the aisle” to complicit folks like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank to solve the problem. You know, damn the truth in the name of bi-partisanship.
So with no adults in the political class and only a few in the pundit class admitting that what we needed was a good old fashioned ideological partisan showdown, America swooned and propelled the undefined vapor of hope and change into power. John McCain’s “honorable campaign,” which assured us that we “have nothing to fear from an Obama Presidency” went quietly to the ash heap of bi-partisan history.
To anyone paying half attention, a government dominated by Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Emanuel, et al was a predictable liberal disaster and highly partisan. Yet, our nation embraced this notion of post partisanship with approval around 70% as Obama took office. Apparently, only 16% were paying any attention, as this percentage of Americans strongly disapproved of Obama the day after the inauguration. That tiny remnant knew exactly what we were in for and embraced partisanship even tighter.
Not paying attention were luminaries such as Peggy Noonan, David Brooks, Christopher Buckley, Chuck Hagel and Colin Powell. They bought the post partisan post racial Kool Aid and jumped aboard the Obama Express. They proved themselves the intellectual equals of “the pony tailed guy” of “can’t we all just get along” fame from the 1992 debate.
Meanwhile, so-called right wing extremists who were “out of touch” never bought in. The unofficial leader of this faction was of course Rush Limbaugh, who peered into the zeitgeist headwinds and proudly proclaimed “I hope he fails.” Only one in seven Americans knew at the time Rush was right.
Yet now, thanks to the breathtaking and never ending push for total control of our lives by way of ObamaCare, that number is higher than one in two. Moreover, many have come to realize that with this kind of control mindset, there is no meaningful compromise. It may sound enlightened to want Washington “to work together for the American people,” but it is becoming evident that this is impossible when one part of our government wants to control the American people.
The only remedy is to defeat such people. And right now all of those people are in the Democratic Party and the only buffers between them and a socialist nation are in the Republican Party. This is about the partisanship, the whole partisanship and nothing but the partisanship.
The toothpaste is out of the tube now. People do not want their health and their entire lives run by the folks who brought us Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, four dollar gas and the IRS. And they know now who those people are.
They are liberals. They are Democrats. They are extremely partisan. They are run by people elected from loony left wing extremist areas like San Francisco and Chicago. And there is only one way to defeat them.
We must beat them at the partisan game of politics. And the sad irony is, there has been the pre-existing condition of belief in a bi-partisan utopia that has allowed them to accumulate so much power. That utopian fog engulfed George Bush with his “new tone” as well as too many Republicans for too long.
The happy irony is this: the liberal push for the dream of ObamaCare might just be the cure to that misguided belief. And liberally dominated Google just might be the antidote to another pre-existing conditions the left relies on –short voter memories.
Mike:” If government was following the dictates of the Bible, would that not be a theocracy?” If this is a nation under God then it is. “Theocracy” means “ruled by God,” not “ruled by priests.” A nation “under God” is a “Theocracy” by definition.There was universal agreement that the formation of civil government was a religious/Christian/Biblical obligation. All governments were Theocratic. Governments were formed because it was believed God in the Bible commanded human beings to form them. The founding of a government was a religious act.
Under the new federal government which began under the U.S. Constitution on March 4, 1789, the United States were Christian Theocracies.
The U.S. Constitution would never have been ratified if it gave power to the newly-created federal government to prevent the United States from being “under God” and officially and legally acknowledging themselves to be under His jurisdiction.
Mike:” know I have been rough in my language with kash, calling her a Useful Idiot, a Democrat hack, a Statist, etc.” Yes and I have as well, but this is about deeply held beliefs to were she would go as far as twisting the scripture to prop up her belief. Her issues go deeper than just politics, that’s why I have my doubt’s about her, if I was just angry I wouldn’t care. And yes the way a person views God does matter.
Paul:”“Theocracy” means “ruled by God,” not “ruled by priests.” A nation “under God” is a “Theocracy” by definition.” My use of Theocracy was meant to propose the question, “Are we ruled by priests who job is to interpret the Bible and then rule?” Our founders knew that government control of religion would lead to tyranny. kash, uses Christian principles as outlined in the Bible to justify government’s redistribution of wealth and now more than ever decide who will be the winner and who will be the losers. This is certainly not Biblical and therefore, not Christian.
Our founders used the Bible extensively in establishing this nation and to some extent we were a theocracy as almost every state constitution required some sort of requirement that one be a Christian or adhere to Christian principles. So, for example, if a Jew sought public office he had to embrace Christianity or be denied to hold that office. I do not for a minute think that this is what God intended. Fortunately it took the states about 60 years to drop these religious requirements although for many years it was difficult for nonChristians to get elected.
My basic point is that the Bible is very clear on the issue of caring for our “neighbor.” It is a mandate from God to each and every one of his children. The fact that the US is a Christian nation is demonstrated each and every time there is a disaster in any part of the world, even among our enemies, we (I’m not talking about our government) are there to help. The American people have always risen to the occassion….ALWAYS.
The mandate of the church is to care for widows and orphans. Jesus also provided us with example after example of how we are to be compassionate for those unable to care for themselves. This too, I believe, falls to the responsibility of the Church, not goverrnment. The Church is a steward of God’s money, which is provided by His children. As a steward the Church is to insure that the money is used wisely, which means those that WILL not work will not be helped. Government sees the money provided by taxes or money it borrows as ITS own and therefore does not act as a good steward. Instead it uses that money to insure its power and engage in all sorts of activities which are detrimental to the nation. When gold and silver were our money, there were severe restrictions on the government’s ability to spend recklessly. But when Nixon closed the gold window and the US dollar became 100% fiat, the doors to reckless spending were thrown wide open.
America is not a theocracy and I would never want it to be. What if the Theorcrats…our high priests decided to interpret the Bible literally and obey the command in Due. 15 (I think its in this book) that if a woman comes to aid of her husband, who is fighting another man, and strikes the privates of the other man, she is to have her hand cut off. Or if a child is unrulely and will not submit to his parents, the child is to be stoned to death.
The only Theocracy I will submit to and support is when Jesus returns. Then God will rule. A theocracy ruled by man….absolutely not, regardless of whether or not I agree with their worldview. That said, I do believe America MUST return to its roots, and the Tap Root is the Bible, but it is also the combined wisdom of man yearning to be free that is also included in our heritage.
Paul I must disagree with C. Edmund Wright in stating this, “That little financial shock at the gas pump caused a lot of folks — who should not have had mortgages — to start defaulting on those mortgages. After all, if a family budget is tight while gas is two dollars, then something has to give when it doubles. What “gave” was the home that they moved into with no down payment thanks to a sub prime mortgage.
Now where in the world did these undeserving folks get those mortgages? They got them from lenders flush with cash and under severe liberal pressure to loan to the “underserved” community. Now one would think that folks who are “not credit worthy” should indeed by “underserved” in the world of lending, but that is not how the liberal mind works.”
While I do not disagree that subprime lending to people that could not afford a mortgage was part of the problem, it was not the only problem that brought on this crisis. I will also agree with him that high energy prices, which act as a tax, also contributed to the recession. But he fails to mention that government under both Democrat and Republican administrations aided and abetted Wall Street by allowing….encouraging the creation of toxic assets known as OTC derivatives. Going back as early as 1996, there were calls to bring this market under control or there would be a disaster. The disaster began to unfold in 2006 when two Bear Stearns hedge funds blew up. The Republicans are just as guilty as the Democrats, and remember it was G.W Bush that started us on the path of massive bailouts and it was Richard Nixon that closed the gold window and started the expansion of bailouts in the 1970s beginning with Penn. RxR and Lockheed.
I agree that the liberals must be defeated and conservatism must return to our nation or we will languish for generations financially and we will continue to lose our freedoms. This is not a Republican vs. Democrat issue. I will fully support any candidate, regardless of his/her party that supports a return to sound money, which these days I think the best we can hope for is a gold certificate ratio. I would prefer a return to gold and silver as money, but given the lack of education on the matter, I do not think this possible…at least not at this time. Maybe if we had a competing monetary system, where people could use either paper certificates tied to gold or gold / silver itself, eventually gold / silver would win out. This is already being considered in Idaho as that state contemplates allowing people to pay their taxes with silver.
Once we are back to sound money, the government will be forced to live within its means.
Mike: Yes the Bible clearly outlines the juristiction of each level of government starting with the individual, then the family then the church and the state then lastly and with the least amount of power and authority the federal government. They are all different forms of government with different jurisdictions. So I don’t disagree with you but the founders knew and the Bible states the jurisdiction of all of these which gives us our freedom, justice and ethics.
“A theocracy ruled by man….absolutely not” I completely agree and so did the founders, that is why Jesus is to be our King and not autonomous man. This is to be a bottom up theocracy not a Top down Tyrrany.
Mike: “I agree that the liberals must be defeated and conservatism must return to our nation or we will languish for generations financially and we will continue to lose our freedoms. This is not a Republican vs. Democrat issue. I will fully support any candidate, regardless of his/her party that supports a return to sound money, which these days I think the best we can hope for is a gold certificate ratio.” We both agree here and I know you have a good understanding of financial legistation. I agree that we should have honest sound currency for a stable and growing econony. The Bible also speaks on these matters as well, every time we stray we end up paying the price for our disobebience.
Theocracy or Pluralism: Which is Evil?
One morning you walk out front to get your newspaper and you see that your pagan next-door neighbor has built an altar on his front lawn and is preparing to rip the heart out of his young daughter’s chest as a gift to his gods. Will you rescue the child — and thereby “impose” your religious values on your “devout” neighbor — or are you a “pluralist?” Will your religion govern all of your life, or will you keep it in a spiritual compartment reserved for a church building on Sunday mornings?
As we will see on this page, the Puritans believed that all of life should be governed by their Christianity. Even civil government was to be governed by their religion. For the Puritans, Christian statesmanship was Theocratic statesmanship.
Many people today join the Supreme Court in opposing the fusion of religion and government. Many people today view “pluralism” as “enlightened” and “democratic,” and “Theocracy” as an unmitigated evil. People fear that “Theocracy” will mean the denial of civil rights and the breeding of a spirit of “intolerance.” Secularists bemoan the
turmoil, civil strife, and persecutions, generated in large part by established sects determined to maintain their absolute political and religious supremacy. With the power of the government supporting them, at various times and places, Catholics had persecuted Protestants, Protestants had persecuted Catholics, Protestant sects had persecuted other Protestant sects, Catholics of one shade of belief had persecuted Catholics of another shade of belief, and all of these had from time to time persecuted Jews. In efforts to force loyalty to whatever religious group happened to be on top and in league with the government of a particular time and place, men and women had been fined, cast in jail, cruelly tortured, and killed.
But the Crusades and the Inquisition and the KKK and the Religious Right combined are but a drop in the bucket compared to the denial of civil rights occasioned by the Secular State. Secularism, not Christianity, has made the 20th century the most violent century in recorded history. Everyone can see that the Inquisition and the Crusades were evil; only a few have come to see secular government as an even greater evil.
Philosophers sometimes speak of “epistemological self-consciousness.” It means being consistent with what you profess to believe. When Christians are consistent, they grow out of Inquisitions and Crusades. But when Atheists are consistent – and the 20th century has become more and more consistently atheistic – well . . . God says “all they that hate Me love death.” (Proverbs 8:36) Secularism brings death. Secularism means Genocide.
Beyond Pluralism
“The Divine Right of Kings” was universally held several centuries ago. But the inner logic of monarchy led to a struggle for human rights. Now we have moved away from kings and royalty toward government “of, by, and for the people.” And we think “pluralist democracy” is so much better than the “divine right of kings.”
But the inner logic of Pluralism has led to violent crime, widespread ignorance, rising rates of sexually transmitted diseases among 14-year olds, graphic violence and perverted sex as “entertainment,” ubiquitous divorce and illegitimacy, and the inability of our government or leaders to make a moral judgment and say that all of this wrong. After all, we mustn’t “impose our values” on others. Indeed, when Christians attempt to “impose their values” on child-killers by praying in front of their homes or protesting in front of their clinics, they are met with armed force in the form of the State’s police and military. In an effort to avoid “Theocracy,” the Christians are arrested for violating the “civil rights” of the abortionists.
Civil rights are only violated when one group of people claim the moral right to a monopoly of violence over others. Is the answer to human rights violations to strip our government and culture of the moral absolutes Christianity provides? I don’t think so.
Christians Must Defend Theocracy
America was founded as a Christian Theocracy, not a secular nation. The ACLU and the U.S. Supreme Court are not telling us the truth, “the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” Those who left Europe did so in obedience to God, in order to further His Kingdom. The establishment of civil government was seen as a tool in the process of establishing the Christian religion in the New World.
Most Christians do not understand this point. Most Christians are ignorant of history, and they believe that in the here-and-now Christianity should be an essentially “private” matter, and should not have too much influence in politics or “public” life. They believe this even if they deny the doctrine of the ACLU known as the “separation of church and state.” Even politically active pro-life people will deny that the Bible is an infallible standard for all of culture, not just “religion” or “moral” issues.
There is no neutrality. If the State is not actively promoting the Christian faith, then it is actively destroying it. We must come to grips with this fact.
The Puritans who settled this continent were far more aware of what the Bible requires than are most Christians today. The Puritans recognized that Christianity requires government to be Trinitarian, characterized by a public and official Theocracy.
Biblical Theocracy is not the Roman Law-type rule by the clergy, seen in the Crusades and Inquisitions; Biblical Theocracy — the decentralized Rule of God’s Law — is best exemplified by Abraham. He took hundreds of people into his household and attempted to transfer to them the discipline and godly habits which he had learned. This educational ministry is the foundation of social order, and it is always familistic. Such activities take place through voluntary associations, not coercion and regulation. There are neither priests nor kings, for every believer is a priest and king under Christ.Future-oriented self-sacrifice is blessed by the Providence of God with prosperity and security, obviating the purported necessity for a centralized, welfare/warfare state.
The ayatollah of Iran agrees with you completely, Paul.
Kash: Typical kash as always.
You still never answered my questions within the bottom section of post#2 within the “Can Morality Exist Without God?” show site, Paul[smile]. I had thought that since the answers for this hypothetical scenario were coming from your imagination that the task would have been easy for you. If you cannot even do this, then surely there is a website somewhere that you could have copied information from…..or as a Biblical literalist, should I have just simply assumed that your answer would have been, along the lines of “Such a situation would never happen within society John, for such people would all be put to death upon discovery.”?
Hmmmmmmm?
I would also be most interested in hearing your fantasies on what the education system in your America would be like, banned topics, regulations, you know, all that good stuff. Just go nuts and tell me everything[smile].
kash: “The ayatollah of Iran agrees with you completely, Paul.”
Just another shot but her weapon is no bigger than a popgun.
What kash and her ilk do not realize is that, IMO, yesterday marked a real turning point. “I fear all we have done is awkened a sleeping giant,” said Adm. Yamamoto as Japan celebrated the historic victory at Pearl Harbor. He knew that Japan could have its way militarily against the US for a year or so, but eventually the industrial might of the US would end if defeat for his nation.
So it is with the Democrats. Following the election of Barak Obama and their sweeping victories in the House and Senate, they celebrated and believed the American people had actually voted for bigger, more intrusive government. In truth, the American people were sick of the Republicans and the Democrats offered a campaign of change and government transparancy. Instead of sticking to their promises they embarked on a process which included more of the same except on steroids. Instead of transparency they brought back room deals….anything to get legislation passed. What’s more they embarked on a program of even bigger more intrusive government. This is NOT what the American people had in mind during the election of 2008.
I believe yesterday was a turning point, but the Republicans had better not misread the tea leaves, which are grounded in the grassroots movement called the Tea Party Movement. Progressivism, which has been on the march for decades has now received a fatal blow. Yesterday was not the end of the debate. It marked the Beginning of the End for the Progressive movement. The American people are not socialists and although they have been in a credit / debt driven coma, reality has woken them up. I have not seen a divide in this nation like the one we are experiencing since the Vietnam War.
I was part of the Antiwar movement back then, but not as a left wing radical. I had friends that had gone there voluntarily at first and they let me know that politics made the war unwinable as early as 1966. I also knew that the US government was supporting an unpopular regime in the South. I knew that the war was a waste….a waste of money but more important a waste of the best people this nation had to offer. I was antiwar when it was not popular to be antiwar. The movement started slowly but in the end it forced a President not to seek re-election and turned the Democratic Convention of 1968 into riot.
It is these same people that make up the seniors today, many of which oppose this legislation. We now realize the broken promises of government (like Soc. Security benefits would NOT be taxed and would be indexed to inflation – the inflation index has been manipulated to the point where it is meaningless) and are NOT the socialists we were in our youth.
Yesterday marked a turning point for America, and it is my prayer that the turn will be back to the Right. It may take a couple or three decades to clean up the mess we have allowed our politicians to make, but we can do it. This is, after all, a Constitutional Republic.
John, “can morality exist without God?” Not sure of your exact question, but the answer is, “definitely yes.”
But then the question is “Who decides what is moral and what isn’t?” Are there nation that behave immorally according to you…for example Pol Pots regime in Cambodia? If the answer to this question is “yes,” then one must ask, “Who are you to decide what is moral or immoral?” Apparently the people that carried out the horrible crimes under Pol Pot didn’t think they were acting immorally.
In the end the only way to determine what is moral or immoral is to have an absolute standard. If morality is a matter of opinion then your morality may not be mine and since everyone can have their own standard there is NO morality.
John, “I would also be most interested in hearing your fantasies on what the education system in your America would be like, banned topics, regulations, you know, all that good stuff. Just go nuts and tell me everything[smile].”
I know you are asking Paul, but let me just tell my idea of education. I would revert back to what I experienced when I was in school. I was probably the last of the generation where every morning there was the raising of the flag, the pledge, a devotion / brief prayer, and then 15 minutes of homeroom. Teachers were the ultimate authority in the classroom and they could paddle students that misbehaved. Discipline was reinforced at home since teachers made periodic contract with parents (neighborhood schools were the thing back then at least through JR. High) and the last thing you wanted was for your parents to know you had gotten into trouble.
I recall that with the neighborhood schools and teachers not being saddled with tons of unnecessary paperwork, they could actually have students that were having trouble with academics get extra help after school. Of course the last a student wanted to do was stay after school for anything. Staying after school was also used as punishment for misbehavior.
We were free to sing Christmas Carols even the religious one. We all learned the patriotic songs, which included references to God and Jesus. I don’t anyone was terribly harmed by them. I had a few Jewish friends and they did not seem to mind. Elliot and Linda, twins, were Orthodox Jews and from time to time we discussed religious issues. My best friend in elementary school was Richard, a Jew but he wasn’t all that devout. Religion just did not get in the way even though people appeared to more outwardly religious back then. Funny thing was I always thought Baptists were extremist nut cases although I don’t ever recall meeting one until I moved to NC. It was the Baptist that finally brought me to the Lord and now I am a member of a Bible Believing Independent Baptist church. Can you believe it?
There were bullies in school but at least no one worried about knives or guns. I was in school during the migration of Cubans into Miami during the 60s. This was before they became the majority….but now they are the plurality with all the other Latins that have come to the city. This lead to groups being formed, I guess you would call them gangs. There were the Anglos, the Saxons (American gangs) and the Burger King gang (Cubans) because they hung out at Burger King on Flagler Street. School officials kept everything under control so there was no gang violence at school. I was totally bilingual and had long time friends that were American born and Cuban born. I lived in both worlds. There were fights but no one used weapons of any kind. There were mostly fist fights which took place on a regular basis at social events like the Hialeah Armory dance.
School, was basically orderly, there were few drop outs and I do not recall anyone feeling like their freedoms were being violated. Most kids in Elementary school and Junior high feared and respected authority. The spare the rod spoil the child rule seemed to work quite well. By the time we got to high school, we were conditioned to respect authority.
I recall that the philosophy of he who does not work nor shall he eat was alive and well back then. With no welfare programs….government subsidies, it was pretty much driven into our heads that if failed to get an education, life would be tough. So most took high school seriously. I recall that the other philosophy at play was that a child should be raised according to “his / her bent.” Which is also Biblical. That is why we had academic tracks for those that wanted to go on to College and a track for those that were more interested in Blue collar type jobs.
It seemed to work pretty well. I envied those kids that only went to school for half a day during their senior year then went off to an apprentiship and got paid.
As for topics I recall that we debated many topics. In the 9th grade were required to take Civics which included a 6 week course on Propaganda. I have found that what I learned in that six weeks has served me very well. That civics class also included public speaking and an element of debate. I loved the debates we had. Competition was stressed in all activities especially sports all through elementary school, Jr. High, and Sr. High.
Back then we considered skipping school but feared the Truant officer. Kids, all boys as I recall, that broke the law or were constantly truant were subject to Reform School. No one wanted to ever go to Reform School but it was a way of segregating the “criminal” element from those that merely had some behavior issues. I know of at least one boy in Jr. High that was sent off, we assumed it was the dreaded Reform School.
Sex was something that most boys were interested in, but only starting around the 5th or 6th grade. Innocense lasted much longer and I would venture to say that most of my graduating class were virgins…boys and girls although to here us talk you would think we all came from the Playboy mansion. Censorship back then made it such that our sex drives were more inclined towards romance. Just listen to the songs of the 50s and 60s…they all speak of idealized love. It was only in the Sex Revolution of the later 60s and 70s that innocense was lost.
I know of at least one girl that got pregnant early on in high school. She left for a while, no one knew why at the time, but I think it was to have her baby. I was told / heard from my sister later on…much later on that she had had a baby which was then put up for adoption. Roe v Wade had not come around yet.
Girls that made out with more than one particular boy were considered easy (read slut) and boys just thought of them as a piece of meat to be had. There were very few girls like this as I recall. Most girls and boys in high school went steady which back then meant you had a regular date for social events. Those that did not go steady had to run around worried sick that they would have no one to take to the next dance at school. No one I knew had STDs or got pregnant out of wedlock and I lived in Blue Collar neighborhood and all my friends (including girl friends) came from that segment of society.
Looking back on those time I would have to say that Christianity seemed to be the focus of how schools were run. It was not perfect but I think the stresses on kids are much greater today. Morality has gotten blurred and the educational community is more apt to psychoanalyze children where back then they dealt with controlling the behavior first. I know of no one that was on psychotrophic prescriptions like so many are today, and you know what everyone I knew learned to read, write, and do simple math like multiplication, fractions, division, etc. There were school counselors but there was near zero tolerance for bad behavior. Maybe that is why there were few Hyperactive / ADD / ADHD children in school. The drop out rate was also quite low although some did drop out.
I feel sorry for kids today. I grew up in a poor family but never realized it until I went to college and took a sociology course. What a shock, I discovered I came from the middle of the poverty group according to my father’s income.
I attended all 4 years at the Univ. of Fla. in Gainesville then went to grad school at UNC Chapel Hill. School was affordable back then, and I graduated with very little debt. I worked my way through school to earn both degrees.
That’s it. I don’t know if I have answered your question. Since I have accepted Christ I have found that I am freer today than I have ever been. Every living person will serve a master. Christ seems to be the best of the lot….you the whole issue of salvation. Even the atheist serves a master, in his case it is the flesh. I can tell you that my flesh has gotten me into more trouble than anything in my life. As I have told my children, the person that causes me the most grief is the one I look at in the mirror when I shave.
Growing up as I did I can now see that I was forced to follow a Christian path. It turned out to be pretty good even before I accepted Christ. If I were growing up today, who knows what path I would have taken. The times I have visited my children’s school when they were growing up, it seemed that teachers did not have the control they once had. The drop out rate is appalling and tragic.
kash, it looks like your home state of Ala. is going to sue the Federal government should Obama sign this bill.
Florida says several states to file healthcare lawsuit
MIAMI, March 22 (Reuters) – Florida’s attorney general will file a lawsuit with nine other state attorneys general opposing the healthcare legislation passed by Congress, a spokeswoman said on Monday.
The health care reform legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives last night clearly violates the U.S. Constitution and infringes on each state’s sovereignty,” Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, a Republican, said in a prepared statement announcing a news conference.
“On behalf of the State of Florida and of the Attorneys General from South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Pennsylvania, Washington, North Dakota, South Dakota and Alabama if the President signs this bill into law, we will file a lawsuit to protect the rights and the interests of American citizens.” (Reporting by Michael Connor, Editing by Chizu Nomiyama)
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2215987420100322
kash, you can shoot Reuters if you wish.
Paul: “This is to be a bottom up theocracy not a Top down Tyrrany.”
Good thought. What we now have is top down socialism, which is the very definition of a fascist state. As you know I study markets and the healthcare stocks took off from the opening bell and why not, they now have a captive audience…or should I say consumers. The Pharmaceuticals are up as are the major indexes.
The question is “why?” The answer is simple. Early on the market was down but the bonds were up. The US dollar was rallying because the Euro was taking a hit due to concerns over Greece. This took the precious metals and most of the commodities down. But by noon today they reversed course as did stocks and the bonds headed south along with the dollar.
One day does not a market make but a few things are obvious:
1. The US dollar is rallying on Pound Sterling and Euro weakness. England is in worse financial shape than we are and the Euro is in the stink tank until it gets Greece resolved. The Euro is heavily weighted. We should also note that the currencies of nations that are resource exporters remain strong. The Canadian Loonie is near even with the USD.
2. Gold is going through a correction as is silver. This is just normal action in the gold market.
3. Bonds are perceived as a flight to safety so they react like the US dollar. Dollar up bonds up, stock market down. Stock market up then the US dollar is down and so are bonds.
4. The reaction of stocks, thus far under the Obama Administration has been positive but not for the reasons most people think. It is not because Obama is friendly to business in general, he is only friendly to big business. Big business does not mind increased taxes and regulations as that drives out competition. Beside, big business today is international so a declining dollar actually represents increased profits overseas. They can also incorporate in any nation they wish to incorporate so expatriation is not a problem for them.
What all this means is that the Big multinational corporations benefit from a fascist state. The artificially low interest rates held down by the Fed. forces people to speculate. With real estate in the tank, that leaves the equity market as the place to try to beat inflation. The market is rallying for very much the same reasons that the strongest stock market in the world for the first half of the last decade was the Zimbabwe Stock market. It went up hundreds of billions of percentage points while the currency went to zero. Same thing happen in Germany after WW I. The stock market there went from a low of 89 into the billions of marks by 1924. Of course the Reichmark became worthless by 1924.
The fluctuation in the different markets is the result of the tug of war going on between the forces of inflation and deflation. Given that the Fed can print without limit tells me that inflation will win. Inflation will reduce the government’s debt burden so that also favors the forces of inflation. This is what the markets are telling us. Gold’s reaction high came early this year, which means its corrective phase has been pushed back. If I am correct in my cycles analysis we should see gold begin to firm up in April and remain strong at least until October. By this time next year we should see gold trading in the $1700 area, which means that the US dollar will be much weaker than it is today….much much weaker.
Open wide and say… YES WE CAN!
Mike: Talk about frivolous lawsuits. I am not worried about such shenanigans. Which is all the Republican party has left, they are so out of touch with normal middle-of-the-road, reasonable people. THey can float out to sea with the tea baggers.
The tea baggers and the republicans are the same party, and don’t let them tell you otherwise. They’re pro-war, anti-healthcare, pro-theocracy and racist.
Don’t get me wrong, not all republicans are racists. But all racists are republicans.
The Repubs experienced a huge defeat yesterday, and I hope it leads my fellow moderates to jump on board the O train.
For some well-needed perspective on how mild this legislation is: http://robertreich.org/post/463440906/the-final-health-care-vote-and-what-it-really-means
“The Pharmaceuticals are up as are the major indexes.” Duh, they won a bunch of concessions to keep their patents for a criminally long time and avoided programs to provide cheaper drugs to rural and underserved areas. And you think this bill is socialist, yet at the same time claim the country is headed to big business-run fascism. Those two things are mutually exclusive, you know. What we really have is a lot of corporate welfare and a very little bit of social welfare, and this bill at least adds a LITTLE bit to social welfare.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWZcy0baCsU&sns=fb
delusional kash: “Mike: Talk about frivolous lawsuits. I am not worried about such shenanigans. Which is all the Republican party has left, they are so out of touch with normal middle-of-the-road, reasonable people. THey can float out to sea with the tea baggers.”
There you go again. The states are instigating the lawsuits not the Republican party. There are Constitutional questions one of which is, “Does the government have the right to require the people to buy ANY product, such as insurance?” But of course to a Statist like you, the Constitution is irrelevant.
Almost all of your messages on this board regarding issues of individual freedom and property rights just convince me more and more that you are more a Statist (primary religion) / Democrat / Socialist ideologue than a Christian. Your faith seems to be planted soundly in government and its benevolence towards the people.
I believe the New American Revolution is underway; how it unfolds is anyone’s guess. Maybe that Russian that wrote about America breaking up like the Soviet Union will be correct. I can tell you this, people are angry. The states are tired of government mandates. At the very least the next few years….the next decade is going to be interesting.
O Nata Lux: “The Repubs experienced a huge defeat yesterday, and I hope it leads my fellow moderates to jump on board the O train.”
Ever watch the Movie the Cassandra Crossing? It about a train that is directed towards a bridge crossing that the government knows will lead to the train’s destruction and the death of everyone on board.
We now have the 2010 version of that moving, “The Obama Crossing.”
BTW, you sound an awful lot like Gurgus, a.k.a. Bernie.
kash: About your link in message # 98. It is interesting how you like to shoot other people’s messangers yet most if not all of your links are to people that “lean left.” I generally support my argument by providing references from center, left, and actually very few from the right.
You continue to prove my opinion of your. You are a Democrat ideologue, a devout Statist, and a Socialist that now supports the Fascist wing of that ideology.
kash: “they won a bunch of concessions to keep their patents for a criminally long time and avoided programs to provide cheaper drugs to rural and underserved areas. And you think this bill is socialist, yet at the same time claim the country is headed to big business-run fascism. Those two things are mutually exclusive, you know. What we really have is a lot of corporate welfare and a very little bit of social welfare, and this bill at least adds a LITTLE bit to social welfare.”
Remember when Obama promised no more earmarks? Remember PayGo? Remember transparancy? Remember reduce the influence of the powerful lobbyists? The chair in the Oval Office still had the sent of G.W. Bush in it as this President and the newly elected Congress, which promised much of the same, broke everyone of its promises.
You also do not know much about the REALITIES of the different political ideologies. The Nazis were fascist right? Nazi stands for National Socialist German Workers Party. But I’m not getting into a debate over this with you. Since Day 1 on this board I have been the one that has said, Wall Street now runs Washington. The Story of Brooksley Born and the legislation passed under both Democrat and Republican Administrations and Congress prove that this process has been underway for decades.
Mark my words, the US dollar is headed lower…much much lower, and will soon cease to be the world’s reserve currency. The standard of living here in America is headed lower…much lower. The Revolution is here. Oil may very well be the next crisis we face, that is if some other event does not preceed it. By mid-decade foreign nations will cease funding America’s debt and at that point we will be insolvent.
All of this brought to us by Big Government (made possible by the creation of the Federal Reserve) and those, like kash, that support it.
Most of the states involved are predominantly “red” states, with Repub governors. The “blue” ones, Michigan and Pennsylvania, are making a political bid that is going to fail. And at the most, they are only challenging the penalties for not buying insurance. The rest of the bill will stand anyway, and those states that don’t comply with requiring everyone to buy insurance will just find their rates will be higher and will give it up anyway. But they’re not going to win. If they do, all of the other 10th amendment lawsuits, like making marijuana legal, will have a precedent.
Mike, read Chicken Little much?
Funny how all of a sudden “legislating from the bench” doesn’t seem so evil. Hypocrites. White washed tombs.
Say No to Social Justice!
by Gary DeMar
Religious groups and Christian leaders like Jim Wallis are ecstatic over the growth in civil government in the name of “social justice” supposedly based on the Bible. Glenn Beck took note of this and exposed the liberal underpinnings of the movement. There is nothing new in politicians appealing to the clergy to grow the size and extend the scope of government in the name of Social Justice. FDR contacted religious leaders by name to promote his Social Security program which was based on the social philosophy of the German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck (1815–1898) that was copied and implemented by Adolf Hitler. In a September 23, 1935 letter, FDR wrote the following to a Baptist minister from Waynesville, Ohio:
Because of the grave responsibilities of my office, I am turning to representative Clergymen for counsel and advice,—feeling confident that no group can give more accurate or unbiased views.
The concept “social justice” means different things to different people. Justice is often equated with social equality, a mistaken notion if there ever was one. In looking for a helpful way to explain the meaning of justice, baseball comes to mind. Rarely are teams equal in ability. This is especially true with the younger age groups. What if umpires had the jurisdictional authority to level inequities at the request of a manager who believes that the opposing team has better players? Both teams know the rules going into the game. Umpires are present to ensure that the rule book is followed to the letter. As long as the players and coaches follow the rules and umpires enforce the rules, justice prevails even if there are inequities. It is not the job of an umpire to eliminate disparities. Who would ever want to play the game if the rules always change at the discretion of an umpire?
In reality, the cry for “social justice” is a call for the State to do something to fix economic and relational inequities without any regard to a universal principle of justice. By describing justice in social rather than legal terms, our attention is immediately drawn to national problems that can only be fixed by a civil government with enough power to enforce its policies. So then, advocates of “social justice” believe that the State plays the major role in rectifying so-called social problems because they are national in scope. Antonio Martino points out, however, that the expression
social justice . . . owes its immense popularity precisely to its ambiguity and meaninglessness. It can be used by different people, holding quite different views, to designate a wide variety of different things. Its obvious appeal stems from its persuasive strength, from its positive connotations, which allows the user to praise his own ideas and simultaneously express contempt for the ideas of those who don’t agree with him.
Anyone who criticizes policies that carry the label “social justice” is immediately considered to be callous, insensitive, uncaring, and lacking in compassion. Those who oppose “social justice” policies are not against treating people in a just way. They firmly believe that most if not all social justice policies that involve the State are wrong and, in the long run, do more harm than good. Attaching the “social justice” label to a program does not make it a just and helpful program anymore than attaching a Mercedes Benz hood ornament to a Volkswagen will make it a luxury car.
Foes of sophisticated and expensive governmental programs designed to help the poor and implemented by distant bureaucratic agencies may be right on target with their opposition. They have history on their side. Confiscating literally trillions of dollars in taxes from one segment of society and redistributing the collected revenue to another segment of society and calling it “social justice” does not mean that it is in fact the just thing to do. “Social justice” is not in operation when the State takes upon itself the right to confiscate so-called excess capital from the rich to care for the poor, especially when the Bible opposes confiscatory taxation and such policies do not work.
Attempts to solve problems by declaring war on them by the national government has been an ongoing theme in politics since the mid-1960s. As you might expect, wars are expensive, and there are many casualties. “Overall, civilian social welfare costs increased by twenty times from 1950 to 1980, in constant dollars. During the same period, the United States population increased by half.” When the Food Stamp Program began in 1965, 424,000 people participated in the program (that’s less than 9,000 people per state, a manageable number for private welfare agencies to handle). At the end of Lyndon Johnson’s presidency in 1968, participation increased to 2.2 million. The number doubled during the first two years of Richard Nixon’s presidency (1969-70). By the end of Nixon’s first term in 1972, the number of food stamp recipients had increased five-fold. “By 1980, more than twenty-one million people were receiving food stamps, fifty times more people than were covered during the Johnson presidency.”
Using the State to satisfy a concept of “social justice” did more harm than good because it lured people into programs that made them dependent upon the State. Undoubtedly there were poor people in 1965 who needed food and shelter, but creating a government program in attempt to satisfy the need was the wrong solution.
Keep in mind that the money actually spent on these programs is only a fraction of the money collected.
In 1982, the total U.S. welfare bill at all levels of government (federal, state, and local) came to 403 billion dollars. If we take figures from the Bureau of the Census (August 1984) which state that the number of people living in poverty in the U.S. was 15.2 percent of the population or 35.3 million people, an amazing fact emerges. Had we simply divided the 403 billion dollars this nation spent on poverty at every level of government among the estimated number of poor people, each poor person could have received $11,133. For a family of four, this would have totaled $44,532. Since the official poverty level per family for that year was $9,287, it is clear that America’s fight against poverty involves enormous overhead costs. Most of the tax dollars collected to fight poverty end up, Thomas Sowell notes, “in the pockets of highly paid administrators, consultants, and staff as well as higher-income recipients of benefits from programs advertised as anti-poverty efforts.” Clearly, the bucket used to carry money from the pockets of the taxpayer to the poor is leaking badly. Many think the real beneficiaries of liberal social programs are not the poor and disadvantaged but the members of the governmental bureaucracy who administer the program.
Those who administer these programs have a vested interest in their survival and expansion. Winning the war on poverty is not the goal, perpetuating the programs is. “Less than 25 percent of all the tax dollars allocated to fight poverty at every level of government reaches the poor. The other 75 percent goes to pay overhead.”
Advocates of “social justice” programs implemented by the State at the expense of the mainly productive members of society will claim that there are success stories. Few would dispute the claim. When so much money is being poured into these programs, someone is bound to benefit. But if that same money—including the revenue lost in overhead expenditures that never reach the poor—were saved, invested, and spent instead oftaxed, many more people would benefit, and we would have fewer social-welfare slaves.
Paul, thank you, thank you, thank you for the link to that fantastic video. There are quite a few Black intellectuals, like Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Mason Weaver, Jesse Peterson, etc. that condemn the Democrats for keeping Blacks on the plantation of government dependency.
A summary of Peterson’s work states, “Peterson and Stetson point the way out of the statist mentality steadily overtaking our public life, advocating a new culture of self-responsibility and moral renewal able to resuscitate the sagging spirits of an American public accustomed to looking everywhere but within themselves for the solutions to their personal and political problems.”
The Statists require dependency for that is the only way the state can maintain maximum control. Since the middleclass make up most of our population, it is the middle class that must be made dependent. The state does this by slowly, over time, taking away the middle class’s property by way of increased taxation and regulation but all with the promises of “freebees and so called safety nets.”
What is fascinating, is that so many are willing to give their rights up. Some are like kash, that think themselves “a better person” because they are willing to surrender their and everyone else’s rights in the name of charity and love. Others just want to be taken care of during their entire lives. Like children, they want to be told what to do. They are like slaves that when set free asked, “Where do we go, what do we do?” Then there are those, the elitists that just want the power. They believe it is their station in life to rule over us all. Of course they will rule as benevolent kings and princes; at least in their own minds. In their minds we are the peasant masses that do not know any better. They believe that God has ordained them to be our masters.
That video is outstanding and needs to be circulated, especially among the Black community. It never ceases to amaze me, how many blacks think Lincoln was a Democrat and the KKK originated in the Republican party.
Mike: I like all those guy’s, my favorite is Thomas Sowell, he’s one of the sharpest guy’s out there.
kash: “Funny how all of a sudden “legislating from the bench” doesn’t seem so evil. Hypocrites. White washed tombs.”
I oppose judicial activism I support judicial review. Apparently you do not know the difference. If ignorance is bliss, you must live in a state of euphoria.
kash: “Mike, read Chicken Little much?”
Yes and apparently your I.Q. is not high enough to comprehend that level of literature. kash, don’t even try to play the dozens with me, I was undefeated champion at my high school which had over 3,000 students attending in grades 10-12.
Kash:”Funny how all of a sudden “legislating from the bench” doesn’t seem so evil.” If you go by what the constitution actually say’s then it isn’t legislating from the bench.
Paul, the Conservative Blacks are voices crying in the wilderness.
You can see the struggle for the heart and soul of America right here on this message board. You and I support individual freedom and responsibility, while kash supports the social welfare state.
This battle will rage until there is finally a winner. If the Statist win then America will cease to be the nation I grew up in and loved so dearly.
Mike: I hear ya!
Mike: You ever read “Marx’s Religion of Revolution,
Regeneration Through Chaos”. It explains a lot of these people’s thought pattern’s.
Paul: “Mike: You ever read “Marx’s Religion of Revolution,
Regeneration Through Chaos”. It explains a lot of these people’s thought pattern’s.”
No I haven’t but it sound interesting. I do know that there is a considerable amount of work going on to establish a “Global Reserve currency” to replace the US dollar. The US debt is no longer sustainable and the world central bankers know it. I would expect the USD to be part of a basket of currencies. If so the USD will be devalued by another 50% at the very least. Keep in mind that since 1964 it has lost about half of its value compared to other currencies. What form this new global exchange currency takes is anyone’s guess. I’m betting that a gold certificate ratio will be either all or part of the new system.
kash can live in the land of denial, but the US dollar is going down. This will alter our standard of living for decades to come. It is already happening, just look around you.
The billionaires of the world know it is coming, which is why many of them are gradually moving into gold. Even the central banks are net buyers of the yellow metal and that includes Venezuela. They know what it coming; global inflation and the collapse of the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency. Only idiots like kash refuse to see what is taking place. They want to believe what the government and the Wall Street hacks say about the future of America. I, on the other hand, am not so sure.
I do hope you are putting some of your assets into precious metals. If you do not have much, you can buy GDXJ, which is an ETF on the junior gold miners. The leverage is huge and since you are buying an ETF you are diversified. The other area I am very bullish on is energy and FOOD. IEZ and OIH are two energy related ETF and MOO is the Food ETF. It is absolutely critical that Americans protect themselves and their loved ones. The crisis is here and now. The next 5 years are going to be very difficult, especially for those people living in urban areas.
kash calls this being a Chicken Little; I call it looking at the statistics and being a realist.
Paul, I am addressing you because addressing kash is like addressing a rock on Mars. Here are some statistics to wrap you mind around. In 1981:
a. Our national debt stood at around $1.2 trillion, today it is over $12 trillion.*
b. Our GDP was $2.75 trillion; today it stands at $14.1 trillion.**
c.Our GDP to Debt ratio in 1981 was 3.35; today it is at 1.2.
*The national debt has grown steadily all these years, including the Clinton years when we supposedly had a “surplus ” towards the end.
**Back then government percentage of GDP was about half of what it is today.
This of course does not include household debt which began to rise in the 1990s and went parabolic during the Bush years. So what does all this tell us? Our economy has been driven by increasing debt and just like a person, without a job, can live for while high on the hog using his credit cards he cannot do this forever. Eventually the credit will be shut off, his possession will be confiscated and he will be thrown out of his home. Nations can live a bit longer on credit and nation’s who enjoy the reserve currency status can last much longer than our overly endebted boy in my example. But eventually the pieper must be paid. Eventually our creditors will realize that we have no intention of repaying what we have borrowed. We may repay them dollar for dollar but those dollars will be worth much less than the dollar they loaned us. Eventually the lenders will demand higher interest for the risk they take placing a greater burden on the tax payers since it is tax revenues which pay 100% of the interest. At some point the interest on the debt alone becomes the largest budget item. Government must confiscate more and more of the people’s income in order to meet obligations. The added burden of higher interest rates, rising prices as the currency declines in value, and higher taxes on the most productive people puts further pressure on the economy and revenues to government decline. Eventually, the whole system collapses under this enormous burden.
Anyone that thinks we will avoid the pain associated with the devaluation of our currency and the economic turmoil that accompanies it, is living in la la land. This is where we are headed. This is the path we took the day we created a permenant Central Bank called the Federal Reserve. Like all journeys, which start slowly (packing, walking out the door, driving to the airport), this one was no different.
We had our first warning of the dangers of a Central Bank with the stock market bubble that led to the Crash of 1929 and was followed by the Great Depression.
The second warning came with the stagflation of the 70s and early 80s. We have now had the third warning, the Greater Depression which began in the first decade of this new century.
Thus far very few people are heeding the warnings. Most people, including most conservatives, have bought into the myth that gold is a “barbaric relic” no longer able to serve the needs of a modern society. God provided man with gold for a reason. Since civilization began it has functioned, along with its little brother silver, as money. Its use as money has ALWAYS led to prosperity. Every time man has fooled around with its coinage or adopted fiat currency, the end result has been economic ruin…..EVERY SINGLE TIME.
People like kash, Gurgus, Bernie, O Nata Lux – which IMO are all the same person, and possibly MattF have yet to refute the above facts. No one has countered a single one of my statistics regarding US debt and Unfunded liabilities, yet I have provided the best resources one could find like David Walker, previous Comptroller, that we are in fact headed for a catastrophe of Biblical proportions.
I urge you and all those within the sound of my voice…..view of my statements to take immediate action to protect yourselves and your loved ones. Dr. Ferguson has so much as said that the end of the US Empire will come quickly. Those that are not prepared will suffer needlessly. Neither Dr. Ferguson or I are saying that we will cease to exist or everyone will die; what we are saying is that the standard of living for most Americans will decline rapidly. This will be reflected in LESS not more health care, poorer diets, smaller more crowded living quarters, with only the wealthy elites able to enjoy the “finer” things in life, one of which is QUALITY HEALTH CARE.
kash calls me a Chicken Little. What she fails to see is that Chicken Little panicked because he thought the Sky was falling; an event which has never happened in history. My warnings come from the FACT that what I am predicting has occurred countless times in human history. As a matter of fact, every time a society has embarked on the path we have taken the end results have always been the same…..ALWAYS.
Following kash or anyone else that thinks the US is invulnerable to economic collapse is like a blind person chosing another blind person to lead them.
“Following kash or anyone else that thinks the US is invulnerable to economic collapse is like a blind person chosing another blind person to lead them.” First of all, I do not ask people to ‘follow’ me, that is YOUR schtick. Second of all, I never said the US in invulnerable to economic collapse. I just don’t think that it will invariably be on the timeline or for the reasons that you endlessly enumerate. Third, every economy has collapsed eventually, even those based on gold.
“If the Statist win then America will cease to be the nation I grew up in and loved so dearly.” As if there has ever been or ever will be just one America. Nostalgia is nice, but usually just a snap shot and not the whole picture. In many ways America is MUCH better today than it was 50 years ago, in spite of your crankiness.
kash: “Third, every economy has collapsed eventually, even those based on gold.”
Name one. I am not talking about economic stress due to the fractional reserve system that existed even when we were on the gold standard, I am talking about societies that collapsed economically even when they were on a sound gold / silver coin system. And please refrain from using the example of foreign invasions. BTW, the eastern Roman Empire outlasted the Western Empire by hundreds of years and that is because Constantine had establish a sound monetary system based on gold which remained in place bringing prosperty for hundreds of years. Also you cannot use nations that were on the gold standard then abandoned it in order to promote wars of foreign expansion. WW I was the most unnecessary war in human history and it was made possible by abandoning the gold standard (Germany 1914) for the huge profits made by the War / Industrial complexes of the warring powers.
Gold is no panacea, but its value remains stable and that promotes economic growth as witnessed by the US during its rapid growth in the 19th and the first half of the 20th century.
Like I said kash, you are an economic moron. You choose to remain ignorant, because that would conflict with your religious beliefs; Statism.
kash: ” First of all, I do not ask people to ‘follow’ me, that is YOUR schtick.”
No I am merely a voice crying in the wilderness. Unlike you, I love my fellow man. It pains me to see needless suffering. I am outraged by what has been taking place in the greatest, freest country the world has ever known these past two – three generations. I have first hand experience of what happens when a nation depends on its political leadership to bring, “Equality, justice, and security” to the people. What they get in the end is, “Elitism, tyranny, and misery.” This too is a lesson of history, but I have seen it…felt it….up close and personal. You on the other hand have the priveledge of knowing only freedom and some semblence of free market capitalism. Like a child that does not see the danger of a lurking lion, you are so trusting. But unlike a child you have no curiousity…no desire to learn. You would rather stay in your delusional little world. You gladly give up your freedom and that of future generations in the worship of your State, big government. The promises of Satan are always sweet sounding, sin seems so compelling, but we all know that the end result is ruin.
Our elitist politicians promise us a near utopia…life will be better for everyone if you just let us have the power. A government that can give you all you want can also take all you have. In the end it will have to take all we have and after that there will be nothing left.
I notice that you have not refuted any of my statistics. Is it because you know you can’t or you just do not understand the economics of it all? All you know how to do is take you little shots and provide links to the left wing websites that support your point of view.
“I notice that you have not refuted any of my statistics.” What statistics? You throw out all kinds of numbers, but I rarely see anything worth refuting.
“Gold is no panacea, but its value remains stable and that promotes economic growth as witnessed by the US during its rapid growth in the 19th and the first half of the 20th century.” Seriously? You think economic expansion in the 19th century was because of gold, not the Industrial revolution? You’re nuts. And economic growth since the thirties has been fairly constant.
Mike: “I am not talking about economic stress due to the fractional reserve system that existed even when we were on the gold standard, I am talking about societies that collapsed economically even when they were on a sound gold / silver coin system.” Blah, blah, blah. You keep claiming every economy that went to fiat money eventually collapsed. I am simply pointing out that every economy that ever existed eventually collapsed, so you can hardly claim it is a unique characteristic of fiat monetary systems.
“BTW, the eastern Roman Empire outlasted the Western Empire by hundreds of years and that is because Constantine had establish a sound monetary system based on gold which remained in place bringing prosperty for hundreds of years.” Oh yeah, that was the only reason the eastern empire outlasted the western empire. You have an amazing ability to ignore all other aspects of history, philosophy, etc except your own narrow ideology about gold. Again I say: you’re nuts.
kash: “As if there has ever been or ever will be just one America.”
America is an idea not just a place. People did not come here from all over the world, risking their lives and the lives of their loved ones, because of the land. They came here seeking freedom. Freedom from what? Mostly freedom from tyranny which is only possible when you have a big powerful government. 16,000 new IRS agents will not be there to insure our liberty.
All you ever do is write in generalities. You do not deal is specific data. You seem to dismiss $100 trillion+ debt and unfunded liabilities as inconsequential. You dismiss that even with the Obama budget scenario, which I described the US will reach a debt of 90% of GDP. All that means nothing to you. Dr. Ferguson, probably the most brilliant economic historian of our time has stated that the US is subject to a rapid collapse.
And kash, you are a blind guide. You influence people with your beliefs just as I do. I ask no one to follow me…I am not a politician. I do on the other hand have a group of people that I email almost every day. I get them caught up on the markets and what is taking place on the economic front. One the good folks on TTL message board is on my email list. Some have been with me for years and I know for sure that some have followed my suggestions and are quite pleased with the results.
Two of the people I email are financial advisors. They have told me that they pass on my information to interested clients. One of the advisors told me that he lost a million dollar + account because he told the man that he should take some money out of the market as per my recommendations. This was early in 2008, when I was pounding the table that a crash was in the works. The client got so angry that he pulled his account and gave it to one of the Wall Street Hack types that kept telling him to hold for the long run. Of course, according to the financial advisor, the client returned after having lost 1/2 of his net worth. My recommendations at the time (starting in 2007) was for people to exit stocks and put their money in bonds. Those that did MADE MONEY during the crash of 2009. Then, on March 6th, I gave the all clear buy signal…it was time to get the 401ks back in the market as a huge rally was coming.
There is an elderly gentleman at my church that asked me in 2002 what he should do with his investments. I told him to put 1/3 into a commodity fund. He did and that fund made him more money than the other 2/3 of his investments.
Two of the people that get my emails is a couple that had some investments in real estate. In 2006, I suggested they sell all real estate on which they owed money. I told them, “Do not have any real estate that carries a debt.” They did and have thanked me for that advice ever since. Oh and the other financial advisor, has been telling clients to hedge their bonds with gold. He’s been telling them this since gold was still under $400. I see him every summer at my wife’s family reunion. Her Uncle Kenny keeps asking me if he should still buy gold and silver at each reunion. I keep telling him “Yep, keep accumulating.” Unfortunately he also listened to his son (who is a city inspector) and bought some investment real estate and that has proven to be a mistake.
My most recent call has been to sell bonds…they are dangerous. I have been bullish on the Canadian and Aussie dollar, so those bonds are a good place to be if one needs income. I have also encouraged people to put money into commodity related companies that offer good sound dividends. I think I mentioned a couple here, RGNC and PWE, back when they were in the $10 area. Both offered dividend yields of 11% plus at the time. Both have doubled in price since I first mentioned them a year ago.
Lately I have been pounding the table on the junior precious metals producers. My two favorites are SVM in the silver group and MFN in the gold category. Both are up several hundred percent since I mentioned them and I still think they are solid investments.
I could go on but you can check to see if I am lying. I stated these things to Bernie way back when. I mentioned these companies long ago before they made their big moves.
I do not deal in theoretical baloney like you do. I provide solid reasoned opinions based on actual data and since there are individuals that rely on my information, I keep up with everything that is happening.
You on the other hand have the luxury of just stating your opinion…you don’t have to back it up with any evidence…you can just rely on the opinions of others most of which got it wrong in the first place.
I ask that no one follow me, but if people are willing to listen to a different point of view….radically different, I am happy to inform them. My emails are free…some have suggested I charge for the information. I don’t need the money. I am happy to help anyone. Oh and by the way, I have used my emails from time to time as a ministry. Everyone of those that get my missives has a link to Doug Tjaden’s website.
I care about people and I do not want them to be needlessly hurt. I also suggest that people learn to grow and can some of their own food. I have also been telling them for years…almost a decade now to downsize their automobiles as I saw rising gas prices. One of the men on my list, one of the two financial advisors…the one that lost then got back the client…actually bought some land built a house by mortgaging his old house then sold the old house to be totally debt free. He own a relatively large track of land where he grows his own food and his house is energy independent. He has been accumulating gold for years himself and he sleeps quite well at night. He recently told me that he has added to his client list just by word of mouth. Periodically he emails me with questions, which I always answer. He agrees with me that the media….the financial press and TV….are basically Wall Street cheerleaders.
I could tell you more but alas it would not matter. I’m telling you, despite some people that think the stock market will collapse, that we have probably seen the market lows for this cycle. I expect the S&P 500 to continue higher. At some point we will get another Cyclical Bear Market, but as of now I just don’t see it. Commodities are going to lead the way and fortunes will be made there. Those that attach themselves to the safety of US / Municipal bonds are going to get creamed. BTW, I am also warning people of these annuities that offer a guaranteed 7% – 8% return. I would first ask, how they expect to get those types of guaranteed returns. Junk bonds, which are risky, only offer 6% or so. US government paper is still half of those returns. So how can they offer 8% guaranteed no risk investment? Seems kind of fishy to me.
You see kash, you are just full of hypothetical bull. You have your vet business and land, which should do well for you. Unfortunately not everyone has that luxury. Some have already been ruined by this economy. Those that have put money into the sectors I have recommended and have side stepped the hard pull backs have done well. At least that is what they tell me.
“Dr. Ferguson has so much as said that the end of the US Empire will come quickly.” Yeah, well, someone somewhere has been warning us about the end of the US Empire since long before the US even was an empire. Jonathan Edwards was convinced in 1750s that Armageddon was near because America wasn’t living up to the Puritan ideals on which it was founded. Considering that all empires wax and wane, its a pretty safe bet for cheap prophets, especially since “soon” can mean 10 years or 100 or 1000.
kash: “Oh yeah, that was the only reason the eastern empire outlasted the western empire. You have an amazing ability to ignore all other aspects of history, philosophy, etc except your own narrow ideology about gold.”
Their trade covered almost all of Asia and up to the Baltic states. Their coins were accepted everywhere. It was their sound money that nations cherished and provided the means of economic prosperty that lasted longer than any other nation. I really do not have time to instruct a complete idiot that wishes to remain so.
kash: “Blah, blah, blah.”
Smartest thing you’ve written since I’ve known you.
kash: “Yeah, well, someone somewhere has been warning us about the end of the US Empire since long before the US even was an empire. Jonathan Edwards was convinced in 1750s that Armageddon was near because America wasn’t living up to the Puritan ideals on which it was founded.”
kash fired her popgun again and now her target was Dr. Ferguson. Nouriel Roubini and Naill Ferguson both called this current little recession, which I call the Greater Depression, BEFORE it happened.
Dr. Ferguson’s credentials are: “He is the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University[2] and the William Ziegler Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School. He was educated at the private Glasgow Academy in Scotland, and at Magdalen College, Oxford.”
And now for Dr. Roubini:
Nouriel Roubini (born 29 March 1959) is a professor of economics at the Stern School of Business, New York University and chairman of Roubini Global Economics, an economic consultancy firm.
After receiving BA in political economics at Bocconi University and doctorate in international economics at Harvard University, he began academic research and policy making by teaching at Yale while also spending time at the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Federal Reserve, World Bank, and Bank of Israel. Much of his early studies focused on emerging markets. During the administration of President Bill Clinton, he was a senior economist for the Council of Economic Advisers, later moving to the United States Treasury Department as a senior adviser to Timothy Geithner, who is now Treasury Secretary.
In 2008, Fortune magazine wrote that: “In 2005 Roubini said home prices were riding a speculative wave that would soon sink the economy. Back then the professor was called a Cassandra. Now he’s a sage.”[1] In September 2006, he warned to a skeptical IMF that: “The United States was likely to face a once-in-a-lifetime housing bust, an oil shock, sharply declining consumer confidence, and, ultimately, a deep recession.”[2] He also foresaw “homeowners defaulting on mortgages, trillions of dollars of mortgage-backed securities unraveling worldwide and the global financial system shuddering to a halt”. The New York Times labeled him “Dr. Doom”, whereas, in hindsight, IMF economist Prakash Loungani has called him “a prophet”.[2]
These are two of my sources along with some of the most brilliant analysts of our time like Peter Schiff, who despite ridicule on Financial TV for his calls on the coming crisis (also predicted in his books and articles going back to 2001), has been 100% on target when it comes to the TREND. Short term, he himself says he cannot determine the short term. For that I rely on charts – technical analysis, and cycles. I’m pretty good at that. Peter runs his own fund, Europac, so people’s money is on the line when he makes a decision. Others I like and read are Dr. Marc Faber, a true Austrian economist, Axel Merk of the currency funds that go by his name…a brilliant man when it comes to currency, Puru Saxena, who provides a global view of economics with his office in Hong Kong. Then there is Jim Sinclair and his sidekick John Loefler, a true Christian. Both of these men have radio programs and free website where one can read and get into the minds of the most brilliant men in the world. I particularly like Jim because he presents all sides. A few months ago he had a sort of round table debate with inflationists and deflationists.
There is a lot more kash but I am 100% sure that you are not interested.
I was in a hurry before, and offer my apologies for not answering back sooner, but you see, yesterday I was busy screwing off, and cooking some goooooooood BBQ[Mmmmmmmmmm.....], and that’s more important than doing this. You have to have priorities you know[grin].
Anyway….
Paul post 85,
There are so many amusing things in this copied post to pick at[smile]. I like how it starts out with the unrealistic scenario presented as the moral/theological dilemma, then advocates the American Puritans[you know, the same fanatics who later went mad and gave us the Salem Witch Trials?]and then ends by advocating Abraham, the guy who tried to do the very thing to his own son Issac that the “pagan next door neighbor” is portrayed as trying to do at the beginning of this post[smile].
You still have not answered my questions Paul. I had thought that giving you an extra day to do it would be helpful. I am going to write off you lack of willingness to do this as evidence that you either cannot easily express yourself with people you disagree with, or that you are a man with something to hide, probably because you know that you will make yourself look bad by answering honestly[If I am wrong then I apologize, but since you never attempt to correct me, it's easy to imagine that I'm NOT.], although I don’t know why this would be that big of a deal if you thought that you were in the right and was secure enough not to care what some faceless posters thought about your opinions.
Mike post 91,
That’s alright, Paul knows what I was asking, and his unwillingness to participate gives me an answer that I can be satisfied with.
“Who decides what is moral and what isn’t?” People who can think for themselves have to make this decision on their own, and it’s not as difficult a thing to do as one might think, provided that the person has a sense of empathy, compassion, and can understand the difference between right and wrong, and everyone who’s right in the head can recognize those things. You don’t even need religion for this, just plain old biology. Any group of social animals from monkeys to dolphins to dogs can display disapproval for self destructive behaviors within the society like murder, thievery, and “child abuse”, you know. Within the more intelligent and social animals this behavior becomes all the more refined/complex, based on what is agreed as the common good of the society, which of course varies by different degrees within different societies. But the variations are not usually that great as to be complete opposites.Sociopaths and brainwashed people will simply do as they are taught or whatever they want to anyway.
“Who are you to decide what is moral and immoral?” I give myself the right to make that decision, but only for my own life, at least as long as I don’t have to interact too much with others that I would conflict with. I won’t be preaching to others about what I perceive as their immorality unless it is effecting me personally in someway[assuming that they would listen to me anyway, which I doubt], in which case I will react to the best of my abilities. That said, it IS perfectly possible to disagree with someone on something but still be able to put up with them and respect one another. EVERYONE is weird to somebody else, after all.
As for your idea of an absolute standard, I create my own, based upon what makes me happy and what makes me sad………just like everyone else who’s individualistic. I follow those laws of the society that I exist in that I personally agree with, and disregard all of the ones that I disagree with[like that stupid law of stopping one's vehicle at STOP signs, even when no one else is around], provided that I think I can get away with it[grin].
“…and since everyone can have their own standard of morality, there is no morality.” No, only if one disregards the point that I brought up when I first addressed you within this post. Different cultures the world over agree that things like rape, robbery, senseless murder, child abuse, and lying are bad things, just as they agree that things like bravery, honor, respect, creativity, generosity, honesty[at least as long as your telling them what they want to hear]and helpfulness are all good things. Because these are the same things that benefit or harm all societies everywhere. So even an Atheist in Russia, a Muslim in Somalia, and a Pagan tribesman in the Amazon can all for the most part agree on the same basic ideas of what constitutes “morals”. I see a problem with one person or little group of elites trying to control the morals and ethics of everyone everywhere. People and the universe as a whole are/is far too complicated and weird for that to ever work. Some people can try and use religion as their standard, but since no one can ever agree on THAT, not even people who claim to be of the same religions[like the Christians within this website for example[smile, wink, wink].]then, aside from giving those sociopaths and brainwashed people in society something to be guided by in life, I really do not see how the end results this in society are any better than the end results of doing what I do.
O Nata Lux!
Welcome back[smile]. In case you didn’t understand what was meant when Mike said within post# 102 “BTW, you sound an awful lot like Gurgus a.k.a Bernie.”, Bernie was an antagonistic Atheist that used to post here. Every once in awhile someone like that will join us ans stick around for a few months until they eventually get banned from the website for being too darned rude and aggressive. Bernie, Barnie, Gurgus,….all of these posters sound so much alike one another that it’s easy to just assume that they are almost always the same person who come back to the site under another name whenever they get banned. I can provide you with examples if you wish, or you can just go back into last year and read through the show sites that deal with the topic of Evolution to get an idea of the kind of a character I’m talking about. I shall give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not doing this act, at least until you start using all of the same words that they used[smile]. I don’t understand what was in your post# 97 that warranted this judgment from Mike. Wishful thinking perhaps? A definite connection between you and them would make it easier for some to discredit and dismiss your opinions. Ignore it. It’s happened to me a few times in the past too[smile].
Mike, don’t you think that saying things about Kash’s intelligence like what you said within post# 110 or at the end of post# 125 is to harsh? These things said can be forgiven by individuals, but like the scar from a burn, never be taken back or forgotten. True, we can do anything as long as we are prepared to face the consequences of our actions[or inactions as the case may be], but do you not worry about becoming someone in public that you don’t want to be remembered as?
You are a smart man…I think you can be bigger than this. Just a thought.
John, let him keep calling me names. He will answer for his sins soon enough.
Kash post 129,
He will? You almost make it sound as if you will oversee this personally[grin]. Thick skin, Kash, just develope thick skin………or simply ignore it. You are untouchable,…he’s untouchable…no point in getting yourselves all worked up over this sort of a thing, be it him getting mad enough to call you names or you getting upset over it. It’s easy to get connected to people here, and then get annoyed over something that’s missinterpreted[yes I know some words are misspelled. I'm just really tired right now. See what you mean to me? Ha![grin]. I may be slightly delirious too. It’s been a heck of a day.] or said in the heat of passion but at the end of the day the only thing that’s important is how we feel about ourselves. These things can only bother you if you first chose to give them the power to, you know.
I assure you, it doesn’t bother me. My post 129 was mostly sardonic. I’m not one to wish judgement on people since I know judgment awaits us all anyway. Mostly I’m just irritated with all the crap being bandied about. We just don’t get what’s really important, you know?
I MIGHT know. I only TRUELY know what is important to/for ME.