Glen Beck and Sarah Palin among some others (like Hannity, Limbaugh, and Cavuto)are doing the very hard work of spreading the word about how big government is trying to get bigger and bigger by intruding more and more into our everyday lives. Listen to their warnings and get out and vote to remove the worst of the congressman and senators in the U.S. and state legislatures. Only new, smarter serving members can vote to establish new term limits upon themselves. We must do all we can as concerned citizens to STOP and REVERSE the course of our ever-enlargening government.
It is oBUMa who is the problem, not Bush. Thank God in Heaven that they haven't taken away our gun rights. If this country turns socialist there will be a civil war and that pigman puppet will be the loser, rather, his puppetmasters, G. Soros and ilk, will be the biggest losers. God Bless America!
Friends, there is a Force of Evil in this world that is sometimes easy to recognize by its work. Its first order of business is to keep us divided because if we were to unite against it we would surely prevail. Therefore all the name-calling and insults we heap upon one another only serves our mutual Enemy, preventing any useful, productive conversation within which we might find common ground.
We must realize this animosity among us is the work of the Enemy, and we must rise above it. Only by so doing will we be able to find and build upon our points of agreement, and work together to counter the Evil so pervasive in our government today.
For me this had to begin with the recognition that this same Evil Force resides in us all to some degree.
"Kevin Hofsas, Author. Books; too advanced for you."
If we are to prevail against the "New World Order" there are a number of thing we must learn. Here are two: Never underestimate the Enemy, and never alienate potential friends.
I have found many who supported Obama simply overreacted to the excesses of the Bush administration. Alternately, many who loathe Obama continue to heap praise upon Bush. Before any constructive discourse can occur, members of each camp must admit they have supported a Globalist, anti-USA scumbag who has zero respect for The Constitution he swore to uphold.
We must acknowledge there are many Patriots, both Conservative and Liberal, who only desire that which is best for our Nation. As a Conservative Patriot I have learned I am much more comfortable with open minded, Liberal Patriots than with closed minded, reactionary Conservatives. I don't imagine those with whom I disagree are 100% wrong or that I am 100% right. Once we quit the offense/defense crap, put down our swords, swallow our insults, dismount our high horses and shake hands, we can get down to the business of repairing our broken Republic.
I pray that we all will wake up and see what is happening with this "CHANGE". Unless we all can come together and govern for the better of the whole community, we will unfortunately end up with the stamped collars around all of our necks.
A most rational argument, I couldn’t agree with you more.
Many talk about the danger of a divided nation and imply a need for unity at any cost. This mindset is the product of an indoctrination based on the theory of political correctness that’s harmful to the maintenance of a free society because it seeks unity based on omission - Let’s forget our differences and seek an alliance based on the vague notion of social justice. This is the underbelly of the political beast hiding behind the mantra of “change”. My concern is what we are changing into.
“The greater good” is quite different from “Our unalienable rights” - one is dictated by man, whereas the other by our Creator. We are one with our Creator; therefore, we are one with each other and thus have no power over another. To define “the greater good” requires some to decide the fate of the rest and in so doing one dominates another in defiance to the notion of oneness with our Creator.
This is not religion; this is only natural. We are all products of nature and thereby bound to its rules - its natural order. Government however is our creation, designed by us exclusively for our benefit - the maintenance of life, liberty, and our ability to seek happiness on earth. We cannot achieve happiness without willful giving and of course, we cannot give what we do not have. Therefore, when we give through obligation to the State, we have not given at all and thus have deprived ourselves the opportunity to give instead through our own willful submission.
In the context of socialist ideology, we are neither capable of providing for others nor ourselves. Instead, we must be cared and provided for by a surrogate power – an elite group of humankind through government that collectively determines our fate and thus our life’s destiny. This denies us our natural rights, our indigenous rights, the rights of a free people born from the earth and returning to it.
Yes, we must bury our differences to achieve peace but not through compromise. Instead, we must transcend our differences by finally accepting our oneness with each other. You have arrived when you can look at another only see your own reflection. The act of taking back our power from an abusive government not deserving of it is an act of self-love. Fully loving ourselves allows us to love fully those around us. We have the power to change our world to whatever we desire. Not everyone needs to believe in this power either, just a small fraction of us – a critical mass from which we can truly create universal change. Herein lays our greatest opportunity to free ourselves finally from those that chose to dominate us.
Bob stop with the prejudice nonsense. We all know Obama is running this country into the ground. If anybody here is prejudice its you. If Obama burned the constitution and smoked the ashes you would still support him.
Im sorry I guess I misunderstood you when you said
"Thankfully, with the way our governing system is designed, my vote always cancels out Phil's vote."
does that mean you've made up your mind not to vote for him next election. I guess that means we will both be voting him out next election. By the way bob I'm a spanish apache Indian who is married to an anglo woman. Exactly what part of that is "prejudiced"
"Thankfully, with the way our governing system is designed, my vote always cancels out Phil's vote."
That was praise for our entire system, whether you want to call it a representative democracy or a constitutional republic.
Your words are filled with hate and destruction and talk of voting people "out" of office, without providing any constructive solutions other than the problems you see with everything that doesn't specifically suit you.
My goal is to find a common ground for all people, by which we can maintain the way of life which was intended by our forefathers, where all people have a say and not just specific groups of people who agree with each other.
These are very different goals, so I presume that when an option presents itself which is hateful and destructive to anything which you oppose, you will vote for it. I, on the other hand, will vote against it for the mere fact that it is hateful and destructive rather than being compromising and constructive.
If there were a book burning, and it was about burning books which offend you, you give an attitude that you would be for such a thing, as long as it is to get rid of books which offend you. I, on the other hand, would defend those books. Not because the books do not also offend me, but because I disagree with destruction as a methodology.
You may not agree with Obama and, perhaps, everything he stands for. I may also not agree with a lot of decisions he is making, but I'm not on a witch hunt like you are. I can still find good decisions in the man, even if I can still find bad decisions in the man. You are already preparing to vote him out of office without taking decent consideration into who you would be voting in. To me, that attitude is scary and is exactly how the true socialists want you to feel. All true socialists paint each new President as a socialist (even Bush was painted as a socialist early on) because by demonizing any current sitting President, they can rile the emotions of the overly sensitive into taking up their pitchforks and torches and ultimately get a better chance at voting in the next candidate who would be exactly who the true socialists would want in place.
The fact that you're a Spanish Apache [Native American] who is married to an Anglo woman does not somehow make you immune to being prejudiced. Note that I did not call you racist. I called you prejudiced. This is different.
The fact that you have preconceived beliefs towards a person or group of people based on their political beliefs makes you prejudiced.
The fact that you make justifications based on experience and without knowledge of the facts without any unreasonable attitude that is unusually resistant to rational influence makes you prejudiced.
For instance, instead of only attacking specific acts which have been passed, you attack Obama as a whole. To me, that's tossing out the baby with the bath water.
For instance, in 2001 Bush signed an executive order that gave former presidents the right to review every presidential document no matter how long it took them to perform this review. As a result, it allowed Presidents to delay (for nearly as long as they wanted) the release of documents to the public.
On January 21, 2009, Obama signed an executive order to undo this and restore the system back to the way it was. There is now a 30-day time-limit (as was the rule before) for review. So, if you're for an open government, you should praise this move.
It sounds like, instead, you seek to villianize Obama at all costs.
I think that in order for our way of life to be restored to the level it was intended by our forefathers, we must look at the ISSUES not at the PERSON. I can't make a judgement call as to whether or not I will be voting Obama out and someone else in, because I do not know the person I would be voting in, or what they are promising, or what their track record in keeping their promises is like.
All I know is that I will be looking at the issues... at the promises... and at the integrity of the person. Thankfully, in President Obama's case, we already see his track record, so we have something to compare against. I can almost certainly tell you that if it is Palin running against Obama, I will have to side with Obama (or with one of the other party members running) because Palin is a joke.
She proved it when she ran for VP, she proved it after she lost the race, and she continues to prove it in the book she wrote.
Bob I don’t hate anybody I’m just sick of the lies and deception obama is trying to shove down our throats. I love freedom and liberty and they are both under assault by him, his administration and our government. Its not right that we have to defend them from our president or our government. I have presented facts but you refuse to acknowledge them. You say
“My goal is to find a common ground for all people, by which we can maintain the way of life which was intended by our forefathers, where all people have a say and not just specific groups of people who agree with each other.”
But you do not acknowledge me and my beliefs and the right for me to have those beliefs. Only that me and those out there who are like minded should not believe as we do.
If I believe that homosexuality is a sin and I don’t want my kid taught about it in school; that is my right as a citizen and no one has the right to pass laws saying I can’t believe that or that my kid should have to learn it.
If I believe that climate change is a hoax and I want to drive an SUV that is up to me not government.
If my son prays in school no one has the right to tell him he cant.
If I believe in creation rather then evolution and I don’t want my kids being taught evolution that should be up to me. Not the state not the federal government, me.
If I don’t want my taxes going to pay for abortions and stem cell research and other things that go against my personal and religious beliefs that should be up to me.
If I own a gun I shouldn’t have to worry that my government is going to make it illegal.
If I want to hunt for my food that’s my right.
If I believe vaccines cause autism and I want to wait until my child is older that is nobodies business but mine.
If I don’t want to pay for other peoples healthcare or welfare that should be my choice not government.
If I want to own cattle and farm no one has the right to tell me I cant.
I shouldn’t have to worry that my government is going to fine me or put me in jail because I didn’t buy there healthcare.
I shouldn’t have to give the majority of my hard earned money to my government.
I believe we all have the right to live the way we want to live and government does not have the right to tell us we can’t. don’t you understand Bob I’m not trying to make you believe what I believe I’m just saying I want to keep my rights to live the way I want and believe what I want to and the government doesn’t have the right to dictate what that should be.
The common ground is: I live and believe the way I want to and you go off and do the same. The conflict is when you try to force me to live your way. By doing so you force me to give up my liberties and freedom. That is unacceptable not just because it compromises my liberty and freedom but by doing so it compromises all Americans liberty and freedom. All Americans already do have a say in this country but not when it comes to limiting individual liberty and freedom. That is sacred ground and the government has no right to tread on any Americans liberty and freedom. Obama is doing all these things and more and by doing so he has crossed the line. He pays no regard to the constitution and therefore infringes on all our constitutional rights, liberties and freedoms. I do not have any wish to burn any book for any reason. Everyone has the right to read anything they want whether truth or fiction but don’t try to make me read it. Government has no right determine what me or my family reads. Is this philosophy really “hateful and destructive” to you. No I will not compromise my values and core beliefs. I guard them with my very life. You proclaim that you “will be looking at the issues... at the promises... and at the integrity of the person.” But you shun Sara Palin with your only reasoning based on a “Pre conceived notion” that you believe she “is a joke” You are Hypocrite Bob and you are right we “already see his track record, so we have something to compare against.” The biggest national debt our nation has ever seen and this is only the first year Inflation out of control Lies and broken promises destroying the privet sector 10.2% reported unemployment thou its more like 17% gigantic growth of government destroying Las Vegas Ramming socialized healthcare down our throats whether we want it or not disgracing our nation with his world apology tour letting our troops get slaughtered while waiting for reinforcements spending millions of dollars withholding his birth records ramming cap and trade down our throats. Yet you still favor Obama over Sara Palin. Now I know I was right “If Obama burned the constitution and smoked the ashes you would still support him” Like I Said your fake smug intellectual attitude can’t save you now. You are as transparent as a glass of water. Theirs an old saying Bob; don’t piss down our backs and tell us its raining.
There are a number of things I agree with you upon---no, let’s be frank----I agree with most of them. I would love to see the Republic restored. But that would take a miracle. And I know God still does extraordinary miracles. Take Israel for example---I’ve heard that the only wars West Point doesn’t use as learning templates are the wars Israel has won---because those victories are impossible. The only rational explanation to their victories is the supernatural intervention of Almighty God. So there’s proof for all unbelievers---to chew on. But I have to be practical. The best I can hope for this once great---and greatest of all Republics is this---that an ever increasing number of her citizens wake up out of the catastrophic deception that’s been perpetrated upon us and take suitable action. Definitions of suitable actions could take a book.
But I don’t think the future God intends for America is to restore the Republic. Yes, the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of New Jerusalem, the Holy City of God, when she comes to earth. Revelation 21:24. And those are nations we’re talking about, not a unified one world government. The one world government is the devil’s idea. God’s plan is for nations. Revelation 21:24 says as much. So I know deep in my heart our nation will again one day walk before God.
The only scenario I can see for America right now is for those of her people who fear God to take part in a tactical retreat which will be the catching away of his vessels off the earth. Then the remainder will be punished. Or else God will have to apologize to Sodom. Isaiah 18:1-7 visits America in the End-Time.
Don’t like the Biblical end-times catastrophic scenario? Look at what we have today: A hell-bent international banking cartel intent on nothing less than total domination of the entire world is very close to achieving its long term goal—of dominating the entire earth. A one-world government using a one-world currency becoming a one-world brutal dictatorial regime is charging down the tracks at us—right now. RFID chips are already being used and these puppet-masters want one in every peon on the planet. If that’s not the mark of the beast prophesied about in Revelation, it’s very close. All that will be required is that ‘they’ demand you take one, or refuse to allow you to use ‘their’ money.
Clever tool breaking up your points on multiple posts. I think I must plagiarize your tactic.
What is fearing God? The absolute authority on God, the Holy Bible . . . (BTW; whoever doesn’t believe there is only One Way to Eternal Life which is Jesus Christ, check this out: God, who cannot lie, tells whoever will listen, “I am God, there is none else.” He that made heaven and earth says he made them to be inhabited---right there you have proof positive mankind will one day both inherit and inhabit the stars. [Isaiah 45:18.] And for those who think Jews have to become Christians to be saved, think again: “Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.” [Isaiah 45:22] That is plain, simple and true instruction for how to inherit eternal life. {If that doesn’t interest you, what could possibly be your problem?} But if you can, do go on to the fullness of Christ which is perfection in God. And don’t forget . . . Jesus was Jewish!)
So: fearing God: The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge. Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the Lord, and depart from evil. The fear of the Lord is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the forward mouth, do I hate. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding. The fear of the Lord prolongeth days . . . In the fear of the Lord is strong confidence . . . The fear of the Lord is a fountain of life . . . Better is a little with the fear of the Lord than great treasure and trouble therewith. The fear of the Lord is the instruction of wisdom . . . by the fear of the Lord men depart from evil. The fear of the Lord tendeth to life . . . By humility and the fear of the Lord are riches, and honor and life. Let not thine heart envy sinners: but be thou in the fear of the Lord all the day long.
Why say all that? Because I said those who fear God will take part in the tactical retreat God will very soon initiate not only in America but across the entire world. It’s so close right now it’s ridiculous. You call yourself a conservative patriot. I appreciate the rest of your thoughts from your cave too. But my high hope for you, brother, is that you are found in Him, pure and blameless, in that day when God takes his church off the earth. And church simply means the ‘body of believers.’ The only way to be pure and blameless is to have your sins washed away by the precious blood of Jesus Christ. Come to, now; taste and see that the Lord is good; find Eternal Life; behold, God is at the door of your heart, knocking right now---stay fast! Your eternal soul, which you are stuck with, needs you to follow Jesus to save it.
As for thee also, by the blood of thy covenant (Jesus’ blood) I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water. Zechariah 9:11.
I said Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven, and that Jews don’t need to be Christian to be saved, I tie off like this: The Lord of Isaiah 45:22 IS Jesus. He IS the Great I Am. If Jews are bending their knees to the Lord of the Old Testament, even if they don’t know that it’s Jesus yet, they still get in. God bless you all, my Jewish brothers. Great is your God! Hallelujah!!!
If I can alienate someone because I say my books are too advanced for him, how mature is that? I know . . . I’m pissing more people off by the second. But let’s think about this for a minute: the reason I put it that way is to provoke to jealousy anyone who comes across it. And let’s face it---I wrote those books so other people could experience that too! Naturally this blog wouldn’t be the usual place to discuss my books, but since we’re on the subject, let’s continue. The 1948 Cartoon is educational. Education is good. Misinformation on the other hand, is bad. Our public schools are misinforming school children at a catastrophic rate. Where do my books fit in? You decide. That is, if you have an appetite for discovering truths never before revealed since the foundation of the earth. Big words for a little man some would say. But they’re easy for me to say because they’re true.
The fiction took over 8 years to write, if I include the false starts, the cooling down periods and the re-writes. It is a kaleidoscope of motion designed to enthrall and move its readers via primary sensory paradigm shift. Which is a convoluted way of saying, I take the huge stone each reader calls their view of the world and get them to move it so they look at the world through new eyes. Which is why the pen is said to be mightier than the sword in the first place. Along the way you will see what the Real devil Really looks like, because I have seen him myself, and get to Hear what it’s like to Hear the Voice of God, because I have heard it myself.
Okay; say that’s too impossible for you to believe; go to non-fiction. I have perceived, while so deep into the Occult (This was before I was saved by God Almighty through Jesus Christ) that it kills you, the luminous body prophesied about by Jesus in Matthew 13:43. “Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who has ears to hear, let him hear.” Which is not what the non-fiction is about---it’s about 7 Visitations from God and 12 Revelations from Heaven. But I skim over the luminous body because it’s pivotal to my having actually seen God, seeing that no man may see God and live. The easy explanation is the luminous body cannot remotely be considered a man. Jesus knew this was a tough subject which is why he classified it for those who have ears to hear. He may have even meant, those who have any interest or experience concerning this, but I digress.
All the earth is the Lord’s, as are all nations. We are his field; history has been orchestrated by Him. If there wasn’t this ‘canvass’ of ‘life’ upon which it appears God does nothing, we couldn’t all prove what we stand for. And God will recreate all good things in absolute perfection: “Behold, I make all things new.” He let his own Son be destroyed for the sins of the world, and Christ, rising from the dead, has abolished death. He just hasn’t enforced it yet in our narrow spectrum of reality.
If you really want to put the screws to those who pervert justice and practice evil, be an irrevocable winner by serving God and Jesus Christ. Our salvation is absolute, infinite and unmovable. The wicked will be ashes under the soles of your feet. Death cannot hurt those whose victory is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. As Jesus said, not a hair of your head will perish. And he said that to some who would even be put to death for his name’s sake. So he didn’t mean this short life, but something much more glorious. God is much more infinite and mighty than we can even guess---his control is so astonishing that we could just as well say, we are just in God’s dream. He will recreate all good things in eternal perfection. Behold, I make all things new. He has abolished death. Even to every hair on your head. God is THAT BIG.
Kevin Hofsas, Author 7 Visitations from God, 12 Revelations from Heaven. www.MarkMyWordsPublishing.com
Thank you warren. You can rest assured that I am saved. Yes we do disagree on several points. No mater, in the end the decision will be made by God not me. My goal is simply to wake up those who think there immune to the rule of God. It is always up to them, but when the day of judgment comes they cant say they weren't worried. maybe someone will read it and get saved.
November 24, 2009 Using Bankruptcy and Capital Standards to Address Financial Institutions That Are "Too Big to Fail" by David C. John Backgrounder #2343
Abstract: The next financial crisis could cause the entire global financial system to collapse. However, the Obama Administration's proposal is unrealistic and would give government regulators almost unlimited powers to take over or micromanage financial institutions. The better choice would be to amend U.S. bankruptcy law to create an open, expedited bankruptcy process in which an impartial court would oversee the restructuring or closure of large and complex financial firms. In addition, increasing financial institutions' capital requirements would reduce risk to the system and limit losses if a financial crisis occurs. One of the worst aspects of the financial meltdown of 2008 was watching the government give billions of dollars to distressed financial institutions because, unlike most other types of businesses in the United States, there was no system for the orderly restructuring of a failing large financial institution. Rather than allow the financial system to collapse, firms ranging from AIG to Citibank to Bank of America received hundreds of billions of tax dollars in capital infusions and loans -- much of which has been lost for good. To ensure against a reoccurrence, Congress needs to modernize bankruptcy laws to create an expedited method to restructure and close such large and complex financial firms. Congress should also increase capital standards in a way that discourages financial firms from reaching the point that their failure could endanger the entire financial system. Large, complex firms comprise a significant portion of the world's financial industry. These businesses are so tightly interconnected that the failure of one could cause the others to fail. Of these, a few "too big to fail" firms are so large that one failure could bring down the entire financial system. Normally, large firms that fail can be handled through the bankruptcy process, but the current law is unsuitable for today's large financial services firms because the value of their assets is determined as much by faith in the financial system as by more traditional measures. Their assets can become worthless within minutes or hours, as can similar assets held by other financial entities.
In 2008, the failure of Lehman Brothers and the general uncertainty about what would happen next caused markets to crash and drove major firms to the brink of failure because no one really knew what certain assets were worth. Further, the interconnectedness of firms meant that losses in one would spread to others that held similar assets or that had major business relationships with each other. Faced with a looming catastrophe and lacking any mechanisms suitable to address the scale of the problems, regulators literally made up solutions as they attempted to respond to each new crisis. It quickly became clear that just letting the firms fail would cause an even wider panic and cascading effects could threaten the entire financial system. Although collapse was avoided, the strain was far worse than most experts expected. This problem should not be ignored and left to chance. Otherwise, the next time could cause the entire financial system to collapse. Much of the chaos in 2008 came from uncertainty about what would happen next. Preventing the next crisis should therefore begin with establishing a clearly understood mechanism that enables orderly resolution of a failing large financial institution. A properly structured resolution mechanism would tell the market what to expect and prevent taxpayer-funded rescues. Equally important, its presence would signal to investors and managers that they cannot base their business strategy on the expectation that the government will bail out their firms. The second element of the solution involves reducing the risk from such firms by encouraging them to engage in less risky behavior and requiring them to have assets available to absorb losses in a crisis.
A number of different solutions have been proposed, but most of them look better on paper than they would in reality. This includes the Obama Administration proposal to give resolution authority to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), which assumes that dealing with a distressed and complex multinational nonbank is comparable to handling a small bank failure. Sadly, the Obama plan is much more likely to increase taxpayer bailouts of major financial institutions than to curb them. A better approach would be to add a new chapter to the bankruptcy code that is explicitly designed to meet the special circumstances of "too big to fail"[1] financial institutions. Properly structured, the new chapter would allow large financial firms to be closed in an orderly way that reduces the potential for systemic risk. It would not give regulators virtually unlimited powers and would free the process from political interference by giving control to an unbiased court system that already has extensive experience with complex modern firms. Meanwhile, higher capital standards would both discourage growth above a certain point in all but the most efficiently managed firms and provide an extra cushion for times of economic stress. Capital standards should differentiate among assets by risk and by size of institution. The Obama Proposal The Obama Administration[2] has proposed giving the FDIC emergency authority over nonbank financial institutions that are "too big to fail" and allowing the Secretary of the Treasury to designate the FDIC[3] as the conservator or receiver of failing financial institutions. The original Obama Administration proposal was released on July 23, 2009, and was revised by a draft bill[4] proposed by House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) on October 29. If the Financial Services Committee approves it, the draft will be introduced as the Financial Stability Improvement Act of 2009 (H.R. 3996).
Financial institutions subject to the "too big to fail" regime would include bank holding companies and their nonbank subsidiaries.[5] It would also include "tier 1 financial services holding companies," a new designation intended to cover large financial services firms that do not own a depository institution, but that could cause systemic risk to the financial system if they failed. In theory, this new designation would allow the regulators to extend their reach to any large financial institution and its subsidiaries regardless of how it is organized, what it owns, or how it is operated. While there is a need to deal with failing financial companies that could cause systemic risk regardless of how they are organized, the Administration's approach seems geared more toward facilitating future bailouts and justifying additional intervention. The Three Major Parts. As originally announced in July and revised in October, the Obama resolution plan has three major parts: Determination. First, to initiate the process, the Treasury Department would need to determine that failure of a specific firm would cause systemic risk[6] and two-thirds of the members of the Federal Reserve Board and either the FDIC or the Securities and Exchange Commission boards would need to vote in support of using the mechanism. Intervention. After the determination, the FDIC with the approval of the Treasury Secretary could take a wide variety of actions ranging from loans to the failing company, purchasing equity stakes in the company, assuming or guaranteeing obligations of the firm, or purchasing the company's assets either directly or through an entity established by the FDIC. Conservatorship or Receivership. Alternately, the Treasury secretary could appoint the FDIC as the conservator or receiver, after which the agency could essentially take control of the company and run it.
According to Assistant Treasury Secretary Michael Barr: A conservatorship or receivership under this authority would have four essential elements that would improve execution and outcomes relative to the tools that were available last fall: (i) swifter replacement of board and senior management with new managers selected by the FDIC; (ii) a temporary stay of counterparty termination and netting rights to mitigate the adverse consequences to the company's liquidity, avoiding the cross defaults and cascades that otherwise, create a vicious cycle leading ultimately to financial collapse; (iii) the ability to provide the firm with secured financing to fund its liquidity and capital needs during the conservatorship or receivership to mitigate the "knock on" effects of any firm's failure and to fund its operations, pending its sale or winding down; and (iv) the creation of one or more bridge bank holding companies in the case of a receivership to preserve the business franchise, deal with counterparty claims, and protect viable assets of stronger subsidiaries pending their sale. This would end the firm -- wind it down -- without contributing to system-wide failure.[7] The Plan's Flaws. The Obama plan has several major failings. First, it is extremely open-ended and "tier 1 financial services holding company" is so broadly defined that it could apply to almost any financial firm in any circumstance.[8] Once so designated, a company would be subject to a wide variety of Federal Reserve regulations and oversight that are equally poorly defined and open-ended. As amplified by the October draft,[9] the regulators would have such broad and encompassing powers that they could essentially draft any financial firm into the federal financial regulatory system and subject it to a wide variety of restrictions. Further, at any point, the regulators could compel large financial firms to sell off portions of themselves, drop lines of business, break up, or otherwise reduce the "risk" that the regulators believe they may impose on the financial system.
This unlimited power and scope is extremely unwise and would almost certainly face constitutional challenges. Even worse, it would almost certainly be applied to newer lines of business and products instead of traditional ones, thus reducing domestic financial innovation and drive innovative international products offshore. Second, depending on the rules and the market's interpretation of the rules, the special designation of firms could distort the credit markets, possibly giving designated firms advantages unavailable to undesignated firms or creating special weaknesses. The idea that a designation could be kept secret is exceedingly naïve because any qualified analyst could easily replicate the list by watching the actions of the regulators and examining the balance sheets of large financial services firms. In fact, any experienced financial reporter could create an accurate list from memory. On the other hand, a public list would certainly cause distortions because the market would know that certain financial institutions are "too big to fail" and price their debt to reflect the perceived lower risk. As in the cases of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, repeated disclaimers that there was no government guarantee of their debt did nothing to counteract the market's assumption that such a guarantee existed. Further, a publicly designated tier 1 firm that is then delisted could be exposed to severe adverse consequences as the market reacts to the news. Of course, a designated firm would receive advantages in credit costs whether or not the list is public. Third, the Obama plan would virtually guarantee more federal bailouts of large financial firms by creating a funding mechanism that is so open-ended that it could be used in almost any situation. Most press reports focus on proposals to advance tax dollars to a failing company that would be repaid through a fee imposed on firms with over $4 billion in assets. The alternative, proposed by the FDIC and endorsed by Chairman Frank (after he had earlier supported assessments after a crisis), would be to create a type of "super FDIC" fund that would be funded in advance by charging regular insurance fees to large and complex financial institutions.[10]
Better Alternatives. Instead of establishing a new unlimited authority, the Administration could meet its objectives more effectively through less intrusive means. Stricter capital requirements would reduce the potential risk to the economy from large financial institutions. Similarly, adding a new section to the bankruptcy code would enable the courts to resolve failing large financial institutions. Closing down multinational financial firms is not easy. The collapse of Lehman Brothers caused about 92 subsidiaries to go into bankruptcy, of which only 20 subsidiaries were located in the U.S. and came under American jurisdiction. Even today, there are disputes about whether assets located in the United States belong to international subsidiaries. Clearly, a receiver or conservator that can operate at least certain subsidiaries until they can be sold or closed in an orderly way is necessary to maximize returns to debtors. However, the Administration's implicit assumption that the FDIC could resolve complex financial giants is seriously misguided. While the FDIC has broad experience with resolving failed smaller banks, it has no experience with the broader financial activities that almost certainly would be part of failing large financials. If cast in this new role, the agency would likely discover that its procedures cannot handle the challenges of such a distressed firm, and its efforts would cause the same systemic shock that the new authority is designed to prevent. Other Proposed Solutions That Will Not Work The Obama proposal is just one approach to dealing with the risk to the financial system from the potential failure of financial institutions. As the events of 2008 showed, the failure of important financial institutions can change the real and perceived value of assets to the point that other entities totter on the verge of failure. Unchecked, this type of shock to the financial system can spread internationally from firm to firm and threaten the entire financial system. This type of global catastrophe came so close to reality that changes are clearly needed. However, most of the proposed solutions fail to address the underlying issues. Many focus on distinctive aspects of the financial industry, mistakenly assuming that changing them will reduce systemic risk.
The problem of "too big to fail" financial institutions is neither a small nor simple issue. While the proposals address aspects of systemic risk, none is comprehensive or fully practical. Separating Out Risky Activities. The head of the Bank of England and others want to separate depository functions from the risky parts of financial institutions, such as those that deal in innovative financing methods and derivatives. However, separating traditional depository activities from their riskier cousins -- even if this is possible -- solves only part of the problem. Presumably, the risky parts would be allowed to fail, while the deposit-taking parts would essentially become utilities with very limited and safe activities. The depositary remnants would not be in danger of failing because of their limited nature and would be rescued if they ever did. In the U.S., this proposal would restore the old Glass-Steagall Act, which arbitrarily separated banking and finance after the Depression. In assuming that the non-depository entities can safely fail, supporters are forgetting that the failures of the non-depository investment houses Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers and the potential failure of the global insurance company AIG helped to trigger the 2008 crisis. They are also forgetting that financial firms found ways to circumvent many of the Glass-Steagall restrictions by the time it was repealed. Explicit prohibitions on risk taking or selling high-risk products are an invitation to firms to find loopholes that defeat the purpose of such laws and raise the cost of financial products to the eventual consumers. Reducing the Size of Financial Institutions. Another plan is to limit the size of financial institutions and to require firms that exceed a particular size to shrink or sell portions of themselves. This proposal sounds better in theory than it would work in practice. The idea is that the best way to deal with such financial institutions is to reduce their size and scope to the point that they no longer pose any risk. As with the proposal to separate risky activities from depository functions, all major financial institutions are so intertwined that reducing the size of this or that entity does not really reduce risk. The asset and investment mix of a smaller financial institution can be just as dangerous as those of larger institutions. For instance, when the hedge fund Long Term Capital Management failed in 1998, its asset size made it much smaller than many commercial banks were at the time, but the firm posed much greater risk because of its large investment in derivatives issued by dozens of other financial institutions. Merely reducing its size would not have changed those connections.
Advance Plan for Handling a Failure. A third proposal would require financial institutions that could pose a systemic risk to prepare a "living will" that preplans what would happen if the firm failed. There is a potential value to requiring larger firms to have a living will that specifies how to handle specific liabilities and subsidiaries if it fails, but such an approach has serious limitations. Perhaps the greatest benefit of such an approach is that it would force management to consider the firm's operations from a different perspective and would provide initial guidance in the event of an emergency. The British government and the U.S. Treasury Department strongly support the idea, believing that such an exercise would cause a financial institution to simplify their structures to facilitate dealing with a potential failure. However, the proposal is only likely to work if the plan is reviewed and/or approved by the firm's regulators, a move that opens the door to government micromanagement. For a living will to limit systemic risk in a more fundamental fashion, the market must fully understand what will happen to different subsidiaries and products if the firm fails. This requires a failure plan that is explicitly detailed, constantly updated, and easily available. It may even be necessary for the firm to disclose this information on legal documents and in marketing material. In addition, because virtually all "too big to fail" institutions have extensive international operations, they would need to factor in the different laws of each country in which they operate. This is a massive task because it is often difficult to define exactly where products are sold, where those products are legally located, and where cash assets are deposited. Finally, if a failure proceeds differently due to unforeseeable circumstances (as is likely), the presence of a "living will" or similar plan could increase the firm's legal liability. Simply put, a living will would likely prove nothing more than a wasted planning exercise that could open the door to regulatory micromanagement before a failure and lawsuits afterward.
Dealing with Large Failing Firms. Regardless of the steps taken to reduce the firm size and risk, one or more "too big to fail" financial institutions will inevitably either fail or nearly fail. As 2008 showed, the government currently does not have an effective way to resolve these entities. The Administration plans to fill this need by giving the FDIC new authority. A far better choice would be to add a new chapter of bankruptcy law to accommodate the special problems of resolving massive financial services firms. A bankruptcy court applying bankruptcy law could more effectively avoid disorderly failures of large financial institutions than the FDIC using nearly unlimited new powers. Moreover, bankruptcy courts have experience with large and complex cases, the ability to manage the hiring and supervision of financial and legal experts, and the objectivity that a court brings to such proceedings. Today's bankruptcy laws are inadequate to meet the special needs of large and complex financial institutions, their creditors, and the financial systems within which they operate. They were intended to deal with firms that have physical assets, such as factories and inventories, not financial firms with major assets, such as client lists and instruments, which have value as determined by the reputation of the issuer. At the first sign of terminal distress, the value of both types of assets could quickly disappear. While details will be especially important to creating an appropriate bankruptcy procedure suited to the special needs of multinational financial institutions,[11] bankruptcy courts could easily be empowered to appoint receivers and conservators to take over failing firms, continue to operate viable subsidiaries until they can be sold, quickly close and sell unviable portions of the firm, and resolve its outstanding liabilities. The key changes to the bankruptcy statutes would be to give the court the ability to deal with a very different asset mix than is found in traditional companies and to act very quickly to preserve asset value in the face of clauses in lending contracts that allow the lender to take immediate possession of firm assets upon a bankruptcy filing without going through a legal process to do so. The court should be given a clear goal of resolving the firm as quickly as possible to minimize the impact on the financial system, but it should have the flexibility either to liquidate the firm totally or to restructure and sell it. A key responsibility of the court would be to encourage the receiver or conservator to remove failing management and replace it with better qualified professionals.
Handling this process through bankruptcy rather than with regulators has two additional advantages. First, the courts already have experience with large and complex bankruptcies. There would be no learning curve or grant of extraordinary new powers to a bureaucracy. Second and equally important, the courts will be impartial and free of the inevitable politicization that would accompany a government agency's involvement in the process. Another consideration is that a firm should be allowed to seek the advice of the court, appropriate functional regulators, and others before deciding whether to file for bankruptcy. These consultations should be held in strictly confidential proceedings that are publicized only after the firm seeks the protection of a bankruptcy court or is brought before the court by regulators. Likewise, to reduce systemic risk as much as possible, the court should be empowered to consult with financial regulators, officials of the affected firm, and others in advance of any filing. Regulators should be allowed to initiate a court proceeding that would place a "too big to fail" firm under the control of a bankruptcy court, but the firm should also be able to appeal such a move. These proceedings would also be held strictly confidential until and unless the bankruptcy court decides to take control of the company. By placing such a move under the oversight of the bankruptcy court, questions about whether a regulator has moved against a particular firm for political motivations should be easily resolved. As in other bankruptcy proceedings, the process should not include public funding. The failing institution's investors and creditors should bear any losses. Additional funds necessary to resolve the failing financial institution come from other private-sector providers, whether in the form of secured loans or the proceeds of the sale of certain parts of the failing firm.
Using Capital Standards to Reduce the Risk. The other critical element to resolving "too big to fail" financial institutions is to reduce the risk that they pose to the overall financial system while they are still healthy. The most effective approach to reducing this risk, and one that is gaining support across the political spectrum, is through stronger capital and liquidity standards on larger financial institutions, regardless of whether they are banks or other types of institutions that might be exempt from such standards. Higher capital standards should be structured to reduce both the risk imposed by a large financial institution on the overall financial system and the risk that could result from a concentration of high-risk assets in that firm. All financial institutions above a certain size, as determined by a proportion of overall financial services assets, should be required to hold increasingly higher amounts of capital as they grow in size. This additional capital would both reduce the likelihood that such a financial institution would fail and reduce the risk to the financial system if it did. Exceptionally efficient and well-managed firms could still grow, but others would find it less profitable to grow and may even choose to shrink or split. It is important to note that a financial services firm is not necessarily dangerous just because of its size, but a large firm is more likely to pose a systemic risk than a smaller firm. However, capital holdings based merely on size could fail to reduce systemic risk unless large financial services firms are also subject to a second standard based on the risk of their assets. Some smaller firms may be much riskier to the overall economy than much larger firms that mainly deal in more conventional financial instruments. For instance, in 1998, the hedge fund Long Term Capital Management had total assets of about $129 billion, but had derivatives positions with a notional value of approximately $1.25 trillion. That same year, the merger of Citibank and the Travelers Group created an institution with $700 billion in assets. Thus, just as is done with bank capital requirements, specific types of financial products and investments should be subject to still higher capital standards, with a firm's overall capital requirement being based on meshing the two separate standards. Together, the two capital standards should create the appropriate incentives to sharply reduce the leverage of the financial services firm. Leverage is a measure of the ratio of capital that is available to cover losses to the assets of the financial institution. A low leverage ratio implies a higher probability that the institution will have sufficient capital to cover potential losses. On the other hand, a high leverage ratio increases the profits available to investors because those profits are divided among fewer shareholders. When it failed, Long Term Capital Management had capital of $4.72 billion and assets of $124.5 billion, a 25-1 leverage ratio ($25 of assets for each $1 of capital). Once the firm lost $4.6 billion because of a Russian financial crisis, it was bankrupt. Because of its investments in high-risk derivatives, it was very susceptible to a sudden drop in the value of those assets. With borrowings, large financial firms have routinely reached leverage rations in excess of 20-1 and even 50-1. The new standards should force the largest and riskiest firms to maintain ratios closer to 4-1 on assets added to their portfolios after they reach a certain size. Such low ratios would require firms to be exceptionally well managed and efficient to grow any larger.
Higher capital standards will not imperil the competitive position of U.S. banks. There is a growing international movement to develop international capital standards through the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), a grouping of international central banks that has worked to foster monetary and financial cooperation since 1930. Currently, BIS administers Basel II, a June 2004 international agreement on the appropriate level of bank reserves. A similar international agreement on capital standards to reduce systemic risk will likely be developed in the next few years. However, the U.S. should not wait for an international agreement before implementing tougher capital requirements, nor subordinate its own interests to those of other countries. To succeed, these capital levels will need to apply to any financial firm operating under U.S. jurisdiction. One of the first instances of realized systemic risk, the 1998 Federal Reserve supervised bailout of the hedge fund Long Term Capital Management, shows that such risk is not limited to traditional types of financial services firms. However, rather than simply giving regulators the open-ended ability to designate any firm as potentially posing a systemic risk, Congress should meet its responsibilities by clearly defining which types of firms would be subject to the requirement and by regularly revisiting that definition with input from the regulators. This would both limit the power of regulators and clarify that the blame for any resulting problems would rest with Congress. In addition to improved capital standards, Congress needs to impose liquidity requirements for exceptionally large financial institutions. Liquidity differs from capital in that it is a measure of readily available cash or cash equivalents that can be rapidly converted into cash. One cause of Bear Stearns's failure was its inability to repay its lenders in a timely manner. Increased capital requirements will only work if affected firms have enough reserves to meet losses and can quickly raise enough cash to meet demands. One will not work without the other. Increased capital standards can also be used to impose yet another level of market discipline on financial firms by requiring them to hold a substantial amount of contingent capital in the form of bonds that could be converted into equity at a set and predetermined rate if the firm runs into financial trouble. Such a move would immediately spread the risk of losses to a class of bondholders, who have been largely exempt from that possibility. Although companies will complain that this would sharply increase their cost of borrowing, it would in reality cause potential bondholders to research and monitor the risk levels of the company more vigilantly. However, these problems can be offset to some extent because well-capitalized companies should find that the market rewards their prudence with somewhat lower borrowing costs.
What Is Capital? Capital is the reserve of money or other assets owned by the financial institution that it can draw on to cover losses. Legal definitions vary, but it generally includes money raised by the sale of a firm's stock to the public and retained earnings from past activities that have not been paid as dividends or used for other purposes. Other types of capital include increases in the value of assets owned by the firm, funds set aside in anticipation of losses that have not actually occurred, and certain types of long-term debt that will not need to be repaid before the scheduled date when the loan or bond expires. Typically, bank capital requirements depend in part on the types of assets that the bank holds. Extremely safe assets, such as cash and government debt, do not require capital to be held against them because they can be used as is or sold in the market at close to full value. Riskier assets that might lose value require higher amounts of capital to be held against them. In addition, banks must meet capital requirements equal to a lower percentage of their total assets regardless of how risky they are. In practice, banks must calculate their capital requirements twice -- once against their total assets and again based on the apparent riskiness of those assets -- and hold the higher amount of the two calculations. For example, if a bank had $500 million in assets, of which only $400 million is considered risky, it might need to hold the higher of either 4 percent of its total assets of $500 million ($20 million) or 6 percent of its $400 million worth of riskier assets ($24 million). In this example, the bank must hold at least $24 million in capital. Of course, real world examples are far more complex.
Moving Toward Real Financial Regulatory Reform Hopefully, the financial crisis of 2008 was a one-time event, but basing policy on that assumption would be irresponsible. The crisis definitively proved that existing methods of dealing with failing firms are inadequate and that too many financial institutions pose a serious level of systemic risk to the overall financial system. Faced with such a crisis, regulators resorted to making up policy and solutions as they went along, responding to each new shock individually without considering whether their reactions and the precedents they were setting would cause even greater problems in coming years. Further, they showed a regrettable tendency to simply throw increasing amounts of money at the problems as the situation worsened. Taxpayers should never again be forced repeatedly to bail out financial services firms like AIG because a company poses a risk to the entire financial system and regulators lack the necessary tools to close the company safely. Policymakers have made a number of sincere proposals to deal with this problem, but most of their proposals are unrealistic or would give government agencies unacceptably broad powers to intervene at will. Regrettably, the Obama proposal exhibits both flaws by assigning the FDIC a role that it is unprepared to play and giving the Federal Reserve and other regulators such broad powers that a constitutional challenge would be inevitable. Far from a solution, the Obama plan practically guarantees that regulators will need to back up their poor decisions with massive taxpayer bailouts of firms that followed regulators' directives and got into serious trouble anyway. A better approach to preventing another crisis is to modify U.S. bankruptcy law to accommodate the special problems of resolving huge financial firms and to allow the courts to appoint receivers with the specialized knowledge necessary to best deal with their failure. By creating an open process controlled by an impartial judiciary guided by established statutory rules, financial firms, investors, taxpayers, and others would have the advance knowledge that large financial firms that were once known as "too big to fail" can now be closed if necessary without risking disaster.
In addition, requiring all larger financial services firms to hold significant amounts of capital to cover losses would greatly reduce the systemic risk that they could pose to the financial system. Higher capital levels would enable many firms that would fail under today's capital levels to survive a crisis, saving shareholders and bondholders their investments, employees their jobs, and taxpayers billions of dollars in federal bailouts. Congress and the Administration need to learn and heed the lessons of 2008, or a repeat crisis will just be a matter of time. David C. John is Senior Research Fellow in Retirement Security and Financial Institutions in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
Despite the wording "too big to fail," size alone does not necessarily determine how much risk a financial firm could impose on the overall financial system. The composition of a large firm's assets is actually more important to deciding whether the failure of a financial institution poses a systemic risk. [2]The Obama plan would also create a systemic risk regulator. For a discussion of this, see David C. John, "Financial Systemic Risk Regulators: Congress Is Asking the Wrong Questions," Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 2471, June 8, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Regulation/ wm2471.cfm. [3]The Securities and Exchange Commission may be appointed as conservator or receiver in certain cases in which the firm's largest subsidiary is a registered broker-dealer. Only a few financial institutions would qualify at this point. [4]For the October draft, see Financial Stability Improvement Act of 2009, committee print, Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, October 29, 2009, at http://financialservices.house.gov/ Key_Issues/Financial_Regulatory_Reform/FinancialRegulatoryReform/ Discussion_Drafts/Committee_Print_titleI102904.pdf (November 4, 2009). [5]The bank subsidiaries of bank holding companies are already subject to existing FDIC resolution authority and thus need not be included in the new plan. [6]To start the process of applying the resolution regime to a specific entity, the Treasury Department must determine that (a) the company is at risk of default, (b) failure of the firm would seriously and adversely affect financial stability or the economy, and (c) government action could at least mitigate the adverse effects. [7]Michael Barr, written testimony before the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, October 22, 2009, p. 6, at http://judiciary.house.gov/ hearings/pdf/Barr091022.pdf (November 16, 2009). [8]As described in July, "This section amends the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 to allow for the designation by the Board of United States financial companies as Tier 1 financial holding companies if the effect of material financial distress at the companies could pose a threat to global or United States financial stability or the global or United States economy and of foreign financial companies if that effect could pose a threat to United States financial stability or the United States economy. This designation is subject to reevaluation, rescission, notice, and an opportunity to be heard." For a summary of the proposed legislation, see Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, "Title II -- Bank Holding Company Modernization Act of 2009: Section-by-Section Analysis," at http://financialservices.house.gov/Key_Issues/Financial_Regulatory_Reform /FinancialRegulatoryReform/Section-by-Section/title_II_sec_ by_sec_7_22_2009_fnl.pdf (October 23, 2009).
For more detail on these powers and how they could be abused, see Peter J. Wallison, "On Systemic Regulation, Prudential Matters, Resolution Authority, and Securitization," statement before the Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, October 29, 2009, at http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/financialsvcs_dem/ wallison_-_aei.pdf (November 12, 2009). [10]Barney Frank, interviewed by Al Hunt, Political Capital with Al Hunt, Bloomberg Television, transcript, at http://www.bloomberg.com/apps /news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aUwq0DliFzdY (November 16, 2009). [11]Title I of H.R. 3110, a comprehensive financial reform bill, addresses many of the specific issues that need to be considered. These include picking an appropriate venue for the proceeding and allowing the firm to seek the advice of the court, the appropriate functional regulators, and others before deciding whether to file for bankruptcy.
October 29, 2009 Not a Good Start: The Future of Arms Control by heritage.org Fact Sheet #43 The Reset Button?
Bilateral Relations: President Obama has made overt efforts to "reset" bilateral relations with Russia--even while Russia continues to call the U.S. its "principal adversary." Moscow publicly applauds U.S. disarmament and arms control efforts while they continue a strong and abiding commitment to nuclear weapons. Increasing Militarization: Russia is reviving Mutually Assured Destruction targeting plans, restarting bombing flights along the Atlantic and Pacific, conducting military visits to Cuba and Venezuela, and building bases in the Arab world. With increasing militarization comes modernization of nuclear weapons. Russian's Nuclear Deterrent: Nuclear deterrence is Russia's most cost-effective way to preserve security given its deficiencies in its conventional forces and difficulty deploying high-tech weapons. Russia in Violation: Critics say Russia is already violating existing arms control agreements, including the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). Arms Control Principles Be Constitutional: Arms-control initiatives must be consistent with the constitutional mandate to "provide for the common defence." Arms control agreements that leave America vulnerable should not receive support. Be Ready to Walk Away: The U.S. should enter arms-control negotiations only if it is willing to walk away from them, as President Reagan did in Reykjavik after the Soviet Union demanded that the U.S. scrap missile defense. Reagan nevertheless achieved the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in 1987 and put in place arrangements for concluding the START and the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty. Remain Strong: The U.S. should always negotiate from a position of strength. Making concessions without obtaining comparable concessions from the other side risks making America vulnerable and is interpreted as a sign of weakness.
Substance Over Process: The arms-control process shouldn't be permitted to dominate the substance of the negotiations. The U.S. shouldn't accept a deal merely because it would preserve the process. Focused and Verifiable: Arms-control measures are likely to succeed if the subject matter is focused and adequately verifiable. As Reagan said: "Trust, but verify." Enforceable and Enforced: Arms-control measures are likely to succeed if the U.S. is willing to declare a treaty partner in material breach and take countervailing military steps in response. Honor Commitments: The U.S. should never enter into arms control agreements that would call into question or undermine its alliance commitments. A Better Arms Control Solution Arms Control Conservatives Support: Conservatives support efforts to reduce the likelihood of aggression and war, not just the number of armaments, and reduce America's vulnerability to attack. Protect and Defend: The U.S. should pursue a "protect and defend" strategic posture, missile defense, and nuclear modernization. Moscow Treaty: The U.S. should negotiate a verification and transparency protocol to the Moscow Treaty, which expires in 2012 and lacks detailed verifications procedures. Multilateralism: The U.S. and Russia should encourage other countries such as China to join an intermediate nuclear forces treaty, as well as the multilateral cooperative effort they have spearheaded to address the threat of nuclear-armed terrorism. The U.S. Should Not...pursue an overly ambitious arms-control strategy, try to conclude a START follow-on treaty at a breakneck pace, make unilateral concessions in order to conclude the negotiations and/or prevent a new arms race, accept a Russian strategic posture designed to threaten the U.S. and its allies, nor further reduction of the nuclear threshold.
November 19, 2009 Discounting and Climate Change Economics: Estimating the Cost of Cap and Trade by David Kreutzer, Ph.D. WebMemo #2705 The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently released its preliminary analysis of the Boxer-Kerry cap-and-trade bill. It largely reheats their analysis of the Waxman-Markey bill from last summer.
Proponents of both bills often claim the EPA analyses pegs the cost per household at a postage stamp per day. However, the reality is that the costs of both bills are far from trivial.
The Real Cost of a Car The EPA lists the cost of the Waxman-Markey energy tax for the year 2050 at just $174 per household. Summed over all households, this figure still adds up to tens of billions of dollars per year, but it is relatively small in a world of trillion-dollar proposals. The problem is that that amount is not what the actual cost would be. If inflation over the next 40 years equals that of the past 40, the EPA analysis would project that Waxman-Markey would cut consumption by $7,465 per household per year in 2050. The impact for Boxer-Kerry would be similar. How, then, does the EPA transform $7,465 into $174? It adjusts for inflation and then takes the discounted present value. It is this second step that can be misleading. To help sort this out, imagine that a time machine takes analysts back to 1969 -- a time when the average price of a new car was about $3,500. Once back in 1969, the exercise is to explain to Congress how much a new car will cost 40 years later in 2009. Having already lived to see 2009, we know the average price for a new car is about $23,000. But telling the Congress of 1969 that in 40 years cars will cost $23,000 would give an exaggerated notion of the cost increase, because inflation alone will have increased prices by a factor of 5.8. If inflation is taken into account, the price of a new car in 2009 is about $4,000 in 1969 dollars. From 1969 to 2009, car prices increased, but so did bread prices, housing prices, clothes prices, wages, income, and nearly everything else. Since money is the measuring stick for cost, this measuring stick changes with inflation. When people buy cars, the real cost is defined as what they have to give up in order to afford the car: clothes, food, dinners out, etc. Economists adjust prices for different years to eliminate the impact of inflation so that a price increase means a good's price has risen relative to that of other goods. A Steep Discount In any event, it is not adjusting for inflation that turns the EPA's $7,465 cost for 2050 into $174. Adjusting for inflation brings the annual cost down quite a bit, but the hit is still $1,287 per household, well above a postage stamp per day. What, then, does the EPA do to turn $1,287 into $174? They take the discounted present value using a real discount (interest) rate of 5 percent.
Discounting is a legitimate tool in finance and for cost-benefit calculations. But discounting can give a much distorted view of costs, as is done by those misrepresenting the EPA analysis. The car example may help illustrate this problem. Taking the inflation-adjusted (1969 dollars) $4,000 price of the average new car in 2009 and discounting it in the EPA fashion would generate a present value in 1969 of $562.[1] This is clearly much less than the cost of an average car in 2009, even after adjusting for inflation. What then is this $562? It is the amount when invested for 40 years, at an interest rate guaranteed to be 5 percent above inflation, that would buy the $23,000 car. In other words, if a person in 1969 invested $562 at 9.72 percent interest (5 percent above inflation), letting all of the interest compound and paying no taxes, it would now amount to $23,000, enough to buy a new car. With similar logic, if every household in 2010 invests $174 at 5 percent above inflation (guaranteed and with no taxes), then in 2050 (assuming inflation in the next four decades is the same as the last four), it would amount to $7,465, or enough to pay for one year's worth of the consumption that Waxman-Markey would have destroyed. Of course, most of the households of 2050 do not exist in 2009. In any event, the discounted value is not the amount households will have to pay each year, even with discounting. In the most generous case, the present value is the amount that would have to be paid for one year, right now, if the present value for each of the 40 years were paid in one lump sum right now -- that is, if the cost for all 40 years were paid at once. So no matter how it is sliced, there is no sense in which a postage stamp per day reflects the annual cost of the cap-and-trade legislation. Just as the inflation-adjusted, undiscounted $4,000 average price of a 2009 car would best explain the future cost to people in 1969, the inflation-adjusted, undiscounted $1,287 would be the best measure of the EPA's projected per household consumption loss due to Waxman-Markey for the single year of 2050. But per-household consumption loss may not be the best measure of cost.
Adding to the Cost When income drops, people prevent consumption from dropping by dipping into savings. In turn, lower savings reduces the ability of families to cope with other shocks and reduces their future income. Further, consumption comes from after-tax dollars, so losses in tax revenue do not show up in data on household consumption. The real economic cost is the loss of income. Change in national income, as measured by gross domestic product (GDP), is a better measure of the overall economic impact of a policy. Since consumption expenditures are about 31 percent less than GDP, the lost income corresponding to the EPA's lost consumption calculation would actually be $1,867. Lastly, a household is not necessarily a family. Three college students sharing an apartment are a household according to government statistics, but in reality they are part of three separate families. The EPA uses the average household size of 2.6 for its cost impact. Adjusting household size to a family-of-four standard adds another 53 percent, bringing the cost of cap and trade to $2,872 per family per year. Very Expensive Postage The EPA, with some very generous assumptions (doubling nuclear power output in 25 years, for example), projects that the Waxman-Markey energy tax will have an impact of $174 per household in 2050 in present discounted value. However, even using the EPA results shows that the inflation-adjusted impact per family of four would be much higher at $2,872 per year in 2050. Those are some very expensive postage stamps. Again, though discounting is a useful tool for some financial calculations and when properly employed in cost-benefit analysis, it is not appropriate for giving an accurate picture of future prices. Saying cap and trade will cost a postage stamp per day is equivalent to saying the average new car today costs $562. It is clearly wrong. David W. Kreutzer, Ph.D., is Senior Policy Analyst for Energy Economics and Climate Change in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation.
[1]Adjusting $23,000 to 1969 prices using the CPI calculator at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis's Web site (http://www.minneapolisfed.org/ index.cfm) yields $3,959.19. Discounting that figure at 5 percent for 40 years gives $562.36.
November 17, 2009 The "Kyoto II" Climate Change Treaty: Implications for American Sovereignty by Steven Groves Special Report #72
The upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, is supposed to produce a successor agreement to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, a treaty signed by the Clinton Administration but never sent to the U.S. Senate for advice and consent.[1] The proposed "Kyoto II" successor agreement, if crafted along the lines of the current 181-page negotiating text, poses a clear threat to American sovereignty. This threat is primarily due to the nature of the proposed treaty--a complex, comprehensive, legally binding multilateral convention.
Three Types of Treaties The United States arguably cedes some amount of sovereignty whenever it ratifies a treaty. The amount of sovereignty ceded depends on the nature of the treaty obligations as well as the reciprocal nature of the obligations of the other parties to the treaty. Such relinquishments of sovereignty are necessarily difficult to quantify. It may be fairly argued, however, that different kinds of treaties pose different potential risks as to the amount of sovereignty at stake. In terms of the level of risk of ceding sovereignty, an argument may be made that, in general, bilateral treaties pose less of a risk than multilateral treaties, treaties that do not have legally binding obligations pose less of a risk than those that do, and treaties where the U.S. has the ability to make reservations pose less of a risk than those where reservations are not permitted. The contemplated post-Kyoto climate treaty fails on all three of those counts. Important Distinctions As noted, the type of treaty that is the least threatening to American sovereignty is a bilateral treaty--one in which the U.S. and only one other nation make mutual (and usually equal) promises to one another. In such treaties, unlike Kyoto II, U.S. negotiators generally demand its treaty partner commit to reciprocal obligations identical to those that are expected of the U.S. In bilateral negotiations, the U.S. has substantial control over the final terms of the treaty. With only one other nation participating in the negotiations, the likelihood that the U.S. would be compelled to accept an obligation that would compromise its sovereignty is minimized, if not eliminated. While the obligations undertaken in a bilateral treaty may be legally binding, the U.S. retains the greatest flexibility to derogate or withdraw from a bilateral treaty in the event of noncompliance or breach of the treaty's terms by its treaty partner. In contrast, multilateral treaties, such as the proposed Kyoto II, pose greater challenges to the U.S. In general, the U.S. has less control over the final terms of multilateral treaties and thus less control over what obligations it has to the other treaty parties. The less control the U.S. has over the final terms of a treaty, the greater the possibility that the terms of the treaty will not comport with U.S. national interests. In addition, the U.S. is in a much weaker bargaining position as compared to a bilateral treaty negotiation. Voting blocs such as the "Group of 77" developing countries and regional blocs such as the European Union, the African Union, and other organizations have the ability to pool their votes to effectively isolate the U.S. and weaken its bargaining position--as was the case during the negotiations of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.[2]
Moreover, the U.S. has less latitude in a multilateral treaty regime to deviate from the terms of the agreement, even in the face of widespread derogation or even breach of the treaty by other parties. Even if dozens of parties to a multilateral treaty ignore its terms, the U.S. is generally still required to live up to its end of the deal. This occurrence is very common in international human rights treaties, the terms of which are regularly flouted by dozens of countries that are party to those treaties. Despite these drawbacks, non-binding multilateral treaty regimes are still not nearly as onerous as the proposed Kyoto II treaty. Specifically, U.S. membership in multilateral human rights treaties is palatable in terms of safeguarding American sovereignty due to the fact that U.S. law is generally in harmony with the terms of such treaties prior to ratification. For instance, U.S. ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights posed a negligible threat to sovereignty since the rights enumerated in that treaty were already safeguarded in the U.S. by the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and existing federal and state law. Furthermore, any inconsistencies that exist between U.S. domestic law and the terms of most multilateral treaties may generally be remedied at the time of ratification through the submission of conditional statements known as "reservations," "understandings," and "declarations." These qualifiers allow the U.S. to join a multilateral treaty regime and comply with its terms while comporting with the U.S. Constitution and existing U.S. law. In contrast to bilateral and non-binding multilateral treaty regimes, treaties such as the Kyoto Protocol and agreements such as the proposed Kyoto II treaty arguably pose the greatest threat to American sovereignty. The Greatest Threat to American Sovereignty Negotiations for a Kyoto II treaty will be multilateral in nature, which will make it difficult if not impossible for the U.S. to control the outcome. Unlike bilateral treaty negotiations, the U.S. will be only one of 192 countries participating in the Copenhagen conference and will therefore have much less say over the final terms of the negotiated text. Voting blocs such as the EU, the AU, and the "G-77" will likely pool their votes and negotiating resources to isolate the U.S. As was the case during the negotiations for the Rome Statute and the Kyoto Protocol, those powerful voting blocs may not have the best interests of the U.S. as their primary concern, to say the least.
Unlike multilateral human rights covenants, the proposed Kyoto II treaty would likely attempt to impose legally binding obligations on the U.S. The international community will be vigilant in requiring the U.S. to meet its obligations, even if many other nations fall short of their own emissions targets and other treaty requirements. Opportunist national leaders and U.N. officials will likely appeal, as they have in the past, to America's leadership role in the world and expect the U.S. to meet its treaty obligations even in the face of widespread noncompliance by other nations. Onerous Obligations The obligations sought of the U.S. in the post-Kyoto environment are onerous. They include: Requirements to cap greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that could negatively affect America's economy; Payment of American taxpayer dollars to countries for the purpose of developing their clean energy capacity; and Transfers of clean energy technology from the U.S. to other countries, possibly without fair compensation for the developers of such technology. In short, the U.S. would be required not only to overhaul its domestic energy policy but to assist other countries to develop their own energy capacity with billions, if not tens or hundreds of billions, of U.S. taxpayer dollars over the course of many years. Not only are the contemplated obligations of a Kyoto II treaty onerous, but the manner in which the obligations would be enforced would submit the U.S. to an unprecedented monitoring and compliance regime. The U.S. would apparently be required to submit itself to an intrusive international review of both its energy policy and its compliance with obligations to transfer wealth and technology to "developing countries." The current draft negotiating text is replete with references to "facilitative mechanisms," "monitoring, reporting and verification mechanisms," and requirements that financial commitments and transfers of technology be "legally binding."[3] Furthermore, as conceived, the proposed Kyoto II treaty would require the U.S. and other parties to accept as binding the decisions and rulings of the international bureaucracy created to monitor compliance with the treaty. That is to say, the U.S. would not have the final authority on questions regarding its compliance. Instead, the Kyoto II treaty bureaucracy will decide:
Whether the U.S. has reduced its GHG emissions to the proper level within the proper timeframe; Whether the U.S. has transferred sufficient amounts of money to develop the clean energy sector for a sufficient number countries in the developing world; and Whether the U.S., its private corporations, and its patent holders have surrendered (perhaps without compensation) a sufficient amount of clean energy technology to developing countries including, supposedly, China. Due to the unprecedented obligations that the U.S. would be required to make to the international community and the intrusive compliance mechanisms proposed to enforce those obligations, the contemplated Kyoto II treaty would be unlike any treaty the U.S. has ratified in its history. No Leeway Unlike other multilateral treaties, the obligations as set forth in the current draft negotiating text do not lend themselves to reservations, understandings, or declarations. The terms of any post-Kyoto agreement, if ratified by the U.S., would likely obligate it to reduce its GHG emissions by a certain percentage within a certain period of time. No reservation may be taken from that requirement without violating the object and purpose of such a treaty. Likewise, the U.S. would not be able to exclude itself through a reservation from the treaty's proposed compliance and enforcement mechanisms. The proposed Kyoto II treaty would apparently allow no leeway from its terms--even if future circumstances compel the U.S. to deviate from its obligations regarding GHG emissions and financial transfers. A downturn in the American economy, for example, would not excuse the U.S. from its commitment to transfer billions of taxpayer dollars to support the advancement of clean energy in foreign countries. Ironically, the U.S. would continue to be bound by its obligations under Kyoto II even if future scientific research irrefutably debunks the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Obama Administration Should Protect American Sovereignty The contemplated post-Kyoto treaty is a serious threat to American sovereignty due to its legally binding nature, its intrusive compliance and enforcement mechanisms, and an inability on the part of the U.S. to submit reservations, understandings, or declarations to its terms. The Obama Administration should not sign any agreement reached in Copenhagen or thereafter that would deprive the U.S. of its sovereign right to determine the nature and extent of its treaty obligations and whether it has complied with those obligations.
Steven Groves is Bernard and Barbara Lomas Fellow in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation and a contributor to ConUNdrum: The Limits of the United Nations and the Search for Alternatives (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2009).
[1]Recent press reports indicate that only a political "framework" agreement is now expected to be agreed to at the Copenhagen conference. See, for example, Reuters, "UN, Denmark Suggest 2010 Deadlines for Climate Deal," November 16, 2009, at http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSLG401631 (November 17, 2009). [2]Press release, "UN Diplomatic Conference Concludes in Rome with Decision to Establish Permanent International Criminal Court," United Nations, July 17, 1998, at http://www.un.org/icc/pressrel/lrom22.htm (November 17, 2009); Brett D. Schaefer and Steven Groves, "The U.S. Should Not Join the International Criminal Court," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2307, August 18, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org /Research/InternationalOrganizations/bg2307.cfm#_ftn4. [3]United Nations, "Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action Under the Convention," Framework Convention on Climate Change, Seventh Session, September 15, 2009, at http://unfccc.int/resource/ docs/2009/awglca7/eng/inf02.pdf (November 17, 2009).
Sounds like that was written in 2009. We can try and defend the sad situation in the world today and try to convince ourselves all is well. But we are heading in the wrong direction and when we loose our freedom we will looked stunned and ask how that could happen. Because you have your head in a hole and are afraid to face the truth. And - I am sick and tired of any negative against Obama as racist. Which is it? His 50% of a white mother or the 50% of his black father. We can mix it and call him Whack or Blite because we will be in big trouble. Wake Up America!
Sounds like that was written in 2009. We can try and defend the sad situation in the world today and try to convince ourselves all is well. But we are heading in the wrong direction and when we loose our freedom we will looked stunned and ask how that could happen. Because you have your head in a hole and are afraid to face the truth. And - I am sick and tired of any negative against Obama as racist. Which is it? His 50% of a white mother or the 50% of his black father. We can mix it and call him Whack or Blite because we will be in big trouble. Wake Up America!
Letter From Grandpa John G. is 63 years old and owns a small business. He's a life-long Republican and sees his dream of retiring next year has all but evaporated. With the stock market crashing and new taxes coming his way, John assumes now that he will work to his dying day. John has a granddaughter. Ashley is a recent college grad. She drives a flashy hybrid car, wears all the latest fashions, and loves to go out to nightclubs and restaurants. Ashley campaigned hard for Barack Obama. After the election she made sure her grandfather (and all other Republican family members) received a big I told-you-so earful on how the world is going to be a much better place now that her party is taking over. Having lost both roommates, Ashley recently ran short of cash and cannot pay the rent (again) on her three-bedroom townhouse. Like she has done many times in the past, she e-mailed her grandfather asking for some financial help. Here is his reply: Sweetheart, I received your request for assistance. Ashley, you know I love you dearly and I'm sympathetic to your financial plight. Unfortunately, times have changed. With the election of President Obama, your grandmother and I have had to set forth a bold new economic plan of our own..."The Ashley Economic Empowerment Plan." Let me explain. Your grandmother and I are life-long, wage-earning tax payers. We have lived a comfortable life, as you know, but we have never had the fancier things like European vacations, luxury cars, etc. We have worked hard and were looking forward to retiring soon. But the plan has changed. Your president is raising our personal and business taxes significantly. He says it is so he can give our hard earned money to other people. Do you know what this means, Ashley? It means less for us, and we must cut back on many business and personal expenses. You know the wonderful receptionist who worked in my office for more than 23 years - the one who always gave you candy when you came over to visit? I had to let her go last week. I can't afford to pay her salary and all of the government mandated taxes that go with having employees. Your grandmother will now work 4 days a week to answer phones, take orders and handle the books. We will be closed on Fridays and will lose even more income. I'm also very sorry to report that your cousin Frank will no longer be working summers in the warehouse. I called him at school this morning. He already knows about it and he's upset because he will have to give up skydiving and his yearly trip to Greenland to survey the polar bears. That's just the business side of things. Some personal economic effects of Obama's new taxation policies include none other than you.
You know very well that over the years your grandmother and I have given you thousands of dollars in cash, tuition assistance, food, housing, clothing, gifts, etc., etc. But by your vote, you have chosen to help others - not at your expense - but at our expense. If you need money now sweetheart, I recommend you call 202-456-1111. That is the direct phone number for the White House. You yourself told me how foolish it is to vote Republican. You said Mr. Obama is going to be the 'People's President,' and is going to help every American live a better life. Based on everything you've told me, along with all the promises we heard during the campaign, I'm sure Mr. Obama will be happy to transfer some stimulus money into your bank account. Have him call me for the account number which I memorized years ago. Perhaps you can now understand what I've been saying all my life: Those who vote for a president should consider the impact on the nation as a whole, and not be just concerned with what they can get for themselves. What Obama supporters don't seem to realize is all of the money he is redistributing to illegal aliens and non-taxpaying Americans (the so-called 'less fortunate') comes from tax-paying families. Remember how you told me, "Only the richest of the rich will be affected"? Well, guess what, honey? Because we own a business, your grandmother and I are now considered to be 'the richest of the rich.' On paper it might look that way, but in the real world we are far from it. As you said while campaigning for Obama, some people will have to carry more of the burden so all of America can prosper. You understand what that means, right? It means that raising taxes on productive people results in them having less money; less money for everything, including granddaughters. I'm sorry, Ashley, but the well has run dry. The free lunches are over. I have no money to give you now. So, congratulations on your choice for 'change.' For future reference, I encourage you to try and add up the total value of the gifts and cash you have received from us just since you went off to college, and compare it to what you expect to get from Mr. Obama over the next four (or eight) years.. I have not kept track of it, Ashley. It has all truly been the gift of our hearts. Remember, we love you dearly....but from now on you'll need to call the number mentioned above. Your 'savior' has the money we would have given to you. Just try and get it from him. Good luck, sweetheart. Love, Grandpa. Letter from Grandpa
Robert Kiyosaki, author of “Rich Dad, Poor Dad” and the newly released “CONSPIRACY OF THE RICH” supplies expert testimony concerning the problem plaguing America today. In his newest book, Robert remembers: While a student sitting in Dr. Buckminster Fuller’s class in 1981, I was disturbed to hear him say, “The primary purpose of government is to be a vehicle for the rich to get their hands into our pockets.” . . . The year 2013 will mark the hundredth anniversary of the Federal Reserve System. For nearly one hundred years the Fed has pulled off the biggest cash heist in the world . . . It is a robbery where the rich take from the poor via our banks and our government. . . . On August 15, 1971, the U.S. dollar died. On that day, without authorization from Congress, President Nixon severed the relationship between the U.S. dollar and gold, and the dollar became Monopoly money. . . . The problem is that Monopoly is just a game. Applying Monopoly’s rules in real life is a recipe for the destruction of society as we know it. . . . As noted English economist John Maynard Keynes once said, “There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction and it does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.
Robert's web address is: www.richdad.com/conspiracy-of-the-rich. A recent interview link (serial number) is: http://video.newsmax.com/?bcpid=20972460001&bclid=24595384001&bctid=39618165001
Kevin Hofsas, Author 7 Visitation from God, 12 Revelations from Heaven. Read FREE! at: www.MarkMyWordsPublishing.com
QUESTION: “So what is the purpose of overturning the existing basis of society?” In regard to previous post’s John Maynard Keynes quote.] ANSWER: It is to fold the United States of America into a New World Order. The dumbing down of education, begun in 1903, the perversion of money, begun in 1913, the trampling on our Constitutionally guaranteed rights, the Modern day shredding and debauching and corrupting of the same---all is geared to destroy America as we’ve known it and bring us into the fold of the New World Order---as slaves. Perhaps not in the exact sense that comes to mind, but in many, many ways, still slaves. There will even come a day when they will require you to take a special mark on your hand or your forehead, without which, they won’t let you use their money. The ultimate aim of course, is to force you to worship the Devil. Satan is the false god of this world. And his strength is the material of this world, which is why he chooses money to try and control everything. And false in that he is only exercising squatters rights. As Revelation 12:11 says, And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony, and they loved not their lives unto the death. And God says to them who choose Him, “Not a hair of your head will perish.” For, “Behold, I make all things new.” God will know if we hunger and thirst for a kingdom not made with hands, a home in the heavens wherein righteousness dwelleth . . . or if we are satisfied with this corruption, here below. For there is a resurrection, of both the just and the unjust. One unto eternal life, the other unto eternal damnation. Choose ye, this day, which one you will serve. As Jesus Christ said: Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man. Luke 21:36.
A tactical retreat is coming for every dedicated Spirit filled believer. And Isaiah 18:1-7 is the template for America. Be there or be Square!
Kevin Hofsas, Author 7 Visitations from God, 12 Revelations from Heaven Read FREE! at: www.MarkMyWordsPublishing.com
Excellent, Phil. Thanks for sharing that Letter from Grandpa. As I see it folks who produce need to vote based on who they believe is most capable of managing their resources, themselves or the government. Of course those who don't produce anything tend to prefer a "Robin Hood" style government. They depend upon charity and see nothing wrong with this, except for the embarrassment they suffer when begging for it.
Naturally they are delighted when the government extorts resources from producers in order to support non-producers. This way they don't suffer the indignity of begging or the uncertainty of relying on the kindness of others. They then find themselves happy as pigs in shlop!
One of the unintended consequences of this system, though, is that the kindness of others tends to dry up. Instead of donating to the Salvation Army or Church, or assisting a distressed neighbor, productive members of society become less giving. This is partly because they simply have less to give, but not entirely. On some level many people will develop an extreme resentment toward this governmental extortion and those who profit from it.
When I was a child growing up in the Southland my family was pretty poor. We lived on the "Mill Hill", a company-owned village where my father worked in the cotton mill as a weaver. Now and then a few children would knock on the door and say, "We're from the Panola Methodist Church and we're makin' up a poundin' for Mr. & Mrs. Smith. Their house just burned down and they lost everything", or something like that.
Now times were tough back then for most everybody we knew, but my mother (and countless other mothers) would go check her egg money and cupboard and donate anything they could spare, even if they didn't know Mr. or Mrs. Smith from Adam's house cat. If Mom did know the family she might ask, "Isn't their boy Tommy about Warren's size? Let me see if I have some clothes he could use."
This is the way things were done in these parts fifty years ago; neighbors took care of each other. They did this because they all knew if they didn't nobody else would. And they did it out of genuine, Christian love and compassion for one another. It is the way Jesus taught and God intended us to live.
I still live in that same little town, though most all the textile mills have closed. And I haven't heard the phrase, "makin' up a poundin'" for many years. That caring spirit is still alive in some people but not as it was back then. I think that's because too many people have learned to rely more on, and therefore care more about, the government than they do for each other.
I don't expect God is pleased with this turn of events but I can assure you the government is. Because the more we come to rely on government, the more it can demand from us, both tangible and intangible. And the more it demands the more bloated and inefficient it becomes, until it reaches the point of consuming more than we can produce. Or until we realize what is happening and put a stop to it, whichever comes first.
It sure is funny to see some truly psycho religious nutjobs posting in about fights against satan and the pharoah. It's good to be reminded that there are people out there that crazy.
So we might have a public option for health insurance. People with pre-existing conditions or have been dropped by their insurance company when they got sick will have more freedom. Our healthcare system may catch up a bit to the 30+ other countries that are ahead of us.
I'd rather see a single payer system but a public option will go along way towards improving the health of many Americans and giving all Americans more freedoms and choices.
Ok Joemama thats fine you don't have to believe what we believe. Like I said in the end God will judge you not us and we will not be involved in that process to stick up for or condemn you. That will be between you and God. By the way all your liberal friends including Obama will also have to stand before God and explain there actions and God doesn't care whether he was the president or not. He, you, me and the rest of the world will stand before God and explain our selves. So go ahead and LOL laugh it up but think about this. If your right and we are wrong what will the consequences be when I die but If we are right and you are wrong what will be your consequences when you die. But sense you called us crazy why don't you explain where all of existence came from. Lets look at it from a scientific view. The firs fact (not theory) of physics is that something can not come from nothing. if there really was a "Big Bang" where did the stuff it was made of come from. and if you can give an answer to my question then where did that come from. and if you can give an answer to my question then where did that come from. and where did that come from. and where did that come from and where. did that come from. and where did that come from. and where did that come from. and where did that come from and where. did that come from. and where did that come from. and where did that come from. and where did that come from and where. did that come from. and where did that come from. and where did that come from. and where did that come from and where. did that come from. and where did that come from.
I could keep repeating that but I think you get the picture. You see Joemama if you take it back in time to the first form of existence whatever that was in whatever form it was despite what ever dimension it was you are still left with the question: where did that come from.
You see joemama you would not be here if not your your mama and dad and they wouldn't be here without there parents and so on and so on. You can believe whatever you want but we believe we are more then just an accident that happened in a slime puddle millions of years ago. We believe we are the prize creation of God the creator of alllllll creation. We believe he loves alllllll of us including you and yes even Bob. We believe he is the only true king that has the proper wisdom, strength and love it takes to govern all that is, was and will be. People have said "If there was a God then why does he allow all the pain and suffering go on in the world" The truth is it is us that cause all the pain and suffering not God. He gave us free will to choose whatever path we want whether it is his way or the way of evil. God has given us an owners manual for life called the Bible. In the bible he gives instruction on how to live. Every word in the Bible is designed to benefit mankind (mankind also refers to women which he loves just as much as men.) It gives examples of what happens when you are obedient to his instruction and examples of what happens when you are disobedient to his instruction. Starting with Adam and Eve who are our second greatest grand parents second only to God. joemama God is coming soon but this time he is not coming as a lamb to be sacrificed for our sins but as a lion to establish his kingdom and destroy all evil. He has given us about 2000 and sum odd years to pledge allegiance to him. Don't you think thats enough time to make up your mind. Do you really want to forsake God for a slime puddle. Join God who loves you or join his opposition who doesn't. but remember as long as you draw breath there is still time. once you die your decision has been made.
December 3, 2009 You Will Pay More by Rea S. Hederman, Jr. The Congressional Budget Office had more bad news on Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid's health-care bill this week -- even if some media outlets missed it.
CBO not only found that Reid's "reform" would hike premiums for millions of Americans who buy insurance in the non-group market, it noted other significant changes Reid would impose on the policies now held by millions more.
CBO predicts that 6.4 million people who now get insurance through their employer will lose that coverage and buy insurance on the non-group market: The bill would push many employers who have older or sicker workers to simply end their existing insurance plan, forcing these workers into the non-group market. Other older workers might be enticed into the non-group market because the rates will initially seem cheaper.
The New York Times and others hyped the CBO finding that Reid's plan wouldn't cause premium increases for large-group plans. But a chief reason CBO cited for that finding is that, as Reid forces older and sicker workers into the non-group market, many younger workers will be buying into that group coverage. Since this insurance "pool" will thus be covering people who need less care, its rates could actually drop -- except that other portions of Reid's plan would be likely to push the prices right back up.
And, again, millions who now get coverage this way would be forced out of the "pool."
CBO was very clear that Reid's bill would force up costs in the non-group market. Premiums for a family plan in the non-group market would shoot up some 16 percent a year for some families, CBO found.
The biggest losers would be the younger, healthier people who get insurance in the non-group market: Their premiums would rise because Reid's regulations would force them to subsidize that influx of older, sicker people that his "reform" drives out of the group market.
Actually, those taking the biggest hit would be the 10.5 million people that Reid would push and cajole into buying insurance to avoid paying a fine. These are mostly younger, healthier people who don't now think health insurance is a good deal for them. Reid would not only push them into buying insurance, he'd have them pay more to help subsidize those older, sicker folks being pushed into the non-group market.
Note, too, that Reid requires people to buy into government-approved plans that will include benefits people may not want to pay for. It's like forcing a basketball fan to buy Nets season tickets when he just wants to watch a single game when LeBron James comes to town.
Of course, CBO could be wrong -- younger people might opt to just pay the fine and not enter the non-group market. If they refuse to pay the subsidies Reid is counting on, the non-group pool would be older and sicker than average -- and premiums would quickly spiral out of control, turning that market into a disaster.
One more thing: CBO rightly notes that Reid is imposing new costs on all health plans -- "fees" that he's charging various medical providers that, as CBO notes, will inevitably be passed on to consumers via their insurance.
CBO generously assumes that various "efficiency" savings will offset some of these costs. But the value of those efficiency gains is more uncertain than CBO admits -- after all, if it was so easy to save money this way, private companies would already be doing it. If the gains don't materialize, many people who don't lose their existing group coverage thanks to Reid would still start seeing higher premiums.
Then there are folks targeted by Reid's 40 percent excise tax on "Cadillac" health plans. This tax would hit 30 million people its first year -- roughly a fifth of those who have group coverage now. And it's set to hit millions more with every year that passes -- because the cutoff for what counts as "Cadillac" is designed to not keep pace with health-care inflation.
No one knows how the tax will work out -- whether those it hits will wind up paying more, getting fewer benefits or some combination of the two. The CBO believes that different groups would be hit in vastly different ways. In some cases, it'll again prompt employers to cancel their insurance plans because their workers are high-cost -- dumping even more people into the non-group market.
Bottom line: The CBO report clearly shows that most Americans will wind up paying more for insurance if Reid's bill becomes law -- in many cases, a lot more.
Rea Hederman is assistant director of The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis.
I’ve been with this blog from its virtual beginning and have read every comment no matter how painful they were to read. This blog has been so interesting, the self-righteous barking the loudest of course, casting judgment and criticism in virtually every form.
I say be done with it! Grab whatever part of yourself most vulnerable, squeeze until you scream out in pain, and transcend to a higher level of consciousness.
I wrote the following today, sending it off to what few people I’ve not yet alienated and many more whom I already have. You’ll gather from reading it that I am not religious but I do believe in a higher power and that for lack of a better word, I’ll call it God. I also believe in Jesus Christ but only because the Bible has influenced me most because Christianity is my native culture:
God is my energy, Jesus is my motor, and Ego is the friction that impedes my motor thus wasting my energy.
If only all of the world’s people would accept that We are all One with the same God!
Religion is cultural and within the word, culture, is the word cult. We must transcend religion; our future depends on it! Religion legitimizes division, promotes superiority, and instills arrogance. In the name of religion, they manipulate us and coerce us into giving up our power.
The realm of spirituality includes all people, has no bounds, no dogma, and inflicts no strife!
To whom would we tithe? To whom would we give power? From what basis would we judge?
Instead of looking to the outside, to the false prophets in Man masquerading in Government and the Church, we need only look within our own hearts, the sole dominion of the One.
One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him.
The scientist walked up to God and said, "God, we've decided that we no longer need you. We're to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don't you just go on and get lost."
God listened very patiently and kindly to the man and after the scientist was done talking, God said, "Very well, how about this, let's say we have a man making contest." To which the scientist replied, "OK, great!"
But God added, "Now, we're going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam."
The scientist said, "Sure, no problem" and bent down and grabbed himself a handful of dirt.
God just looked at him and said, "No, no, no. You go get your own dirt!"
A man went to a barbershop to have his hair cut and his beard trimmed. As the barber began to work, they began to have a good conversation. They talked about many things and various subjects. When they eventually touched on the subject of God,
The barber: I don't believe that God exists. The customer: Why do you say that? The barber: Well, you just have to go out in the street to realize that God doesn't exist. Tell me, if God exists, would there be so many sick people? Would there be abandoned children? If God existed, there would be neither suffering nor pain. I can't imagine a loving God who would allow all of these things.
The customer thought for a moment, but didn't respond because he didn't want to start an argument. The barber finished his job and the customer left the shop.
Just after he left the barbershop, he saw a man in the street with long, stringy, dirty hair and an untrimmed beard. He looked dirty and unkempt.
The customer turned back and entered the barber's shop again.
The customer: You know what? Barbers do not exist. The barber: How can you say that? I am here, and I am a barber. And I just worked on you! The customer: No! Barbers don't exist because if they did, there would be no people with dirty long hair and untrimmed beards, like that man outside.
The barber: But barbers do exist! What happens is, people do not come to me. The customer: Exactly! That's the point! God, too, does exist! What happens is, people don't go to Him and do not look for Him. That's why there's so much pain and suffering in the world.
cgoyette you aren't any more immune to the judgment of God then the rest of us. In Gods eyes there is no gray scale only black or white. Im glad you favor Jesus that is wonderful. We could not stand before Gods greatness if not for Jesus sacrifice that he made for all mankind. If you know what he said then you should also know that he declared:
John 14
"5Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?"
6Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7If you really knew me, you would know[b] my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."
God is real and he does love you. It's ok to believe in him.
Phil says: “cgoyette, you aren't any more immune to the judgment of God then the rest of us. In Gods eyes there is no gray scale only black or white. Im glad you favor Jesus that is wonderful. We could not stand before Gods greatness if not for Jesus sacrifice that he made for all mankind. If you know what he said then you should also know that he declared: … God is real and he does love you. It's ok to believe in him.”
I ask you Phil where in what I said do I place myself above the rest. I seek not your approval or your criticism. I seek only an avenue for peace, a mechanism for people to come together in constructive dialogue that is all.
Is the Bible the sole source of wisdom? Must we fear God to be worthy of our existence? Must we believe that those who do not fear God as blasphemous and subservient to those that do?
Let those that judge damn themselves to silence or choke on their self-righteousness spew!
Phil - You're trying to make something into a dramatic religious issue when it's not. I don't really care where you think the universe came from. What created God? And what created that thing? See I can go back too.
People have long invented mythical explanations for the stuff they don't understand. Let's just say Zeus created the universe.
But to bring this back to the issue at hand...if it is a religious issue you're on the wrong side of it and god or zeus will judge you for that.
We have a moral obligation to help the weakest among us. Intellectually you should also be able to recognize that since 30+ other countries have more effective healthcare systems than us while they spend far less per capita maybe they're doing something right.
What we should be doing is making Medicare available to all our citizens if they want it. Right now Medicare only covers the highest risk groups, the disabled and the elderly. That is very costly. If we made it available to low risk groups as well it would help the system tremendously.
As it is we're looking at a public option. Also a good solution. My girlfriend has a serious health condition and had to leave her job. With her pre-existing condition she was unable to get private insurance and we were paying enormous amounts for her prescriptions and until she was finally able to qualify for Medicare. If we had been able to pay for a public option things would have been much better.
Right now people without health insurance are forced into using emergency rooms when they get sick often going bankrupt in the process. It's also just inefficient and ineffective use of resources. Everybody should be covered and more preventative medicine used.
Now I realize you would prefer to use religious fear mongering and preaching instead of rational thought on the matter. Also you like to name call and through around labels.
But your on the wrong side of this morally and your on the wrong side rationally. Medicare, Medicaid, and the Public option are morally good things for our society to have. Rationally if you look at the ineffectiveness and inefficiency of our current system compared to ther countries you will see that there is something to learn there.
Also, if your going to copy articles please cite the source and link to the original article.
OK. That's one point. Another, on the religion issue.
---break—3,206 chars---
Any of you remember Thomas Paine?
Dec 23, 1776: Crisis, #1, first paragraph: "These are the times that try men's souls: The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it NOW, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; 'Tis dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed, if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Britain, with an army to enforce here tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but "to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER," and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then there is not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious, for so unlimited a power can belong only to GOD."
And here's what he wrote about "god": (The Age of Reason (this dude actually named the whole "age"), 1794, Part I:
"I put the following work under your protection. It contains my opinion upon Religion. You will do me the justice to remember, that I have always strenuously supported the Right of every Man to his own opinion, hover different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it.
"The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind id Reason. I have never used any other, and I trust I never shall. Your affectionate friend and fellow-citizen, Thomas Paine.
"I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.
"I believe in the equality of man, and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow creatures happy.
"But lest it should be supposed that I believe many other things in addition to these, I shall, in the progress of this work, declare the things I do not believe, and my reasons for not believing them.
"But lest it should be supposed that I believe many other things in addition to these, I shall, in the progress of this work, declare the things I do not believe, and my reasons for not believing them.
-----starting next take-=-
"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.
"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
(snip)
"It is curious to observe how the theory of what is called the Christian Church, sprung out of the tail of the heathen mythology. A direct incorporation took place in the first instance, by making the reputed founder to be celestially begotten. The trinity of goes that then followed was not other than a reduction of the former plurality, with was about twnety or thirty thousands. The statue of Mary succeeded the statue of Diana of Ephesus. The deification of heroes changed into the canonization of saints. The Mythologists had gods for everything; the Christian Mythologists had saints for every thing. The church became as crowded with the one, as the pantheon had been with the other; and Rome was the place of both. The Christian theory is little else than the idolatry of the ancient Mythologists, accommodated to the purposes of power and revenue; and it yet remains to reason and philosophy to abolish the amphibious fraud."
(Paine's phrase, "the amphibious fraud" is my favorite. I suspect it's a euphemism for 'the f-bomb,' but one can't be sure.)
At any rate, Paine was pretty much a Deist--one god, but immanent in all things, Paine's brain, Emerson's and Thoreau's trees--the Transcendentalists' nature, insofar as I understand transcendentalism. The Age of Reason is well worth reading, IMHO.
I think every man, woman & child of us citizens should have a pocket copy of the US Constitution--with us at all times; frequently referred to, thoughtfully mulled over, discussed with our children, friends & even relatives.
It wouldn't even be to much of a task to memorize the whole thing (I don't claim to have done so, but I can recall bits & pieces of it--and of course, I have a pocket copy to refresh my memory). I remember hearing Sen. Fritz Hollings quoting it, from memory, on a Bill Moyers interview. I remember Sen. Sam Ervin quoting it, from memory, during the Watergate hearings. And, in my humble opinion, any member of the Gang of 537 (100 senators, 435 reps, 1 veep & 1 prez = 537) who does NOT carry around a copy of the Constitution at all times is suspicious, in my book. As either Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich said recently, "It's the ONLY oath I took--to 'support and defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic'."
Another point:
There have been approximately 170 human beings who died in US custody--that is, 170 prisoners of war, POWs, died during and/or as a result of torture. There is a US War Crimes Act, 18 USCode §2441, that makes it a federal offense to torture prisoners of war (if it's a war, and they are imprisoned, they are prisoners of war, no matter what you might otherwise try to label these folks). More significantly, if these POWs die as a result of their captivity, torture, then the death penalty can be imposed on those found guilty of breaking the War Crimes act.
Which means, dear readers, that there are some 170 potential death warrants hanging out there in the aether, waiting to be assigned to some individual or individuals who masterminded and/or conspired to break the law. Starting, it seems from what I know, with GW Bush, R. Cheney, C. Rice, Addington, Yoo, Tenent, Wolfowitz, Feith, Rumsfeld, etc. and so on.
Another point:
Gen. Stan McChrystal was the guy either in charge of, or in co-charge of, the Pvt. Jessica Lynch fraud, if you recall. Cpl Pat Tillman was in his unit on that operation, as he was when he was killed about a year later in Afghanistan. According to Tillman's mother's book (Boots on the Ground by Dusk, I think it's entitled), and Jon Krakauer's book on Tillman's homicide, this very-high-profile trooper (SECDEF Rumsfeld even sent him a personal "welcome to the military, dude" letter) had sought counsel (from a chaplain, phych folks, like that) on how to "be with" (as I call it) what Tillman was convinced were illegal wars, illegal occupation, and war crimes being committed by his units. After all the investigations (about seven, I think), and with all of the contradictory testimony, lost records, destroyed evidence (shades of 9/11/2001, folks), the odds are that this was a pre-meditated homicide. That is, because of his great negative propaganda risk, Cpl. Tillman was "taken out."
9/11/2001. You-all should read James Bamford's books on the NSA--National Security Agency. The Puzzle Palace; Body of Secrets; The Shadow Factory. As of about 2002, virtually every binary digit of your, my, our telecommunications (voice, VoIP, email, internet use, credit card transactions, etc.,) has been copied off and shipped off to huge disk farms in Texas and wherever else, all available to be searched, like doing a Goggle search on anything on the web. In other words, the Fourth Amendment has, de facto, been repealed. (Meaning, repealed in fact, if not in law--de jure. Like the highway speed limits--de jure, it's 65 mph, but you don't get pulled over--de facto--unless you're clocking maybe 78 mph. So the speed limit, practically, is 78 mph, though the law sets it at 65. In the case of warrantless wiretaps, violations of the 4th Amendment are not allowed, by law, but, in practice, the 4th amendment is completely ignored--since early in 2002 or thereabouts.)
So when you hear folks talking about electronic privacy, health records privacy and such, you can just laugh at them as being ill-informed, at best, or lying hypocrites, at worst. Microwave communications (cell phones 'n' such) have all been collected since the early 1990s according to Bamford.
Another point: Y'all would do well to read Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States--1492 to the Present." From 1492 to about 1508, Columbus & his band of merry men basically exterminated from 2 to 8 million Arawak Indians in the Caribbean. Arawaks--I'd never heard of 'em before I read Zinn's book--were the "indigenous peoples" of the Caribbean. (So Columbus, by the way, actually did NOT "discover America." He "discovered" the winter playground of the rich and famous, if you will.)
Another point: Famous president Andrew Jackson pushed for and got passed the "Indian Removal Act" of 1831 or so. Removed were the Cherokee Indians--another batch of "indigenous peoples." Their anabasis, haj, hegira, Bataan Death March, is known as The Trail of Tears. Notice the "truth in labeling" of the act. Nowadays, we have laws repealing citizens rights with BS labels like "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act" (that's the 'long title' of the U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act--which should appear, in print, as I've set it out, not as the Patriot Act or the USA Patriot act. The reason it's not set out that way is quite simple: We the People are not intended to be reminded that this is an acronym for a very, very tortured-title piece of legislation that essentially (de jure) repeals the Bill of Rights--along with the Writ of Habeas Corpus (find This American Life's podcast "Habeas Schmabeas" and listen to it. Great history of the Great Writ.)
Another point:
From Columbus, through French & Indian Wars, War of 1812, Indian Removal Act, "Manifest Destiny, the round-eye European white-folk have annihilated "indigenous Americans." Exterminated them. Murdered them. Broke virtually every single "treaty" executed with them. Note: "decimated" does not mean exterminated. "Decimated" means "kill every tenth man". Which--do the arithmetic--leaves 90% alive. "Genocide," "extermination," etc., is the accurate term. "Wipe 'em out," or "kill 'em all," are good vernacular equivalents.
There are some good histories that trace the conduct of US "foreign affairs" throughout history. One notes that the first major "regime change" operation the US undertook (of DOZENS over the years) was the unseating of the Queen of Hawaii around 1892 or so. We in the US have a well-documented history of murdering foreign leaders, supporting dictators who murder their own peoples (to support our so-called "national interests" or "strategic interests"--meaning raw materials--oil, copper, water, gold, tungsten, wolfram, uranium--and US corporations' "foreign investments" (ITT's telecommunications installations in Chile, for example), and military bases from which we can "project our military might."
That is, while our very own government limits its illegal activities at home (where there are so many more witnesses to it--and who all speak English and can call up a reporter or two--which makes it more difficult to get away with said illegal activities), our government's conduct abroad is a-whole-nother matter, where US and international laws are "more honored in the breach than in the observance."
Just stop for a couple of seconds and think about it; how many Iraqis do you think take out their cell phones and dial 1-212-555-1234 and ask for Nick Kristoff, or even Arthur Sulzberger, to complain that their family was just wiped out by a missile from a US UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) controlled from a desktop in McLean, VA or Boulder, CO? Never mind speaking in English.
Or this: How many of you heard that the Baghdad office of AlJazeera was taken out by a US bomb or missile on April 8, 2003 or so, the day before US tanks rolled into the city? One camera-man was killed, and Al Jazeera duly noted the message and closed the Baghdad office. Al Jazeera had actually supplied the precise geo-coordinates to the Pentagon days before, requesting the War Department to please not bomb its bureau. (Awww, shucks, we thought you WANTED us to bomb you and THAT'S why you gave us your coordinates!!!) The hotel where the foreign press representatives were staying was shelled by a US tank. It just drove up to the hotel, swiveled its turret a bit, elevated the cannon, and fired. One or two foreign journalists were killed (they could have dialed up Kristoff or Sulzberger in English--but for the fact that they were dead and couldn't dial the phone, even if they'd had the numbers on speed-dial). And so it goes.
Another point:
You may dimly recall the days of JFK and the Cuban Missile Crisis? You may remember that, boy oh boy, our government did NOT like the fact that Fidel Castro had taken over that island (except for Guantánamo Bay, of course, for which we have a lease in perpetuity). Have you heard about Operation Northwoods? It was approved by the military, right up through the Joint Chiefs of Staff. JFK and RFK, and McNamara, did NOT approve it. (The plan was to kill a few Americans in Miami & elsewhere and blame it on the Cubans, so we could attack the island; send an airplane full of college students on a summer-in-europe excursion over Cuba and blow it up to further inflame the American people against Cuba--so we could attack the island. This was after the Bay of Pigs effort failed, the poisoned cigars failed, the poisoned SCUBA gear failed to kill Castro. And it looks now like he may just plain die of the ailments of old age--of course, he's held on so long because of the national health care the island provides, right?.
"Is the Bible the sole source of wisdom?" No but it is the only one that is right 100% of the time.
"Must we fear God to be worthy of our existence?" No we must also love, respect and obey him.
"Must we believe that those who do not fear God as blasphemous and subservient to those that do?" No we must have sympathy for them and tell them the truth. Even if they get angry at us. After that It's in there hands to make a choice for themselves. Like I said thats between them and God.
"What created God?" Nothing created God. God is infinite. He is the beginning and the end. Time is his creation and he isn't bound by it. It is bound by him.
jomama believe whatever you want. I don't care. You are free to make your own choices. In the end God will make the judgment not me, not you; God. Im just trying to warn you that judgment is coming and you don't have much time. Im trying to help you. But it is completely up to you.
I did sight my sources of every article I have posted. in some cases the exact websites were there for all the references You just didn't read the whole article. You should know the blog only allows you to post just over 4,000 characters. I had to brake it up into several peaces to get the whole article in. "We have a moral obligation to help the weakest among us." Yes we do but only by our own free will. if the public option goes through it will be as if all americans were held up at gunpoint and robbed. If we can give we should but don't force us to give. why cant you see how wrong that is.
How many times do I have to tell you thats a lie. socialized healthcare does not work. it raises the taxes on all of us, destroys the privet sector, unemployment goes through the roof, it puts privet insurance out of business, Doctors will not work for what the government says they should work for and they will drop the profession because it takes money to run a practice, flooding the public insurance and forces them to ration healthcare, making it impossible to see a doctor for months or even years. By that time your girlfriend would be dead. Just what about that don't you understand.
ALL OF YOU READING THIS OUT THERE IS THERE ANYBODY OUT THERE THAT CAN EXPLAIN TO THIS GUY WHY SOCIALIZED HEALTHCARE DOSENT WORK BECAUSE HE REFUSES TO LISTEN TO ME.
Fear mongering must be your favorite phrase. Ok joemama you want to talk about fear mongering. How about black panthers at the last presidential election, biting off peoples fingers, throwing clorox at the republican national delegates, Dead Fish Romy, and on and on and on yet you have the nerve to say that I am a fear monger. According to you anyone that disagrees with obama is a fear monger and a raciest. Medicare and Medicaid are bankrupt thanks to our government that you want to turn all our lives over to. Whose on the wrong side of the issue? Maybe you just don't know what the issue is. This blog is originally about the cartoon. Why don't you watch it again. Maybe you will learn something
If all of you liberal democrats didn't like they way Bush was running the country why the heck did you not leave and start your own socialist country elsewhere.?
…channels of OUR airwaves for free campaign advertising. Free, all day, all year long.
Guess what his reply was!? "That would let all sorts of kooks get on the airwaves to campaign," he said.
AHA! Said I. You complain about having to raise all the bucks for advertising, to pay for OUR airwaves (that we've given monopoly use of to bigwigs, for no return benefits that I can see or hear or spend--especially the commercials that come on louder than the regular programs), BUT YOU LIKE THE FACT THAT OTHER CITIZENS WHO ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE GANG OF 537 CAN'T RAISE THE MONEY TO COMPETE WITH YOU. (Hypocrites, every one of 'em, seems to me. They do NOT want competition, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to petition The Gang of 537 for Redress of Grievances. Nope. They'd rather keep their great health insurance, dental insurance, life insurance, retirement accounts, disability insurance, free medical care @ Walter Reed, etc., staff of drivers, secretaries (do they have cooks?), researchers, political operatives, committee perquisites, secret offices in the bowels of the Capitol building, etc. I mean, my member of the Gang of 537 has been in office FOR 34 YEARS! STRAIGHT!! Like, maybe he worked for one year after getting out of law school, but from age 25 onward, he was feeding at the federal trough, filled by your and my swink & toil. Whoaaa!
First of all the bible is not right 100% of the time. Not even close. As I already pointed out it actually advocates slavery. It also advocates all sorts of intolerance, cruelty, and absurdities. I will be give you and endless supply of absurd bible quotes.
Now you can go ahead and follow stuff blindly but don't go trying to preach to me.
"Nothing created God. God is infinite. He is the beginning and the end."
That's a copout. Here I'll just say nothing created the universe. It's the beginning and the end.
I'm just trying to help you see the light here Phil. You will be judged on whether you use rational thought or fear mongering. You don't have much time.
You should just put this aside because your religious beliefs have no place in how our government is run.
We have a moral obligation to help the weakest among us. By our freewill we voted for people that would support a public option.
You can keep your current insurance if you like but most Americans want a public option for people who choose to use it. It will certainly help out the people with pre-existing conditions that are unable to buy private insurance now.
Now you can keep lying that socialized healthcare doesn't work but the facts will prove you wrong over and over. 30+ other countries have some form of public insurance and have more efficient and effective systems than ours.
Many of them have public AND private insurance so they certainly can co-exist. Just as Medicare and private insurance co-exist now. Just like the post office and Fed Ex co-exist now. Just like public and private universities co-exist now.
Most doctors take medicare now. You don't seem to understand that the public option is just another way to reimburse people for your healthcare. The government is not trying to tell doctors what they should work for. Your fear mongering is completely made up. If there was any truth to it then all the doctors would have quit when Medicare and Medicaid came along. But alas they didn't. Most doctors I visit think it's great.
Yes, you are fear mongering. It the basis of your every argument. FEAR FEAR FEAR. Oh noez! The doctors will quit! But then if you look at real facts most doctors support the proposed private/public mix. Sorry Phil.
I think what you need to do to get informed is actually study the healthcare systems of countries that rank higher than ours. Some of them are single payer and some of them have public/private mixes. People are generally happy with them and for the most part there are shorter wait times than we have here.
People on our Medicare are happier with their insurance than people using private insurance. Medicare is only strained financially because it's forced to only cover the highest risk groups. Many private insurance companies have been financially strained as well. I'm sure you've heard about that recently.
Hey Rosalie- If all of you conservative republicans don't like they way Obama is running the country why the heck don't you leave and start your own fascist country elsewhere?
Joemama, I am curious, have you actually read the whole Bible? Slavery has been part of history- not condoned by God. Humanity is the one that has distorted the perfect creation of God because of the freewill we are all given. If you want to argue about Biblical teaching then back it up. The Bible is part of history & yes I do believe that it is 100% accurate. I believe in the 10 commandments & the teachings of Jesus. These are God's ideals, things we can never live up to because of the corruption of this world. God hates divorce but it happens & He forgives. God forgives anyone that truly means it in his heart-and if someone truly believes it he will follow Gods commandments the best he can. Lets take another example - Jesus says that what we do to the least of these (talking about Children) we do unto him. I'm sorry for those who believe that killing unborn babies is a choice. I don't think you can get anymore corrupt than that. Do I believe that God will judge those who choose to mistreat their "slaves", those that beat them, raped them, and treated them as animals- Yes I do - the Bible teaches that we are to treat others better than ourselves, put others first, pay people what is owed to them- does that sound like the Jesus is condoning Slavery to you.
Also have you been to a hospital in another country? I have and I can tell you that government ran healthcare is not all its cracked up to be. Please share with us which countries you refer to when you talk about superior healthcare systems. I would be interested in knowing your background & studies in this area.
I have read many of your blogs and you seem to attack using the exact wording of the media & our government like a copycat. If you are as educated as you think you are then please have a conversation that isn't just regurgitating things we have all heard over 100 times. Not all of us believe what we see on t.v.
jomama in those days people would sell them selves into slavery by there own free will and God gave vary specific guidelines fore slave owners to fallow. Slavery wasn't to be permanent. I was a way to pay off a debt or a way to survive a extreme drought.
Deuteronomy 15:12-16 12 If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves you six years, in the seventh year you must let him go free. 13 And when you release him, do not send him away empty-handed. 14 Supply him liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to him as the LORD your God has blessed you. 15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you. That is why I give you this command today. 16 But if your servant says to you, "I do not want to leave you," because he loves you and your family and is well off with you, 17 then take an awl and push it through his ear lobe into the door, and he will become your servant for life. Do the same for your maidservant.
5Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, 8because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.
9And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.
Tara - Sorry to break it to you but slavery was condoned by god. Even gave rules about who you could enslave. Phil think everyone sold themselves voluntarily into slavery but the fact is most people were enslaved against their will.
"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves." - Leviticus 25:44
The bible is full of violence towards unbelievers and believers, cruelty, and absurdities.
"On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the LORD for the uncleanness of her discharge." - Leviticus 15:19-30
Do you sacrifice pigeons to atone for you uncleanliness?
Back to healthcare, here are the countries with better healthcare systems than ours...
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
I've been to see a doctor in London and it was a completely pleasant experience.
I'm not sure what you are accusing me of copying and I realize you're probably resistant to facts. But if you think something I've said is incorrect please be more specific.
Yes the verses you quoted were guidelines that God gave the Israelites regarding Slavery. Was this God's plan from the beginning - no just like divorce was not God's plan either but because of peoples stubbornness He to had to give guidelines on this too. My God is not some pansy who will just cater to our beliefs of how things should be- He will punish those who deserve it, he will keep promises he makes and he warns us about those. Now slavery became a punishment for sin- murder to be exact. Genesis 15:13-15 is a promise from God to Cain, who murdered his brother, that his descendants would be enslaved for 400 years. The Israelites themselves who were God's chosen people turned away from God on several occasions and God allowed them to be enslaved as well. God did not command slavery - allowed -Yes with guidelines!!!
What I love about people like you is that you love to pull single passages out of the Bible to make God look evil - there are things I don't completely understand esp. in the ancient laws but when the Bible is read as a whole- then it becomes clearer of who God is and what His desire is. What you neglect to recognize is that the Bible is history the good & the bad- God does not cause the bad- we do - just look around and you will see evil, selfishness, abuse, abortion which is murder, slander, hatred, the list goes on. Now tell me would an uncaring God give His own Son for people like that? Jesus came into the world to teach us how we should live & to die for our sins. He forgave me so NO I don't have to sacrifice doves anymore. I dare you to read the New Testament. Show me in there where God is evil and uncaring. Show me where he takes my freedom away. Show me where he says to enslave people and treat them poorly.
Also there are many ancient rituals and practices still in place within our secular world, amongst those that did not believe in God that far outreach the violence you speak of. Don't pretend that other religions and those who claim no god haven't done horrendous things to people in the past- and never where their guidelines to keep them from misusing their power.
Tara - Nowadays we know that slavery is wrong. Even getting your slaves "from the nations around you" is wrong. That was a pretty messed up guideline. We also know that there's nothing wrong with having your period and that there should never have been any reason to do that to "atone". We also know that it would be wrong to enslave someone's descendant's for 400 years for something their ancestor did. We also know that it would be wrong to enslave people just because they don't follow your religion. In fact we know that allowing slavery at all is wrong.
This god caused plenty of bad towards innocent people. Wiping out entire cities full of innocent men, women, and children according to the bible.
I'm not sure what your point is about the New Testament is. As if god got less crazy all the sudden. But there's plenty of messed up stuff there too.
Exodus 21:17 "And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death."
Here's some Luke..
12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
12:52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.
12:53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
Corinthians 10:8 Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.
23,000 killed for having sex. Wow, that's mean.
I never claimed there was no violence outside of christianity. I'm pointing out that it would be silly to religion in the healthcare discussion though given how absurd much of it is.
I do believe that Jesus would be for everyone having access to healthcare though.
Phil . . . To one of you comments, (Witnessing) Priceless! Ohhhh ,happy Day! Shout to the Lord no no no, I mean really SHOUT! Hallelujah (~!~!~). . . Good God my sweet Lord, I do Love thee . . . How sweet are the feet of them that bring good news, “OUR GOD Reigns, our God reigns. Good job Phil. Cgoyetta . . . I like that you believe in God, and Jesus, and that error is due to things within us; I agree religion has caused many to miss God, and that it has misrepresented God, and often leads away from God, and has abused money and God’s tithe. Yes, there will be a unity or ‘oneness’ of all believers. Yet Melchisedec met Abraham and Abraham gave him tithe, centuries before the Law was given. God has always reserved a portion for himself; in the garden it was—have anything you want---just don’t touch this one tree. God tithed by giving us Jesus. Jesus gave his life, forever to remain in human form; The Holy Spirit gave us gifts; it’s a pattern. But also, God gives us bold and precious promises if we enter into him with our first-fruits, or in these days, income. There is no perfect church on earth---but it’s your responsibility to find the best one you can. Watch Daystar. Right now, I sense God moving me to a new church. But I will still love the old church. And Jesus---the angel carried the word to Mary, which then, without the angel doing anything but speaking and ‘giving’ the word to her, enter into her and fertilized an egg. God’s word is literally, God’s sperma. The word of God is the seed of God. God’s word is living and quick----not to be understood by the natural mind, for it says the natural mind cannot understand the things of the Spirit, for they are spiritually discerned. But whenever we turn to the Lord, then the veil is lifted, and we can see God with our heart, by the spirit. Those who worship him must must must worship him in Spirit and in truth. Why is it so important to worship specifically that way? Because our flesh cannot glorify God---it is utterly sinful---infected with a mortal disease—sin. Which is why Jesus said, all who ask the Father, will he not freely give the Holy Spirit to all who ask? Not to put you down, but to lift you up, CG. Jesus is the Lamb of God on the throne of God and has carried his blood to THE mercy seat in heaven. Heaven IS the presence of Christ. Joey . . . God, in trying to help humans understand him, explained that “He is from everlasting to everlasting.” He “inhabits” eternity. He exists in and of Himself---he needs nothing. But he created us, because He knew how good it would be for all of us to get to know Him! I haven’t known God my whole life. I used to curse like a filthy sailor when I was young teenager. I thank God God had patience and mercy and brought me to repentance. I know Hell is real. Joey . . . what you fail to realize is JESUS is our victory. Who having abolished death, is sitting at the right hand of the Father. He has called us out of the world, (the same world that lays in the lap of the devil, yes, Joey, there is a real devil) and into the kingdom of light, which is also the kingdom of his dear son. BTW: we all know Jesus personally. Use rational thought and stop reacting with your programmed training and you can become a spiritual creature too. There is a spiritual universe surrounding the physical universe. You just can’t see it with a microscope. God is Love---God is a Spirit---those who worship must worship him in Spirit and truth. Our flesh can neither enter heaven or worship God. Which is why he has given us himself, and his Holy Spirit. Because without it and him inside us, we could never be with him.
Joey . . . If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. Jesus Christ . . . John 14:23. You really must receive God to understand spiritual truths. Bw . . . awesome comment. Thanks for putting so much work into it. Hope you find Jesus, the hidden treasure of every universe . . . Who having abolished death . . . and making peace through the blood of the cross, has sat down at the right hand of the Father on high. Who’s kingdom is coming. The blood of Jesus is exclusively the only way to find peace with God---and that’s not religion. Betty . . . the good thing about Washington DC is that it’s a small place and could have its head pinched off relatively easily. I mean, just think, these dumb f . . .ks couldn’t even find the footage of a 50 some odd foot tall jetliner 200 some odd feet wide fold itself into a hole much smaller, aprox. 25’X45’ (The Pentagon missile strike) With like . . . 24 surveillance cameras watching in rapt 24/7 mode. . . . oh yeah, and it happened about an hour after High ALERT! What, the F-15 pilots had to take a potty break????? Awe, just go watch: http://freedocumentaries.org/teatro.php?filmID=147 It’s called, 9/11 Mysteries: Demolitions. Maybe you knew those world trade center buildings were pulled. (Techno term for controlled demolition. They were designed to withstand a Boeing 707 [biggest jet around back then] hitting them by accident.) Steel doesn’t melt in an open source fire, otherwise all our stoves and furnaces would be useless! Too much smoke, too. Smoldering fires aren’t very hot as fires go. And watch Building 7 get demo’ed. Every single steel reinforced concrete column fails exactly at the same time . . . as if by . . . magic. Or demolition charges. Rosalie . . . The two party political scam being staged in America has long since left the will of the people. L O N G since. They have sold us down the river. Our dollar will soon become of zero value. Every fiat currency does. Then the poop will well and truly hit the fan. It’s all about a New World Order, just like it says on the dollar bill. Novus ordure Secularum. Then they will tell the people to cede everything the constitution stands for, and they will do it because they will have been without heat, lights, water and food for a week. What they get is a country where your rights, freedoms and liberties have vanished. No freedom of speech, no right to defend your life or your property, no right to be free. Just a slave planet. Or in the vernacular of today, just a bunch of beggarly complacent deceived obedient socialists. Er, I mean work force. Tara . . . remind him of the year of Jubilee, when every slave was let free! (Or if he wanted to, he could actually ask to stay.) And the seventh year release also. But joey’s problem is maybe explained best by Joyce Meyers---God set things up this way so the smart-alecks wouldn’t figure it out. Why should God forgive you Joey?
Damn Keviny - You say type so much without actually saying anything at all of substance. It's like you've ceased all logical and rational thought and just spew out some programmed stuff.
I liked "God’s word is literally, God’s sperma". Damn that actually made me laugh! :) Funny stuff.
The fear tactics were pretty funny too "no heat, lights, water and food for a week, rights, freedoms and liberties have vanished, freedom of speech, no right to defend your life or your property, slave planet, blah blah blah.."
You know, because that's what happened in all those other countries with successful government run healthcare of some sort. *rolleyes*
You think it is silly joemama. Well what about the abortions that American tax dollars will pay for. and don't tell me its not in there because it is. Here is some little known religious history. God destroyed nations because of this including Sodom and Gomorra with good reason.
DMONIC ROOTS OF ABORTION
Abortion on demand is the demonic Baal worship of modern times. King Ahab and Queen Jezebel led the Israelites in Baal worship and the sacrifice of children in the Old Testament. Ahaz went so far as to burn "his son as an offering" to Baal/Moloch, as did Manasseh (see 2 Kings 16:3; 21:6). Why would people make such terrible decisions? It was believed that human sacrifice to Baal held the key to prosperity. Therefore, selfish people desiring to live in prosperity and ease brought their firstborn child to the high priest, where scholars say the child would be offered as a burnt offering to the deity.
The altar of Baal was in the image of a bull with the head and shoulders of a man. Its arms extended outward and fire belched out from a hole in the chest. The priest of Baal placed the babies on the outstretched arms, where the child would be rolled into the fire. As the child died, the priest and priestess engaged in sexual intercourse, while an orgy occurred among the onlookers.
Recently, archaeologists unearthed a Baal cemetery containing the remains of more than twenty thousand children. The Greek author Kleitarchos described the practice of sacrificing infants to Baal three hundred years before Christ:
"Out of reverence for Kronos [Baal], the Phoenicians, and especially the Carthaginians, whenever they seek to obtain some great favor, vow one of their children, burning it as a sacrifice to the deity, if they are especially eager to gain success. There stands in their midst a bronze statue of Kronos, its hands extended over a bronze brazier, the flames of which engulf the child. When the flames fall on the body, the limbs contract and the open mouth seems almost to be laughing, until the contracted body slips quietly into the brazier."
Ancients were led by Satan to kill their children for personal convenience and gain, while engaging in promiscuity. Modern Baal worshipers-a.k.a. abortionists-slaughter millions of unborn babies every year for the same reasons. Do such abortionists care for the welfare of the mother? Do they warn of the increased risk of cancer? Absolutely not.
Abortion is covered in the health bill, yes... but it will not be covered using "tax payer dollars". It will use the premiums paid by those choosing the public option.
Reading is fun.
I believe talking down to others on the Internet is also a practice of worshippers of Baal. So, Phil, I guess this makes us both worshippers of Baal. Welcome, brother.
This is the whole passage. once again your talking about things that you don't understand
49"I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed! 51Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."
Verses 49-50 are found only in Luke. The two verses are parallel to each other with emphatic nouns placed first. Both verses end with exclamations. The word "fire" is metaphorical and is explained in verses 51-53. It involves His suffering and death and the Gospel which brings this message to men. If Christ had never come, there would have been no fire.
The whole verse means: "Fire I have come to cast on the earth and how I wish that it were already kindled!:
Fahling: The fire of a new faith, creating burning enthusiasm among some and fierce antagonism among others, deplorable, but inevitable, and the sooner kindled, the better. Arndt: The clashes that would be caused by the Gospel, some people rejecting, others accepting it and even its friends opposing one another in their interpretation of its meaning. Jesus, of course, does not mean to say that it is His wish that there should be dissension and strife. He is rather speaking of the actual results of His message. The second part of verse 49 shows the anxiety of Jesus with which He views His coming death. It is similar to John 12:27 or to His prayer in Gethsemane. He shudders but He does not shrink.
Luke 12:50 But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed!
Here we have a second metaphor. He is speaking of His baptism of blood, His crucifixion, and death. Look at Mark 10:38.
Arndt: This is one of the fairly numerous statements in which Jesus predicts His Passion. Whenever He thought of it, sorrow assailed Him. . . . He wishes the task would soon be accomplished. Literally He says: "Baptism have I to be baptized with, and how I am afflicted until it is accomplished." "It is finished" is the same verb as "accomplished." He faces an ordeal. He shudders but does not shrink.
Luke 12:51 Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division.
Note the parallel thoughts spoken by Jesus in Matthew 10:34-36. There we have a prohibition. Here a question.
"Peace" means the kind of peace which humans desire, the total absence of trouble. Even Christians mistakenly look for a life of complete peace at home, in the church, and elsewhere. "On earth" is another indication of this false sort of peace which people long for. Jesus is not contradicting the many passage in which He promises and gives repentant sinners the peace of God. Look at John 14:27. He assures His own of peace, but not as the world gives peace. In his conscience the believer is constantly at peace with God. But that will not make life a heaven on earth. The prospect of millennial dreams is shattered here by Jesus. He answers His own question with a sharp: "Definitely not!"
Arndt: Strife would come; the Gospel would meet with bitter enmity. Jesus preached Law to show man his sinfulness. Read John 15:22-25. If the Word had not been preached, the world would have gone on undisturbed. But the preaching of the Word causes divisions, not because of God or because of the Word, but because of the utter sinfulness of man.
Luke 12:52 From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three.
This is an explanation. Verses 52-53 explain what Jesus means by division or dissension. By the way the word "divided against" occurs often, making the idea quite prominent.
"There shall from now on be five in one house divided." He is not saying on which side the two or the three are. The emphasis is on the word "divided against."
Luke 12:53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."
The picture is of a family of five: father, mother, daughter, son, and son's wife. The mother and the mother-in-law are the same person. The bride of son's wife has come to live with the family. The point is division. Jesus does not indicate whether the two or the three are on His side. Nor is He saying that the younger generation is against the older generation. And what is typical in the family is found everywhere. Look at Luke 2:34 and 2 Corinthians 2:15f.
Some acknowledge the Gospel as true, others not. On Calvary the cross in the middle divided the believing from the unbelieving wrong doer. The Gospel is a "scandal," a hateful thing, to the unbeliever. How true is not the observation in Acts 14:22. Follow Paul on his missionary journeys. Almost everywhere he went, his enemies stirred up trouble, blaming everything on Paul and the Gospel. Division, division, division!
Arndt: Even the Gospel's friends oppose one another in their interpretation of its meaning. How true! I am not always right and there are time when I hate someone simply because he does not agree with me but later I see that he was right. I must beseech God's mercy and repent.
Luther: When Christ foresaw in the spirit that a great disturbance and revolution in the world would follow His preaching, He comforted Himself this way: 'I came to cast fire upon the earth; and would that it were already kindled!' Thus we see today that because of the persecution and blasphemy of our opponents and the contempt and ingratitude of the world many evils follow upon the preaching of the Gospel. This bothers us so much that we often think, according to the flesh, that it would have been better if the teaching of godliness had never been circulated and peace had been preserved than that the public peace would be disturbed as it has been since it was made public. But according to the Spirit, we courageously declare with Christ: 'I came to cast fire upon the earth; and would that it were already kindled!' Once this fire has been kindled, great upheavals immediately arise. For it is not some king of emperor but the god of this world, 2 Corinthians 4:4, who is provoked; and he is a powerful spirit and the lord of the whole world. Our only protection midst all this sin and division in the world is a Word of Jesus, such as John 16:33: "These things I have spoken to you so that in My you might have peace. In the world you have tribulation but be of good courage, I have overcome the world.
Data and Facts (from Phil) have been presented to you in regards to the foolishness associated with a nationalized healthcare system...
Would you please take time to respond to those facts? Also, where in the U.S. Constitution is the appropriation of funds for nationalized healthcare? Most "debaters" despise dealing with facts because they are oh so inconvenient. Most make many assertions hoping that the repetition of said assertions will validate its content.
I, and others I would assume, await your factual dispute of those facts.
I'd rather not, because those "facts" are just predictions, speculation, forecasting, and opinions.
If I say "It is a FACT that gravity pulls things toward Earth. Therefore, if I left go of object X, it will fall towards the Earth." The first statement is a fact (for the most part)... but the second part is speculation which needs more information. If object X is a helium balloon, it clearly won't "fall towards the Earth" (except after it pops). If object X is tied to a rope which is tied to the ceiling, it won't drop.
So, what Phil has provided were facts mixed in with various hypotheses. While those hypotheses are intelligent and well thought out and may have some statistical graphs to back them up, it does not mean they are a guaranteed predictor of the future.
Years ago, I was a Statistical Analyst and this entailed the act of forecasting. The biggest problem with forecasting is if your forecasting model is crap, the predictions are crap. You can't just say things like "I flipped a coin seven times and it came up heads all seven times. So, if I flip it an eighth time, it will clearly come up heads." You also can't say "I flipped a coin seven times and it came up heads all seven times. So, if I flip it an eighth time, it clearly has a much greater chance turning up tails than heads." The reality is, on the eighth flip, the coin has a 50/50 chance of coming up either heads or tails. (50/50 assumes perfect conditions, which are nearly impossible, but good enough for this point)
So, all I am saying is that while Phil MAY be right... and while Phil MAY be listening to the right opinions, I disagree. I do not believe the predictions Phil claims are the reality. I have a different forecasting model which tells me that Phil's forecasting model is wrong.
That's the problem with opinions masquerading as "facts".
joemama stop pretending to know what your saying about God. You don't understand what you are talking about and you are going to get yourself into a lot of trouble. God is hearing every word you say and sees every word you right.
Cain's generations were curst because of Cain's philosophy of living and he taught it to his children and his children taught it to there children keeping that same philosophy onto the 400th year. He opposed Gods instructions and philosophy of living therefore heaping the curse upon himself and his future generations. God was just informing him what the consequences of his actions would be.
Even when he killed Able His brother. God had mercy on him. He placed a mark on his head instructing no one to kill him or face gods wrath.
Back then the Gene pool wasn't as shallow as it is today. Adam lived close to 1000 years and it went down from there. It wasn't uncommon for someone to live for 800 years back then.
Your own philosophy of living will betray you just like Cain if you don't stop this foolish philosophy you live by. Im not condemning you Im just warning you. I advise you to listen because unlike Cain you don't have 800 years to get right with God and the consequences for you may be worse them Cain's
Yes it is in there. they have worded it in a way to throw people off the sent but later they laid provisions for it. loop holes make it possible to get Tax Payers money to pay for them. Joe mama you don't want to acknowledge the facts that I posted because they are correct. They were written by people a lot more educated then you or me and make perfect sense. Deny them all you want. It wont make them any less true.
BLOOD MONEY
In 1973 abortion on demand became legal with the landmark Roe vs. Wade decision. Abortion clinics immediately sprung up across the United States, fostering a blood-money industry capable of producing annual revenues in the tens of millions. One clinic employee admitted recently that she made an average of thirteen thousand dollars per month based on a commission of twenty-five dollars per abortion. She compared her job responsibilities to a phone-in boiler room, where each employee sat at a booth answering calls. When a distraught young lady called in, a sales script was read that had been designed to overcome any obstacle that stood in the way of an abortion. The caller was encouraged to come in for "counseling," and to bring the payment for the abortion with her. Once the abortion was performed, the saleswoman received a twenty-five dollar commission. The idea is simple. Used car salesmen and con artists have employed the same system for years.
Is the past not a good indicator of future performance? I realize it does not guarantee success or failure, but doesn't it give validity to phil's hypotheses?
In regards to health care, doesn't past performance of nationalized health care (or just about any other nationalized entity) result in inefficieny, cost overuns, and scope creepage? (I am gov't worker :( I observe it everyday)
The evidence is preponderous for not nationalizing anything.
Typically, when evidence is rejected, a person has willfully chosen to not accept the evidence for one reason or another. No longer is it a matter of logic, rather it is now of the will.
Could you present your evidence that supports a different future for us, the citizens of the U.S.?
Subject: Sarah By Dewie Whetsell, Alaskan Fisherman. As posted in comments on Greta's article referencing the MOVEON ad about Sarah Palin.
The last 45 of my 66 years I've spent in a commercial fishing town in Alaska . I understand Alaska politics but never understood national politics well until this last year. Here's the breaking point: Neither side of the Palin controversy gets it. It's not about persona, style, rhetoric, it's about doing things. Even Palin supporters never mention the things that I'm about to mention here.
1- Democrats forget when Palin was the Darling of the Democrats, because as soon as Palin took the Governor's office away from a fellow Republican and tough SOB, Frank Murkowski, she tore into the Republican's "Corrupt Bastards Club" (CBC) and sent them packing. Many of them are now residing in State housing and wearing orange jump suits The Democrats reacted by skipping around the yard, throwing confetti and singing, "la la la la" (well, you know how they are). Name another governor in this country that has ever done anything similar.
2- Now with the CBC gone, there were fewer Alaskan politicians to protect the huge, giant oil companies here. So she constructed and enacted a new system of splitting the oil profits called "ACES." Exxon (the biggest corporation in the world) protested and Sarah told them, "don't let the door hit you in the stern on your way out." They stayed, and Alaska residents went from being merely wealthy to being filthy rich Of course, the other huge international oil companies meekly fell in line. Again, give me the name of any other governor in the country that has done anything similar.
3- The other thing she did when she walked into the governor's office is she got the list of State requests for federal funding for projects, known as "pork." She went through the list, took 85% of them and placed them in the "when-hell-freezes-over" stack. She let locals know that if we need something built, we'll pay for it ourselves. Maybe she figured she could use the money she got from selling the previous governor's jet because it was extravagant Maybe she could use the money she saved by dismissing the governor's cook (remarking that she could cook for her own family), giving back the State vehicle issued to her, maintaining that she already had a car, and dismissing her State provided security force (never mentioning - I imagine - that she's packing heat herself). I'm still waiting to hear the names of those other governors.
4- Now, even with her much-ridiculed "gosh and golly" mannerism, she also managed to put together a totally new approach to getting a natural gas pipeline built which will be the biggest private construction project in the history of North America. No one else could do it although they tried. If that doesn't impress you, then you're trying too hard to be unimpressed while watching her do things like this while baking up a batch of brownies with her other hand..
5- For 30 years, Exxon held a lease to do exploratory drilling at a place called Point Thompson. They made excuses the entire time why they couldn't start drilling. In truth they were holding it like an investment. No governor for 30 years could make them get started... This summer, she told them she was revoking their lease and kicking them out. They protested and threatened court action. She shrugged and reminded them that she knew the way to the court house. Alaska won again.
6- President Obama wants the nation to be on 25% renewable resources for electricity by 2025. Sarah went to the legislature and submitted her plan for Alaska to be at 50% renewables by 2025. We are already at 25%. I can give you more specifics about things done, as opposed to style and persona Everybody wants to be cool, sound cool, look cool. But that's just a cover-up. I'm still waiting to hear from liberals the names of other governors who can match what mine has done in two and a half years. I won't be holding my breath.
By the way, she was content to return to AK after the national election and go to work, but the haters wouldn't let her. Now these adolescent screechers are obviously not scuba divers. And no one ever told them what happens when you continually jab and pester a barracuda. Without warning, it will spin around and tear your face off. Shoulda known better.
You have just read the truth about Sarah Palin that sends the media, along with the democrat party, into a wild uncontrolled frenzy to discredit her. I guess they are only interested in skirt chasers, dishonesty, immoral people, liars, womanizers, murderers, and bitter ex-presidents' wives.
So "You go, Girl." I only wish the men in Washington had your guts, determination, honesty, and morals.
I rest my case. Only FOOLS listen to the biased media. If you've read this far ...............................................
First Lady Michelle Obama's Servant List & Pay Scale First Lady Requires More Than Twenty Attendants
1. $172,2000 - Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff) 2. $140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C .. (Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady) 3. $113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G (Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary) 4. $102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (Special Assistant to the President and Director of Communications for the First Lady) 5. $100,000 - Winter, Melissa E. (Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady) 6. $90,000 - Medina , David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady) 7. $84,000 - Lelyveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady) 8. $75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady) 9. $70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady) 10. $65,000 - Burnough, Erinn J. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary) 11. $64,000 - Reinstein, Joseph B. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary) 12. $62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator For The First Lady) 13. $60,000 - Fitts, Alan O. (Deputy Dir ector of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady) 14. $57,500 - Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady) 15. $52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary To The First Lady) 16. $50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special=2 0Assistant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide To The First Lady) 17. $45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For The First Lady) 18. $43,000 - Tubman, Samantha (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office) 19. $40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First Lady) 20. $36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary) 21. $35,000 - Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant) 22. $35,000 - Jackson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady)
There has NEVER been anyone in the White House at any time who has created such an army of staffers whose sole duties are the facilitation of the First Lady's social life. One wonders why she needs so much help, at taxpayer expense, when even Hillary, only had three; Jackie Kennedy one; Laura Bush one; and prior to Mamie Eisenhower social help came from the President's own pocket.
Note: This does not include makeup artist Ingrid Grimes-Miles, 49, and "First Hairstylist" Johnny Wright, 31, both of whom traveled aboard Air Force One to Europe .
@joemama *cry* had a good post for you and it got lost in the ether...so now the short version...
The WHO report does not reflect the values of the peoples of the United States as set forth in its governmental document, The U.S. Constitution.
The WHO report presupposes that the "[u]ltimate responsibility for the performance of a country's health system lies with government".
The U.S., and others that emulate her type of governance, will never perform well when it is in contrast to their basic tenants.
This report is sort of like a report on square-shaped burgers being the best way to provide burgers. Wendys would perform fantastically, the others, not so good. So does that mean the others don't provide good burger service?
The WHO report is self admittedly inaccurate and unreliable: the collection of data has been "hampered by the weakness of routine information systems and insufficient attention to research". When reliable data wasn't available, they "developed [data] through a variety of techniques".
Different countries have different standards. For example, live birth to one nation isn’t a birth at all to another...kinda skews the infant mortality rate doesn't it?
For these and many more discrepancies, the WHO report is not a credible source of data.
Sorry about the disjointedness of this post...the other was a whopper! (no pun intended)
This is one of those things were that old saying 'If you don't learn from history you are destined to repeat it' or something like that. And from history I have learned.
Something to Consider
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot lift the wage earner by tearing down the wage payer.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more then your income.
You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they would and should do for themselves. Abraham Lincoln
No one here knows my story nor I anyone who has posted here. What I do know, from reading the posts, is there is alot of finger pointing and laying of blame for what others perceive as wrongs, for how we arrived here. The United States consistently reinvents herself from generation to generation. Now that works as long as the foundation remains intact, sadly our foundation has some breaks and is getting weak. Who is to blame is not nearly as important as how it happened and how to fix it. And for me that is what this cartoon is saying the United States is after all WE THE PEOPLE right?
Thank you Tom G, SannD, kevin and the rest of you out there for standing up. We all have to stand up to ignorant Communist liberals. whether or not they intend to destroy American liberty and freedom or not they are still doing it. We must all open our eyes to there deception and band against them if we wish to keep this nation free. So take the pledge with us
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands: one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Boy, how short are people's mind today...if you look back at history start with the Reagan yrs..that started the demise of our economy with Reaganomics,doing away with Tariff taxes, the demise of unions (sure they did alot to themselfs) ah but don't forget Iran-Contra afffair etc..the came Sr. who also did much of the same, as with CLinton with the so called NAFTA crap which needs to be repealed ASAP, the Bush jr. who also did the same with CAFTA and so-on...I agree even this Pres. has no BALLS as with Congress, they all cater to Multi-National Corps. etc for $$$ for re-election etc...the hell with middle class,,I can go on and on,,but People better start waking up and smell the roses...we are in VERY DEEP CRAP
Boy, how short are people's mind today...if you look back at history start with the Reagan yrs..that started the demise of our economy with Reaganomics,doing away with Tariff taxes, the demise of unions (sure they did alot to themselfs) ah but don't forget Iran-Contra afffair etc..the came Sr. who also did much of the same, as with CLinton with the so called NAFTA crap which needs to be repealed ASAP, the Bush jr. who also did the same with CAFTA and so-on...I agree even this Pres. has no BALLS as with Congress, they all cater to Multi-National Corps. etc for $$$ for re-election etc...the hell with middle class,,I can go on and on,,but People better start waking up and smell the roses...we are in VERY DEEP CRAP
January 16, 2007 The four pillars of Reaganomics by Arthur Laffer WebMemo #1311 The following is Arthur Laffer's November 13 address to members of The Heritage Foundation's President's Club at the fall 2006 President's Club meeting, held at the Ronald Reagan International Trade Center in Washington, DC.
You know, one thing I always loved, Ed, was when I followed Milton Friedman to the podium I could actually raise the microphones.
Seriously, it's really a pleasure being here with all of you tonight. Ed, what you have done with Heritage, you and Phil, it just—it boggles the mind, the contribution you've made. It's a real honor to be here with all of you. [Applause.]
I'm going to follow the advice of one of my mentors, a professor of mine—and I was the chairman of his advisory board when he was senator from the state of California—a man named Sam Hayakawa. Do all of you remember him? He was great, but he gave me one piece of advice which I am going to follow this evening, which he said, "Arthur, never speak beyond the capacity of the audience's bladder. No matter how important your message, they just won't hear it." [Laughter.]
So I will keep these comments short this evening, but I do want you to know that I have been very fortunate all of my life. I've been truly blessed. I've been a fly on the wall of history. I've been just so many lucky places just by chance and serendipity and obviously a huge portion of that serendipity had to do with my relationship with the real president, Ronald Reagan.
My godfather was a man named Justin Dart. Some of you may remember Justin Dart. [Applause.] My younger son's name is Justin, named after Justin Dart. I was executor of his estate and he was my godfather. I first really got time to spend with Ronald Reagan with Justin Dart personally one-on-one.
I'm going to start off with one story, one Reagan story, which was at the Beverly Hills Hotel, and I think it was 1979, maybe early 1980. There were about 10 of us at the table and it was just a policy discussion, and Dick Allen was there—do you all remember Dick Allen? [Applause.] Phenomenal person. He was Reagan's first National Security Advisor. The Governor at the time said, "Dick, we've got a group here and we're just going to have a conversation, but what I'd like you to do is start that conversation. Would you mind sort of telling all of us what the thrust of U.S. policy has been in the post-World War II era?" And Dick, as all of you may remember, had a real pension for humor. He said, "Mr. Governor," he said, "I'd be glad to tell sort of a rendition of the history post World War II of the United States. Basically we did two things, Governor. We harassed our friends and we cajoled our enemies." [Laughter.] And with that Ronald Reagan looked up and said, "My goodness, what was that, Dick?" And he said, "Sir, we've cajoled our enemies, and we've harassed our friends." And he said, "My goodness, what have been the consequences of those policies?" And Dick Allen looked up with a smirk on his face and he said, "Sir, we have almost no friends left but we have lots of enemies." And Reagan couldn't hold the comment back and he said, and I'm going to quote it, and I think this is a direct quote, he said, "Well, Dick, I guess we're just going to have to reverse those policies, now aren't we? We're going to have to scare the bajeebers out of our enemies with Star Wars and we're going to have to make our friends stinking rich with supply-side economics."
At that moment, I knew that we had won the Third World War, period. It was a huge, huge change. If you look at the thrust that we're looking at tonight and the history, there were four basic areas of economics that Reagan pushed. All of you know these pushes, but I want to go through them because all four were the cornerstones of what we now know of Reaganomics.
Sound money. Sound money is the sine qua non of a prosperous society. Do any of you remember what the prime interest rate was when we came into office on January 20th, 1981? The prime interest rate was 21-and-a-half percent. Can any of you imagine what the U.S. would look like today with a 21-and-a-half percent? When you look at the long bond today, the long bond today is at four-and-a-half; that is the legacy of Ronald Reagan and Paul Volcker in seriatim.
We all know the taxes, what he did with taxes. When Reagan came into office, the highest federal marginal income tax rate was 70 percent on unearned income. By the way, some of you know it's a lot more difficult to earn unearned income than it is earned income. [Laughter.] Reagan dropped the highest federal marginal income tax rates from 70 percent to 28 percent. He cut the corporate tax rates, he indexed the personal tax codes, changing forever the taxes. Do you realize—I mean, it's just amazing that I'm going on 67 years old today and the taxes on the ownership of capital are the lowest they have been in my lifetime. [Applause.] And that is because of Ronald Reagan and the supply side move that he and others have done.
If you look at regulations, the third pillar of Reaganomics—supply side economics—what he did for regulations, not just taking that big stack of papers of the Federal Registers—do you remember that? Do you remember when he dropped it, the thump that went on the table? I mean, it was a phenomenally impressive thing, not only for him to have lifted it, but also for him to have reduced it. I don't know which one was the greater challenge, but both were Herculean.
Today, because of Ronald Reagan, the minimum wage in the United States—the minimum wage relative to the average wage in the United States is the lowest it's been in 50 years. It doesn't get any better.
But let me tell you that today, because of Ronald Reagan, the minimum wage in the United States—the minimum wage relative to the average wage in the United States is the lowest it's been in 50 years. It doesn't get any better. As all of you know, the minimum wage is the black teenage unemployment act. It is the guaranteed way of holding the poor, the minorities and the disenfranchised out of the mainstream is if you price their original services too high. Ronald Reagan recognized the deleterious affects of that and really did not allow that minimum wage to rise.
Another one that he did on regulations: do any of you remember the air traffic controllers? [Applause.] Do you remember what he did? He fired them. And he wouldn't let them work for government again. Since that time, union membership in the United States has gone from well above 30 percent to down around 12 to 14 percent. [Applause.] That is Ronald Reagan's legacy. The third pillar was regulations.
The fourth pillar, which I really want to talk to you tonight because it's a critical pillar of Reaganomics and supply side economics, and it is one of the issues that Ronald Reagan wanted to solve more than anything, and that has to do with the United States economy in the global economy. The United States is a nation located in the global economy and we get enormous, enormous benefits from dealing with foreigners.
Ronald Reagan wanted free trade more than anything. If you look at this issue today, in 1930, we passed—the United States passed with Herbert Hoover as President, and signed into law—something called the Smoot-Hawley Tariff. That tariff put tariff duties on imported products at the highest level they have virtually ever been. It was the precursor of the Great Depression. If you follow that legislation, it goes through the House Committees and the Senate Committees, you can see the stock market collapses. Those tariffs were the highest they've been. Since the Smoot-Hawley Tariff passed, in this country we have reduced tax rates on traded products and Ronald Reagan was a major reducer of those taxes on traded products. In fact, it was Ronald Reagan, as you all know, who sponsored NAFTA. We couldn't get it passed, but we sponsored NAFTA. It took Bill Clinton to switch and go against his own party, against the unions, to push that through. But Ronald Reagan pushed for NAFTA and pushed for lowering tariffs. Today in the United States, customs duties per dollar of import are the lowest they have been in a thousand years because of Ronald Reagan—literally the lowest.
You know, if you saw a store that sold you high quality products at low cost, is your first thought, "How can I boycott that store?" [Laughter.] I don't think so. You know, trade is an integral part of the U.S. prosperity and the U.S. position in the world economy is critical. You know, without China there is no Wal-Mart and without Wal-Mart there is no middle class and lower class prosperity in the United States. [Applause.]
In addition to free trade on products and free trade is essential for supply side economics and Reaganomics, in addition to trade on products, is outsourcing. There are some things we do better than Indians, and there are some things they do better than we do. We and they would be foolish in the extreme if we didn't do those things for them that we do better than they do, and they do those things for us that they do better than we do. We win and they win. It's a plus-plus for the world. [Applause.] And just remember, every dollar we spend on outsourcing is spent on U.S. goods or invested back in the U.S. market. That's accounting.
The third one I want to touch on, because I remember Ronald Reagan being so strong on this issue, and it also has to do with the U.S. and the global economy, and I'm going to say it in my style tonight and I hope I don't hurt anyone's feelings when I do, but it's immigration. Immigration is the life's blood of the U.S. economy. [Applause.]
I have on my desk in my office, I have a book, a set of books that was brought by my great-grandfather from Prussia to the United States. It was his cherished possession. It was the collected works of Frederic Schiller done in old German script, leather-bound. As you probably all know, I'm an ancestor worshiper. His name was Joseph Carl Kreisch, my great-grandfather, and he brought it over and I have it on my desk as a remembrance of my ancestors who came before. But I also have it there for another reason. If you open up the front page, it said, "Published in Philadelphia, 1852." [Laughter.]
Outsourcing is not new. Immigration is not new. Not only are these people the life's blood of America, they are, but let me just say to you tonight, on economic terms, the illegal immigrants are also the life's blood of this society. And I'm going to be hard core with you. They produce high quality labor at low cost and they cheat on their taxes. It doesn't get any better.
I'm having fun with you tonight as well, but let me just tell you that the California economy without immigrants would be a very different—you can't believe how much of what you buy and what you see and what you do is influenced by immigration in this wonderful, wonderful country of ours.
The last one I want to do on trade with you, and then I'll stop, is the trade deficit. You hear these mongers of fear tell you about the trade deficit and how it's ruining the world, it's the United States consuming way beyond its means with a credit card philosophy and literally putting into bondage our children in the future by the huge debt we're owing to foreigners. You all know this story, don't you? You've heard it from Warren Buffet and you've heard it from Pete Peterson, you've heard it from Bill Gates, you've heard it from everyone there that the trade deficit is a huge problem. Let me assure you it is not.
The United States today is the only developed growth country in the world. We are the only one. Living on the legacy of Ronald Reagan and those who have followed him, the United States is the only growth country in the world that is also a developed nation.
The United States today is the only developed growth country in the world. We are the only one. Living on the legacy of Ronald Reagan and those who have followed him, the United States is the only growth country in the world that is also a developed nation. It's just like a growth company. Do growth companies lend money or borrow money? They borrow money. Growth countries borrow money too. If you're a global investor for your own family, I don't care where you live, you want to have a large portion of your portfolio located in the United States.
How much do you want in Hugo Chavez's Venezuela, or in Argentina where you can get 30 cents on the dollar, or in the Middle East? Or how would you like to have it in Putin's Russia—you name it—or France, where they have a two percent wealth tax; that's a real attractive one. When you look at the world, everyone in the world who cares about his or her family wants to have a major portion of their assets in the United States because we are the growth country and the freedom loving country.
How do foreigners generate the dollar cash flow to buy U.S. located assets? There are only two ways they can do it. They've got to sell more goods to us and buy less goods from us. The U.S. trade deficit is one in the same as the U.S. capital surplus, and I want to put it to you seriously. Think of it in capital terms. Which would you rather have, capital lined up on your borders, trying to get into your country or trying to get out of your country? We are the capital magnet of this planet and we are the savior for not only people, for not only freedom, but also for capital.
The trade deficit is the capital surplus and don't ever think of having a capital surplus as being a bad thing for our country.
And if I can take you back—we have trade data that go back to the beginning of time. In fact, with Oliver Williamson's data, we have the trade balance of the U.S. going back to 1640. Let me tell you that from 1640 until 1870, that's how many years is it—is that 230 years—the U.S. ran a trade deficit, virtually each and every year for 230 years. We built our country on foreign capital and what did we do when we owed too much money to foreigners? We opened up immigration, we let them come here and then we didn't owe it to foreigners anymore. [Applause.]
The four pillars of Reaganomics are the grand territories of macroeconomics. You've got money, critical. You've got fiscal policy in taxes and governing spending, critical. You've got regulatory policy or what we call income policies in macroeconomics. And the fourth one, you have trade policy. These were the pillars of Reaganomics, these were the dreams that our president had, the real president had, and let me just say tonight, Mr. President, we all miss you very, very much. Thank you.
You say Reaganomics was the beginning of the decline of the US economy...interesting conclusions...Can you please cite specific points, reinforced with evidence, that decreased the economy of the US? Exact specifics regarding the loss of wealth? Were more private jobs created than government jobs?
As the only non-progressive president in the last hundred years or so, I think you will be hard-pressed to cite credible evidence, however, I eagerly await the evidence to support your assertions.
umm... with the whole christianity thing people are bickering about for the cartoon...what does it matter? it says you can practice whatever religion you want to (adversed to none at all, such as what was happening in Russia around the time). It also said whatever God you choose to worship, it just gave christianity as an example, anyway jews and muslims all worship the same God anyway just in different ways (recall the story of Abraham, Sara and Hagar). I guess my main advise is instead of pointing out every single politically incorrect tid-bit of this cartoon you should actually listen to the message.
Crotty you are way wrong. Christians and Jews Worship the same God. The muslims god "Allah" is the name of one of 365 gods in pagan sumer(pre islamic arabia). Mohammed dram up and plagiarized scripture from the old testament and new testament and twisted it around to be in favor of his followers. It is extremely prejudice to anyone who is not Muslim to the extreme murder of what they consider infidels. infidels: anyone who isn't Muslim. It is a plagiarized made up document. The term peaceful Muslims are simply those who do not believe in the religion and are either do not know the religion, atheist or agnostic. Islam extremists are those who believe in the religion and practice it religiously. So you see "Allah" is a mythical pagan god and behaves more like the Jews and Christians Satan then anything.
If you want to 'look back' and find where the US economy began its failure you'll have to look way before Reagan. Try the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 - that's when Congress decided to shirk its Constitutional monetary duties and turn them over to a third party. That was just one of many sad events throughout our history in which some people thought they knew better than our Founders how this Republic should function.
One might think our politicians would have learned better by now but the truth is, they haven't needed to. They won't have to until we citizens learn better. Until we demand a return to the rule of law as embodied in our Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights, our Republic can only continue to deteriorate.
Don't believe me? Just keep doing what you're doing, and watch, and see.
BenDareDunDAt The cartoon was referring to CommunISM and SocialISM. These two things are to freedom what rust is to steel. Conservatism is not a political party; it is a way of life. We believe that truth and justice are the American way. Our goal is the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We believe that we are one nation under God and not above him. We are indivisible and proud of what we believe in. We believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. We believe abortion is murder. We believe there are two kinds of racism. Discriminating against someone because of a persons skin color and Discriminating for someone because of a persons skin color. We believe that perversion of truth whether it is in thought or action is sin and should be treated as such. We are Christians who love our God and we are proud of him.
We believe in doing what is right no matter what that means. We believe you reap what you sow-meaning people should keep what they work for and work for what they keep. We believe that those who believe otherwise are the ones that should be ashamed of themselves. We will never give up our beliefs. We fight for truth and are ready to die for what we believe in. That is precisely what makes us stronger then our enemies. Make yourself heard. Do not take it from the left any longer. We stand up and fight for what we believe in. If we stick together we will take back this country and get rid of the evil that is destroying it. WE LOST THE BATTLE BUT WE WILL WIN THE WAR
Ironically, this cartoon is a magnificent advertisement for two rather terrific "ism"s, namely objectivism and libertarianism. Viva Rand! Live Free or Die!
scouzThis is not a right or left issue. It's a global transformation into a Socialist world government and it started before Bush and Obama. Lets wake up people. Our president is head of the UN security council. Nobody sees a conflict of interest here? It's also illegal for him to hold that position. He expanded on NAFTA. He expanded the war in the middle east. Gave more power to the Federal Reserve and Wall St. He supports the World Bank and a global currancy. He supports Codex Alimentarius. That's global food regulation which will over power our FDA. He also expanded on SPP or the NAU. That's why he/they throw(s) dollars around like they are toilet paper. The dollar is history.It's being used to finance this global move. Then it will be replaced. Gold and precious metals are sky rocketing and Crude Oil will follow. These are all signs of massive inflation and a tumbling currancy. Is anybody asking why the stock market is up yet unemployment is rising, the dollar dropping and the US trade deficit is at an all time high and still growing? Remember the "Stimulus Package?" It went from the Fed to the banks to Wall St and it never passed through our hands in the form of jobs or business growth.The money has been stolen by the Wall St Crooks. Some may go to the NAFTA super highway project in central US.(That's another story) Does anybody notice that there are at least 6 people from wall st in appointed positions in the Obama administration? It's all about placing power in a few hands. Guess what. It's not ours hands. Lou Dobbs just got fired for trying to tell you about this but people call him racist for wanting a sovereign nation. It's time to shut of the TVs and wake up.
This is not a right or left issue. It's a global transformation into a Socialist world government and it started before Bush and Obama. Lets wake up people. Our president is head of the UN security council. Nobody sees a conflict of interest here? It's also illegal for him to hold that position. He expanded on NAFTA. He expanded the war in the middle east. Gave more power to the Federal Reserve and Wall St. He supports the World Bank and a global currancy. He supports Codex Alimentarius. That's global food regulation which will over power our FDA. He also expanded on SPP or the NAU. That's why he/they throw(s) dollars around like they are toilet paper. The dollar is history.It's being used to finance this global move. Then it will be replaced. Gold and precious metals are sky rocketing and Crude Oil will follow. These are all signs of massive inflation and a tumbling currancy. Is anybody asking why the stock market is up yet unemployment is rising, the dollar dropping and the US trade deficit is at an all time high and still growing? Remember the "Stimulus Package?" It went from the Fed to the banks to Wall St and it never passed through our hands in the form of jobs or business growth.The money has been stolen by the Wall St Crooks. Some may go to the NAFTA super highway project in central US.(That's another story) Does anybody notice that there are at least 6 people from wall st in appointed positions in the Obama administration? It's all about placing power in a few hands. Guess what. It's not ours hands. Lou Dobbs just got fired for trying to tell you about this but people call him racist for wanting a sovereign nation. It's time to shut of the TVs and wake up.
I have a plan to fix our economy on my blog called "My Recovery Plan" Just click on my name on the upper left hand corner of this post. Click on "My Recovery Plan" and tell me what you think.
USA in 2009---what will it be in 2014...or will it even be!
Remember Lee Iacocca, the man who rescued Chrysler Corporation from its death throes? He's now 82 years old and has a new book, 'Where Have All The Leaders Gone?'.
Lee Iacocca Says:
'Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder! We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, 'Stay the course..'
Stay the course? You've got to be kidding. This is America , not the damned, 'Titanic'. I'll give you a sound bite: 'Throw all the bums out!'
You might think I'm getting senile, that I've gone off my rocker, and maybe I have. But someone has to speak up. I hardly recognize this country anymore...
The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in handcuffs.. While we're fiddling in Iraq , the Middle East is burning and nobody seems to know what to do. And the press is waving 'pom-poms' instead of asking hard questions. That's not the promise of the ' America ' my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for. I've had enough. How about you?
I'll go a step further. You can't call yourself a patriot if you're not outraged. This is a fight I'm ready and willing to have. The Biggest 'C' is Crisis! (Iacocca elaborates on nine C's of leadership, with crisis being the first.)
Leaders are made, not born. Leadership is forged in times of crisis. It's easy to sit there with your feet up on the desk and talk theory. Or send someone else's kids off to war when you've never seen a battlefield yourself. It's another thing to lead when your world comes tumbling down.
On September 11, 2001, we needed a strong leader more than any other time in our history. We needed a steady hand to guide us out of the ashes. A hell of a mess, so here's where we stand.
We're immersed in a bloody war with no plan for winning and no plan for leaving.
We're running the biggest deficit in the history of the country.
We're losing the manufacturing edge to Asia, while our once-great companies are getting slaughtered by health care costs.
Gas prices are skyrocketing, and nobody in power has a coherent energy policy. Our schools are in trouble.
Our borders are like sieves.
The middle class is being squeezed every which way.
These are times that cry out for leadership.
But when you look around, you've got to ask: 'Where have all the leaders gone?' Where are the curious, creative communicators? Where are the people of character, courage, conviction, omnipotence, and common sense? I may be a sucker for alliteration, but I think you get the point.
Name me a leader who has a better idea for homeland security than making us take off our shoes in airports and throw away our shampoo?
We've spent billions of dollars building a huge new bureaucracy, and all we know how to do is react to things that have already happened.
Name me one leader who emerged from the crisis of Hurricane Katrina. Congress has yet to spend a single day evaluating the response to the hurricane or demanding accountability for the decisions that were made in the crucial hours after the storm.
Everyone's hunkering down, fingers crossed, hoping it doesn't happen again. Now, that's just crazy. Storms happen. Deal with it. Make a plan. Figure out what you're going to do the next time.
Name me an industry leader who is thinking creatively about how we can restore our competitive edge in manufacturing. Who would have believed that there could ever be a time when 'The Big Three' referred to Japanese car companies? How did this happen, and more important, what are we going to do about it?
Name me a government leader who can articulate a plan for paying down the debit, or solving the energy crisis, or managing the health care problem. The silence is deafening. But these are the crises that are eating away at our countr y and milking the middle class dry.
I have news for the gang in Congress. We didn't elect you to sit on your asses and do nothing and remain silent while our democracy is being hijacked and our greatness is being replaced with mediocrity. What is everybody so afraid of? That some bonehead on NBC news or CNN news will call them a name? Give me a break. Why don't you guys show some spine for a change?
Had Enough? Hey, I'm not trying to be the voice of gloom and doom here. I'm trying to light a fire. I'm speaking out because I have hope - I believe in America . In my lifetime, I've had the privilege of living through some of America 's greatest moments. I've also experienced some of our worst crises: The 'Great Depression,' 'World War II,' the 'Korean War,' the 'Kennedy Assassination,' the 'Vietnam War,' the 1970's oil crisis, and the struggles of recent years culminating with 9/11.
If I've learned one thing, it's this: 'You don't get anywhere by standing on the sidelines waiting for somebody else to take action. Whether it's building a better car or building a better future for our children, we all have a role to play. That's the challenge I'm raising in this book. It's a "Call to Action" for people who, like me, believe in America '. It's not too late, but it's getting pretty close. So let's shake off the crap and go to work. Let's tell 'em all we've had 'enough.'
Make your own contribution by sending this to everyone you know and care about. It's our country, folks, and it's our future. Our future is at stake!!
We can talk about solutions to the obvious problems that have been discussed here till our faces turn blue, but it isn't going to accomplish anything. Republican, Democrat...it doesn't matter. Honestly and truly, it just does not matter.
The problem, the real problem...is this: the Government DOES NOT listen to us anymore. How many of the American people petitioned Congress to vote 'no' with all those bail-outs? How many people have - en masse - tried to convince the government to either pass or not pass some bill or other? Or try to keep some freedom-hating wack-job from being appointed to the president's cabinet? Has the government listened at all...with any of it?
They didn't listen. I know this from personal experience from having contacted my own congressmen on a variety of issues. Each and every time I was 'blown off', given a non-answer designed to simply make it look like my concerns had been considered somewhat before being tossed out.
The government does not listen. When the government won't listen to the people it represents change - real change - becomes impossible. All Constitutional courses of action that could be taken, have been - except for the State governments stepping up to the plate and reclaiming their Constitutional co-equality with the federal government (but this won't happen anyway).
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." -John F. Kennedy
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." -Thomas Jefferson
Bob? A true Christian would NEVER have voted for Obama. He stands for everything the bible teaches against. If you voted for Obama I suggest you read your bible and realize how wrong that was and how disappointed God is with you.
Bob, Obama is just as bad as Bush. Don't fall for the lie. We haven't had an honestly good president since long before I was born. They have all been dictator-wannabe's.
Jazzy, the same is true of every president for a long time now. Bush Sr., Bush Jr., Clinton, Obama, Nixon...all the way back to Lincoln himself and farther back than that. It has been only a very few of our presidents who actually even tried to follow the Constitution or the Bible.
What an outrage. Harry Reid compares republicans to slave owners. What a blatant lie. The republican party was founded on antislavery. Abraham Lincoln and the republican party abolished slavery. In-fact it was the democrat party that led the confederate army in support of slavery. Just read any history book. Check this out on wikipedia.
Phil, you should try reading some of Lincoln's speeches sometime, like his first inaugural address. The guy was a white supremacist. He didn't support the abolition of slavery, he supported the deportation of all black people back to Africa. The Confederates weren't fighting to keep slavery, they seceded after an amendment was proposed that would have PREVENTED the Federal government from abolishing slavery - and Lincoln appended his signature to that amendment. The South was fighting for State Rights, not for slavery - in fact many Southern legislatures were considering abolishing slavery anyway.
Look into REAL history, not the pro-Lincoln propaganda they feed us in schools.
Oh, and by the way, Ulysses S. Grant was a slaver-owner up until the thirteenth amendment was passed, as the much vaunted Emancipation Proclamation only 'freed' slaves in the South, not in the North.
Robert G you truly disappoint me. How dare you call Abraham Lincoln; the man solely responsible for abolishing slavery a "white supremacist".
OH MY GOSH FOLKS. ALL THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE THE HISTORY BOOKS WERE WRONG BECAUSE ROBERT G SAID SO ALSO THE HOLOCAUST NEVER HAPPENED, THE MOON LANDING NEVER HAPPENED AND IF YOU BUY THAT I HAVE SOME OCEAN FRONT PROPERTY IN ARIZONA.
The truth is:
Democrats supported Slavery and its expansion into the northern states
Democrats introduced the Missouri Compromise and the Kansas-Nebraska Act to expand slavery into the northern states.
Democrats support of the Dred Scott Decision
Democrats supported Fugitive Slave Laws
Democrats collectively opposed the 13th Amendment to end slavery
Democrats collectively opposed the 14th Amendment to give blacks citizenship
Democrats collectively opposed the 15th Amendment to give blacks the right to vote
Democrats exhausted every efforts to destroy Reconstruction including opposing the 1867 Reconstruction Act and coming up with the Compromise of 1877
Democrats opposed the Freedman Bureau
Democrats opposed Senate Bill 60 of 1866 to give blacks 40 acres and mule (It was Democratic President Andrew Johnson that vetoed the Bill.
Democrats supported of the Slaughter House Case
Democrats opposed the 1866 Civil Rights Acts
Democrats opposed the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 and continue to oppose anti-lynching laws up through 1965
Democrats passed a multitude of Jim Crow Legislation
Democrats passed of Black Codes
Democrats establishment of the Ku Klux Klan and other terrorist auxiliaries for their Party to keep blacks in their place
Democrats promoted White Supremacy
Democrats opposed blacks schools and colleges
Democrats supported of Plessy v Ferguson legalizing Segregation
Democrats were against the decision in the case of Brown v Board of Education
Democrats supported, participated and endorsed over 5,000 lynching in states under their control
Democrats opposed to the NAACP and other organization designed to help blacks
Democrats were in opposition to blacks holding political office and drove many from office during Reconstruction with terror and violence
Southern Democrats debated against the passage of the 1964 Civil Right Act
Southern Democrats debated against the passage of 1965 Voting Rights Act
Southern Democrats fought against Affirmative Action
Southern Democrats fought against the integration of Southern schools
Democrats supported and participated in burning down middle class black communities like those in Rosewood, Florida, Wilmington, North Carolina and the Greenwood District (Black Wallstreet) in Tulsa Oklahoma.
Southern Democrats fraudulently took over two million acres of black property according to an investigation by Associated Press.
Democrats in an effort to keep blacks in their place used sadistic torture, terror and violence including: lynching, mutilations, murder, decapitations and beating and burning to death countless number of blacks.
Hang on a minute, Phil, I only said that Lincoln was a white supremacist. And I never said to take my word for it, I pointed you towards his first inaugural address. And neither was I speaking in favor of the Democrat party, nor against the Republican party (though I usually speak against BOTH).
I also NEVER SAID that the Holocaust never happened, and neither did I say that the moon-landing didn't happen. In fact, as you should well know, I didn't make any reference to those things at all. I know damned well that the Holocaust happened, especially since I have known people who suffered in those death camps. And I personally look to the moon landing as one of the greatest achievements in history.
Do some real research about Lincoln, look at the things he actually said - especially at his PRE-WAR statements and speeches.
Sorry Robert G if I offended you. I didn't say you believed that the Holocaust and the moon-landing never happened. The point I made in the sarcasm I delt is that calling Abraham Lincoln a "white supremacist" Shared the same valor. You might as well call Mother Teresa a Satanist. Whether he said what you claim or not were the slaves not freed? Do you think he intended the 13th amendment just for white people? Were the slaves shipped back to Africa? Did president lincoln not sign the 13th amendment into constitutional law that reads:
"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
"President Lincoln took an active role to ensure its passage through the House by ensuring the amendment was added to the Republican Party platform for the upcoming Presidential elections. His efforts came to fruition when the House passed the bill in January 1865, by a vote of 119 to 56. The Thirteenth Amendment's archival copy bears an apparent Presidential signature, under the usual ones of the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate, after the words "Approved February 1, 1865"."
Abraham Lincoln's first inaugural address (quoting portions):
"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."
" There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:
No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." -http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html
From Lincoln's first debate with Stephen Douglass in Ottawa, Ill.: "I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which in my judgment will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness......
I ask the attention of the people here assembled and elsewhere, to the course that Judge Douglas is pursuing every day as bearing upon this question of making slavery national. Not going back to the records but taking the speeches he makes, the speeches he made yesterday and day before and makes constantly all over the country--I ask your attention to them. In the first place what is necessary to make the institution national? Not war. There is no danger that the people of Kentucky will shoulder their muskets and with a young nigger stuck on every bayonet march into Illinois and force them upon us. There is no danger of our going over there and making war upon them." -http://www.bartleby.com/251/12.html
Like I said, do some ACTUAL research, look at what Lincoln actually said and did. Are we to believe that he had a change of heart when he went to war (illegally) with the South? Maybe he did, seems unlikely though. I know from personal experience that racists don't abandon their racist views easily.
To clarify, Lincoln's stated reason for not wanting to interfere with slavery is - in my view - basically the position he should have stuck with throughout his time in office. It should have properly remained a State issue, and not a Federal issue. The only point that I disagree with him on is that he had no legal authority to do anything concerning slavery even in those states where it did not exist - insofar as those states deciding to allow or disallow slavery is concerned.
Robert G It was a totally different planet back then. language and popular belief were different back then. Abraham Lincoln was also a politician. If he had said otherwise do you think he would have been elected president? If he hadn't been elected president we wouldn't have the 13th amendment. Therefore slavery would still be legal in some states and everybody might have a different view about it today. Including you.
I agree with you 100% that he had no legal right to do what he did under the tenth amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Sovereignty laws were violated and that did lead to more sovereignty laws being violated. Never the less the 13th amendment itself was by design an advancement in freedom and was meant to. The problem was the politicians who came after who violated sovereignty for personal gain and advancement of communISM and socialISM.
To answer Victor about who brought the horse into the barn !
Our Social Security
Franklin Delano. Roosevelt (Terms of Office March 4, 1933, to April 12, 1945), a Democrat, introduced Social Security (FICA) Program. He Promised:
1.) That participation in the program would be completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the independent “Trust Fund” rather than into the general operating fund and, therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month — and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to 'Put Away' — you may be interested in the following:
If I recall correctly, 1958 is the first year that Congress voted to remove funds from Social Security and put it into the General Fund for Congress to spend.
If I recall correctly, it was a Democrat controlled Congress. From what I understand, Congress's logic at that time was that there was so much money in Social Security Fund that it would never run out / be used up for the purpose it was intended / set aside for.
Question: Which Political Party took Social Security from the Independent “Trust Fund” and put it into the General Fund so that Congress could spend it?
Answer: It was Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat) and the Democrat controlled House and Senate.
Question: Which political party eliminated the income tax Deduction for Social Security
(FICA) withholding?
Answer: The Democratic Party.
Question: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
Answer: The Democratic Party, with Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. (Al Gore) casting the tie-breaking, deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US.
Question: Which political party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
AND MY FAVORITE ANSWER: That's right! JAMES EARL CARTER, JR. (JIMMY CARTER) AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
IMMIGRANTS MOVED INTO THIS COUNTRY AND AT AGE 65, BEGAN TO RECEIVE SOCIAL SECURITY PAYMENTS: THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY GAVE THESE PAYMENTS TO THEM, EVEN THOUGH THEY NEVER PAID A DIME INTO IT!
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
It was Thomas Jefferson that said :
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."
It was a different planet back then, but a racist is a racist. The FACTS are that Lincoln talked very much like a racist, the nature of racism doesn't change much with passing of a hundred or more years. I know that slavery was abolished during his presidency, but a lot of wrong was done by him as well. For example he forced the South into a war they didn't want - Lincoln had no legal authority to keep those troops stationed at Fort Sumpter as that fort was residing on sovereign foreign territory the minute that South Carolina seceded. The fact that Lincoln refused to acknowledge the Constitutional right (under the 10th Amendment) of a state to secede is irrelevant, the southern states were well within their rights. You should also look into how Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, which only Congress has the authority to do.
In trying to "preserve the Union", Lincoln broke the heart and soul of that Union at almost every turn.
But anyway, we have gotten sidetracked from the main topic. If you wish to continue discussing Lincoln, perhaps we could do so elsewhere.
In 50-100 years, we will have learned even more. What is acceptable today will be less acceptable in the future. In the future, people will say that my words and your words are racist and hateful. And we will hope for forgiveness and grace.
If you only judge people for the mistakes they make, and throw the baby (their good works) out with the bath water (their mistakes), then you must hold a perpetually negative view of the human race. If you also include yourself with that disgust, then I suppose your are dealing with a level playing field. Nonetheless, I don't think such negativity is helpful.
People either create or their destroy. Was Lincoln perfect? No. Did he make mistakes? Yes. Are there things he shouldn't have said and shouldn't have done? Sure. Is anyone perfect? No. Does everyone make mistakes? Yes. Are there things that everyone shouldn't have said or shouldn't have done? Sure. So, what do we benefit over being hateful and judgmental towards everyone?
Is there anyone on this planet that you are willing to point out their good works and say something positive without also including a "...but, they also did X... so we should dislike them."?
unbelievable foresight. Someone saw this coming a long long time ago. Why can't the citizens of the USA have this type of knowledge today? Because it's been removed from our schools and deemed politically incorrect!
Fight back now! send this link to everyone you know
Address to the Nation on the Federal Budget and Deficit Reduction Ronald Reagan April 24, 1985
My fellow Americans: I must speak to you tonight about a serious problem that demands your immediate attention. I need your help.
Today the United States Senate began a rendezvous with history. The threads of our past, present, and future as a nation will soon converge on the single overriding question before that body: Can we at last, after decades of drift, neglect, and excess, put our fiscal house in order? Can we assure a strong and prosperous future for ourselves, our children, and their children by adopting a plan that will compel the Federal Government to end the dangerous addiction to deficit spending and finally live within its means?
Throughout our history, we Americans have been willing to meet great challenges and do what is right when our destiny demanded it. Just 4 years ago this week, I asked your support for our bipartisan recovery program. That was the program the spenders said wouldn't work, and they called it Reaganomics. You might remember April 1981: a time when our defenses were weak, inflation still in double digits, and economic growth almost dead from a government that taxed too much and spent even more than it taxed.
We knew it would take a great effort to turn that around. We knew that letting you keep more of your earnings to get our economy moving again would be resisted by the old guard in Washington. But we also knew the answer to a government that's too fat is to stop feeding its growth. We wanted America to rediscover opportunity. We asked for your help then, and you gave it to us.
You turned America around -- turned around her confidence, turned around her economy, turned around over a decade of one national nightmare after another. We're into our 29th straight month of economic growth, with inflation staying down and more of us working than ever before -- that's 8 million new jobs. Now that our program is working, you may have noticed they're not calling it Reaganomics anymore.
Once again, the United States is the flagship economy for the world. A new generation of entrepreneurs is coming up, pointing us toward a 21st century full of amazing change and vast new opportunities.
We must seize this historic moment to shape America's future -- to completely overhaul our tax code, changing it from a source of confusion and contempt to a model of fairness and simplicity, with strong, new incentives for even greater growth.
So many good things lie ahead for America. And yet all our progress, all the good we've accomplished so far, and all our dreams for the future could be wrecked if we do not overcome our one giant obstacle.
The simple truth is: No matter how hard you work, no matter how strong this economy grows, no matter how much more tax money comes to Washington, it won't amount to a hill of beans if government won't curb its endless appetite to spend. Overspending is the subject we must now address -- how budgets got so far out of balance and, yes, what together we can and must do to correct this.
You know, sometimes the big spenders in Congress talk as if all that money they spend just kind of magically appears on their doorstep, a gift from the Internal Revenue Service. They talk as if spending were all giving and no taking.
Well, there is no magic money machine. Every dollar the government spends comes out of your pockets. Every dollar the government gives to someone has to first be taken away from someone else. So, it's our moral duty to make sure that we can justify every one of your tax dollars, that we spend them wisely and carefully and, just as important, fairly.
Unfortunately, hardly anyone could honestly call Federal budgets wise, careful, or fair. Is it fair to ask one small business to help subsidize its competitors? Is it fair to ask workers in the private economy to pay for civil service pensions that are much more generous than the retirement benefits they receive? Is it fair to ask low-income families to help pay for the college education of children from families with incomes as high as $100,000 a year? Is it fair to ask taxpayers to help pay billions for export subsidies to a handful of America's biggest corporations?
Well, it isn't fair, and you know it. But that's the law of the land right now, just part of the legacy of 50 years of trying to do good things for all by treating your earnings like government property.
The time has come to decide what benefits we can properly expect from the Federal Government for ourselves, our neighbors, and those in need; and what government can take from us in taxes without making everyone worse off, including those who need our help. The one thing we cannot do is stay on the immoral, dead-end course of deficit spending.
Today our national debt amounts to nearly $8,000 for every man, woman, and child in America, and it's increasing by about $1,000 per person each and every year. Just to cover the interest on that debt, the Federal Government will spend $155 billion this year alone. That's more than its entire budget as recently as 1966.
Despite your worries and all the warnings, the trend has continued year after year. We've had only one balanced budget in the last quarter century. As a nation, our debt has grown and grown and grown until now it totals $1.7 trillion -- a number so big that it's nearly unimaginable. A single billion is 1,000 millions. A trillion is a million millions.
Now, this is not just my problem. This is not just Congress' problem. This is our problem, and we must solve it together as Americans.
Tonight, I'm asking all of you -- Democrats, Republicans, and independents -- to give me your help to put our financial house in order so that our tax, spending, and monetary policies will not hinder growth, but encourage it; not send inflation and interest rates shooting back up, but keep them heading down; and not drown us under a tidal wave of debt, but protect us in the safe harbor of financial stability, with a sound and powerful economy.
Not surprisingly, some still want to raise your taxes. They say we cut your taxes too much in 1981, when we ended years of bracket creep and lowered rates for every American taxpayer. Well, this is simply untrue. And it implies government has a right to take from you all that it needs to satisfy the demands of special interest groups.
Surely, there's no faster way to see our prosperity vanish than to yoke the decent, hard-working, taxpaying citizens of this great nation to an automatic spending machine in Washington, DC. Government should tax to meet government's needs, not government's wants.
Nine days ago I received a very welcome gift -- a letter with 146 signatures. One hundred and forty-six Members of Congress have pledged to uphold what I repeat tonight will be my certain veto of any tax increase Congress sends me, no matter how cleverly it's disguised.
Is it too much to ask the spoilers to give up their hidden agenda to increase taxes, which would only slow the economy, throw people out of work, and, yes, make the deficit worse? Do they still not understand how generous you've been, paying heavy taxes to defend freedom around the world, ease starvation in distant nations, and help the needy, the elderly, and the sick and handicapped here at home?
Well, as you can see [referring to televised graphics], the rising blue bar shows that the taxes you paid in the last 20 years increased by over $620 billion. And if you think that's a staggering sum, well, you're right. But look at this rising red bar showing government spending. In that same 20-year period, the red bar went up even more. It went up by over $840 billion. Government spending -- that's the real Washington monument.
Taxes are too high, but spending is even higher. During the 20 years when inflation, steep Federal income tax rates, and rising State, county, and local taxes were pushing you into tax brackets once reserved for the wealthy, Congress was writing checks and spending your money even faster than you could spend it.
What went wrong? Where has all the money gone? Well, during the strong, prosperous Eisenhower years in the 1950's and through the Kennedy years, we kept spending in check. During those Kennedy years there was a tax cut proposed similar to our cut. It was enacted in 1964, and the economy grew then as it has grown now.
But others in government did not take the next logical step and say: Look, freedom and incentives are working. So, let's reduce tax rates further. Let's transform our ghettos into havens for enterprise, give families new incentives to save for their children's education -- let's make every citizen a shareholder in America's future.
Government did the opposite. Government began to take over America. In the name of the Great Society, it began doing things never before felt possible or desirable. Government took over passenger railroads. It began contributing billions to 39,000 local government budgets. Its spending on agriculture subsidies soared to a level higher than the total net income from every farm in America.
Let me interject something here, and I'll state it plainly and simply: The enormous weight of Federal spending and runaway deficits has gone far toward placing in jeopardy one of every seven family farms in the United States. This is not simply an economic statistic. It is a great social tragedy that should command the concern of every American. Control of this runaway engine of Federal spending has become crucial to the survival of the family farm in the United States.
The new programs started after 1964. They cost $16 billion by 1966, $78 billion by 1975, and $148 billion per year by 1981.
Today government puts a dime into the fare box every time somebody boards a local bus or transit line. Today government subsidizes loans for every imaginable purpose -- from education to aircraft exporters to luxury waterfront developments and hotels -- so that government's lending business is bigger than Chase Manhattan and the Bank of America's combined. And the spending line keeps going up.
To be sure, much good has been done. In health, education, and food assistance, we're spending more than ever before in our history. But in many areas, we're spending where we should not be and spending what we can no longer afford. And so much of what we spend goes not to the individuals needing help, but to thousands upon thousands of bureaucrats, researchers, planners, managers, and professional advocates who earn their living from the great growth industry of government. It's no accident that some of the wealthiest communities in America are the communities surrounding the Federal Government in Washington, DC.
My fellow citizens, the time has come for government to make the same hard choices your families and businesses do. The time has come for your public servants to bring spending down into line with tax revenues.
Accomplishing this, bringing the spending line down to our incomes is the heart of our deficit reduction plan that we put together with Senator Dole and his colleagues. We call it the taxpayers' protection plan, and that's just what it is. It will reduce deficits by $300 billion over 3 years, bringing us within reach of a balanced budget by 1990. And it will do this not by raising your taxes, but by reversing 20 years of overspending.
Our plan attacks excessive spending across the board. No part of the budget is spared, and a shared effort will be asked of all. But unlike a spending freeze, which would not reduce deficits nearly enough and which would make no distinction between worthy and wasteful programs, our plan recognizes that all spending is not created equal. Some programs are vital to our national security and domestic welfare and must be given first priority. Others are no longer affordable or were not proper Federal responsibilities to begin with.
Our plan establishes clear national priorities. It keeps what should be kept and cuts what should be cut. Our first priority must always be our national security. The Soviets are far more dangerous today than during the fifties and sixties, periods in which we devoted far more to our defense. And they continue arming well beyond the defense needs of their country. Because of that threat, we must maintain modest but steady growth each year. Three percent is the rockbottom level that we must maintain for effective deterrence to protect our security.
As I've said, even with this small increase, we'll spend a smaller share of our budget on defense than we did 20 years ago. Cuts we've proposed in projected defense spending will contribute a hundred billion dollars, a full one-third of our proposed budget savings for the next 3 years. Now, this will require canceling some programs; some nonessential military bases may be closed or cut back. But mainly, we will continue to identify and eliminate waste and crack down harder on excesses in contract costs.
Waste in the Department of Defense must and is being eliminated, as is fraud in defense contracts. The stories you've been reading and hearing about $400 hammers and such are things that we've discovered were going on before and that we're correcting.
Padding of expense accounts, overcharging for weapons, profiteering at the expense of the public -- these should be and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Men who illegally line their pockets with dollars the American people have contributed to our defense are stealing from the arsenal of democracy the very weapons our young men need to defend freedom. And our tolerance of this selfish behavior was long ago exhausted.
The Senate will face demands to cut defense even more, but here we must draw the line. Federal overspending is not caused by meeting vital security needs, and even our critics know that further reductions would jeopardize our security. Our strategic programs, our 600-ship navy, our conventional weapons modernization, and our readiness programs must go forward.
Our plan will freeze the defense-spending share of our gross national product at 6.4 percent for the next 3 years. That is a share well below the 8 or 9 percent at the time of the Eisenhower and Kennedy. The remaining two-thirds of our deficit reduction can and must come from other parts of the budget -- from domestic programs that are no longer necessary or in need of basic reform.
Let me give some examples of the sort of programs we intend to cut back. When Amtrak was begun in 1971 for a 2-year trial run, we were told it would soon turn a profit. Well, 14 years and nearly $9 billion later, Amtrak is still running on taxpayers' subsidies. Every time a train leaves the station, it costs taxpayers $35 for each passenger on board. In some cases, it would be cheaper just to hand them plane tickets. Eliminating Amtrak will save $8 billion over the next decade.
We'll also save billions by eliminating taxpayer subsidies to some of America's biggest corporations through Export-Import Bank loans and by abolishing the Small Business Administration's lending programs, which are not only costly and unfair but unneeded in an economy creating over 600,000 new businesses and corporations a year.
Supporters of programs like these always ignore the big hidden costs all of us eventually have to pay. If programs like these can't be cut, we might as well give up hope of ever getting government spending under control. If Congress can't bring itself to do what's right, well, they should at least give me what 43 Governors already have -- a line-item veto. Then I'll make the cuts; I'll take the responsibility and the heat, and I'll enjoy it.
One area we will not touch, however, is the safety net for needy Americans. Programs that provide income, food, housing, and medical aid for the neediest Americans were reformed in 1981 and are now targeted to genuine need. But these programs only make up 8 percent of the budget, so we need everyone's help to get spending under control.
The burden will not be great if all of us help carry the load. We're asking the 46 million Americans who receive a retirement, veterans, or Social Security check to accept a guaranteed 2-percent increase over the next 3 years in place of the existing cost-of-living adjustment. If, however, inflation should rise above 4 percent, the amount above 4 percent would be added to the 2 percent.
Now, these programs now total nearly $250 billion per year -- 25 percent of our entire budget. They cost 30 times more than they did just three decades ago. Our veterans, disabled workers, and retired citizens have earned their benefits. They deserve an adequate and dignified standard of living, and we will never renege on that pledge.
All of us together have a shared interest in a healthy, expanding economy. It means jobs, opportunities, and rising incomes for our younger citizens and a steady flow of tax payments into the funds that support our retired citizens.
A small effort now will mean big gains for all Americans later. If we can keep our economy on track, 16 million more Americans will be working in 1988 than were employed at the end of 1982. With that much growth, with that many new jobs, there will never be any doubt: The retirement checks that 46 million Americans depend on will be secure; the economic base that supports them will be strong; and the tax payments that fund them will be abundant.
If we want to continue trying to make these the best years of our lives, if we want to protect our retired and disabled, boost small business, create jobs, strengthen our farm economy, our exports, improve our cities, and help your families send your children to college, there is one sure-fire way to do it: We're all going to have to pitch in together. But if we refuse, if we go back to the old pattern of business as usual, then let there be no mistake: Business as usual will eventually destroy our prosperity and all the blessings it has given us.
My fellow citizens, you remember the words of young John Kennedy, words of challenge to America in 1961: ``Ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what you can do for your country.'' In those days Federal spending was only a fraction of what it is today. Since then government programs have grown to the point where they touch almost half the families in America.
Today his question is more relevant than before. All of us are being challenged again to ask what we can do for our country, challenged to work together -- 237 million strong -- to build a secure and lasting foundation for the American dream.
Even with all our cuts and reforms, our plan still provides $560 billion for nondefense programs next year -- the highest level in history. Congress has before it a budget that doesn't mortgage our future to higher taxes and expanding debt. It is a fair program; it is a balanced program; it will protect the neediest among us; it will stop the worst abuses of overspending; and it not only deserves your support, it must have your support to pass.
So, let me stress as strongly as I can, this shared effort we're asking you to make now will be our best assurance of avoiding painful hardship down the road.
We stand at a crossroads. The hour is late, the task is large, and the stakes are momentous. I ask you to join us in making your voices heard in the Senate this week and later in the House. Please tell your Senators and Representatives by phone, wire, or mailgram that our future hangs in the balance, that this is no time for partisanship, and that our future is too precious to permit this crucial effort to be picked apart piece by piece by the special interest groups. We've got to put the public interest first.
My fellow Americans, I hope history says of us that we were worthy of our past, worthy of our heritage. We can seize the moment; we can do our best for America to keep our future strong, secure, and free. Our children will thank us, and that's all the thanks we'll ever need.
Thank you, God bless you, and good night.
Note: The President spoke at 8 p.m. from the Oval Office at the White House. His address was broadcast live on nationwide radio and television.
Oh yeah, this is from the start of the Red Scare era. You know, McCarthyism (there's an 'ism' for you) and the such. Thousands of people loosing their jobs and being denied due process of law...of course, all for the sake of "American values." Supposed values like...what do you know! Due process of law! Botched that one huh?
Nice try Kevin but we aren't making false accusations the facts speak for themselves.
Thousands of people are loosing there jobs. The Unemployment level in this country is at 10.2% and rising. Not including the people that have just given up trying to find a job which would make it more like 17%. Nobody in this country is being denied due process. Apparently even the terrorists. You know; the ones admittedly blue up our twin towers. obama made sure of that by trying them in a civilian court instead of a military tribunal. And kevin if you don't like american values nobodies keeping you here.
Hey Phil, I couldn't help but notice the relatively rare use of the personal pronoun, "I", in that speech. So just out of idle curiosity I decided to count them, and counted 14. (I could be off by a couple so for anyone who is interested in such things, feel free to double-check me.)
Now I'm not trying to start a cat fight here and I'm not saying Reagan was perfect, but IMO he was the last really good President we've had, and one of only a handful of truly Great ones through our history. And I think maybe his infrequent use of "I" offers a clue as to why he was a great President.
Reagan realized far better than most that it was not about him, but about our Republic. I don't believe we've had one since who's been driven more by Patriotism than ego, nor one such before him since JFK.
Warren your absolutely right. Im sure Reagan had his faults somewhere. He was a great patriot who fought for our Liberty and freedom. He was a Christian man who employed Christian values and morals and wasn't afraid to say so.
All I know is that when Reagan was president:
The economy went from almost dead (thanks to Carter) to running like a well oiled machine. The only reason for not having a job was because you didn't want to work.
There was no terrorist on earth that wasn't shaking in there boots. Do you remember the fraze "The united states does not negotiate with terrorists" and he meant it. There only options were to surrender or die.
There was a sense of pride in the air no matter where you went. Communism and socialism were bad words because everybody understood the economics of them:
"Every dollar the government gives to someone has to first be taken away from someone else."
They understood that it meant loosing freedom and liberty and invoked oppression.
IMO, Acceptability is not a reliable indicator of what is good or evil/right or wrong. Without a moral standard, right and wrong are relative concepts subject to “acceptability”. IMO, we as a people are no longer virtuous; we no longer have the ability to rightly judge a person’s actions or ideas and discern whether they are right or wrong…we simply base our decision on what is “acceptable”. IMO, it is one of the reasons the people in our country have succumbed to the multitude of ISM’s that have become “acceptable” in our sovereign nation.
BTW, Robert G, you are correct on Lincoln. Although “right” (abolition) won, Lincoln “wronged” (shredded the U.S. Constitution and States’ Rights) in the process. Despite the ends, the means (wrongs) have been adopted by just about every politician since Lincoln.
Those means, IMO, sum up the ISM’s presented in this video into one ISM: Anti-Constitutionalism.
To clarify what I have said, I use the term "acceptable" in a moral sense, much along the lines of what you have said. There is, of course, no way you could have known that. I completely agree with you.
I walked through a county courthouse square On a park bench, an old man was sittin' there. I said, "Your old court house is kinda run down, He said, "Naw, it'll do for our little town". I said, "Your old flag pole is leaned a little bit, And that's a ragged old flag you got hangin' on it". He said, "Have a seat", and I sat down, "Is this the first time you've been to our little town" I said, "I think it is" He said "I don't like to brag, but we're kinda proud of That Ragged Old Flag
"You see, we got a little hole in that flag there, When Washington took it across the Delaware. and It got powder burned the night Francis Scott Key sat watching it, writing "Say Can You See" It got a rip in New Orleans, with Packingham & Jackson tugging at its seams. and It almost fell at the Alamo beside the Texas flag, But she waved on though. She got cut with a sword at Chancellorsville, And she got cut again at Shiloh Hill. There was Robert E. Lee and Beauregard and Bragg, And the south wind blew hard on That Ragged Old Flag
"On Flanders Field in World War I, She got a big hole from a Bertha Gun, She turned blood red in World War II She hung limp, and low, a time or two, She was in Korea, Vietnam, She went where she was sent by her Uncle Sam. She waved from our ships upon the briny foam and now they've about quit wavin' back here at home in her own good land here She's been abused, She's been burned, dishonored, denied an' refused, And the government for which she stands Has been scandalized throughout out the land. And she's getting thread bare, and she's wearin' thin, But she's in good shape, for the shape she's in. Cause she's been through the fire before and i believe she can take a whole lot more.
"So we raise her up every morning And we bring her down slow every night, We don't let her touch the ground, And we fold her up right. On second thought I *do* like to brag Cause I'm mighty proud of That Ragged Old Flag"
Thank you all for standing up. We all have to stand up to ignorant Communist liberals. whether or not they intend to destroy American liberty and freedom or not they are still doing it. We must all open our eyes to there deception and band against them if we wish to keep this nation free. So take the pledge with us
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands: one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
We must all open our eyes to the ignorant conservatives misinformation, lies, deception, and fear and stand up to them and fight to protect this nation from "their" evil.
We will also notice that they don't know when to use "their" vs. "there". Because they are dumb.
Tom: "I am glad to see you have stopped citing the WHO Health Report. TYVM for not promoting inaccurate and unreliable data."
I will continue to cite the accurate WHO report. Us healthcare ranks in the 30+ range in the world at the moment while we spend far more per person than any other country that ranks higher than us.
Our current system is grossly ineffective and inefficient. Sorry to have to bring facts in here.
Hey Warren, I appreciate your comments about useless name calling. People try to throw insults and labels often instead of rationally discussing issues.
They also try to bring their own brand of religion into non-religious matters.
All this -ism crap is nonsense. The US from its inception has been a mix of socialism and capitalism. You just can't throw labels at things, call someone a commie, and have any kind of legitimate point.
Love and Loss - Glen Beck and Sarah Palin among some others (like Hannity, Limbaugh, and Cavuto)are doing the very hard work of spreading constant lies, irrational fear, and misinformation. If you listen to them you are being constantly misinformed.
Faith - You and other misguided and severely brainwashed people, are one of the reasons that this country has been held back from progress for so many years.
You constantly try to push your religion when religion is a personal choice and has no business in our government. The ten commandments being on a wall does not have anything to do with our government. If you and other are going to misinterpret that then we should take it down.
I'm sure you would like to force everyone to follow your misinterpretations and cherry picking of the bible but that is an individual choice.
PHIL - sorry your comments on Reagan are ridiculous.
"Im sure Reagan had his faults somewhere. He was a great patriot who fought for our Liberty and freedom. He was a Christian man who employed Christian values and morals and wasn't afraid to say so."
Reagan was a lying crook who is largely responsible for today's economic troubles.
A President who negotiated with terrorists, illegally funded, armed and collaborated with the Iraqis in the Iran-Iraq War, funded a Latin American terrorist group then told the American people he did none of these things and when the truth came out he completely got away with all of it.
He also tripled the national debt. In short, a terrible president.
Oh and him being a christian has squat to do with anything.
Ronald Reagan supported huge tax cuts for the super rich combined with massive increases in military spending mostly for boondoggles like his "starwars" missile defense plan that never worked. This sent our national debt into the trillions. Reagan was known for busting up labor unions and other anti-worker policies that drove down wages while CEO salaries soared. Some of Reagan's other accomplishments include creating the Taliban to fight off a Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and providing arms to Saddam Hussein during the Iraq-Iran war.
@joemama Did you read my post from 12/4? if not, it is below. Please use your facts to address the WHO SELF-ADMITTED inaccuracies and unreliable data points.
The WHO report does not reflect the values of the peoples of the United States as set forth in its governmental document, The U.S. Constitution.
The WHO report presupposes that the "[u]ltimate responsibility for the performance of a country's health system lies with government".
(In addition, another quote from Chapter 6, "Governments should be...ultimately responsible for the careful management of their citizen's well-being.")
The U.S., and others that emulate her type of governance, will never perform well when it is in contrast to their basic tenants.
This report is sort of like a report on square-shaped burgers being the best way to provide burgers. Wendys would perform fantastically, the others, not so good. So does that mean the others don't provide good burger service?
The WHO report is self admittedly inaccurate and unreliable: the collection of data has been "hampered by the weakness of routine information systems and insufficient attention to research". When reliable data wasn't available, they "developed [data] through a variety of techniques".
Different countries have different standards. For example, live birth to one nation isn’t a birth at all to another...kinda skews the infant mortality rate doesn't it?
For these and many more discrepancies, the WHO report is not a credible source of data.
In addition, the WHO only performed ONE of these surveys (in 2000)...why...because WHO determined it was too difficult to reliably gather data!
Let's use the number 1 ranked country on the WHO report, France, to expose the inaccuracy of the report.
Fact: Children born at less than 32 weeks pregnancy have a much higher infant-mortality rate than those born afterward.
BEWARE Creative Accounting Ahead
France does not count children born at less than 26 weeks pregnancy as a live birth (they are registered as lifeless)...Well, that's one way (cheating) to lower their infant mortality rate!
The U.S. on the other hand (because of its BETTER medical treatments for fertility) has a higher rate of "very pre-term" babies (<32 weeks) than most other countries. And the U.S. counts everyone of them as a live birth if they are born live!
Even if the rate were the same for each country, the U.S. would have a much worse infant-mortality rate than France!
Why? Bad Medical Care? Ineffective or Inefficient Health Care? Of course not...because the standard for considering a live birth is not standardized throughout the nations. I would submit that the U.S. has a more accurate infant-mortality rate while France does not.
How many times is this error repeated in the report? One too many IMO.
Sorry Tom G, you're going to have to substantiate your claims before they can be taken seriously as credible data.
Fact is the US spends more per capita than most or all other countries on healthcare with generally poor results for the health of the population. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934556.html
Life expectancy by country http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
Almost 40 on infant mortality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate
Makes it pretty clear.
WHO's method
"WHO’s assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system’s financial burden within the population (who pays the costs)."
"Glen Beck and Sarah Palin among some others (like Hannity, Limbaugh, and Cavuto)are doing the very hard work of spreading constant lies, irrational fear, and misinformation."
That is an assertion.
Are you up to the task of substantiating your statement? Start by providing evidence of the lies and misinformation. I am especially interested in the lies that Beck has been spouting.
Tom G - I notice you don't source any of your claims.
Here's an article on premature birth for you:
"High rates of premature birth are the main reason the United States has higher infant mortality than do many other rich countries, government researchers reported Tuesday in their first detailed analysis of a longstanding problem.
In Sweden, for instance, 6.3 percent of births were premature, compared with 12.4 percent in the United States in 2005, the latest year for which international rankings are available. Infant mortality also differed markedly: for every 1,000 births in the United States, 6.9 infants died before they turned 1, compared with 2.4 in Sweden. Twenty-nine other countries also had lower rates.
If the United States could match Sweden’s prematurity rate, the new report said, “nearly 8,000 infant deaths would be averted each year, and the U.S. infant mortality rate would be one-third lower.”"
Tom G - Regarding my assertion about Beck's lies you'll notice it followed exactly Love and Loss's assertion that they were spreading the truth. Will you be asking her to substantiate that?
If you're interested in reading about Beck's lies start here: http://www.google.com/search?q=beck+lies&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Here's another good source: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/glenn-beck/
Beck is the worst kind of fear mongering liar who caters to the most unintelligent and gullible in our society. I would normally find him funny because he's so ridiculous but then you have to think there's actually people like Love and Loss out there that fall for his crap.
Cost per Capita...Life Expectancy...Infant Mortality rate...Not necessarily good indicators.
Already debunked infant mortality rate...data skewed by no standard set for live birth.
Life Expectancy...is it an accurate measurement of a good health care system? What cuts a person's life short?
Vehicular accidents? Who has the most vehicles per capita in the world?...the U.S. Obesity? The U.S. ranks #9 in the world (#1 in the top 40 of the WHO report)
The leading causes of Death in the U.S....Heart failure and cancer.
Conclusions based upon root causes...None of the above are indicative of a poor health care system, it seems mostly indicative of poor life-style choices and cultural influences.
Cost per Capita...why is it highest in the U.S.? Achieving Number 1 in responsiveness? Having 3 times the number of MRI's and CT Scanners than France per Million People? Lawsuits? Fraud/Abuse? Government Regulations? Insurance Companies?
Again, my point is that Cost per capita is not an indicator of a good or bad health care system, too many variables contaminate the data.
The WHO report uses weighing factors that have been established by 1006 respondents from 125 countries...half from its own STAFF. The results of the report are adjusted with these weighing factors so that their presupposition, "Stewardship in health is the very essence of good government" WILL put non-government run health care systems at a huge disadvantage in rankings.
I could put in sources, however, I am already too wordy, I use quote marks for quotes. Heck, my posts are sometimes so long I may not read it :)
As to Beck's lies, it is interesting reading. I will read more. Thought it interesting as well that there wasn't an Obama lie list...
I was more interested Beck's evidence regarding felons, tax cheats, and socialists/communists that he has surrounded himself with and places great confidence in their counsel.
Also, I am interested in the Constitution's Limited Powers and where in the Constitution the legislature is specifically given a numerated power to appropriate public funds for health care.
"Cost per Capita...Life Expectancy...Infant Mortality rate...Not necessarily good indicators."
Survival, infant mortality, and cost are certainly good indicators.
"Already debunked infant mortality rate...data skewed by no standard set for live birth."
You didn't debunk anything. You made some claims you don't seem to be able to back up.
However, I did provide even more evidence that the US lags behind in even premature birth survival.
"Life Expectancy...is it an accurate measurement of a good health care system? What cuts a person's life short?"
Sure, let's look at that. THe leading causes of premature death are almost all health related: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/FASTATS/deaths.htm (notice how I back up my claims)
"Cost per Capita...why is it highest in the U.S.?"
Administrative costs and profiteering. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/why-does-us-health-care-cost-so-much-part-ii-indefensible-administrative-costs/
The facts are that we spend far more for far less in return. We leave many millions without care while other countries that spend less don't.
Now I realize that you've made some more claims that are not substantiated but I actually linked you to the WHO methodology which you seem to have ignored.
TOM G - You said "I could put in sources, however, I am already too wordy"
If you don't back up your claims people are going to assume you are just making up things
"As to Beck's lies, it is interesting reading. I will read more."
I encourage it. Beck lies often. Other times he just alludes to ridiculous things in a fashion like: "Prove to me that your not working with terrorists" or "Prove to me that Glenn Beck did not rape and murder that girl in 1990" or "I'm not saying there are FEMA detention camps for US citizens, I'm just saying there could be".
So then...
"I was more interested Beck's evidence regarding felons, tax cheats, and socialists/communists that he has surrounded himself with and places great confidence in their counsel."
I guess I'd need the specific accusations. It does seem that every president is surrounded by some questionable people. (Bush had some of the worst). Not sure why socialist would be a bad word either. We have socialized institutions in our country since it's inception.
"Also, I am interested in the Constitution's Limited Powers and where in the Constitution the legislature is specifically given a numerated power to appropriate public funds for health care."
I'd imagine it falls under General Welfare like Social Security and Medicare.
I've never found an enumerated power for invading countries that are not threatening us like Iraq or having peacetime military bases in Japan but a lot of people don't have a problem with that.
What we do know is that if we don't do something our healthcare costs are going to spiral out of control soon and we're going to lag even farther behind other industrialized countries.
Joemama talk as much trash as you want. The truth is 60% of this country doesn't support obamas death cair bill. His poll numbers are worse than any president in the history of this country at this stage in his presidency; yes even jimmy carter another one term president. Come this next election We The People are going to boot all the democrats out of Congress and the senate.
We don't want to be forced by our government to buy health care or go to jail.
Phil - Sorry but you've been the one talking trash.
Truth is the majority of the country supports the public option... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/19/AR2009101902451.html
Also most doctors... http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2009/September/14/NPR-doctors.aspx
Obama's approvals look just like your hero Reagan's... http://www.pollster.com/blogs/obama_as_reagan.php
That's funny huh? :)
Come this next election We the People are going to boot out even more republicans than we did in the last two elections. The republican party approval rating is pretty damn low right now.
There's nothing in the bill about buying healthcare or going to jail. You can only go to jail for fraud.
True Americans want all the citizens to have access to healthcare when they get sick.
Sorry, I know you prefer your wishful thinking and scare tactics to facts but maybe you should come back to reality.
What's the difference between the national debt and the federal deficit? The federal deficit is is the difference between what the government takes in from taxes and other sources and what it spends annually.
Imagine you made $40,000 in a year, but had $50,000 in expenses. You would have a $10,000 deficit. You would need to borrow $10,000 to make up the difference.
For many years, that's exactly what happened. The government took in less than it spent and had to borrow the difference. This was called "deficit spending."
The national debt can be thought of as the accumulated debt the government owes from all those years of borrowing money to pay off the annual deficits. It is the total off all money owed to individuals, corporations, state or local governments, foreign governments, and other entities outside of the United States Government. The national debt is also often called the public debt, because most of the money is owed to the public.
The national debt is currently at about $12,132,900,000,000
Obama’s Tripling of the National Debt in Pictures Posted August 28th, 2009 at 3.04pm in Entitlements.
This Tuesday the White House released their Mid-Session Review admitting they made a $2 trillion miscalculation in the size of the federal deficit that President Barack Obama’s borrow and spend policies would inflict on our nation. Heritage senior policy analyst Brian Riedl details the carnage: While President Obama claims to have inherited the 2009 budget deficit, it is important to note that the estimated 2009 budget deficit has increased by $400 billion since his inauguration, and the whole point of the “stimulus” was to increase deficit spending to nearly $2 trillion based on the unproven notion that would it alleviate the recession. The 22 percent spending increase projected for 2009 represents the largest government expansion since the 1952 height of the Korean War (adjusted for inflation). Federal spending is up 57 percent since 2001. In 2009, Washington will spend $30,958 per household–the highest level in American history–and under President Obama’s budget, the figure will rise above $33,000 by 2019. The White House brags that it will cut the deficit in half by 2013. The President does not mention that the deficit has nearly quadrupled this year. Merely cutting it in half from that bloated level would still leave budget deficits twice as high as under President Bush. The public national debt–$5.8 trillion as of 2008–is projected to double by 2012 and nearly triple by 2019. Thus, America would accumulate more government debt under President Obama than under every President in American history from George Washington to George W. Bush combined.
The White House wants an increase of at least $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion, according to a person familiar with the deliberations between lawmakers and the administration. Record budget deficits are pushing the national debt closer to the $12.1 trillion statutory limit.
2,055 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 800 of 2055 Newer› Newest»Ladies and Gentlemen,
Glen Beck and Sarah Palin among some others (like Hannity, Limbaugh, and Cavuto)are doing the very hard work of spreading the word about how big government is trying to get bigger and bigger by intruding more and more into our everyday lives. Listen to their warnings and get out and vote to remove the worst of the congressman and senators in the U.S. and state legislatures. Only new, smarter serving members can vote to establish new term limits upon themselves. We must do all we can as concerned citizens to STOP and REVERSE the course of our ever-enlargening government.
It is oBUMa who is the problem, not Bush. Thank God in Heaven that they haven't taken away our gun rights. If this country turns socialist there will be a civil war and that pigman puppet will be the loser, rather, his puppetmasters, G. Soros and ilk, will be the biggest losers. God Bless America!
So many prejudiced people still left in the world.
Friends, there is a Force of Evil in this world that is sometimes easy to recognize by its work. Its first order of business is to keep us divided because if we were to unite against it we would surely prevail. Therefore all the name-calling and insults we heap upon one another only serves our mutual Enemy, preventing any useful, productive conversation within which we might find common ground.
We must realize this animosity among us is the work of the Enemy, and we must rise above it. Only by so doing will we be able to find and build upon our points of agreement, and work together to counter the Evil so pervasive in our government today.
For me this had to begin with the recognition that this same Evil Force resides in us all to some degree.
Another extremely informative documentary.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1070329053600562261
Kevin Hofsas, Author.
Books; too advanced for you.
@kevinhofsis:
"Kevin Hofsas, Author.
Books; too advanced for you."
If we are to prevail against the "New World Order" there are a number of thing we must learn. Here are two: Never underestimate the Enemy, and never alienate potential friends.
I have found many who supported Obama simply overreacted to the excesses of the Bush administration. Alternately, many who loathe Obama continue to heap praise upon Bush. Before any constructive discourse can occur, members of each camp must admit they have supported a Globalist, anti-USA scumbag who has zero respect for The Constitution he swore to uphold.
We must acknowledge there are many Patriots, both Conservative and Liberal, who only desire that which is best for our Nation. As a Conservative Patriot I have learned I am much more comfortable with open minded, Liberal Patriots than with closed minded, reactionary Conservatives. I don't imagine those with whom I disagree are 100% wrong or that I am 100% right. Once we quit the offense/defense crap, put down our swords, swallow our insults, dismount our high horses and shake hands, we can get down to the business of repairing our broken Republic.
Just a few thoughts from my cave.
I pray that we all will wake up and see what is happening with this "CHANGE". Unless we all can come together and govern for the better of the whole community, we will unfortunately end up with the stamped collars around all of our necks.
@Warren:
A most rational argument, I couldn’t agree with you more.
Many talk about the danger of a divided nation and imply a need for unity at any cost. This mindset is the product of an indoctrination based on the theory of political correctness that’s harmful to the maintenance of a free society because it seeks unity based on omission - Let’s forget our differences and seek an alliance based on the vague notion of social justice. This is the underbelly of the political beast hiding behind the mantra of “change”. My concern is what we are changing into.
“The greater good” is quite different from “Our unalienable rights” - one is dictated by man, whereas the other by our Creator. We are one with our Creator; therefore, we are one with each other and thus have no power over another. To define “the greater good” requires some to decide the fate of the rest and in so doing one dominates another in defiance to the notion of oneness with our Creator.
This is not religion; this is only natural. We are all products of nature and thereby bound to its rules - its natural order. Government however is our creation, designed by us exclusively for our benefit - the maintenance of life, liberty, and our ability to seek happiness on earth. We cannot achieve happiness without willful giving and of course, we cannot give what we do not have. Therefore, when we give through obligation to the State, we have not given at all and thus have deprived ourselves the opportunity to give instead through our own willful submission.
In the context of socialist ideology, we are neither capable of providing for others nor ourselves. Instead, we must be cared and provided for by a surrogate power – an elite group of humankind through government that collectively determines our fate and thus our life’s destiny. This denies us our natural rights, our indigenous rights, the rights of a free people born from the earth and returning to it.
Yes, we must bury our differences to achieve peace but not through compromise. Instead, we must transcend our differences by finally accepting our oneness with each other. You have arrived when you can look at another only see your own reflection. The act of taking back our power from an abusive government not deserving of it is an act of self-love. Fully loving ourselves allows us to love fully those around us. We have the power to change our world to whatever we desire. Not everyone needs to believe in this power either, just a small fraction of us – a critical mass from which we can truly create universal change. Herein lays our greatest opportunity to free ourselves finally from those that chose to dominate us.
Peace.
Bob stop with the prejudice nonsense. We all know Obama is running this country into the ground. If anybody here is prejudice its you. If Obama burned the constitution and smoked the ashes you would still support him.
@Phil,
I never said I supported Obama.
It's prejudice like yours that is running the country into the ground.
Im sorry I guess I misunderstood you when you said
"Thankfully, with the way our governing system is designed, my vote always cancels out Phil's vote."
does that mean you've made up your mind not to vote for him next election. I guess that means we will both be voting him out next election. By the way bob I'm a spanish apache Indian who is married to an anglo woman. Exactly what part of that is "prejudiced"
@Phil,
When I said,
"Thankfully, with the way our governing system is designed, my vote always cancels out Phil's vote."
That was praise for our entire system, whether you want to call it a representative democracy or a constitutional republic.
Your words are filled with hate and destruction and talk of voting people "out" of office, without providing any constructive solutions other than the problems you see with everything that doesn't specifically suit you.
My goal is to find a common ground for all people, by which we can maintain the way of life which was intended by our forefathers, where all people have a say and not just specific groups of people who agree with each other.
These are very different goals, so I presume that when an option presents itself which is hateful and destructive to anything which you oppose, you will vote for it. I, on the other hand, will vote against it for the mere fact that it is hateful and destructive rather than being compromising and constructive.
If there were a book burning, and it was about burning books which offend you, you give an attitude that you would be for such a thing, as long as it is to get rid of books which offend you. I, on the other hand, would defend those books. Not because the books do not also offend me, but because I disagree with destruction as a methodology.
You may not agree with Obama and, perhaps, everything he stands for. I may also not agree with a lot of decisions he is making, but I'm not on a witch hunt like you are. I can still find good decisions in the man, even if I can still find bad decisions in the man. You are already preparing to vote him out of office without taking decent consideration into who you would be voting in. To me, that attitude is scary and is exactly how the true socialists want you to feel. All true socialists paint each new President as a socialist (even Bush was painted as a socialist early on) because by demonizing any current sitting President, they can rile the emotions of the overly sensitive into taking up their pitchforks and torches and ultimately get a better chance at voting in the next candidate who would be exactly who the true socialists would want in place.
The fact that you're a Spanish Apache [Native American] who is married to an Anglo woman does not somehow make you immune to being prejudiced. Note that I did not call you racist. I called you prejudiced. This is different.
@Phil,
The fact that you have preconceived beliefs towards a person or group of people based on their political beliefs makes you prejudiced.
The fact that you make justifications based on experience and without knowledge of the facts without any unreasonable attitude that is unusually resistant to rational influence makes you prejudiced.
For instance, instead of only attacking specific acts which have been passed, you attack Obama as a whole. To me, that's tossing out the baby with the bath water.
For instance, in 2001 Bush signed an executive order that gave former presidents the right to review every presidential document no matter how long it took them to perform this review. As a result, it allowed Presidents to delay (for nearly as long as they wanted) the release of documents to the public.
On January 21, 2009, Obama signed an executive order to undo this and restore the system back to the way it was. There is now a 30-day time-limit (as was the rule before) for review. So, if you're for an open government, you should praise this move.
It sounds like, instead, you seek to villianize Obama at all costs.
I think that in order for our way of life to be restored to the level it was intended by our forefathers, we must look at the ISSUES not at the PERSON. I can't make a judgement call as to whether or not I will be voting Obama out and someone else in, because I do not know the person I would be voting in, or what they are promising, or what their track record in keeping their promises is like.
All I know is that I will be looking at the issues... at the promises... and at the integrity of the person. Thankfully, in President Obama's case, we already see his track record, so we have something to compare against. I can almost certainly tell you that if it is Palin running against Obama, I will have to side with Obama (or with one of the other party members running) because Palin is a joke.
She proved it when she ran for VP, she proved it after she lost the race, and she continues to prove it in the book she wrote.
very true today
Bob I don’t hate anybody I’m just sick of the lies and deception obama is trying to shove down our throats. I love freedom and liberty and they are both under assault by him, his administration and our government. Its not right that we have to defend them from our president or our government. I have presented facts but you refuse to acknowledge them. You say
“My goal is to find a common ground for all people, by which we can maintain the way of life which was intended by our forefathers, where all people have a say and not just specific groups of people who agree with each other.”
But you do not acknowledge me and my beliefs and the right for me to have those beliefs. Only that me and those out there who are like minded should not believe as we do.
If I believe that homosexuality is a sin and I don’t want my kid taught about it in school; that is my right as a citizen and no one has the right to pass laws saying I can’t believe that or that my kid should have to learn it.
If I believe that climate change is a hoax and I want to drive an SUV that is up to me not government.
If my son prays in school no one has the right to tell him he cant.
If I believe in creation rather then evolution and I don’t want my kids being taught evolution that should be up to me. Not the state not the federal government, me.
If I don’t want my taxes going to pay for abortions and stem cell research and other things that go against my personal and religious beliefs that should be up to me.
If I own a gun I shouldn’t have to worry that my government is going to make it illegal.
If I want to hunt for my food that’s my right.
If I believe vaccines cause autism and I want to wait until my child is older that is nobodies business but mine.
If I don’t want to pay for other peoples healthcare or welfare that should be my choice not government.
If I want to own cattle and farm no one has the right to tell me I cant.
I shouldn’t have to worry that my government is going to fine me or put me in jail because I didn’t buy there healthcare.
I shouldn’t have to give the majority of my hard earned money to my government.
I believe we all have the right to live the way we want to live and government does not have the right to tell us we can’t. don’t you understand Bob I’m not trying to make you believe what I believe I’m just saying I want to keep my rights to live the way I want and believe what I want to and the government doesn’t have the right to dictate what that should be.
The common ground is: I live and believe the way I want to and you go off and do the same. The conflict is when you try to force me to live your way. By doing so you force me to give up my liberties and freedom. That is unacceptable not just because it compromises my liberty and freedom but by doing so it compromises all Americans liberty and freedom.
All Americans already do have a say in this country but not when it comes to limiting individual liberty and freedom. That is sacred ground and the government has no right to tread on any Americans liberty and freedom. Obama is doing all these things and more and by doing so he has crossed the line. He pays no regard to the constitution and therefore infringes on all our constitutional rights, liberties and freedoms.
I do not have any wish to burn any book for any reason. Everyone has the right to read anything they want whether truth or fiction but don’t try to make me read it. Government has no right determine what me or my family reads. Is this philosophy really “hateful and destructive” to you.
No I will not compromise my values and core beliefs. I guard them with my very life.
You proclaim that you “will be looking at the issues... at the promises... and at the integrity of the person.” But you shun Sara Palin with your only reasoning based on a “Pre conceived notion” that you believe she “is a joke” You are Hypocrite Bob and you are right we “already see his track record, so we have something to compare against.”
The biggest national debt our nation has ever seen and this is only the first year
Inflation out of control
Lies and broken promises
destroying the privet sector
10.2% reported unemployment thou its more like 17%
gigantic growth of government
destroying Las Vegas
Ramming socialized healthcare down our throats whether we want it or not
disgracing our nation with his world apology tour
letting our troops get slaughtered while waiting for reinforcements
spending millions of dollars withholding his birth records
ramming cap and trade down our throats.
Yet you still favor Obama over Sara Palin. Now I know I was right “If Obama burned the constitution and smoked the ashes you would still support him” Like I Said your fake smug intellectual attitude can’t save you now. You are as transparent as a glass of water. Theirs an old saying Bob; don’t piss down our backs and tell us its raining.
@ Warren;
There are a number of things I agree with you upon---no, let’s be frank----I agree with most of them. I would love to see the Republic restored. But that would take a miracle. And I know God still does extraordinary miracles. Take Israel for example---I’ve heard that the only wars West Point doesn’t use as learning templates are the wars Israel has won---because those victories are impossible. The only rational explanation to their victories is the supernatural intervention of Almighty God. So there’s proof for all unbelievers---to chew on. But I have to be practical. The best I can hope for this once great---and greatest of all Republics is this---that an ever increasing number of her citizens wake up out of the catastrophic deception that’s been perpetrated upon us and take suitable action. Definitions of suitable actions could take a book.
But I don’t think the future God intends for America is to restore the Republic. Yes, the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of New Jerusalem, the Holy City of God, when she comes to earth. Revelation 21:24. And those are nations we’re talking about, not a unified one world government. The one world government is the devil’s idea. God’s plan is for nations. Revelation 21:24 says as much. So I know deep in my heart our nation will again one day walk before God.
The only scenario I can see for America right now is for those of her people who fear God to take part in a tactical retreat which will be the catching away of his vessels off the earth. Then the remainder will be punished. Or else God will have to apologize to Sodom. Isaiah 18:1-7 visits America in the End-Time.
Don’t like the Biblical end-times catastrophic scenario? Look at what we have today: A hell-bent international banking cartel intent on nothing less than total domination of the entire world is very close to achieving its long term goal—of dominating the entire earth. A one-world government using a one-world currency becoming a one-world brutal dictatorial regime is charging down the tracks at us—right now. RFID chips are already being used and these puppet-masters want one in every peon on the planet. If that’s not the mark of the beast prophesied about in Revelation, it’s very close. All that will be required is that ‘they’ demand you take one, or refuse to allow you to use ‘their’ money.
Kevin Hofsas, Author
Books; too advanced for you.
@ Warren;
Clever tool breaking up your points on multiple posts. I think I must plagiarize your tactic.
What is fearing God? The absolute authority on God, the Holy Bible . . . (BTW; whoever doesn’t believe there is only One Way to Eternal Life which is Jesus Christ, check this out: God, who cannot lie, tells whoever will listen, “I am God, there is none else.” He that made heaven and earth says he made them to be inhabited---right there you have proof positive mankind will one day both inherit and inhabit the stars. [Isaiah 45:18.] And for those who think Jews have to become Christians to be saved, think again: “Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.” [Isaiah 45:22] That is plain, simple and true instruction for how to inherit eternal life. {If that doesn’t interest you, what could possibly be your problem?} But if you can, do go on to the fullness of Christ which is perfection in God. And don’t forget . . . Jesus was Jewish!)
So: fearing God:
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge. Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the Lord, and depart from evil. The fear of the Lord is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the forward mouth, do I hate. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding. The fear of the Lord prolongeth days . . . In the fear of the Lord is strong confidence . . . The fear of the Lord is a fountain of life . . . Better is a little with the fear of the Lord than great treasure and trouble therewith. The fear of the Lord is the instruction of wisdom . . . by the fear of the Lord men depart from evil. The fear of the Lord tendeth to life . . . By humility and the fear of the Lord are riches, and honor and life. Let not thine heart envy sinners: but be thou in the fear of the Lord all the day long.
Why say all that? Because I said those who fear God will take part in the tactical retreat God will very soon initiate not only in America but across the entire world. It’s so close right now it’s ridiculous. You call yourself a conservative patriot. I appreciate the rest of your thoughts from your cave too. But my high hope for you, brother, is that you are found in Him, pure and blameless, in that day when God takes his church off the earth. And church simply means the ‘body of believers.’ The only way to be pure and blameless is to have your sins washed away by the precious blood of Jesus Christ. Come to, now; taste and see that the Lord is good; find Eternal Life; behold, God is at the door of your heart, knocking right now---stay fast! Your eternal soul, which you are stuck with, needs you to follow Jesus to save it.
As for thee also, by the blood of thy covenant (Jesus’ blood) I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water. Zechariah 9:11.
I said Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven, and that Jews don’t need to be Christian to be saved, I tie off like this: The Lord of Isaiah 45:22 IS Jesus. He IS the Great I Am. If Jews are bending their knees to the Lord of the Old Testament, even if they don’t know that it’s Jesus yet, they still get in. God bless you all, my Jewish brothers. Great is your God! Hallelujah!!!
Kevin Hofsas, Author
Books; too advanced for you.
@ Warren;
If I can alienate someone because I say my books are too advanced for him, how mature is that? I know . . . I’m pissing more people off by the second. But let’s think about this for a minute: the reason I put it that way is to provoke to jealousy anyone who comes across it. And let’s face it---I wrote those books so other people could experience that too! Naturally this blog wouldn’t be the usual place to discuss my books, but since we’re on the subject, let’s continue. The 1948 Cartoon is educational. Education is good. Misinformation on the other hand, is bad. Our public schools are misinforming school children at a catastrophic rate. Where do my books fit in? You decide. That is, if you have an appetite for discovering truths never before revealed since the foundation of the earth. Big words for a little man some would say. But they’re easy for me to say because they’re true.
The fiction took over 8 years to write, if I include the false starts, the cooling down periods and the re-writes. It is a kaleidoscope of motion designed to enthrall and move its readers via primary sensory paradigm shift. Which is a convoluted way of saying, I take the huge stone each reader calls their view of the world and get them to move it so they look at the world through new eyes. Which is why the pen is said to be mightier than the sword in the first place. Along the way you will see what the Real devil Really looks like, because I have seen him myself, and get to Hear what it’s like to Hear the Voice of God, because I have heard it myself.
Okay; say that’s too impossible for you to believe; go to non-fiction. I have perceived, while so deep into the Occult (This was before I was saved by God Almighty through Jesus Christ) that it kills you, the luminous body prophesied about by Jesus in Matthew 13:43. “Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who has ears to hear, let him hear.” Which is not what the non-fiction is about---it’s about 7 Visitations from God and 12 Revelations from Heaven. But I skim over the luminous body because it’s pivotal to my having actually seen God, seeing that no man may see God and live. The easy explanation is the luminous body cannot remotely be considered a man. Jesus knew this was a tough subject which is why he classified it for those who have ears to hear. He may have even meant, those who have any interest or experience concerning this, but I digress.
All the earth is the Lord’s, as are all nations. We are his field; history has been orchestrated by Him. If there wasn’t this ‘canvass’ of ‘life’ upon which it appears God does nothing, we couldn’t all prove what we stand for. And God will recreate all good things in absolute perfection: “Behold, I make all things new.” He let his own Son be destroyed for the sins of the world, and Christ, rising from the dead, has abolished death. He just hasn’t enforced it yet in our narrow spectrum of reality.
If you really want to put the screws to those who pervert justice and practice evil, be an irrevocable winner by serving God and Jesus Christ. Our salvation is absolute, infinite and unmovable. The wicked will be ashes under the soles of your feet. Death cannot hurt those whose victory is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. As Jesus said, not a hair of your head will perish. And he said that to some who would even be put to death for his name’s sake. So he didn’t mean this short life, but something much more glorious. God is much more infinite and mighty than we can even guess---his control is so astonishing that we could just as well say, we are just in God’s dream. He will recreate all good things in eternal perfection. Behold, I make all things new. He has abolished death. Even to every hair on your head. God is THAT BIG.
Kevin Hofsas, Author
7 Visitations from God,
12 Revelations from Heaven.
www.MarkMyWordsPublishing.com
Thank you warren. You can rest assured that I am saved. Yes we do disagree on several points. No mater, in the end the decision will be made by God not me. My goal is simply to wake up those who think there immune to the rule of God. It is always up to them, but when the day of judgment comes they cant say they weren't worried. maybe someone will read it and get saved.
here are some more facts
November 24, 2009
Using Bankruptcy and Capital Standards to Address Financial Institutions That Are "Too Big to Fail"
by David C. John
Backgrounder #2343
Abstract: The next financial crisis could cause the entire global financial system to collapse. However, the Obama Administration's proposal is unrealistic and would give government regulators almost unlimited powers to take over or micromanage financial institutions. The better choice would be to amend U.S. bankruptcy law to create an open, expedited bankruptcy process in which an impartial court would oversee the restructuring or closure of large and complex financial firms. In addition, increasing financial institutions' capital requirements would reduce risk to the system and limit losses if a financial crisis occurs.
One of the worst aspects of the financial meltdown of 2008 was watching the government give billions of dollars to distressed financial institutions because, unlike most other types of businesses in the United States, there was no system for the orderly restructuring of a failing large financial institution. Rather than allow the financial system to collapse, firms ranging from AIG to Citibank to Bank of America received hundreds of billions of tax dollars in capital infusions and loans -- much of which has been lost for good. To ensure against a reoccurrence, Congress needs to modernize bankruptcy laws to create an expedited method to restructure and close such large and complex financial firms. Congress should also increase capital standards in a way that discourages financial firms from reaching the point that their failure could endanger the entire financial system.
Large, complex firms comprise a significant portion of the world's financial industry. These businesses are so tightly interconnected that the failure of one could cause the others to fail. Of these, a few "too big to fail" firms are so large that one failure could bring down the entire financial system. Normally, large firms that fail can be handled through the bankruptcy process, but the current law is unsuitable for today's large financial services firms because the value of their assets is determined as much by faith in the financial system as by more traditional measures. Their assets can become worthless within minutes or hours, as can similar assets held by other financial entities.
In 2008, the failure of Lehman Brothers and the general uncertainty about what would happen next caused markets to crash and drove major firms to the brink of failure because no one really knew what certain assets were worth. Further, the interconnectedness of firms meant that losses in one would spread to others that held similar assets or that had major business relationships with each other. Faced with a looming catastrophe and lacking any mechanisms suitable to address the scale of the problems, regulators literally made up solutions as they attempted to respond to each new crisis. It quickly became clear that just letting the firms fail would cause an even wider panic and cascading effects could threaten the entire financial system. Although collapse was avoided, the strain was far worse than most experts expected.
This problem should not be ignored and left to chance. Otherwise, the next time could cause the entire financial system to collapse. Much of the chaos in 2008 came from uncertainty about what would happen next. Preventing the next crisis should therefore begin with establishing a clearly understood mechanism that enables orderly resolution of a failing large financial institution. A properly structured resolution mechanism would tell the market what to expect and prevent taxpayer-funded rescues. Equally important, its presence would signal to investors and managers that they cannot base their business strategy on the expectation that the government will bail out their firms. The second element of the solution involves reducing the risk from such firms by encouraging them to engage in less risky behavior and requiring them to have assets available to absorb losses in a crisis.
A number of different solutions have been proposed, but most of them look better on paper than they would in reality. This includes the Obama Administration proposal to give resolution authority to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), which assumes that dealing with a distressed and complex multinational nonbank is comparable to handling a small bank failure. Sadly, the Obama plan is much more likely to increase taxpayer bailouts of major financial institutions than to curb them.
A better approach would be to add a new chapter to the bankruptcy code that is explicitly designed to meet the special circumstances of "too big to fail"[1] financial institutions. Properly structured, the new chapter would allow large financial firms to be closed in an orderly way that reduces the potential for systemic risk. It would not give regulators virtually unlimited powers and would free the process from political interference by giving control to an unbiased court system that already has extensive experience with complex modern firms.
Meanwhile, higher capital standards would both discourage growth above a certain point in all but the most efficiently managed firms and provide an extra cushion for times of economic stress. Capital standards should differentiate among assets by risk and by size of institution.
The Obama Proposal
The Obama Administration[2] has proposed giving the FDIC emergency authority over nonbank financial institutions that are "too big to fail" and allowing the Secretary of the Treasury to designate the FDIC[3] as the conservator or receiver of failing financial institutions. The original Obama Administration proposal was released on July 23, 2009, and was revised by a draft bill[4] proposed by House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) on October 29. If the Financial Services Committee approves it, the draft will be introduced as the Financial Stability Improvement Act of 2009 (H.R. 3996).
Financial institutions subject to the "too big to fail" regime would include bank holding companies and their nonbank subsidiaries.[5] It would also include "tier 1 financial services holding companies," a new designation intended to cover large financial services firms that do not own a depository institution, but that could cause systemic risk to the financial system if they failed. In theory, this new designation would allow the regulators to extend their reach to any large financial institution and its subsidiaries regardless of how it is organized, what it owns, or how it is operated. While there is a need to deal with failing financial companies that could cause systemic risk regardless of how they are organized, the Administration's approach seems geared more toward facilitating future bailouts and justifying additional intervention.
The Three Major Parts. As originally announced in July and revised in October, the Obama resolution plan has three major parts:
Determination. First, to initiate the process, the Treasury Department would need to determine that failure of a specific firm would cause systemic risk[6] and two-thirds of the members of the Federal Reserve Board and either the FDIC or the Securities and Exchange Commission boards would need to vote in support of using the mechanism.
Intervention. After the determination, the FDIC with the approval of the Treasury Secretary could take a wide variety of actions ranging from loans to the failing company, purchasing equity stakes in the company, assuming or guaranteeing obligations of the firm, or purchasing the company's assets either directly or through an entity established by the FDIC.
Conservatorship or Receivership. Alternately, the Treasury secretary could appoint the FDIC as the conservator or receiver, after which the agency could essentially take control of the company and run it.
According to Assistant Treasury Secretary Michael Barr:
A conservatorship or receivership under this authority would have four essential elements that would improve execution and outcomes relative to the tools that were available last fall: (i) swifter replacement of board and senior management with new managers selected by the FDIC; (ii) a temporary stay of counterparty termination and netting rights to mitigate the adverse consequences to the company's liquidity, avoiding the cross defaults and cascades that otherwise, create a vicious cycle leading ultimately to financial collapse; (iii) the ability to provide the firm with secured financing to fund its liquidity and capital needs during the conservatorship or receivership to mitigate the "knock on" effects of any firm's failure and to fund its operations, pending its sale or winding down; and (iv) the creation of one or more bridge bank holding companies in the case of a receivership to preserve the business franchise, deal with counterparty claims, and protect viable assets of stronger subsidiaries pending their sale. This would end the firm -- wind it down -- without contributing to system-wide failure.[7]
The Plan's Flaws. The Obama plan has several major failings. First, it is extremely open-ended and "tier 1 financial services holding company" is so broadly defined that it could apply to almost any financial firm in any circumstance.[8] Once so designated, a company would be subject to a wide variety of Federal Reserve regulations and oversight that are equally poorly defined and open-ended. As amplified by the October draft,[9] the regulators would have such broad and encompassing powers that they could essentially draft any financial firm into the federal financial regulatory system and subject it to a wide variety of restrictions. Further, at any point, the regulators could compel large financial firms to sell off portions of themselves, drop lines of business, break up, or otherwise reduce the "risk" that the regulators believe they may impose on the financial system.
This unlimited power and scope is extremely unwise and would almost certainly face constitutional challenges. Even worse, it would almost certainly be applied to newer lines of business and products instead of traditional ones, thus reducing domestic financial innovation and drive innovative international products offshore.
Second, depending on the rules and the market's interpretation of the rules, the special designation of firms could distort the credit markets, possibly giving designated firms advantages unavailable to undesignated firms or creating special weaknesses. The idea that a designation could be kept secret is exceedingly naïve because any qualified analyst could easily replicate the list by watching the actions of the regulators and examining the balance sheets of large financial services firms. In fact, any experienced financial reporter could create an accurate list from memory. On the other hand, a public list would certainly cause distortions because the market would know that certain financial institutions are "too big to fail" and price their debt to reflect the perceived lower risk. As in the cases of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, repeated disclaimers that there was no government guarantee of their debt did nothing to counteract the market's assumption that such a guarantee existed.
Further, a publicly designated tier 1 firm that is then delisted could be exposed to severe adverse consequences as the market reacts to the news. Of course, a designated firm would receive advantages in credit costs whether or not the list is public.
Third, the Obama plan would virtually guarantee more federal bailouts of large financial firms by creating a funding mechanism that is so open-ended that it could be used in almost any situation. Most press reports focus on proposals to advance tax dollars to a failing company that would be repaid through a fee imposed on firms with over $4 billion in assets. The alternative, proposed by the FDIC and endorsed by Chairman Frank (after he had earlier supported assessments after a crisis), would be to create a type of "super FDIC" fund that would be funded in advance by charging regular insurance fees to large and complex financial institutions.[10]
Better Alternatives. Instead of establishing a new unlimited authority, the Administration could meet its objectives more effectively through less intrusive means. Stricter capital requirements would reduce the potential risk to the economy from large financial institutions. Similarly, adding a new section to the bankruptcy code would enable the courts to resolve failing large financial institutions.
Closing down multinational financial firms is not easy. The collapse of Lehman Brothers caused about 92 subsidiaries to go into bankruptcy, of which only 20 subsidiaries were located in the U.S. and came under American jurisdiction. Even today, there are disputes about whether assets located in the United States belong to international subsidiaries.
Clearly, a receiver or conservator that can operate at least certain subsidiaries until they can be sold or closed in an orderly way is necessary to maximize returns to debtors. However, the Administration's implicit assumption that the FDIC could resolve complex financial giants is seriously misguided. While the FDIC has broad experience with resolving failed smaller banks, it has no experience with the broader financial activities that almost certainly would be part of failing large financials. If cast in this new role, the agency would likely discover that its procedures cannot handle the challenges of such a distressed firm, and its efforts would cause the same systemic shock that the new authority is designed to prevent.
Other Proposed Solutions That Will Not Work
The Obama proposal is just one approach to dealing with the risk to the financial system from the potential failure of financial institutions. As the events of 2008 showed, the failure of important financial institutions can change the real and perceived value of assets to the point that other entities totter on the verge of failure. Unchecked, this type of shock to the financial system can spread internationally from firm to firm and threaten the entire financial system. This type of global catastrophe came so close to reality that changes are clearly needed. However, most of the proposed solutions fail to address the underlying issues. Many focus on distinctive aspects of the financial industry, mistakenly assuming that changing them will reduce systemic risk.
The problem of "too big to fail" financial institutions is neither a small nor simple issue. While the proposals address aspects of systemic risk, none is comprehensive or fully practical.
Separating Out Risky Activities. The head of the Bank of England and others want to separate depository functions from the risky parts of financial institutions, such as those that deal in innovative financing methods and derivatives. However, separating traditional depository activities from their riskier cousins -- even if this is possible -- solves only part of the problem. Presumably, the risky parts would be allowed to fail, while the deposit-taking parts would essentially become utilities with very limited and safe activities. The depositary remnants would not be in danger of failing because of their limited nature and would be rescued if they ever did.
In the U.S., this proposal would restore the old Glass-Steagall Act, which arbitrarily separated banking and finance after the Depression. In assuming that the non-depository entities can safely fail, supporters are forgetting that the failures of the non-depository investment houses Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers and the potential failure of the global insurance company AIG helped to trigger the 2008 crisis. They are also forgetting that financial firms found ways to circumvent many of the Glass-Steagall restrictions by the time it was repealed. Explicit prohibitions on risk taking or selling high-risk products are an invitation to firms to find loopholes that defeat the purpose of such laws and raise the cost of financial products to the eventual consumers.
Reducing the Size of Financial Institutions. Another plan is to limit the size of financial institutions and to require firms that exceed a particular size to shrink or sell portions of themselves. This proposal sounds better in theory than it would work in practice. The idea is that the best way to deal with such financial institutions is to reduce their size and scope to the point that they no longer pose any risk. As with the proposal to separate risky activities from depository functions, all major financial institutions are so intertwined that reducing the size of this or that entity does not really reduce risk. The asset and investment mix of a smaller financial institution can be just as dangerous as those of larger institutions. For instance, when the hedge fund Long Term Capital Management failed in 1998, its asset size made it much smaller than many commercial banks were at the time, but the firm posed much greater risk because of its large investment in derivatives issued by dozens of other financial institutions. Merely reducing its size would not have changed those connections.
Advance Plan for Handling a Failure. A third proposal would require financial institutions that could pose a systemic risk to prepare a "living will" that preplans what would happen if the firm failed. There is a potential value to requiring larger firms to have a living will that specifies how to handle specific liabilities and subsidiaries if it fails, but such an approach has serious limitations. Perhaps the greatest benefit of such an approach is that it would force management to consider the firm's operations from a different perspective and would provide initial guidance in the event of an emergency. The British government and the U.S. Treasury Department strongly support the idea, believing that such an exercise would cause a financial institution to simplify their structures to facilitate dealing with a potential failure. However, the proposal is only likely to work if the plan is reviewed and/or approved by the firm's regulators, a move that opens the door to government micromanagement.
For a living will to limit systemic risk in a more fundamental fashion, the market must fully understand what will happen to different subsidiaries and products if the firm fails. This requires a failure plan that is explicitly detailed, constantly updated, and easily available. It may even be necessary for the firm to disclose this information on legal documents and in marketing material. In addition, because virtually all "too big to fail" institutions have extensive international operations, they would need to factor in the different laws of each country in which they operate. This is a massive task because it is often difficult to define exactly where products are sold, where those products are legally located, and where cash assets are deposited. Finally, if a failure proceeds differently due to unforeseeable circumstances (as is likely), the presence of a "living will" or similar plan could increase the firm's legal liability.
Simply put, a living will would likely prove nothing more than a wasted planning exercise that could open the door to regulatory micromanagement before a failure and lawsuits afterward.
Dealing with Large Failing Firms. Regardless of the steps taken to reduce the firm size and risk, one or more "too big to fail" financial institutions will inevitably either fail or nearly fail. As 2008 showed, the government currently does not have an effective way to resolve these entities. The Administration plans to fill this need by giving the FDIC new authority.
A far better choice would be to add a new chapter of bankruptcy law to accommodate the special problems of resolving massive financial services firms. A bankruptcy court applying bankruptcy law could more effectively avoid disorderly failures of large financial institutions than the FDIC using nearly unlimited new powers. Moreover, bankruptcy courts have experience with large and complex cases, the ability to manage the hiring and supervision of financial and legal experts, and the objectivity that a court brings to such proceedings.
Today's bankruptcy laws are inadequate to meet the special needs of large and complex financial institutions, their creditors, and the financial systems within which they operate. They were intended to deal with firms that have physical assets, such as factories and inventories, not financial firms with major assets, such as client lists and instruments, which have value as determined by the reputation of the issuer. At the first sign of terminal distress, the value of both types of assets could quickly disappear.
While details will be especially important to creating an appropriate bankruptcy procedure suited to the special needs of multinational financial institutions,[11] bankruptcy courts could easily be empowered to appoint receivers and conservators to take over failing firms, continue to operate viable subsidiaries until they can be sold, quickly close and sell unviable portions of the firm, and resolve its outstanding liabilities. The key changes to the bankruptcy statutes would be to give the court the ability to deal with a very different asset mix than is found in traditional companies and to act very quickly to preserve asset value in the face of clauses in lending contracts that allow the lender to take immediate possession of firm assets upon a bankruptcy filing without going through a legal process to do so. The court should be given a clear goal of resolving the firm as quickly as possible to minimize the impact on the financial system, but it should have the flexibility either to liquidate the firm totally or to restructure and sell it. A key responsibility of the court would be to encourage the receiver or conservator to remove failing management and replace it with better qualified professionals.
Handling this process through bankruptcy rather than with regulators has two additional advantages. First, the courts already have experience with large and complex bankruptcies. There would be no learning curve or grant of extraordinary new powers to a bureaucracy. Second and equally important, the courts will be impartial and free of the inevitable politicization that would accompany a government agency's involvement in the process.
Another consideration is that a firm should be allowed to seek the advice of the court, appropriate functional regulators, and others before deciding whether to file for bankruptcy. These consultations should be held in strictly confidential proceedings that are publicized only after the firm seeks the protection of a bankruptcy court or is brought before the court by regulators. Likewise, to reduce systemic risk as much as possible, the court should be empowered to consult with financial regulators, officials of the affected firm, and others in advance of any filing. Regulators should be allowed to initiate a court proceeding that would place a "too big to fail" firm under the control of a bankruptcy court, but the firm should also be able to appeal such a move. These proceedings would also be held strictly confidential until and unless the bankruptcy court decides to take control of the company. By placing such a move under the oversight of the bankruptcy court, questions about whether a regulator has moved against a particular firm for political motivations should be easily resolved.
As in other bankruptcy proceedings, the process should not include public funding. The failing institution's investors and creditors should bear any losses. Additional funds necessary to resolve the failing financial institution come from other private-sector providers, whether in the form of secured loans or the proceeds of the sale of certain parts of the failing firm.
Using Capital Standards to Reduce the Risk. The other critical element to resolving "too big to fail" financial institutions is to reduce the risk that they pose to the overall financial system while they are still healthy. The most effective approach to reducing this risk, and one that is gaining support across the political spectrum, is through stronger capital and liquidity standards on larger financial institutions, regardless of whether they are banks or other types of institutions that might be exempt from such standards.
Higher capital standards should be structured to reduce both the risk imposed by a large financial institution on the overall financial system and the risk that could result from a concentration of high-risk assets in that firm. All financial institutions above a certain size, as determined by a proportion of overall financial services assets, should be required to hold increasingly higher amounts of capital as they grow in size. This additional capital would both reduce the likelihood that such a financial institution would fail and reduce the risk to the financial system if it did. Exceptionally efficient and well-managed firms could still grow, but others would find it less profitable to grow and may even choose to shrink or split. It is important to note that a financial services firm is not necessarily dangerous just because of its size, but a large firm is more likely to pose a systemic risk than a smaller firm.
However, capital holdings based merely on size could fail to reduce systemic risk unless large financial services firms are also subject to a second standard based on the risk of their assets. Some smaller firms may be much riskier to the overall economy than much larger firms that mainly deal in more conventional financial instruments. For instance, in 1998, the hedge fund Long Term Capital Management had total assets of about $129 billion, but had derivatives positions with a notional value of approximately $1.25 trillion. That same year, the merger of Citibank and the Travelers Group created an institution with $700 billion in assets. Thus, just as is done with bank capital requirements, specific types of financial products and investments should be subject to still higher capital standards, with a firm's overall capital requirement being based on meshing the two separate standards.
Together, the two capital standards should create the appropriate incentives to sharply reduce the leverage of the financial services firm. Leverage is a measure of the ratio of capital that is available to cover losses to the assets of the financial institution. A low leverage ratio implies a higher probability that the institution will have sufficient capital to cover potential losses. On the other hand, a high leverage ratio increases the profits available to investors because those profits are divided among fewer shareholders. When it failed, Long Term Capital Management had capital of $4.72 billion and assets of $124.5 billion, a 25-1 leverage ratio ($25 of assets for each $1 of capital). Once the firm lost $4.6 billion because of a Russian financial crisis, it was bankrupt. Because of its investments in high-risk derivatives, it was very susceptible to a sudden drop in the value of those assets.
With borrowings, large financial firms have routinely reached leverage rations in excess of 20-1 and even 50-1. The new standards should force the largest and riskiest firms to maintain ratios closer to 4-1 on assets added to their portfolios after they reach a certain size. Such low ratios would require firms to be exceptionally well managed and efficient to grow any larger.
Higher capital standards will not imperil the competitive position of U.S. banks. There is a growing international movement to develop international capital standards through the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), a grouping of international central banks that has worked to foster monetary and financial cooperation since 1930. Currently, BIS administers Basel II, a June 2004 international agreement on the appropriate level of bank reserves. A similar international agreement on capital standards to reduce systemic risk will likely be developed in the next few years. However, the U.S. should not wait for an international agreement before implementing tougher capital requirements, nor subordinate its own interests to those of other countries.
To succeed, these capital levels will need to apply to any financial firm operating under U.S. jurisdiction. One of the first instances of realized systemic risk, the 1998 Federal Reserve supervised bailout of the hedge fund Long Term Capital Management, shows that such risk is not limited to traditional types of financial services firms. However, rather than simply giving regulators the open-ended ability to designate any firm as potentially posing a systemic risk, Congress should meet its responsibilities by clearly defining which types of firms would be subject to the requirement and by regularly revisiting that definition with input from the regulators. This would both limit the power of regulators and clarify that the blame for any resulting problems would rest with Congress.
In addition to improved capital standards, Congress needs to impose liquidity requirements for exceptionally large financial institutions. Liquidity differs from capital in that it is a measure of readily available cash or cash equivalents that can be rapidly converted into cash. One cause of Bear Stearns's failure was its inability to repay its lenders in a timely manner. Increased capital requirements will only work if affected firms have enough reserves to meet losses and can quickly raise enough cash to meet demands. One will not work without the other.
Increased capital standards can also be used to impose yet another level of market discipline on financial firms by requiring them to hold a substantial amount of contingent capital in the form of bonds that could be converted into equity at a set and predetermined rate if the firm runs into financial trouble. Such a move would immediately spread the risk of losses to a class of bondholders, who have been largely exempt from that possibility. Although companies will complain that this would sharply increase their cost of borrowing, it would in reality cause potential bondholders to research and monitor the risk levels of the company more vigilantly. However, these problems can be offset to some extent because well-capitalized companies should find that the market rewards their prudence with somewhat lower borrowing costs.
What Is Capital?
Capital is the reserve of money or other assets owned by the financial institution that it can draw on to cover losses. Legal definitions vary, but it generally includes money raised by the sale of a firm's stock to the public and retained earnings from past activities that have not been paid as dividends or used for other purposes. Other types of capital include increases in the value of assets owned by the firm, funds set aside in anticipation of losses that have not actually occurred, and certain types of long-term debt that will not need to be repaid before the scheduled date when the loan or bond expires.
Typically, bank capital requirements depend in part on the types of assets that the bank holds. Extremely safe assets, such as cash and government debt, do not require capital to be held against them because they can be used as is or sold in the market at close to full value. Riskier assets that might lose value require higher amounts of capital to be held against them. In addition, banks must meet capital requirements equal to a lower percentage of their total assets regardless of how risky they are. In practice, banks must calculate their capital requirements twice -- once against their total assets and again based on the apparent riskiness of those assets -- and hold the higher amount of the two calculations. For example, if a bank had $500 million in assets, of which only $400 million is considered risky, it might need to hold the higher of either 4 percent of its total assets of $500 million ($20 million) or 6 percent of its $400 million worth of riskier assets ($24 million). In this example, the bank must hold at least $24 million in capital. Of course, real world examples are far more complex.
Moving Toward Real Financial Regulatory Reform
Hopefully, the financial crisis of 2008 was a one-time event, but basing policy on that assumption would be irresponsible. The crisis definitively proved that existing methods of dealing with failing firms are inadequate and that too many financial institutions pose a serious level of systemic risk to the overall financial system. Faced with such a crisis, regulators resorted to making up policy and solutions as they went along, responding to each new shock individually without considering whether their reactions and the precedents they were setting would cause even greater problems in coming years. Further, they showed a regrettable tendency to simply throw increasing amounts of money at the problems as the situation worsened.
Taxpayers should never again be forced repeatedly to bail out financial services firms like AIG because a company poses a risk to the entire financial system and regulators lack the necessary tools to close the company safely. Policymakers have made a number of sincere proposals to deal with this problem, but most of their proposals are unrealistic or would give government agencies unacceptably broad powers to intervene at will.
Regrettably, the Obama proposal exhibits both flaws by assigning the FDIC a role that it is unprepared to play and giving the Federal Reserve and other regulators such broad powers that a constitutional challenge would be inevitable. Far from a solution, the Obama plan practically guarantees that regulators will need to back up their poor decisions with massive taxpayer bailouts of firms that followed regulators' directives and got into serious trouble anyway.
A better approach to preventing another crisis is to modify U.S. bankruptcy law to accommodate the special problems of resolving huge financial firms and to allow the courts to appoint receivers with the specialized knowledge necessary to best deal with their failure. By creating an open process controlled by an impartial judiciary guided by established statutory rules, financial firms, investors, taxpayers, and others would have the advance knowledge that large financial firms that were once known as "too big to fail" can now be closed if necessary without risking disaster.
In addition, requiring all larger financial services firms to hold significant amounts of capital to cover losses would greatly reduce the systemic risk that they could pose to the financial system. Higher capital levels would enable many firms that would fail under today's capital levels to survive a crisis, saving shareholders and bondholders their investments, employees their jobs, and taxpayers billions of dollars in federal bailouts. Congress and the Administration need to learn and heed the lessons of 2008, or a repeat crisis will just be a matter of time.
David C. John is Senior Research Fellow in Retirement Security and Financial Institutions in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
Despite the wording "too big to fail," size alone does not necessarily determine how much risk a financial firm could impose on the overall financial system. The composition of a large firm's assets is actually more important to deciding whether the failure of a financial institution poses a systemic risk.
[2]The Obama plan would also create a systemic risk regulator. For a discussion of this, see David C. John, "Financial Systemic Risk Regulators: Congress Is Asking the Wrong Questions," Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 2471, June 8, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Regulation/ wm2471.cfm.
[3]The Securities and Exchange Commission may be appointed as conservator or receiver in certain cases in which the firm's largest subsidiary is a registered broker-dealer. Only a few financial institutions would qualify at this point.
[4]For the October draft, see Financial Stability Improvement Act of 2009, committee print, Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, October 29, 2009, at http://financialservices.house.gov/ Key_Issues/Financial_Regulatory_Reform/FinancialRegulatoryReform/ Discussion_Drafts/Committee_Print_titleI102904.pdf (November 4, 2009).
[5]The bank subsidiaries of bank holding companies are already subject to existing FDIC resolution authority and thus need not be included in the new plan.
[6]To start the process of applying the resolution regime to a specific entity, the Treasury Department must determine that (a) the company is at risk of default, (b) failure of the firm would seriously and adversely affect financial stability or the economy, and (c) government action could at least mitigate the adverse effects.
[7]Michael Barr, written testimony before the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, October 22, 2009, p. 6, at http://judiciary.house.gov/ hearings/pdf/Barr091022.pdf (November 16, 2009).
[8]As described in July, "This section amends the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 to allow for the designation by the Board of United States financial companies as Tier 1 financial holding companies if the effect of material financial distress at the companies could pose a threat to global or United States financial stability or the global or United States economy and of foreign financial companies if that effect could pose a threat to United States financial stability or the United States economy. This designation is subject to reevaluation, rescission, notice, and an opportunity to be heard." For a summary of the proposed legislation, see Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, "Title II -- Bank Holding Company Modernization Act of 2009: Section-by-Section Analysis," at http://financialservices.house.gov/Key_Issues/Financial_Regulatory_Reform /FinancialRegulatoryReform/Section-by-Section/title_II_sec_ by_sec_7_22_2009_fnl.pdf (October 23, 2009).
For more detail on these powers and how they could be abused, see Peter J. Wallison, "On Systemic Regulation, Prudential Matters, Resolution Authority, and Securitization," statement before the Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, October 29, 2009, at http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/financialsvcs_dem/ wallison_-_aei.pdf (November 12, 2009).
[10]Barney Frank, interviewed by Al Hunt, Political Capital with Al Hunt, Bloomberg Television, transcript, at http://www.bloomberg.com/apps /news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aUwq0DliFzdY (November 16, 2009).
[11]Title I of H.R. 3110, a comprehensive financial reform bill, addresses many of the specific issues that need to be considered. These include picking an appropriate venue for the proceeding and allowing the firm to seek the advice of the court, the appropriate functional regulators, and others before deciding whether to file for bankruptcy.
Some more facts
October 29, 2009
Not a Good Start: The Future of Arms Control
by heritage.org
Fact Sheet #43
The Reset Button?
Bilateral Relations: President Obama has made overt efforts to "reset" bilateral relations with Russia--even while Russia continues to call the U.S. its "principal adversary." Moscow publicly applauds U.S. disarmament and arms control efforts while they continue a strong and abiding commitment to nuclear weapons.
Increasing Militarization: Russia is reviving Mutually Assured Destruction targeting plans, restarting bombing flights along the Atlantic and Pacific, conducting military visits to Cuba and Venezuela, and building bases in the Arab world. With increasing militarization comes modernization of nuclear weapons.
Russian's Nuclear Deterrent: Nuclear deterrence is Russia's most cost-effective way to preserve security given its deficiencies in its conventional forces and difficulty deploying high-tech weapons.
Russia in Violation: Critics say Russia is already violating existing arms control agreements, including the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START).
Arms Control Principles
Be Constitutional: Arms-control initiatives must be consistent with the constitutional mandate to "provide for the common defence." Arms control agreements that leave America vulnerable should not receive support.
Be Ready to Walk Away: The U.S. should enter arms-control negotiations only if it is willing to walk away from them, as President Reagan did in Reykjavik after the Soviet Union demanded that the U.S. scrap missile defense. Reagan nevertheless achieved the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in 1987 and put in place arrangements for concluding the START and the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty.
Remain Strong: The U.S. should always negotiate from a position of strength. Making concessions without obtaining comparable concessions from the other side risks making America vulnerable and is interpreted as a sign of weakness.
Substance Over Process: The arms-control process shouldn't be permitted to dominate the substance of the negotiations. The U.S. shouldn't accept a deal merely because it would preserve the process.
Focused and Verifiable: Arms-control measures are likely to succeed if the subject matter is focused and adequately verifiable. As Reagan said: "Trust, but verify."
Enforceable and Enforced: Arms-control measures are likely to succeed if the U.S. is willing to declare a treaty partner in material breach and take countervailing military steps in response.
Honor Commitments: The U.S. should never enter into arms control agreements that would call into question or undermine its alliance commitments.
A Better Arms Control Solution
Arms Control Conservatives Support: Conservatives support efforts to reduce the likelihood of aggression and war, not just the number of armaments, and reduce America's vulnerability to attack.
Protect and Defend: The U.S. should pursue a "protect and defend" strategic posture, missile defense, and nuclear modernization.
Moscow Treaty: The U.S. should negotiate a verification and transparency protocol to the Moscow Treaty, which expires in 2012 and lacks detailed verifications procedures.
Multilateralism: The U.S. and Russia should encourage other countries such as China to join an intermediate nuclear forces treaty, as well as the multilateral cooperative effort they have spearheaded to address the threat of nuclear-armed terrorism.
The U.S. Should Not...pursue an overly ambitious arms-control strategy, try to conclude a START follow-on treaty at a breakneck pace, make unilateral concessions in order to conclude the negotiations and/or prevent a new arms race, accept a Russian strategic posture designed to threaten the U.S. and its allies, nor further reduction of the nuclear threshold.
November 19, 2009
Discounting and Climate Change Economics: Estimating the Cost of Cap and Trade
by David Kreutzer, Ph.D.
WebMemo #2705
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently released its preliminary analysis of the Boxer-Kerry cap-and-trade bill. It largely reheats their analysis of the Waxman-Markey bill from last summer.
Proponents of both bills often claim the EPA analyses pegs the cost per household at a postage stamp per day. However, the reality is that the costs of both bills are far from trivial.
The Real Cost of a Car
The EPA lists the cost of the Waxman-Markey energy tax for the year 2050 at just $174 per household. Summed over all households, this figure still adds up to tens of billions of dollars per year, but it is relatively small in a world of trillion-dollar proposals. The problem is that that amount is not what the actual cost would be.
If inflation over the next 40 years equals that of the past 40, the EPA analysis would project that Waxman-Markey would cut consumption by $7,465 per household per year in 2050. The impact for Boxer-Kerry would be similar.
How, then, does the EPA transform $7,465 into $174? It adjusts for inflation and then takes the discounted present value. It is this second step that can be misleading.
To help sort this out, imagine that a time machine takes analysts back to 1969 -- a time when the average price of a new car was about $3,500. Once back in 1969, the exercise is to explain to Congress how much a new car will cost 40 years later in 2009.
Having already lived to see 2009, we know the average price for a new car is about $23,000. But telling the Congress of 1969 that in 40 years cars will cost $23,000 would give an exaggerated notion of the cost increase, because inflation alone will have increased prices by a factor of 5.8. If inflation is taken into account, the price of a new car in 2009 is about $4,000 in 1969 dollars.
From 1969 to 2009, car prices increased, but so did bread prices, housing prices, clothes prices, wages, income, and nearly everything else. Since money is the measuring stick for cost, this measuring stick changes with inflation.
When people buy cars, the real cost is defined as what they have to give up in order to afford the car: clothes, food, dinners out, etc. Economists adjust prices for different years to eliminate the impact of inflation so that a price increase means a good's price has risen relative to that of other goods.
A Steep Discount
In any event, it is not adjusting for inflation that turns the EPA's $7,465 cost for 2050 into $174. Adjusting for inflation brings the annual cost down quite a bit, but the hit is still $1,287 per household, well above a postage stamp per day.
What, then, does the EPA do to turn $1,287 into $174? They take the discounted present value using a real discount (interest) rate of 5 percent.
Discounting is a legitimate tool in finance and for cost-benefit calculations. But discounting can give a much distorted view of costs, as is done by those misrepresenting the EPA analysis.
The car example may help illustrate this problem. Taking the inflation-adjusted (1969 dollars) $4,000 price of the average new car in 2009 and discounting it in the EPA fashion would generate a present value in 1969 of $562.[1] This is clearly much less than the cost of an average car in 2009, even after adjusting for inflation.
What then is this $562? It is the amount when invested for 40 years, at an interest rate guaranteed to be 5 percent above inflation, that would buy the $23,000 car. In other words, if a person in 1969 invested $562 at 9.72 percent interest (5 percent above inflation), letting all of the interest compound and paying no taxes, it would now amount to $23,000, enough to buy a new car.
With similar logic, if every household in 2010 invests $174 at 5 percent above inflation (guaranteed and with no taxes), then in 2050 (assuming inflation in the next four decades is the same as the last four), it would amount to $7,465, or enough to pay for one year's worth of the consumption that Waxman-Markey would have destroyed. Of course, most of the households of 2050 do not exist in 2009.
In any event, the discounted value is not the amount households will have to pay each year, even with discounting. In the most generous case, the present value is the amount that would have to be paid for one year, right now, if the present value for each of the 40 years were paid in one lump sum right now -- that is, if the cost for all 40 years were paid at once. So no matter how it is sliced, there is no sense in which a postage stamp per day reflects the annual cost of the cap-and-trade legislation.
Just as the inflation-adjusted, undiscounted $4,000 average price of a 2009 car would best explain the future cost to people in 1969, the inflation-adjusted, undiscounted $1,287 would be the best measure of the EPA's projected per household consumption loss due to Waxman-Markey for the single year of 2050. But per-household consumption loss may not be the best measure of cost.
Adding to the Cost
When income drops, people prevent consumption from dropping by dipping into savings. In turn, lower savings reduces the ability of families to cope with other shocks and reduces their future income. Further, consumption comes from after-tax dollars, so losses in tax revenue do not show up in data on household consumption. The real economic cost is the loss of income.
Change in national income, as measured by gross domestic product (GDP), is a better measure of the overall economic impact of a policy. Since consumption expenditures are about 31 percent less than GDP, the lost income corresponding to the EPA's lost consumption calculation would actually be $1,867.
Lastly, a household is not necessarily a family. Three college students sharing an apartment are a household according to government statistics, but in reality they are part of three separate families. The EPA uses the average household size of 2.6 for its cost impact. Adjusting household size to a family-of-four standard adds another 53 percent, bringing the cost of cap and trade to $2,872 per family per year.
Very Expensive Postage
The EPA, with some very generous assumptions (doubling nuclear power output in 25 years, for example), projects that the Waxman-Markey energy tax will have an impact of $174 per household in 2050 in present discounted value. However, even using the EPA results shows that the inflation-adjusted impact per family of four would be much higher at $2,872 per year in 2050. Those are some very expensive postage stamps.
Again, though discounting is a useful tool for some financial calculations and when properly employed in cost-benefit analysis, it is not appropriate for giving an accurate picture of future prices. Saying cap and trade will cost a postage stamp per day is equivalent to saying the average new car today costs $562. It is clearly wrong.
David W. Kreutzer, Ph.D., is Senior Policy Analyst for Energy Economics and Climate Change in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation.
[1]Adjusting $23,000 to 1969 prices using the CPI calculator at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis's Web site (http://www.minneapolisfed.org/ index.cfm) yields $3,959.19. Discounting that figure at 5 percent for 40 years gives $562.36.
Some more facts
November 17, 2009
The "Kyoto II" Climate Change Treaty: Implications for American Sovereignty
by Steven Groves
Special Report #72
The upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, is supposed to produce a successor agreement to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, a treaty signed by the Clinton Administration but never sent to the U.S. Senate for advice and consent.[1] The proposed "Kyoto II" successor agreement, if crafted along the lines of the current 181-page negotiating text, poses a clear threat to American sovereignty. This threat is primarily due to the nature of the proposed treaty--a complex, comprehensive, legally binding multilateral convention.
Three Types of Treaties
The United States arguably cedes some amount of sovereignty whenever it ratifies a treaty. The amount of sovereignty ceded depends on the nature of the treaty obligations as well as the reciprocal nature of the obligations of the other parties to the treaty. Such relinquishments of sovereignty are necessarily difficult to quantify.
It may be fairly argued, however, that different kinds of treaties pose different potential risks as to the amount of sovereignty at stake. In terms of the level of risk of ceding sovereignty, an argument may be made that, in general, bilateral treaties pose less of a risk than multilateral treaties, treaties that do not have legally binding obligations pose less of a risk than those that do, and treaties where the U.S. has the ability to make reservations pose less of a risk than those where reservations are not permitted.
The contemplated post-Kyoto climate treaty fails on all three of those counts.
Important Distinctions
As noted, the type of treaty that is the least threatening to American sovereignty is a bilateral treaty--one in which the U.S. and only one other nation make mutual (and usually equal) promises to one another. In such treaties, unlike Kyoto II, U.S. negotiators generally demand its treaty partner commit to reciprocal obligations identical to those that are expected of the U.S.
In bilateral negotiations, the U.S. has substantial control over the final terms of the treaty. With only one other nation participating in the negotiations, the likelihood that the U.S. would be compelled to accept an obligation that would compromise its sovereignty is minimized, if not eliminated. While the obligations undertaken in a bilateral treaty may be legally binding, the U.S. retains the greatest flexibility to derogate or withdraw from a bilateral treaty in the event of noncompliance or breach of the treaty's terms by its treaty partner.
In contrast, multilateral treaties, such as the proposed Kyoto II, pose greater challenges to the U.S. In general, the U.S. has less control over the final terms of multilateral treaties and thus less control over what obligations it has to the other treaty parties. The less control the U.S. has over the final terms of a treaty, the greater the possibility that the terms of the treaty will not comport with U.S. national interests.
In addition, the U.S. is in a much weaker bargaining position as compared to a bilateral treaty negotiation. Voting blocs such as the "Group of 77" developing countries and regional blocs such as the European Union, the African Union, and other organizations have the ability to pool their votes to effectively isolate the U.S. and weaken its bargaining position--as was the case during the negotiations of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.[2]
Moreover, the U.S. has less latitude in a multilateral treaty regime to deviate from the terms of the agreement, even in the face of widespread derogation or even breach of the treaty by other parties. Even if dozens of parties to a multilateral treaty ignore its terms, the U.S. is generally still required to live up to its end of the deal. This occurrence is very common in international human rights treaties, the terms of which are regularly flouted by dozens of countries that are party to those treaties.
Despite these drawbacks, non-binding multilateral treaty regimes are still not nearly as onerous as the proposed Kyoto II treaty. Specifically, U.S. membership in multilateral human rights treaties is palatable in terms of safeguarding American sovereignty due to the fact that U.S. law is generally in harmony with the terms of such treaties prior to ratification. For instance, U.S. ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights posed a negligible threat to sovereignty since the rights enumerated in that treaty were already safeguarded in the U.S. by the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and existing federal and state law.
Furthermore, any inconsistencies that exist between U.S. domestic law and the terms of most multilateral treaties may generally be remedied at the time of ratification through the submission of conditional statements known as "reservations," "understandings," and "declarations." These qualifiers allow the U.S. to join a multilateral treaty regime and comply with its terms while comporting with the U.S. Constitution and existing U.S. law.
In contrast to bilateral and non-binding multilateral treaty regimes, treaties such as the Kyoto Protocol and agreements such as the proposed Kyoto II treaty arguably pose the greatest threat to American sovereignty.
The Greatest Threat to American Sovereignty
Negotiations for a Kyoto II treaty will be multilateral in nature, which will make it difficult if not impossible for the U.S. to control the outcome. Unlike bilateral treaty negotiations, the U.S. will be only one of 192 countries participating in the Copenhagen conference and will therefore have much less say over the final terms of the negotiated text. Voting blocs such as the EU, the AU, and the "G-77" will likely pool their votes and negotiating resources to isolate the U.S. As was the case during the negotiations for the Rome Statute and the Kyoto Protocol, those powerful voting blocs may not have the best interests of the U.S. as their primary concern, to say the least.
Unlike multilateral human rights covenants, the proposed Kyoto II treaty would likely attempt to impose legally binding obligations on the U.S. The international community will be vigilant in requiring the U.S. to meet its obligations, even if many other nations fall short of their own emissions targets and other treaty requirements. Opportunist national leaders and U.N. officials will likely appeal, as they have in the past, to America's leadership role in the world and expect the U.S. to meet its treaty obligations even in the face of widespread noncompliance by other nations.
Onerous Obligations
The obligations sought of the U.S. in the post-Kyoto environment are onerous. They include:
Requirements to cap greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that could negatively affect America's economy;
Payment of American taxpayer dollars to countries for the purpose of developing their clean energy capacity; and
Transfers of clean energy technology from the U.S. to other countries, possibly without fair compensation for the developers of such technology.
In short, the U.S. would be required not only to overhaul its domestic energy policy but to assist other countries to develop their own energy capacity with billions, if not tens or hundreds of billions, of U.S. taxpayer dollars over the course of many years.
Not only are the contemplated obligations of a Kyoto II treaty onerous, but the manner in which the obligations would be enforced would submit the U.S. to an unprecedented monitoring and compliance regime. The U.S. would apparently be required to submit itself to an intrusive international review of both its energy policy and its compliance with obligations to transfer wealth and technology to "developing countries." The current draft negotiating text is replete with references to "facilitative mechanisms," "monitoring, reporting and verification mechanisms," and requirements that financial commitments and transfers of technology be "legally binding."[3]
Furthermore, as conceived, the proposed Kyoto II treaty would require the U.S. and other parties to accept as binding the decisions and rulings of the international bureaucracy created to monitor compliance with the treaty. That is to say, the U.S. would not have the final authority on questions regarding its compliance. Instead, the Kyoto II treaty bureaucracy will decide:
Whether the U.S. has reduced its GHG emissions to the proper level within the proper timeframe;
Whether the U.S. has transferred sufficient amounts of money to develop the clean energy sector for a sufficient number countries in the developing world; and
Whether the U.S., its private corporations, and its patent holders have surrendered (perhaps without compensation) a sufficient amount of clean energy technology to developing countries including, supposedly, China.
Due to the unprecedented obligations that the U.S. would be required to make to the international community and the intrusive compliance mechanisms proposed to enforce those obligations, the contemplated Kyoto II treaty would be unlike any treaty the U.S. has ratified in its history.
No Leeway
Unlike other multilateral treaties, the obligations as set forth in the current draft negotiating text do not lend themselves to reservations, understandings, or declarations. The terms of any post-Kyoto agreement, if ratified by the U.S., would likely obligate it to reduce its GHG emissions by a certain percentage within a certain period of time. No reservation may be taken from that requirement without violating the object and purpose of such a treaty. Likewise, the U.S. would not be able to exclude itself through a reservation from the treaty's proposed compliance and enforcement mechanisms.
The proposed Kyoto II treaty would apparently allow no leeway from its terms--even if future circumstances compel the U.S. to deviate from its obligations regarding GHG emissions and financial transfers. A downturn in the American economy, for example, would not excuse the U.S. from its commitment to transfer billions of taxpayer dollars to support the advancement of clean energy in foreign countries. Ironically, the U.S. would continue to be bound by its obligations under Kyoto II even if future scientific research irrefutably debunks the theory of anthropogenic climate change.
Obama Administration Should Protect American Sovereignty
The contemplated post-Kyoto treaty is a serious threat to American sovereignty due to its legally binding nature, its intrusive compliance and enforcement mechanisms, and an inability on the part of the U.S. to submit reservations, understandings, or declarations to its terms. The Obama Administration should not sign any agreement reached in Copenhagen or thereafter that would deprive the U.S. of its sovereign right to determine the nature and extent of its treaty obligations and whether it has complied with those obligations.
Steven Groves is Bernard and Barbara Lomas Fellow in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation and a contributor to ConUNdrum: The Limits of the United Nations and the Search for Alternatives (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2009).
[1]Recent press reports indicate that only a political "framework" agreement is now expected to be agreed to at the Copenhagen conference. See, for example, Reuters, "UN, Denmark Suggest 2010 Deadlines for Climate Deal," November 16, 2009, at http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSLG401631 (November 17, 2009).
[2]Press release, "UN Diplomatic Conference Concludes in Rome with Decision to Establish Permanent International Criminal Court," United Nations, July 17, 1998, at http://www.un.org/icc/pressrel/lrom22.htm (November 17, 2009); Brett D. Schaefer and Steven Groves, "The U.S. Should Not Join the International Criminal Court," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2307, August 18, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org /Research/InternationalOrganizations/bg2307.cfm#_ftn4.
[3]United Nations, "Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action Under the Convention," Framework Convention on Climate Change, Seventh Session, September 15, 2009, at http://unfccc.int/resource/ docs/2009/awglca7/eng/inf02.pdf (November 17, 2009).
Sounds like that was written in 2009. We can try and defend the sad situation in the world today and try to convince ourselves all is well. But we are heading in the wrong direction and when we loose our freedom we will looked stunned and ask how that could happen. Because you have your head in a hole and are afraid to face the truth. And - I am sick and tired of any negative against Obama as racist. Which is it? His 50% of a white mother or the 50% of his black father. We can mix it and call him Whack or Blite because we will be in big trouble. Wake Up America!
Sounds like that was written in 2009. We can try and defend the sad situation in the world today and try to convince ourselves all is well. But we are heading in the wrong direction and when we loose our freedom we will looked stunned and ask how that could happen. Because you have your head in a hole and are afraid to face the truth. And - I am sick and tired of any negative against Obama as racist. Which is it? His 50% of a white mother or the 50% of his black father. We can mix it and call him Whack or Blite because we will be in big trouble. Wake Up America!
Too much politically correctness
Letter From Grandpa John G. is 63 years old and owns a small business. He's a life-long Republican and sees his dream of retiring next year has all but evaporated. With the stock market crashing and new taxes coming his way, John assumes now that he will work to his dying day. John has a granddaughter. Ashley is a recent college grad. She drives a flashy hybrid car, wears all the latest fashions, and loves to go out to nightclubs and restaurants. Ashley campaigned hard for Barack Obama. After the election she made sure her grandfather (and all other Republican family members) received a big I told-you-so earful on how the world is going to be a much better place now that her party is taking over. Having lost both roommates, Ashley recently ran short of cash and cannot pay the rent (again) on her three-bedroom townhouse. Like she has done many times in the past, she e-mailed her grandfather asking for some financial help. Here is his reply: Sweetheart, I received your request for assistance. Ashley, you know I love you dearly and I'm sympathetic to your financial plight. Unfortunately, times have changed. With the election of President Obama, your grandmother and I have had to set forth a bold new economic plan of our own..."The Ashley Economic Empowerment Plan." Let me explain. Your grandmother and I are life-long, wage-earning tax payers. We have lived a comfortable life, as you know, but we have never had the fancier things like European vacations, luxury cars, etc. We have worked hard and were looking forward to retiring soon. But the plan has changed. Your president is raising our personal and business taxes significantly. He says it is so he can give our hard earned money to other people. Do you know what this means, Ashley? It means less for us, and we must cut back on many business and personal expenses. You know the wonderful receptionist who worked in my office for more than 23 years - the one who always gave you candy when you came over to visit? I had to let her go last week. I can't afford to pay her salary and all of the government mandated taxes that go with having employees. Your grandmother will now work 4 days a week to answer phones, take orders and handle the books. We will be closed on Fridays and will lose even more income. I'm also very sorry to report that your cousin Frank will no longer be working summers in the warehouse. I called him at school this morning. He already knows about it and he's upset because he will have to give up skydiving and his yearly trip to Greenland to survey the polar bears. That's just the business side of things. Some personal economic effects of Obama's new taxation policies include none other than you.
You know very well that over the years your grandmother and I have given you thousands of dollars in cash, tuition assistance, food, housing, clothing, gifts, etc., etc. But by your vote, you have chosen to help others - not at your expense - but at our expense. If you need money now sweetheart, I recommend you call 202-456-1111. That is the direct phone number for the White House. You yourself told me how foolish it is to vote Republican. You said Mr. Obama is going to be the 'People's President,' and is going to help every American live a better life. Based on everything you've told me, along with all the promises we heard during the campaign, I'm sure Mr. Obama will be happy to transfer some stimulus money into your bank account. Have him call me for the account number which I memorized years ago. Perhaps you can now understand what I've been saying all my life: Those who vote for a president should consider the impact on the nation as a whole, and not be just concerned with what they can get for themselves. What Obama supporters don't seem to realize is all of the money he is redistributing to illegal aliens and non-taxpaying Americans (the so-called 'less fortunate') comes from tax-paying families. Remember how you told me, "Only the richest of the rich will be affected"? Well, guess what, honey? Because we own a business, your grandmother and I are now considered to be 'the richest of the rich.' On paper it might look that way, but in the real world we are far from it. As you said while campaigning for Obama, some people will have to carry more of the burden so all of America can prosper. You understand what that means, right? It means that raising taxes on productive people results in them having less money; less money for everything, including granddaughters. I'm sorry, Ashley, but the well has run dry. The free lunches are over. I have no money to give you now. So, congratulations on your choice for 'change.' For future reference, I encourage you to try and add up the total value of the gifts and cash you have received from us just since you went off to college, and compare it to what you expect to get from Mr. Obama over the next four (or eight) years.. I have not kept track of it, Ashley. It has all truly been the gift of our hearts. Remember, we love you dearly....but from now on you'll need to call the number mentioned above. Your 'savior' has the money we would have given to you. Just try and get it from him. Good luck, sweetheart. Love, Grandpa. Letter from Grandpa
EXPERT TESTIMONY:
Robert Kiyosaki, author of “Rich Dad, Poor Dad” and the newly released “CONSPIRACY OF THE RICH” supplies expert testimony concerning the problem plaguing America today.
In his newest book, Robert remembers: While a student sitting in Dr. Buckminster Fuller’s class in 1981, I was disturbed to hear him say, “The primary purpose of government is to be a vehicle for the rich to get their hands into our pockets.”
. . . The year 2013 will mark the hundredth anniversary of the Federal Reserve System. For nearly one hundred years the Fed has pulled off the biggest cash heist in the world . . . It is a robbery where the rich take from the poor via our banks and our government.
. . . On August 15, 1971, the U.S. dollar died. On that day, without authorization from Congress, President Nixon severed the relationship between the U.S. dollar and gold, and the dollar became Monopoly money.
. . . The problem is that Monopoly is just a game. Applying Monopoly’s rules in real life is a recipe for the destruction of society as we know it.
. . . As noted English economist John Maynard Keynes once said, “There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction and it does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.
Robert's web address is:
www.richdad.com/conspiracy-of-the-rich.
A recent interview link (serial number) is:
http://video.newsmax.com/?bcpid=20972460001&bclid=24595384001&bctid=39618165001
Kevin Hofsas, Author
7 Visitation from God,
12 Revelations from Heaven.
Read FREE! at:
www.MarkMyWordsPublishing.com
QUESTION: “So what is the purpose of overturning the existing basis of society?”
In regard to previous post’s John Maynard Keynes quote.]
ANSWER:
It is to fold the United States of America into a New World Order. The dumbing down of education, begun in 1903, the perversion of money, begun in 1913, the trampling on our Constitutionally guaranteed rights, the Modern day shredding and debauching and corrupting of the same---all is geared to destroy America as we’ve known it and bring us into the fold of the New World Order---as slaves. Perhaps not in the exact sense that comes to mind, but in many, many ways, still slaves.
There will even come a day when they will require you to take a special mark on your hand or your forehead, without which, they won’t let you use their money.
The ultimate aim of course, is to force you to worship the Devil.
Satan is the false god of this world. And his strength is the material of this world, which is why he chooses money to try and control everything. And false in that he is only exercising squatters rights. As Revelation 12:11 says, And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony, and they loved not their lives unto the death. And God says to them who choose Him, “Not a hair of your head will perish.” For, “Behold, I make all things new.”
God will know if we hunger and thirst for a kingdom not made with hands, a home in the heavens wherein righteousness dwelleth . . . or if we are satisfied with this corruption, here below. For there is a resurrection, of both the just and the unjust. One unto eternal life, the other unto eternal damnation.
Choose ye, this day, which one you will serve.
As Jesus Christ said: Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man. Luke 21:36.
A tactical retreat is coming for every dedicated Spirit filled believer. And Isaiah 18:1-7 is the template for America. Be there or be Square!
Kevin Hofsas, Author
7 Visitations from God,
12 Revelations from Heaven
Read FREE! at:
www.MarkMyWordsPublishing.com
Excellent, Phil. Thanks for sharing that Letter from Grandpa. As I see it folks who produce need to vote based on who they believe is most capable of managing their resources, themselves or the government. Of course those who don't produce anything tend to prefer a "Robin Hood" style government. They depend upon charity and see nothing wrong with this, except for the embarrassment they suffer when begging for it.
Naturally they are delighted when the government extorts resources from producers in order to support non-producers. This way they don't suffer the indignity of begging or the uncertainty of relying on the kindness of others. They then find themselves happy as pigs in shlop!
One of the unintended consequences of this system, though, is that the kindness of others tends to dry up. Instead of donating to the Salvation Army or Church, or assisting a distressed neighbor, productive members of society become less giving. This is partly because they simply have less to give, but not entirely. On some level many people will develop an extreme resentment toward this governmental extortion and those who profit from it.
When I was a child growing up in the Southland my family was pretty poor. We lived on the "Mill Hill", a company-owned village where my father worked in the cotton mill as a weaver. Now and then a few children would knock on the door and say, "We're from the Panola Methodist Church and we're makin' up a poundin' for Mr. & Mrs. Smith. Their house just burned down and they lost everything", or something like that.
Now times were tough back then for most everybody we knew, but my mother (and countless other mothers) would go check her egg money and cupboard and donate anything they could spare, even if they didn't know Mr. or Mrs. Smith from Adam's house cat. If Mom did know the family she might ask, "Isn't their boy Tommy about Warren's size? Let me see if I have some clothes he could use."
This is the way things were done in these parts fifty years ago; neighbors took care of each other. They did this because they all knew if they didn't nobody else would. And they did it out of genuine, Christian love and compassion for one another. It is the way Jesus taught and God intended us to live.
I still live in that same little town, though most all the textile mills have closed. And I haven't heard the phrase, "makin' up a poundin'" for many years. That caring spirit is still alive in some people but not as it was back then. I think that's because too many people have learned to rely more on, and therefore care more about, the government than they do for each other.
I don't expect God is pleased with this turn of events but I can assure you the government is. Because the more we come to rely on government, the more it can demand from us, both tangible and intangible. And the more it demands the more bloated and inefficient it becomes, until it reaches the point of consuming more than we can produce. Or until we realize what is happening and put a stop to it, whichever comes first.
Wow that pretty much describes the current and past several administrations. Scary!
It sure is funny to see some truly psycho religious nutjobs posting in about fights against satan and the pharoah. It's good to be reminded that there are people out there that crazy.
So we might have a public option for health insurance. People with pre-existing conditions or have been dropped by their insurance company when they got sick will have more freedom. Our healthcare system may catch up a bit to the 30+ other countries that are ahead of us.
I'd rather see a single payer system but a public option will go along way towards improving the health of many Americans and giving all Americans more freedoms and choices.
But hey, go rant about satan some more. LOL.
Ok Joemama thats fine you don't have to believe what we believe. Like I said in the end God will judge you not us and we will not be involved in that process to stick up for or condemn you. That will be between you and God. By the way all your liberal friends including Obama will also have to stand before God and explain there actions and God doesn't care whether he was the president or not. He, you, me and the rest of the world will stand before God and explain our selves. So go ahead and LOL laugh it up but think about this. If your right and we are wrong what will the consequences be when I die but If we are right and you are wrong what will be your consequences when you die. But sense you called us crazy why don't you explain where all of existence came from. Lets look at it from a scientific view. The firs fact (not theory) of physics is that something can not come from nothing. if there really was a "Big Bang" where did the stuff it was made of come from. and if you can give an answer to my question then where did that come from. and if you can give an answer to my question then where did that come from. and where did that come from. and where did that come from and where. did that come from. and where did that come from. and where did that come from. and where did that come from and where. did that come from. and where did that come from. and where did that come from. and where did that come from and where. did that come from. and where did that come from. and where did that come from. and where did that come from and where. did that come from. and where did that come from.
I could keep repeating that but I think you get the picture.
You see Joemama if you take it back in time to the first form of existence whatever that was in whatever form it was despite what ever dimension it was you are still left with the question: where did that come from.
You see joemama you would not be here if not your your mama and dad and they wouldn't be here without there parents and so on and so on. You can believe whatever you want but we believe we are more then just an accident that happened in a slime puddle millions of years ago. We believe we are the prize creation of God the creator of alllllll creation. We believe he loves alllllll of us including you and yes even Bob. We believe he is the only true king that has the proper wisdom, strength and love it takes to govern all that is, was and will be.
People have said "If there was a God then why does he allow all the pain and suffering go on in the world" The truth is it is us that cause all the pain and suffering not God. He gave us free will to choose whatever path we want whether it is his way or the way of evil. God has given us an owners manual for life called the Bible. In the bible he gives instruction on how to live. Every word in the Bible is designed to benefit mankind (mankind also refers to women which he loves just as much as men.) It gives examples of what happens when you are obedient to his instruction and examples of what happens when you are disobedient to his instruction.
Starting with Adam and Eve who are our second greatest grand parents second only to God.
joemama God is coming soon but this time he is not coming as a lamb to be sacrificed for our sins but as a lion to establish his kingdom and destroy all evil. He has given us about 2000 and sum odd years to pledge allegiance to him. Don't you think thats enough time to make up your mind. Do you really want to forsake God for a slime puddle. Join God who loves you or join his opposition who doesn't. but remember as long as you draw breath there is still time. once you die your decision has been made.
Here are some more facts.
Read this joemama
December 3, 2009
You Will Pay More
by Rea S. Hederman, Jr.
The Congressional Budget Office had more bad news on Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid's health-care bill this week -- even if some media outlets missed it.
CBO not only found that Reid's "reform" would hike premiums for millions of Americans who buy insurance in the non-group market, it noted other significant changes Reid would impose on the policies now held by millions more.
CBO predicts that 6.4 million people who now get insurance through their employer will lose that coverage and buy insurance on the non-group market: The bill would push many employers who have older or sicker workers to simply end their existing insurance plan, forcing these workers into the non-group market. Other older workers might be enticed into the non-group market because the rates will initially seem cheaper.
The New York Times and others hyped the CBO finding that Reid's plan wouldn't cause premium increases for large-group plans. But a chief reason CBO cited for that finding is that, as Reid forces older and sicker workers into the non-group market, many younger workers will be buying into that group coverage. Since this insurance "pool" will thus be covering people who need less care, its rates could actually drop -- except that other portions of Reid's plan would be likely to push the prices right back up.
And, again, millions who now get coverage this way would be forced out of the "pool."
CBO was very clear that Reid's bill would force up costs in the non-group market. Premiums for a family plan in the non-group market would shoot up some 16 percent a year for some families, CBO found.
The biggest losers would be the younger, healthier people who get insurance in the non-group market: Their premiums would rise because Reid's regulations would force them to subsidize that influx of older, sicker people that his "reform" drives out of the group market.
Actually, those taking the biggest hit would be the 10.5 million people that Reid would push and cajole into buying insurance to avoid paying a fine. These are mostly younger, healthier people who don't now think health insurance is a good deal for them. Reid would not only push them into buying insurance, he'd have them pay more to help subsidize those older, sicker folks being pushed into the non-group market.
Note, too, that Reid requires people to buy into government-approved plans that will include benefits people may not want to pay for. It's like forcing a basketball fan to buy Nets season tickets when he just wants to watch a single game when LeBron James comes to town.
Of course, CBO could be wrong -- younger people might opt to just pay the fine and not enter the non-group market. If they refuse to pay the subsidies Reid is counting on, the non-group pool would be older and sicker than average -- and premiums would quickly spiral out of control, turning that market into a disaster.
One more thing: CBO rightly notes that Reid is imposing new costs on all health plans -- "fees" that he's charging various medical providers that, as CBO notes, will inevitably be passed on to consumers via their insurance.
CBO generously assumes that various "efficiency" savings will offset some of these costs. But the value of those efficiency gains is more uncertain than CBO admits -- after all, if it was so easy to save money this way, private companies would already be doing it. If the gains don't materialize, many people who don't lose their existing group coverage thanks to Reid would still start seeing higher premiums.
Then there are folks targeted by Reid's 40 percent excise tax on "Cadillac" health plans. This tax would hit 30 million people its first year -- roughly a fifth of those who have group coverage now. And it's set to hit millions more with every year that passes -- because the cutoff for what counts as "Cadillac" is designed to not keep pace with health-care inflation.
No one knows how the tax will work out -- whether those it hits will wind up paying more, getting fewer benefits or some combination of the two. The CBO believes that different groups would be hit in vastly different ways. In some cases, it'll again prompt employers to cancel their insurance plans because their workers are high-cost -- dumping even more people into the non-group market.
Bottom line: The CBO report clearly shows that most Americans will wind up paying more for insurance if Reid's bill becomes law -- in many cases, a lot more.
Rea Hederman is assistant director of The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis.
First Appeared in the New York Post
I’ve been with this blog from its virtual beginning and have read every comment no matter how painful they were to read. This blog has been so interesting, the self-righteous barking the loudest of course, casting judgment and criticism in virtually every form.
I say be done with it! Grab whatever part of yourself most vulnerable, squeeze until you scream out in pain, and transcend to a higher level of consciousness.
I wrote the following today, sending it off to what few people I’ve not yet alienated and many more whom I already have. You’ll gather from reading it that I am not religious but I do believe in a higher power and that for lack of a better word, I’ll call it God. I also believe in Jesus Christ but only because the Bible has influenced me most because Christianity is my native culture:
God is my energy, Jesus is my motor, and Ego is the friction that impedes my motor thus wasting my energy.
If only all of the world’s people would accept that We are all One with the same God!
Religion is cultural and within the word, culture, is the word cult. We must transcend religion; our future depends on it! Religion legitimizes division, promotes superiority, and instills arrogance. In the name of religion, they manipulate us and coerce us into giving up our power.
The realm of spirituality includes all people, has no bounds, no dogma, and inflicts no strife!
To whom would we tithe? To whom would we give power? From what basis would we judge?
Instead of looking to the outside, to the false prophets in Man masquerading in Government and the Church, we need only look within our own hearts, the sole dominion of the One.
One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him.
The scientist walked up to God and said, "God, we've decided that we no longer need you. We're to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don't you just go on and get lost."
God listened very patiently and kindly to the man and after the scientist was done talking, God said, "Very well, how about this, let's say we have a man making contest." To which the scientist replied, "OK, great!"
But God added, "Now, we're going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam."
The scientist said, "Sure, no problem" and bent down and grabbed himself a handful of dirt.
God just looked at him and said, "No, no, no. You go get your own dirt!"
Does God Really Exist?
Author unknown
A man went to a barbershop to have his hair cut and his beard trimmed. As the barber began to work, they began to have a good conversation. They talked about many things and various subjects. When they eventually touched on the subject of God,
The barber: I don't believe that God exists.
The customer: Why do you say that?
The barber: Well, you just have to go out in the street to realize that God doesn't exist. Tell me, if God exists, would there be so many sick people? Would there be abandoned children? If God existed, there would be neither suffering nor pain. I can't imagine a loving God who would allow all of these things.
The customer thought for a moment, but didn't respond because he didn't want to start an argument. The barber finished his job and the customer left the shop.
Just after he left the barbershop, he saw a man in the street with long, stringy, dirty hair and an untrimmed beard. He looked dirty and unkempt.
The customer turned back and entered the barber's shop again.
The customer: You know what? Barbers do not exist.
The barber: How can you say that? I am here, and I am a barber. And I just worked on you!
The customer: No! Barbers don't exist because if they did, there would be no people with dirty long hair and untrimmed beards, like that man outside.
The barber: But barbers do exist! What happens is, people do not come to me.
The customer: Exactly! That's the point! God, too, does exist! What happens is, people don't go to Him and do not look for Him. That's why there's so much pain and suffering in the world.
cgoyette
you aren't any more immune to the judgment of God then the rest of us. In Gods eyes there is no gray scale only black or white. Im glad you favor Jesus that is wonderful. We could not stand before Gods greatness if not for Jesus sacrifice that he made for all mankind. If you know what he said then you should also know that he declared:
John 14
"5Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?"
6Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7If you really knew me, you would know[b] my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."
God is real and he does love you. It's ok to believe in him.
Over my 64 years, I have come to think of Washington, DC as a country unto itself with those living outside the beltway seen as the cookie jar.......
Phil says: “cgoyette, you aren't any more immune to the judgment of God then the rest of us. In Gods eyes there is no gray scale only black or white. Im glad you favor Jesus that is wonderful. We could not stand before Gods greatness if not for Jesus sacrifice that he made for all mankind. If you know what he said then you should also know that he declared: … God is real and he does love you. It's ok to believe in him.”
I ask you Phil where in what I said do I place myself above the rest. I seek not your approval or your criticism. I seek only an avenue for peace, a mechanism for people to come together in constructive dialogue that is all.
Is the Bible the sole source of wisdom? Must we fear God to be worthy of our existence? Must we believe that those who do not fear God as blasphemous and subservient to those that do?
Let those that judge damn themselves to silence or choke on their self-righteousness spew!
Phil - You're trying to make something into a dramatic religious issue when it's not. I don't really care where you think the universe came from. What created God? And what created that thing? See I can go back too.
People have long invented mythical explanations for the stuff they don't understand. Let's just say Zeus created the universe.
But to bring this back to the issue at hand...if it is a religious issue you're on the wrong side of it and god or zeus will judge you for that.
We have a moral obligation to help the weakest among us. Intellectually you should also be able to recognize that since 30+ other countries have more effective healthcare systems than us while they spend far less per capita maybe they're doing something right.
What we should be doing is making Medicare available to all our citizens if they want it. Right now Medicare only covers the highest risk groups, the disabled and the elderly. That is very costly. If we made it available to low risk groups as well it would help the system tremendously.
As it is we're looking at a public option. Also a good solution. My girlfriend has a serious health condition and had to leave her job. With her pre-existing condition she was unable to get private insurance and we were paying enormous amounts for her prescriptions and until she was finally able to qualify for Medicare. If we had been able to pay for a public option things would have been much better.
Right now people without health insurance are forced into using emergency rooms when they get sick often going bankrupt in the process. It's also just inefficient and ineffective use of resources. Everybody should be covered and more preventative medicine used.
Now I realize you would prefer to use religious fear mongering and preaching instead of rational thought on the matter. Also you like to name call and through around labels.
But your on the wrong side of this morally and your on the wrong side rationally. Medicare, Medicaid, and the Public option are morally good things for our society to have. Rationally if you look at the ineffectiveness and inefficiency of our current system compared to ther countries you will see that there is something to learn there.
Also, if your going to copy articles please cite the source and link to the original article.
Robert J. Sodaro, go fuck yourself.
"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves." - Leviticus 25:44
Robert J. Sodaro, go fuck yourself!
OK. That's one point. Another, on the religion issue.
---break—3,206 chars---
Any of you remember Thomas Paine?
Dec 23, 1776: Crisis, #1, first paragraph:
"These are the times that try men's souls: The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it NOW, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; 'Tis dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed, if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Britain, with an army to enforce here tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but "to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER," and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then there is not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious, for so unlimited a power can belong only to GOD."
And here's what he wrote about "god": (The Age of Reason (this dude actually named the whole "age"), 1794, Part I:
"I put the following work under your protection. It contains my opinion upon Religion. You will do me the justice to remember, that I have always strenuously supported the Right of every Man to his own opinion, hover different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it.
"The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind id Reason. I have never used any other, and I trust I never shall. Your affectionate friend and fellow-citizen, Thomas Paine.
"I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.
"I believe in the equality of man, and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow creatures happy.
"But lest it should be supposed that I believe many other things in addition to these, I shall, in the progress of this work, declare the things I do not believe, and my reasons for not believing them.
Break—picking up from:
"But lest it should be supposed that I believe many other things in addition to these, I shall, in the progress of this work, declare the things I do not believe, and my reasons for not believing them.
-----starting next take-=-
"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.
"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
(snip)
"It is curious to observe how the theory of what is called the Christian Church, sprung out of the tail of the heathen mythology. A direct incorporation took place in the first instance, by making the reputed founder to be celestially begotten. The trinity of goes that then followed was not other than a reduction of the former plurality, with was about twnety or thirty thousands. The statue of Mary succeeded the statue of Diana of Ephesus. The deification of heroes changed into the canonization of saints. The Mythologists had gods for everything; the Christian Mythologists had saints for every thing. The church became as crowded with the one, as the pantheon had been with the other; and Rome was the place of both. The Christian theory is little else than the idolatry of the ancient Mythologists, accommodated to the purposes of power and revenue; and it yet remains to reason and philosophy to abolish the amphibious fraud."
(Paine's phrase, "the amphibious fraud" is my favorite. I suspect it's a euphemism for 'the f-bomb,' but one can't be sure.)
At any rate, Paine was pretty much a Deist--one god, but immanent in all things, Paine's brain, Emerson's and Thoreau's trees--the Transcendentalists' nature, insofar as I understand transcendentalism. The Age of Reason is well worth reading, IMHO.
--break—
More TK
The Age of Reason is well worth reading, IMHO.
--break— 4,069 of 4,096 chars
More TK
Another point:
I think every man, woman & child of us citizens should have a pocket copy of the US Constitution--with us at all times; frequently referred to, thoughtfully mulled over, discussed with our children, friends & even relatives.
It wouldn't even be to much of a task to memorize the whole thing (I don't claim to have done so, but I can recall bits & pieces of it--and of course, I have a pocket copy to refresh my memory). I remember hearing Sen. Fritz Hollings quoting it, from memory, on a Bill Moyers interview. I remember Sen. Sam Ervin quoting it, from memory, during the Watergate hearings. And, in my humble opinion, any member of the Gang of 537 (100 senators, 435 reps, 1 veep & 1 prez = 537) who does NOT carry around a copy of the Constitution at all times is suspicious, in my book. As either Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich said recently, "It's the ONLY oath I took--to 'support and defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic'."
Another point:
There have been approximately 170 human beings who died in US custody--that is, 170 prisoners of war, POWs, died during and/or as a result of torture. There is a US War Crimes Act, 18 USCode §2441, that makes it a federal offense to torture prisoners of war (if it's a war, and they are imprisoned, they are prisoners of war, no matter what you might otherwise try to label these folks). More significantly, if these POWs die as a result of their captivity, torture, then the death penalty can be imposed on those found guilty of breaking the War Crimes act.
Which means, dear readers, that there are some 170 potential death warrants hanging out there in the aether, waiting to be assigned to some individual or individuals who masterminded and/or conspired to break the law. Starting, it seems from what I know, with GW Bush, R. Cheney, C. Rice, Addington, Yoo, Tenent, Wolfowitz, Feith, Rumsfeld, etc. and so on.
Another point:
Gen. Stan McChrystal was the guy either in charge of, or in co-charge of, the Pvt. Jessica Lynch fraud, if you recall. Cpl Pat Tillman was in his unit on that operation, as he was when he was killed about a year later in Afghanistan. According to Tillman's mother's book (Boots on the Ground by Dusk, I think it's entitled), and Jon Krakauer's book on Tillman's homicide, this very-high-profile trooper (SECDEF Rumsfeld even sent him a personal "welcome to the military, dude" letter) had sought counsel (from a chaplain, phych folks, like that) on how to "be with" (as I call it) what Tillman was convinced were illegal wars, illegal occupation, and war crimes being committed by his units. After all the investigations (about seven, I think), and with all of the contradictory testimony, lost records, destroyed evidence (shades of 9/11/2001, folks), the odds are that this was a pre-meditated homicide. That is, because of his great negative propaganda risk, Cpl. Tillman was "taken out."
More TK
propaganda risk, Cpl. Tillman was "taken out."
Another point:
9/11/2001. You-all should read James Bamford's books on the NSA--National Security Agency. The Puzzle Palace; Body of Secrets; The Shadow Factory. As of about 2002, virtually every binary digit of your, my, our telecommunications (voice, VoIP, email, internet use, credit card transactions, etc.,) has been copied off and shipped off to huge disk farms in Texas and wherever else, all available to be searched, like doing a Goggle search on anything on the web. In other words, the Fourth Amendment has, de facto, been repealed. (Meaning, repealed in fact, if not in law--de jure. Like the highway speed limits--de jure, it's 65 mph, but you don't get pulled over--de facto--unless you're clocking maybe 78 mph. So the speed limit, practically, is 78 mph, though the law sets it at 65. In the case of warrantless wiretaps, violations of the 4th Amendment are not allowed, by law, but, in practice, the 4th amendment is completely ignored--since early in 2002 or thereabouts.)
So when you hear folks talking about electronic privacy, health records privacy and such, you can just laugh at them as being ill-informed, at best, or lying hypocrites, at worst. Microwave communications (cell phones 'n' such) have all been collected since the early 1990s according to Bamford.
Another point: Y'all would do well to read Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States--1492 to the Present." From 1492 to about 1508, Columbus & his band of merry men basically exterminated from 2 to 8 million Arawak Indians in the Caribbean. Arawaks--I'd never heard of 'em before I read Zinn's book--were the "indigenous peoples" of the Caribbean. (So Columbus, by the way, actually did NOT "discover America." He "discovered" the winter playground of the rich and famous, if you will.)
Another point: Famous president Andrew Jackson pushed for and got passed the "Indian Removal Act" of 1831 or so. Removed were the Cherokee Indians--another batch of "indigenous peoples." Their anabasis, haj, hegira, Bataan Death March, is known as The Trail of Tears. Notice the "truth in labeling" of the act. Nowadays, we have laws repealing citizens rights with BS labels like "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act" (that's the 'long title' of the U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act--which should appear, in print, as I've set it out, not as the Patriot Act or the USA Patriot act. The reason it's not set out that way is quite simple: We the People are not intended to be reminded that this is an acronym for a very, very tortured-title piece of legislation that essentially (de jure) repeals the Bill of Rights--along with the Writ of Habeas Corpus (find This American Life's podcast "Habeas Schmabeas" and listen to it. Great history of the Great Writ.)
Another point:
From Columbus, through French & Indian Wars, War of 1812, Indian Removal Act, "Manifest Destiny, the round-eye European white-folk have annihilated "indigenous Americans." Exterminated them. Murdered them. Broke virtually every single "treaty" executed with them. Note: "decimated" does not mean exterminated. "Decimated" means "kill every tenth man". Which--do the arithmetic--leaves 90% alive. "Genocide," "extermination," etc., is the accurate term. "Wipe 'em out," or "kill 'em all," are good vernacular equivalents.
——more TK——
…are good vernacular equivalents.
--break—More TK--
Another point:
There are some good histories that trace the conduct of US "foreign affairs" throughout history. One notes that the first major "regime change" operation the US undertook (of DOZENS over the years) was the unseating of the Queen of Hawaii around 1892 or so. We in the US have a well-documented history of murdering foreign leaders, supporting dictators who murder their own peoples (to support our so-called "national interests" or "strategic interests"--meaning raw materials--oil, copper, water, gold, tungsten, wolfram, uranium--and US corporations' "foreign investments" (ITT's telecommunications installations in Chile, for example), and military bases from which we can "project our military might."
That is, while our very own government limits its illegal activities at home (where there are so many more witnesses to it--and who all speak English and can call up a reporter or two--which makes it more difficult to get away with said illegal activities), our government's conduct abroad is a-whole-nother matter, where US and international laws are "more honored in the breach than in the observance."
Just stop for a couple of seconds and think about it; how many Iraqis do you think take out their cell phones and dial 1-212-555-1234 and ask for Nick Kristoff, or even Arthur Sulzberger, to complain that their family was just wiped out by a missile from a US UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) controlled from a desktop in McLean, VA or Boulder, CO? Never mind speaking in English.
Or this: How many of you heard that the Baghdad office of AlJazeera was taken out by a US bomb or missile on April 8, 2003 or so, the day before US tanks rolled into the city? One camera-man was killed, and Al Jazeera duly noted the message and closed the Baghdad office. Al Jazeera had actually supplied the precise geo-coordinates to the Pentagon days before, requesting the War Department to please not bomb its bureau. (Awww, shucks, we thought you WANTED us to bomb you and THAT'S why you gave us your coordinates!!!) The hotel where the foreign press representatives were staying was shelled by a US tank. It just drove up to the hotel, swiveled its turret a bit, elevated the cannon, and fired. One or two foreign journalists were killed (they could have dialed up Kristoff or Sulzberger in English--but for the fact that they were dead and couldn't dial the phone, even if they'd had the numbers on speed-dial). And so it goes.
Another point:
You may dimly recall the days of JFK and the Cuban Missile Crisis? You may remember that, boy oh boy, our government did NOT like the fact that Fidel Castro had taken over that island (except for Guantánamo Bay, of course, for which we have a lease in perpetuity). Have you heard about Operation Northwoods? It was approved by the military, right up through the Joint Chiefs of Staff. JFK and RFK, and McNamara, did NOT approve it. (The plan was to kill a few Americans in Miami & elsewhere and blame it on the Cubans, so we could attack the island; send an airplane full of college students on a summer-in-europe excursion over Cuba and blow it up to further inflame the American people against Cuba--so we could attack the island. This was after the Bay of Pigs effort failed, the poisoned cigars failed, the poisoned SCUBA gear failed to kill Castro. And it looks now like he may just plain die of the ailments of old age--of course, he's held on so long because of the national health care the island provides, right?.
Another point:
Can you imagine another country
{break}
"Is the Bible the sole source of wisdom?"
No but it is the only one that is right 100% of the time.
"Must we fear God to be worthy of our existence?" No we must also love, respect and obey him.
"Must we believe that those who do not fear God as blasphemous and subservient to those that do?"
No we must have sympathy for them and tell them the truth. Even if they get angry at us. After that It's in there hands to make a choice for themselves. Like I said thats between them and God.
"What created God?"
Nothing created God. God is infinite. He is the beginning and the end. Time is his creation and he isn't bound by it. It is bound by him.
jomama believe whatever you want. I don't care. You are free to make your own choices. In the end God will make the judgment not me, not you; God.
Im just trying to warn you that judgment is coming and you don't have much time. Im trying to help you. But it is completely up to you.
I did sight my sources of every article I have posted. in some cases the exact websites were there for all the references You just didn't read the whole article. You should know the blog only allows you to post just over 4,000 characters. I had to brake it up into several peaces to get the whole article in.
"We have a moral obligation to help the weakest among us."
Yes we do but only by our own free will. if the public option goes through it will be as if all americans were held up at gunpoint and robbed. If we can give we should but don't force us to give. why cant you see how wrong that is.
How many times do I have to tell you thats a lie. socialized healthcare does not work. it raises the taxes on all of us, destroys the privet sector, unemployment goes through the roof, it puts privet insurance out of business, Doctors will not work for what the government says they should work for and they will drop the profession because it takes money to run a practice, flooding the public insurance and forces them to ration healthcare, making it impossible to see a doctor for months or even years. By that time your girlfriend would be dead. Just what about that don't you understand.
ALL OF YOU READING THIS OUT THERE IS THERE ANYBODY OUT THERE THAT CAN EXPLAIN TO THIS GUY WHY SOCIALIZED HEALTHCARE DOSENT WORK BECAUSE HE REFUSES TO LISTEN TO ME.
Fear mongering must be your favorite phrase. Ok joemama you want to talk about fear mongering. How about black panthers at the last presidential election, biting off peoples fingers, throwing clorox at the republican national delegates, Dead Fish Romy, and on and on and on yet you have the nerve to say that I am a fear monger. According to you anyone that disagrees with obama is a fear monger and a raciest.
Medicare and Medicaid are bankrupt thanks to our government that you want to turn all our lives over to.
Whose on the wrong side of the issue? Maybe you just don't know what the issue is. This blog is originally about the cartoon. Why don't you watch it again. Maybe you will learn something
If all of you liberal democrats didn't like they way Bush was running the country why the heck did you not leave and start your own socialist country elsewhere.?
…channels of OUR airwaves for free campaign advertising. Free, all day, all year long.
Guess what his reply was!? "That would let all sorts of kooks get on the airwaves to campaign," he said.
AHA! Said I. You complain about having to raise all the bucks for advertising, to pay for OUR airwaves (that we've given monopoly use of to bigwigs, for no return benefits that I can see or hear or spend--especially the commercials that come on louder than the regular programs), BUT YOU LIKE THE FACT THAT OTHER CITIZENS WHO ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE GANG OF 537 CAN'T RAISE THE MONEY TO COMPETE WITH YOU. (Hypocrites, every one of 'em, seems to me. They do NOT want competition, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to petition The Gang of 537 for Redress of Grievances. Nope. They'd rather keep their great health insurance, dental insurance, life insurance, retirement accounts, disability insurance, free medical care @ Walter Reed, etc., staff of drivers, secretaries (do they have cooks?), researchers, political operatives, committee perquisites, secret offices in the bowels of the Capitol building, etc. I mean, my member of the Gang of 537 has been in office FOR 34 YEARS! STRAIGHT!! Like, maybe he worked for one year after getting out of law school, but from age 25 onward, he was feeding at the federal trough, filled by your and my swink & toil. Whoaaa!
==end==
Ok BW if thats true what do you think we should do about it.
If you hate this country so much leave. No bodies keeping you here. We wont miss you.
Phil
First of all the bible is not right 100% of the time. Not even close. As I already pointed out it actually advocates slavery. It also advocates all sorts of intolerance, cruelty, and absurdities. I will be give you and endless supply of absurd bible quotes.
Now you can go ahead and follow stuff blindly but don't go trying to preach to me.
"Nothing created God. God is infinite. He is the beginning and the end."
That's a copout. Here I'll just say nothing created the universe. It's the beginning and the end.
I'm just trying to help you see the light here Phil. You will be judged on whether you use rational thought or fear mongering. You don't have much time.
You should just put this aside because your religious beliefs have no place in how our government is run.
We have a moral obligation to help the weakest among us. By our freewill we voted for people that would support a public option.
You can keep your current insurance if you like but most Americans want a public option for people who choose to use it. It will certainly help out the people with pre-existing conditions that are unable to buy private insurance now.
Now you can keep lying that socialized healthcare doesn't work but the facts will prove you wrong over and over. 30+ other countries have some form of public insurance and have more efficient and effective systems than ours.
Many of them have public AND private insurance so they certainly can co-exist. Just as Medicare and private insurance co-exist now. Just like the post office and Fed Ex co-exist now. Just like public and private universities co-exist now.
Most doctors take medicare now. You don't seem to understand that the public option is just another way to reimburse people for your healthcare. The government is not trying to tell doctors what they should work for. Your fear mongering is completely made up. If there was any truth to it then all the doctors would have quit when Medicare and Medicaid came along. But alas they didn't. Most doctors I visit think it's great.
Yes, you are fear mongering. It the basis of your every argument. FEAR FEAR FEAR. Oh noez! The doctors will quit! But then if you look at real facts most doctors support the proposed private/public mix. Sorry Phil.
I think what you need to do to get informed is actually study the healthcare systems of countries that rank higher than ours. Some of them are single payer and some of them have public/private mixes. People are generally happy with them and for the most part there are shorter wait times than we have here.
People on our Medicare are happier with their insurance than people using private insurance. Medicare is only strained financially because it's forced to only cover the highest risk groups. Many private insurance companies have been financially strained as well. I'm sure you've heard about that recently.
Hey Rosalie- If all of you conservative republicans don't like they way Obama is running the country why the heck don't you leave and start your own fascist country elsewhere?
Joemama, I am curious, have you actually read the whole Bible? Slavery has been part of history- not condoned by God. Humanity is the one that has distorted the perfect creation of God because of the freewill we are all given. If you want to argue about Biblical teaching then back it up. The Bible is part of history & yes I do believe that it is 100% accurate. I believe in the 10 commandments & the teachings of Jesus. These are God's ideals, things we can never live up to because of the corruption of this world. God hates divorce but it happens & He forgives. God forgives anyone that truly means it in his heart-and if someone truly believes it he will follow Gods commandments the best he can. Lets take another example - Jesus says that what we do to the least of these (talking about Children) we do unto him. I'm sorry for those who believe that killing unborn babies is a choice. I don't think you can get anymore corrupt than that. Do I believe that God will judge those who choose to mistreat their "slaves", those that beat them, raped them, and treated them as animals- Yes I do - the Bible teaches that we are to treat others better than ourselves, put others first, pay people what is owed to them- does that sound like the Jesus is condoning Slavery to you.
Also have you been to a hospital in another country? I have and I can tell you that government ran healthcare is not all its cracked up to be. Please share with us which countries you refer to when you talk about superior healthcare systems. I would be interested in knowing your background & studies in this area.
I have read many of your blogs and you seem to attack using the exact wording of the media & our government like a copycat. If you are as educated as you think you are then please have a conversation that isn't just regurgitating things we have all heard over 100 times. Not all of us believe what we see on t.v.
jomama in those days people would sell them selves into slavery by there own free will and God gave vary specific guidelines fore slave owners to fallow. Slavery wasn't to be permanent. I was a way to pay off a debt or a way to survive a extreme drought.
Deuteronomy 15:12-16
12 If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves you six years, in the seventh year you must let him go free. 13 And when you release him, do not send him away empty-handed. 14 Supply him liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to him as the LORD your God has blessed you. 15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you. That is why I give you this command today.
16 But if your servant says to you, "I do not want to leave you," because he loves you and your family and is well off with you, 17 then take an awl and push it through his ear lobe into the door, and he will become your servant for life. Do the same for your maidservant.
Ephesians 6:1
5Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, 8because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.
9And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.
Tara - Sorry to break it to you but slavery was condoned by god. Even gave rules about who you could enslave. Phil think everyone sold themselves voluntarily into slavery but the fact is most people were enslaved against their will.
"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves." - Leviticus 25:44
The bible is full of violence towards unbelievers and believers, cruelty, and absurdities.
"On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the LORD for the uncleanness of her discharge." -
Leviticus 15:19-30
Do you sacrifice pigeons to atone for you uncleanliness?
Back to healthcare, here are the countries with better healthcare systems than ours...
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
I've been to see a doctor in London and it was a completely pleasant experience.
I'm not sure what you are accusing me of copying and I realize you're probably resistant to facts. But if you think something I've said is incorrect please be more specific.
Hello Joemama,
Yes the verses you quoted were guidelines that God
gave the Israelites regarding Slavery. Was this God's plan from the beginning - no just like divorce was not God's plan either but because of peoples stubbornness He to had to give guidelines on this too. My God is not some pansy who will just cater to our beliefs of how things should be- He will punish those who deserve it, he will keep promises he makes and he warns us about those. Now slavery became a punishment for sin- murder to be exact. Genesis 15:13-15 is a promise from God to Cain, who murdered his brother, that his descendants would be enslaved for 400 years. The Israelites themselves who were God's chosen people turned away from God on several occasions and God allowed them to be enslaved as well. God did not command slavery - allowed -Yes with guidelines!!!
What I love about people like you is that you love to pull single passages out of the Bible to make God look evil - there are things I don't completely understand esp. in the ancient laws but when the Bible is read as a whole- then it becomes clearer of who God is and what His desire is. What you neglect to recognize is that the Bible is history the good & the bad- God does not cause the bad- we do - just look around and you will see evil, selfishness, abuse, abortion which is murder, slander, hatred, the list goes on. Now tell me would an uncaring God give His own Son for people like that? Jesus came into the world to teach us how we should live & to die for our sins. He forgave me so NO I don't have to sacrifice doves anymore. I dare you to read the New Testament. Show me in there where God is evil and uncaring. Show me where he takes my freedom away. Show me where he says to enslave people and treat them poorly.
Also there are many ancient rituals and practices still in place within our secular world, amongst those that did not believe in God that far outreach the violence you speak of. Don't pretend that other religions and those who claim no god haven't done horrendous things to people in the past- and never where their guidelines to keep them from misusing their power.
Tara - Nowadays we know that slavery is wrong. Even getting your slaves "from the nations around you" is wrong. That was a pretty messed up guideline. We also know that there's nothing wrong with having your period and that there should never have been any reason to do that to "atone". We also know that it would be wrong to enslave someone's descendant's for 400 years for something their ancestor did. We also know that it would be wrong to enslave people just because they don't follow your religion. In fact we know that allowing slavery at all is wrong.
This god caused plenty of bad towards innocent people. Wiping out entire cities full of innocent men, women, and children according to the bible.
I'm not sure what your point is about the New Testament is. As if god got less crazy all the sudden. But there's plenty of messed up stuff there too.
Exodus 21:17 "And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death."
Here's some Luke..
12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
12:52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.
12:53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
Corinthians 10:8 Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.
23,000 killed for having sex. Wow, that's mean.
I never claimed there was no violence outside of christianity. I'm pointing out that it would be silly to religion in the healthcare discussion though given how absurd much of it is.
I do believe that Jesus would be for everyone having access to healthcare though.
Phil . . . To one of you comments, (Witnessing) Priceless! Ohhhh ,happy Day! Shout to the Lord no no no, I mean really SHOUT! Hallelujah (~!~!~). . . Good God my sweet Lord, I do Love thee . . . How sweet are the feet of them that bring good news, “OUR GOD Reigns, our God reigns. Good job Phil.
Cgoyetta . . . I like that you believe in God, and Jesus, and that error is due to things within us; I agree religion has caused many to miss God, and that it has misrepresented God, and often leads away from God, and has abused money and God’s tithe. Yes, there will be a unity or ‘oneness’ of all believers. Yet Melchisedec met Abraham and Abraham gave him tithe, centuries before the Law was given. God has always reserved a portion for himself; in the garden it was—have anything you want---just don’t touch this one tree. God tithed by giving us Jesus. Jesus gave his life, forever to remain in human form; The Holy Spirit gave us gifts; it’s a pattern. But also, God gives us bold and precious promises if we enter into him with our first-fruits, or in these days, income. There is no perfect church on earth---but it’s your responsibility to find the best one you can. Watch Daystar. Right now, I sense God moving me to a new church. But I will still love the old church. And Jesus---the angel carried the word to Mary, which then, without the angel doing anything but speaking and ‘giving’ the word to her, enter into her and fertilized an egg. God’s word is literally, God’s sperma. The word of God is the seed of God. God’s word is living and quick----not to be understood by the natural mind, for it says the natural mind cannot understand the things of the Spirit, for they are spiritually discerned. But whenever we turn to the Lord, then the veil is lifted, and we can see God with our heart, by the spirit. Those who worship him must must must worship him in Spirit and in truth. Why is it so important to worship specifically that way? Because our flesh cannot glorify God---it is utterly sinful---infected with a mortal disease—sin. Which is why Jesus said, all who ask the Father, will he not freely give the Holy Spirit to all who ask? Not to put you down, but to lift you up, CG. Jesus is the Lamb of God on the throne of God and has carried his blood to THE mercy seat in heaven. Heaven IS the presence of Christ.
Joey . . . God, in trying to help humans understand him, explained that “He is from everlasting to everlasting.” He “inhabits” eternity. He exists in and of Himself---he needs nothing. But he created us, because He knew how good it would be for all of us to get to know Him! I haven’t known God my whole life. I used to curse like a filthy sailor when I was young teenager. I thank God God had patience and mercy and brought me to repentance. I know Hell is real.
Joey . . . what you fail to realize is JESUS is our victory. Who having abolished death, is sitting at the right hand of the Father. He has called us out of the world, (the same world that lays in the lap of the devil, yes, Joey, there is a real devil) and into the kingdom of light, which is also the kingdom of his dear son. BTW: we all know Jesus personally. Use rational thought and stop reacting with your programmed training and you can become a spiritual creature too. There is a spiritual universe surrounding the physical universe. You just can’t see it with a microscope. God is Love---God is a Spirit---those who worship must worship him in Spirit and truth. Our flesh can neither enter heaven or worship God. Which is why he has given us himself, and his Holy Spirit. Because without it and him inside us, we could never be with him.
Joey . . . If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. Jesus Christ . . . John 14:23.
You really must receive God to understand spiritual truths.
Bw . . . awesome comment. Thanks for putting so much work into it. Hope you find Jesus, the hidden treasure of every universe . . . Who having abolished death . . . and making peace through the blood of the cross, has sat down at the right hand of the Father on high. Who’s kingdom is coming. The blood of Jesus is exclusively the only way to find peace with God---and that’s not religion.
Betty . . . the good thing about Washington DC is that it’s a small place and could have its head pinched off relatively easily. I mean, just think, these dumb f . . .ks couldn’t even find the footage of a 50 some odd foot tall jetliner 200 some odd feet wide fold itself into a hole much smaller, aprox. 25’X45’ (The Pentagon missile strike) With like . . . 24 surveillance cameras watching in rapt 24/7 mode. . . . oh yeah, and it happened about an hour after High ALERT! What, the F-15 pilots had to take a potty break????? Awe, just go watch: http://freedocumentaries.org/teatro.php?filmID=147 It’s called, 9/11 Mysteries: Demolitions. Maybe you knew those world trade center buildings were pulled. (Techno term for controlled demolition. They were designed to withstand a Boeing 707 [biggest jet around back then] hitting them by accident.) Steel doesn’t melt in an open source fire, otherwise all our stoves and furnaces would be useless! Too much smoke, too. Smoldering fires aren’t very hot as fires go. And watch Building 7 get demo’ed. Every single steel reinforced concrete column fails exactly at the same time . . . as if by . . . magic. Or demolition charges.
Rosalie . . . The two party political scam being staged in America has long since left the will of the people. L O N G since. They have sold us down the river. Our dollar will soon become of zero value. Every fiat currency does. Then the poop will well and truly hit the fan. It’s all about a New World Order, just like it says on the dollar bill. Novus ordure Secularum. Then they will tell the people to cede everything the constitution stands for, and they will do it because they will have been without heat, lights, water and food for a week. What they get is a country where your rights, freedoms and liberties have vanished. No freedom of speech, no right to defend your life or your property, no right to be free. Just a slave planet. Or in the vernacular of today, just a bunch of beggarly complacent deceived obedient socialists. Er, I mean work force.
Tara . . . remind him of the year of Jubilee, when every slave was let free! (Or if he wanted to, he could actually ask to stay.) And the seventh year release also. But joey’s problem is maybe explained best by Joyce Meyers---God set things up this way so the smart-alecks wouldn’t figure it out. Why should God forgive you Joey?
Damn Keviny - You say type so much without actually saying anything at all of substance. It's like you've ceased all logical and rational thought and just spew out some programmed stuff.
I liked "God’s word is literally, God’s sperma". Damn that actually made me laugh! :) Funny stuff.
The fear tactics were pretty funny too "no heat, lights, water and food for a week, rights, freedoms and liberties have vanished, freedom of speech, no right to defend your life or your property, slave planet, blah blah blah.."
You know, because that's what happened in all those other countries with successful government run healthcare of some sort. *rolleyes*
Thanks for the laughs keviny!
You think it is silly joemama. Well what about the abortions that American tax dollars will pay for. and don't tell me its not in there because it is.
Here is some little known religious history. God destroyed nations because of this including Sodom and Gomorra with good reason.
DMONIC ROOTS OF ABORTION
Abortion on demand is the demonic Baal worship of modern times. King Ahab and Queen Jezebel led the Israelites in Baal worship and the sacrifice of children in the Old Testament. Ahaz went so far as to burn "his son as an offering" to Baal/Moloch, as did Manasseh (see 2 Kings 16:3; 21:6). Why would people make such terrible decisions? It was believed that human sacrifice to Baal held the key to prosperity. Therefore, selfish people desiring to live in prosperity and ease brought their firstborn child to the high priest, where scholars say the child would be offered as a burnt offering to the deity.
The altar of Baal was in the image of a bull with the head and shoulders of a man. Its arms extended outward and fire belched out from a hole in the chest. The priest of Baal placed the babies on the outstretched arms, where the child would be rolled into the fire. As the child died, the priest and priestess engaged in sexual intercourse, while an orgy occurred among the onlookers.
Recently, archaeologists unearthed a Baal cemetery containing the remains of more than twenty thousand children. The Greek author Kleitarchos described the practice of sacrificing infants to Baal three hundred years before Christ:
"Out of reverence for Kronos [Baal], the Phoenicians, and especially the Carthaginians, whenever they seek to obtain some great favor, vow one of their children, burning it as a sacrifice to the deity, if they are especially eager to gain success. There stands in their midst a bronze statue of Kronos, its hands extended over a bronze brazier, the flames of which engulf the child. When the flames fall on the body, the limbs contract and the open mouth seems almost to be laughing, until the contracted body slips quietly into the brazier."
Ancients were led by Satan to kill their children for personal convenience and gain, while engaging in promiscuity. Modern Baal worshipers-a.k.a. abortionists-slaughter millions of unborn babies every year for the same reasons. Do such abortionists care for the welfare of the mother? Do they warn of the increased risk of cancer? Absolutely not.
@Phil,
Abortion is covered in the health bill, yes... but it will not be covered using "tax payer dollars". It will use the premiums paid by those choosing the public option.
Reading is fun.
I believe talking down to others on the Internet is also a practice of worshippers of Baal. So, Phil, I guess this makes us both worshippers of Baal. Welcome, brother.
This is the whole passage. once again your talking about things that you don't understand
49"I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed! 51Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."
Verses 49-50 are found only in Luke. The two verses are parallel to each other with emphatic nouns placed first. Both verses end with exclamations. The word "fire" is metaphorical and is explained in verses 51-53. It involves His suffering and death and the Gospel which brings this message to men. If Christ had never come, there would have been no fire.
The whole verse means: "Fire I have come to cast on the earth and how I wish that it were already kindled!:
Fahling: The fire of a new faith, creating burning enthusiasm among some and fierce antagonism among others, deplorable, but inevitable, and the sooner kindled, the better.
Arndt: The clashes that would be caused by the Gospel, some people rejecting, others accepting it and even its friends opposing one another in their interpretation of its meaning. Jesus, of course, does not mean to say that it is His wish that there should be dissension and strife. He is rather speaking of the actual results of His message.
The second part of verse 49 shows the anxiety of Jesus with which He views His coming death. It is similar to John 12:27 or to His prayer in Gethsemane. He shudders but He does not shrink.
Luke 12:50 But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed!
Here we have a second metaphor. He is speaking of His baptism of blood, His crucifixion, and death. Look at Mark 10:38.
Arndt: This is one of the fairly numerous statements in which Jesus predicts His Passion. Whenever He thought of it, sorrow assailed Him. . . . He wishes the task would soon be accomplished.
Literally He says: "Baptism have I to be baptized with, and how I am afflicted until it is accomplished." "It is finished" is the same verb as "accomplished." He faces an ordeal. He shudders but does not shrink.
Luke 12:51 Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division.
Note the parallel thoughts spoken by Jesus in Matthew 10:34-36. There we have a prohibition. Here a question.
"Peace" means the kind of peace which humans desire, the total absence of trouble. Even Christians mistakenly look for a life of complete peace at home, in the church, and elsewhere. "On earth" is another indication of this false sort of peace which people long for. Jesus is not contradicting the many passage in which He promises and gives repentant sinners the peace of God. Look at John 14:27. He assures His own of peace, but not as the world gives peace. In his conscience the believer is constantly at peace with God. But that will not make life a heaven on earth. The prospect of millennial dreams is shattered here by Jesus. He answers His own question with a sharp: "Definitely not!"
Arndt: Strife would come; the Gospel would meet with bitter enmity.
Jesus preached Law to show man his sinfulness. Read John 15:22-25. If the Word had not been preached, the world would have gone on undisturbed. But the preaching of the Word causes divisions, not because of God or because of the Word, but because of the utter sinfulness of man.
Luke 12:52 From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three.
This is an explanation. Verses 52-53 explain what Jesus means by division or dissension. By the way the word "divided against" occurs often, making the idea quite prominent.
"There shall from now on be five in one house divided." He is not saying on which side the two or the three are. The emphasis is on the word "divided against."
Luke 12:53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."
The picture is of a family of five: father, mother, daughter, son, and son's wife. The mother and the mother-in-law are the same person. The bride of son's wife has come to live with the family. The point is division. Jesus does not indicate whether the two or the three are on His side. Nor is He saying that the younger generation is against the older generation. And what is typical in the family is found everywhere. Look at Luke 2:34 and 2 Corinthians 2:15f.
http://pericope.org/buls-notes/luke/luke_12_49_53.htm
Some acknowledge the Gospel as true, others not. On Calvary the cross in the middle divided the believing from the unbelieving wrong doer. The Gospel is a "scandal," a hateful thing, to the unbeliever. How true is not the observation in Acts 14:22. Follow Paul on his missionary journeys. Almost everywhere he went, his enemies stirred up trouble, blaming everything on Paul and the Gospel. Division, division, division!
Arndt: Even the Gospel's friends oppose one another in their interpretation of its meaning.
How true! I am not always right and there are time when I hate someone simply because he does not agree with me but later I see that he was right. I must beseech God's mercy and repent.
Luther: When Christ foresaw in the spirit that a great disturbance and revolution in the world would follow His preaching, He comforted Himself this way: 'I came to cast fire upon the earth; and would that it were already kindled!' Thus we see today that because of the persecution and blasphemy of our opponents and the contempt and ingratitude of the world many evils follow upon the preaching of the Gospel. This bothers us so much that we often think, according to the flesh, that it would have been better if the teaching of godliness had never been circulated and peace had been preserved than that the public peace would be disturbed as it has been since it was made public. But according to the Spirit, we courageously declare with Christ: 'I came to cast fire upon the earth; and would that it were already kindled!' Once this fire has been kindled, great upheavals immediately arise. For it is not some king of emperor but the god of this world, 2 Corinthians 4:4, who is provoked; and he is a powerful spirit and the lord of the whole world.
Our only protection midst all this sin and division in the world is a Word of Jesus, such as John 16:33: "These things I have spoken to you so that in My you might have peace. In the world you have tribulation but be of good courage, I have overcome the world.
@ Bob...
Data and Facts (from Phil) have been presented to you in regards to the foolishness associated with a nationalized healthcare system...
Would you please take time to respond to those facts?
Also, where in the U.S. Constitution is the appropriation of funds for nationalized healthcare? Most "debaters" despise dealing with facts because they are oh so inconvenient. Most make many assertions hoping that the repetition of said assertions will validate its content.
I, and others I would assume, await your factual dispute of those facts.
@Tom G,
I'd rather not, because those "facts" are just predictions, speculation, forecasting, and opinions.
If I say "It is a FACT that gravity pulls things toward Earth. Therefore, if I left go of object X, it will fall towards the Earth." The first statement is a fact (for the most part)... but the second part is speculation which needs more information. If object X is a helium balloon, it clearly won't "fall towards the Earth" (except after it pops). If object X is tied to a rope which is tied to the ceiling, it won't drop.
So, what Phil has provided were facts mixed in with various hypotheses. While those hypotheses are intelligent and well thought out and may have some statistical graphs to back them up, it does not mean they are a guaranteed predictor of the future.
Years ago, I was a Statistical Analyst and this entailed the act of forecasting. The biggest problem with forecasting is if your forecasting model is crap, the predictions are crap. You can't just say things like "I flipped a coin seven times and it came up heads all seven times. So, if I flip it an eighth time, it will clearly come up heads." You also can't say "I flipped a coin seven times and it came up heads all seven times. So, if I flip it an eighth time, it clearly has a much greater chance turning up tails than heads." The reality is, on the eighth flip, the coin has a 50/50 chance of coming up either heads or tails. (50/50 assumes perfect conditions, which are nearly impossible, but good enough for this point)
So, all I am saying is that while Phil MAY be right... and while Phil MAY be listening to the right opinions, I disagree. I do not believe the predictions Phil claims are the reality. I have a different forecasting model which tells me that Phil's forecasting model is wrong.
That's the problem with opinions masquerading as "facts".
joemama stop pretending to know what your saying about God. You don't understand what you are talking about and you are going to get yourself into a lot of trouble. God is hearing every word you say and sees every word you right.
Cain's generations were curst because of Cain's philosophy of living and he taught it to his children and his children taught it to there children keeping that same philosophy onto the 400th year. He opposed Gods instructions and philosophy of living therefore heaping the curse upon himself and his future generations. God was just informing him what the consequences of his actions would be.
Even when he killed Able His brother. God had mercy on him. He placed a mark on his head instructing no one to kill him or face gods wrath.
Back then the Gene pool wasn't as shallow as it is today. Adam lived close to 1000 years and it went down from there. It wasn't uncommon for someone to live for 800 years back then.
Your own philosophy of living will betray you just like Cain if you don't stop this foolish philosophy you live by. Im not condemning you Im just warning you. I advise you to listen because unlike Cain you don't have 800 years to get right with God and the consequences for you may be worse them Cain's
Yes it is in there. they have worded it in a way to throw people off the sent but later they laid provisions for it. loop holes make it possible to get Tax Payers money to pay for them.
Joe mama you don't want to acknowledge the facts that I posted because they are correct. They were written by people a lot more educated then you or me and make perfect sense. Deny them all you want. It wont make them any less true.
BLOOD MONEY
In 1973 abortion on demand became legal with the landmark Roe vs. Wade decision. Abortion clinics immediately sprung up across the United States, fostering a blood-money industry capable of producing annual revenues in the tens of millions. One clinic employee admitted recently that she made an average of thirteen thousand dollars per month based on a commission of twenty-five dollars per abortion. She compared her job responsibilities to a phone-in boiler room, where each employee sat at a booth answering calls. When a distraught young lady called in, a sales script was read that had been designed to overcome any obstacle that stood in the way of an abortion. The caller was encouraged to come in for "counseling," and to bring the payment for the abortion with her. Once the abortion was performed, the saleswoman received a twenty-five dollar commission. The idea is simple. Used car salesmen and con artists have employed the same system for years.
@bob
Thanks for responding!
Is the past not a good indicator of future performance? I realize it does not guarantee success or failure, but doesn't it give validity to phil's hypotheses?
In regards to health care, doesn't past performance of nationalized health care (or just about any other nationalized entity) result in inefficieny, cost overuns, and scope creepage? (I am gov't worker :( I observe it everyday)
The evidence is preponderous for not nationalizing anything.
Typically, when evidence is rejected, a person has willfully chosen to not accept the evidence for one reason or another. No longer is it a matter of logic, rather it is now of the will.
Could you present your evidence that supports a different future for us, the citizens of the U.S.?
@bob
I think you missed part of my post:
"Also, where in the U.S. Constitution is the appropriation of funds for nationalized healthcare?"
Thought everyone would like to read this.
Subject: Sarah
By Dewie Whetsell, Alaskan Fisherman. As posted in comments on Greta's article referencing the MOVEON ad about Sarah Palin.
The last 45 of my 66 years I've spent in a commercial fishing town in Alaska . I understand Alaska politics but never understood national politics well until this last year. Here's the breaking point: Neither side of the Palin controversy gets it. It's not about persona, style, rhetoric, it's about doing things. Even Palin supporters never mention the things that I'm about to mention here.
1- Democrats forget when Palin was the Darling of the Democrats, because as soon as Palin took the Governor's office away from a fellow Republican and tough SOB, Frank Murkowski, she tore into the Republican's "Corrupt Bastards Club" (CBC) and sent them packing. Many of them are now residing in State housing and wearing orange jump suits The Democrats reacted by skipping around the yard, throwing confetti and singing, "la la la la" (well, you know how they are). Name another governor in this country that has ever done anything similar.
2- Now with the CBC gone, there were fewer Alaskan politicians to protect the huge, giant oil companies here. So she constructed and enacted a new system of splitting the oil profits called "ACES." Exxon (the biggest corporation in the world) protested and Sarah told them, "don't let the door hit you in the stern on your way out." They stayed, and Alaska residents went from being merely wealthy to being filthy rich Of course, the other huge international oil companies meekly fell in line. Again, give me the name of any other governor in the country that has done anything similar.
3- The other thing she did when she walked into the governor's office is she got the list of State requests for federal funding for projects, known as "pork." She went through the list, took 85% of them and placed them in the "when-hell-freezes-over" stack. She let locals know that if we need something built, we'll pay for it ourselves. Maybe she figured she could use the money she got from selling the previous governor's jet because it was extravagant Maybe she could use the money she saved by dismissing the governor's cook (remarking that she could cook for her own family), giving back the State vehicle issued to her, maintaining that she already had a car, and dismissing her State provided security force (never mentioning - I imagine - that she's packing heat herself). I'm still waiting to hear the names of those other governors.
4- Now, even with her much-ridiculed "gosh and golly" mannerism, she also managed to put together a totally new approach to getting a natural gas pipeline built which will be the biggest private construction project in the history of North America. No one else could do it although they tried. If that doesn't impress you, then you're trying too hard to be unimpressed while watching her do things like this while baking up a batch of brownies with her other hand..
5- For 30 years, Exxon held a lease to do exploratory drilling at a place called Point Thompson. They made excuses the entire time why they couldn't start drilling. In truth they were holding it like an investment. No governor for 30 years could make them get started... This summer, she told them she was revoking their lease and kicking them out. They protested and threatened court action. She shrugged and reminded them that she knew the way to the court house. Alaska won again.
6- President Obama wants the nation to be on 25% renewable resources for electricity by 2025. Sarah went to the legislature and submitted her plan for Alaska to be at 50% renewables by 2025. We are already at 25%. I can give you more specifics about things done, as opposed to style and persona Everybody wants to be cool, sound cool, look cool. But that's just a cover-up. I'm still waiting to hear from liberals the names of other governors who can match what mine has done in two and a half years. I won't be holding my breath.
By the way, she was content to return to AK after the national election and go to work, but the haters wouldn't let her. Now these adolescent screechers are obviously not scuba divers. And no one ever told them what happens when you continually jab and pester a barracuda. Without warning, it will spin around and tear your face off. Shoulda known better.
You have just read the truth about Sarah Palin that sends the media, along with the democrat party, into a wild uncontrolled frenzy to discredit her. I guess they are only interested in skirt chasers, dishonesty, immoral people, liars, womanizers, murderers, and bitter ex-presidents' wives.
So "You go, Girl." I only wish the men in Washington had your guts, determination, honesty, and morals.
I rest my case.
Only FOOLS listen to the biased media.
If you've read this far ...............................................
First Lady Michelle Obama's Servant List & Pay Scale
First Lady Requires More Than Twenty Attendants
1. $172,2000 - Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff)
2. $140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C .. (Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady)
3. $113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G (Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary)
4. $102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (Special Assistant to the President and Director of Communications for the First Lady)
5. $100,000 - Winter, Melissa E. (Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
6. $90,000 - Medina , David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
7. $84,000 - Lelyveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady)
8. $75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady)
9. $70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady)
10. $65,000 - Burnough, Erinn J. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
11. $64,000 - Reinstein, Joseph B. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
12. $62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator For The First Lady)
13. $60,000 - Fitts, Alan O. (Deputy Dir ector of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady)
14. $57,500 - Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady)
15. $52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary To The First Lady)
16. $50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special=2 0Assistant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide To The First Lady)
17. $45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For The First Lady)
18. $43,000 - Tubman, Samantha (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office)
19. $40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
20. $36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary)
21. $35,000 - Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)
22. $35,000 - Jackson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady)
There has NEVER been anyone in the White House at any time who has created such an army of staffers whose sole duties are the facilitation
of the First Lady's social life. One wonders why she needs so much help, at taxpayer expense, when even Hillary, only had three; Jackie Kennedy
one; Laura Bush one; and prior to Mamie Eisenhower social help came from the President's own pocket.
Note: This does not include makeup artist Ingrid Grimes-Miles, 49, and "First Hairstylist" Johnny Wright, 31, both of whom traveled aboard Air
Force One to Europe .
Copyright 2009 Canada Free Press.Com canadafreepress.com/i ndex.php/article/12652
Yes, I know, The Canadian Free Press has to publish this because the USA media is too scared they might be considered racist. Sorry America !
@joemama
*cry* had a good post for you and it got lost in the ether...so now the short version...
The WHO report does not reflect the values of the peoples of the United States as set forth in its governmental document, The U.S. Constitution.
The WHO report presupposes that the "[u]ltimate responsibility for the performance of a country's health system lies with government".
The U.S., and others that emulate her type of governance, will never perform well when it is in contrast to their basic tenants.
This report is sort of like a report on square-shaped burgers being the best way to provide burgers. Wendys would perform fantastically, the others, not so good. So does that mean the others don't provide good burger service?
The WHO report is self admittedly inaccurate and unreliable: the collection of data has been "hampered by the weakness of routine information systems and insufficient attention to research". When reliable data wasn't available, they "developed [data] through a variety of techniques".
Different countries have different standards. For example, live birth to one nation isn’t a birth at all to another...kinda skews the infant mortality rate doesn't it?
For these and many more discrepancies, the WHO report is not a credible source of data.
Sorry about the disjointedness of this post...the other was a whopper! (no pun intended)
This is one of those things were that old saying 'If you don't learn from history you are destined to repeat it' or something like that. And from history I have learned.
Something to Consider
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot lift the wage earner by tearing down the wage payer.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more then your income.
You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they would and should do for themselves.
Abraham Lincoln
No one here knows my story nor I anyone who has posted here. What I do know, from reading the posts, is there is alot of finger pointing and laying of blame for what others perceive as wrongs, for how we arrived here. The United States consistently reinvents herself from generation to generation. Now that works as long as the foundation remains intact, sadly our foundation has some breaks and is getting weak. Who is to blame is not nearly as important as how it happened and how to fix it. And for me that is what this cartoon is saying the United States is after all WE THE PEOPLE right?
Thank you Tom G, SannD, kevin and the rest of you out there for standing up. We all have to stand up to ignorant Communist liberals. whether or not they intend to destroy American liberty and freedom or not they are still doing it. We must all open our eyes to there deception and band against them if we wish to keep this nation free. So take the pledge with us
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands: one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Boy, how short are people's mind today...if you look back at history start with the Reagan yrs..that started the demise of our economy with Reaganomics,doing away with Tariff taxes, the demise of unions (sure they did alot to themselfs) ah but don't forget Iran-Contra afffair etc..the came Sr. who also did much of the same, as with CLinton with the so called NAFTA crap which needs to be repealed ASAP, the Bush jr. who also did the same with CAFTA and so-on...I agree even this Pres. has no BALLS as with Congress, they all cater to Multi-National Corps. etc for $$$ for re-election etc...the hell with middle class,,I can go on and on,,but People better start waking up and smell the roses...we are in VERY DEEP CRAP
Boy, how short are people's mind today...if you look back at history start with the Reagan yrs..that started the demise of our economy with Reaganomics,doing away with Tariff taxes, the demise of unions (sure they did alot to themselfs) ah but don't forget Iran-Contra afffair etc..the came Sr. who also did much of the same, as with CLinton with the so called NAFTA crap which needs to be repealed ASAP, the Bush jr. who also did the same with CAFTA and so-on...I agree even this Pres. has no BALLS as with Congress, they all cater to Multi-National Corps. etc for $$$ for re-election etc...the hell with middle class,,I can go on and on,,but People better start waking up and smell the roses...we are in VERY DEEP CRAP
January 16, 2007
The four pillars of Reaganomics
by Arthur Laffer
WebMemo #1311
The following is Arthur Laffer's November 13 address to members of The Heritage Foundation's President's Club at the fall 2006 President's Club meeting, held at the Ronald Reagan International Trade Center in Washington, DC.
You know, one thing I always loved, Ed, was when I followed Milton Friedman to the podium I could actually raise the microphones.
Seriously, it's really a pleasure being here with all of you tonight. Ed, what you have done with Heritage, you and Phil, it just—it boggles the mind, the contribution you've made. It's a real honor to be here with all of you. [Applause.]
I'm going to follow the advice of one of my mentors, a professor of mine—and I was the chairman of his advisory board when he was senator from the state of California—a man named Sam Hayakawa. Do all of you remember him? He was great, but he gave me one piece of advice which I am going to follow this evening, which he said, "Arthur, never speak beyond the capacity of the audience's bladder. No matter how important your message, they just won't hear it." [Laughter.]
So I will keep these comments short this evening, but I do want you to know that I have been very fortunate all of my life. I've been truly blessed. I've been a fly on the wall of history. I've been just so many lucky places just by chance and serendipity and obviously a huge portion of that serendipity had to do with my relationship with the real president, Ronald Reagan.
My godfather was a man named Justin Dart. Some of you may remember Justin Dart. [Applause.] My younger son's name is Justin, named after Justin Dart. I was executor of his estate and he was my godfather. I first really got time to spend with Ronald Reagan with Justin Dart personally one-on-one.
I'm going to start off with one story, one Reagan story, which was at the Beverly Hills Hotel, and I think it was 1979, maybe early 1980. There were about 10 of us at the table and it was just a policy discussion, and Dick Allen was there—do you all remember Dick Allen? [Applause.] Phenomenal person. He was Reagan's first National Security Advisor. The Governor at the time said, "Dick, we've got a group here and we're just going to have a conversation, but what I'd like you to do is start that conversation. Would you mind sort of telling all of us what the thrust of U.S. policy has been in the post-World War II era?" And Dick, as all of you may remember, had a real pension for humor. He said, "Mr. Governor," he said, "I'd be glad to tell sort of a rendition of the history post World War II of the United States. Basically we did two things, Governor. We harassed our friends and we cajoled our enemies." [Laughter.] And with that Ronald Reagan looked up and said, "My goodness, what was that, Dick?" And he said, "Sir, we've cajoled our enemies, and we've harassed our friends." And he said, "My goodness, what have been the consequences of those policies?" And Dick Allen looked up with a smirk on his face and he said, "Sir, we have almost no friends left but we have lots of enemies." And Reagan couldn't hold the comment back and he said, and I'm going to quote it, and I think this is a direct quote, he said, "Well, Dick, I guess we're just going to have to reverse those policies, now aren't we? We're going to have to scare the bajeebers out of our enemies with Star Wars and we're going to have to make our friends stinking rich with supply-side economics."
At that moment, I knew that we had won the Third World War, period. It was a huge, huge change. If you look at the thrust that we're looking at tonight and the history, there were four basic areas of economics that Reagan pushed. All of you know these pushes, but I want to go through them because all four were the cornerstones of what we now know of Reaganomics.
Sound money. Sound money is the sine qua non of a prosperous society. Do any of you remember what the prime interest rate was when we came into office on January 20th, 1981? The prime interest rate was 21-and-a-half percent. Can any of you imagine what the U.S. would look like today with a 21-and-a-half percent? When you look at the long bond today, the long bond today is at four-and-a-half; that is the legacy of Ronald Reagan and Paul Volcker in seriatim.
We all know the taxes, what he did with taxes. When Reagan came into office, the highest federal marginal income tax rate was 70 percent on unearned income. By the way, some of you know it's a lot more difficult to earn unearned income than it is earned income. [Laughter.] Reagan dropped the highest federal marginal income tax rates from 70 percent to 28 percent. He cut the corporate tax rates, he indexed the personal tax codes, changing forever the taxes. Do you realize—I mean, it's just amazing that I'm going on 67 years old today and the taxes on the ownership of capital are the lowest they have been in my lifetime. [Applause.] And that is because of Ronald Reagan and the supply side move that he and others have done.
If you look at regulations, the third pillar of Reaganomics—supply side economics—what he did for regulations, not just taking that big stack of papers of the Federal Registers—do you remember that? Do you remember when he dropped it, the thump that went on the table? I mean, it was a phenomenally impressive thing, not only for him to have lifted it, but also for him to have reduced it. I don't know which one was the greater challenge, but both were Herculean.
Today, because of Ronald Reagan, the minimum wage in the United States—the minimum wage relative to the average wage in the United States is the lowest it's been in 50 years. It doesn't get any better.
But let me tell you that today, because of Ronald Reagan, the minimum wage in the United States—the minimum wage relative to the average wage in the United States is the lowest it's been in 50 years. It doesn't get any better. As all of you know, the minimum wage is the black teenage unemployment act. It is the guaranteed way of holding the poor, the minorities and the disenfranchised out of the mainstream is if you price their original services too high. Ronald Reagan recognized the deleterious affects of that and really did not allow that minimum wage to rise.
Another one that he did on regulations: do any of you remember the air traffic controllers? [Applause.] Do you remember what he did? He fired them. And he wouldn't let them work for government again. Since that time, union membership in the United States has gone from well above 30 percent to down around 12 to 14 percent. [Applause.] That is Ronald Reagan's legacy. The third pillar was regulations.
The fourth pillar, which I really want to talk to you tonight because it's a critical pillar of Reaganomics and supply side economics, and it is one of the issues that Ronald Reagan wanted to solve more than anything, and that has to do with the United States economy in the global economy. The United States is a nation located in the global economy and we get enormous, enormous benefits from dealing with foreigners.
Ronald Reagan wanted free trade more than anything. If you look at this issue today, in 1930, we passed—the United States passed with Herbert Hoover as President, and signed into law—something called the Smoot-Hawley Tariff. That tariff put tariff duties on imported products at the highest level they have virtually ever been. It was the precursor of the Great Depression. If you follow that legislation, it goes through the House Committees and the Senate Committees, you can see the stock market collapses. Those tariffs were the highest they've been. Since the Smoot-Hawley Tariff passed, in this country we have reduced tax rates on traded products and Ronald Reagan was a major reducer of those taxes on traded products. In fact, it was Ronald Reagan, as you all know, who sponsored NAFTA. We couldn't get it passed, but we sponsored NAFTA. It took Bill Clinton to switch and go against his own party, against the unions, to push that through. But Ronald Reagan pushed for NAFTA and pushed for lowering tariffs. Today in the United States, customs duties per dollar of import are the lowest they have been in a thousand years because of Ronald Reagan—literally the lowest.
You know, if you saw a store that sold you high quality products at low cost, is your first thought, "How can I boycott that store?" [Laughter.] I don't think so. You know, trade is an integral part of the U.S. prosperity and the U.S. position in the world economy is critical. You know, without China there is no Wal-Mart and without Wal-Mart there is no middle class and lower class prosperity in the United States. [Applause.]
In addition to free trade on products and free trade is essential for supply side economics and Reaganomics, in addition to trade on products, is outsourcing. There are some things we do better than Indians, and there are some things they do better than we do. We and they would be foolish in the extreme if we didn't do those things for them that we do better than they do, and they do those things for us that they do better than we do. We win and they win. It's a plus-plus for the world. [Applause.] And just remember, every dollar we spend on outsourcing is spent on U.S. goods or invested back in the U.S. market. That's accounting.
The third one I want to touch on, because I remember Ronald Reagan being so strong on this issue, and it also has to do with the U.S. and the global economy, and I'm going to say it in my style tonight and I hope I don't hurt anyone's feelings when I do, but it's immigration. Immigration is the life's blood of the U.S. economy. [Applause.]
I have on my desk in my office, I have a book, a set of books that was brought by my great-grandfather from Prussia to the United States. It was his cherished possession. It was the collected works of Frederic Schiller done in old German script, leather-bound. As you probably all know, I'm an ancestor worshiper. His name was Joseph Carl Kreisch, my great-grandfather, and he brought it over and I have it on my desk as a remembrance of my ancestors who came before. But I also have it there for another reason. If you open up the front page, it said, "Published in Philadelphia, 1852." [Laughter.]
Outsourcing is not new. Immigration is not new. Not only are these people the life's blood of America, they are, but let me just say to you tonight, on economic terms, the illegal immigrants are also the life's blood of this society. And I'm going to be hard core with you. They produce high quality labor at low cost and they cheat on their taxes. It doesn't get any better.
I'm having fun with you tonight as well, but let me just tell you that the California economy without immigrants would be a very different—you can't believe how much of what you buy and what you see and what you do is influenced by immigration in this wonderful, wonderful country of ours.
The last one I want to do on trade with you, and then I'll stop, is the trade deficit. You hear these mongers of fear tell you about the trade deficit and how it's ruining the world, it's the United States consuming way beyond its means with a credit card philosophy and literally putting into bondage our children in the future by the huge debt we're owing to foreigners. You all know this story, don't you? You've heard it from Warren Buffet and you've heard it from Pete Peterson, you've heard it from Bill Gates, you've heard it from everyone there that the trade deficit is a huge problem. Let me assure you it is not.
The United States today is the only developed growth country in the world. We are the only one. Living on the legacy of Ronald Reagan and those who have followed him, the United States is the only growth country in the world that is also a developed nation.
The United States today is the only developed growth country in the world. We are the only one. Living on the legacy of Ronald Reagan and those who have followed him, the United States is the only growth country in the world that is also a developed nation. It's just like a growth company. Do growth companies lend money or borrow money? They borrow money. Growth countries borrow money too. If you're a global investor for your own family, I don't care where you live, you want to have a large portion of your portfolio located in the United States.
How much do you want in Hugo Chavez's Venezuela, or in Argentina where you can get 30 cents on the dollar, or in the Middle East? Or how would you like to have it in Putin's Russia—you name it—or France, where they have a two percent wealth tax; that's a real attractive one. When you look at the world, everyone in the world who cares about his or her family wants to have a major portion of their assets in the United States because we are the growth country and the freedom loving country.
How do foreigners generate the dollar cash flow to buy U.S. located assets? There are only two ways they can do it. They've got to sell more goods to us and buy less goods from us. The U.S. trade deficit is one in the same as the U.S. capital surplus, and I want to put it to you seriously. Think of it in capital terms. Which would you rather have, capital lined up on your borders, trying to get into your country or trying to get out of your country? We are the capital magnet of this planet and we are the savior for not only people, for not only freedom, but also for capital.
The trade deficit is the capital surplus and don't ever think of having a capital surplus as being a bad thing for our country.
And if I can take you back—we have trade data that go back to the beginning of time. In fact, with Oliver Williamson's data, we have the trade balance of the U.S. going back to 1640. Let me tell you that from 1640 until 1870, that's how many years is it—is that 230 years—the U.S. ran a trade deficit, virtually each and every year for 230 years. We built our country on foreign capital and what did we do when we owed too much money to foreigners? We opened up immigration, we let them come here and then we didn't owe it to foreigners anymore. [Applause.]
The four pillars of Reaganomics are the grand territories of macroeconomics. You've got money, critical. You've got fiscal policy in taxes and governing spending, critical. You've got regulatory policy or what we call income policies in macroeconomics. And the fourth one, you have trade policy. These were the pillars of Reaganomics, these were the dreams that our president had, the real president had, and let me just say tonight, Mr. President, we all miss you very, very much. Thank you.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm1311.cfm
Say what you want about the rest but Reagan was the perfect president. The best we ever had.
Reagan Was the perfect president.
@shades
You say Reaganomics was the beginning of the decline of the US economy...interesting conclusions...Can you please cite specific points, reinforced with evidence, that decreased the economy of the US? Exact specifics regarding the loss of wealth? Were more private jobs created than government jobs?
As the only non-progressive president in the last hundred years or so, I think you will be hard-pressed to cite credible evidence, however, I eagerly await the evidence to support your assertions.
umm... with the whole christianity thing people are bickering about for the cartoon...what does it matter? it says you can practice whatever religion you want to (adversed to none at all, such as what was happening in Russia around the time). It also said whatever God you choose to worship, it just gave christianity as an example, anyway jews and muslims all worship the same God anyway just in different ways (recall the story of Abraham, Sara and Hagar).
I guess my main advise is instead of pointing out every single politically incorrect tid-bit of this cartoon you should actually listen to the message.
How about the worst ISM's, such as:
BushISM
McCarthyISM
LimbaughISM
BeckISM
ConservatISM
RacISM
Fear-mongerISM
ObstructionISM
NegativISM
ISM-ad-nauseum
Crotty you are way wrong. Christians and Jews Worship the same God. The muslims god "Allah" is the name of one of 365 gods in pagan sumer(pre islamic arabia). Mohammed dram up and plagiarized scripture from the old testament and new testament and twisted it around to be in favor of his followers. It is extremely prejudice to anyone who is not Muslim to the extreme murder of what they consider infidels. infidels: anyone who isn't Muslim. It is a plagiarized made up document. The term peaceful Muslims are simply those who do not believe in the religion and are either do not know the religion, atheist or agnostic. Islam extremists are those who believe in the religion and practice it religiously. So you see "Allah" is a mythical pagan god and behaves more like the Jews and Christians Satan then anything.
@Shades,
If you want to 'look back' and find where the US economy began its failure you'll have to look way before Reagan. Try the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 - that's when Congress decided to shirk its Constitutional monetary duties and turn them over to a third party. That was just one of many sad events throughout our history in which some people thought they knew better than our Founders how this Republic should function.
One might think our politicians would have learned better by now but the truth is, they haven't needed to. They won't have to until we citizens learn better. Until we demand a return to the rule of law as embodied in our Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights, our Republic can only continue to deteriorate.
Don't believe me? Just keep doing what you're doing, and watch, and see.
Crotty you are right thew they are descendants of Abraham they just don't worship the same god. They are two brothers fighting for there berth rights.
crotty I do agree with you on the rest though
@ SannD:
I agree, but IIRC that quote should rightly be attributed to John Galt, a fictitious character in Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged".
BenDareDunDAt The cartoon was referring to CommunISM and SocialISM. These two things are to freedom what rust is to steel.
Conservatism is not a political party; it is a way of life. We believe that truth and justice are the American way. Our goal is the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We believe that we are one nation under God and not above him. We are indivisible and proud of what we believe in. We believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. We believe abortion is murder. We believe there are two kinds of racism. Discriminating against someone because of a persons skin color and Discriminating for someone because of a persons skin color. We believe that perversion of truth whether it is in thought or action is sin and should be treated as such. We are Christians who love our God and we are proud of him.
We believe in doing what is right no matter what that means. We believe you reap what you sow-meaning people should keep what they work for and work for what they keep. We believe that those who believe otherwise are the ones that should be ashamed of themselves. We will never give up our beliefs. We fight for truth and are ready to die for what we believe in. That is precisely what makes us stronger then our enemies. Make yourself heard. Do not take it from the left any longer. We stand up and fight for what we believe in. If we stick together we will take back this country and get rid of the evil that is destroying it. WE LOST THE BATTLE BUT WE WILL WIN THE WAR
Ironically, this cartoon is a magnificent advertisement for two rather terrific "ism"s, namely objectivism and libertarianism. Viva Rand! Live Free or Die!
scouzThis is not a right or left issue. It's a global transformation into a Socialist world government and it started before Bush and Obama. Lets wake up people. Our president is head of the UN security council. Nobody sees a conflict of interest here? It's also illegal for him to hold that position. He expanded on NAFTA. He expanded the war in the middle east. Gave more power to the Federal Reserve and Wall St. He supports the World Bank and a global currancy. He supports Codex Alimentarius. That's global food regulation which will over power our FDA. He also expanded on SPP or the NAU. That's why he/they throw(s) dollars around like they are toilet paper. The dollar is history.It's being used to finance this global move. Then it will be replaced. Gold and precious metals are sky rocketing and Crude Oil will follow. These are all signs of massive inflation and a tumbling currancy.
Is anybody asking why the stock market is up yet unemployment is rising, the dollar dropping and the US trade deficit is at an all time high and still growing? Remember the "Stimulus Package?" It went from the Fed to the banks to Wall St and it never passed through our hands in the form of jobs or business growth.The money has been stolen by the Wall St Crooks. Some may go to the NAFTA super highway project in central US.(That's another story) Does anybody notice that there are at least 6 people from wall st in appointed positions in the Obama administration? It's all about placing power in a few hands. Guess what. It's not ours hands.
Lou Dobbs just got fired for trying to tell you about this but people call him racist for wanting a sovereign nation.
It's time to shut of the TVs and wake up.
This is not a right or left issue. It's a global transformation into a Socialist world government and it started before Bush and Obama. Lets wake up people. Our president is head of the UN security council. Nobody sees a conflict of interest here? It's also illegal for him to hold that position. He expanded on NAFTA. He expanded the war in the middle east. Gave more power to the Federal Reserve and Wall St. He supports the World Bank and a global currancy. He supports Codex Alimentarius. That's global food regulation which will over power our FDA. He also expanded on SPP or the NAU. That's why he/they throw(s) dollars around like they are toilet paper. The dollar is history.It's being used to finance this global move. Then it will be replaced. Gold and precious metals are sky rocketing and Crude Oil will follow. These are all signs of massive inflation and a tumbling currancy.
Is anybody asking why the stock market is up yet unemployment is rising, the dollar dropping and the US trade deficit is at an all time high and still growing? Remember the "Stimulus Package?" It went from the Fed to the banks to Wall St and it never passed through our hands in the form of jobs or business growth.The money has been stolen by the Wall St Crooks. Some may go to the NAFTA super highway project in central US.(That's another story) Does anybody notice that there are at least 6 people from wall st in appointed positions in the Obama administration? It's all about placing power in a few hands. Guess what. It's not ours hands.
Lou Dobbs just got fired for trying to tell you about this but people call him racist for wanting a sovereign nation.
It's time to shut of the TVs and wake up.
I have a plan to fix our economy on my blog called "My Recovery Plan" Just click on my name on the upper left hand corner of this post. Click on "My Recovery Plan" and tell me what you think.
Should be mandatory read!
USA in 2009---what will it be in 2014...or will it even be!
Remember Lee Iacocca, the man who rescued Chrysler Corporation from its death throes? He's now 82 years old and has a new book, 'Where Have All The Leaders Gone?'.
Lee Iacocca Says:
'Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder! We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, 'Stay the course..'
Stay the course? You've got to be kidding. This is America , not the damned, 'Titanic'. I'll give you a sound bite: 'Throw all the bums out!'
You might think I'm getting senile, that I've gone off my rocker, and maybe I have. But someone has to speak up. I hardly recognize this country anymore...
The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in handcuffs.. While we're fiddling in Iraq , the Middle East is burning and nobody seems to know what to do. And the press is waving 'pom-poms' instead of asking hard questions. That's not the promise of the ' America ' my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for. I've had enough. How about you?
I'll go a step further. You can't call yourself a patriot if you're not outraged. This is a fight I'm ready and willing to have. The Biggest 'C' is Crisis! (Iacocca elaborates on nine C's of leadership, with crisis being the first.)
Leaders are made, not born. Leadership is forged in times of crisis. It's easy to sit there with your feet up on the desk and talk theory. Or send someone else's kids off to war when you've never seen a battlefield yourself. It's another thing to lead when your world comes tumbling down.
On September 11, 2001, we needed a strong leader more than any other time in our history. We needed a steady hand to guide us out of the ashes. A hell of a mess, so here's where we stand.
We're immersed in a bloody war with no plan for winning and no plan for leaving.
We're running the biggest deficit in the history of the country.
We're losing the manufacturing edge to Asia, while our once-great companies are getting slaughtered by health care costs.
Gas prices are skyrocketing, and nobody in power has a coherent energy policy. Our schools are in trouble.
Our borders are like sieves.
The middle class is being squeezed every which way.
These are times that cry out for leadership.
But when you look around, you've got to ask: 'Where have all the leaders gone?' Where are the curious, creative communicators? Where are the people of character, courage, conviction, omnipotence, and common sense? I may be a sucker for alliteration, but I think you get the point.
Name me a leader who has a better idea for homeland security than making us take off our shoes in airports and throw away our shampoo?
We've spent billions of dollars building a huge new bureaucracy, and all we know how to do is react to things that have already happened.
Name me one leader who emerged from the crisis of Hurricane Katrina. Congress has yet to spend a single day evaluating the response to the hurricane or demanding accountability for the decisions that were made in the crucial hours after the storm.
Everyone's hunkering down, fingers crossed, hoping it doesn't happen again. Now, that's just crazy. Storms happen. Deal with it. Make a plan. Figure out what you're going to do the next time.
Name me an industry leader who is thinking creatively about how we can restore our competitive edge in manufacturing. Who would have believed that there could ever be a time when 'The Big Three' referred to Japanese car companies? How did this happen, and more important, what are we going to do about it?
Name me a government leader who can articulate a plan for paying down the debit, or solving the energy crisis, or managing the health care problem. The silence is deafening. But these are the crises that are eating away at our countr y and milking the middle class dry.
I have news for the gang in Congress. We didn't elect you to sit on your asses and do nothing and remain silent while our democracy is being hijacked and our greatness is being replaced with mediocrity. What is everybody so afraid of? That some bonehead on NBC news or CNN news will call them a name? Give me a break. Why don't you guys show some spine for a change?
Had Enough? Hey, I'm not trying to be the voice of gloom and doom here. I'm trying to light a fire. I'm speaking out because I have hope - I believe in America . In my lifetime, I've had the privilege of living through some of America 's greatest moments. I've also experienced some of our worst crises: The 'Great Depression,' 'World War II,' the 'Korean War,' the 'Kennedy Assassination,' the 'Vietnam War,' the 1970's oil crisis, and the struggles of recent years culminating with 9/11.
If I've learned one thing, it's this: 'You don't get anywhere by standing on the sidelines waiting for somebody else to take action. Whether it's building a better car or building a better future for our children, we all have a role to play. That's the challenge I'm raising in this book. It's a "Call to Action" for people who, like me, believe in America '. It's not too late, but it's getting pretty close. So let's shake off the crap and go to work. Let's tell 'em all we've had 'enough.'
Make your own contribution by sending this to everyone you know and care about. It's our country, folks, and it's our future. Our future is at stake!!
We can talk about solutions to the obvious problems that have been discussed here till our faces turn blue, but it isn't going to accomplish anything. Republican, Democrat...it doesn't matter. Honestly and truly, it just does not matter.
The problem, the real problem...is this: the Government DOES NOT listen to us anymore. How many of the American people petitioned Congress to vote 'no' with all those bail-outs? How many people have - en masse - tried to convince the government to either pass or not pass some bill or other? Or try to keep some freedom-hating wack-job from being appointed to the president's cabinet? Has the government listened at all...with any of it?
They didn't listen. I know this from personal experience from having contacted my own congressmen on a variety of issues. Each and every time I was 'blown off', given a non-answer designed to simply make it look like my concerns had been considered somewhat before being tossed out.
The government does not listen. When the government won't listen to the people it represents change - real change - becomes impossible. All Constitutional courses of action that could be taken, have been - except for the State governments stepping up to the plate and reclaiming their Constitutional co-equality with the federal government (but this won't happen anyway).
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-John F. Kennedy
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."
-Thomas Jefferson
Bob? A true Christian would NEVER have voted for Obama. He stands for everything the bible teaches against. If you voted for Obama I suggest you read your bible and realize how wrong that was and how disappointed God is with you.
Bob, Obama is just as bad as Bush. Don't fall for the lie. We haven't had an honestly good president since long before I was born. They have all been dictator-wannabe's.
Jazzy, the same is true of every president for a long time now. Bush Sr., Bush Jr., Clinton, Obama, Nixon...all the way back to Lincoln himself and farther back than that. It has been only a very few of our presidents who actually even tried to follow the Constitution or the Bible.
What an outrage. Harry Reid compares republicans to slave owners. What a blatant lie. The republican party was founded on antislavery. Abraham Lincoln and the republican party abolished slavery. In-fact it was the democrat party that led the confederate army in support of slavery. Just read any history book. Check this out on wikipedia.
Abraham Lincoln on slavery
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_on_slavery
Phil, you should try reading some of Lincoln's speeches sometime, like his first inaugural address. The guy was a white supremacist. He didn't support the abolition of slavery, he supported the deportation of all black people back to Africa. The Confederates weren't fighting to keep slavery, they seceded after an amendment was proposed that would have PREVENTED the Federal government from abolishing slavery - and Lincoln appended his signature to that amendment. The South was fighting for State Rights, not for slavery - in fact many Southern legislatures were considering abolishing slavery anyway.
Look into REAL history, not the pro-Lincoln propaganda they feed us in schools.
Oh, and by the way, Ulysses S. Grant was a slaver-owner up until the thirteenth amendment was passed, as the much vaunted Emancipation Proclamation only 'freed' slaves in the South, not in the North.
Robert G you truly disappoint me. How dare you call Abraham Lincoln; the man solely responsible for abolishing slavery a "white supremacist".
OH MY GOSH FOLKS. ALL THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE THE HISTORY BOOKS WERE WRONG BECAUSE ROBERT G SAID SO ALSO THE HOLOCAUST NEVER HAPPENED, THE MOON LANDING NEVER HAPPENED AND IF YOU BUY THAT I HAVE SOME OCEAN FRONT PROPERTY IN ARIZONA.
The truth is:
Democrats supported Slavery and its expansion into the northern states
Democrats introduced the Missouri Compromise and the Kansas-Nebraska Act to expand slavery into the northern states.
Democrats support of the Dred Scott Decision
Democrats supported Fugitive Slave Laws
Democrats collectively opposed the 13th Amendment to end slavery
Democrats collectively opposed the 14th Amendment to give blacks citizenship
Democrats collectively opposed the 15th Amendment to give blacks the right to vote
Democrats exhausted every efforts to destroy Reconstruction including opposing the 1867 Reconstruction Act and coming up with the Compromise of 1877
Democrats opposed the Freedman Bureau
Democrats opposed Senate Bill 60 of 1866 to give blacks 40 acres and mule (It was Democratic President Andrew Johnson that vetoed the Bill.
Democrats supported of the Slaughter House Case
Democrats opposed the 1866 Civil Rights Acts
Democrats opposed the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 and continue to oppose anti-lynching laws up through 1965
Democrats passed a multitude of Jim Crow Legislation
Democrats passed of Black Codes
Democrats establishment of the Ku Klux Klan and other terrorist auxiliaries for their Party to keep blacks in their place
Democrats promoted White Supremacy
Democrats opposed blacks schools and colleges
Democrats supported of Plessy v Ferguson legalizing Segregation
Democrats were against the decision in the case of Brown v Board of Education
Democrats supported, participated and endorsed over 5,000 lynching in states under their control
Democrats opposed to the NAACP and other organization designed to help blacks
Democrats were in opposition to blacks holding political office and drove many from office during Reconstruction with terror and violence
Southern Democrats debated against the passage of the 1964 Civil Right Act
Southern Democrats debated against the passage of 1965 Voting Rights Act
Southern Democrats fought against Affirmative Action
Southern Democrats fought against the integration of Southern schools
Democrats supported and participated in burning down middle class black communities like those in Rosewood, Florida, Wilmington, North Carolina and the Greenwood District (Black Wallstreet) in Tulsa Oklahoma.
Southern Democrats fraudulently took over two million acres of black property according to an investigation by Associated Press.
Democrats in an effort to keep blacks in their place used sadistic torture, terror and violence including: lynching, mutilations, murder, decapitations and beating and burning to death countless number of blacks.
Hang on a minute, Phil, I only said that Lincoln was a white supremacist. And I never said to take my word for it, I pointed you towards his first inaugural address. And neither was I speaking in favor of the Democrat party, nor against the Republican party (though I usually speak against BOTH).
I also NEVER SAID that the Holocaust never happened, and neither did I say that the moon-landing didn't happen. In fact, as you should well know, I didn't make any reference to those things at all. I know damned well that the Holocaust happened, especially since I have known people who suffered in those death camps. And I personally look to the moon landing as one of the greatest achievements in history.
Do some real research about Lincoln, look at the things he actually said - especially at his PRE-WAR statements and speeches.
Sorry Robert G if I offended you. I didn't say you believed that the Holocaust and the moon-landing never happened. The point I made in the sarcasm I delt is that calling Abraham Lincoln a "white supremacist" Shared the same valor. You might as well call Mother Teresa a Satanist.
Whether he said what you claim or not were the slaves not freed?
Do you think he intended the 13th amendment just for white people?
Were the slaves shipped back to Africa?
Did president lincoln not sign the 13th amendment into constitutional law that reads:
"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
"President Lincoln took an active role to ensure its passage through the House by ensuring the amendment was added to the Republican Party platform for the upcoming Presidential elections. His efforts came to fruition when the House passed the bill in January 1865, by a vote of 119 to 56. The Thirteenth Amendment's archival copy bears an apparent Presidential signature, under the usual ones of the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate, after the words "Approved February 1, 1865"."
Abraham Lincoln's first inaugural address (quoting portions):
"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."
" There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:
No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
-http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html
From Lincoln's first debate with Stephen Douglass in Ottawa, Ill.:
"I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races.
There is a physical difference between the two, which in my judgment will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness......
I ask the attention of the people here assembled and elsewhere, to the course that Judge Douglas is pursuing every day as bearing upon this question of making slavery national. Not going back to the records but taking the speeches he makes, the speeches he made yesterday and day before and makes constantly all over the country--I ask your attention to them. In the first place what is necessary to make the institution national? Not war. There is no danger that the people of Kentucky will shoulder their muskets and with a young nigger stuck on every bayonet march into Illinois and force them upon us. There is no danger of our going over there and making war upon them."
-http://www.bartleby.com/251/12.html
Like I said, do some ACTUAL research, look at what Lincoln actually said and did. Are we to believe that he had a change of heart when he went to war (illegally) with the South? Maybe he did, seems unlikely though. I know from personal experience that racists don't abandon their racist views easily.
To clarify, Lincoln's stated reason for not wanting to interfere with slavery is - in my view - basically the position he should have stuck with throughout his time in office. It should have properly remained a State issue, and not a Federal issue. The only point that I disagree with him on is that he had no legal authority to do anything concerning slavery even in those states where it did not exist - insofar as those states deciding to allow or disallow slavery is concerned.
Robert G
It was a totally different planet back then. language and popular belief were different back then. Abraham Lincoln was also a politician. If he had said otherwise do you think he would have been elected president? If he hadn't been elected president we wouldn't have the 13th amendment. Therefore slavery would still be legal in some states and everybody might have a different view about it today. Including you.
I agree with you 100% that he had no legal right to do what he did under the tenth amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Sovereignty laws were violated and that did lead to more sovereignty laws being violated. Never the less the 13th amendment itself was by design an advancement in freedom and was meant to. The problem was the politicians who came after who violated sovereignty for personal gain and advancement of communISM and socialISM.
Our sovereignty in this country is fading away. We have to do something about it people before its too late.
for those who don't know the definition
sovereignty: the authority of a state to govern itself or another state.
"how can we hope to wrest sovereignty away from the oligarchy and back to the people?"
To answer Victor about who brought the horse into the barn !
Our Social Security
Franklin Delano. Roosevelt (Terms of Office March 4, 1933, to April 12, 1945), a Democrat, introduced Social Security (FICA) Program. He Promised:
1.) That participation in the program would be completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the independent “Trust Fund” rather than into the general operating fund and, therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month — and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to 'Put Away' — you may be interested in the following:
If I recall correctly, 1958 is the first year that Congress voted to remove funds from Social Security and put it into the General Fund for Congress to spend.
If I recall correctly, it was a Democrat controlled Congress. From what I understand, Congress's logic at that time was that there was so much money in Social Security Fund that it would never run out / be used up for the purpose it was intended / set aside for.
Question: Which Political Party took Social Security from the Independent “Trust Fund” and put it into the General Fund so that Congress could spend it?
Answer: It was Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat) and the Democrat controlled House and Senate.
Question: Which political party eliminated the income tax Deduction for Social Security
(FICA) withholding?
Answer: The Democratic Party.
Question: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
Answer: The Democratic Party, with Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. (Al Gore) casting the tie-breaking, deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US.
Question: Which political party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
AND MY FAVORITE ANSWER: That's right! JAMES EARL CARTER, JR. (JIMMY CARTER) AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
IMMIGRANTS MOVED INTO THIS COUNTRY AND AT AGE 65, BEGAN TO RECEIVE SOCIAL SECURITY PAYMENTS: THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY GAVE THESE PAYMENTS TO THEM, EVEN THOUGH THEY NEVER PAID A DIME INTO IT!
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
It was Thomas Jefferson that said :
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."
It was a different planet back then, but a racist is a racist. The FACTS are that Lincoln talked very much like a racist, the nature of racism doesn't change much with passing of a hundred or more years. I know that slavery was abolished during his presidency, but a lot of wrong was done by him as well. For example he forced the South into a war they didn't want - Lincoln had no legal authority to keep those troops stationed at Fort Sumpter as that fort was residing on sovereign foreign territory the minute that South Carolina seceded. The fact that Lincoln refused to acknowledge the Constitutional right (under the 10th Amendment) of a state to secede is irrelevant, the southern states were well within their rights. You should also look into how Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, which only Congress has the authority to do.
In trying to "preserve the Union", Lincoln broke the heart and soul of that Union at almost every turn.
But anyway, we have gotten sidetracked from the main topic. If you wish to continue discussing Lincoln, perhaps we could do so elsewhere.
Robert G,
In 50-100 years, we will have learned even more. What is acceptable today will be less acceptable in the future. In the future, people will say that my words and your words are racist and hateful. And we will hope for forgiveness and grace.
If you only judge people for the mistakes they make, and throw the baby (their good works) out with the bath water (their mistakes), then you must hold a perpetually negative view of the human race. If you also include yourself with that disgust, then I suppose your are dealing with a level playing field. Nonetheless, I don't think such negativity is helpful.
People either create or their destroy. Was Lincoln perfect? No. Did he make mistakes? Yes. Are there things he shouldn't have said and shouldn't have done? Sure. Is anyone perfect? No. Does everyone make mistakes? Yes. Are there things that everyone shouldn't have said or shouldn't have done? Sure. So, what do we benefit over being hateful and judgmental towards everyone?
Is there anyone on this planet that you are willing to point out their good works and say something positive without also including a "...but, they also did X... so we should dislike them."?
unbelievable foresight. Someone saw this coming a long long time ago. Why can't the citizens of the USA have this type of knowledge today? Because it's been removed from our schools and deemed politically incorrect!
Fight back now! send this link to everyone you know
Address to the Nation on the Federal Budget and Deficit Reduction
Ronald Reagan
April 24, 1985
My fellow Americans:
I must speak to you tonight about a serious problem that demands your immediate attention. I need your help.
Today the United States Senate began a rendezvous with history. The threads of our past, present, and future as a nation will soon converge on the single overriding question before that body: Can we at last, after decades of drift, neglect, and excess, put our fiscal house in order? Can we assure a strong and prosperous future for ourselves, our children, and their children by adopting a plan that will compel the Federal Government to end the dangerous addiction to deficit spending and finally live within its means?
Throughout our history, we Americans have been willing to meet great challenges and do what is right when our destiny demanded it. Just 4 years ago this week, I asked your support for our bipartisan recovery program. That was the program the spenders said wouldn't work, and they called it Reaganomics. You might remember April 1981: a time when our defenses were weak, inflation still in double digits, and economic growth almost dead from a government that taxed too much and spent even more than it taxed.
We knew it would take a great effort to turn that around. We knew that letting you keep more of your earnings to get our economy moving again would be resisted by the old guard in Washington. But we also knew the answer to a government that's too fat is to stop feeding its growth. We wanted America to rediscover opportunity. We asked for your help then, and you gave it to us.
You turned America around -- turned around her confidence, turned around her economy, turned around over a decade of one national nightmare after another. We're into our 29th straight month of economic growth, with inflation staying down and more of us working than ever before -- that's 8 million new jobs. Now that our program is working, you may have noticed they're not calling it Reaganomics anymore.
Once again, the United States is the flagship economy for the world. A new generation of entrepreneurs is coming up, pointing us toward a 21st century full of amazing change and vast new opportunities.
We must seize this historic moment to shape America's future -- to completely overhaul our tax code, changing it from a source of confusion and contempt to a model of fairness and simplicity, with strong, new incentives for even greater growth.
So many good things lie ahead for America. And yet all our progress, all the good we've accomplished so far, and all our dreams for the future could be wrecked if we do not overcome our one giant obstacle.
The simple truth is: No matter how hard you work, no matter how strong this economy grows, no matter how much more tax money comes to Washington, it won't amount to a hill of beans if government won't curb its endless appetite to spend. Overspending is the subject we must now address -- how budgets got so far out of balance and, yes, what together we can and must do to correct this.
You know, sometimes the big spenders in Congress talk as if all that money they spend just kind of magically appears on their doorstep, a gift from the Internal Revenue Service. They talk as if spending were all giving and no taking.
Well, there is no magic money machine. Every dollar the government spends comes out of your pockets. Every dollar the government gives to someone has to first be taken away from someone else. So, it's our moral duty to make sure that we can justify every one of your tax dollars, that we spend them wisely and carefully and, just as important, fairly.
Unfortunately, hardly anyone could honestly call Federal budgets wise, careful, or fair. Is it fair to ask one small business to help subsidize its competitors? Is it fair to ask workers in the private economy to pay for civil service pensions that are much more generous than the retirement benefits they receive? Is it fair to ask low-income families to help pay for the college education of children from families with incomes as high as $100,000 a year? Is it fair to ask taxpayers to help pay billions for export subsidies to a handful of America's biggest corporations?
Well, it isn't fair, and you know it. But that's the law of the land right now, just part of the legacy of 50 years of trying to do good things for all by treating your earnings like government property.
The time has come to decide what benefits we can properly expect from the Federal Government for ourselves, our neighbors, and those in need; and what government can take from us in taxes without making everyone worse off, including those who need our help. The one thing we cannot do is stay on the immoral, dead-end course of deficit spending.
Today our national debt amounts to nearly $8,000 for every man, woman, and child in America, and it's increasing by about $1,000 per person each and every year. Just to cover the interest on that debt, the Federal Government will spend $155 billion this year alone. That's more than its entire budget as recently as 1966.
Despite your worries and all the warnings, the trend has continued year after year. We've had only one balanced budget in the last quarter century. As a nation, our debt has grown and grown and grown until now it totals $1.7 trillion -- a number so big that it's nearly unimaginable. A single billion is 1,000 millions. A trillion is a million millions.
Now, this is not just my problem. This is not just Congress' problem. This is our problem, and we must solve it together as Americans.
Tonight, I'm asking all of you -- Democrats, Republicans, and independents -- to give me your help to put our financial house in order so that our tax, spending, and monetary policies will not hinder growth, but encourage it; not send inflation and interest rates shooting back up, but keep them heading down; and not drown us under a tidal wave of debt, but protect us in the safe harbor of financial stability, with a sound and powerful economy.
Not surprisingly, some still want to raise your taxes. They say we cut your taxes too much in 1981, when we ended years of bracket creep and lowered rates for every American taxpayer. Well, this is simply untrue. And it implies government has a right to take from you all that it needs to satisfy the demands of special interest groups.
Surely, there's no faster way to see our prosperity vanish than to yoke the decent, hard-working, taxpaying citizens of this great nation to an automatic spending machine in Washington, DC. Government should tax to meet government's needs, not government's wants.
Nine days ago I received a very welcome gift -- a letter with 146 signatures. One hundred and forty-six Members of Congress have pledged to uphold what I repeat tonight will be my certain veto of any tax increase Congress sends me, no matter how cleverly it's disguised.
Is it too much to ask the spoilers to give up their hidden agenda to increase taxes, which would only slow the economy, throw people out of work, and, yes, make the deficit worse? Do they still not understand how generous you've been, paying heavy taxes to defend freedom around the world, ease starvation in distant nations, and help the needy, the elderly, and the sick and handicapped here at home?
Well, as you can see [referring to televised graphics], the rising blue bar shows that the taxes you paid in the last 20 years increased by over $620 billion. And if you think that's a staggering sum, well, you're right. But look at this rising red bar showing government spending. In that same 20-year period, the red bar went up even more. It went up by over $840 billion. Government spending -- that's the real Washington monument.
Taxes are too high, but spending is even higher. During the 20 years when inflation, steep Federal income tax rates, and rising State, county, and local taxes were pushing you into tax brackets once reserved for the wealthy, Congress was writing checks and spending your money even faster than you could spend it.
What went wrong? Where has all the money gone? Well, during the strong, prosperous Eisenhower years in the 1950's and through the Kennedy years, we kept spending in check. During those Kennedy years there was a tax cut proposed similar to our cut. It was enacted in 1964, and the economy grew then as it has grown now.
But others in government did not take the next logical step and say: Look, freedom and incentives are working. So, let's reduce tax rates further. Let's transform our ghettos into havens for enterprise, give families new incentives to save for their children's education -- let's make every citizen a shareholder in America's future.
Government did the opposite. Government began to take over America. In the name of the Great Society, it began doing things never before felt possible or desirable. Government took over passenger railroads. It began contributing billions to 39,000 local government budgets. Its spending on agriculture subsidies soared to a level higher than the total net income from every farm in America.
Let me interject something here, and I'll state it plainly and simply: The enormous weight of Federal spending and runaway deficits has gone far toward placing in jeopardy one of every seven family farms in the United States. This is not simply an economic statistic. It is a great social tragedy that should command the concern of every American. Control of this runaway engine of Federal spending has become crucial to the survival of the family farm in the United States.
The new programs started after 1964. They cost $16 billion by 1966, $78 billion by 1975, and $148 billion per year by 1981.
Today government puts a dime into the fare box every time somebody boards a local bus or transit line. Today government subsidizes loans for every imaginable purpose -- from education to aircraft exporters to luxury waterfront developments and hotels -- so that government's lending business is bigger than Chase Manhattan and the Bank of America's combined. And the spending line keeps going up.
To be sure, much good has been done. In health, education, and food assistance, we're spending more than ever before in our history. But in many areas, we're spending where we should not be and spending what we can no longer afford. And so much of what we spend goes not to the individuals needing help, but to thousands upon thousands of bureaucrats, researchers, planners, managers, and professional advocates who earn their living from the great growth industry of government. It's no accident that some of the wealthiest communities in America are the communities surrounding the Federal Government in Washington, DC.
My fellow citizens, the time has come for government to make the same hard choices your families and businesses do. The time has come for your public servants to bring spending down into line with tax revenues.
Accomplishing this, bringing the spending line down to our incomes is the heart of our deficit reduction plan that we put together with Senator Dole and his colleagues. We call it the taxpayers' protection plan, and that's just what it is. It will reduce deficits by $300 billion over 3 years, bringing us within reach of a balanced budget by 1990. And it will do this not by raising your taxes, but by reversing 20 years of overspending.
Our plan attacks excessive spending across the board. No part of the budget is spared, and a shared effort will be asked of all. But unlike a spending freeze, which would not reduce deficits nearly enough and which would make no distinction between worthy and wasteful programs, our plan recognizes that all spending is not created equal. Some programs are vital to our national security and domestic welfare and must be given first priority. Others are no longer affordable or were not proper Federal responsibilities to begin with.
Our plan establishes clear national priorities. It keeps what should be kept and cuts what should be cut. Our first priority must always be our national security. The Soviets are far more dangerous today than during the fifties and sixties, periods in which we devoted far more to our defense. And they continue arming well beyond the defense needs of their country. Because of that threat, we must maintain modest but steady growth each year. Three percent is the rockbottom level that we must maintain for effective deterrence to protect our security.
As I've said, even with this small increase, we'll spend a smaller share of our budget on defense than we did 20 years ago. Cuts we've proposed in projected defense spending will contribute a hundred billion dollars, a full one-third of our proposed budget savings for the next 3 years. Now, this will require canceling some programs; some nonessential military bases may be closed or cut back. But mainly, we will continue to identify and eliminate waste and crack down harder on excesses in contract costs.
Waste in the Department of Defense must and is being eliminated, as is fraud in defense contracts. The stories you've been reading and hearing about $400 hammers and such are things that we've discovered were going on before and that we're correcting.
Padding of expense accounts, overcharging for weapons, profiteering at the expense of the public -- these should be and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Men who illegally line their pockets with dollars the American people have contributed to our defense are stealing from the arsenal of democracy the very weapons our young men need to defend freedom. And our tolerance of this selfish behavior was long ago exhausted.
The Senate will face demands to cut defense even more, but here we must draw the line. Federal overspending is not caused by meeting vital security needs, and even our critics know that further reductions would jeopardize our security. Our strategic programs, our 600-ship navy, our conventional weapons modernization, and our readiness programs must go forward.
Our plan will freeze the defense-spending share of our gross national product at 6.4 percent for the next 3 years. That is a share well below the 8 or 9 percent at the time of the Eisenhower and Kennedy. The remaining two-thirds of our deficit reduction can and must come from other parts of the budget -- from domestic programs that are no longer necessary or in need of basic reform.
Let me give some examples of the sort of programs we intend to cut back. When Amtrak was begun in 1971 for a 2-year trial run, we were told it would soon turn a profit. Well, 14 years and nearly $9 billion later, Amtrak is still running on taxpayers' subsidies. Every time a train leaves the station, it costs taxpayers $35 for each passenger on board. In some cases, it would be cheaper just to hand them plane tickets. Eliminating Amtrak will save $8 billion over the next decade.
We'll also save billions by eliminating taxpayer subsidies to some of America's biggest corporations through Export-Import Bank loans and by abolishing the Small Business Administration's lending programs, which are not only costly and unfair but unneeded in an economy creating over 600,000 new businesses and corporations a year.
Supporters of programs like these always ignore the big hidden costs all of us eventually have to pay. If programs like these can't be cut, we might as well give up hope of ever getting government spending under control. If Congress can't bring itself to do what's right, well, they should at least give me what 43 Governors already have -- a line-item veto. Then I'll make the cuts; I'll take the responsibility and the heat, and I'll enjoy it.
One area we will not touch, however, is the safety net for needy Americans. Programs that provide income, food, housing, and medical aid for the neediest Americans were reformed in 1981 and are now targeted to genuine need. But these programs only make up 8 percent of the budget, so we need everyone's help to get spending under control.
The burden will not be great if all of us help carry the load. We're asking the 46 million Americans who receive a retirement, veterans, or Social Security check to accept a guaranteed 2-percent increase over the next 3 years in place of the existing cost-of-living adjustment. If, however, inflation should rise above 4 percent, the amount above 4 percent would be added to the 2 percent.
Now, these programs now total nearly $250 billion per year -- 25 percent of our entire budget. They cost 30 times more than they did just three decades ago. Our veterans, disabled workers, and retired citizens have earned their benefits. They deserve an adequate and dignified standard of living, and we will never renege on that pledge.
All of us together have a shared interest in a healthy, expanding economy. It means jobs, opportunities, and rising incomes for our younger citizens and a steady flow of tax payments into the funds that support our retired citizens.
A small effort now will mean big gains for all Americans later. If we can keep our economy on track, 16 million more Americans will be working in 1988 than were employed at the end of 1982. With that much growth, with that many new jobs, there will never be any doubt: The retirement checks that 46 million Americans depend on will be secure; the economic base that supports them will be strong; and the tax payments that fund them will be abundant.
If we want to continue trying to make these the best years of our lives, if we want to protect our retired and disabled, boost small business, create jobs, strengthen our farm economy, our exports, improve our cities, and help your families send your children to college, there is one sure-fire way to do it: We're all going to have to pitch in together. But if we refuse, if we go back to the old pattern of business as usual, then let there be no mistake: Business as usual will eventually destroy our prosperity and all the blessings it has given us.
My fellow citizens, you remember the words of young John Kennedy, words of challenge to America in 1961: ``Ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what you can do for your country.'' In those days Federal spending was only a fraction of what it is today. Since then government programs have grown to the point where they touch almost half the families in America.
Today his question is more relevant than before. All of us are being challenged again to ask what we can do for our country, challenged to work together -- 237 million strong -- to build a secure and lasting foundation for the American dream.
Even with all our cuts and reforms, our plan still provides $560 billion for nondefense programs next year -- the highest level in history. Congress has before it a budget that doesn't mortgage our future to higher taxes and expanding debt. It is a fair program; it is a balanced program; it will protect the neediest among us; it will stop the worst abuses of overspending; and it not only deserves your support, it must have your support to pass.
So, let me stress as strongly as I can, this shared effort we're asking you to make now will be our best assurance of avoiding painful hardship down the road.
We stand at a crossroads. The hour is late, the task is large, and the stakes are momentous. I ask you to join us in making your voices heard in the Senate this week and later in the House. Please tell your Senators and Representatives by phone, wire, or mailgram that our future hangs in the balance, that this is no time for partisanship, and that our future is too precious to permit this crucial effort to be picked apart piece by piece by the special interest groups. We've got to put the public interest first.
My fellow Americans, I hope history says of us that we were worthy of our past, worthy of our heritage. We can seize the moment; we can do our best for America to keep our future strong, secure, and free. Our children will thank us, and that's all the thanks we'll ever need.
Thank you, God bless you, and good night.
Note: The President spoke at 8 p.m. from the Oval Office at the White House. His address was broadcast live on nationwide radio and television.
Oh yeah, this is from the start of the Red Scare era.
You know, McCarthyism (there's an 'ism' for you) and the such. Thousands of people loosing their jobs and being denied due process of law...of course, all for the sake of "American values." Supposed values like...what do you know! Due process of law! Botched that one huh?
Idiotic really
Nice try Kevin but we aren't making false accusations the facts speak for themselves.
Thousands of people are loosing there jobs. The Unemployment level in this country is at 10.2% and rising. Not including the people that have just given up trying to find a job which would make it more like 17%.
Nobody in this country is being denied due process. Apparently even the terrorists. You know; the ones admittedly blue up our twin towers. obama made sure of that by trying them in a civilian court instead of a military tribunal.
And kevin if you don't like american values nobodies keeping you here.
Hey Phil, I couldn't help but notice the relatively rare use of the personal pronoun, "I", in that speech. So just out of idle curiosity I decided to count them, and counted 14. (I could be off by a couple so for anyone who is interested in such things, feel free to double-check me.)
Now I'm not trying to start a cat fight here and I'm not saying Reagan was perfect, but IMO he was the last really good President we've had, and one of only a handful of truly Great ones through our history. And I think maybe his infrequent use of "I" offers a clue as to why he was a great President.
Reagan realized far better than most that it was not about him, but about our Republic. I don't believe we've had one since who's been driven more by Patriotism than ego, nor one such before him since JFK.
Warren your absolutely right. Im sure Reagan had his faults somewhere. He was a great patriot who fought for our Liberty and freedom. He was a Christian man who employed Christian values and morals and wasn't afraid to say so.
All I know is that when Reagan was president:
The economy went from almost dead (thanks to Carter) to running like a well oiled machine. The only reason for not having a job was because you didn't want to work.
There was no terrorist on earth that wasn't shaking in there boots. Do you remember the fraze "The united states does not negotiate with terrorists" and he meant it. There only options were to surrender or die.
There was a sense of pride in the air no matter where you went. Communism and socialism were bad words because everybody understood the economics of them:
"Every dollar the government gives to someone has to first be taken away from someone else."
They understood that it meant loosing freedom and liberty and invoked oppression.
We need another Reagan.
Thanks Warren.
@bob
Bob, you are so silent on one of my questions, you still haven’t responded to one from a month ago:
"Also, where in the U.S. Constitution is the appropriation of funds for nationalized healthcare?"
@joemama
I am glad to see you have stopped citing the WHO Health Report. TYVM for not promoting inaccurate and unreliable data.
@shades_98122
Where’d ya go? Easy to make unfounded assertions isn’t it? A little bit tougher to debate considering those pesky little facts.
@Bob and Robert G
IMO, Acceptability is not a reliable indicator of what is good or evil/right or wrong. Without a moral standard, right and wrong are relative concepts subject to “acceptability”. IMO, we as a people are no longer virtuous; we no longer have the ability to rightly judge a person’s actions or ideas and discern whether they are right or wrong…we simply base our decision on what is “acceptable”. IMO, it is one of the reasons the people in our country have succumbed to the multitude of ISM’s that have become “acceptable” in our sovereign nation.
BTW, Robert G, you are correct on Lincoln. Although “right” (abolition) won, Lincoln “wronged” (shredded the U.S. Constitution and States’ Rights) in the process. Despite the ends, the means (wrongs) have been adopted by just about every politician since Lincoln.
Those means, IMO, sum up the ISM’s presented in this video into one ISM: Anti-Constitutionalism.
@Tom G
To clarify what I have said, I use the term "acceptable" in a moral sense, much along the lines of what you have said. There is, of course, no way you could have known that. I completely agree with you.
"Ragged Old Flag"
I walked through a county courthouse square
On a park bench, an old man was sittin' there.
I said, "Your old court house is kinda run down,
He said, "Naw, it'll do for our little town".
I said, "Your old flag pole is leaned a little bit,
And that's a ragged old flag you got hangin' on it".
He said, "Have a seat", and I sat down,
"Is this the first time you've been to our little town"
I said, "I think it is"
He said "I don't like to brag, but we're kinda proud of
That Ragged Old Flag
"You see, we got a little hole in that flag there,
When Washington took it across the Delaware.
and It got powder burned the night Francis Scott Key sat watching it,
writing "Say Can You See"
It got a rip in New Orleans, with Packingham & Jackson
tugging at its seams.
and It almost fell at the Alamo
beside the Texas flag,
But she waved on though.
She got cut with a sword at Chancellorsville,
And she got cut again at Shiloh Hill.
There was Robert E. Lee and Beauregard and Bragg,
And the south wind blew hard on
That Ragged Old Flag
"On Flanders Field in World War I,
She got a big hole from a Bertha Gun,
She turned blood red in World War II
She hung limp, and low, a time or two,
She was in Korea, Vietnam, She went where she was sent
by her Uncle Sam.
She waved from our ships upon the briny foam
and now they've about quit wavin' back here at home
in her own good land here She's been abused,
She's been burned, dishonored, denied an' refused,
And the government for which she stands
Has been scandalized throughout out the land.
And she's getting thread bare, and she's wearin' thin,
But she's in good shape, for the shape she's in.
Cause she's been through the fire before
and i believe she can take a whole lot more.
"So we raise her up every morning
And we bring her down slow every night,
We don't let her touch the ground,
And we fold her up right.
On second thought
I *do* like to brag
Cause I'm mighty proud of
That Ragged Old Flag"
Johnny Cash
Thank you all for standing up. We all have to stand up to ignorant Communist liberals. whether or not they intend to destroy American liberty and freedom or not they are still doing it. We must all open our eyes to there deception and band against them if we wish to keep this nation free. So take the pledge with us
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands: one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
I pledge allegiance to the flag and to protect America from all the ignorant moronic fascist fear mongering conservatives.
We must all open our eyes to the ignorant conservatives misinformation, lies, deception, and fear and stand up to them and fight to protect this nation from "their" evil.
We will also notice that they don't know when to use "their" vs. "there". Because they are dumb.
lol :)
Tom:
"I am glad to see you have stopped citing the WHO Health Report. TYVM for not promoting inaccurate and unreliable data."
I will continue to cite the accurate WHO report. Us healthcare ranks in the 30+ range in the world at the moment while we spend far more per person than any other country that ranks higher than us.
Our current system is grossly ineffective and inefficient. Sorry to have to bring facts in here.
Hey Warren, I appreciate your comments about useless name calling. People try to throw insults and labels often instead of rationally discussing issues.
They also try to bring their own brand of religion into non-religious matters.
All this -ism crap is nonsense. The US from its inception has been a mix of socialism and capitalism. You just can't throw labels at things, call someone a commie, and have any kind of legitimate point.
Love and Loss - Glen Beck and Sarah Palin among some others (like Hannity, Limbaugh, and Cavuto)are doing the very hard work of spreading constant lies, irrational fear, and misinformation. If you listen to them you are being constantly misinformed.
Faith - You and other misguided and severely brainwashed people, are one of the reasons that this country has been held back from progress for so many years.
You constantly try to push your religion when religion is a personal choice and has no business in our government. The ten commandments being on a wall does not have anything to do with our government. If you and other are going to misinterpret that then we should take it down.
I'm sure you would like to force everyone to follow your misinterpretations and cherry picking of the bible but that is an individual choice.
PHIL - sorry your comments on Reagan are ridiculous.
"Im sure Reagan had his faults somewhere. He was a great patriot who fought for our Liberty and freedom. He was a Christian man who employed Christian values and morals and wasn't afraid to say so."
Reagan was a lying crook who is largely responsible for today's economic troubles.
A President who negotiated with terrorists, illegally funded, armed and collaborated with the Iraqis in the Iran-Iraq War, funded a Latin American terrorist group then told the American people he did none of these things and when the truth came out he completely got away with all of it.
He also tripled the national debt. In short, a terrible president.
Oh and him being a christian has squat to do with anything.
Ronald Reagan supported huge tax cuts for the super rich combined with massive increases in military spending mostly for boondoggles like his "starwars" missile defense plan that never worked. This sent our national debt into the trillions. Reagan was known for busting up labor unions and other anti-worker policies that drove down wages while CEO salaries soared. Some of Reagan's other accomplishments include creating the Taliban to fight off a Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and providing arms to Saddam Hussein during the Iraq-Iran war.
@joemama
Did you read my post from 12/4? if not, it is below. Please use your facts to address the WHO SELF-ADMITTED inaccuracies and unreliable data points.
The WHO report does not reflect the values of the peoples of the United States as set forth in its governmental document, The U.S. Constitution.
The WHO report presupposes that the "[u]ltimate responsibility for the performance of a country's health system lies with government".
(In addition, another quote from Chapter 6, "Governments should be...ultimately responsible for the careful management of their citizen's well-being.")
The U.S., and others that emulate her type of governance, will never perform well when it is in contrast to their basic tenants.
This report is sort of like a report on square-shaped burgers being the best way to provide burgers. Wendys would perform fantastically, the others, not so good. So does that mean the others don't provide good burger service?
The WHO report is self admittedly inaccurate and unreliable: the collection of data has been "hampered by the weakness of routine information systems and insufficient attention to research". When reliable data wasn't available, they "developed [data] through a variety of techniques".
Different countries have different standards. For example, live birth to one nation isn’t a birth at all to another...kinda skews the infant mortality rate doesn't it?
For these and many more discrepancies, the WHO report is not a credible source of data.
In addition, the WHO only performed ONE of these surveys (in 2000)...why...because WHO determined it was too difficult to reliably gather data!
@joemama
Let's use the number 1 ranked country on the WHO report, France, to expose the inaccuracy of the report.
Fact: Children born at less than 32 weeks pregnancy have a much higher infant-mortality rate than those born afterward.
BEWARE Creative Accounting Ahead
France does not count children born at less than 26 weeks pregnancy as a live birth (they are registered as lifeless)...Well, that's one way (cheating) to lower their infant mortality rate!
The U.S. on the other hand (because of its BETTER medical treatments for fertility) has a higher rate of "very pre-term" babies (<32 weeks) than most other countries. And the U.S. counts everyone of them as a live birth if they are born live!
Even if the rate were the same for each country, the U.S. would have a much worse infant-mortality rate than France!
Why? Bad Medical Care? Ineffective or Inefficient Health Care? Of course not...because the standard for considering a live birth is not standardized throughout the nations. I would submit that the U.S. has a more accurate infant-mortality rate while France does not.
How many times is this error repeated in the report? One too many IMO.
Sorry Tom G, you're going to have to substantiate your claims before they can be taken seriously as credible data.
Fact is the US spends more per capita than most or all other countries on healthcare with generally poor results for the health of the population.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934556.html
Life expectancy by country
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
Almost 40 on infant mortality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate
Makes it pretty clear.
WHO's method
"WHO’s assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system’s financial burden within the population (who pays the costs)."
http://www.photius.com/rankings/who_world_health_ranks.html
@joemama
"Glen Beck and Sarah Palin among some others (like Hannity, Limbaugh, and Cavuto)are doing the very hard work of spreading constant lies, irrational fear, and misinformation."
That is an assertion.
Are you up to the task of substantiating your statement? Start by providing evidence of the lies and misinformation. I am especially interested in the lies that Beck has been spouting.
Tom G - I notice you don't source any of your claims.
Here's an article on premature birth for you:
"High rates of premature birth are the main reason the United States has higher infant mortality than do many other rich countries, government researchers reported Tuesday in their first detailed analysis of a longstanding problem.
In Sweden, for instance, 6.3 percent of births were premature, compared with 12.4 percent in the United States in 2005, the latest year for which international rankings are available. Infant mortality also differed markedly: for every 1,000 births in the United States, 6.9 infants died before they turned 1, compared with 2.4 in Sweden. Twenty-nine other countries also had lower rates.
If the United States could match Sweden’s prematurity rate, the new report said, “nearly 8,000 infant deaths would be averted each year, and the U.S. infant mortality rate would be one-third lower.”"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/health/04infant.html
Tom G - Regarding my assertion about Beck's lies you'll notice it followed exactly Love and Loss's assertion that they were spreading the truth. Will you be asking her to substantiate that?
If you're interested in reading about Beck's lies start here:
http://www.google.com/search?q=beck+lies&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Here's another good source:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/glenn-beck/
Beck is the worst kind of fear mongering liar who caters to the most unintelligent and gullible in our society. I would normally find him funny because he's so ridiculous but then you have to think there's actually people like Love and Loss out there that fall for his crap.
@joemama
Cost per Capita...Life Expectancy...Infant Mortality rate...Not necessarily good indicators.
Already debunked infant mortality rate...data skewed by no standard set for live birth.
Life Expectancy...is it an accurate measurement of a good health care system? What cuts a person's life short?
Vehicular accidents? Who has the most vehicles per capita in the world?...the U.S.
Obesity? The U.S. ranks #9 in the world (#1 in the top 40 of the WHO report)
The leading causes of Death in the U.S....Heart failure and cancer.
Conclusions based upon root causes...None of the above are indicative of a poor health care system, it seems mostly indicative of poor life-style choices and cultural influences.
Cost per Capita...why is it highest in the U.S.?
Achieving Number 1 in responsiveness?
Having 3 times the number of MRI's and CT Scanners than France per Million People?
Lawsuits? Fraud/Abuse? Government Regulations? Insurance Companies?
Again, my point is that Cost per capita is not an indicator of a good or bad health care system, too many variables contaminate the data.
The WHO report uses weighing factors that have been established by 1006 respondents from 125 countries...half from its own STAFF. The results of the report are adjusted with these weighing factors so that their presupposition, "Stewardship in health is the very essence of good government" WILL put non-government run health care systems at a huge disadvantage in rankings.
@joemama
I could put in sources, however, I am already too wordy, I use quote marks for quotes. Heck, my posts are sometimes so long I may not read it :)
As to Beck's lies, it is interesting reading. I will read more. Thought it interesting as well that there wasn't an Obama lie list...
I was more interested Beck's evidence regarding felons, tax cheats, and socialists/communists that he has surrounded himself with and places great confidence in their counsel.
Also, I am interested in the Constitution's Limited Powers and where in the Constitution the legislature is specifically given a numerated power to appropriate public funds for health care.
"Cost per Capita...Life Expectancy...Infant Mortality rate...Not necessarily good indicators."
Survival, infant mortality, and cost are certainly good indicators.
"Already debunked infant mortality rate...data skewed by no standard set for live birth."
You didn't debunk anything. You made some claims you don't seem to be able to back up.
However, I did provide even more evidence that the US lags behind in even premature birth survival.
"Life Expectancy...is it an accurate measurement of a good health care system? What cuts a person's life short?"
Sure, let's look at that. THe leading causes of premature death are almost all health related:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/FASTATS/deaths.htm
(notice how I back up my claims)
"Cost per Capita...why is it highest in the U.S.?"
Administrative costs and profiteering.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/why-does-us-health-care-cost-so-much-part-ii-indefensible-administrative-costs/
The facts are that we spend far more for far less in return. We leave many millions without care while other countries that spend less don't.
Now I realize that you've made some more claims that are not substantiated but I actually linked you to the WHO methodology which you seem to have ignored.
TOM G - You said "I could put in sources, however, I am already too wordy"
If you don't back up your claims people are going to assume you are just making up things
"As to Beck's lies, it is interesting reading. I will read more."
I encourage it. Beck lies often. Other times he just alludes to ridiculous things in a fashion like: "Prove to me that your not working with terrorists" or "Prove to me that Glenn Beck did not rape and murder that girl in 1990" or "I'm not saying there are FEMA detention camps for US citizens, I'm just saying there could be".
So then...
"I was more interested Beck's evidence regarding felons, tax cheats, and socialists/communists that he has surrounded himself with and places great confidence in their counsel."
I guess I'd need the specific accusations. It does seem that every president is surrounded by some questionable people. (Bush had some of the worst). Not sure why socialist would be a bad word either. We have socialized institutions in our country since it's inception.
"Also, I am interested in the Constitution's Limited Powers and where in the Constitution the legislature is specifically given a numerated power to appropriate public funds for health care."
I'd imagine it falls under General Welfare like Social Security and Medicare.
I've never found an enumerated power for invading countries that are not threatening us like Iraq or having peacetime military bases in Japan but a lot of people don't have a problem with that.
What we do know is that if we don't do something our healthcare costs are going to spiral out of control soon and we're going to lag even farther behind other industrialized countries.
Joemama talk as much trash as you want. The truth is 60% of this country doesn't support obamas death cair bill. His poll numbers are worse than any president in the history of this country at this stage in his presidency; yes even jimmy carter another one term president. Come this next election We The People are going to boot all the democrats out of Congress and the senate.
We don't want to be forced by our government to buy health care or go to jail.
Phil - Sorry but you've been the one talking trash.
Truth is the majority of the country supports the public option...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/19/AR2009101902451.html
Also most doctors...
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2009/September/14/NPR-doctors.aspx
Obama's approvals look just like your hero Reagan's...
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/obama_as_reagan.php
That's funny huh? :)
Come this next election We the People are going to boot out even more republicans than we did in the last two elections. The republican party approval rating is pretty damn low right now.
There's nothing in the bill about buying healthcare or going to jail. You can only go to jail for fraud.
True Americans want all the citizens to have access to healthcare when they get sick.
Sorry, I know you prefer your wishful thinking and scare tactics to facts but maybe you should come back to reality.
What's the difference between the national debt and the federal deficit?
The federal deficit is is the difference between what the government takes in from taxes and other sources and what it spends annually.
Imagine you made $40,000 in a year, but had $50,000 in expenses. You would have a $10,000 deficit. You would need to borrow $10,000 to make up the difference.
For many years, that's exactly what happened. The government took in less than it spent and had to borrow the difference. This was called "deficit spending."
The national debt can be thought of as the accumulated debt the government owes from all those years of borrowing money to pay off the annual deficits. It is the total off all money owed to individuals, corporations, state or local governments, foreign governments, and other entities outside of the United States Government. The national debt is also often called the public debt, because most of the money is owed to the public.
The national debt is currently at about $12,132,900,000,000
Obama’s Tripling of the National Debt in Pictures
Posted August 28th, 2009 at 3.04pm in Entitlements.
This Tuesday the White House released their Mid-Session Review admitting they made a $2 trillion miscalculation in the size of the federal deficit that President Barack Obama’s borrow and spend policies would inflict on our nation. Heritage senior policy analyst Brian Riedl details the carnage:
While President Obama claims to have inherited the 2009 budget deficit, it is important to note that the estimated 2009 budget deficit has increased by $400 billion since his inauguration, and the whole point of the “stimulus” was to increase deficit spending to nearly $2 trillion based on the unproven notion that would it alleviate the recession.
The 22 percent spending increase projected for 2009 represents the largest government expansion since the 1952 height of the Korean War (adjusted for inflation). Federal spending is up 57 percent since 2001.
In 2009, Washington will spend $30,958 per household–the highest level in American history–and under President Obama’s budget, the figure will rise above $33,000 by 2019.
The White House brags that it will cut the deficit in half by 2013. The President does not mention that the deficit has nearly quadrupled this year. Merely cutting it in half from that bloated level would still leave budget deficits twice as high as under President Bush.
The public national debt–$5.8 trillion as of 2008–is projected to double by 2012 and nearly triple by 2019. Thus, America would accumulate more government debt under President Obama than under every President in American history from George Washington to George W. Bush combined.
The White House wants an increase of at least $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion, according to a person familiar with the deliberations between lawmakers and the administration. Record budget deficits are pushing the national debt closer to the $12.1 trillion statutory limit.
Phil - Losing an argument so you change the subject to national debt?
Here let me relate that back to healthcare for you.
The Bush Tax Cuts Cost Two and a Half Times as Much as the
House Democrats’ Health Care Proposal.
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/bushtaxcutsvshealthcare.pdf
Post a Comment