16 February 2010
14 February 2010
The Not So Great Depression of 1920
I remember when I was in Middle School and my history teacher was going over the Great Depression. Of course when talking about the Great Depression, they were speaking about what happened between 1929 and 1944. They spoke about how we should not have increased interest rates and Import duties, since all of these things made things worse. I remember how all the books and teachers talked glowingly about FDR and how he fought so hard for the regular Joe to try to make things better for us. Lesson plans like these are what shaped America's belief that FDR was a great President and was the right guy for the right time. I sometimes wonder however, if our opinion of him would have been very different if they had showed more of who he really was, along with sort of a "Compare and Contrast". Especially a Compare and Contrast to Warren G. Harding, the 29th President of the USA. Robert Murry has written a compelling book that seeks to dispel the myth's surrounding his administration, but for now, let's do some Comparing and Contrasting of our own.
FDR Increased spending by the Federal Government.
-- The result? The Government was in the business of picking winners and losers, and usually the winners were the Big Businesses who had the "Right" connections. Crony Capitalism.
-- The result? The Government was in the business of picking winners and losers, and usually the winners were the Big Businesses who had the "Right" connections. Crony Capitalism.
Harding Reduced spending by the Federal Government.
-- The result? Federal Debt was paid off, increasing the amount of private capital available for the Private Sector. Banks now needed to look for opportunities to lend, with the Government not giving them any more "Free" business.
FDR Increased Government regulations on business to force them to be more "fair".
-- The result? Since it's always easier for big business to deal with regulations, smaller businesses suffered the most and were driven out of business, thereby increasing the levels of unemployment.
Harding Reduced Government regulations on business to go back to a state of "Normalcy" from the Wartime regulations.
-- The result? With Government "off their backs" all businesses, especially smaller businesses were able to exercise the kind of freedom that allows businesses to prosper and expand without government intervention, thereby increasing the levels of employment.
On Taxation:
Harding reduced the top marginal rate from 75% to 25%, the resultant boom in the economy brought in a 25% increase in Tax revenue with more people working. By the end of his administration, unemployment had dropped to just 1%, the lowest level EVER recorded.
When Hoover took over, his response to the crash of 1929 was to increase taxes from 25% to 63%. FDR was elected in part with campaign promises to reduce taxes, but instead he increased taxes to 100%! on anything over 50K!
-- The result?
With the incentive to make more money removed, the number of people earning over 50K a year plummeted, thereby DECREASING revenue going to the government in the form of Income taxes. Additionally, with the government confiscating an ever expanding amount of capital from the private sector, there was less capital available to start new businesses. New business creation stagnated.I could go on and on with this "Compare and Contrast", but I think you get the point. The real hero here was Harding, not FDR. Let's not forget that Harding's Recession (which he inherited from Wilson) while initially much worse, only lasted 18 months, while FDR's inherited mess and meddling ended up lasting for about a decade.
Just as we learned in "48 Liberal Lies of American History", our history is being distorted by people with an Agenda. They want us to believe that Big Government is the only solution to our problems, they want us to believe that higher taxation and regulation will bring us prosperity, when in fact history shows us that the reverse is actually true. Harding and Reagan should have proven beyond all reasonable doubt that the only way back to prosperity is by getting government off our backs, reducing legislation, reducing taxes and reducing the size and scope of the government. If we revisited The New Deal, I think we will find that it was more like "The Raw Deal".
In the wise words of Abraham Lincoln,
You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.Americans won't stay in the dark much longer, they are starting to get educated and they are finally starting to realize what the real truth is.
27 January 2010
Obama quietly continues to defend Bush's terror policies | McClatchy
Obama quietly continues to defend Bush's terror policies | McClatchy
WASHINGTON — Although the FBI has acknowledged it improperly obtained thousands of Americans' phone records for years, the Obama administration continues to assert that the bureau can obtain them without any formal legal process or court oversight.
The FBI revealed this stance in a newly released report, troubling critics who'd hoped the bureau had been chastened enough by its own abuses to drop such a position.
In further support of the legal authority, however, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel backed the FBI in a written opinion issued this month.
The opinion by the OLC — the section that wrote the memos that justified enhanced interrogation techniques during the last administration — appears to be yet another sign that the Obama administration can be just as assertive as Bush's in claiming sweeping and controversial anti-terrorism powers.
The Justice Department's watchdog, the inspector general, said the OLC opinion has "significant policy implications that need to be considered by the FBI, the Department, and the Congress."
"The FBI says that this kind of activity is in the past," said Michael German, a former FBI agent who's now the American Civil Liberties Union's policy counsel. "But if they're saying that they have a continuing legal authority that means it's not in the past."
In another similarity to Bush era-legal decisions to keep legal theories under wraps, Obama's Justice Department refused to release to McClatchy the OLC opinion, despite the administration's vow to be more open than its predecessors.
The little-noticed revelation about the OLC opinion and the FBI's legal position appears in a heavily redacted section of an inspector general's report released Wednesday.
In the report, Inspector General Glenn Fine concluded the FBI committed egregious violations of the law when it obtained thousands of telephone records without court oversight or through any formal legal process.
The report described a "casual" environment in which FBI agents and employees of telecom companies treated Americans' telephone records so cavalierly that one senior FBI counter-terrorism official said getting access to them was as easy as "having an ATM in your living room."
Yet it also stated that "the OLC agreed with the FBI that under certain circumstances (word or words redacted) allows the FBI to ask for and obtain these records on a voluntary basis from the providers, without legal process or a qualifying emergency."
FBI and Justice Department officials refused to comment on that assertion.
In a letter sent Friday, Sens. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, demanded that Attorney General Eric Holder release a copy of the memo.
"Although much of the information about the OLC opinion is redacted in the public version of the (inspector general) report, the opinion appears to have important implications for the rights of Americans," the senators wrote.
FBI Director Robert Mueller has said that the informal practice of requesting telephone records as described in the report was stopped in 2006 when he found out about it from the inspector general.
Since then, it appears the bureau now refrains from using the authority it continues to assert, according to another heavily redacted section of the inspector general's report.
"However, that could change, and we believe appropriate controls on such authority should be considered now, in light of the FBI's past practices and the OLC opinion," Fine warned.
Privacy and open government advocates called on the Justice Department to release the opinion outright.
"There's a tremendous mystery as to what this legal basis is," said Kurt Opsahl, senior staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit that advocates privacy protections for technology. "It does not seem like a legal justification should be a national security secret."
Last March, Attorney General Eric Holder released Bush administration OLC memos justifying interrogation methods that Bush's Justice Department had refused to release.
"It is my goal to make OLC opinions available when possible while still protecting national security information and ensuring robust internal executive branch debate and decision-making," he said at the time.
Such rhetoric hasn't necessarily translated into action, however, according to the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, an open-government group. CREW released a report this week that criticized the Obama administration for recent decisions to withhold information.
"Judging by CREW's interactions with various federal agencies over the past year, the promise of transparency and openness has not translated into new government-wide . . . policies," the group said.
The American Civil Liberties Union, meanwhile, filed a lawsuit Friday to try to compel the Justice Department to make public a report from Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility that examines possible ethics violations by lawyers who wrote the interrogation memos.
Holder had said in late November the report was finished and would be released soon.
Friday was also the deadline for executive branch agencies to release certain "high-value" data as part of President Obama's open government directive. Open government experts, however, said it remains to be seen how useful the information will be since the agencies themselves are determining what to divulge.
As of Friday afternoon, for example, the IRS had released its files tracking citizens' changes of addresses and the Department of Housing and Urban Development posted federal housing inspection data.
WASHINGTON — Although the FBI has acknowledged it improperly obtained thousands of Americans' phone records for years, the Obama administration continues to assert that the bureau can obtain them without any formal legal process or court oversight.
The FBI revealed this stance in a newly released report, troubling critics who'd hoped the bureau had been chastened enough by its own abuses to drop such a position.
In further support of the legal authority, however, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel backed the FBI in a written opinion issued this month.
The opinion by the OLC — the section that wrote the memos that justified enhanced interrogation techniques during the last administration — appears to be yet another sign that the Obama administration can be just as assertive as Bush's in claiming sweeping and controversial anti-terrorism powers.
The Justice Department's watchdog, the inspector general, said the OLC opinion has "significant policy implications that need to be considered by the FBI, the Department, and the Congress."
"The FBI says that this kind of activity is in the past," said Michael German, a former FBI agent who's now the American Civil Liberties Union's policy counsel. "But if they're saying that they have a continuing legal authority that means it's not in the past."
In another similarity to Bush era-legal decisions to keep legal theories under wraps, Obama's Justice Department refused to release to McClatchy the OLC opinion, despite the administration's vow to be more open than its predecessors.
The little-noticed revelation about the OLC opinion and the FBI's legal position appears in a heavily redacted section of an inspector general's report released Wednesday.
In the report, Inspector General Glenn Fine concluded the FBI committed egregious violations of the law when it obtained thousands of telephone records without court oversight or through any formal legal process.
The report described a "casual" environment in which FBI agents and employees of telecom companies treated Americans' telephone records so cavalierly that one senior FBI counter-terrorism official said getting access to them was as easy as "having an ATM in your living room."
Yet it also stated that "the OLC agreed with the FBI that under certain circumstances (word or words redacted) allows the FBI to ask for and obtain these records on a voluntary basis from the providers, without legal process or a qualifying emergency."
FBI and Justice Department officials refused to comment on that assertion.
In a letter sent Friday, Sens. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, demanded that Attorney General Eric Holder release a copy of the memo.
"Although much of the information about the OLC opinion is redacted in the public version of the (inspector general) report, the opinion appears to have important implications for the rights of Americans," the senators wrote.
FBI Director Robert Mueller has said that the informal practice of requesting telephone records as described in the report was stopped in 2006 when he found out about it from the inspector general.
Since then, it appears the bureau now refrains from using the authority it continues to assert, according to another heavily redacted section of the inspector general's report.
"However, that could change, and we believe appropriate controls on such authority should be considered now, in light of the FBI's past practices and the OLC opinion," Fine warned.
Privacy and open government advocates called on the Justice Department to release the opinion outright.
"There's a tremendous mystery as to what this legal basis is," said Kurt Opsahl, senior staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit that advocates privacy protections for technology. "It does not seem like a legal justification should be a national security secret."
Last March, Attorney General Eric Holder released Bush administration OLC memos justifying interrogation methods that Bush's Justice Department had refused to release.
"It is my goal to make OLC opinions available when possible while still protecting national security information and ensuring robust internal executive branch debate and decision-making," he said at the time.
Such rhetoric hasn't necessarily translated into action, however, according to the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, an open-government group. CREW released a report this week that criticized the Obama administration for recent decisions to withhold information.
"Judging by CREW's interactions with various federal agencies over the past year, the promise of transparency and openness has not translated into new government-wide . . . policies," the group said.
The American Civil Liberties Union, meanwhile, filed a lawsuit Friday to try to compel the Justice Department to make public a report from Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility that examines possible ethics violations by lawyers who wrote the interrogation memos.
Holder had said in late November the report was finished and would be released soon.
Friday was also the deadline for executive branch agencies to release certain "high-value" data as part of President Obama's open government directive. Open government experts, however, said it remains to be seen how useful the information will be since the agencies themselves are determining what to divulge.
As of Friday afternoon, for example, the IRS had released its files tracking citizens' changes of addresses and the Department of Housing and Urban Development posted federal housing inspection data.
19 January 2010
15 January 2010
Rush Accused of not wanting donations to go to Haiti
| OBSCENE PROFIT CENTER
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
12 August 2009
The Socialism Utopia is Upon Us
The REAL Irony of America's "March to Socialism" is that in effect we are already a "Socialist Paradise". What is the goal of socialism, but to make everyone equal.
In the past, if you were part of the Rich, the elite, you had special privileges not available to your average working class person. This like Cruise Ship travel (they used to have "Steerage Class" for the "Peasants"). Things like Air Travel was restricted to the "Super Rich". 100 Years ago, the average mode of transportation was by Horse for the average Joe and by foot for the poor. While the Rich rode in class in their "Horseless Carriages". This is still the case in many of the undeveloped areas in the world.
Contrast that world with today's modern Utopia we call the USA. Where the "Super Rich Guy's" AC system in his $250,000.00 Rolls Royce works JUST AS WELL as the AC system in a $15,000 Ford Focus, same for the Air Bags and other safety features. We now share the same Roads, Cruise ships, the same Airplanes, the same Hospitals and the same neighborhoods. I used to live in a 1200 Sq. Ft. home, which is about the average size for a family in poverty. Now I live in a 3000 Sq. Ft. home and my "living area" is about the same as it was in my smaller home. Same goes for my Sister in her 7000 Sq. Ft. Home. the "other areas" of our houses are just BARELY used, since we all end up living in about the same sized space. There's only so much "space" that a human being can live in.
The "Socialist Utopia" has already arrived in the U.S. However, the Political class will only gain power by dividing us and pitting us against each other, so instead of pointing out our similarities, they point out our differences to build a wedge between us.
In the past, if you were part of the Rich, the elite, you had special privileges not available to your average working class person. This like Cruise Ship travel (they used to have "Steerage Class" for the "Peasants"). Things like Air Travel was restricted to the "Super Rich". 100 Years ago, the average mode of transportation was by Horse for the average Joe and by foot for the poor. While the Rich rode in class in their "Horseless Carriages". This is still the case in many of the undeveloped areas in the world.
Contrast that world with today's modern Utopia we call the USA. Where the "Super Rich Guy's" AC system in his $250,000.00 Rolls Royce works JUST AS WELL as the AC system in a $15,000 Ford Focus, same for the Air Bags and other safety features. We now share the same Roads, Cruise ships, the same Airplanes, the same Hospitals and the same neighborhoods. I used to live in a 1200 Sq. Ft. home, which is about the average size for a family in poverty. Now I live in a 3000 Sq. Ft. home and my "living area" is about the same as it was in my smaller home. Same goes for my Sister in her 7000 Sq. Ft. Home. the "other areas" of our houses are just BARELY used, since we all end up living in about the same sized space. There's only so much "space" that a human being can live in.
The "Socialist Utopia" has already arrived in the U.S. However, the Political class will only gain power by dividing us and pitting us against each other, so instead of pointing out our similarities, they point out our differences to build a wedge between us.
05 June 2009
Why American Capitalism is Gone with a Wimper
I was reading the Article Posted on Pravda Online, American Capitalism Gone With A Wimper, when I came across something that someone posted in reference to the article:
Jamesschwartz said...
Quote:"You talk a nice line, but, like most Russians I have met, you know little more than rhetoric. In fact, your country is a ganster nation, a country of lazy ingrates who are squandering the freedom which the Pope and Ronald Reagan bought for you.
In fact, Russia is a grossly unequal society where a few people are vastly wealthy and most of the value of the average worker's labor goes to further enrich the wealthy few, in which the masses are brainwashed by commercial advertising in a fruitless search for happiness in material form, and that which steals resources and exploits people throughout the Europe, using gansterism power to further profit the already wealthy at the expense of the common people"
Quote:"You talk a nice line, but, like most Russians I have met, you know little more than rhetoric. In fact, your country is a ganster nation, a country of lazy ingrates who are squandering the freedom which the Pope and Ronald Reagan bought for you.
In fact, Russia is a grossly unequal society where a few people are vastly wealthy and most of the value of the average worker's labor goes to further enrich the wealthy few, in which the masses are brainwashed by commercial advertising in a fruitless search for happiness in material form, and that which steals resources and exploits people throughout the Europe, using gansterism power to further profit the already wealthy at the expense of the common people"
This is how it starts. People like "Jamesschwartz" don't see all the gains the Russian people have made. They don't see the stores stocked full of goods, where there used to be lines. He doesn't see the ever rising prosperity of the average people. He only sees the Wealthy who helped make it happen. He believes that all the people who invest time, money and take risks should be just like everyone else and not make a dime off their efforts.
This is exactly the kind of attitude that is causing the collapse of the U.S.
He sees no problem with a SINGLE Company in the U.S. (Exxon-Mobile) paying more in taxes than HALF OF ALL Working Americans. He thinks this is Just. He sees no problem with the Government Robbing the Economy of all the Capital that it takes to create jobs, because he thinks that somehow this is "Fair", and punishes those who would dare to become successful.
Remember the Tenth Commandment not to covet they neighbor's house, wife, or anything that he has. Every Christian, Muslim and Jew have that Commandment in their Holy Books.
Americans have been convinced that it is Trickle Down economics and deregulation that has brought us down to where we are, when in fact it was Trickle down economics in the early 80's that saved the U.S. economy. It is, in fact what lifted us from the failed Tax and Spend and over regulation policies of the Left in the 70's led by then President Jimmy Carter.
Tax cuts left more money in the hands of the Capitalists to do what they do. What do Capitalists do? They wish to create more Capital. How do they create more Capital? By investing in or creating new Business Opportunities. What doe new Business Opportunities mean to your average Joe? It means more Jobs and more money in his pocket. If they the Capitalist get Rich off of that Formula, what business is that of anyone? Why should anyone care? Was it their money? Was it somehow "stolen" from the poor? Preposterous! The poor don't have any money.
It's a very simple theory, which any logical person can easily see how it will succeed, but our leftist media has convinced the people that this model in fact never did work, and that the Accumulation of Wealth that we experienced during the Reagan Revolution was a fantasy, that somehow, all of our problems started with Reagan, when in fact he had come in and FIXED our problems and our decline. He Reversed our fortunes and anyone who would dispute that, EXPECIALLY someone like Obama who grew up during the Reagan Revolution and took part in the opportunities that it created to become wealthy himself.
The Saddest part is that Japan, FDR and Carter have already tried the Big Government Big Spending Theory and as history has shown us, it simply doesn't work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)