United Liberty
The world was greeted on Saturday with Barack Obama’s announcement of a massive public works program to “save or create at least 2-1/2 million jobs so that the nearly 2 million Americans who’ve lost them know that they have a future,” as Obama put it in his weekly radio address (yes, he’s already doing this, even before the inauguration). A detailed article at Politico.com opens with the following:
President-elect Barack Obama added sweep and meat to his economic agenda on Saturday, pledging the largest new investment in roads and bridges since President Dwight D. Eisenhower built the Interstate system in the late 1950s, and tying his key initiatives – education, energy, health care –back to jobs in a package that has the makings of a smaller and modern version of FDR’s New Deal marriage of job creation with infrastructure upgrades.
How much this massive program would cost, and how the President-elect would intend it to be paid for has not yet been revealed. That this could be considered “smaller” than Roosevelt’s New Deal is doubtful. The article goes on to list the “five key parts” of Obama’s plan, all of which raise a variety of questions and responses in the mind of this writer. Each of the five parts, with Obama’s statement of purpose, is listed below, along with my response.
ENERGY
[W]e will launch a massive effort to make public buildings more energy-efficient. Our government now pays the highest energy bill in the world. We need to change that. We need to upgrade our federal buildings by replacing old heating systems and installing efficient light bulbs. That won’t just save you, the American taxpayer, billions of dollars each year. It will put people back to work.
It all sounds good on paper, doesn’t it? Certainly we want to promote more energy-efficiency to reduce the costs of operating all these federal buildings, right? A couple of questions come to mind. First, what does he mean by “efficient light bulbs”? Is he referring to the new compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) that will eventually replace incandescent light bulbs (as mandated by legislation passed by Congress in 2007)? What about the impact of CFLs on the environment, especially concerning disposal into landfills, with the small amounts of mercury they contain? Second, how will this program “save… billions of dollars each year” when clearly it is meant as a self-perpetuating public works program? After all, we are talking about a vast number of buildings to be upgraded, as, after all, this is the bloated federal government.
If we want to be really serious about saving “billions of dollars each year”, we should look to shut down agencies and entire departments, and sell the no-longer-needed federal buildings to anyone in the private sector who might put these buildings to better use, leaving the new owners the freedom and discretion to look for the best alternatives for achieving energy efficiency. We would truly save billions of dollars each year, and generate revenue that could be put towards deficit reduction.
ROADS AND BRIDGES
[W]e will create millions of jobs by making the single largest new investment in our national infrastructure since the creation of the federal highway system in the 1950s. We’ll invest your precious tax dollars in new and smarter ways, and we’ll set a simple rule – use it or lose it. If a state doesn’t act quickly to invest in roads and bridges in their communities, they’ll lose the money.
Certainly this writer doesn’t dispute the fact that, as Congressman Ron Paul points out, our bridges are collapsing here at home while we spend money to blow up bridges in Iraq and then rebuild them. No one would dispute the need for repairing infrastructure. But what exactly does Obama intend here? Is he speaking of a vast expansion of infrastructure, in other words, new highways? Will there be the attempted revival of the trans-Texas corridor, popularly known as the “NAFTA Superhighway”? What kind of an impact would new infrastructure projects have on private property and the environment through the use of eminent domain? It seems that this could easily turn into a huge corporate welfare program for contractors involved in these kinds of projects. It also seems likely that this could be used to win special favors for labor union contractors, or any others that subscribe to the kind of politics that looks with great favor upon the new administration. All of the funding for this program would be centrally controlled, implying a system of blackmail and favoritism in deciding which states get how much money, in violation of the Tenth Amendment. Note also the use of the word “investment” here. I have more to say about that in my conclusion.
SCHOOLS
[M]y economic recovery plan will launch the most sweeping effort to modernize and upgrade school buildings that this country has ever seen. We will repair broken schools, make them energy-efficient, and put new computers in our classrooms. Because to help our children compete in a 21st century economy, we need to send them to 21st century schools.
Whoa! First all, there is no role for the federal government in education authorized by the Constitution. Traditionally, whatever one thinks about public (i.e., government) education, this is a matter that has been seen primarily as a local responsibility, though we certainly have seen an enormous expansion of federal intervention in education since the creation of The Department of Education in 1979. One would normally assume that the maintenance and upkeep of public school buildings and equipment would be managed and funded by local government, but now we have the President-elect proposing that we make this a primary responsibility of the federal government.
How many billions will it cost to implement this program? Can we even begin to imagine how inefficient such an operation would be, after witnessing such inefficiency in the federal government’s administration of aid to victims of Hurricane Katrina? How can this be seen as anything but a tacit proposal to nationalize education? Corresponding with increased federal aid to and control of education has been a precipitous decline in the quality of eduction. How would further nationalization of education improve its quality? What is needed is more freedom in and of education, which can only be accomplished if the federal government gets out of the way and ends its involvement in education. The money saved could be better utilized by local school boards, as well as by parents seeking alternatives to government schools.
BROADBAND
As we renew our schools and highways, we’ll also renew our information superhighway. It is unacceptable that the United States ranks 15th in the world in broadband adoption. Here, in the country that invented the Internet, every child should have the chance to get online, and they’ll get that chance when I’m president – because that’s how we’ll strengthen America’s competitiveness in the world.
So the President-elect believes he, as President, presumably with the help of Congress, can give “every child… the chance to get online”? The amazingly expanded use and accessibility of the internet is a true testament to the powers of the free market, as we’ve seen electronic products become increasingly more affordable and accessible without help from government. Obama obviously would intend to change this by introducing a federal role in guaranteeing internet access “to every child” as a new “entitlement”. Reading between the lines, it would appear to this writer to be a major step towards regulating the Internet. With federal aid comes federal control. It is folly to pretend otherwise. We should be very concerned about any attempt by government at any level to regulate and control the Internet, as it would surely be an excuse to prevent the flow of any information that could be used to challenge the power of government and its corporate cronies. The best way to give “every child… the chance to get online” is to maximize freedom and not utilize central planning, entitlements, and tyranny.
ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORDS
In addition to connecting our libraries and schools to the Internet, we must also ensure that our hospitals are connected to each other through the Internet. That is why the economic recovery plan I’m proposing will help modernize our health care system – and that won’t just save jobs, it will save lives. We will make sure that every doctor’s office and hospital in this country is using cutting edge technology and electronic medical records so that we can cut red tape, prevent medical mistakes, and help save billions of dollars each year.
Read carefully: “We will make sure that every doctor’s office and hospital in this country is using cutting edge technology and electronic medical records… ” The very words we will make sure most certainly points to a tyrannical approach with more federal control and the threat of some unspecified consequence (“We” certainly refers to the Obama administration, not to the American people collectively, as Obama most likely intends his audience to believe). This raises concerns about privacy, as what is clearly called for here is a national data-base of medical records. It’s one thing for hospitals and doctors to be voluntarily connected electronically for the purposes of sharing legitimately needed information from medical records (with the consent, above all, of the patient). It’s quite another thing to mandate that “every doctor’s office and hospital in this country” be connected in this way. Our health care system, for all its problems, has already become quite modernized technologically. This writer cannot fail to see the real, hidden agenda behind this, which is to ensure more federal control over doctors, hospitals and patients. What about doctors who favor alternative approaches to medical care? With a federally insured (read: mandated and controlled) electronic medical records database, there is the real potential for the bureaucratic harassment of doctors who do not subscribe to officially “approved” methods of treatment.
SUMMARY
Not one of these proposals will bring about “economic recovery”. Every one of these programs will confiscate (in the form of taxes of various sorts) resources from the productive members of society, and from the productive sectors of the economy, and re-allocate them into centrally-planned and managed programs that offer no promise of efficiency or economic success. These are resources that would otherwise be available to save and invest by private individuals making their own decisions, who could start their own businesses and create jobs on their own, thus putting the economy back on the road to recovery. One very important question we should ask of these programs, yea, of any program proposed by the new administration or any member of Congress is, what does this proposal do to increase freedom? Any proposal for which that question cannot be answered affirmatively should be rejected. None of the five major parts of Obama’s “New” New Deal would increase freedom. Every one of them does exactly the opposite.
Another aspect of the Obama proposals is that the money to pay for them does not exist. We haven’t even been told the cost, and we are being told by “wise” apologists (e.g., Paul Krugman) for the current approach to things that “deficits don’t matter”. But deficits do matter, because the money that doesn’t exist has to be borrowed, perhaps from China, but most likely against the future in the form of that most insidious of taxes, inflation. The Federal Reserve will continue, as it is doing right now at a feverish pace, to print more and more money to fund all these programs in addition to all the bailouts we’ve seen as of late. All of that will have to be paid for, and it will be done by robbing the value of every dollar we earn. Higher prices will follow, the poor and the middle class will lose, while the wealthy, specially-protected corporations will be rewarded. It will be “spreading the wealth around”, but not as Obama wants people to believe. It will rather be a massive transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the government-favored corporations and financial institutions.
Note the repeated use of the word “invest” in the President-elect’s speeches and proposals. This Orwellian euphemism for “spend” has its origins in the Clinton era (a great period in the pioneering of Orwellian double-speak). Government, of course, cannot “invest” anything any more than it can “produce” anything. Every resource in the possession of government has been taken from somewhere else in the form of taxes of one sort or another. Wouldn’t it be an interesting experiment if, for one year, Congress and the President decided to suspend all federal taxes, relying instead upon voluntary contributions for revenue? I think then we would quickly see the whole mechanism come crashing down, with perhaps some major philosophical changes in what the role of government ought to be.
No, the answer to economic recovery is, simply, more freedom. We need more freedom, lots of it, if we are to hope to make a recovery from the current economic situation anytime soon. It is at the height of arrogance for the President-elect and the members of Congress to presume that they know best how to allocate and invest resources to bring about a robust economy. Central planning doesn’t work, and it will only lead to tyranny. This is equally true in foreign policy as it is in domestic policy. Taking the country further down the road of bankruptcy will only worsen the situation. It’s rather like curing a drug addict by giving him vastly expanded amounts of the drug to which he is addicted. Ending the addiction is painful and difficult, but absolutely necessary. We need to end, now, once and for all, our society’s addiction to debt, bailouts and big government. We need to bring about, now, a maximum amount of freedom to unleash the creative powers of individual Americans. We need, now, to return to following the Constitution and the Rule of Law. As the late Senator Barry Goldwater put it in his 1979 memoirs, With No Apologies, “We are a can-do people.” Goldwater was speaking of a free people. When Obama says “Yes we can”, his “we” does not refer to a free people, acting individually and in concert with one another in creative ways, but rather it refers to the idea of “the people” as one and the same as “the government”.
For ideas on how to increase liberty and bring about economic recovery, search online the many articles and speeches by Congressman Ron Paul. Read the multitude of articles published by the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Look into such organizations as Campaign For Liberty, Young Americans For Liberty, and the Future of Freedom Foundation. It is time now to counter-act the proposals of the President-elect’s “New” New Deal with our own liberty-based solutions.
thought this might be of interest….
This review of yours on Obama and his pledges… it seems like your just another member of society that refuses to beleive Obama can get the job done. You already made it apparent with your review of ALL 5 of his ideas so no point denying the fact. Did you vote Mcain? I bet if he had won… you wouldnt have an article like this now would you?
Your questions are not bad questions, but the way your using them in this article, is entirely incorrect. You show blatant disregard for a man that is trying to undo 8 years of american poisoning. How bout you save the skepticism until AFTER he has become president and started doing these things.
I think skepticism is healthy at all points of a President’s term, even the time before he takes office as this is when so many promises are made. As Obama’s employer, we have a responsibility to “hold his feet to the fire”. I’d also encourage you to read through more of Dr. Kennedy’s articles, as well as others on the site. If you do, you’ll learn that none of us supported McCain (though one of our authors reluctantly voted for him and was brave enough to admit it).
http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/obama-mccain-socialism
http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/on-voting-for-the-lesser-of-evils-…
For the record, I did not vote for either Obama or McCain. I was a supporter of Ron Paul in the 2008 presidential primary season, and I voted third party in the general election. My purpose is not to wish the President-elect ill as he faces some very serious problems, but rather to point out how the solutions being put forth offer little change of direction, but rather, more of the same. My purpose is to measure these proposals against the principles of liberty and self-government, both of which we have strayed vastly far away from. My disregard is not for the man, Barack Obama, for none of this is about him or any other personality. It’s about the ideas and their consequences, which would be destructive of liberty.
I am sooooo tired of hearing ignorant remarks made by someone who obviously supported the biggest loser president we have ever, ever had. And you are quoting Ron Paul, are you serious? Please.
Obama is attempting to save a country that has been steadily going downhill since that idiot Bush took office. Give him a chance. He’s not the one who put us here.
And you talk about arrogance, We are just about to see the end of the most arrogant president in the history of this country.
Why is it that someone who questions the policies of Obama is automatically a supporter of Bush? If you’ll take a few minutes to read through some of the articles, you’ll find we are severe critics of President Bush regarding his war-mongering and economic polices, especially as of late.
Here’s a great one to start with-
http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/problems-of-the-republican-party
The word is “ensured” not “insured”. Obviously not a “Dr” of English. In order to purvey your message, you must be able to properly write the language.
Of course the newly elected Democratic administration intends to tax the hell out of the American public. Mr. Obama made that very clear throughout his campaign. Hopefully his “change” to socialism is what the electorate that bought into his Clitnonesque rhetoric is looking for.
The correction has been made: it now reads “ensure”, not “insure”. It was a typo, made late at night towards the end of a long day, and not a misunderstanding of the English language. No, the doctorate is not in English, it is in Music. All of us who write are human, as are the editors who fail to catch these things!
In spite of being a grammer Nazi, I will apologize for any lack of tact my previous post may have had. But beyond that, what exactly does “more freedom” mean? This would seem to be quite intangible. How does one measure freedom? The Bush Administation’s wiretapping policies did not have any effect on my freedom because I could really care less about it. Obviously, many other people felt that policy to be a great infringement upon their freedom. My point is that “more freedom” is a useless platform to incite change as it is not a measurable entity. Maybe a more concise definition as to what you would like to see or achieve would make your ideas more tenable.
More freedom simply means less government intervention, less taxation and less regulation, leaving people free to make their own choices at their own risk, as long as they do not harm others. However, I would hasten to add a disclaimer: the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, which was a form of banking “deregulation”, actually removed some regulations that need to be in place given the existence of a central banking system in this country (the Federal Reserve), and much harm has resulted. We would be much better off without a central bank, which is essentially monopoly control over credit and money. Without a central bank, many of the regulations would not be necessary, and we could have a lot more freedom. With more freedom, though, comes a built-in level of responsibility, among these being subject to risk of failure, which puts a brake on foolish decision-making and mal-investment.
It’s true, in a sense, that “more freedom” is difficult, if not impossible, to measure as though it were an entity. Freedom, really, is an idea, a guiding principle as to what sort of a society we want to have. As for Bush’s wiretapping policies, why don’t you care about it? You should be very concerned about it, because it sets a precedent for any number of other situations where such power could be further abused. I would agree that my own personal freedom was not directly affected by those policies, but there is the potential of my freedom and privacy, or that of someone else, being abused down the road by the precedent that has been set. That anyone’s freedom and privacy is violated by those kinds of policies is something we should all be very concerned about. Certainly the framers of the Constitution cared deeply about these matters, rooted in their own experience under the King.
Who’s freedom should I be concerned about? My own, or the collective freedom of the populace? If, for example, the wiretapping program reveals the planning of a potential terrorist act, are we not obligated to measure the potential lives saved against the theoretical loss of privacy of mistargeted wiretapped persons? If I am wiretapped but never know about it (due to my mundane and uneventful existance) is my freedom actually being infringed upon? These are questions I don’t have concrete answers to. I would contend that my freedom is dependant upon my own ability to make my life’s choices, and to have direct control over my future. This control also obligates me to be completely responsible for any incorrect choices I may make along the way.
Basing a political ideology upon increased freedom is doomed to fail. There is a large segment of this nation’s population that is entirely too stupid to understand their own responsibility towards the direction their life takes. It was widely publicized that Mr. Obama was most popular among the “uneducated” segment of society. “Uneducated” is a polite way of referring to stupid people. Since this segment of society is quite large, perhaps our only option is a eugenic solution.
“It was widely publicized that Mr. Obama was most popular among the “uneducated” segment of society. “Uneducated” is a polite way of referring to stupid people. Since this segment of society is quite large, perhaps our only option is a eugenic solution.”
This is an absolutely incorrect and improper misuse of a “study” . Who did this study, was it the Republican National Convention? Did you study the study to make sure that their facts were accurate or had an actual correlation that was not made up? There could not have been a study done that was actually representative of American society as a whole! Your statement is blatantly ignorant and vague. What constitutes popularity? Somebody liked him a lot? What constitutes ignorance, your quote? Give everybody a break and save your own ignorant quotes for yourself. Perhaps that same study showed that McCain was most popular among “uneducated people” as well. Unfortunately not all facts done by studies are published.
if you ask me i think we all screwed it up think about it we have rapist and killers and people who now are on death row and we r payin for them to live in jail they dont have bills and dont care so i think pull out our troops and let the prission folk have a fightin chance in irak send them on a one way to irack then we need to adress the bail out for the auto industry if we bail them out they need to drop the price of cars down so the underpaid people can afford them i think its a load of crap that a stock s10 truck or a basic car or truck cost more now then it did a few years ago and they are built cheepertha automobils these days are junk
Many members of society don’t believe he can get the job done based on the fact that he hasn’t done anything remotely resembling it before. You ask people to “save the skepticism until AFTER he has become president and started doing these things” but I must point out that it is Obama himself who has situated himself front and center doing weekly addresses to the nation when he hasn’t even technically been “elected” yet.
I would venture to guess that if McCain had won, we would be seeing plenty of articles like this about whatever it is that McCain said. Plenty of us believe that neither of these people represent the direction that the USA needs to be heading towards. More government involvement is not the answer. Government does not create wealth not does it create jobs. Government is a destroyer as had been proven throughout all of human history.
Note to anonymous grammar Nazi: insure and ensure both work for “to make certain”. :D
The point about “ensure” vs. “insure” was correct, if stated with perhaps a deficit of tact. I did actually mean “ensure”, and I’ve corrected it. I am actually quite a stickler about these things myself, keeping a dictionary with me while writing at all times.
I’m a stickler for these things too :D
I accept that you meant the other word but I stand by my defense since he didn’t know your intention. However, “Insure” and “ensure” are interchangeable in that context (I would have picked “ensure” too).
oh, and to Anon #3 who says: “And you are quoting Ron Paul, are you serious? Please.”
Let me quote something for you: “For this reason we can expect the debt and credit bubble to expand until it bursts sometime in the near future. Understanding the political forces supporting such a system and understanding the economic consequences of such foolishness is crucial to our survival.”
That’s Ron Paul. From 1987.
“Wouldn’t it be an interesting experiment if, for one year, Congress and the President decided to suspend all federal taxes, relying instead upon voluntary contributions for revenue? I think then we would quickly see the whole mechanism come crashing down, with perhaps some major philosophical changes in what the role of government ought to be.”
You made a lot of good points, which I think are valid concerns. The above idea is your very best and I beleive it is possible that Obama will “raise” money from the taxpayers (in requests for private donations, in some form or another) for projects and programs the gov can’t afford … This is one of my predictions, lets just watch.
This is a progressive and visionary man about to take the helm. It’s natural to underestimate great potential, cause we rarely see it, as it often works mainly for itself. However … all men are NOT created equal when it comes to their vision and intent and ability to make things happen for the greater good. In other words, few are natural born leaders and many are frauds. As Obama has stated in so many words … he is only the facilitator, but its up to us to make things happen …
Don’t get too caught up in one line of thinking, lest you miss the broader picture. The main point Obama wants to teach us is this …. Ultimately, here is no black or white, no Republican or Democrat, no Muslim, no Christian, no Capitalism or Socialism, Freedom or Bondage, no male or female, no right or wrong. We create these differnces … We can also change them if we change our way of seeing. We are so limited in our thinking …
In other words … It’s time to place divisions behind us and embrace one another for our differences and also our common interests. Expand your minds and perspectives … and you expand your world and its infinate possiblities, for the betterment of ALL mankind, not for self gain. Too much of anything is bad, for example; too much freedom corrupts, etc … We need to seek to find balance in a world of differnces and we can only do that by learning and realizing understanding and acceptance, by natural understanding and also through good teachers who teach us by example.
Everything you say here can really be turned into an argument for more freedom, not less freedom. We can, through voluntary means, accomplish all kinds of things, far more efficiently than through the mechanism of government. And I would say, no, it’s not true that “too much freedom corrupts”. Rather, it is too much power that corrupts (as Lord Acton said, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”). In a free society where natural rights (life, liberty and property) are respected, corruption is held in check by the Rule of Law (the purpose of which is to ensure those rights). In a system of cronyism and government favoritism, there is plenty of invitation to and incentive for corruption.
someone PLEASE tell me why many of these people WANT Obama and his team to fail….have they at all considered the consequences for OUR COUNTRY if they do fail???…..It would be an economic disaster much worse than we’re already facing….and all just to be able to say…”I told you so, he was wrong for the job” while you’re getting your soup in the handout line because the country is in deeper than ever due to Bush policies and stupid choices….do you reallly want this country to fail under Obama’s leadership??? If you do, then consider whether or not you’re in the right country, after all, even when people here disagree about who the leader is, most people who believe in our country, want us be economically successful….
Like many of those leaving comments, you seem to personalize what I’ve said here, as if I and the other writers on this want Obama to “fail”. That really isn’t the point. We are not concerned here about whether Obama succeeds or fails, so much as we are concerned that liberty be preserved. Much of what is being proposed takes its cue from the many things that were tried during The Great Depression, both by Hoover and Roosevelt, which were not successful, diminished liberty, and prolonged the depression by preventing the economy from healing itself through necessary corrections and adjustments. All of this government intervention actually misallocates resources that could be put to better use by millions of people making independent, complex but inter-related decisions. Those in government are not smart enough or wise enough to know how to allocate resources. Central planning, history shows, does not work. Freedom does work, if only it were allowed to do so.
Dear Insurgent…THANKYOU! Nothing more needs to be said!
I think it’s nice that obama wants to help create more jobs.
Don’t get me wrong, honestly, providing more jobs is great.
But for those who have lost their job..
they are (most likely) currently on welfare… right?
So.. i don’t know
Maybe he’s assuming these people even WANT to go to work again.
Here’s a common thought for those who work the system-
Why work when you don’t have to?
And maybe there is such a thing as too much government influence
I remember learning a quote in my political science class
Unfortunately I can’t remember who said it but maybe you can help me..
“Government should be afraid of the people, people should not be afraid of the government”
I guess that no longer applies.
I love how everyone reverts back to the Obama vs McCain arguments, or making petty comments about grammar, rather than taking a serious look at how Obama plans to provide economic recovery. It doesn’t matter who you voted for, Obama is the man now and everyone should drop the election blues and focus on policies the new administration plans on putting in place. Energy efficiency is great but you make a valid point… when will we see a return on our investment, and make sure to deduct the cost of the operational equipment we throw away as we replace them. Our Govt agencies are bloated, thats a fact!
Infrastructure? Many say that FDR’s New Deal would have caused even greater problems if the war had not come along. Think about it, Sure we could stand some improvements but going further in debt to create jobs through more infrastructure is like borrowing money to put a band aid on a punctured artery! These project offer no sustainability and when they end people will once again be unemployed but they will be paying higher taxes to pay for the debt caused to put them there. As society moves from simple to more complex we become more specialized to remain competitive, therefore our precious resourced like jobs become more scarce, combine this with an increasing population and you have our current situation. Blame can be placed in many different places, Many like to say Bush done this to us, but did he really? The president can’t do anything without the House and Senate…. and who was in control there? How about NAFTA? Seems to me blame could also fall to the man (Clinton) who opened the door for our jobs to go overseas! Don’t get me wrong… I like Bill alot, I’m just saying there’s more to blame that the Bush-McCain people!
I do however like the plan to improve schools, but I worry about the Federal Govt control. In a Capitalist society how does a product get better? Competitions pushes quality and affordability!!! So even though I’m sure many will disagree I sometimes think privatizing schools would make the U.S. more competitive on the worldwide scale.
Broadband for everyone…. and Al gore created the Internet!!! Ha……The Internet is one of the last free speech institutions left please stay out of it!
As far as medical records go, I completely agree that the consent of the patient is the most important aspect.
These are just my thoughts. Criticize my grammar all you want but please look at these proposals objectively! Yes, I voted for McCain, but I also want Obama to succeed, If Obama fails… we all fail. I just hate to see yet another President come in with strong promises and not deliver, and from what I see in the proposed Obama New Deal doesn’t seem very promising.
Like Tera said, “It’s time to place divisions behind us and embrace one another for our differences and also our common interests. Expand your minds and perspectives … and you expand your world and its infinate possiblities, for the betterment of ALL mankind, not for self gain.” That is entirely true, and something that, in my opinion, we should always be working towards. But that statement is something that should be worked towards by members of the public and not by members of the government. Our government, after all, is fueled by popular sovereignty, so doesn’t it make sense to start from the ground up, or from the people up? The government is a tool of the people and a means to accomplish the desires and goals of the people. It becomes a problem when the government begins to decide the desires and the goals of the people for the people. Do not take this the wrong way as I understand to a degree this may sound entirely blown out of proportion, but to put things in perspective in an attempt to express my concerns here is a quote from Nikita Khrushchev. “You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept Communism outright; but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of Socialism until you will finally wake up and find that you already have Communism. We won’t have to fight you; we’ll so weaken your economy, until you fall like overripe fruit into our hands.” This was said in part of a discussion between Ezra Taft Benson and Khrushchev that began with the statement by the Russian leader that, “Your children will live under communism.” Listen to what you are saying. “…betterment of all mankind…too much freedom…” The very idea of freedom is not to necessarily better mankind, although it is hoped, but it is the agency that people have to do as they please DESPITE what others may believe is correct.
Where does Obama have any justification or authority to tax and spend on the people and states behalf? All I see with people wanting to let OB do these things are people who are ignorant to the limitations to “Federal” leadership. IMO, These followers are lazy, socialistic and blinded by some sort of guilt, that they are willing to give up, what is now, limited control over the 3 Branches we have, just to allow others ,not as fortunate, to have the same across the board as themselves with no difference between them economically.
It sucks loosing a job, but does the gov have an obligation to employ you? NO! Its called look else where or retrain into another job field. We don’t need a Big Fed Government package to put unemployed people to work. As stated earlier, exactly who, of those unemployed, are actually going to go to work? Of the unemployed, who were actually employed to begin with? Most unemployed people who were released or fired in the beginning were already undesirables, and fired because they lacked the will to do their jobs.
OB can make history and cement his legacy just by doing one thing, other than being “Black”. End all trade treaties. Resume the tarrifs on all imports and shut the borders down. There will be an end to joblessness, except for those stuck in the rut of gov handouts and wellfare checks. then slowly weed out the hacks from welfare and only the needy will receive support from the state that they reside in.
I’m sure there will be disagreement, but I don’t really care. It is time for the people to start being responsible for themselves and holding gov accountable.
well, well, well, Mr. Anonymous, What in the heck would YOU do to correct the MESS Mr. Bush got us in? Yea, I’ll bet you could come up with a better plan. You must be one of those who make over $250,000 per year? Sore spot huh? Getting into your tax pocket?
Get Real Loser!!!
You are right. Our political leaders seem to care only aout their pockets and really do nothing for the honest tax paying citizen. A very good proof is that Iraq war that has easten billions of tax payers money. We have a poor medical care system, but we invest in endless wars. Smart, huh?
=======================================
Cristian - Drug Rehabs
=======================================
The American public gives President Barack Obama a strong 67% approval rating for the way in which he is handling the government’s efforts to pass an economic stimulus bill, while the Democrats and, in particular, the Republicans in Congress receive much lower approval ratings of 48% and 31%, respectively. The economic stimulus package, chock full of cash advances to the nation, has finally been agreed upon by both the House and the Senate. The final version will likely be on the desk of President Obama by Friday. Part of the bill is the cash advances that several states are desperate for, such as California, who is staring down the barrel of a huge shortage. The bill has been through numerous revisions, such as cuts in the House, and then increases in the Senate. The final version appears to be completely pared down – but let’s hope it contains all the right cash advances for economic recovery.
It is not so new to hear that many are really supporting Obama. He really have the power to manage people in a way that can be understand well, same goals and perspectives with people is one key to succeed. Obama has great perspectives in establishing a better nation. The housing bubble bursting led to a drastic drop in demand, and prices, and even though you can’t buy a house with payday loans alone, you can get one for dirt cheap (or at least what passes for it in California) if you can get the financing. California has been hard hit by the housing crisis, having one of the most expensive real estate markets in the nation. (Where else can you pay $400,000 for a house – and still live next door to Crips?) Regardless, if you’re looking for cheap real estate and you can get the financing, it might be worth some payday loans to move to
Lake Elsinore.
Obama believes he can use government, and not free markets, to drive the economy. But on taxes, trade, and regulation, Obama’s program is anti-growth. A President Obama would steer us in the social-market direction of Western Europe, which has produced only stagnant economies down through the years. It would be quite an irony. While newly emerging nations in Eastern Europe and Asia are lowering the tax penalties on capital — and reaping the economic rewards — Obama would raise them. Low-rate flat-tax plans are proliferating around the world. Yet Obama completely ignores this. American competitiveness would suffer enormously under Obama, as would job opportunities, productivity, and real wages. The U.S. economy is shaky for pretty much everybody. Not only is it bad for Americans, but also lousy U.S. economy hits the whole world hard. The U.S. bailout measures are good for everyone worldwide, if the cash advances being made work like they’re intended to. However, some are insisting that the bailout is going to wreck the budget and make the deficit explode. Obama and others insist there will be cuts made that will make up for it. Regardless, let us hope that the short-term loans we’re making will help to bring back the U.S. economy.
Post new comment