| | |
|
Jan 05 2009
by Bill B. May
A couple articles of note today.
ROOSEVELT: Sirota attempts to cast aspersions on recent research that shows how Roosevelt policies prolonged the Depression. His article is by no means seminal, but you might be interested in reading my criticism.
HEALTH CARE DEBATE: By far, the best article of the day relates to Obama's health care solutions, plural because several Democrats are still feeding input into the policy decision. This subject will have probably the biggest impact on the US in future decades. Unfortunately, that impact will be as great as the bankruptcy of Medicare and Social Security.
How many more of these wild–eyed liberal schemes can the country afford? The real solution is to get health care solutions back into the hands of the consumer. Most of the Democrats' plans do just the opposite. They take away personal choice and LIBERTY. And they place the decisions into the hands of bureaucrats in Washington DC.
Survival of our capitalistic Democracy is at stake. The receivers of government largess will soon exceed the taxpayers ability to give. For sure, they will outvote the workers who provide the funds. This is one of the major criteria for the failure of democracies. When those voting can take away the wealth of producers and give it to the non–producers, the minority of producers will be unable to stem the tide. Democracy will fail.
On that happy note, try to have a good week.
| |
| | |
|
|
|
|
Receive the Breaking News and latest Commentary daily in your Inbox.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registration allows you to participate
in the Discussion Boards and
to personalize your news.
|
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Civil rights questions
|
USA
|
Jan 05 2009 - Town Hall
by Rachel Alexander
Civil libertarians, including prominent conservatives like Rep. Ron Paul and former Rep. Bob Barr, have made loud objections to the U.S. government’s efforts to counteract terrorism in the wake of 9–11. In particular, they have protested the detainment and interrogation methods used on suspected terrorists at Gitmo, wiretapping, and other methods of surveillance. They don’t represent the majority of Americans, many who privately say anyone involved with terrorism should be executed. They don’t dare say this publicly since the law has evolved over time to provide those accused of crimes certain privileges, labeling them “rights.” While some of these “rights” make sense in order to prevent the government from falsely imprisoning innocent people, at some point there is a line where these specified additional “rights” for suspected terrorists begin to infringe upon the rights of innocent Americans.
| |
| | |
| | |
|
Jan 05 2009 - Seattle Times
Selling contaminated baby formula is a heinous enough crime to shock a nation, but China's leaders know they have a dangerously destabilizing political crisis on their hands.
The scandal goes to the heart of a covenant between any authoritarian regime and those who surrender freedom. They cede power with the belief, however wishful, they will be better off. Those in power promise to protect them from all manner of hazards, foreign and domestic.
The unraveling of China's milk scandal has horrified the country. Last week, the chairwoman of a diary company pleaded guilty to producing and selling fake or substandard products. Milk products contaminated with an additive that produces kidney stones has killed six babies and sickened another 300,000.
Jan 05 2009 - Seattle Times
by David Sirota
If you're like me, you sometimes find yourself speechless when confronted with abject insanity.
If you're like me, for instance, you were dumbfounded when "Forrest Gump" beat out "Pulp Fiction" for best picture; when HBO's "Sopranos" received more accolades than "The Wire"; and when George W. Bush insisted Iraqi airplanes were about to drop WMD on American cities.
So if you're like me, you probably understand why I was momentarily tongue–tied recently after running face–first into conservatives' newest (and most ridiculous) talking point — the one designed to stop Congress from passing an economic–stimulus package.
During a Christmas Eve appearance on Fox News, I pointed out that most mainstream economists believe the government must boost the economy with deficit spending. That's when conservative pundit Monica Crowley said we should instead limit such spending because President Franklin Roosevelt's "massive government intervention actually prolonged the Great Depression." Fox News anchor Gregg Jarrett eagerly concurred, saying "historians pretty much agree on that."
Editor's Comments:
Lots of question in this article. First of all, it is heinous to criticize the Democrats' God, FDR. Much of the first part of the article has to do with name–calling. Try these words as examples of great intellectual research: silly, preposterous, absurd, hilarious. Ahh, these words no doubt cement the argument. NOT!!!
Then he goes on with some statistics, which as usual you can bend to suit whatever argument you want to make. "Upon deeper examination, I discovered that the right bases its New Deal revisionism on the short–lived recession in a year straddling 1937 and 1938. But that was four years into Roosevelt's term — four years marked by spectacular economic growth."
Four years of growth? Compared to what? The depths of the recession. And if we now get back to the pre–bust version of the stock market in four years, you can say that Obama created a great economic climate. Except that Obama has something to do with the market drop; look at the timing. So if the market regains some 20% per year, it is only getting back to where it was in 2007. The same with economic growth in the 1930's. When you start with an abnormally low base year, it is easy to make big percentage gains and still be below where you should be.
And then we have this beaut: Additionally, the fleeting decline happened not because of the New Deal's spending programs, but because Roosevelt momentarily listened to conservatives and backed off them. As Nobel–winning economist Paul Krugman notes, in 1937–38, FDR "was persuaded to balance the budget" and "cut spending and the economy went back down again."
I don't remember that Republicans had any power in the 1930's after FDR was elected.
Liberals want to completely ignore a huge problem when unemployment reached around 30% under FDR. If they are going to give him credit for things, they also have to blame him for others.
Conservatives don't stand behind Hoover's policies, particularly the trade policies. We conservatives are honest enough to look at policies, rather than personalities. Liberals make Gods of their favorite "star". Sound like soon–to–be–President Obama?
Conservatives look at policies to decide on the merit of the man. Liberals only look at the party affiliation. Most of Hoover's policies were continued by FDR. And they were disastrous, no matter who implemented them.
And near the end, Sirota writes: As Newsweek's Daniel Gross reports, "One would be very hard–pressed to find a serious professional historian who believes that the New Deal prolonged the Depression."
Ahh, the stature of Newsweek? Only slightly less credible than the New York Times. And they can't be trusted at all. Many historians and economists have taken a second look at the 1930's and they don't blindly follow the crowd.
Finally, "As conservatives try to obstruct a new New Deal, they're not making any arguments that are remotely serious." When all else fails, make stupid assertions like this one. bbm
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
Sex trafficking/porn
|
World
|
Jan 05 2009 - Seattle Times
by Nicholas D. Kristof
PHNOM PENH, Cambodia — Western men who visit red–light districts in poor countries often find themselves surrounded by coquettish teenage girls laughingly tugging them toward the brothels. The men assume that the girls are there voluntarily, and in some cases they are right.
But anyone inclined to take the girls' smiles at face value should talk to Sina Vann, who was once one of those smiling girls.
Sina is Vietnamese but was kidnapped at the age of 13 and taken to Cambodia, where she was drugged. She said she woke up naked and bloody on a bed with a white man — she doesn't know his nationality — who had purchased her virginity.
After that, she was locked on the upper floors of a nice hotel and offered to Western men and wealthy Cambodians. She said she was beaten ferociously to force her to smile and act seductive.
| |
| | |
| | |
|
Jan 05 2009 - Heritage Foundation
by Robert E. Moffit, Ph.D.
So, if you have insurance you like, you keep that insurance. If you have a doctor you like, you keep that doctor. The only thing that changes for you is that your costs will go down.
––Senator Barack Obama, presidential campaign speech, Asheville, North Carolina, October 5, 2008
Details kill. If we get too far into the weeds, if we produce a 1,500– or 1,600– page bill, we're going to get hung up on all the details and we're never going to get to the principles.
––Senator Tom Daschle, Secretary of Health and Human Services Designate, Colorado Health Care Summit, Denver, December 5, 2008
When it comes to the deadly details, millions of Americans could be in for an unpleasant surprise. During the election campaign, President–elect Barack Obama promised––repeatedly––that Americans who already had health insurance would not face any changes in their coverage and that their costs would go down, saving the typical family $2,500 annually in premiums.[1]
| |
| | |
| | |
|
Jan 05 2009 - American Enterprise Institute
by Lawrence B. Lindsey
As consumer demand continues to fall, a fiscal stimulus is warranted. The most effective stimulus, however, would be a tax cut, rather than an increase in infrastructure spending.
When it comes to fighting recessions, there's a tendency to see "fiscal stimulus" packages as wasteful, as a form of "throwing money at the problem." The critics have a point. But the conclusion that therefore we should do nothing is also wrong. Instead, careful attention should be paid to the details. Just as a family pinched for cash might find borrowing for the purchase of a new car or appliance prudent while taking a vacation in Las Vegas wouldn't be, some government programs to combat recession make sense while others do not.
Three criteria are crucial for evaluating fiscal stimulus packages. First, does the program target the weakness in the economy that caused the recession, or is it largely peripheral? Second, are the funds going to be spent in a timely fashion? Third, does the program fundamentally strengthen the economy going forward into the expansion phase? A look at the economy's current circumstances suggests that a large fiscal stimulus is needed, but a badly designed one will, in the words of an old song, merely leave America "another day older and deeper in debt."
| |
| | |
|
