"With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true.
Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan's "lost decade" in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policy makers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth."
23 comments:
That is an impressive list of folks. I believe they are right. This bailout or whatever they are calling it is going to inflate the economy, but more importantly it is going to swell Government and put us well on the road to Socialism.
Good day to youz,
This is going to sound sarcastic because it's coming from me, but I really am hoping for an answer. When the Mormons settle in Missouri and the ditch digger with 7 kids gets a bigger house than the doctor with 1 kid... What will you call that type of government?
Plus it has nothing to do with stimulating the economy. Millions for STD prevention? Family planning aka planned parenthood? (this one was taken out)Community redevelopment projects, aka an ACORN payoff. (thanks for getting me elected guys...here's some cash)Natl. endowment for the arts? None of this has any business being in a bill designed to "stimulate the economy."
Every liberal Democrat pet project that's been sitting on the shelf for the past 14 years is getting funded in this pork barrel bill disguised as a stimulus.
And tell me this? Why is Obama trying to get Conservatives on board? He doesn't need one Republican vote to get his bill passed. The reason is this. When this bill fails to stimulate the economy. And it will. He want's to be able to blame conservatives.
Good for the House Republicans for standing strong against this abomination. (100% of House Repubs. voted against it) We'll see if the Senate Repubs. can do the same.
I'm not holding my breath.
You're right Dad, this is bad for a lot of reasons. Also, I'm glad the Republicans voted against. However, I think it's too little too late. And, I'm not just talking about thier lemming vote last year to approve the Bush stimulus. Where have they been for the last 8-12 years?
Great question J man. The key difference is in its voluntariness and emphasis on private ownership of property. Those who are a part of the united order, will be part of it because they choose to be. When the individual families choose to participate, they will deed all of thier property to the church. The church will then deed property back to the familes, depending on what they needed.
With Socialism, the State owns all the property. With the United Order, each person or family is a property owner. In my mind, that is a key difference.
Great points Aaron. It looks like "Change we can believe in" is wild, uncontrolled spending, and the party in power shoving legislation down the throat of the other party. The more things CHANGE, the more they stay the same.
Yo Len, I'm confused at how you can own land/property and be subject to relocation because of family size at the same time? Is it a situation where everyone in the United Order owns shares of the whole? How many millions of Mormons will be participating in this scenario?
You also justified the United Order not being socialist or communist by saying it was voluntary... So, if you decide to leave the United Order, do you get your investment back?
Also, it seems you're saying that in a Socialist country like England, no individual owns any land. I'm fairly certain that is not the case.
The Bush White House and previous administrations already had us well on the road to socialism. I believe that if Republicans really wanted less government they would have voted for Ron Paul.
I loved what Ron Paul was selling and I was willing to see what happened with less government, but it was apparent that no one, including Republicans wanted less Government. It seems like the Republicans don't know what they want, at least the Democrats are openly Socializing America. The Republicans do it while saying they think it's the wrong thing to do.
J. I would'nt necessarily say that Republicans were taking us towrds socialism. I think that the current economic mess we're in caused Bush and other Republicans to act in a way that is counter to Conservative principals. But you are correct that even prior to that they were not acting like Conservatives. That's why they lost power. The era of big govt. is back.
I have no idea what this other thing you guys are talking about is???
Hey Aaron, whats new witchu?
The other thing were talking about is, if/when sh** hits the fan, and Armageddon breaks out the faithful LDS will start moving to the land the church owns in Jackson County Missouri (The original location of The Garden of Eden). They will give up their property to the church and then the church will redistribute the property depending on each families size and needs.
OIC
I found this C.S. Lewis quote the other day that sums up my feeling on the big govt takeover of the country, the eco-marxist agenda, and the eroding of our freedoms that will ensue.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
- C.S Lewis
Dude, that is the quote of the week next week on Unscientific Postscript! I will give you cred.
J man, we should talk. It would be easier to talk through some of the United Order principles. However, let me try to address a few.
In the old days, everyone was living in a place, and the church decided to do this. Everyone who wanted to, gave thier property to the church, and the church gave them a certain amount back. This only happend once, and then the people owned that property from then on.
I don't know how it will work if and when there is an exodus to Jackson County. The main problem is, none of us own any property out there to give to the church. If we did, we would give, the church would give back, and then we would own the property. The exchange of property does not happen yearly or anything, just once.
Second answer, if you leave the United Order, you leave with what you have, not with what you gave. Mind you, that could be more or less than what you originally gave.
About Socialist England. Yes, they are more socialized than we are, but they are not socialist in my definition. When I said socialist country, I meant Communist Russia or China. BTW, communist Russia or China is the end game for all countries walking the road to serfdom, including the US of A if we don't change course.
True that about the Republicans. I must agree that the Democrats seem to be the more intellectually honest of the two parties. At least they openly say that they want large government and more social programs. The Republicans pretend to be conservative, and then act like Democrats. See the fourth comment on this post.
Finally, nothin but love for Ron Paul. I read The Revolution and loved it. Have you read it yet?
Len, I thought you'd like that.
Yo Len,
No I haven't read Paul's book. I will though.
I don't have a problem with the Mormon's United Order deal. I'm sure you can see that the reason I'm talking about the United order and England is to point out that socialism isn't necessarily the dirty word many here in America like to think it is.
England is in great shape,(except for their immigration catastrophy) so a little bit of socialism doesn't seem like such a bad thing.
I'm sure you don't think Obama and his people are going to take us as far as China or Russia went with socialism... But China aint doing so bad either. They pretty much own us right now. China came the other way... adding capitalism to their socialism and they are definitely emerging as a current powerhouse.
Some interesting points J. I'm not going to admit that socialism is good, but I will admit that it is pretty much inevitable. That being said, look at my post, How Big is Too Big. A lot of smart people have looked at this issue, and think that a government that requires much more the 25% of the nations GDP is too much. After that point, the large government state starts becoming a bad thing. Right now, the U.S. Government is about 36% GDP (Gross Domestic Product).
Also, I don't think that England is as well off as some would like you to believe. In a previous post, I cited an article that said a new hospital has not been built in England since the second world war. Most proponents of nationalized health care do not even cite England anymore. They are looking to countries that are newer to socialized medicine. Problem is, the longer the socialization is present, the more things go down hill.
You need to read the Road to Serfdom by Hayek. Socialism is a dirty word J. Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. Smart people who have looked at the issue closely agree that the road to socialism, if left unchecked, inevitably and necessarily leads to totalitarian rule. Don't believe me, read the book. Read other books, but read this one too. It was written back in the forties by a guy who knew what he was talking about, a guy who saw it happen to his onw country.
As of June 2000, The USA is ranked #37 in the world for health care quality. France is #1 and England is #18
The U. S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries. The United Kingdom, which spends just six percent of gross domestic product on health services, ranks 18th .
Who is ranking them, and what criteria are they using. Honestly, people can get any result they want.
The question is, do you think that a federal beaurocratic agency can provide higher quality healthcare than the free market, or do you think a federal agency can provide it cheaper?
I don't believe either. If the health care system is not working as well as it could, it's because the Feds already have thier hands in it, up to thier shoulders.
There are a lot of people out there with numbers and statistics proving the point they are trying to sell you.
Instead of looking at statistics, numbers, and polls, you need to start investigating the underlying political and economic principles. That will help you cut through the crap that is out there.
Here is a principle. Socialism does not bring an increase in prosperity or liberty. Socialism eventually brings carnage, slavary and poverty. The world's history for the last 150 years is the only proof I need. It has been tried over and over, and the end game is always the same.
If a lot of socialism is really bad, then a moderate amount of socialism is just kinda bad. If I'm right about this principle, then socialized medicine is not better. It's just not. No matter how many rankings and polls and statistics are brought together to proove otherwise.
I've seen enough of this world to know how pollsters, accountants, politicians and attorneys can bend the data to thier will.
I respect the fact that you're extremely well read, but I don't think history can teach us every lesson.
Every time I hear we can't or it's impossible, I think of what some were saying about solar energy not 10 years ago. People thought pursuing solar energy was a joke. Scientists are now predicting that solar will be our main source of electricity/energy very soon. A few advances in science and now solar doesn't sound so ridiculous. Solar cells becoming more efficient and cheaper to manufacture changes the whole story.
The same goes for medicine. Going paperless for example, with medical records cuts costs. I have to believe there are plenty of ways to bring the cost of health care down, making it more accessible and the process more streamline.
Were already paying outrageous taxes. We might as well get the benefits.
Good discussion. Remember what Mark Twain said. "there are two kinds of statistics, lies and damn lies."
Further, J you point out that "scientists say solar is the way of the fututre." What scientists? The ones paid off by the solar energy conglomerate, or whatever. In about ten minutes I could find some "scientists that say Solar is a hoax. It may not be, I'm just saying everyone finds the own "expert" who will go along with their way of thinking.
Just like in court. We do it all the time here at the Justice Dept. You find and expert that says the guy's crazy, his attorney finds one that says he's sane. They can't both be right.
The future of solar and energy in general for that matter is definitely still in question.
But to think all statistics are lies is wrong, even if Twain said it.
I've seen too many working examples of people powering their home and cars from solar panels. And those are the Antiquated panels. These folks are also selling electricity back to the E Company. And if you want to see examples for yourself, just turn on HGTV or Planet Green.
Great discussion guys. I miss sitting aroung the dinner table up on Summer Hill Drive and going round and round all night. It's a lot of fun doing this. Thought I would summarize the flow:
1. Not all economists agree that stimulus will help economy.
2. Bailout will cause inflation and lead to socialism.
3. Is United Order different from socialism?
4. New Bailout proposal is full of pork.
5. The more things CHANGE the more they stay the same.
6. Both parties are moving us toward greater socialism.
7. C.S. Lewis quote.
8. More United Order vs. Socialism.
9. Discssion regarding validity of statistics, studies and polls.
10. Solar Energy may be the energy of the future.
Wow, how did we get from there to here? Sharp minds, good ideas, great depate!
yes, yes were a regular think tank. :)
Post a Comment