People have been talking about it for a while now, the economy and how we can avoid being depressed by it. Reflecting on the meaning of the word I came to realize that I didn't fully understand what the "economy" is. Is it the McDonalds on every corner or the shopping carts I push around for money? Luckily my computer has a digital dictionary which aided in answering my question. So what is the economy? It is the production and consumpton of goods and services of a community regarded as a whole, or a finanical attempt to reduce expenditure, or the prudent managing of resources to avoid extravagant expenditure or waste. My friends know that I did not support Obama when he was running for president and now I am telling everyone that I do not support the policies he is trying to implement. I hope they fail(do not be passed) because they are the wrong thing to do. 44 and his economic team will now be forever known as Sir Spendolot and the fools of the expendit table.
We know that Barack lacks the virtue of prudence after seeing the way he abruptly closed down Guantanamo prison without making provisions regarding what to do with the criminals we detain there. Reforming our interrogation tactics would have done well enough and saved us the burden of relocating an entire population of the worlds most dangerous criminals. Barack is inexperienced and has shown it with the orders he has made this first week of his presidency. On the issue of our economy Barack Obama has proposed a massive stimulus package that he says will "call for major investments to revive our economy, create jobs, and lay a solid foundation for future growth." Obama’s stimulus plan focuses on, “creating jobs,” not optimization of our economic production [to his credit, Obama is fully aware that the economy will get far worse before it gets better, although it could also be argued that to say otherwise is delusional.]
This is simply the wrong approach to bringing out economy back into good health. As Austrian economist Henry Hazlitt points out “The Fetish of Full Employment” in his Economics in One Lesson:
"The economic goal of any nation, as of any individual, is to get the greatest results with the least effort. The whole economic progress of mankind has consisted in getting more production with the same labor. It is for this reason that men began putting burdens on the backs of mules instead of on their own; that they went on to invent the wheel and the wagon, the railroad and the motor truck...
Translated into national terms, this first principle means that our real objective is to maximize production. In doing this, full employment -- that is, the absence of involuntary idleness becomes a necessary by-product. But production is the end, employment merely the means. We cannot continuously have the fullest production without full employment. But we can very easily have full employment without full production..."
Obama has described his stimulus plan as, "a rapid, aggressive response to our financial crisis, using all the tools we have." In other words what Barack says is, "we are going to try like crazy to spend our way out of this." Obama(Sir Spendolot) simply plans to create a hodgepodge of different funds, staffed by bureaucrats, who will dispense funding at their whims to successful applicants. A bonanza for Big Government, and corporate corruption, but a disaster for the free market. Yes, planning must be done, but economic planning is best done in the millions of individual, free transactions done for the mutual benefit of both parties, not done by central planners like Paulson, Summers, Geithner, Rubin, Romers, Bernstein, Bair, and Bernanke(the fools of the expendit table).
The whole idea behind a government stimulating an economy is egregious. The government simply plans to spend $825 billion in order to improve the incomes of Americans. The outrageous part of all of this is that nobody seems to think to the very short next step of “Where is this $825 billion coming from?” Well, it is coming from the incomes of those Americans that the dems are trying to improve the incomes of! This could be compared to me offering to give you $10, but all I need is to tax you $20 – the extra $10 goes towards my salary, transaction costs, some programs I’m fond of, and other wasteful measures.
My point is that playing a game of spenda will not work; in fact, even if it does, this only means that the next downturn will be downright disastrous. Those who have studied the Austrian School's Misesian boom-bust cycles are already aware that all depressions and recessions in America in the last hundred years were all brought on by inflationary (usually war) spending, then resolved by government spending. The Obama-Biden Plan for economic recovery will not work as the focus is on job creation, not maximizing economic output.
Just when liberals thought it was safe to start identifying themselves as such, an acclaimed, veteran psychiatrist is making the case that the ideology motivating them is actually a mental disorder.
"Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness, "Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."
Rossiter says the kind of liberalism being displayed by both Barack Obama and his Democratic primary opponent Hillary Clinton can only be understood as a psychological disorder.
Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by: creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization; satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation; augmenting primitive feelings of envy; rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.
"A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do," he says. "A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do."
"The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind," he says. "When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious."
For more than 35 years Rossiter has diagnosed and treated more than 1,500 patients as a board-certified clinical psychiatrist and examined more than 2,700 civil and criminal cases as a board-certified forensic psychiatrist. He recieved his medical training at the University of Chicago.
Unlike the fact that our new administration has very few options to help improve our worsening economic situation, our interventionist foreign policy stands ready to be put on a new course.
What would the Israeli-Arab conflict mean if the U.S. had a non-interventionist foreign policy? Well, it would not necessarily mean much to the well-being of the United States, says Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA's Bin Laden Unit and author of Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror. In a new article at Antiwar.com, Scheuer explains how the American elite, "addicted to intervention," has put the United States in a position where Israel's actions are understandably seen as being approved by U.S. policy. Because of the special relationship between America and Israel, the Israeli invasion of Gaza has only reinforced the perception that Muslim lives are devalued by our government.
Eric Margolis discusses the two narratives being told about the Gaza invasion in his own article at LewRockwell.com. "In the Israeli and North American press version" of the story, Isreal is retaliating, fully within its rights, against Hamas terrorists for firing rockets and killing innocent Israeli civilians. Margolis agrees such terrorism is a crime, but he says "so, too, is the Israeli blockade of Gaza, which is an egregious violation of international law and the Geneva Conventions."
Unfortunately, it seems the new administration is likely to continue the mistakes of the past. The current administration's foreign policy, I'm afraid, has created a huge impetus for blowback against the United States. However, I truly believe much of the world stands ready to look beyond our nation's recent blunders if the new administration proves to be heading in a more reasonable direction.
We may think we have much to gain by inserting ourselves in these complex situations, but on the contrary we suffer from many consequences. When American treasure and diplomacy are seen behind other nations' acts of belligerence, the United States becomes a target for resentment and even terrorism. This makes it all the more important to see foreign wars with a bit of nuance.
If America had a non-interventionist foreign policy, the impact on the United States by such horrendous conflicts abroad would be minimized. All the more reason we should return to our Founding Fathers' policy of peace, honest friendship and free trade with all nations; entangling alliances with none.
I've heard that here amongst us there are trolls, those that are not loyal to Barak Obama but members of his blog.
How can we fight this monstrocity! I vow to use any recorces that I have to exterminate these gremlins.
Are there others that would like to join me?
The conversation below was one between friends. It erupted unprovoked and I think has some value.
A:oreilly is really really really smart.He is so good at being an asshole that people watch him for the sole purpose of how much they hate him.
B: Ha yea he is an entertainer.
B: After this election I think I became a third party. I mean I like the looks of black and white teaming up, Barak/Biden, BB. But something about the hollywood comedians and the far left, feminists, and gays just makes me not want to be a democrat.
A:aint no reason to hate the gays. Anyone who has a problem with them either has a crucifix up their ass or is seriously insecure with themselves.
B: I think homosexuality is a mental disease.
A:really, My cousing is gay and he got a perfect score on his SAT's.
B: Someone who puts wieners in their butt and says they're healthy is the same as a really fat person saying they're sick.
A: Sex is an act of love joe.
B:Sex is for offspring.
A: If two people love each other they will make love.
B: Brothers love each other and they don't have sex.
A: Not everything can be looked at from a scientific perspective.
B: Love is a chemical reaction in the brain. You can watch it with a catskan.
A: My cousin is gay and smarter than you could ever dream of being. I wish I had that disease.
B: Well if he really is gay then he won't leave offspring behind and that is something to think about.
A: What are you a fucking robot. I'm not a fucking bacteria. I'm not a one single minded organism that only lives to reproduce.
B: You don't belive in God but you put humans above the rest of life, like we have magical special things. We fuck, and die.
A: You don't understand their way of life so you hate on them.
B: I don't hate them; I hate the people that try to monopolize their vote. It is obvious that gayness is unhealthy but they will vote for anyone who will support them. And the democrats are smart.
A: Why shouldn't they be allowed to marry? They exist. Let them be themselves let them live.
B: Thats the whole thing. It doens't matter if they get married. I'll still say they have a mental disease and they will still have butt sex. But the democrats are the bastards who use the situation to get votes. Republicans are like me. Their brain says, "WTF, two weiners= no baby."
Well, the election is over and Barak has claimed victory. I think it was a fair contest; both major parties took some aggresive positions and threw a lot of mud at one another. It appears that the best man did win. Barak is young and energetic, qualities that will be of advantage as he takes on the dubious task of saving our nation from the fires of hades.
I did not vote for our president elect but I do support him now. Simply because he is our leader. It brings me joy to hear his speeches and see his handsom face on tv. However, you will not find me expressing any zeal like so many others. I am hopeful about his presidency and am motivated to participate in the rebuilding. I think I will feel comfortable under his leadership.
You see, I like Barak; I do not like his party. He campaigned as a centrist and, so far, his cabinet picks reflect that. I only have one piece of advice to offer: Why wouldn't Barak give Ron Paul a position in his White House? No doubt the Obama organization admires the Ron Paul Campaign for liberty and mimics their strategy of grass-roots involvment. Giving Paul a cabinet post would earn Barak major points from republican minded peoples. Not only would it be a good stratigic move for the democratic party but I believe Ron Paul is a true genius. He has a real vocation to public service and needs to be a part of this reform era.
Earlier I said that Barak was the product of evil. This was a miscalculation, or, rather, a misrepresentation of my opinion. The entire democratic party seems bitter over history. Many want what they think is vengeance but in reality is just plain revenge. Remember what grandma always said, "Two wrongs don't make a right."
There is only three days left until voting day and I am still undecided on who I'll cast the ballot for. None of the candidates seem to be of any quality. I like Ron Paul and love the things that he says. Its to bad that he isn't running. As of right now I will probubly vote for Bob Barr. I know that he won't win but he is the best candidate out right now. McCain is out of shape. He doesn't stack up well to Bush, a strong puposful leader. Barak is the product of evil. He is devoted to specific minorities and that is unfair. He doens't work for everybody only his special interest. However I do like the way that Barak speeks and he obviously has some pashion. I'm afraid of one party dominance and this is the primary reason why I will most likely not vote for the democrats.
This is the first time I am able to vote. I'm 18 years old but still take pride in my knowledge of world events. Anyone want to try and persuade me to vote for Obama? Can you change my opinion of the democratic candidate?
