"In June of 1816, Samuel Kercheval wrote President Jefferson for his thoughts on a proposed revision of Virginia’s first constitution. A month later Jefferson replied, devoting a great part of his letter to a warning about the consequences of unending government debt:
'I am not among those who fear the people. They, and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom. And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts, as that we must be taxed in our meat and our drink, in our necessities and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes; have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers. Our landholders, too, like theirs, retaining indeed the title and stewardship of estates called theirs, but held really in trust for the treasury, must wander, like theirs, in foreign countries, and be contended with penury, obscurity, exile, and the glory of the nation.
This example reads to us the salutary lesson, that private fortunes are destroyed by public as well as by private extravagance….A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, and to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering. Then begins, indeed, the bellum omnium in omnia [war of all against all], which some philosophers observing to be so general in this world, have mistaken it for the natural, instead of the abusive state of man. And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression.'
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights." Abraham Lincoln
>
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Mob Rule is Mass Hysteria
The idea of targeting buildings and people that stand for conspicuous consumption is an old one. The peasants' revolt of 1381 saw ferocious disturbances in London, and what was called "luxury" was one of its targets. Various palaces and grand houses such as the home of the Archbishop of Canterbury were sacked because they represented opulence. What could not be smashed, pulverized or burned was thrown into the river.
Our mother country, Great Britain, has a long tradition of riots and, through the centuries, mobs have often made their intended targets clear in advance. Protesters have realized that the anticipation of a riot can be as disruptive as any actual assault on property, and riots are more often remembered for their targets than for their causes. Nearly 500 years ago, on May 1, 1517, riots were directed against the property of affluent foreign merchants and craftsmen plying their trades in London. These became known as the "Evil May Day" riots.
Disturbances in Elizabethan and Jacobean England directed against the enclosure of common land frequently took place on traditional holidays. The rioters would throw down the fences erected to deny access to land on which they had once been allowed to graze their animals. The motives behind these riots were to demonstrate their contempt for the landowner (occasionally by surrounding his house or burning him in effigy).
The word "mob" was first used in 1688, the year of the Glorious Revolution, at a time of great political upheaval, and it was to become a key word in the 18th century. Writers such as Addison and Jonathan Swift complained about the inelegance of the term (short for "mobile vulgus", the excitable crowd), but it stood for a vulgar, sometimes irrepressible reality. Henry Fielding sardonically called the London mob the "fourth estate".
The age of Enlightenment saw its share of rioting and in the late 18th century, with the birth of the confident, organized and educated urban mob, riots began to show signs of the sophistication that they have today. In the 1760s and 1770s, protesters took to the streets in support of John Wilkes, who coined the dismissive term "mobocracy" to describe the revolutionary government of France. Wilkes, dubbed the first "mobocratical" politician by the press, campaigned for wider parliamentary representation, the liberty of bourgeois Englishmen, and the freedom of the press. His campaign was accompanied by displays of support on the London streets, bouts of window smashing in the City, and by random attacks on the houses of wealthy Londoners some of whom were supporters of Wilkes.
The most destructive riots of the early 19th century added another word to the English language. The Luddite disturbances in the north and the midlands, later fictionalized in Charlotte Brontë's novel, Shirley, occurred between 1811 and 1816, when rioters broke into mills and workshops to destroy the new machinery that threatened their jobs and rates of pay. In some cases, factories containing machines such as the new steam loom were destroyed.
More recently, we have become familiar with the idea that, when property is attacked, rage can give way to acquisitiveness even if the rioters have initially been infuriated by the acquisitiveness of others. Such were the images of the Watts riots of 1965. Local stores and businesses were attacked, ransacked and burned as TV viewers watched rioters looting anything in sight.
Probably one of the most famous historical images of violent protests is the storming of the Bastille in July 1789 that is taken as the beginning of the French Revolution. This was partly an achievement of later propaganda by the revolutionaries because the Bastille was far from being the vast, institutional embodiment of despotism. In fact the Bastille contained a mere seven petty criminals. The sans-culottes also marched on Versailles, the real seat of power, yet it is the symbol of the Bastille that is remembered.
In revolutions of the modern era, parliament buildings and TV stations have been the preferred targets; for successful revolutions, in this age of mass media, are also public performances. In Yugoslavia, Belgrade's parliament building served as a spectacular stage set for popular insurrection. The Berlin Wall was the perfect symbolic location for German celebrations after the downfall of the GDR. Thanks to a film-maker, Sergei Eisenstein, “the storming of the Winter Palace in St Petersburg with the masses trampling the thick carpets of the tsar became as central to the notion of the Russian Revolution as the storming of the Bastille to the French.”
Riots usually target symbols of power.
Mob rule tends to reflect an anti-authoritarian character and has not always been progressive in nature. If anything, mob rule tends to be reactionary and destructive of property if not lives.
Sometimes an entire profession has attracted the ire of the mob. “During the peasants' revolt in London, rioters vented their fury on the Temple in London, the hive of lawyers, who were hated as the agents of manorial lords, helping them control and bind their serfs. The Kentish men sacked the lawyers' inns and dwellings. A supportive eyewitness expressed support by sayin ‘It was marvelous to see how even the most aged and infirm of them scrambled off, with the agility of rats or evil spirits.’ Shakespeare was perhaps reflecting this historical reality in Henry VI part II when he had Dick the Butcher, right-hand man of the rebel Jack Cade, cry, "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
Fear of the mob was keenly felt in Shakespeare's England. Dearth was a constant threat, food shortages were frequent and the populace was readily thought of as what one of his contemporaries called "the Beast with many Heads". In the opening scene of Coriolanus, Shakespeare dramatizes the fear of the mob as the patrician, Menenius, confronts a rabble of "poor citizens" who are demanding bread and threatening violence.
Among the most notorious instances of mob culture in America was the incident of the Salem witch trials. In these trials, there was a legal due process that was used to determine innocence or guilt. However, the unified beliefs of the townspeople overpowered the logic of the law. The Salem community abandoned logic. Instead of looking at the logic of the law, Salme simply followed the mob’s belief and many people were innocently targeted and put to death as a result.
The witch trial incidents serve as a very early example of how mob rule can take over and govern a society. In our contemporary society, mob rule is still a very prevalent phenomena. Remember the Duke Lacrosse team accusations? Duke administrators and professors shot from the hip in knee jerk fashion and did not follow the American legal precedent of innocent till proven guilty. Look at the harm and deprivation of personal reputation that resulted from this jumping to conclusions.
Other visible examples of mob rule on college campuses are the riots that break out on college campuses across the country. Riots are not a new phenomenon on college campuses as anyone who lived during the social revolution of the 1960s, but recent history suggests that they are a growing trend. For example, 2004 riots on the Hill at the University of Colorado demonstrate how a mob rule mentality can turn violent.
What starts as a celebration can quickly turn into a violent rebellion when police authorities show up. In the case of the riots at Colorado, a large party was shut down by the police. This scene then morphed into an angry mob intent upon defying the police. We also see this mob rule mentality when college students go on celebratory rampages. In many instances, riots seem to emerge from an extravagant celebration surrounding a school sports team winning a big game when one person or a small group becomes destructive. This initiates a domino effect that leads to mob driven violence.
What about the destruction of private and public property that results from these riots and demonstrations of mob rule? Why is there no remorse for such destruction? American history is replete with numerous instances of mob rule that have led to violence for many different reasons. Regardless of the setting or situation, mass hysteria determined the outcome, rather than logic. Accepted norms encourage people to abandon reasonable and responsible decision making. Instead, the illogic group mind often leads to chaos and unnecessary destruction.
Our mother country, Great Britain, has a long tradition of riots and, through the centuries, mobs have often made their intended targets clear in advance. Protesters have realized that the anticipation of a riot can be as disruptive as any actual assault on property, and riots are more often remembered for their targets than for their causes. Nearly 500 years ago, on May 1, 1517, riots were directed against the property of affluent foreign merchants and craftsmen plying their trades in London. These became known as the "Evil May Day" riots.
Disturbances in Elizabethan and Jacobean England directed against the enclosure of common land frequently took place on traditional holidays. The rioters would throw down the fences erected to deny access to land on which they had once been allowed to graze their animals. The motives behind these riots were to demonstrate their contempt for the landowner (occasionally by surrounding his house or burning him in effigy).
The word "mob" was first used in 1688, the year of the Glorious Revolution, at a time of great political upheaval, and it was to become a key word in the 18th century. Writers such as Addison and Jonathan Swift complained about the inelegance of the term (short for "mobile vulgus", the excitable crowd), but it stood for a vulgar, sometimes irrepressible reality. Henry Fielding sardonically called the London mob the "fourth estate".
The age of Enlightenment saw its share of rioting and in the late 18th century, with the birth of the confident, organized and educated urban mob, riots began to show signs of the sophistication that they have today. In the 1760s and 1770s, protesters took to the streets in support of John Wilkes, who coined the dismissive term "mobocracy" to describe the revolutionary government of France. Wilkes, dubbed the first "mobocratical" politician by the press, campaigned for wider parliamentary representation, the liberty of bourgeois Englishmen, and the freedom of the press. His campaign was accompanied by displays of support on the London streets, bouts of window smashing in the City, and by random attacks on the houses of wealthy Londoners some of whom were supporters of Wilkes.
The most destructive riots of the early 19th century added another word to the English language. The Luddite disturbances in the north and the midlands, later fictionalized in Charlotte Brontë's novel, Shirley, occurred between 1811 and 1816, when rioters broke into mills and workshops to destroy the new machinery that threatened their jobs and rates of pay. In some cases, factories containing machines such as the new steam loom were destroyed.
More recently, we have become familiar with the idea that, when property is attacked, rage can give way to acquisitiveness even if the rioters have initially been infuriated by the acquisitiveness of others. Such were the images of the Watts riots of 1965. Local stores and businesses were attacked, ransacked and burned as TV viewers watched rioters looting anything in sight.
Probably one of the most famous historical images of violent protests is the storming of the Bastille in July 1789 that is taken as the beginning of the French Revolution. This was partly an achievement of later propaganda by the revolutionaries because the Bastille was far from being the vast, institutional embodiment of despotism. In fact the Bastille contained a mere seven petty criminals. The sans-culottes also marched on Versailles, the real seat of power, yet it is the symbol of the Bastille that is remembered.
In revolutions of the modern era, parliament buildings and TV stations have been the preferred targets; for successful revolutions, in this age of mass media, are also public performances. In Yugoslavia, Belgrade's parliament building served as a spectacular stage set for popular insurrection. The Berlin Wall was the perfect symbolic location for German celebrations after the downfall of the GDR. Thanks to a film-maker, Sergei Eisenstein, “the storming of the Winter Palace in St Petersburg with the masses trampling the thick carpets of the tsar became as central to the notion of the Russian Revolution as the storming of the Bastille to the French.”
Riots usually target symbols of power.
Mob rule tends to reflect an anti-authoritarian character and has not always been progressive in nature. If anything, mob rule tends to be reactionary and destructive of property if not lives.
Sometimes an entire profession has attracted the ire of the mob. “During the peasants' revolt in London, rioters vented their fury on the Temple in London, the hive of lawyers, who were hated as the agents of manorial lords, helping them control and bind their serfs. The Kentish men sacked the lawyers' inns and dwellings. A supportive eyewitness expressed support by sayin ‘It was marvelous to see how even the most aged and infirm of them scrambled off, with the agility of rats or evil spirits.’ Shakespeare was perhaps reflecting this historical reality in Henry VI part II when he had Dick the Butcher, right-hand man of the rebel Jack Cade, cry, "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
Fear of the mob was keenly felt in Shakespeare's England. Dearth was a constant threat, food shortages were frequent and the populace was readily thought of as what one of his contemporaries called "the Beast with many Heads". In the opening scene of Coriolanus, Shakespeare dramatizes the fear of the mob as the patrician, Menenius, confronts a rabble of "poor citizens" who are demanding bread and threatening violence.
Among the most notorious instances of mob culture in America was the incident of the Salem witch trials. In these trials, there was a legal due process that was used to determine innocence or guilt. However, the unified beliefs of the townspeople overpowered the logic of the law. The Salem community abandoned logic. Instead of looking at the logic of the law, Salme simply followed the mob’s belief and many people were innocently targeted and put to death as a result.
The witch trial incidents serve as a very early example of how mob rule can take over and govern a society. In our contemporary society, mob rule is still a very prevalent phenomena. Remember the Duke Lacrosse team accusations? Duke administrators and professors shot from the hip in knee jerk fashion and did not follow the American legal precedent of innocent till proven guilty. Look at the harm and deprivation of personal reputation that resulted from this jumping to conclusions.
Other visible examples of mob rule on college campuses are the riots that break out on college campuses across the country. Riots are not a new phenomenon on college campuses as anyone who lived during the social revolution of the 1960s, but recent history suggests that they are a growing trend. For example, 2004 riots on the Hill at the University of Colorado demonstrate how a mob rule mentality can turn violent.
What starts as a celebration can quickly turn into a violent rebellion when police authorities show up. In the case of the riots at Colorado, a large party was shut down by the police. This scene then morphed into an angry mob intent upon defying the police. We also see this mob rule mentality when college students go on celebratory rampages. In many instances, riots seem to emerge from an extravagant celebration surrounding a school sports team winning a big game when one person or a small group becomes destructive. This initiates a domino effect that leads to mob driven violence.
What about the destruction of private and public property that results from these riots and demonstrations of mob rule? Why is there no remorse for such destruction? American history is replete with numerous instances of mob rule that have led to violence for many different reasons. Regardless of the setting or situation, mass hysteria determined the outcome, rather than logic. Accepted norms encourage people to abandon reasonable and responsible decision making. Instead, the illogic group mind often leads to chaos and unnecessary destruction.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Congress and the Executive Branch: Knee Deep in Retention Bonuses
For over a week the nation has been in an uproar over the retention bonuses being handed out by AIG. Granted, these may seem extravagant during an economic crisis and the question of their morality is a legitimate discussion topic. The tragedy, however, is the complicity of Congress in AIG paying out the bonuses and in the cover-up of their own guilt.
The Stimulus (aka Stealth) Bill passed by Congress and signed into law by Mr. Obama included a clause known as the Dodd Amendment which exempted AIG from any penalty or restrictions on bonuses. Translated: CONGRESS AUTHORIZED AIG TO PAY BONUSES TO THEIR EXECUTIVES.
The Stimulus (aka Stealth) Bill was written by none other than Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, and Chief of Staff to Mr. Obama, Rahm (Rambo) Emannuel. The 1100 + page bill was given to members of Congress 10 minutes before they voted. There are probably some speed readers in Congress but more than likely none of the 535 members had the appropriate amount of time to read, study, analyze, and question what was in this piece of legislation.
At first, Senator Chris Dodd denied he had written the Dodd Amendment. The next day he admitted he wrote it, but immediately Dodd claimed he did not know how it got attached to the legislation. Then, two days later Dodd admitted he had submitted it but the Executive branch "made" him do it! What is Dodd, some kind of puppet? What does he take the American people for, some kind of Kool Aid drinking idiots who cannot think?
When Secretary of Treasury Timothy Geithner ( who has an MBA but can't figure out how to use Turbo Tax and that was why he didn't pay his taxes) was asked about the AIG bonuses, he said he was unaware of them and outraged. Now we've learned Timothy Geithner as the director of the New York Fed last fall, knew about AIG's bonus plan and that as the Secretary of Treasury had full knowledge of the Dodd Amendment. The White House also knew about the Dodd Amendment and encouraged the Dodd Amendment be kept in the stealth legislation known as the Stimulus Bill.
In a knee jerk reaction and an attempt to take the heat off of themselves, Nancy Pelosi, beloved Speaker of the House, pushed through a bill to tax individuals who received AIG retention bonuses to the tune of a 90% tax on these bonuses.
Think about the significance of this action. The US Congress in the Stimulus Bill endorsed by 100% of the Democrat members of Congress and the three renegade Republicans GAVE and ENDORSED an exemption for AIG to pay out these Retention Bonuses. What will prevent Congress from targeting individuals or groups of people they choose to levy taxes in an attempt to silence?
Now, in an attempt to appear shocked and outraged over this incident, we have a Congress that is promoting Mob Rule by promulgating class hatred and envy towards persons who chose to enter the financial profession. Not only is Congress engaged in promoting class envy and hatred, but apparently the President has chosen to debunk persons who have chosen careers as investment bankers. On Friday, March 20, when introducing his new education policy urged persons to consider careers other than investment banking.
Why not include careers as Congressional and presidential politicians in this class envy and hatred hit list?
The Stimulus (aka Stealth) Bill passed by Congress and signed into law by Mr. Obama included a clause known as the Dodd Amendment which exempted AIG from any penalty or restrictions on bonuses. Translated: CONGRESS AUTHORIZED AIG TO PAY BONUSES TO THEIR EXECUTIVES.
The Stimulus (aka Stealth) Bill was written by none other than Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, and Chief of Staff to Mr. Obama, Rahm (Rambo) Emannuel. The 1100 + page bill was given to members of Congress 10 minutes before they voted. There are probably some speed readers in Congress but more than likely none of the 535 members had the appropriate amount of time to read, study, analyze, and question what was in this piece of legislation.
At first, Senator Chris Dodd denied he had written the Dodd Amendment. The next day he admitted he wrote it, but immediately Dodd claimed he did not know how it got attached to the legislation. Then, two days later Dodd admitted he had submitted it but the Executive branch "made" him do it! What is Dodd, some kind of puppet? What does he take the American people for, some kind of Kool Aid drinking idiots who cannot think?
When Secretary of Treasury Timothy Geithner ( who has an MBA but can't figure out how to use Turbo Tax and that was why he didn't pay his taxes) was asked about the AIG bonuses, he said he was unaware of them and outraged. Now we've learned Timothy Geithner as the director of the New York Fed last fall, knew about AIG's bonus plan and that as the Secretary of Treasury had full knowledge of the Dodd Amendment. The White House also knew about the Dodd Amendment and encouraged the Dodd Amendment be kept in the stealth legislation known as the Stimulus Bill.
In a knee jerk reaction and an attempt to take the heat off of themselves, Nancy Pelosi, beloved Speaker of the House, pushed through a bill to tax individuals who received AIG retention bonuses to the tune of a 90% tax on these bonuses.
Think about the significance of this action. The US Congress in the Stimulus Bill endorsed by 100% of the Democrat members of Congress and the three renegade Republicans GAVE and ENDORSED an exemption for AIG to pay out these Retention Bonuses. What will prevent Congress from targeting individuals or groups of people they choose to levy taxes in an attempt to silence?
Now, in an attempt to appear shocked and outraged over this incident, we have a Congress that is promoting Mob Rule by promulgating class hatred and envy towards persons who chose to enter the financial profession. Not only is Congress engaged in promoting class envy and hatred, but apparently the President has chosen to debunk persons who have chosen careers as investment bankers. On Friday, March 20, when introducing his new education policy urged persons to consider careers other than investment banking.
Why not include careers as Congressional and presidential politicians in this class envy and hatred hit list?
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Why Are Liberals Afraid of a Walk Through History?
After reading some haughty and negative comments concerning the blog, “Why Should We Fear Government Intervention”, it is obvious that liberals, especially bleeding heart liberals, made assumptions that the article was directed at the current administration.
Perhaps they should re-read the blog. There was no mention or reference to the current administration in Washington, DC., but they reacted as if it were a direct slap in the face.
The blog criticizing government intervention and socialism could very well have been written by someone at the New York Times, which recently raised the issue directly with the President by asking him if his policies were socialist.
Was a raw nerve touched by historical facts? If so, perhaps the lessons of history should be examined again and again so these mistakes are not repeated. Perhaps the blog was too close to reality and that forced them to jump to conclusions.
What their responses indicated was their emotions are on the surface, they are sensitive to defending the current administration, and perhaps the most glaring indication is that they didn’t bother to check the author’s profile on the blog. The author is not someone mysterious to either of them. The author taught one of them and wrote a letter of recommendation for her. The blogger worked with the other person as well as taught two of his children while also providing letters of recommendations for two of his children. Yes, it pays to do your homework and research as opposed to jumping to conclusions.
How sad is it when views are condemned and distorted by liberals who are intolerant of other peoples’ opinions. “Why We Should Fear Government Intervention” is historically accurate, and what a shame that liberals dislike historical accuracy because it does not fit with their ideological point of view.
Perhaps they should re-read the blog. There was no mention or reference to the current administration in Washington, DC., but they reacted as if it were a direct slap in the face.
The blog criticizing government intervention and socialism could very well have been written by someone at the New York Times, which recently raised the issue directly with the President by asking him if his policies were socialist.
Was a raw nerve touched by historical facts? If so, perhaps the lessons of history should be examined again and again so these mistakes are not repeated. Perhaps the blog was too close to reality and that forced them to jump to conclusions.
What their responses indicated was their emotions are on the surface, they are sensitive to defending the current administration, and perhaps the most glaring indication is that they didn’t bother to check the author’s profile on the blog. The author is not someone mysterious to either of them. The author taught one of them and wrote a letter of recommendation for her. The blogger worked with the other person as well as taught two of his children while also providing letters of recommendations for two of his children. Yes, it pays to do your homework and research as opposed to jumping to conclusions.
How sad is it when views are condemned and distorted by liberals who are intolerant of other peoples’ opinions. “Why We Should Fear Government Intervention” is historically accurate, and what a shame that liberals dislike historical accuracy because it does not fit with their ideological point of view.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Why Intervention Matters
Why should we fear government intervention?
Perhaps the most pertinent example that demonstrates how rapidly instituted government intervention can lead to full-scale socialism is the record of National Socialist Germany.
January 30, 1933 Adolf Hitler was appointed to the position of German Chancellor. Hitler’s meteoric rise to power can be contributed to multiple factors. Although an inexperienced politician, Hitler’s charismatic rhetorical skills catapulted him into the public limelight.
A member of the National Socialist Party, Hitler endorsed and promoted the party’s radical reforms of collectivism, elimination of individualism, and state ownership of the means of production in the fields of banking, manufacturing, healthcare, and education. To achieve these goals, the National Socialist Party sought accretion of industry using their interventionist measures in the name of protectionism. The National Socialist Party opposed free trade and sought to reach a state of autarky (self-sufficiency). The last objective on the National Socialist Party’s list was job creation and that objective was not addressed for the first 18 months Hitler was in power.
Under the National Socialist Party and Hitler, Germany was on the road to Hindenburg or German Socialism, which had all the appearances of private ownership of the means of production and the appearances of the market functioning effectively. However, there was no longer entrepreneurship but shop keepers and managers who obeyed government orders unconditionally in the matters of production management. The centralized government instructed these managers on what and how to produce goods and services, what to pay their employees, who they could hire, what was to be automatically deducted from pay checks, and what hours the employees were to work.
Immediately upon taking office, Hitler established control over all unions by abolishing all unions but one: the Labour Front (DAF) which reported directly to Hitler’s office. There was no vote on whether there would be a union or not.
Hitler’s political campaigns were funded by Benito Mussolini and Henry A. Ford leaving Hitler free to concentrate on his rhetoric and not the financing of campaigning. Although he campaigned about the economic woes of Germany, Hitler quickly dropped economic issues once in office. Instead, Hitler’s attacks and rhetoric turned into a War on Prosperity blaming the Jews for the bad economy. Why the Jews? These were the people who had prospered, who had used their business acumen to succeed. The reality was Hitler neither understood nor did he have any interest in economics. (Bullock, A., 1962, p. 152) Thus, Hitler began the culture of class envy and hatred.
First, Hitler began confiscating property and wealth from his War on Prosperity targets, and he practiced the Marxist philosophy of Redistributing the Wealth by giving the confiscated property to those who were less prosperous. Second, Hitler established the SS who instituted social welfare policies including nationalized healthcare. The National Socialist Party decided whose lives were worthy or unworthy of living, and it was the scientists who made these decisions for the government. Third, professional women were stripped of their jobs, and women were paid to stay at home. Fourth, all wages were decided by the government. Fifth, young people were more or less forced to join the Voluntary Labour Service and the Voluntary Youth Service.
Under Hitler’s National Socialist Party, one intervention by the government led to another intervention. It was a “slither down” economy as all businesses were eventually under government control. “Businesses who were reluctant to follow the New Order had to be forced into line.”
Should we be concerned with government intervention?
Perhaps the most pertinent example that demonstrates how rapidly instituted government intervention can lead to full-scale socialism is the record of National Socialist Germany.
January 30, 1933 Adolf Hitler was appointed to the position of German Chancellor. Hitler’s meteoric rise to power can be contributed to multiple factors. Although an inexperienced politician, Hitler’s charismatic rhetorical skills catapulted him into the public limelight.
A member of the National Socialist Party, Hitler endorsed and promoted the party’s radical reforms of collectivism, elimination of individualism, and state ownership of the means of production in the fields of banking, manufacturing, healthcare, and education. To achieve these goals, the National Socialist Party sought accretion of industry using their interventionist measures in the name of protectionism. The National Socialist Party opposed free trade and sought to reach a state of autarky (self-sufficiency). The last objective on the National Socialist Party’s list was job creation and that objective was not addressed for the first 18 months Hitler was in power.
Under the National Socialist Party and Hitler, Germany was on the road to Hindenburg or German Socialism, which had all the appearances of private ownership of the means of production and the appearances of the market functioning effectively. However, there was no longer entrepreneurship but shop keepers and managers who obeyed government orders unconditionally in the matters of production management. The centralized government instructed these managers on what and how to produce goods and services, what to pay their employees, who they could hire, what was to be automatically deducted from pay checks, and what hours the employees were to work.
Immediately upon taking office, Hitler established control over all unions by abolishing all unions but one: the Labour Front (DAF) which reported directly to Hitler’s office. There was no vote on whether there would be a union or not.
Hitler’s political campaigns were funded by Benito Mussolini and Henry A. Ford leaving Hitler free to concentrate on his rhetoric and not the financing of campaigning. Although he campaigned about the economic woes of Germany, Hitler quickly dropped economic issues once in office. Instead, Hitler’s attacks and rhetoric turned into a War on Prosperity blaming the Jews for the bad economy. Why the Jews? These were the people who had prospered, who had used their business acumen to succeed. The reality was Hitler neither understood nor did he have any interest in economics. (Bullock, A., 1962, p. 152) Thus, Hitler began the culture of class envy and hatred.
First, Hitler began confiscating property and wealth from his War on Prosperity targets, and he practiced the Marxist philosophy of Redistributing the Wealth by giving the confiscated property to those who were less prosperous. Second, Hitler established the SS who instituted social welfare policies including nationalized healthcare. The National Socialist Party decided whose lives were worthy or unworthy of living, and it was the scientists who made these decisions for the government. Third, professional women were stripped of their jobs, and women were paid to stay at home. Fourth, all wages were decided by the government. Fifth, young people were more or less forced to join the Voluntary Labour Service and the Voluntary Youth Service.
Under Hitler’s National Socialist Party, one intervention by the government led to another intervention. It was a “slither down” economy as all businesses were eventually under government control. “Businesses who were reluctant to follow the New Order had to be forced into line.”
Should we be concerned with government intervention?
Monday, March 09, 2009
FOCUS, FOCUS, FOCUS
Focus groups and breakout sessions remind me of teacher in-service meetings. Did the Administration ever really listen to and follow the suggestions of the teachers in the trenches or were these merely attempts to placate the natives?
Perhaps Mr. Obama should spend less time acting as a Community Organizer leading Focus Groups and as the candidate who is still campaigning. Perhaps he should follow his supporter Warren Buffett's suggestion:"FOCUS his time and efforts in the Oval Office on the three main problems in our society. In the words of Warren Buffett, the three main problems are the economy, the economy, and the economy."
Yes, our financial system is in disarray, and it is not the result of the last eight years although they compounded the already growing problem. Go back to the Jimmy Carter administration when he pushed for and then signed into law the Community Reinvestment Act giving local community organizers the power to force local banks to create more affordable housing through low cost loans and mortgages with minimum downpayments. During the William Jefferson Clinton years, the Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) pressured Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to shift their loan and mortgage policies to no downpayment for homes and no proof of income. Then someone of genius (or sheer stupidity) came up with the incredible idea that these housing loans and mortgages should be broken into parts and bundled for sell to different mortgage lenders who in turn sold them to brokerage firms such as Merrill Lynch who in turn sold them on the market. We now know these bundled mortgages as TOXIC ASSETS.
Wait, there's more.
In 1999, yes, under a Republican controlled Congress some Republican members of Congress worked with Mr. Clinton's Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin to push through Congress a piece of legislation calling for the Repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act passed in 1933, which prohibited commercial banks from collaborating with full-service brokerage firms or participating in investment banking activities. In other words, banks were to be banks and not investment companies. With the repeal of this legislation, banks were free to become investment companies.
Wait, there's still more.
During the Clinton years, there was plenty of activity at the White House. Advisers such as Robert Rubin (now a terminated Citibank official), Rahm (Rambo) Emanuel (current White House Chief of Staff who coined the expression on December 7, 2008 "Never waste a crisis.") and HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo (now Attorney General of the State of New York) orchestrated a plan to expand affordable housing in order to increase political appeal to minority groups. The plan was to promote the expansion of low cost housing mortgages by requiring Freddie and Fannie to increase the percentage of loans every year. If Freddie and Fannie met the new quotas, the directors of Freddie and Fannie would receive hefty bonuses.
During the Bush II administration, attempts to bring investigations into Freddie and Fannie’s policies and actions were met with stiff resistance by a few Republicans but largely stonewalled by Chris Dodd in the Senate and Barney Frank in the House. When the Democrats gained control of the Congress in 2004, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank lavished praise on the role of Freddie and Fannie in the expansion of affordable housing. Meanwhile, the Housing Crisis was bubbling over but ignored by Congress and its oversight constitutional obligation.
In 1993 ACORN, the Chicago based community organizer group, filed a lawsuit against Citibank because they did not participate in these low cost mortgage loans. ACORN wanted Citibank to drop the requirement that individuals would have to provide proof of income in order to get a mortgage. The attorney representing ACORN in this lawsuit was Barack H. Obama.
Not done yet.
We would not be forthright if we failed to raise questions about unethical behavior in the market over the last 25-30 years. Have individual stock brokers pocketed money entrusted to them by investors? Yes. Have brokerage firms and other businesses paid their executives exorbitant salaries and lavished them with astronomical bonuses? Yes. Have government regulators failed to properly examine and track the activities of employees in banking and brokerage firms? Yes. Should those who abused the trust of the investors be investigated, prosecuted, and punished? ABSOLUTELY.
Mr. Obama’s election on November 4, 2008 was indeed an historic election. The media and his adoring public were thrilled when Mr. Obama made daily appearances issuing White House like press conferences and issuing policy statements about the dire economy. In fact, the media and Obama staffers referred to Mr. Obama as Co-President. The President-elect repeatedly stated that the economy was his major focus. In fact, on more than one occasion, Mr. Obama stated that fixing the economy would be his number one goal on DAY ONE, and he would hit the ground running by immediately dealing with the Housing and Financial Crisis on his first day in the White House. To date, Mr. Obama has not stepped up with a plan to deal with the Housing and Financial Crisis, and the market keeps waiting.
For over four months, Mr. Obama- with the blessings of the media and his adoring public- has been acting as President. The contention that Mr. Obama should not be criticized because he has only been in office a month is intellectually disingenuous.
Mr. Obama, instead of dealing with the Housing and Financial Crisis, you have offered many social welfare plans, environmental policies, healthcare reforms,and yes, tax increases you want enacted. If the economy continues to slide into an abyss while you focus on other issues, there will no longer be a tax base to support these massive spending plans. Printing more and more money will be as inflationary as Germany’s Weimar Republic faced.
Wall Street IS main street. Two-thirds of America’s Middle Class has some form of their hard earned money invested in pension funds, mutual funds, 401ks, 403bs, 529s, and / or IRAs. What happens on Wall Street every day does matter, and it casts a vote every day at 4 PM on how it perceives the direction this nation is headed. Every day you delay in addressing the economic crisis, hard working Americans are losing their hard earned wealth.
You seem to view the Middle Class as your enemy because they have invested money and accumulated wealth. Wealth is not bad, Mr. Obama. Wealth is the accumulation of one’s assets such as savings accounts, inheritance, property, profit from your earnings, retirement funds, education funds, and investments for starting a business. Wealth is the profit people worked for without depending on a government handout. Wealth includes the funds people use to donate to their favorite charities and causes because they choose to donate, not because it is legislated as you have proposed in the current budget. When the wealth of the Middle Class is depleted, who will donate to charities? Who will donate to their churches? Who will donate to non-profit organizations that depend on donations?
Our nation was founded by a group of people who wanted a nation where citizens were rewarded for their hard work, for their efforts to succeed, and with the opportunity to create businesses and jobs. If the market continues to be ignored by your administration, our nation will be imperiled.
Our nation is about justice and helping the downtrodden, but right now it appears your administration is willing to sit back and hurt those who have worked hard to achieve some degree of prosperity. You seem to be at War with Prosperity.
Middle Class Americans are the workers who make this nation’s economy one of the best in the entire world. Middle Class Americans are the small business owners who create jobs. Middle Class Americans are finding their backs against the wall. You need Middle Class Americans, and the nation needs Middle Class Americans working and creating jobs. "America needs everyone with a stake in the economy fighting on the same team and not against each other."
The beauty of this democratic republic is that when the election is over, the President represents all the Americans, even those who did not support them. We want to support a President who has the interest of all Americans in mind. Mr. Obama, you chose to run for this office, and you won. You cannot govern effectively if you continue to conduct yourself as if the election campaign is still going on.
Another outstanding feature of a democratic republic, Mr. Obama, is that there is always loyal opposition who not only has the right but the obligation to question, challenge, and offer alternate suggestions to proposals they view is not in the best interest of the nation so that a consensus can be reached. Maligning and impugning the loyal opposition is politics as usual which you campaigned against.
Mr. Obama, read the book, The Art of War. There’s some pragmatic advice offered by the author. “Make sure your enemy has an exit because they fight like lions when their backs are against the wall.”
Middle Class Americans are starting to feel their backs are against the wall.
Perhaps Mr. Obama should spend less time acting as a Community Organizer leading Focus Groups and as the candidate who is still campaigning. Perhaps he should follow his supporter Warren Buffett's suggestion:"FOCUS his time and efforts in the Oval Office on the three main problems in our society. In the words of Warren Buffett, the three main problems are the economy, the economy, and the economy."
Yes, our financial system is in disarray, and it is not the result of the last eight years although they compounded the already growing problem. Go back to the Jimmy Carter administration when he pushed for and then signed into law the Community Reinvestment Act giving local community organizers the power to force local banks to create more affordable housing through low cost loans and mortgages with minimum downpayments. During the William Jefferson Clinton years, the Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) pressured Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to shift their loan and mortgage policies to no downpayment for homes and no proof of income. Then someone of genius (or sheer stupidity) came up with the incredible idea that these housing loans and mortgages should be broken into parts and bundled for sell to different mortgage lenders who in turn sold them to brokerage firms such as Merrill Lynch who in turn sold them on the market. We now know these bundled mortgages as TOXIC ASSETS.
Wait, there's more.
In 1999, yes, under a Republican controlled Congress some Republican members of Congress worked with Mr. Clinton's Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin to push through Congress a piece of legislation calling for the Repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act passed in 1933, which prohibited commercial banks from collaborating with full-service brokerage firms or participating in investment banking activities. In other words, banks were to be banks and not investment companies. With the repeal of this legislation, banks were free to become investment companies.
Wait, there's still more.
During the Clinton years, there was plenty of activity at the White House. Advisers such as Robert Rubin (now a terminated Citibank official), Rahm (Rambo) Emanuel (current White House Chief of Staff who coined the expression on December 7, 2008 "Never waste a crisis.") and HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo (now Attorney General of the State of New York) orchestrated a plan to expand affordable housing in order to increase political appeal to minority groups. The plan was to promote the expansion of low cost housing mortgages by requiring Freddie and Fannie to increase the percentage of loans every year. If Freddie and Fannie met the new quotas, the directors of Freddie and Fannie would receive hefty bonuses.
During the Bush II administration, attempts to bring investigations into Freddie and Fannie’s policies and actions were met with stiff resistance by a few Republicans but largely stonewalled by Chris Dodd in the Senate and Barney Frank in the House. When the Democrats gained control of the Congress in 2004, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank lavished praise on the role of Freddie and Fannie in the expansion of affordable housing. Meanwhile, the Housing Crisis was bubbling over but ignored by Congress and its oversight constitutional obligation.
In 1993 ACORN, the Chicago based community organizer group, filed a lawsuit against Citibank because they did not participate in these low cost mortgage loans. ACORN wanted Citibank to drop the requirement that individuals would have to provide proof of income in order to get a mortgage. The attorney representing ACORN in this lawsuit was Barack H. Obama.
Not done yet.
We would not be forthright if we failed to raise questions about unethical behavior in the market over the last 25-30 years. Have individual stock brokers pocketed money entrusted to them by investors? Yes. Have brokerage firms and other businesses paid their executives exorbitant salaries and lavished them with astronomical bonuses? Yes. Have government regulators failed to properly examine and track the activities of employees in banking and brokerage firms? Yes. Should those who abused the trust of the investors be investigated, prosecuted, and punished? ABSOLUTELY.
Mr. Obama’s election on November 4, 2008 was indeed an historic election. The media and his adoring public were thrilled when Mr. Obama made daily appearances issuing White House like press conferences and issuing policy statements about the dire economy. In fact, the media and Obama staffers referred to Mr. Obama as Co-President. The President-elect repeatedly stated that the economy was his major focus. In fact, on more than one occasion, Mr. Obama stated that fixing the economy would be his number one goal on DAY ONE, and he would hit the ground running by immediately dealing with the Housing and Financial Crisis on his first day in the White House. To date, Mr. Obama has not stepped up with a plan to deal with the Housing and Financial Crisis, and the market keeps waiting.
For over four months, Mr. Obama- with the blessings of the media and his adoring public- has been acting as President. The contention that Mr. Obama should not be criticized because he has only been in office a month is intellectually disingenuous.
Mr. Obama, instead of dealing with the Housing and Financial Crisis, you have offered many social welfare plans, environmental policies, healthcare reforms,and yes, tax increases you want enacted. If the economy continues to slide into an abyss while you focus on other issues, there will no longer be a tax base to support these massive spending plans. Printing more and more money will be as inflationary as Germany’s Weimar Republic faced.
Wall Street IS main street. Two-thirds of America’s Middle Class has some form of their hard earned money invested in pension funds, mutual funds, 401ks, 403bs, 529s, and / or IRAs. What happens on Wall Street every day does matter, and it casts a vote every day at 4 PM on how it perceives the direction this nation is headed. Every day you delay in addressing the economic crisis, hard working Americans are losing their hard earned wealth.
You seem to view the Middle Class as your enemy because they have invested money and accumulated wealth. Wealth is not bad, Mr. Obama. Wealth is the accumulation of one’s assets such as savings accounts, inheritance, property, profit from your earnings, retirement funds, education funds, and investments for starting a business. Wealth is the profit people worked for without depending on a government handout. Wealth includes the funds people use to donate to their favorite charities and causes because they choose to donate, not because it is legislated as you have proposed in the current budget. When the wealth of the Middle Class is depleted, who will donate to charities? Who will donate to their churches? Who will donate to non-profit organizations that depend on donations?
Our nation was founded by a group of people who wanted a nation where citizens were rewarded for their hard work, for their efforts to succeed, and with the opportunity to create businesses and jobs. If the market continues to be ignored by your administration, our nation will be imperiled.
Our nation is about justice and helping the downtrodden, but right now it appears your administration is willing to sit back and hurt those who have worked hard to achieve some degree of prosperity. You seem to be at War with Prosperity.
Middle Class Americans are the workers who make this nation’s economy one of the best in the entire world. Middle Class Americans are the small business owners who create jobs. Middle Class Americans are finding their backs against the wall. You need Middle Class Americans, and the nation needs Middle Class Americans working and creating jobs. "America needs everyone with a stake in the economy fighting on the same team and not against each other."
The beauty of this democratic republic is that when the election is over, the President represents all the Americans, even those who did not support them. We want to support a President who has the interest of all Americans in mind. Mr. Obama, you chose to run for this office, and you won. You cannot govern effectively if you continue to conduct yourself as if the election campaign is still going on.
Another outstanding feature of a democratic republic, Mr. Obama, is that there is always loyal opposition who not only has the right but the obligation to question, challenge, and offer alternate suggestions to proposals they view is not in the best interest of the nation so that a consensus can be reached. Maligning and impugning the loyal opposition is politics as usual which you campaigned against.
Mr. Obama, read the book, The Art of War. There’s some pragmatic advice offered by the author. “Make sure your enemy has an exit because they fight like lions when their backs are against the wall.”
Middle Class Americans are starting to feel their backs are against the wall.
Monday, March 02, 2009
War on Prosperity
What is the longest war in which the US was engaged?
If you replied the War on Poverty, you answered correctly.
Now it seems we are engaged in a new war: the War on Prosperity. It will last until the American people wake up, take off their rose-colored glasses, and contact their Congressional representatives and tell them: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
The current administration, after examining the proposed budget, is seeking every possible avenue to attack American citizens where it hurts the most: their pocket book.
No, we're not talking about wealthy Americans. We're talking about average Americans who invested their savings and retirement plans in the stock market. Since Mr. Obama's election the market has dropped over 3200 points, and that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the economic attack on average Americans.
Barack Hussein Obama’s National Socialist policies are pure and simple anti-capitalist, anti-free enterprise, anti-democracy, and anti-American.
Despite his avowed claim that taxes are not being raised on 95% of Americans, B.O’s Stimulus (aka Stealth Bill) and his proposed budget refute this claim. Worded deceptively in his Cap and Trade Tax are proposals for a $65 BILLION tax this year on the following forms of energy: electricity, gasoline, natural gas, and heating oil. By 2020, this Cap and Trade Tax will amount to $645 BILLION, meaning our taxes on these will be gargantuan.
Mr. Obama, do not all Americans purchase at least one or two of these forms of energy? Will not the price of these forms of energy include the Cap and Trade Tax you are going to impose?
That’s right. You’re playing the “I gotcha game”. Yes, directly Americans will not pay these taxes. INDIRECTLY, ALL AMERICANS will pay these Cap and Trade Taxes.
Mr. Obama, this is pure deception and an attempt not to level the playing field but to lower the playing field so all Americans will feel beholden to the Federal (National) government.
The National Socialist Party under Hitler followed these same steps in becoming a National Socialist nation. History knows it as NAZI Germany, a government controlled dictatorship where individuals lost their economic freedom and their ability to oppose the government.
If you replied the War on Poverty, you answered correctly.
Now it seems we are engaged in a new war: the War on Prosperity. It will last until the American people wake up, take off their rose-colored glasses, and contact their Congressional representatives and tell them: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
The current administration, after examining the proposed budget, is seeking every possible avenue to attack American citizens where it hurts the most: their pocket book.
No, we're not talking about wealthy Americans. We're talking about average Americans who invested their savings and retirement plans in the stock market. Since Mr. Obama's election the market has dropped over 3200 points, and that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the economic attack on average Americans.
Barack Hussein Obama’s National Socialist policies are pure and simple anti-capitalist, anti-free enterprise, anti-democracy, and anti-American.
Despite his avowed claim that taxes are not being raised on 95% of Americans, B.O’s Stimulus (aka Stealth Bill) and his proposed budget refute this claim. Worded deceptively in his Cap and Trade Tax are proposals for a $65 BILLION tax this year on the following forms of energy: electricity, gasoline, natural gas, and heating oil. By 2020, this Cap and Trade Tax will amount to $645 BILLION, meaning our taxes on these will be gargantuan.
Mr. Obama, do not all Americans purchase at least one or two of these forms of energy? Will not the price of these forms of energy include the Cap and Trade Tax you are going to impose?
That’s right. You’re playing the “I gotcha game”. Yes, directly Americans will not pay these taxes. INDIRECTLY, ALL AMERICANS will pay these Cap and Trade Taxes.
Mr. Obama, this is pure deception and an attempt not to level the playing field but to lower the playing field so all Americans will feel beholden to the Federal (National) government.
The National Socialist Party under Hitler followed these same steps in becoming a National Socialist nation. History knows it as NAZI Germany, a government controlled dictatorship where individuals lost their economic freedom and their ability to oppose the government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
