Friday, October 24, 2008

Always temporary in nature...

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

This was said many years ago by a man named Tyler, and later repeated by Alexander Hamilton. I couldn’t agree more, which is the basis of my concern for America’s future. Our democracy has been in existence for nearly 233 years and I don’t recall in history any other democracy lasting that long. How exactly did the Roman empire fall?

And when the Bolsheviks seized power in Russia, the moderate members of the Russian parliament walked out in protest, prompting Trotsky to say this to them: "You are pitiful isolated individuals; you are bankrupts; your role is played out. Go where you belong from now on — into the dustbin of history!" Sound familiar? Shortly thereafter, the Bolsheviks passed the Decree on Land, which ratified the actions of the peasants who had been seizing private land and redistributing it amongst themselves. In addition to this, the Bolsheviks: nationalized all banks, granted control of all factories to the soviets, confiscated private bank accounts, seized all church properties, fixed wages at higher rates and implemented a shorter 8-hour work day, repudiated all foreign debts.

Indeed, I have seen a trend in the Democrat party for several decades, basically one of alienating the wealthy and pandering to the middle and lower class. I’ve heard some call this class warfare, and Barack Obama has taken it to an even higher level. This man’s campaign tactic, taken right from the writings of Saul Alinsky, is to cast away the 5% of America’s wealthiest and pander to the other 95%, literally promising them money for their votes. We hear things like “bottom up” growth and “fairness”. And it just may work.

During the primaries, Obama did an interview and was asked about his tax policy. The questioner pointed out that past tax increases have often led to a DECREASE in government revenue. Obama acknowledged this to be true, yet when pressed about his tax plan he responded by saying that it was a matter of “fairness”.

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” – Karl Marx

I have a deep problem with Obama’s perspective. In my mind, taxes are a necessary evil. I don’t believe in anarchy, so we must have a functioning government to provide things like courts, roads and national defense. This costs money and the citizens are responsible for providing that money. It’s simply the toll we pay for reaping the benefits of a free society. But Obama, and most democrats, take a much different approach. They see taxes as means of balancing society, establishing “fairness” whatever that means. They describe the rich as “fortunate” and the poor as “less fortunate” as though the only difference between the two is varying degrees of luck, and they use taxation to balance the good and bad luck as a matter of fairness. In other words, taxation is the government’s way of exerting control over its citizens, by punishing the upper class and giving to the middle and lower class, essentially redistributing wealth. But more than that, taxation is the democrat’s method of self-preservation, a means of achieving and maintaining power by nothing else than taking from the minority and giving to 95% of the citizens. You buy votes, implement programs that encourage government dependence, and in doing so you guarantee yourself power. The more citizens depend on the government, the less likely they are to vote you out, this is how communists keep power by ensuring the citizens need them in power. Cater to the middle and lower class, isolate the upper class because you don’t need their vote to gain power, and if that’s not enough then you literally promise the “less fortunate” money for putting you in power, thus the ability to vote themselves rewards from the treasury. It’s simple.

And, folks, if Obama DOES win this election and he is given a super-majority in Congress with a filibuster-proof Senate and just one or two Obama Supreme Court choices – easily appointing the most radical of liberals with his rubber-stamp Senate - then exactly how close will we be to a dictatorship? In theory, they could pass any law they wanted. Honestly, who will stop the Dems from doing it? This makes me very uncomfortable.

I believe Obama’s economy will be disastrous. The last time our economy was this bad was 1980, when Carter lost 10 million jobs, had a 21% interest rate and inflation was at a staggering 12%. Reagan stepped in and immediately dropped taxes to the floor. The top rate was cut from 70% to 28%. As a result, 20 million jobs were created, and government revenues doubled. This is historical fact, yet Obama claims that trickle down economics doesn’t work. Obama plans to do the exact opposite. His plan couldn’t be any further from Reagan’s and instead represents a hybrid of Carter and Hoover. Remember, it was Hoover’s policy that turned the recession of 1929 into the decade-long Great Depression by minimizing free trade and raising income taxes. Obama’s plan is dangerous, and McCain is committing campaign malpractice by not hammering home this issue enough. You NEVER raise taxes in the midst of a recession. NEVER!

He calls for a “new” new deal, which makes sense considering his basic beliefs. The New Deal was our first brush with socialism as the government basically began acting as a major employer, attempting to replace the private sector, which had been choked by excessive taxation. It was very costly and, more importantly, it didn’t work. The Depression continued until the industrial boom of world war two revitalized the economy.

Obama’s tax plan will no doubt increase unemployment, hitting small businesses especially hard. He says only 5% of small businesses will be affected, but this is not the whole story. The truth is 50% of small businesses who employ 20 or more people will see an increase in taxation. These are America’s major employers.

And I just don’t get the “bottom up” theory. How exactly does the economy grow bottom up? The economy grows through employment, and a $1000 check doesn’t get you employed. In fact, it will probably not even pay one month of credit card bills. If people are employed, they have money to spend. If they have money to spend, then investments increase, especially if capitol gains rates are low; retail sales increase; borrowing and major purchases increase; and all of this ultimately leads to more business growth and more employment. There’s a reason why immigration became such a major issue and it’s because our economy was so strong that we actually had to import workers to fill the need.

And business taxes are passed to consumers. Let’s be clear about this, businesses DON’T PAY TAXES, they simply pass the cost to the consumer. As a result, the cost of living goes up, investments decrease and the economy staggers. You can write checks to the middle and lower class, but those will quickly be consumed by the higher cost of living and does nothing to create jobs. This was tried just this summer when we all got rebate checks, and it amounted to nothing more than a speed bump in the economic decline. Bottom-up economics is unsound. It just doesn’t make sense. If you want to grow the economy it starts by growing business since they are the ones who employ people. Instead, it is the businesses and corporations – the “petite bourgeoise” - that are demonized by the Left in their class warfare tactics as they maintain efforts to appeal to the middle and lower class.

And one sector of the economy that continues to thrive is exports. The US is still the world’s largest exporter, accounting for $1.3 trillion annually or 20% of our GDP. This has come mainly through free trade, which has also resulted in a net GAIN of US jobs despite the dem’s claim to the contrary. Obama wants to limit free trade in the name of keeping jobs from going overseas. Again, this is nothing but pandering to key swing states hit hardest by some of the negatives of free trade, despite the fact that free trade is overall beneficial for the whole country. If trade is affected, it could potentially affect 16 million US jobs that would be threatened by trade restrictions. This is on top of what could be lost by the taxation on small businesses. And this doesn’t take into account the fact that free trade increases the buying power of middle and lower class citizens, who can buy cheaper goods and make their dollars last longer. Restrict free trade and you raise the cost of everyday goods, on top of the cost of living that goes up with higher corporate taxation. When Hoover restricted trade by imposing a 40% tariff on imports, it led to a loss of 6.5 million jobs in his 4 year term, half of these were lost in his final year, and the GDP dropped by 25%. Obama is talking about doing much of the same. Our economy simply can’t handle it and if he has his way the recession of 2008 could quickly become the next great depression. And if this happens it will compel the Dems to enact more government programs, make more people dependent on their power. Again, McCain has failed to make this point clearly enough.

Biden says Obama will be tested by an international crisis and that’s concerning enough, but still not nearly as concerning as what will happen to our economy. The signs of disaster couldn’t be any clearer. I wonder if the chaos on Wall Street is somehow related to his current position in the polls, and I fear that on Nov 5 if he’s declared the winner the market could plummet. His ideas are radical, hardly those of a moderate democrat, and he has a radical as House Speaker and as Senate leader. Not a good combination when we are in dire need of economic growth. Mark my words, if he wins we’re looking at some very dark days ahead.


Ray said...

Despite the layoff news, I see thousands of high paying jobs posted on employment sites - (networking for professionals) (aggregated listings) (jobs matched to your skills)

Those laid off will find new jobs...maybe better ones!

Auntyem said...

John--- You said, "Our democracy has been in existence for nearly 233 years and I don’t recall in history any other democracy lasting that long. How exactly did the Roman empire fall?"

I asked my husband what caused the end of the Roman Empire, and he said it was Christianity. The Greeks had the idea of democracy, but the Romans were a Republic. Christianity brought a hierarchy of warrior popes who did horrible things in the name of the new God, creating a Church/State, kind of like what the Muslims dream of and what some Evangelicals would like here.

Also, it was corruption and greed and trying to maintain a vast empire composed of diverse cultures. For a long time, all roads led to Rome, people dreamed of going to Rome, and doing as the Romans did. Sounds familiar. The Republic lost its focus, had problems with trade and insurrections and started to splinter off, then the Barbarians came to the door and finished them off.

Now we have a financial wizard called up before Congress to answer to charges---he said he made the mistake of thinking that the free market would always right itself, thus he took no action when he should have. Now we know we can't trust the free market. We can try to blame other things, but that is only scapegoating.

It is greed, opportunistic financiers that take stupid risks because no one is making them accountable for their actions that leads to a disasterous market. Why do they always accumulate so much wealth and try to live like kings with multi-million dollar houses, yachts, luxurious vacations, golden parachutes while most Americans only dream of a 3-bedroom, 2 bath house with a picket fence and a little job to support a nuclear family?

At least our government and taxes are there to support our financial institutions until the market rights itself again, but there better be better regulations in the future to avoid the greed and plunder we are seeing. We should learn some lessons from the Rome that was and avoid their mistakes.

Port Orchard, WA

Dan Trabue said...

Indeed, I have seen a trend in the Democrat party for several decades, basically one of alienating the wealthy and pandering to the middle and lower class.

It IS a trend, but it began MANY years ago...

"The collection of taxes... has been as yet only by duties on consumption. As these fall principally on the rich, it is a general desire to make them contribute the WHOLE money we want, if possible. And we have a hope that they will furnish enough for the expenses of government and the interest of our whole public debt, foreign and domestic."

~Thomas Jefferson to Comte de Moustier, 1790

"The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied. ... Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings."

~Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1811

"The great mass of the articles on which impost is paid is foreign luxuries, purchased by those only who are rich enough to afford themselves the use of them. Their patriotism would certainly prefer its continuance and application to the great purposes of the public education, roads, rivers, canals, and such other objects of public improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of federal powers."

~Thomas Jefferson: 6th Annual Message, 1806

[emphases, mine]

Dang, if Jefferson were alive today, he couldn't run for office without being swift-boated by the conservatives and run out of town as a commie. "Patriotic" to make the Rich provide ALL our tax income? Why, why, Marx couldn't have said it better!!

[a note: I'm not saying Jefferson was a socialist. I'm saying that reasonable patriotic Americans can and have throughout our history thought it reasonable to glean a good portion of our money from the wealthy - that they who benefit the most from our little experiment should contribute the most - and I'm further saying that the trend in conservative circles would silence that sort of talk. God bless Jefferson and other American patriots for desiring a progressive means of providing for the common wealth.]

Anonymous said...

Dr Washburn has written a fine summary, and is desperately waving a red warning flag!

One respondent offers three employment sites, the lady gives us a long-winded, off-topic view of the Roman Empire & the Ultra-rich, with their yachts and luxurious vacations, etc

While Dan thinks it best to Tax the Producers/Creators of Jobs with 'Excess Profits Taxation' when we are on the verge of a brutal World-wide Depression!

Typical inane distractions.

Dr John: I'd like to try a different approach. With your permission, I'd like to Post a verbatum copy of your fine article,
w/ author by-line, on Snake Hunters
weblog, and a request that comments
stay on point.

A Different Audience, hopefully more lucid comments. This Warning Message is so well done, I believe it rates national syndication. reb

Anonymous said...

To summarize your statements very simply, one should remember that the person who robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on Paul's vote.


Anonymous said...

"...if Obama DOES win this election and he is given a super-majority in Congress with a filibuster-proof Senate and just one or two Obama Supreme Court choices – easily appointing the most radical of liberals with his rubber-stamp Senate - then exactly how close will we be to a dictatorship? In theory, they could pass any law they wanted. Honestly, who will stop the Dems from doing it? This makes me very uncomfortable."

I share your concerns, which is why I voted for McCain as soon as I received my ballot.

Dan Trabue said...

While Dan thinks it best to Tax the Producers/Creators of Jobs with 'Excess Profits Taxation' when we are on the verge of a brutal World-wide Depression!

Actually, I was quoting Thomas Jefferson and saying that I agree with him (although I wouldn't go as far as he did and suggest that ALL our taxes be paid by the wealthy, I agree with the gist of what he's saying).

If you have a problem with that, take it up with the nation's founders.

Anonymous said...

reb, John, Sen. McCain, President Bush, et al.:

There is avery salient flaw in your argument and you repeat it at every opportunity and I know you believe it but that still does not make it true.

That flaw is that if the very wealthy are taxed at a higher rate than the bottom 95% of the tax paying populace it will result in the wheels falling off of the economy and flesh eating zombies rising from the grave.

Most of you can remember the 8 years between 1-1-1993 and 1-1-2001.
We can call this period the Pre- Bush-tax-cuts-that-favored-the very-wealthy-and-which-John McCain-repudiated-back-when-he-was-ostensibly-a-mavarick or just the Pre Bush Tax Cut Period.

Our economy enjoyed 8 years of prosperity; the deficit almost disappeared; surpluses were predicted.

Then came the Bush tax cuts and a lot of other things.

You know what? The lie is that all of the very wealthy are responsible for Joe the Tax Cheat, I mean Joe the Plumber having a job. (Another thing. Cann somebody explain why Sen. MCCain has lionized a guy who has failed to pay his taxes?)

You guys just don't get it that the very wealthy having their taxes pushed back to pre cut levels will still be very wealthy.

The new yacht may have to wait but I think we're all gonna have to tighten up our belts even if they are from Gucci.

Here's another thing I don't get. The majority of you people who decry taxing the very wealthy are not very wealthy and have no prospect of becoming very wealthy and if you did, taxes would not hold you back.

It's like the serfs arguing to protect the rights of the lord of the manor.

I am willing to listen to counter arguments but you had better cite some real evidence.

By the way, you know what the very wealthy do w/ their tax cuts? They buy tax freee bonds.



Dr John's summary is forgotten as we press on, each with our own little tidbits & favorite notions.

Shawn Hannity repeats Hard Facts about Obama's sleazy Chicago pals every night, and having heard it so many times, we yawn in feigned boredom.

But We Never seem to mind how many times Senator Barach Obama has repeated "Four More Years..."

or "Failed Bush Policy..." ad nauseum.

The Majority Just Love A Hypnotic Con-Job; they just "like" the guy, and they Cannot Seem To Get Enough Kool-Aid! Now that's Real Show-Biz, Kiddo! Where's the next Rally?
Ya Want Some Change, Dontcha?

The Polls are 50 to 42 - Who cares?
Here comes the Candy-man with Free Samples! It's 'Yes We Can', Yaaa!

So, We Ignore Dr John's Red Flags, and the awful negatives that loom ahead. His message falls on deaf ears...for that would break the mezmerizing magic-spell, Lolly!

Who's Rashid Khalidi ? Oh, just a guy in the neighborhood. Search it out? Naw.

The Mind Is A Sponge, equally accepting negative & positive; and

"Moderation in the Pursuit of Justice is No Virtue" (Whazzat?) "and Extremism in the Defense Of Liberty Is No Vice!"
(Did Loop Garoo say that?)

"so, we shall participate in our own terrible self-destruction". reb


Dr John, I was so impressed with your recent effort, I Posted It w/o your permission, but with your by-line.

If I've stepped over the line, eMail a frown, and I'll delete it.


John Washburn said...

Dan, Jefferson spoke well before socialism and Marx came along, with the failures of a system that taxes the job-creators. And when he says the "rich alone use imported articles" then he obviously never anticipated the benefits of free trade and how it improves the buying power of the middle and lower classes. But since you adore the progressive income tax, please explain to me how a progressive tax does not violate equal protection. Does it not discriminate by forcing one person to pay a higher percentage than another, simply based on how successful they've become. Justice peeks from behind her blindfold to say "first tell me how much money you make and then I'll tell you how the tax laws apply"

Reb, please post my words as often as you like, I want the message to get out.

Loop, you're right that the wealthy stay wealthy despite taxation. THAT's THE POINT I'm making, they don't pay taxes because they pass the added cost to John the Consumer and Loop the Consumer. Higher taxes on job-creators and corporations always affect the middle class the most.

Emilie, before you tssk too much about Obama's unfair treatment, perhaps you should review some of the things the Left said about Bush, Cheney, McCain and especially Palin. There's plenty of nastiness out there and it isn't a market driven only by conservatives. And there are many theories on the fall of Rome, the one I was referring to seems to have become accepted by many historians. It is based on apathy in the population leading to little desire to serve the empire and relying on mercenaries to defend the borders. That coupled with high taxation that drove many of the people out of the cities and into the countryside - giving rise to feudalism (the precursor of socialism) - eventually led to Rome being conquered. I'm not sure how Christianity can be blamed for all of this, but I'm sure your husband can make an argument.

Since my argument against socialism appears to be falling on deaf ears, I'll simply point to history. There has never been a socialist nation that has thrived. China's success has only come as they have migrated closer to capitalism. The US is the wealthiest nation on earth for a reason, even our people below the "poverty" line are wealthy by global standards. But something tells me the US may have to endure its own Neo-Bolshevik revolution to fully comprehend how dangerous these ideas are. Socialism and liberty are incompatible. You can believe history or you can choose to experience it yourself. I pick the former.

And anyone who says that Obama is not a socialist is just kidding themselves.

Anonymous said...

Greybeard says,

FROM A DOPED-UP BABY-BOOMER GENERATION to a Narrow Sophistry (false logic) Handed Out To Innocent Freshmen Kids By DUPED Left-wing Socialist Professors, we are now witness to Chaos On Campus.

Thomas Jefferson was born into an era where Slavery was 'acceptable' World-wide in most cultures, and his brilliance gave us "All Men Are Created Equal", shattering convention!

Slavery Existed (from early records) since 1800 B.C. in that vast area we know today as muslim-dominated Islam, and TOM JEFFERSON broke those chains!

"All Men Are Created Equal"

And now, We are All under Direct Assault from those same evil doctrines that Prosyletize Us, and Propagandize Us With Saudi Arabian
Oil Wealth! Offensive Jihad!

Our citizens do not read history.

- Greybeard -

(Submitted by S/H Editor) reb

Yankee Doodle said...

There're two maps on my blog that comparest the GDP of each individual states with those of other countries.

The U.S. is a rich country, we did it by creating wealth, not by spreading it around.

P.S. Obama wants the Supreme Court to redistribute the wealth.

Anonymous said...

Ironically, I find myself attacked in another blog for making th esame point that John makes regarding the failure of governments that characterized themselves as "Communist."

Nevertheless, I find the comments expressing fear of Obama's economic policies to border on hysteria and irrationality.

No matter what occurs next Tuesday, and certainly it is very possible the the Democrats will control both the White House and the Congress, I do not expect radical change. I do not expect radical change similar to FDR's policies nor do I even expect attempts at change similar to LBJ's.

That said, it is now time to discard the policies that engendered the current economic morass in which we find ourselves. I believe that there are at least two primary causes. One was the combination of derugulation or lack of regulation of credit markets. We have read all th earguments b/f but I stand on mine. W/o the deregulation in which the Gramm-Leach-Bliliey Act repealed the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, the subprime mortgage fiasco could not have occurred. The problem could not have become systemic. Maybe we have suffered a boil but not septicemia.

The other cause is ungoverned spending coupled w/ lack collection of revenue.

Nobody likes taxes. Sane people understand the necessity of taxes. My understanding is that earmarks, everyone's favorite target, actually constitute a small fraction of governmemnt spending.

During booming economic times, government revenue increases. At the end of the Clinton administration, the end of deficits were projected. I think this was an accounting trick and I believe that deficits are not necessarily bad. The deficit is only bad if it is too large w/ respect to GDP.

When George W. Bush was elected, he implemented one of the weight bearing planks of his campaign--tax cuts. In fact, these cuts overwhelmingly favored the very wealthy but that is who George W. Bush was looking out for and anyone who thinks differently is fooling themeselves.

Stuff happened. The economy went south when the dotcom bubble burst and then 9/11 happened and then we went to war and then we went to war again.

So we experienced a reduction in revenues; the vast expenditures of fighting two wars--these being off the books as it were; there was no reduction in spending; and there was no addressing of entitlement programs, which as John has expressed, are the major challenges to governmemtal economics.

History advises that tax increases during recessionary times are a recipe for diaster although Hoover's tax increases in 1932 are nothing like those proposed by Obama.

Here is what I know. Bush's tax cuts for the very wealthy have not trickled down to the benfit of the middle class. Individuals of all economic status benefit personally if they paid fewer taxes. Therefore, there is no reason to preserve this particular status quo.

Will failing to continue these cuts ruin the economy? I doubt it.

John and I agree that government stepping in to salvage the credit market was and remains necessary. Neither of us like on philosphical grounds. The fact that it renders our economy Socialistic is only important to theorists.

If we can address the credit crisis successfully, we will find our way out of this swamp.

I confess, however, that John McCain's ideas on how to accomplish this make very little sense to me: the government should buy bad loans. The problem is, where are the loans? They are not at the corner bank b/c your local banker would never have made these loans if he had to keep them on his own books. For all we know, they are owned by towns in Norway and the by the government of Iceland.

So be afraid of Obama if you wish. But there are always two sides to a story. reb continues to trumpet Barack Obama's acquaintance or consorting w/ unsavory types. For anyone who wishes to read a particularly unflattering article about John McCain, I direct to "Make Believe Maverick" published in "Rolling Stone Magazine."




The Loop Garoo Kid gets his political notions from Wikipedia & Rolling Stones, and Pontificates on
'When Evil Prospers'!

Digest this: Obama sez that his close criminal pal since 1995, William Charles Ayers, is "just a guy in the neighborhood", and PLO Gangster, and well-known close associate of Obama since 2000, Emir RASHID KHALIDI, is just a person among 900 that he has had a "few conversations with." That makes Barach H. Obama One Big Fat LIAR! A Chicago Super-Con Man, A Mind-Manipulator of the highest order; it reeks a foul odor...just like his Chief Endorser, Uncle GEORGE SOROS!


I'm all set to post a legal argument very soon by a lawyer that knows something about jurisprudence, challenging B.O.'s
U.S. Citizenship; so, buck-up some courage Garoo-sum, and file your usual Infallible Counter-points and Summation. Warning: you'll be facing a talented lawyer, on the Snake Hunters Post. Regards, reb

Anonymous said...


Did you read the article in "Rolling Stone?" Or is your comment just another one of your uninformed diatribes?

"I am the Snake Hunter and I do not let facts or eveidence affect my opinions. Of course I do not have opinions. They are values."

The legal argument that Barack Obama is non a citizen is just another far right fictional conspiracy theory. The Loch Ness monstser is more believable.


Auntyem said...

John, your post started out with: "I don’t recall in history any other democracy lasting that long. How exactly did the Roman empire fall?" and that is what I was responding to.

You say now that socialism doesn't work for long either where it has been tried. I know that. Lenin knew it too, as he told his American financier friend, shortly after Russia turned communist. Every ideology has its imperfections, but our superior American way of life has been unique, unmatchable, and one only a few crazies like the extreme left would jeopardize. Obama is not in that category.

I was confused by your comment in this post that I complain about Obama's unfair treatment and not about McCain's unfair treatment until I remembered that was in another post of yours. No, I don't like the mean-spirited things they say about McCain either that have nothing to do with the issues confronting us today. I don't care about his age (I am almost as old), only about his history of hot-headedness and his now kow-towing to the millionaires like himself. No, I don't think women with small children should be in the military or in politics either. We need to have a draft to get enough boots on the ground overseas to get the job done, and not re-deploy people over and over when they were promised that they wouldn't be.

What I and millions of others don't like is for Obama to be made out to be the Antichrist, an "other" of mixed race that the Bible supposedly said is wrong, that he is being supported by the Illuminati (international money men that want to create a new world order and a world leader of their making).

Now you tell me the fall of Rome occurred because of the apathy of the populace, the desire to only serve themselves, and the use of mercenaries to defend the borders. Well, what do you call those controversial private "security" forces provided by a company that Cheney had run? The American public has been apathetic about a lot of things.

Also, it was the land grants given by kings and popes to mercenaries that led to feudalism (I don't know about feudalism being a pre-cursor to socialism). I asked my husband (a descendant of the Dukes of Alba, Cervantes, others that had favors from the crowned heads of Europe there and in the New World) what led to socialism, and he said it was "the fall of eagles", eagles I guess being the monarchies that arose out of feudalism. The treatment of the populace under the monarchs led to revolution ushering in socialism. China was ruled by emporers for centuries until the desperate people cried out for a change, and the communists gave it to them, but that didn't last, we know. It seems systems are always evolving, but I don't think the change that is coming here that some people fear will lead to socialism as it was in Russia and China and as it is in Cuba. Dictators and kings we don't want, and we won't have socialism, maybe some social programs, but not total socialism.

Like you said, even the poorest among us live like kings compared to some in third world countries. I never worked hard enough or was ruthless enough to become a millionaire, but I have every thing I ever wanted and more. I just bought a brand new Malibu (I always buy American) with all the bells and whistles that the Caddy I turned in had, but hopefully it won't be such a gas-guzzler, though I can afford gas. I don't want people to have too much (conspicuous consumption has run amok), but I want people to at least have a little house and a car and education for their children.

I know the dangers of welfare (Cuba is the worst example---they are highly-educated now and they have roofs over their head and some food, but some ladies chased my sister down the street begging her for some bar soap from her hotel); they have no luxuries like toiletries, etc. My sister noticed the people also did not have ambition or real freedom. They dare not complain; no American would stand for such a life.

Obama cautions people about the responsibilities they have as citizens and parents; he said he will help with education, but the rest is up to them--they must turn off the TV, get up early and hit the books like he did. When a young black man confronted him and asked "What you gone do fo' black folk?", he said, "YOU can do what I did--hit the books!". He has no truck with lazy adults and irresponsible parents.

If things get worse for people here, we could have a social revolution as we have had before, but most Americans will adjust to it. Right now most are concerned with their ever-skinnier wallets.

I want to thank you for reading and responding so kindly to lenghthy posts. You are a gentleman to allow us to post without you personally denigrating us for it. We can agree to disagree with graciousness.

Port Orchard, WA

John Washburn said...

Emilie, I always welcome healthy debate and I appreciate opposing points of view.

The only thing I want to contend is your assertion that Obama is not radical Left. I'm afraid if you believe that then you may not be familiar enough with the man. He is very Left, posing as a moderate as usual.

Just read Saul Alinsky. He wrote Obama's political playbook, called "rules for Radicals", it basically details how a socialist should go about rising to power in a moderate/center-right nation like America. Obama is running Alinsky's strategy in detail. It's quite frightening.

ANd if Obama's policies aren't socialist, then I don't know how else to describe them.

Dan Trabue said...


Dan Trabue said...

Just curious: Have you ever actually read Alinsky's book, or are you relying upon what other people have said about it?

I fully understand that you disagree with Obama's planks (or at least the caricature of them) but I would think that the more conservative types would at least acknowledge that Obama has run an impeccable campaign - very nearly flawless, really - and would want to learn from Obama's successes and techniques, even if they didn't agree with the platform.

And Obama has been successful largely because of his community organizing experience, it seems to me. He has realized the value of grass roots, bottom up democracy. He has energized and organized voters typically not involved in the system. He has been able to get millions of small donors funding an unprecedented amount of money in an unprecedentedly democratic fashion - from EVERYONE, rather than from a relative few big donors, often with strings attached.

If the Republicans were smart (or the Dems - which typically, they're not smart, but I think they're learning from Obama's experience), they would learn from Obama's methods. They would actually read about community organizing and learn why it can be so effective and, well, refreshingly democratic.

If they were smart.


The Far-Left and Far-Right, Smart ?

They follow their leaders meekly, like sheep. They memorize 15 sec "Sound-bytes" like Change, and New Direction and "Yes We Can!" and 'Four More Years...'
blah, blah, blah.

We are poor little lambs who have lost our way, bleating

baa, baaa, baaaaa!


J.C. said...

Wow! LOTS of insane comments on this post. How is it possible that those, other than the self obsessed, can have issue with giving a fair portion of what we take away. If we as a society have actually "progressed" to living in that fashion it's definitely time that I move to a more civilized third world country.

See you on the seas, or not.