SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: stockman_scott who wrote (80310)5/21/2010 11:18:06 AM
From: longnshort  Respond to of 89467
 
Jacob Hornberger
Campaign For Liberty
Thursday, May 20th, 2010

A recent op-ed entitled “We’re Not Greece” by Paul Krugman in the New York Times encapsulates everything that is wrong with liberals when it comes to economics.

The good liberal that he is, Krugman suggests that the welfare state is about “taking care of those in need.”

What he misses, however, is the issue of means, which, not surprisingly, he totally fails to address in his op-ed.

Suppose I accost you with a loaded gun and force you to take me to an ATM. I tell you to withdraw $5,000 or I’ll shoot you. You withdraw the money and give it to me. I go and give all the money to people in need. I don’t keep one dime for myself.

Haven’t I taken care of people in need? Isn’t what I did moral? Isn’t it consistent with God’s will? Aren’t I a good person?

No. I’m nothing more than a common thief. The fact that I’ve used the money to help the needy is irrelevant. The end doesn’t justify the means. I should be prosecuted and convicted.

Presumably Krugman would agree. But his moral blind spot — indeed, the moral blind spot that afflicts all liberals — is his inability to see that the same principle applies to the coercive apparatus of the welfare state. Who are the compassionate, caring people in a welfare state? All the citizens of the nation? Only the taxpayers? How about the IRS officials, especially those who harass and persecute people into paying their taxes? What about the welfare bureaucrats who distribute the dole to people? What about the congressmen, who claim credit for the federal money they bring back to their district? What about tax protestors, who don’t pay any income taxes? How about illegal immigrants who have taxes withheld from their pay?

The real answer is: None of the above. Why? Because the entire welfare-state system is founded on force, which is antithetical to moral values, compassion, and free will. The only help for the needy that matters is that which comes from the willing heart of an individual, not at the point of some bureaucrat’s gun.

Krugman laments the fact that the Greek government doesn’t have control over its own money supply, like the United States does through the Federal Reserve. If it did have that control, Krugman says, it could begin stimulating the economy with inflation — that is, by printing the money to pay off that ever-increasing mountain of debt.

What he misses, however, is not only the moral implications involved with inflationary liquidation of debt but also the fact that inflation never accomplishes anything constructive in the long term. Let’s not forget, after all, that the principal reason the Framers established a gold standard was to prevent the federal government from inflating the money supply. By manipulating money and prices, inflation produces distortions and perversions by sending bad signals to the private sector. Ultimately, those distortions and perversions become manifest, which causes things to go into a tailspin. Thus, while inflation can delay the day of reckoning, that’s all it can do.

The day of reckoning has obviously come for Greece and other European welfare states. For decades, such regimes been spending money on the dole that they didn’t have. To keep the dole payments going to Greek citizens, officials went out and borrowed money to their heart’s content and then lied about it to the other Euro countries. Ultimately, people figured out what was going on, and the jig was up.

Not surprisingly, despite facing national bankruptcy the Greek people refuse to let go of their dole system. That’s what the dole does to people — it creates a sense of hopeless dependency and also a sense of entitlement. Young Greeks are also protesting, because they feel their future life on the dole is now threatened.

Rather than dismantling their dole system, which is what they should do, the Greeks have induced foreign taxpayers to underwrite their dole, including German and American taxpayers. That’s what the U.S. Federal Reserve has committed Americans to do, without even the semblance of congressional approval.

But despite a massive Greek bailout, speculators aren’t buying it. They’re continuing to send the value of the Euro into the tank. They’re not buying it because they know that the Greeks have no intention of doing what is necessary to save themselves — dismantle their dole system. At most, they’ll reform it by reducing welfare spending a bit … and by raising taxes — the very things that Krugman recommends that U.S. officials do to address the worsening welfare-warfare spending and debt problems facing our country.

Krugman and the Greek statists recommend raising taxes as part of a welfare-state reform plan. But the problem is that the more they raise taxes, the more they send marginal firms — that is, firms that are barely making it — into closing down operations, which in turn increases unemployment, which then sends more people into the dole system.

Moreover, as people learn about the benefits of going on the dole, more and more of them look for ways to do it themselves. Why work when the government will pay you for not working? The number of people on the dole — and the amount of the dole — skyrockets while the number of people producing wealth — and the amount of such wealth — diminish.

Krugman acknowledges that Americans do have a “serious long-run budget problem,” but he says that America’s “fiscal outlook over the next few years isn’t bad” and certainly not as bad as Greece’s. He’s hoping that inflation will nurse the economy back to health so that there will be more private-sector producers paying the taxes to fund the parasitic welfare-warfare-state sector.

Meanwhile, the U.S. government continues to spend and borrow as if there were no tomorrow, both on its welfare state (including the recent bailout of Greece) and its warfare state (e.g., Iraq and Afghanistan). For decades, Krugman and others of his liberal ilk, together with conservatives, have taken our nation down the road to Greece and the Roman Empire, with their out of control federal spending, taxes, inflation, moral debauchery, socialism, interventionism, and imperialism. Today, the welfare-warfare-state chickens are coming home to roost.

There is only one solution to what they have wrought — a total dismantling of all their statism, both foreign and domestic. Tinkering will only delay the inevitable. It’s time for economic liberty, free markets, and a constitutional republic for our land



To: stockman_scott who wrote (80310)5/21/2010 1:15:32 PM
From: Broken_Clock1 Recommendation  Respond to of 89467
 
Laying Bare the Myth of ‘The Left’
truthdig.com
Posted on May 20, 2010

By David Sirota

I’m always amused by popular references to the allegedly all-powerful American “Left.” The term suggests that progressives today possess the same kind of robust, ideologically driven political apparatus as the Right—a machine putting principles before party affiliation.

This notion is hilarious because it is so absurd.

Yes, there are certainly well-funded groups in Washington that call themselves “progressive,” that get media billing as “The Left,” and that purport to advocate liberal causes regardless of party. But unlike the Right’s network, which has sometimes ideologically opposed Republicans on court nominations and legislation, many “progressive” institutions are not principled at all—sadly, lots of them are just propagandists for Democrats, regardless of what Democrats do.

Everyone in professional “Left” politics knows this reality “deep down in places they don’t talk about at parties,” as Jack Nicholson might say—and they don’t discuss it for fear of both jeopardizing their employers’ nonprofit tax status and/or undermining their employers’ dishonest fundraising appeals to liberal donors’ ideals.

During the Bush years, this truth was easily obscured, as bashing the Republican president for trampling progressive initiatives was equivalent to aiding Democrats. But in the Obama era, “The Left’s” destructive, party-over-principles motivation has become impossible to hide, especially recently.

Advertisement

Behold, for instance, major environmental groups’ attitude toward the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
We know that before the disaster, President Barack Obama recklessly pushed to expand offshore drilling. We also know that his Interior Department gave British Petroleum’s rig a “categorical exclusion” from environmental scrutiny and, according to The New York Times, “gave permission to BP and dozens of other oil companies to drill in the Gulf without first getting required [environmental] permits.” Worse, we know that after the spill, the same Interior Department kept issuing “categorical exclusions” for new gulf oil operations, and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar still refuses “to rule out continued use of categorical exclusions,” as The Denver Post reported (heckuva job, Kenny!).

Undoubtedly, had this been the behavior of a Republican administration, “The Left’s” big environmental organizations would be scheduling D.C. protests and calling for firings, if not criminal charges. Yet, somehow, there are no protests. Somehow, there have been almost no calls for the resignation of Salazar, who oversaw this disaster and who, before that, took $323,000 in campaign contributions from energy interests and backed more offshore drilling as a U.S. senator. Somehow, facing environmental apocalypse, there has been mostly silence from “The Left.”

That silence is similarly deafening when it comes to Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan.

We know Kagan was among the Clinton administration advisers urging the president to support a serious abortion restriction and to avoid reducing racist disparities in criminal sentencing. We know that as Harvard Law School dean, Kagan “hired 29 tenured or tenure-track faculty members [and] did not hire a single black, Latino, or American Indian—not one, not even a token,” reports Duke University’s Guy-Uriel Charles. And we know that in her solicitor general confirmation hearings, Kagan stated her radical belief that the government can hold terrorism suspects without trial.

Again, if this were a Republican nominee’s record, “The Left’s” pro-choice and civil rights groups would be frantically mounting opposition—or at least raising concerns. But this is a Democratic nominee, so they’ve fallen in line. Planned Parenthood celebrated Kagan’s “dedication,” the NAACP trumpeted her “commitment to diversity” and the liberal Alliance for Justice said it “applauds” her nomination.

Surveying the hypocrisy, CNN’s Roland Martin wrote that “The Left’s” organizations “need to decide what matters: their principles or their politics ... their convictions or chicken dinners in the White House.”

He’s too late: They’ve already made their decision, which is why—regrettably—a powerful Left does not exist in America.

David Sirota is the author of the best-selling books “Hostile Takeover” and “The Uprising.” He hosts the morning show on AM760 in Colorado and blogs at OpenLeft.com. E-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com or follow him on Twitter @davidsirota.



To: stockman_scott who wrote (80310)5/21/2010 2:07:44 PM
From: Sea Otter  Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 89467
 
I'd bet against Adobe personally. Among other things, HTML5 is going to take the wind out of Flash's presence.