Who can explain Obama's persistently fallacious economics? The Keynesian basis for Obama's policies (the idea that giving the feds new credit cards with higher limits at every turn) was refuted long ago, by Say, Bastiat, Mises, Woods, Norberg and above all Hayek (see the business cycle theory in "Prices and Production"). These policies actually cause the recession, unemployment (and inflation) that they are then invoked to "solve," in a never-ending cycle of impoverishment (particularly for working class and African American people, whose primary assets, their houses and jobs, did not "recover," even as Obama's stimulus re-inflated upper middle class white people's stock values. Obama's racist policies cause the wealth gap.
But let's just take a micro-aspect of Obama's witch doctory: * Does anyone want to step in and explain Obama's persistently fallacious economics? If the federal government's credit rating is downgraded that will make it more expensive for it to borrow -- not anyone else. Potentially it could keep it from borrowing as much, and leave more credit for private and other borrowers, lowering their rates. * * * *Are all Obamanoids such irrationalist mystical collectivists, "thinking" in metaphors, flights of faith, and reified non-entities, that they think the federal government's credit rating is identical to "America's" credit rating?* * * On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Morpheal <[email protected]>wrote: > LARGER IMPLICATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES BUDGET CRISIS: > > It is amazing how backward United States politics can sometimes > become. When Congress has to pay debt & fund adequate programs & > services, it bogs down in revenue arguments. Actually its lawful duty > is to adequacy of provision, not simply provision, of whatever is > determined to be necessary to the “general welfare” of the United > States. Then it must find means to do so. That is the United States > law, though much of the ensuing political debate & media discussion > have failed to understand this crucial point. The founding fathers of > the Constitutional republic, educated as they were in what could be > known, and was considered relevant, at that time, wisely thought it > best to understand “general welfare” as being what is both necessary & > sufficient to assure the basic ideals of the Declaration of > Independence. The United States is understood clearly as “we the > people”, meaning all of the people, leaving no legal room to leave > anyone out in any discriminatory or prejudicial manner. That > pertaining to the enabling of the preservation of life, liberty, and > the pursuit of happiness of every person, by whatever means necessary > to that effect. If something were imperiling lives, reasonable > liberties, or the chance to pursuit of happiness of any Americans, > then it was necessary to find sufficient government remedy to that > cause, by means of government expenditures on what would preserve the > lofty ideals enshrined in the founding documents of the Republic. Much > of that seems far too forgotten, & both the spirit & intent of the > founding fathers of the republic in some ways removed, made distant, > forgotten, both in terms of the intellectual, moral, & socio-political > climate of their own time and its influences on their immense, & > painstaking task for the sake of America’s future. > > Clearly the main test of the republic of the United States of America > comes, for both Americans & external observers, friends & foes, in > terms of whether America is living up to those founding ideals, & to > what measure it is doing so. That is the ultimate test of quality as > to the products of American politics, which are its laws as enacted by > Congress with presidential assent & in conjunction with the executive > branch. Many in America and abroad are beginning to conclude that > America is failing to live up to its own ideals. That it is losing its > right, won on the basis of those ideals & their long term promise, to > further its methods, principles, ideas about ways & means, even as to > ways of life & political systems & actions. They are beginning to lean > towards telling America to “shut up” & return to cleaning up its own > house. Recently that house has become its House of Representatives, > who seem intent on violating the essential spirit and intent of the > Constitution. > > Cutting programs and services, as a means to “balancing the budget” > and “reducing the debt” is essentially backward thinking. It threatens > to impair the abilities of many of the member states, some more than > others, to cope with crisis, & particularly it imperils their > potential ability to improve their situations to a more viable future. > Thus it imperils the union as a whole. Eventually such cuts, hard > pressing on member states, some already cut to the bone in terms of > actual needs as opposed to what remains for them in terms of programs > & services, would further cracks in the union that could eventually > break it apart. Now that would amuse some of America’s most fervent > enemies, who hope for that very outcome, having experienced similar > situations & threats themselves. That America should be made > vulnerable, due to a failure of its own system, in its own back yard, > is exactly what some most desire, in their globalized competitive > spirit. > > Clearly it will be individual member states who will suffer the > greater burden from cuts at the Federal level. It also becomes their > duty to protect their own interests, in terms of dissent against > Federal, in this instance Congressional, making of policy and laws all > of which have effect on the states themselves. That dissent being > required by the Declaration and the Constitution as they were framed > by the founding fathers. In some regards, failing that dissent, the > system itself shows signs of breaking down and further deviating from > its original meaning and intent. > > We might wonder where the National Governors Association, & the > individual governors of the various states are right now, and what > they are doing in relation to the impending threat of cuts to far > below what their states really need for the “general welfare” of the > people living within them. Programs & services being far from ideal, > already, & falling far short of what Constitutional law actually > demands if interpreted in terms of the intent of the founding fathers. > In that intent was a socialism, meant to provide for all Americans > equally, to further their equality in terms of preservation of life, > liberty and pursuit of happiness, without recourse to Draconian > socialist methods, which have prevailed in some other nations, brought > about by those nations turning to Marxism as their inspiration. > America’s socialism has claimed that Marxism is flawed, in contrast to > its own system, based on its own Constitution, but the results of that > claim now remain to be proven & some in the world are predicting > America’s failure with Marxism, and Marxist influenced ideology > winning out in the larger theater of international, globalized > politics. > > A lot has been said recently about the jeopardy of the president in > this current situation. Mostly what has been said is wrong. The > Constitution demands Congress pay debt & fund programs for "general > welfare" of the people. The President cannot impeach or dismiss > Congress, even if they are proving deserving, but he can veto their > bills. They can try to overcome that with a two thirds majority vote, > but it is very unlikely that they can achieve that level of > unconstitutional irresponsibility. If they did, there are some other > things the president could do, including the use of executive orders, > risking impeachment, but the trial of the president for actually > upholding the Constitution and its truest meaning and intent would not > go well for the Congress or its relation to the member states and the > people of the United States who they are sworn to serve. Nevertheless, > the president would have to do something if the Congress continued to > act unconstitutionally and irresponsibly. We see divisiveness within > itself indicating it could never muster enough political will to do so > against the president’s lawful and appropriate veto. > > Now, saying that the Constitution would be violated by Congress if > they fail to pay the debt, and fail to support adequate programs to > meet the fundamental tests of both necessary and sufficient provision > for the "general welfare" of the people, needs to consider the added > fact that once Congress has approved both debt and adequate budget to > meet the needs of the people of United States, without unjust > prejudice or discrimination against any portion thereof, it must then > seek ways to pay for what it thus needs. Not the other way around. The > problem has long been backwards politics concentrating on the budget, > and failing to concentrate of needs. That will require cooperation > with the Executive branch, but in effect Congress needs to innovate. > > The President could take the lead, considering a failing Congress, in > the quest for new revenue streams to support the Constitution’s > obligations upon Congress. That should have been pursued by Congress > long ago, sufficient to avoid the current situation. Cuts not being > the constitutional answer. In fact the Constitution demands more > programs and services than the Congress has been willing to offer. > Revenue for that Constitutional obligation is also their > responsibility. It does not say how to fund, but it does demand > idealistic funding for high ideals. This is why the fiscal crisis is > so definitive of America's future, and is being watched so closely by > its enemies with such intense interest. Failure in that matter is a > globalized failure, and a failure by example, of example. It obviates > a number of ideals that America has long pushed in the world community > and could change the entire face of international politics, worldwide. > > Of course as I said before the trump card does not rest with Congress, > it now rests with the President Barack Obama, as his veto of any > budget bill that violates either principle of the Constitution. The > president only has a veto, and was never given the power to dissolve > indefinitely or impeach in any way the Congress for its wrong doing. > He was only given the veto because the founding fathers did not want > anyone to become as though a “king”. Some opponents of American > politics and policy are looking at the current crisis as what they > view as the inevitable failure of committees and complex multi party > negotiations as to supporting and effectively furthering high ideals. > They see the excess of compromise and an excess of conciliatory > negotiation, undermining more fundamental ideals as the death of the > American system and the end of its claims to universal validity. They > see a growing need, in contrast to what they see as the failures of > American politics, for stronger, less complex, but more powerful > means. They see America’s failure to uphold its own Constitution and > the Declaration upon which it is based as indicative of unremediable > system failure of the system as such. It can only convince otherwise > by finding means to achieving its ideals, which it clearly is falling > far short of, and shows signs of abandoning. > > Robert Ezergailis > Hamilton, Canada > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
