Posted on 10/12/2021 2:03:23 PM PDT by UMCRevMom@aol.com
PSAKI: "The President wants to make fundamental change in our economy and he feels coming out of the Pandemic is exactly the time to do that."
THEY JUST SAID THE QUIET PART OUT LOUD.
Excellent analysis/catch. 🥇
the entire covid scam was launched to overthrow Trump and the legitimate election, establish the dictatorship over America, and enrich the right people.
To think otherwise is to ignore reality.
“From a political angle, sure it makes sense. Never let a good crisis go to waste. “
And from that psychopathic value system, it is a very short step to “create the crisis” you wish to exploit.
True indeed.
Actually the demand for war supplies by other countries did provide plenty of stimulus to the USA economy in 1939-1941.
“The president”.. who is that?
Yes, that is why I didn’t say 1941. Lend-lease and other type deals did help but Europe was already deep into WW2. We didn’t really boom until after the war - 15 years after the great recession. And in that case, I concede, it was in large part by government intervention... military investment and the cold war, the highway construction, and then expansion of US made consumer and industrial goods etc.
Perhaps the President can appear before the American people and tell us what he has in mind for us, instead of hiding from sight and letting others do his talking for him.
Perhaps he can treat us like citizens of a Free Republic instead of serfs who serve his lordship and explain what we bought into when we “elected” him, which we didn’t. Tell us now that he’s in power what he didn’t tell us when he was running for the office he stole.
If it were ONLY the economy that would be bad enough...but it’s FAR MORE, as you “it can’t get any worse” types, who prefer Democrats over RINOs, will have to learn the hard way, I guess.
umm
legislature does that kind of stuff
not one man
I’m so glad others heard what I thought I heard. Major *ping*
HOW I LEARNED TO LOVE THE NEW WORLD ORDER
by Biden, Joseph R Jr.
Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Apr 23, 1992. pg.
A13
Imagine my surprise when a Wall Street Journal editorial appointed me dean of the Pat Buchanan school of neo-isolationism. My credentials? Believing that the Pentagon's new strategy — America as “Globocop” — could render the United States a hollow superpower. All agree we need the military capacity to defend our vital interests — by ourselves when need be. The question is grand strategy. With the Journal's endorsement, the Pentagon has called for a Pax Americana: The U.S. should cast so large a military shadow that no rival dare emerge.
American hegemony might be a pleasant idea, but is it economically, politically or even militarily wise? Bristling with weapons, we would continue our economic decline, while rising industrial and financial giants in Europe and Asia viewed our military pretensions with indifference or contempt.
Defense Secretary Dick Cheney outdid even the Journal, dipping deep into the well of Cold War argumentation to accuse Pax Americana critics of thinking “America's world presence is somehow immoral and dangerous.” Why doesn't the Journal stop the namecalling, get its schools sorted out, and court an honest debate over America's proper role in the new world order?
Pat Buchanan's “America First” preaches martyrdom: We've been suckered into fighting “other” people's battles and defending “other” people's interests. With our dismal economy, this siren song holds some appeal.
But most Americans, myself included, reject 1930s-style isolationism. They expect to see the strong hand of American leadership in world affairs, and they know that economic retreat would yield nothing other than a lower standard of living. They understand further that many security threats — the spread of high-tech weapons, environmental degradation, overpopulation, narcotics trafficking, migration — require global solutions.
What about America as globocop? First, our 21st-century strategy has to be a shade more clever than Mao's axiom that power comes from the barrel of a gun. Power also emanates from a solid bank balance, the ability to dominate and penetrate markets, and the economic leverage to wield diplomatic clout.
Second, the plan is passive where it needs to be aggressive. The Journal endorses a global security system in which we destroy rogue-state threats as they arise. Fine, but let's prevent such problems early rather than curing them late. Having contained Soviet communism until it dissolved, we need a new strategy of “containment” — based, like NATO, on collective action, but directed against weapons proliferation.
The reality is that we can slow proliferation to a snail's pace if we stop irresponsible technology transfers. Fortunately, nearly all suppliers are finally showing restraint. The maverick is China, which persists in hawking sensitive weapons and technology to the likes of Syria, Iran, Libya, Algeria and Pakistan — even while pledging otherwise.
The Senate has tried to force China's leaders to choose between Third World arms sales (1991 profits of $500 million) and open trade with the U.S. (a $12.5 billion annual Chinese surplus). Even though we have convincing intelligence that China's leaders fear the use of this leverage, the president inexplicably refuses to challenge Beijing.
Weapons containment can't be foolproof; and against a nuclear-armed North Korea, I would support pre-emptive military action if necessary. But let's do our best — using supplier restraint and sanctions against outlaw sellers and buyers-to avoid having to round up the posse.
Why not an anti-proliferation “czar” in the cabinet to give this objective the prominence it urgently needs?
Third, Pax Americana is a direct slap at two of our closest allies — Japan and Germany — and a repudiation of one of our panel1. Rather than denigrating collective security, we should regularize the kind of multilateral response we assembled for the Gulf War. Why not breathe life into the U.N. Charter? great postwar triumphs.
For years, American leaders argued that building democracy in Europe and Asia would guarantee stability because democracies don't start wars. Now the Pentagon says we must keep our military large enough to persuade Japan and Germany “not to aspire to a greater role even to protect their legitimate interests.”
How has our success suddenly become a threat? It hasn't, but the Pentagon plan could become a self-fulfilling prophecy. By insulting Tokyo and Berlin, and arrogating to ourselves military stewardship of the world, we may spark the revival no one wants.
Secretary Cheney says he wants the allies to share the burden on defense matters. But Pax Americana puts us on the wrong end of a paradox: Hegemony means that even our allies can force ever greater U.S. defense spending the more they try to share the burden!
Fourth, collective security doesn't rule out unilateral action. The Journal says I'm among those who want “Americans . . . to trust their security to a global committee.” But no one advocates that we repeal the “inherent” right of self-defense enshrined in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.
Secretary Cheney says his plan wouldn't undermine support for the U.N. Who would know better than the U.N.’s usually understated secretary general? If implemented, says Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the Pentagon's strategy would spell “the end of the U.N.”
Rather than denigrating collective security, we should regularize the kind of multilateral response we assembled for the Gulf War. Why not breathe life into the U.N. Charter? It envisages a permanent commitment of forces, for use by the Security Council. That means a presumption of collective action — but with a U.S. veto.
Rather than defending military extravagance, the Bush administration should be reallocating Pentagon funds to meet more urgent security needs: sustaining democracy in the former Soviet empire; supporting U.N. peacekeepers in Yugoslavia, Cambodia and El Salvador; and rebuilding a weakened and debt-burdened America.
If Pentagon strategists and their kneejerk supporters could broaden their horizons, they would see how our superpower status is best assured. We must get lean militarily, revitalize American economic strength, and exercise a diplomatic leadership that puts new muscle into institutions of collective security.
source: https://silview.media/2021/09/25/biden-how-i-learned-to-love-the-new-world-order-a-great-reset-precursor-from-1992/
biden the moderate? that biden?
fundamental changes include more opportunities for the biden family to enrich themselves
Yup—the transformation is gonna be the very wealthy get a lot richer and everybody else gets to be a third world slave.
No, we did not. For 8 years we recovered and returned to something like normal compared to where we were before 2008. The stock markets tell the whole story. Remember the “green shoots” of 2011 that were nothing and the sputtering of 2013?
While the UK was well out of it and on a solid war footing, to the extent such a little island could be, by the early 30s. They, like others, did it by cutting spending. We did the opposite driven by the socialist Roosevelt.
yep, biden is the fall guy and he is too addled to realize it.
the fact that his patience is wearing thin is a bit of a hint
We all know Boden isn’t running things. Someone else is. Who that is, we have no idea.
PERUSE LATER!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.