Posted on 05/30/2006 11:20:11 AM PDT by boryeulb
Oops - here's the link
http://www.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae1_1_1.pdf
Federal funding is actually continuing via Medicaid, wherein the Abortion lobby and providers have seized on the Hyde Act exceptions, wherein the loopholes of rape, incest, life endangerment etc. are merely asserted. They are not aggressively investigated or challenged by SSA, "not PC".
Hence, the Administration is taking credit for stopping the practice publically, but where the rubber meets the road...they have a laissez faire enforcement approach to placate the abortion lobby...which remains largely quiescent. Almost as if there is a "Deal" on the issue, i.e., don't make a big stink, and we'll just nod and wink...
I expected MUCH more too, although cutting ANY taxes is good for the economy, he's never vetoed the first smidgeon of pork.
I was wildly pro-Bush since 2000, after a very depressing 8 years. I have been studying our history and economics for several years now, and the more I find about what we apparently were not taught by our educrats about our Govt, the more I'm leaning to the conclusion that like his dad, he is establishment.
If I may recommend some links please?
How Progressives Rewrote the Constitution
http://www.cato.org/realaudio/cbf-02-15-06.ram
The Issue of Tariffs: How U.S. Revenue Collection Was Turned Inside-Out (video)
http://mises.org:88/Sophocleus
Size Matters: How Big Government Puts the Squeeze on America's Families, Finances, and Freedom (And Limits the Pursuit of Happiness)
http://www.cato.org/realaudio/cbf-02-02-06.ram
Big Business and the Rise of American Statism
http://praxeology.net/RC-BRS.htm
The Founding of The Federal Reserve (video)
http://mises.org:88/Rothbard-Fed
The Great Depression, World War II, and American Prosperity, Part I (video)
http://www.mises.org/multimedia/video/Woods/Woods5.wmv
Secrets of the Federal Reserve
http://www.barefootsworld.net/fs_m_ch_01.html
Jackson's 2nd Bank US VETO (very important - what he correctly and constitutionally opposed is just what we ended up with in 1913)
http://alpha.furman.edu/~benson/docs/ajveto.htm
"The Separation of Commercial and Investment Banking: The Morgans vs. the Rockefellers"
http://www.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae1_1_1.pdf
Very interesting, but a lot more complicated than naming the three branches of government!
Thanks, got it.
I thought we did not fund embryonic stem cell reasearch or abortion.
Not as up my list as economic interventionism and spending.
Yeah, everybody gets that impression. But that's what was intended, an impression, of dubious credibility unfortunately with respect to the federal funding of Abortion. And the federal funding of stem cell research is merely limited, not blocked.
Please do check out those links I posted, curious what you think about them.
Haven't had a chance to review them all, but this one is interesting... http://mises.org:88/Sophocleus
I think Human Events has the boss-employee relationship backwards here. ;)
I have reviewed Sophocles, and I have to disagree with his views on the Civil War. Particularly where he classifies Lincoln's call for troops after Ft. Sumter was attacked...as "Treason". He Seems to miss the extraordinary powers for the President with explicit provisions in the Constitution for dealing with "Rebellion".
I thought so too. One more puzzle piece. How few of us have ever read such things or been taught of such devastation by the meddlers? I never knew any of that stuff before, beyond remembering tarrifs had been some kind of issue or an other.
Do a little digging on mises.org re: Lincoln
Click the research tab, then chose videos, wav or text to suit yourself.
There's quite a bit on him, many different writers - I've barely scratched the surface there - almost any topic in history, and economics of which history is critical to it's understanding. At least that's as I'm finding it.
The true causes of the effects.
Hi Paul,
This is very good on Lincoln.
http://mises.org/multimedia/video/DiLorenzo/1.wmv
Sorry. I categorically reject the tax-basis as the predominant cause for the Civil War. This is a rather lame revisionist history. Have you read the Lincoln-Douglas debates? The motives for fighting the secession were laid out there. And the tariff was not close to being principal.
And DiLorenzo simpy disqualifies himself to comment on the issue of tariffs, when he exaggerates the lack of Southern industry. The Confederacy didn't make those IronClads which clobbered the US frigates...without a sizeable industrial base that had been fostered by the tariffs which had preceded Lincoln's. Redistributionary arguments are only partially valid. The money would have either been kept in the U.S. or gone to Britain...and lined their pockets. The marginal savings vis-a-vis buying from the North or Great Britain are just that. Marginal. Viewing everything through the lens of consumption, with no real focus on the value of autonomous U.S. production, is skewed.
The Constitution abd the Founders made it clear, this was the preferred way of financing the Federal Government.
DiLorenzo's castigation of tariffs as "theft"...implies fairly clearly that he doesn't believe government should be funded at all. He further discredits himself when he says Lincoln "never became Christian" and that he was "Bill Xlinton times ten" as far as "Lying, and conniving". As far as being beholden to "protectionist interests" it reverses things. He believed in protectionism vis-a-vis building the U.S. There was nothing particularly sectional about the tariffs. Industry can be in the North or South. The difference initially was in labor supply. The South relied on low-skill slave labor, and had difficulty adapting its "peculiar institution" to the skilled trades...although they successfully did to some degree...but they begrudged it...because those skilled slaves were far more likely to ultimately earn their way out of slavery. Hence the Southern disinclination to encourage industrialism in their own region. It was more of a class war between the "Old" South and the New Industrialism. Not necessarily sectional at all, albeit the Old regime clearly attempted to cast it in such terms...the old sand in the eyes trick.
I have to humbly disagree. I have confidence in di Lorenzo's scholarship.
I've seen Doris Kearns Goodwin and her take, I just don't buy the 100 years of Govt hype anymore.
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.