Posted on 08/05/2011 11:39:58 AM PDT by betty boop
The Debt Crisis: Why There Is a Stalemate
By Jean F. Drew
Ask just about any person on the street nowadays what the U.S. “debt crisis” is all about, and he’ll probably tell you it’s about “raising the debt limit.” He has had it drilled into his head — by the Obama Administration, the Democrat Party, the labor unions, and their various enablers in the “official” media — that the international credit reporting agencies threaten to downgrade sovereign U.S. debt from Triple A to a lesser — and costlier — grade because Congress has failed to increase the debt ceiling — the current limit on the U.S. credit card — which will finally top out at $14.6 trillion dollars on or around August 2.
Thus we see yet again how misinformation — deliberately and skillfully communicated with full knowledge that it is misinformation by our public officials and their cohorts — is absorbed into the public consciousness and accepted as “truth.” In reality, this claim is put out there as a diversion from the real issue.
Which is: Arguably, what Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s are looking at is not so much whether Congress will approve an increase in the federal credit card limit; it’s whether the United States has the means to pay off the debts it has already amassed — i.e., that $14.6 trillion. Without printing even more phony money to do it.
If Congress does not raise the debt limit, the government still has sufficient revenues coming in for debt service. What it doesn’t have is more play money to fool around with. It would be forced to prioritize its expenditures. It would be interesting to see how President Obama and his Democrat colleagues actually do this, in an election year.
Which is the very thing they are trying to prevent, by threatening to veto any short-term stop-gap measure — simply because they want to kick the can down the road to after the 2012 election. They want a measure out of Congress to ensure a longer-term, if still temporary solution….
The Republicans in Congress so far have refused to budge on tax increases — which the President demands in order to sign off on a debt increase package. And yet the President plans to blame the Republicans for their intransigence if our credit rating is downgraded, for whatever reason. If his media flaks have their way, maybe he could get away with this.
But all of this is just so much political circus. This fight over the U.S. credit card actually masks, or disguises, what the real fight is fundamentally all about; which boils down to two irreconcilable visions of the size and scope of the federal government; which necessarily have following fiscal implications. In short, the “victor” in this debate will likely control the American future for some time to come.
On the one hand, there is the “progressive” vision of a system of government that is essentially unlimited. It cannot be limited, because it must always respond to the plight of the less fortunate in our society. This seems to be the heart of the Democrat vision of a thriving polity: What you cannot do for yourself, the government must do for you. But of course, the problem there is the government has no money of its own. All it has is what it can commandeer from the productive citizens of our society.
As John C. Calhoun might say, the Democrat party in general is the party of tax consumers. Thus in economic matters, the focus is always on the demand side of the economy.
“Demand” can always be pumped up my simply printing more money — or so the thinking goes. Unfortunately, if the government prints more money, this cheapens the existing stock of money in public hands, making it worth less. Thus the taxpayer class on which the government must rely for tax receipts is even further despoiled, making them increasingly less capable of generating the requisite federal revenues.
On the other hand, Calhoun would perhaps characterize the Republican party in general as the party of tax payers, the people who pay the freight any time the government makes a new promise to its citizens. Thus there is in general at least some sensitivity for the “supply side” economic argument in GOP circles.
Calhoun laid out his thoughts on how this “unequal fiscal action of the government” — after all, half the people in this country do not pay any federal income tax at all — divides the American people into “two great classes.” He did so in a not-well-enough-known classical American political work, A Disquisition on Government (1854).
When Calhoun was writing, there was no federal income tax. The revenues to the government then came largely in the form of protective tariffs on goods Americans freely bought, or not as the case may be. And yet the dynamics of the situation he described continue, and are exacerbated, by the existence of the federal income tax, first implemented in 1913.
What is different about an income tax is it represents a levy, not on an economic transaction as a tariff (or sales tax) does, but on the productive, creative activity of the very people who generate the wealth of a society, the very people on which the federal government relies for the payments of its promises. (It has been said that the best way to get less of a thing is to tax it.) This inevitably leads to unequal fiscal action by the government, as it “starves” tax-paying Peter — the productive, wealth-generating members of society — to “pay” tax-consuming Paul, who is probably a member of a “disadvantaged” class whose interests the government wants to protect, or is otherwise a favored constituent of the government in power. Of course, Paul pays nothing for his “privileged” status.
The bottom line for Calhoun was that taxation inevitably would be skewed by government into a system of “unequal fiscal action” because this is the way government can further aggrandize its position relative to the people, so to increase its power over them — over both taxpayers and tax-consumers alike.
As Calhoun explains,
“The necessary result, then, of the unequal fiscal action of the government is, to divide the community into two great classes; one consisting of those who, in reality, pay the taxes, and, of course, bear exclusively the burthen of supporting the government; and the other, of those who are the recipients of their proceeds, through disbursements, and who are, in fact, supported by the government; or, in fewer words, to divide it into tax-payers and tax consumers.
“But the effect of this is to place them in antagonistic relations, in reference to the fiscal action of the government, and the entire course of policy therewith connected. For, the greater the taxes and disbursements, the greater the gain of the one and the loss of the other, — and vice versa; and consequently, the more the policy of the government is calculated to increase taxes and disbursements, the more it will be favored by the one and opposed by the other.
“The effect, then, of every increase is, to enrich and strengthen the one, and impoverish and weaken the other. This, indeed, may be carried to such an extent, that one class or portion of the community may be elevated to wealth and power, and the other depressed to abject poverty and dependence, simply by the fiscal action of the government; and this, too, through disbursements only, — even under a system of equal taxes imposed for revenue only. If such may be the effect of taxes and disbursements, when confined to their legitimate objects, — that of raising revenue for the public service, — some conception may be formed, how one portion of the community may be crushed, and another elevated on its ruins, by systematically perverting the power of taxation and disbursements, for the purpose of aggrandizing and building up one portion of the community at the expense of the other. That it will be so used, unless prevented, is, from the constitution of man, just as certain as that it can be so used; and that, if not prevented, it must give rise to two parties, and to violent conflicts and struggles between them, to obtain the control of the government, is, for the same reason, no less certain.”
Placing citizens into antagonistic relations is aided and abetted by the ideological language of class warfare — which is frankly what we are getting out of the Obama Administration these days.
What cannot be grasped, however, is: How can an expansionary government continue to expand, if it despoils and ruins the very people who pay its bills? If you kill the goose who lays the golden eggs — who will then lay the golden eggs?
All socialist, totalitarian, top-down “progressive” attempts at government organization so far have crashed and burned because they have all turned a blind eye to just this problem. What most have had in common was contempt for the very people whose creativity and productivity lead to the wealth creation that any government must tap, in the form of revenues, in order to stay in business.
Even if there were to be an outright total seizure of all the wealth in public hands, it wouldn’t be enough to pay off the $14.6 trillion and still leave the nation standing. That $14.6 trillion amounts to the entire GDP of the United States. If you destroy the engines of wealth-generation, if you despoil the essential human capital of the nation, then where does tomorrow’s prosperity come from?
Obama could seize the wealth of the nation; but it wouldn’t help him much in the long-run. As Hitler found out. He seized the wealth of every Jew he could find, but killed the Jew. The wealth was soon enough dissipated. The point is, with the Jew dead, there was no way of generating new wealth….
Now there is a total stalement in Congress, because the two sides live in two different moral and ideological universes. The president is a no-show, because he doesn’t want to say or do anything that might complicate his reelection in 2012. In any case, anything the government can achieve now probably comes as “too little, too late.” The fat’s already in the fire….
In conclusion, the present writer strongly doubted there would be a debt ceiling extension, and still strongly believes that a downgrading of the credit-worthiness of our sovereign debt will occur before too long. The current Congressional stalemate virtually ensures that such will come to pass.
And then the American people will have to live with the miserable fall-out of Congress’ — and the President’s — dereliction of duty.
The good news is — 2012 is a presidential election year….
©2011 Jean F. Drew
The Conservative Underground, Vol. 4, Issue 16, August 2, 2011
There is no stalemate. Obama got everything he wanted, the ability to spend trillions of more dollars we don't have on his special interest constituencies. The people got nothing except more debt and the shaft.
Economists have been talking about the possibility of the federal government "crowding out" the private sector since the 1980s at least. That was back in the hey-day of supply side economics — which is really the only alternative to Keynesian orthodoxy. All of Obama's "stimulus" was pure Keynesianism, it totally failed, and now the President is out of ammo. Will he try to "double down" anyway?
Bottom line, too many Americans seem to believe that (1) all solutions to social problems must emanate from the federal government; and (2) there is a limitless stock of wealth for the federal government to commandeer in order to pay for these "solutions."
And it is just those "too many Americans" who compose the tax-consumer class.... Life for them is limitless freebies paid for by someone else.
No jobs will be created in America until and unless the federal government gets its boot off the neck of the private sector, the taxpayer class. This can only be effected by profound tax reform, massive deregulation, and (IMHO) the elimination of entire federal departments (can we please start with the Department of Education?); and major entitlement reform.
I don't see any other way to revive the economy, the engine of creativity, economic growth, and rising personal prosperity.
And yet perhaps these are the very things that President Obama most resents.
It's time for a new President — and a new Congress. This gang is either totally incompetent, or deliberately trying to destroy America as we know it.
My two-cents' worth, FWIW.
Thank you so much for writing, mlocher!
From your lips to God's ear, americanophile! So very, very true.... But that's what elections are for.
Yes; but in his arrogance, he may be seriously underestimating the American people. I certainly hope so; it would tend to make him overconfident.... Overconfident people make self-hurtful, disastrous mistakes....
I remember reading, back when Obama was first elected, that there was speculation in the Japanese press that he wouldn't survive his first term. Two-and-a-half years later, he's still standing — but his declining favorability ratings in the polls must be disturbing to him and his people. Hence the purple prose, the heated rhetoric emanating from the White House and Congress these days.... It's all rhetorical class war games and fulminations against the President's nefarious "enemies."
There is nothing of substance going on here.... Just ever more smoke and mirrors....
You wrote: “Bottom line, too many Americans seem to believe that (1) all solutions to social problems must emanate from the federal government; and (2) there is a limitless stock of wealth for the federal government to commandeer in order to pay for these “solutions.””
Exactly. bttt
Rush talked about that very thing again today:
There Aren’t Enough “Rich” to Tax
August 05, 2011
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_080511/content/01125108.member.html
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Since we’re into statistics today and the unemployment statistics are just fascinating in the way that we’re being spun. It’s as bad as the way we were spun on this debt deal, and the more you look at this debt deal, what a disaster that is.
I’m gonna explain why as the program unfolds. This is from the UK Daily Mail. You’re not gonna see this in the American media. Speaking of the American media, remember all of those years, the Bush years, the media apparatchiks on TV were trying to talk down the economy and trying to talk down the market. They did everything they could to talk down the economy. Why, it was almost as though they wanted Bush to fail. Shazam, it was almost as though they wanted Bush to fail. You remember.
For four years running at 4.7% unemployment, at 5% unemployment, at 5.6% unemployment, they were proclaiming we were either on the verge of a recession or were in one. They were out trying to find the worst sob stories. Now they’re doing everything they can to talk it up. Do they really think we’re such fools that we don’t see this? When unemployment started spiraling upward, what did we get from ‘em? We got stories on how wonderful that is. Families are finding one another again, friends have social time, the stress and strain of working is no longer a part of anybody’s day. It really is a new perspective on life. All the wonderful aspects of not having a job, all the great things you could do if you didn’t have any work you had to do. Funemployment, they called it. And now they’re doing everything they can, they’re just incapable of telling us the truth, totally incapable.
The question here is who will tank first? Right now it looks like we’re in a race to see whether the country or Obama will tank first. It looks like it’s running neck and neck here. And the trick here is to make Obama tank first. Now, this UK Daily Mail story that you will not see in the US media. “Soak the rich, eh? They do not have the money. A report from the Internal Revenue Service found that the rich —” and the rich are defined this way: 8,274 people with incomes of $10 million per year or more. What do you think those 8,274 people earned combined in 2009? Snerdley, take a wild guess. All of you out there, take a wild guess in your mind. I’m not asking you to call and I’m gonna tell you what the number is here in just a second. But just think about this, 8,274 people with incomes of $10 million per year or more.
Now, you got Buffett in there and Gates at their $40 to 50 billion, but that’s their net worth. What do they earn? It’s a different number. But you take all of those people, just give me a number, what do you think, 8,274 people with incomes of $10 million per year or more, what was the combined total income earned of all those 8,274 people in 2009? One trillion, $250 billion. That’s what you say, Brian? Snerdley says a trillion. The answer is $240 billion. Brian, you were $10 billion off. That’s it. That’s right. That’s it. The 8,274 people with incomes of $10 million per year or more earned a total of $240 billion in 2009.
“Even of you confiscated every dime they earned, you would barely have enough money to cover government spending for 24 days.” In fact, this $240 billion, I mean that’s pretty close to the actual real number of budget cuts in the debt deal when you strip everything away. Now, about 25% of that money already goes to the federal government for federal income. So actually that $240 billion would run the government for 18 days.
“Another 227,000 people earned $1 million or more in 2009. Millionaires averaged taxes of 24.4% of their income — up from 23.1% in 2008.” Now, you might be asking, how did that happen? Well, the Bush tax cuts, folks. Obama’s tax increases hadn’t started, and Obama’s not immaculated yet. “They, too, did not earn enough money to come anywhere close to covering the annual deficits that are $1.5 trillion a year.” So 8,274 people who earn $10 million per year or more, earn a total of $240 billion in 2009. Another 227,000 people earned a million dollars or more in 2009. But it doesn’t come anywhere close to covering the deficit of $1.5 trillion.
“Barack Obama was the first president to sign a budget with a $1 trillion deficit into law.
In fact, all the taxpayers — including the ones who get a refund check bigger than the withholding taxes they paid — have the money.” The point of this is next time you hear Obama or a Democrat say we’ve got to raise taxes on the rich, it’s not about getting revenue to run the government because they don’t have the money. Now, I’ve been doing this show for 23 years, and I have been employing this data, whatever the accurate data was for the year I was disclosing it, it hasn’t changed in terms of percentages. Confiscate every dollar earned by people who make $10 million a year or more and you run the country for barely over two weeks. That has not changed since I first heard of this statistic 23, 25 years ago. It hasn’t changed. As it is, these people are already paying 70% of the total income tax burden! So there’s no economic growth hidden away here in a tax increase on these people.
How does taking money out of the private sector grow it? And that’s what tax increases do. How in the world does taking money out of the private sector cause it to grow? Mathematically impossible, folks. From Reuters: “Total adjusted gross income reported on tax returns, measured in 2009 dollars, was $7.626 trillion, down from $8.233 trillion in 2008 and $8.989 trillion in 2007. Total adjusted gross income was up only slightly from the $7.475 trillion reported in 2001, when there were 10 million fewer taxpayers.”
Individual tax collections equaled 15.4% of all income. “Doubling federal income taxes for everyone would still leave us $400 billion or so shy of balancing the budget.” That’s the bottom line. Doubling federal income taxes for everybody would raise $1.1 trillion, $400 billion shy of the deficit. I know these numbers are hard to follow, but all this is gonna be on RushLimbaugh.com later today, and I suggest you go there, print it out, or e-mail it, make electronic copies, PDF, whatever you want, and spread this around. This needs to be seen by many people. It’s not going to be in the US media.
END TRANSCRIPT
Read the Background Material...
• UK Daily Mail: IRS: Not Enough Rich to Cover the Deficit
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/39534
• Reuters: U.S. Incomes Fell Sharply in 2009: IRS Data
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/04/us-usa-economy-incomes-idUSTRE77302W20110804
I so agree, Paperdoll! These geniuses manufacture crises, because they well understand what Rahm Emmanuel once said: "Never let a good crisis go to waste." If a crisis is not at readily at hand, just invent one.... Delaying tactics alone often suffice for that purpose....
You would think the majority Leadership in the House would have been on to such manipulation by now. Sadly, however, that does not seem to be the case.
IMHO, the way this debt "crisis" should have been dealt with: After the Senate tabled Cut, Cap, and Balance, the Pubbies should have simply folded their hands and sat down. The Dems in the Senate would probably have gone apoplectic. How they would squirm! That's the LAST thing they could possibly want! And then, the rule becomes: "He who speaks first, loses."
But then, the House Leadership seems to be hopelessly naïve.... They do not understand that the other side does NOT want to deal "in good faith."
Thanks for your great insight, Paperdoll!
All thanks to the Dodds-Frank financial "reform."
I find this totally chilling....
Folks interested in the details, go here.
What is particularly interesting is that these new regs appear at the same time the Chinese government is making vast purchases of gold — 200 tons last year, I hear — facilitated through the IMF with U.S. taxpayer "support." Not only that, but the Chinese government is encouraging its citizens to acquire gold for their personal investment portfolios....
Go figure!!! (Please!) At this rate, the Chinese will end up holding all the "real" wealth on the planet, the U.S. dollar no longer being a stable store of value.... And Americans will not be allowed to defend themselves from the effects of the feckless, irresponsible fiscal and monetary policies of their own government....
A side note: I purchased gold for my investment portfolio in April 2010 — 20% of my total assets. I did not buy bullion, but the semi-numismatic U.S. Gold Eagle Proof coins. Now I'm beginning to wonder if even these are "safe" investments. I remember from the FDR example that if the federal government wants to confiscate gold in public hands, it can do so easily enough....
Thanks for the chilling "news," Paperdoll!
And the problem is further exacerbated by the fact that the number "2" in this equation is a total fiction anyway.
Jeepers, dear brother in Christ, but the (totally insane) inmates really are running the asylum these days....
Thank you so very much for writing!
That's because the MSN are the enablers and co-dependents of this regime. The regime couldn't possibly get away with what it's doing without their total complicity....
Thanks so much for your astute observation, sforkjoe57!
I know, betty. You’d think that a man great enough to be voted into Congress would have the facility to see beyond tll the smoke and mirrors if an octogenarian great great grandmother can, wouldn’t you? I think once they land in marble halls of DC they think they are invincible geniuses, and their stupid pride blinds them to reality. (By the way, borrow your red dress sometime. :) )
Yep, that’s just one of the evil tricks they pulled while our eye was on the ball. From Townhall spotlight. I have heard not one word on talk radio or FOX News about Obama banning the American people from owning gold bullion. Have you? That, to me is BIG NEWS, for they’ve opened the door to take so many more liberties from us!
“We hear so often that when the Republicans had all three branches we still didn’t do so-and-so.”
They didn’t do what they were elected to do. Neither will the Tea Party. . The pressure that comes to bear on each individual congressman is so great ....there is a wall of money and attendant lobbying interests that is so massive no human can withstand.The various traps and wiles the world lays at their feet ensures the compromise of most entering the office within weeks.Complete with video, audio and banking records
Thanks for your input. Good stuff.
To answer your question, I am becoming very convinced that Obama has a "spread the wealth" agenda and does not understand economics, Keynesian or certainly Adam Smith economics. I believe that Obama will try to have the government provide an alternative to "failed" industries in the US. So yes, he will "double down", but the polls will tell him when and how hard to push it.
There is talk about an infrastructure bank that Dennis Kucinich, on FBN, explained could expand into lending [government] money to other industries. This would fill the gap created by the Dodd-Frank bill that has limited the money, through various regulations, that banks can lend consumers and businesses. Further, Obama wanted, and still wants, a public option for health care, which, in my opinion, would eventually become the only option. There is also discussion about the government managing 401Ks, probably ending up in employees having to invest in US Treasuries, because the stock market failed in 2008-09. The list goes on.
Nice write up. I agree with your points, and in fact, many people happen to believe that providing banks risk free investment in treasuries was an intentional act to improve the balance sheets of banks. One cannot overstate, however, the impact that the Dodd-Frank bill has had on the banks. It has caused many banks to reorganize their operations, has cut the salary of many employees and has dictated who is worthy of a loan and who is not, leaving a grey area in the middle. However, since the agencies created by the bill are still authoring further regulations, banks are being very risk averse given the vaccuum.
One other point and perhaps the most important.
Bank accounting seems backward. Cash on hand in the form of deposits in savings and checking accounts is considered a debit, like accounts payable. Loans and investments are considered assets whether repaid or mature or not. They are like accounts receivable.
Therefore, in today’s situation where people are holding on to their cash, the banks are full of money so they have a very large debit account. When the banks buy treasury notes those are considered assets even though they will not mature for years. This lets the banks balance their books while making money with money. That is true Capitalism - manipulating money to make money.
When the housing market went south the banks lost much of their asset base. Then Fannie and Freddie and the TARP act rescued them and rebalanced their books.
Now they are pretty much laundering money with the Fed and the Treasury.
I disagree. You ignore the reasons I stated and lay it all at the feet of greed and other human frailties. While human frailties play a big part in our lives, that is not the end all, be all, for everyone. Despite Trent Lott agreeing with you, saying that the establishment would co-opt the Tea Party politicians once they arrived in Washington, I have faith in this latest bunch. Never has the country been in such dire straits and I think the new legislators are are value driven rather than career driven.
We will see!
NO.
Plus another beauty I read about recently, a new gold regulation that went into effect July 15th. This has to do with Americans taking gold out of the country: If you are traveling outside the country, and have more than 8.5 oz. of it with you, and do not declare it, you are subject to a $10,000 fine, up to a year in prison — and your gold will be confiscated....
I never heard a peep from the MSM about this, nor even from Fox....
It may be "mathematically impossible," but social progressives (read: Left Liberal Democrats, Marxists, Euro-style socialists, the Congressional Black Caucus, La Raza, the labor unions, et al.) act as if they are blissfully ignorant of this fact.
In fact, these people don't have much use for facts in general, including historical facts. Despoiling the engines of creativity, innovation, risk-taking, job creation — the "wealthy" — not only fails to raise sufficient revenue to put the merest dent in the structural debt problem; but these revenues are being drained out of the productive sector of the economy, and placed into the hands of the political class, which creates nothing, but only redistributes the wealth to its cronies and favored constituents — the utterly unproductive "tax-consumer class" of which Calhoun was speaking in A Disquisition on Government. This being, of course, the reliable way to get reelected in America these days.
Meanwhile, the economy languishes, and the American middle class is being squeezed from two directions: (1) higher taxation/over-regulation and (2) the "opportunity cost" that comes when one drains resources away from productive economic activities to political boon-doggling purposes.
In simpler words, declining business formation/job creation results from policy prescriptions like this. When the "wealthy" are made "poor," there is no way to generate a vibrant economy. Not only that, but the revenue trajectory goes down, not up, at higher marginal tax rates.
Why the federal government is pursuing such self-defeating policies right now is beyond my comprehension. The only way any of this makes sense to me is to conclude that the political class is intentionally trying to destroy America and its capitalist economic system....
Since the capitalist U.S. economy is the linchpin or anchor of the world economy, the effects of U.S. fiscal policy spread out through the entire international community. It has been said that "when the U.S. sneezes, the rest of the world gets a cold."
In short, the economic destabilization here spreads globally, like the ripples on a pond....
Cui bono? Who, exactly, benefits from this?
Thank you ever so much, Matchett-PI, for your outstanding essay/post and the valuable links!
You wrote: “Cui bono? Who, exactly, benefits from this?”
Funny you should ask :) This is what I just sent out to my email lists not 5 minutes ago:
I wrote:
Spread it!
PS: B.O. will be trotting out to move his lips again around 1:30 today. Let’s see who he blames this time for his failures. [ Want your eyes opened? Just go to Google and type in 2 key words: Obama blames ]
Who made a billion dollars on 10/1 bet that U.S. credit rating would be downgraded?
Daily Mail ^ | 8/8/11 | Mark Duell
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2023809/Did-George-Soros-win-10-1-return-S-Ps-US-credit-rating-downgrade.html
A mystery investor or hedge fund reportedly made a bet of almost $1billion at odds of 10/1 last month that the U.S. would lose its AAA credit rating. Now questions are being asked of whether the trader had inside information before placing the $850million bet in the futures market. There are mounting rumours that investor George Soros, 80, famously known as ‘the man who broke the Bank of England’, could be involved. He made more than $1billion on currency speculation when the British pound left the Exchange Rate Mechanism on Black Wednesday in 1992.
[snip] Continue reading at above link.
<>
2004:
Soros: Is he a god or a madman with money?
Houston Chronicle ^ | 10/8/04 | RACHEL EHRENFELD and SHAWN MACOMBER
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1241000/posts
“If truth be known, I carried some rather potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood, which I felt I had to control, otherwise they might get me into trouble,” [Soros] once wrote. When asked to elaborate on that passage by The Independent, Soros said, “It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of God, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.”
Right from the horses mouth.
<>
Obama-messiah is Soros-groomed “front man”
http://bigjournalism.com/kashiver/2010/01/27/awaiting-the-soros-obama-sotus-the-state-of-the-re-making-america-revolution/
<>
<>
Soros is the man behind the funding of the media and DemocRAT attacks on Conservatives and conservatve businesses and organizations
<>
It’s Not Easy Being God: The Real George Soros
Analysis of the man who thinks he’s God—radical billionaire George Soros. ...
This book traces his life from his involvement with the Nazis during World War II, to his present dealings in world economic manipulation. The book describes how he acquired his fortune and how he has set up various organizations meant to hide how he uses his wealth to influence foreign economies and political causes. A must read for those that care about the future of our country.
Joy Tiz in her own inimitable way has once again pulled back the curtain, as did Toto in the Wizard of OZ, to unveil the evil that is attempting to radically transform our great country! Interestingly enough this evil, George Soros and his left wing cronies, use the same tactics as modern day radical unions ` to achieve their objectives in the guise of social justice. Unfortunately the poor sycophants who eagerly buy into Soros’s distorted vision truly believe it is about eliminating class distinction and redistribution of wealth. In reality it is all about power and money.
Oh, Soros is such a charming fellow! What is especially interesting is that he was a visitor at the White House some four times (at least) in 2010, according to WH scheduling records, which are public information....
Evidently, Soros has managed to "self-divinize" himself. He's getting the "knack" for being "'god." Which is interesting, considering where he came from.
Soros is a Hungarian-born Jew. And yet for some (to me) inexplicable reason, Hitler's Gestapo managed to recruit him as a "bird-dog," with the task of identifying any Jewish citizens of Germany he could spot to the Nazi regime. Whereupon their wealth would be confiscated, and they would be sent to the extermination camps to die.
The article at the top touches on this theme:
Obama could seize the wealth of the nation; but it wouldn’t help him much in the long-run. As Hitler found out. He seized the wealth of every Jew he could find, but killed the Jew. The wealth was soon enough dissipated. The point is, with the Jew dead, there was no way of generating new wealth….And that is the very "historical lesson" the progressive Left refuses to draw, in its formulation of current policy....
Something very similar happened in Russia, under Stalin. He seized the wealth of the Kulaks — their agricultural lands, Kulaks being peasants who had managed to acquire landed property — in order to "collectivize" Soviet agriculture. That is to say, to transfer private property to the People of the Soviet Union, the "new owners."
Then Stalin starved the entire Kulak class out of existence by forcibly appropriating their harvests for distribution by central authorities, leaving them virtually nothing on which they and their families could subsist. They died by the millions.
But a funny thing happened after that: There was virtually no one left in the Soviet Union who had any hands-on experience in agriculture. An ugly fact of history remains: Ever since the Kulaks were wiped out, by means of official state "policy," Russia has never been able to feed herself since.
The moral of the story: Do not slaughter the most productive citizens of your society in order to plunder their wealth. Very soon, there will be no wealth left in your society for you to plunder....
Evidently, this is the point that the 0-bot party does not get....
Or if they do, they do not care.
Thank you so much, dear Matchett-PI, for another outstandingly informative essay/post! Thanks for the links. People, spread the word....
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.