Skip to comments.A bailout would sacrifice freedom for dependency
Posted on 09/29/2008 10:23:07 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
Throughout our nation's history, the size and scope of government has grown by leaps and bounds during times of crisis, financial or otherwise. The political class' natural instinct is for government to rush to the rescue, particularly when an election is near. The current financial meltdown appears to be no exception, as our government responds with a $700 billion taxpayer-funded bailout proposal that was at best a Band-Aid and at worst a more deadly strain of the same disease.
Rather than punishing taxpayers, an array of smarter options is at the government's disposal: abandon cheap-money policy; remove financial incentives that make home purchasing so easy for those who don't yet have the means to own a home; let solvent firms naturally emerge from the mess while firms without sound business models go under; just to name a few.
Many people have played into the hands of big-government apologists by arguing that free markets are "better" because "they work," rather than defending freedom as a fundamental, God-given right for everyone.
I was fortunate to be with Margaret Thatcher once in England when she reminded a group of Americans fretting about a temporary dip in the stock market: "The most important word in the phrase 'free markets' is not the word 'markets.' You cannot justify your freedom based on today's Dow Jones Industrial Average." Her words ring true, as Bush appointees scramble to stoke the engine of our economy by tossing in ever-larger quantities of our tax dollars and freedom.
Charging the Federal Reserve, investment bankers, and politicians to "solve" this crisis is like deputizing arsonists to fight a wildfire. The central enabler is the government, with Wall Street hucksters as eager accomplices. It's time to let the market sweep away decades of excessive leverage and loose monetary policy.
Worrying about a repeat of the Great Depression is a valid concern. But check out hyperinflation in Germany in the 1930's or Zimbabwe in 2008 before you decide that flooding the world in dollars is a better idea. Free from intrusive governmental tinkering, markets will clear soon enough, even if it means many speculators are wiped out.
Pouring in more government dollars into bailouts may rescue a few Wall Street bondholders, but it will only harm the average American. In the end, vesting large amounts of economic power in a few government officials simply is a bad idea. It won't work any better here than it did in the former Soviet Union. The world economy is too complex to be managed in a top down fashion, even by a Wall Street dealmaker and a Princeton economist.
Benjamin Franklin once warned: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." The seeds of this problem were sown long ago, and the financial bill will be paid one way or another. The only question is how much freedom Americans will lose in the process.
FR Keyword: moneylist
This can be a high-volume ping list at times.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
The Hegelian Principle:
You remember the steps: The first step (thesis) is to create a problem. The second step (anti-thesis) is to generate opposition to the problem (fear, panic, hysteria). The third step (synthesis) is to offer ** the
solution ** to the problem created in step one, - change which would have been impossible to impose on the people without proper psychological conditioning achieved in stages one and two.
Gramsci is laughing.
WHO WAS ANTONIO GRAMSCI?
Antonio Gramsci helped found the Italian Communist Party. Imprisioned by Mussolini, Gramsci spent the last 9 years of his life in prison. While in prison, he wrote nine volumes of observations on history, sociology, Marxist theory and strategy. These volumes, collectively known as The Prison Notebooks, contain a strategy that promises to win the world to Marxism voluntarily. In order to do that, Gramsci suggests that strong Western democracies can only be taken by infiltration of the organs of their culture: churches, education systems, newspapers, magazines, the electronic media, and other works of serious literature produced in those democracies. Disillusioned by the brute force of Russian Marxism, but still embracing Marxism as the correct system to be pushed on the world, Gramsci reasoned that a system enacted by force would eventually weaken, but a system sold to a people through their existing institutions would eventually be embraced and spread as if it were naturally a peoples own.
STEPS IN THE PROCESS
1) Turn churches into ideology-driven political clubs.
2) Replace genuine education with a dumbed down and politically correct curriculum.
3) Fashion the mass media into instruments for mass manipulation and for harassing and discrediting traditional institutions and their spokesman.
4) Ridicule morality, decency, and age old virtues without respite.
5) Present the youth, not with heroic examples, but with aggressively degenerate behavioral models.
6) Attack the very building blocks of a moral society: attack marriage and family in order to subvert the social order.
Pelosi plotted to kill the Bill and crash the markets .
Read all about it.
She sure did. She is EVIL. Now they will try to bring back more of their special-interest hidden agenda stuff and try to ram it through. Unfortunately, the President is willing to sell us down the river.
Sounds similar to the 45 communist goals that were laid out in 1963 I believe. Scary stuff, along with repeat a lie enough and it becomes the truth.
Unreal isn’t it.
What’s even scarier is we’re almost there.
I heard there were 63, but I can’t find the list.
The year was 63. There were 45 goals. Here’s the link:
And here’s another link of goals straight from the Manifesto comparing how similar we’ve become:
B-U-M-P everyone’s accusing me