Skip to comments.Will the U.S. embrace global socialism?
Posted on 02/07/2009 2:30:57 AM PST by JohnHuang2
Reports from the recent World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, suggest that most of the world's leaders are convinced that the current crisis is the result of inherent flaws in capitalism, and are eager to impose new international rules to save the world.
Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is calling on President Obama to join him in creating a new economic system. "Simply tweaking the old system won't do," he says. He wants "a system of open markets, unambiguously regulated by an activist state, and one in which the state intervenes to reduce the greater inequalities that competitive markets will inevitably generate."
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
President Screw Up: Leave no tax cheat behind
How many tax cheats and cronies does it take to fill a Cabinet with "Hope" and "Change"? Obama says his corrupt vetting process deserves kudos since the majority of his nominees aren't tax cheats. And only one got through!
Focusing on what's really important, Obama asks each of his job applicants, 'Have you ever owned a gun?' and not, 'Have you ever paid taxes?'
(Update: The questionnaire was just revised: Have you ever cheated on your taxes in excess of $43,000? Have you ever engaged in senseless savagery, such as murdering patriotic wolves from airplanes?)
At this rate, the $780,000,000,000 pork 'stimulation' package could be paid for with the surge of Democrat tax filings if Obama keeps nominating. Democrats 'stimulate' themselves into paying taxes for the first time when nominated.
Obama ran around the country during the campaign insisting that his administration would bring on a tidal wave of ethical progress -- the most ever in history. Democrats were already wrestling with those 'little' ethics problems called Charlie Rangel, Barney Frank, William Jefferson and Christopher Dodd, but in two short weeks Obama has made significant progress assembling a Cabinet filled with Al Capones.
Obama won an "early victory" when the Senate approved his tax cheat Timothy Geithner for Treasury. For years, "financial guru" Geithner refused to pay $43,000 in taxes by "mistake". He'll have lots of credibility overseeing the IRS.
Tom Daschle, considered a health-care "expert" by liberals because he wrote a book, refused to pay over $128,000 in taxes by "mistake"; Nancy Killefer, named by Obama to be budget honcho and the federal government's chief performance officer, refused to "perform" her unemployment compensation taxes for her household servants by "mistake"; Rep. Hilda Solis sat on the board and was Treasurer of a group that was lobbying Congress and Hilda Solis on bills Hilda Solis had co-sponsored, violating multiple House ethics rules. Armed with this knowledge, Obama picked her for Labor Secretary. It was at that precise moment that her husband made a shocking discovery about tax liens. He had refused to settle $6,400 in tax liens against his business for 16 years by "mistake", which suggests Obama will find a top Cabinet post for him too.
And, in the words of Sen. Patrick Leahy, to "restore the Justice Department and to restore the American people's confidence in Federal law enforcement," Obama named a porn lawyer as deputy Attorney General.
Obama vowed never to name 'lobbyists' to his administration, so he names lobbyist William Lynn as deputy Pentagon honcho, lobbyist Tom Vilsack as Agriculture sec., lobbyist William Corr as HHS deputy, lobbyist Mark Gitenstein as DOJ honcho, lobbyist George Mitchell as 'Middle East envoy' -- or, more precisely, envoy to push the Jews into the sea -- and Goldman Sachs lobbyist Mark Patterson for a gig as chief of staff to that pillar of ethics, Timothy Geithner.
As the Washington Times reports, around two dozen registered ex-lobbyists are working in Obama's lobbyist-free administration -- from yawneroo "executive-branch hires, all the way to Cabinet level." Not to worry, all this frantic lobbyist hiring falls within the new ethics guidelines simply by waiving the new ethics guidelines.
Daschle rode around for years in a chauffeured limo on loan from an investment firm owned by his chum Leo Hindery, and got paid millions for lobbying, but, not to worry here either. Obama says his useless ethics guidelines allow hiring Daschle because he failed to register as a lobbyist.
(For the record, lobbyist Mark Gitenstein -- lead candidate for a gig to oversee the office that oversees judicial nominations that oversees legal policy -- may not require a blanket waiver but a somewhat waiver rather than a waiver of recusal or waiver of the right to waiver when waivering over lawyer-client privilege waiver forms or waiver letters needed to finalize a waiver . . . OK, that doesn't make sense. I think I messed up. I screwed up. I screwed up in not recognizing the perception that even though this is an honest mistake, I believe, on my part, that, you know, ordinary people are out there paying waivers every day and, um, uh, whether it's an intentional mistake or not, it was sending the wrong message that there are two sets of waivers, one for prominent people and one for ordinary folks who have to pay their waivers every day.
Capping Obama's streak of stellar nominations is Leon Panetta, a budget guy to run CIA. This regular James Bond raked in big bucks last year from "speaking fees" and from BP Corp. and from PR firms and from banks which took bailout money. Panetta's sole qualification seems to be that he took money from everybody except Blackwater and Halliburton. With little or no intelligence experience, Panetta was a shoo-in for CIA.
For two years, Obama ran a campaign against Washington insiders with a campaign filled with Washington insiders, now he's named a Cabinet with ethics standards so high it doesn't need ethics, and the media claim they're shocked, stunned and astounded that their lover is already making Jimmy Carter look good. Oh dear. Pass the popcorn.
My Two Cents...
We already have embraced global socialism. Some call it “free trade”.
It will not happen if grassroots people defend their freedom,values and gather for that...
There is no written fate for totalitarianism/slavery
The SSocialist croocks forget to tell that liberal-fascism perfectly fit with the more cynical “capitalism” where a few political croocks control everything!
Just have a look on CHINA and RUSSIA
Looks like the “Beast” in Apocalypse
Protectionism in the face of globalization is like showering in gasoline before fighting a fire.
Where was my “protectionist statement. Who do I want to shut out of trade. If you’re going to try slinging the protectionist label you can at least be man enough to prove it. The word “protectionism” has the same meaning as the word “racism”. It translates roughly to “I don’t have an argument, so I’m shutting you down”.
While you’re at it, maytbe you can explain why your “free” trade needs the controlling authority of the WTO.
The ‘powers that be’ have already decreed that it will happen.
It may well be that Socialism is the most inherently stable form of government. The big movers, more than any of our petty concerns about liberty or morals, desire stability. Preservation of the status quo makes them rich, and keeps them from getting shot during peasant revolutions.
All they need to do is maintain the illusion of choice, or prosperity, or free trade, by using Orwellian doublespeak. This has been going on for awhile, and very few have caught on.
There ... fixed.
(I said "Good reply" because you made a false characterization of your own, which highlights mine.)
Yeah, but the black market is always radically capitalistic.
I just point to the fact that we traded just fine before the advent of the WTO and all it’s requirements, quotas, and restrictions. Nations should be free to make and break their trade deals as they see fit without fear of retribution by way of the WTO.
I suspect that most Americans would prefer to buy American but it needs to be profitable to make American. Michigan was especially hard hit after the signing of NAFTA but our hostile business climate made it far worse than it needed to be. We lost huge numbers of secondary factory jobs that weren’t great pay but they were enough to live on and they were mostly non union jobs. My $7.50 an hour bindery job was one of those that lost business almost immediately and the doors were closed within 6 months.
I just feel that we need Reagan brand free trade. After all he very selectively targeted a small number of imports for tariffs and didn’t create disaster but it did create jobs.
“Will the U.S. embrace global socialism? “
Thus far it has shown no inclination for anything else!
For example, you have said that you like the regulation of commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution but you would use it -- if you were a legislator -- to manipulate the markets normal flow of capital and goods to pick winners/losers and to limit competition where you see it as a hassle. The WTO's rules would allow you to be an asshat and impose your morality on the rest of the market participants. However, those other countries can invoke sanctions that harms our already Crippled-creek economy through their own erected barriers toward us. You're so ignorant, though, that you actually think that turning inward will lead toward your style of a run economy's prosperity; ignoring the gains from specialization and economies of scale. The proof of my assertions is in this next question I'll ask of you. If the commerce clause was amended to only and specifically state that government could only regulate trade so as to prevent major weapons systems [nuclear, biological, chemical] and illegal drugs from being privately traded between our country and others and that no other goods or services could/would have any economic barriers attached; would you go for it?
This would allow a true free market to work with private market participants with trade agreement absent and with the government butting out. This means that all trade would be unilaterally arranged by private interests on our end and it would not matter what other countries did to harm themselves with stupid protectionist policies on their end. Could you handle that? Or are you such an economic nationalist thinker that you could not bear the thought of private people working out their own deals without you injecting you morality it what those participants have already determined what's fair?
Wrong! It saved jobs that would ordinarily have been lost due to competition. But what wasn't readily seen was the costs because they could not be anticipated: what would have happened within the economy to those people had the marketplace made the adjustments on their own and the consumers of the goods where tariffs were slapped on did not have to pay a higher cost for their goods.
You're thinking is so non-economical that I suspect you believe in economic stimulus in the form of Keynesian government spending.
Frankly I’ve never seen anything you’ve ever said that’s worth responding to. I could return your insults but I won’t.
Embrace it? Hell, we’re leading it! Even the French realized it wouldn’t work and are trying to move away from it. But our so-called leadership do not want to learn from history; they’re like little kids who want to experience the same failures their parents made rather than learning from them.
If you suggest that TANSTAAFL, many will hurl insults that imply you want low wages for Americans.
Of course, these same folks wouldn't be willing to pay 10x themselves for something like a gallon of American gas, but they expect the rest of the world to just willingly pay for their labor premiums.
I’m so sorry that you feel insulted but you are ignorant on the topic of Economics and are no fan of economic liberty. But, since you have responded to me in the past and at times where I’ve been more critical of you, it leads me to believe that you cannot answer the questions I posed without it causing you to look badly.
You should stop being so mean, Gondring. Pointing out the realities behind the arguements is just so unfair; do you really expect to get responses when you’re being unfair? So stop breaking things down accurately and with such clarity, please.
Would you support truly free trade, unfettered by any regulations? The only exceptions being nations on the “evil enemies” list, i.e. Commies and such.
I’ll support equal or rational trade. In fact I’m not ready to completely shut China out. I think trade with China should be severely limited until they stop selling weapons to our enemies, bring their goods up to American standards, and show real progress towards human rights and democracy.
When Reagan imposed import Tariffs on Japanese cycles over (500cc I think) the japanese responded by building factories in this country to get around the tariff and that proved sucessfull for both parties.
There is absolutely no reason we can’t trade honestly with any nation that shows a willingness to do it equally and honestly with us.
Define equal and rational in the context of international trade.
The same way we’ve always done it. Equal goods and services we provide for equal goods and services other nations can provide.
Any attempt to overcomplicate it is an attempt to hide something.
Any attempt to regulate and control trade, as in “equalize” it, creates non-free trade.
I hide nothing, as I am a complete free-trader. Anti free traders use trade deficits as proof that we are “losing” in trade, when it is in reality proof that we are more successful and therefore have more to spend.
I have customers who come into my gunshop who sell me more firearms than they buy. Should I consider “equalizing” this relationship even though I’m coming out ahead already? Have you read anything by Von Mises, Bastiat, Hayek or any other sane economist?
Apparently this is a problem since too many Americans already find these goods up to their standards and this creates dreaded competition for U.S. producers who supply similar goods to the market. So, in the spirit of the USA's best interests (for the good of its people [whether they know it or not]) we must create legislative obstacles that increase the prices of these goods that so many ill-informed Americans -- already finding foreign goods up to their standards -- don't keep repeating their same mistakes with regrard to their own preferance sets. It's for our own good that the government impose the standards that I want all Americans to possess!
But that's already the case. The only differnce is is that the 'goods' many foreigners want from the United States in return for the goods that they export to us are securities that trade in financial markets. Or is that too complicated to understand?
“we already have embraced global socialism. some call it ‘free trade’.”
Protectionism in the face of globalization is the only thing that will save the world from the unelected economic thieves in Davos who are destroying us.
It isn’t nonsense. “free trade” is a tool to implement global socialism, that’s all. Just look who is calling for it— all the “free traders” meeting in Davos. They’ve had 30 years of “free traders” using American tax dollars to globalize the world and now they’re calling for the end game, global socialism.
That is the reality of it.
How many free traders are in Davos. The vast majority of the idiots there all calling for some form of fair trade — whetever the hell fair trade is supposed to mean. I’m under the impression that all trade is fair as long as government stays the heck out of it. Please list the free traders by name.
Nope, your understanding of human nature is expansive. And your list; it covers all possibilities that I can think of. I think that you’ve nailed it, myself.
I love the White Sox. That's why I am a Yankees fan.
Who says protectionists are beyond hope? They keep re-discovering the business cycle, and they have Google in the bag.