Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

If Only D'Souza Were Right (from the Austrian School)
Ludwig von Mises Institute ^ | September 1, 2012 | Gary North

Posted on 09/02/2012 10:49:10 PM PDT by Arec Barrwin

If Only D'Souza Were Right

Mises Daily: Monday, September 03, 2012 by Gary North

by Gary North

2016: Obama's America

I went to see 2016: Obama's America. Dinesh D'Souza wrote, stars in, directed, narrates, and did the original research for it. If we look at this from the point of view of its success as a documentary, I think it is effective. It is making money in theaters. This is amazing for a documentary. It is a campaign-year documentary, and it is a good one.

It is also dead wrong. That is because it misses the fundamental political fact of the last dozen years: the Obama administration is the operational successor of the Bush administration. In Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Guantanamo, on Wall Street, Barack Obama is George W. Bush in blackface. Obama is the star of a 21-century minstrel show.

This fact has been deliberately ignored for almost four years by both the neoconservative Right and the grin-and-bear-it Left. Neither side will admit what I regard as the fundamental fact of this documentary. It is a long whitewash of the policies of George W. Bush. The On-Budget Deficit

If you understand this early, you can see it in what is by far the best section of the movie. It appears at the end. It is an interview with the ever-eloquent David Walker, who resigned in 2008 from his job as comptroller general — senior accountant — of the United States.

This date is crucial: the last year of the Bush administration.

I need to make three observations. First, the deficit is vastly worse than the movie portrays. The movie sticks with the nonissue: the on-budget debt of $15 trillion, which is chump change, while never mentioning the central problem: the $222 trillion present value of the unfunded liabilities of the off-budget deficit, meaning the deficits of politically sacrosanct Social Security and Medicare. This is the heart of the federal government's highly entertaining Punch and Judy show over the deficit, with Paul Ryan as Punch and Obama cross-dressing as Judy.

Second, Walker has spent years warning the public about the unsustainable increase of the on-budget federal debt. He was eloquent on camera. But, central to that presentation is the fact that he blamed George W. Bush as much as he blamed Obama. He says on camera that the turning point on the deficit began with Bush's presidency. He showed that we are headed for a fiscal disaster, and it may overtake us during the presidency of whoever is elected in 2016.

In terms of the on-budget deficit, Obama's administration is an extension of Bush's. Dinesh D'Souza

Miss this, and you miss the whitewash. This documentary is an implicit whitewash. It relies on an assumption, namely, that we are not dealing in 2012 with a single political administration, which began in January 2001. Sadly, we are.

The key to understanding this is Timothy Geithner, who was the president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank (privately owned) in 2008, and is the secretary of the Treasury now. He does not appear in the documentary.

Third, neither Walker nor D'Souza mentions on-screen what should be the obvious constitutional fact — namely, that it is the Congress that legally initiates all spending bills, and it is the House of Representatives that holds the hammer constitutionally. There was not one word in the movie about the Congress of the United States as being constitutionally in authority over the budget of the United States government. How in the world could anyone make a documentary that focuses at the very end on the central problem that the country faces, and then try to pin the tail on Obama as the donkey?

We are living in a bipartisan, congressionally mandated, slow-motion train wreck. The Congress of the United States could stop Obama today as easily as it could have stopped Bush. Congress is not interested in stopping the deficit; it is interested in avoiding all responsibility for the annual $1.2 trillion on-budget disaster that is the federal budgetary process.

The fiscal killer of killers in Bush's administration was never mentioned: the prescription-drug law that Bush signed in 2003. The vote was close in Congress. If he had vetoed it, it would never have passed. Instead, he turned the signing into a pageant. He brought in thousands of seniors to witness it. He announced: "You are here to witness the greatest advance in health care coverage for America's seniors since the founding of Medicare."

This sell-out to Teddy Kennedy (who refused to attend), added at least $8.7 trillion to the unfunded liability of Medicare. Yet it is never mentioned in the documentary. Instead, the documentary focuses on Obamacare, whose burden is mainly on the private sector and actually relieves some of the Medicare payments. In any case, that law was really Pelosicare. She was the ramrod. The documentary has one brief segment on her. It skips the point: bad as that law is, she was far more responsible for it than he was.

The Economy

A related thing that bothers me intensely is the fact that the documentary tries to pin the bad economy on Obama. The bad economy should be pinned on Alan Greenspan, with considerable help from his successor.

To suggest that the president of the United States has the power to make the economy worse to imply that he also has the power to make the economy terrible. He has limited power either way, unless he drags us into a war. Bush dragged us into two wars.

Ron Paul always was right for 36 years in not pointing to the president as the main economic problem, but rather the Federal Reserve System. So, any documentary that does not go after the Federal Reserve when it talks about economic problems but blames the president instead, and also ignores Congress, is doing the general public an enormous disservice. It keeps the Federal Reserve in the background in the thinking of the viewers, when the Federal Reserve ought to be in the foreground, with the presidency in the background. This is basic economics. D'Souza does not know what he is talking about with respect to economics.


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2016; 2016movie; austrian; dineshdsouza; dsouza; garynorth; gwbush; mises; moviereview; obama
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-106 next last
North does make some valid points -- his criticism of Bush's prescription drug benefits law is dead on.
1 posted on 09/02/2012 10:49:18 PM PDT by Arec Barrwin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Arec Barrwin

yes he has some good points but overall it sounds like whining


2 posted on 09/02/2012 10:54:10 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arec Barrwin

Of course, it’s Bush’s fault.


3 posted on 09/02/2012 10:57:05 PM PDT by DigitalVideoDude (It's amazing what you can accomplish when you don't care who gets the credit. -Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arec Barrwin

Good read!


4 posted on 09/02/2012 10:57:23 PM PDT by James C. Bennett (An Australian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arec Barrwin
Yikes. "Bush's fault."

Miss this, and you miss the whitewash. This documentary is an implicit whitewash. It relies on an assumption, namely, that we are not dealing in 2012 with a single political administration, which began in January 2001. Sadly, we are.

By tracing the start of the budgetary nightmare to 2001 and the Bush administration, North jumps the shark. The fiscal insanity began long, long before Bush.

5 posted on 09/02/2012 11:00:56 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arec Barrwin
Wow! I bet that's going to leave a mark. Gary North just shutdown any cogent discussion with any liberal that may have become disillusioned with Obama's lack of leadership. Way to go dilbert!
6 posted on 09/02/2012 11:04:02 PM PDT by higgmeister ( In the Shadow of The Big Chicken!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arec Barrwin
North does make some great points.

Clearly still scratching my head why our former president never appeared at the Republican convention. I've never seen anything like it. My liberal co-workers joke about it at work.

7 posted on 09/02/2012 11:04:02 PM PDT by Christie at the beach (I like Newt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

Yup. Try Kennedy.


8 posted on 09/02/2012 11:08:05 PM PDT by p. henry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

Bush certainly didn’t do anything to stop it, especially TARP and the bailouts.


9 posted on 09/02/2012 11:10:16 PM PDT by dfwgator (I'm voting for Ryan and that other guy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: p. henry

Try FDR.


10 posted on 09/02/2012 11:10:29 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Arec Barrwin

He is the guy in charge .... why keep shifting the blame? Bush screwed up and now Obama screws up even worse. They are both screw ups! Obama knew what he was getting into and fought really hard to get the job. His promises and results did not happen. Get rid of him and give someone else a shot. Thats about all we can do for now. If you or I screw up at work, do we get to blame the last guy? No .... WE GET FIRED!


11 posted on 09/02/2012 11:11:39 PM PDT by rwoodward ("god, guns and more ammo")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arec Barrwin

He misses the point of the documentary , which is the psyche of the engineer now driving this runnaway truck. Romney will try, successfully or not,to put the brakes on. Obama will press the pedal to the metal, until it comes to the inevitable bend on the road.


12 posted on 09/02/2012 11:12:01 PM PDT by RobbyS (Christus rex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arec Barrwin

People forget that FDR’s New Deal, was more or less merely a continuation of policies already enacted under Hoover.

Just as Obama merely continued Bush’s policies for the most part.


13 posted on 09/02/2012 11:13:27 PM PDT by dfwgator (I'm voting for Ryan and that other guy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

Whatever you’re smoking, take it easy.


14 posted on 09/02/2012 11:16:59 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

Yes, it began with LBJ’s guns and butter approach. Trying to run the war in Vietnam and his Great Society at the same time. By the Spring of 1968. we had run out of money. It was the looming liquidity crisis which, more than the Tet debacle, that persuaded Johnson not to send more troops to Asia. Seeing the hand-writing on the wall, he bailed out, and left the mess to Nixon. Nixon had the choice of suddenly abandoning the South Vietnamese and beginning a withdrawal.But he also did little to slow the social spending, and so he had to abandon the existing currency arrangement that been in effect since 1945. Since then we have been dealing with fiat money.


15 posted on 09/02/2012 11:19:40 PM PDT by RobbyS (Christus rex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Arec Barrwin
North does make some valid points

Yes, but WHAT HE IS LEAVING OUT is that while he blames President Bush, he admits that DEMOCRATS in House and Congress pushed these bills through.

16 posted on 09/02/2012 11:27:39 PM PDT by UCANSEE2 ( Lame and ill-informed post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

When was TARP and the bailouts?


17 posted on 09/02/2012 11:29:24 PM PDT by dfwgator (I'm voting for Ryan and that other guy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
By tracing the start of the budgetary nightmare to 2001 and the Bush administration, North jumps the shark. The fiscal insanity began long, long before Bush.

Yeah, but that wouldn't help the author prove his point (nor make money).

This author doesn't mention the 'mess' that Clinton handed to Bush. Maybe he's too young to remember.

Monday is empty chair day. Pass the word.

18 posted on 09/02/2012 11:31:43 PM PDT by UCANSEE2 ( Lame and ill-informed post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Arec Barrwin
...Barack Obama is George W. Bush in blackface. Obama is the star of a 21-century minstrel show.

You mean GW hasn't left the office and has put on a blackface!? What a RACIST! Not only a racist, but a bigamist! Does Michelle and Barbara know about this!? These things on top of being a card carrying socialist/communist under an assumed name of Obama!? Damn you, Bush! How diabolical!
19 posted on 09/02/2012 11:32:04 PM PDT by hawaiianninja (Palm note to self: Work for a successful 2012! +Throw the liberal garbage out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arec Barrwin

Many propositions in this article are absolutely correct. I haven’t seen the movie, but I did read and promote “The Roots of Obama’s Rage”. I totally agree with the book. Everyone (almost) ignores the fact that Bush’s last two years of his second term were dominated by a National Socialist Democrat Party Congress, which resisted Bush’s attempts to control Fanny May and Freddie Mack, leading to the meltdown which was caused by fast-food affirmative action home loan LAWS.

D’Souza was NOT dead wrong, he was dead on regarding what was in the book. I will have to respond more later, it’s getting too late for me now.


20 posted on 09/02/2012 11:36:15 PM PDT by matthew fuller (Obama- If you get re-elected, who are you gonna blame for the mess you will inherit?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
When was TARP and the bailouts?

At the end of Bush's term. Those legislative actions arguably helped to keep the illusion of economic viability alive, at least so far. Obviously, there was no "Plan B" and there still isn't.

But FDR continued Hoover's policies? And Ubama continued Bush's? That's like comparing a kid playing with matches to a maniac spraying a village with napalm. Sorry, no sale.

FRegards,
LH

21 posted on 09/02/2012 11:38:01 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

we have been dealing with fiat money since the Bank of the United States


22 posted on 09/02/2012 11:44:12 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Arec Barrwin

Regardless of how BAD Bush was.... he is NOT a Moslem influenced foreigner who has anti-american and anti-colonialism as the root motive for his actions. The Neo-cons are jerks and corrupt as hell, but they ARE still Americans. D’Souza IS right about that.


23 posted on 09/02/2012 11:44:40 PM PDT by Waywardson (If you fear Obama..... vote for Romney. If you fear God... DON'T !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arec Barrwin
>Congress is not interested in stopping the deficit; it is interested in avoiding all responsibility

Public service had become Public? Serve US!

24 posted on 09/02/2012 11:44:52 PM PDT by rawcatslyentist (I'd rather have a bottle in front of me, than a Barack 0b0tt0my!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: matthew fuller

Bingo! You have a winner here Matthew.

When the ‘RATs went in to control Congress in January 2007 unemployment was 4.2.


25 posted on 09/02/2012 11:52:10 PM PDT by ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton (Go Egypt on 0bama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Arec Barrwin

You really have to be stuck on stupid to think that Obama is just a continuation of the George W. Bush regime. The differences are greater than any two administrations in American history.


26 posted on 09/02/2012 11:57:20 PM PDT by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arec Barrwin

Never a fan of Bush, but if you look at Bush’s first four years where he had to deal with the recession he inherited and 9/11 and two wars simultaneously, he still never ran up $1.5 trillion deficits a year like Obama.

If he wants to attack Bush for prescription drug entitlements, no child left behind, amnesty for illegals and other left-wing compassionate conservative BS, that is his right, but that doesn’t mean Obama isn’t responsible for his own record.

Why do people always compare presidents?

Presidents are responsible for their own records.

Just because Bush sucked, Obama doesn’t get a pass for sucking worse.


27 posted on 09/02/2012 11:59:45 PM PDT by radpolis (Liberals: You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: matthew fuller

Bush was a big spending, pro-amnesty RINO on economics but the problems did not start the day GW Bush became President as Gary North is trying to say, or did say.


28 posted on 09/03/2012 12:01:22 AM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: radpolis

bump!


29 posted on 09/03/2012 12:03:30 AM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
and so he had to abandon the existing currency arrangement that been in effect since 1945

Yep, Nixon took us out of Bretton Woods in 71. Nixon's policies were hard-core Statist. Nixon believed first in government.

Liberty and limited government were as much an anathema to Nixon as any far-left Rat today.

Thanks a lot Nixon for your stupid EPA idea. I despise 99.9999 % of all politicians. They are mostly scum of the Earth. Reagan was the only Constitutional respecting President in the past 80 years.

30 posted on 09/03/2012 12:08:39 AM PDT by sand88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard; dfwgator
21 posters so far have been squabbling about whom to point fingers of blame at for our present fiscal predicament.

Let us assume that you are an honest and conscientious up-and-coming young politician who manages to win election to a district which might go either way and you become a representative in the United States Congress. If you want to do the right thing, your first problem is you must buck the structure of your own party.

The structure of your own party is determined by Representatives who have attained authority and responsibility by virtue of their survivability and tenure. They learned that if they permit their party to be painted as the party without compassion, that is the party of fiscal responsibility, the party loses power and they themselves risk losing their sinecure. So the leadership of the Republican Party is disinclined to suffer Mavericks in the ranks and certainly disinclined to permit the party to become tainted with the real essence of reform. They know the Democrats will quite literally charge them with throwing grandma over the Cliff. They know the donors of their own party expect the preferences of corporate welfare. They know the consequences of governing responsibly. Every pressure in Washington makes them disinclined to do so.

Their disinclination is reinforced by the fact that they know that they will not get an even chance in the media. They know they will be depicted to the electorate as mean-spirited. They know the media will seek out and concentrate on some diversionary topic such as the misbehavior of one of their members, and so indoctrinate the electorate that they will throw the election against those who advocate fiscal responsibility.

So you as a young and up and coming libertarian reformer are very soon faced with the choice of crying in the wilderness or becoming a careerist. The system is so strong that virtually everyone goes along to get along.

Senators and the President face similar structural problems.

Ultimately we should think about pointing the fingers at ourselves because we are the ones who make ourselves susceptible to pandering, payoffs, and propaganda.

There is, after all, a school of thought that says that in a democracy the people ultimately get the government they deserve.


31 posted on 09/03/2012 12:13:42 AM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard; p. henry

Try Wilson.

Signed the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 on December 23, 1913


32 posted on 09/03/2012 12:17:49 AM PDT by Pontiac (The welfare state must fail because it is contrary to human nature and diminishes the human spirit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac

Try Taft.

Launched the 16th Amendment in June, 1909.


33 posted on 09/03/2012 12:29:07 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
FDR and his Relief efforts where absolute nightmares for business and much like Obama’s efforts caused what should have been a sharp and short recession in 2008 to be a long drawn out depression, almost as bad as that of the 1930’s.

FDR did a lousy job New Dealing. He spent and spent and continuously changed courses keeping business off balance.. Sound Familiar? Hoover was bad and his incessant tinkering with the economy surely caused problems, FDR caused and sustained the Depression for at least eight years longer than if he had done nothing.

Most of North's points are reasonable, but the deficit was almost nonexistent when Pelosi took over the Speaker ship in 2007. Bush and his new tone always prevented him from stopping the bleeding by VETO. He failed, O’Bumbler did far more damage.

One p[oint as to the Wars. Bush received over whelming Biparisan approval from congress to go into Afghanistan AND Iraq. Sometimes being the hyper power REQUIRES that belligerent countries pay the price. The wars where fine, The hanging around trying to salvage mentally ill societies from their own desire to live like 12th century idiots was the problem. Get in kill as many as you can, get out. Rinse & Repeat as necessary.

34 posted on 09/03/2012 12:30:34 AM PDT by Jim from C-Town (The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Christie at the beach

Clearly still scratching my head why our former president never appeared at the Republican convention. I’ve never seen anything like it. My liberal co-workers joke about it at work.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

I tell my Liberal friends that when it comes to spending, (and spending is our most problematic symptom), Bush was a Liberal. He never vetoed any spending, until some minor things late in his second term.

Therefore, Obama is not the opposite of Bush - he’s Bush in a hurry. Obama is Bush on steroids. So if you hated Bush, you must REALLY loathe Obama.


35 posted on 09/03/2012 12:31:15 AM PDT by Eccl 10:2 (Prov 3:5 --- "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Arec Barrwin
Instead, the documentary focuses on Obamacare, whose burden is mainly on the private sector and actually relieves some of the Medicare payments.

Is he counting the expansion of Medicaid at the state level or merely looking at the federal spending side?

36 posted on 09/03/2012 12:34:38 AM PDT by JediJones (Upcoming Democrat Presidential Primary: Tuesday, November 6, 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard; p. henry
Another evil that occurred on Wilson’s watch is the ratification of the 16th Amendment giving us the infernal Income Tax.

Between the Income Tax and the Federal Reserve I think we can lay the planting of the seed of our present debacle at the feet of Woodrow Wilson (despite his constitutionally having nothing to do with it and it being proposed under Teddy Roosevelt).

37 posted on 09/03/2012 12:39:15 AM PDT by Pontiac (The welfare state must fail because it is contrary to human nature and diminishes the human spirit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
There is, after all, a school of thought that says that in a democracy the people ultimately get the government they deserve.

Amen, you are preaching to the choir.

Dear old Dad always said, "Once the parasites outnumber the hosts, it's all over."
Of course, it was inevitable that the parasites would eventually outnumber the hosts. This is because natural political gravity dictates that the path of least resistance to re-election is to create more and more victims and parasites from whom to purchase votes (using fiat money from IOUs stashed in the "other people's" immense, completely devoid of honest accounting, and hopelessly complex, treasury). It was always only a matter of time before the parasites outnumbered the hosts.

America has committed suicide.

38 posted on 09/03/2012 12:45:59 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

You are correct.

Everyone wants to blame them, they, he, it, “the system”, a conspiracy or just say that is just how the world is. But the world is made up of people, “the people” is made up of individuals... us!

Instead of trying to evade responsibility for the state of the world by waving a hand vaguely and dismissively, we should start by admitting that we are part of it. If we can admit that then we admit that we can change it, even if only in a small way.


39 posted on 09/03/2012 12:49:24 AM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Arec Barrwin

Once we are rid of Obama in the White House, we can get back to blaming Bush, and maybe with Ryan in the picture, we can start fixing things. While it is the “economy stupid,” there is much more about Obama that makes him dangerous, not the least of which is the fact the media won’t investigate him. We need to dethrone the media god.


40 posted on 09/03/2012 12:56:04 AM PDT by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim from C-Town; dfwgator
Get in kill as many as you can, get out. Rinse & Repeat as necessary.

I think one lesson we must learn from the first Iraq war and from Viet Nam is that if one goes to war one must resolve to win.

When I say win I mean in the sense that we won in WW II against Germany and Japan. We totally destroyed the enemy’s ability and desire to wage war.

Another lesson of WW II is the occupation of the conquered countries and the pacification. De-Nazification in particular. We need to de Islamify these countries.

To accomplish this in Iraq and Afghanistan would probably require the US to surrender some of our ideas such as permitting the Muslims in these countries unfettered religious freedom. We need to impose a more liberal form of Islam on the inhabitants of these countries; perhaps forcing a reformation on the Muslims.

What we probably need here is a new era of Colonization in Afghanistan and Iraq.

41 posted on 09/03/2012 1:05:55 AM PDT by Pontiac (The welfare state must fail because it is contrary to human nature and diminishes the human spirit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

I sit corrected.


42 posted on 09/03/2012 1:15:04 AM PDT by Pontiac (The welfare state must fail because it is contrary to human nature and diminishes the human spirit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Arec Barrwin
Uuggh! I do not care who started it, or if it was in 1944 or 1992 or 2008. FIX IT. Start fixing it now! And if you can't fix it, get the hell out of the way. :p
43 posted on 09/03/2012 1:45:32 AM PDT by Casie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rwoodward

GW Bush deficit wasn’t all that bad until a treason congress was elected in 2006. At that point he had to bribe them to get the Win in Iraq. Reagan had the same problem.

When discussing a 222 trillion dollar debt over some interval of time, you have to also mention some estimate of the US production over the same interval, or you have to discuss the assets. US GDP is about 15 trillion each year, without inflation. US taxation tends to be about 20%, or three trillion a year. If the US is put back onto the path to growth, then we can begin to make progress. If we continue with significant unemployment, then we don’t make progress, and the debts can’t be paid.

The problem is unemployment. If the economy grows, which means that business people have sound money and reasonable expectation that they will make and keep significant profits, then we will grow. Further, so long as we have a stinky economy, the birth rate will slow.

The foolishly high rate of taxation discourages growth, discourages employment, and increases government spending.Further, low birth rates make it more difficult to grow the economy.

The government programs are wasteful and inefficient, and should be reduced. Reducing them will encourage growth, and increase birth rates. Win Win.


44 posted on 09/03/2012 1:54:36 AM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
The main point now is “where are we headed?” Its obvious Obama is not steering us in the right direction no matter what case you make about it being Bush's fault. Bush was also handed some of the worst situations any President has ever experienced while the U.S. Is in existence. 911 was devastating and the fallout horrendous in every respect. I would dare any president to do any better given the situation.
45 posted on 09/03/2012 2:04:28 AM PDT by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: jsanders2001

Just as FDR just followed and amplified Herbert Hoover’s progressive Republican policies, Obama followed and amplified George W. Bush’s Compassionate Conservatism.

“Barack Obama is George W. Bush in blackface”. , I couldn’t agree more. GWB was so compassionate, not like the rest of us conservatives.


46 posted on 09/03/2012 2:58:53 AM PDT by StevenFlorida
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: GeronL; Lancey Howard
There is a very interesting article published here yesterday of which, unfortunately, I have lost track. A thesis of the article is to the effect that the elites are anti-democratic because they want to protect their status in society and execute power.

The elites arrogantly dismiss the masses and seek to avoid submitting their plans to Democratic processes. By way of illustration he points to the European Union which is a construct designed to favor intellectual and economic elites at the expense of local democracy.

We see much the same thrust here in America. We see the Democrat party professing fealty to the common man, especially the common man of color or the common woman, while it actually diabolically contrives to set one group against another to circumvent democracy.

We see the Republicans in frustration moving away from democracy in many areas. When common sense cries out to close military bases, we junk our democratic system and appoint committees. When we need to manage our credit system, we pass responsibility and power over to an unelected, unaudited, unresponsible, National Bank. When it comes time to halt deficit spending before we are hurled over the cliff, we pass a continuing resolution.

My bias is to the effect for government to work it must ultimately be responsible to the people-it must be some sort of democracy (with the rule of law). In order for a government to be a democracy it must be submitted to the people. In order for democracy to work people must be educated, enlightened, and involved.

Our system is designed to keep the electorate ignorant, uninvolved, and bigoted in the sense that they prejudge. The only responsible course is to go after the root causes of government failure. And that is not only a daunting but a overwhelmingly comprehensive challenge.


47 posted on 09/03/2012 3:03:09 AM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: StevenFlorida

“Barack Obama is George W. Bush in blackface”.
###

It’s more like he’s Bush on steroids.


48 posted on 09/03/2012 3:03:36 AM PDT by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Arec Barrwin
RELATED: An interesting take on Dear Reader and D'Souza's 2016:

"Does Obama really hate America?" (Duh! Does a bear **** in the woods?)

http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/does-obama-really-hate-america/?cat_orig=us

Dinesh D’Souza found in the United States a land of opportunity: Free from India’s repressive caste system, here was a nation where the native of Mumbai could determine his own destiny, a land where a poor boy could actually improve his lot in life through education and hard work. To him, it was like being loosed from the chains of bondage.

Could this anti-colonialist loathing for the wealthy nations of the West explain Obama’s apology tours? His odd choice in the first 40 days of his administration to return to England a bust of Winston Churchill, the man who crushed Kenya’s Mau Mau independence uprising in the 1950s and allegedly was responsible for torturing Obama’s grandfather? His State Department’s policy-reversing urging of negotiations between Argentina and the U.K. over the fate of the Falkland Islands?

And since Barack Obama Sr. was an anti-colonialist in the extreme, whose radical rhetoric made D’Souza’s pop’s pale in comparison, could those same views have penetrated the perspective of Obama Jr., author of “Dreams from My Father”?

These mind-bending questions presented in D’Souza’s surprise hit movie “2016: Obama’s America” suggest Obama’s political opponents may have been looking at him all wrong – rather than a leftwing socialist, the movie suggests, Obama could simply be a closet anti-colonialist.

“I was trying to fit Obama into American history,” the movie explains, “instead of into his own history.”

Oh, but there’s nothing “simple” about having an anti-colonialist in the Oval Office.

If D’Souza is right that Obama has concealed a raging anti-colonialist worldview in a false cloak of Ivy-league liberalism, then many of the Internet’s wildest rumors could prove legitimate: Obama actually would want to see the U.S. economy crumble; his budget cuts and nuclear reduction drive really would be at attempt to undermine the U.S. as a world superpower; his push for global warming initiatives really could be just a way of forcing developed countries to pay undeveloped nations billions in reparations; and … well, really … he would hate America.

As Daniel Pipes, founder of the Middle East Forum said in an interview in the film, “[Obama] doesn’t want the influence of the U.S. to expand, and that’s a strange thing for a U.S. president.”

As the movie points out, anti-colonialism in the White House would dramatically affect a president’s foreign policy: He would show sympathy for the Palestinians, for example, as the poor neighbors to Israeli “occupiers”; he would show animosity toward the British Empire; he would seek to redistribute the wealth and power of Western nations around the world; he would resent any superpower and weaken it militarily.

Economically, he would increase his country’s indebtedness to the rest of the world, stop the U.S. from developing natural resources – like oil, for example – and encourage, say, South American nations to drill instead. He might even demand the U.S. stop leading the world in, say, space exploration, and build up the scientific communities of third world nations instead.

Of course, as “2016: Obama’s America” points out, Obama has already done all these things.

49 posted on 09/03/2012 3:05:16 AM PDT by neveralib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

daunting and demoralizing in scope

Just me against the tsunami.... *gulp*


50 posted on 09/03/2012 3:08:58 AM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-106 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson