The View From 1776
Rebuild a Welfare-State-Dependent New Orleans?
The New York Times editorial board still believes in the fairyland of Stalinist dictatorship of the proletariat in which all the shots are called by the collective government’s commissars.
- Another ugly editorial/diatribe from The View. It would have said the same thing about the Marshall Plan in 1947.
- In your hatred of collectivism you people here are so naive.
A devastated area cannot be redeveloped and brought back to health without a certain amount of collectivism or people coming together to repair the infrastructure - sewers, roads, communications, hospitals, etc - that communities need to survive and continue. That coming together of people to restore and maintain the health of a community is called government, no matter how you cut it.
- Actually they don't David. We built this nation by first using our own ingenuity and talents and skills and only when we had those things did we use government collectivism for the administration. We used our own tax dollars or loans, not the tax dollars of other people to pay for what we wanted.
What is bad about New Orleans is two-fold. They want money from the Federal Government they won't have to pay back in many case or loans that may be defaulted on. They want to also, keep people on welfare roles when their are jobs they could do.
Now, if you were to say, they are corrupt, they will use illegal immigrants before their own citizens, will waste money, will take bribes or use bribes to line pockets, I would agree with you. You are looking for government to lead the people instead of people lead the government. And you are looking for this because people are weak and getting weaker and more and more dependent on government.
Government is supposed to be a "tool" that "we the people" use not the "master" that uses us.
New Orleans is build in an area that shouldn't have homes built in. It is also part of one of the most corrupt areas in the U.S. where massive waste and corruption has gone on for decades. The people depend on federal help instead of helping themselves and what is going on is a return to that same system.
Let the people of New Orleans pull together without federal funding. It will make them stronger and less likely to permit the corruption to continue they had before.
This is not to deny anybody that wants to go their and help them or their ability to borrow money that is backed up and will be repaid. This is not to say there isn't massive need but, it is to say they, the people of New Orleans have to do it on their own.
Our nation is going under due to our trying to be all things to all people. The more people depend on government the less likely they will survive.Posted by JanPBurr on 12/27 at 12:56 AM
- Airth, collectivism is not an association of individuals meeting for a common cause. It is a way of measuring human value and non-value by the group. I know it is too complicated and technical for pro-collectist losers like you, Airth, to comprehend.
Look at it this way; the number 100 is made up of a whole bunch of 1's. If 1 leaves, you have 99. Each 1 counts. The whole 100 can be changed to 99 when only 1 is subtracted. Each 1 has the same value as every other 1. The whole 100 gets its total value from the 1's. The 1's are not valuable because they are part of 100. 1 is the most important number value and defines value to all other numbers including fractions. Questions?
Now, Airth, repeat back 99 times and write it on the board 37 1/2 times. No, any old board will do.
I have a neighbor, Airth. Like you, he passes a lot of hot wind. He thinks 2 is a more important number than 1.It is a form of cultural retardation /public school indoctrination. Questions?
Ask Gore. He blinks a lot.Posted by Jim Baxter on 12/27 at 01:45 AM
- Your all talking through your hats.
New Orleans would have seized long ago if it wasn't for the Corp of Engineers, a federal organization, federally funded.
The collective (government) built the interstate highway system America so depends on. It created the communications network that crisscrosses America. It jettisoned the space program. None of these things could have been done without the collective or the seed money it spread around.
- Actually the bulk of money that went to New Orleans for work on the levies went to local officials as pork and bribes and gifts and waste to line their pockets. Plus, remember that the levees were sinking just as the homes were. The land is not suitable for occupancy because there is no real geological foundation in that area.
The interstate system was for defense but, it too was pork. Each State or combination of states could have done the same thing but, there was nothing wrong with doing a large project like that through the Federal Government if it was for defense, which is their job.
Get the Federal Government out of those projects and the states can still take them on. Why should the Federal Government put levees up for a state? What is so special about a section of one city that all the U.S. must contribute to that city's desire for a levee.
Those projects were extensions of the "New Deal" where huge projects are used to "stimulate" the economy. Well, now you see that we have become so dependent on government spending for the economy, we face a recession anytime the government cuts spending. We now face economic collapse because of that type of thinking. Sure, we could have a space program because the research from it would allow for better defense and development of things all states could use. You are comparing apples to oranges. Having a space program to benefit all of the U.S. isn't the same as pouring billions into an insane project in New Orleans that only benefited the corrupt politicians in Louisiana and did nothing to get the people out of an area they shouldn't be living in.
You have supported taking money from hard working men and women all over the U.S. and funneling it to a corrupt and uninhabitable (land wise) area of one state. And, didn't even help the people in that area. Why do you support the theft of hard working people's money and giving it to a few that waste it?Posted by JanPBurr on 12/27 at 12:48 PM
- I am sure you have also benefited from pork. You all have. You all have your hands out, like where's mine. You want better this or that. You want better defense systems and security. You want better airports.
- I think that Mr. Airth's comment No. 7 is the conclusively damning evidence of the corrupting influence of socialism. He's correct; we all have our hands out for pork.
The welfare state forces people to join the throng wallowing in the mud and shoving others aside to grub at the feeding trough. No abstinence by upright citizens reduces the overall grasping for favors, which means that decent people are forced to join the throng or see themselves stripped of everything by taxes, with nothing in return.
- I agree, Mr. Brewton. David is right, the majority do want pork.
As I have pointed out to David before, the 18% approval rating of Congress is one thing, but the voters give their own Congressman a 60% or better rating because he gets pork for them.
A society that is based on socialism can't survive as a viable, strong and competitive nation. The people become too weak to be that. The more they depend on government, the more they have to depend on it.
He says the government is a good distributor of money and he is right. They are lousy at managing it and using it wisely but they are good at distributing it. However, in the case of the U.S. now, it is borrowed money they also good at distributing and borrowed money we can't afford for social spending we can't afford. As a nation in decline, we should be putting in place reforms so we can continue at least basic services and yet, we are approaching a time when even basic service will have trouble being funded. We are already starting to see that as tax revenues drop in the states.
Americans who aren't prepared for a deep recession better pray that the Federal Reserve, Congress and the foreign central banks and sovereign wealth funds can avoid that recession. Millions more of Americans will lose their homes, property values drop even more, unemployment will rise, Canada, Europe and other nations will be dragged down with the drop in U.S. consumption and even basic government services like police and fire may have to be cut as budgets implode from lost tax revenues and outstanding debt still has to be paid off.
But, with all the foreign money pouring in to bail us out, maybe they can delay the recession until the boomers retire and cause that entitlement crisis to come to bear on our economy.Posted by JanPBurr on 12/27 at 03:57 PM
- "The welfare state forces people to join the throng wallowing in the mud and shoving others aside to grub at the feeding trough. No abstinence by upright citizens reduces the overall grasping for favors, which means that decent people are forced to join the throng or see themselves stripped of everything by taxes, with nothing in return." Excellent.
So, all the kings horses, and all the kings men, couldn't put New Orleans back together again: http://theseedsof9-11.comPosted by Peggy McGilligan on 12/27 at 04:45 PM
- No one mentioned how much the so called war on terror is absorbing financially. It is not just that the war itself is costing a lot and drain the coffers but the moneys for it are grossly mismanaged and unaccounted for. For instance, money has been thrown at Pakistan with very little to show for it. There is a lot of corruption involved. The war is siphoning off a lot of money that could be better used.
- Nobody has touched that last comment of mine. I think I know why, because it deals with a sanctity that is embraced here and has become an embarrassment. This sanctity is the bible of conservatives and Republicans for less but more accountable government. Well, that policy did not come to be during this administration as promised. Speaking against this administration would be like criticizing family and loved ones. But, it is a matter of trust and faith, which this administration, in its incompetence, has tarnished and thrown out the window.
- Your alternative is National Socialism and its leadership.
Why respond any further when you and your 'group' do not possess a better baby-rattle to find your diaper?
Patty-cake? No thanks.Posted by Jim Baxter on 12/28 at 12:16 PM
- David, the intervention in the Middle East has gone on under both parties for decades. For 40 years the Democrats controlled Congress and thus, the spending on military action and they engaged us in one war or military action after another under Presidents from both parties. The Democrats are currently still funding all the military action as they control Congress and have continued the spending the GOP was engaged in.
In fact, there has been no let up in spending under them and they are calling for even more spending even if they cut military spending after the next election. Also, don't think Hillary is a dove and that if elected won't spend a lot on military activities if the elite international group her and Bill belong to call for it. Only if Congress blocks her will it not happen and yet, many in Congress in both parties answer to that same international group of power brokers that with one phone call can pour millions in to campaigns.
Still even if we can return to non-intervention policies, we still go bankrupt just with internal spending because we can't control the mandatory spending. Just Health and Human Services and Social Security and interest on debt is $1.8 trillion of the budget. Those expenditure can't be cut without huge reforms and even if reformed will require huge increases during the transition period. It is impossible to pay for those promises without huge tax increases that would crash the economy because the tax increases would reduce paychecks or buying power and reduce consumer spending. We can't grow our way out of it either because we are losing the area of growth, manufacturing, high tech, R&D, financials, that is needed for rapid growth in higher wage jobs. We will be lucky if we don't have a recession.
Unlike nations that can export natural resources and tax those exports and get consumers in other nations to pay those taxes in prices, the U.S. has lost that ability because it imports instead of exporting most natural resources. We do have our grains but more of that is now going to ethanol production which is a waste. Ethanol get 25% less mileage and so gains in one area are offset in another. Bio-diesel would be much better but, our government is foolishly pushing ethanol. We have 200 years of oil and are blocking easy access to it in various ways.
Much of the spending on military, is tied to OPEC nations right now and that is because our dollar is based on oil sales in dollars and losing OPEC support for the dollar would send our dollar into collapse. That doesn't justify it, just explains it. Terrorism is, of course, a separate issue that we also have to deal with.
As long as you don't think there is a solution by cutting military spending, (it would only slow the the decline) then I can agree that we need to address how we use the military and spending on the military.
You might ask why the democrats are continuing to fund the military. Think of how many union jobs are tied to the defense industry. It is one area that unions are still strong. (DoDPosted by JanPBurr on 12/28 at 01:08 PM
- "There are no easy solutions to a nation in decline."
Ha Ha! Nevertheless, isn't it sad that the U.S. has had an administration for the last seven year that has greatly assisted in its decline.
Each great nation reaches a point where it declines. It is natural. And I guess it is appropriate to have at the time leaders to assist in that decline. None, though, have accomplished this as well as this present administration in its bumbling, incompetence and soiling of America's image.
Posted by JanPBurr on 12/28 at 01:51 PM
- You do talk rubbish in singling out Clinton and saying that he brought on a recession that is responsible for today's problems. At least Clinton brought in a balanced budget and a surplus, which was on a road to possible recovery. And it is this administration that has paid least attention to infrastructure. How could they pay for it with its enormous tax cut for the rich.
- I didn't single out Clinton. Where do you see that I said he was responsible for the 70 years of bad policy that led up to our current crisis? I simply stated that we had a recession that occurred because of what went on during the Clinton years and was called the Clinton recession by economists that traced it to the policies of those years.
In fact, it was the Federal Reserve, and our attempt to balance the budget that led to the recession. Remember that because we depend on deficit spending, any attempt to balance the budget leads to a recession. It has for decades and Clinton was just another in a long line as will be Bush and the Bush recession we are going to have. Again, Federal Reserve rates are going to play more of a role than the policies of Congress or the President but, it will still be labeled the Bush recession even if it happens after he leaves office. The trends are already in place and have been for awhile now.
You do understand the lag factor and how it takes 9 to 24 months for a rate change to take full effect and even longer on other policies, don't you?
This is about the policies of both parties. Neither party is good for America. The Federal Reserve isn't good for American.Posted by JanPBurr on 12/28 at 03:17 PM
- To the extent New Orleans is worth rebuilding, someone will rebuild it. Otherwise, it is just an arbitrary location on which to build. The very people bewailing New Orleans as unsafe (given the terrors of global warming) are the ones now telling us it must be rebuilt, and that it is the height of wisdom to do so. They further tell us, if we put it back exactly the way it was (entitlement housing well mixed in with non-entitlement) there will be no possible repeat of the blight we had before. As proof of this they state:
The Dutch have been rebuilding their cities for a thousand years. Jerusalem has been repeatedly destroyed (586 BCE, 722 BCE, 70 CE, 1099 CE, &c). So were Troy, Rome, Athens, Alexandria, Constantinople, London, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Peking, and Dehli. San Francisco was rebuilt following the 1906 earthquake without aid of Federal dollars. It took eleven years for Atlanta to rebuild after Sherman leveled it, but that was mainly due to crippling debt and continued efforts to punish the South. The Great Colonial Hurricane of 1635, Washington burned in 1814 and again after the 1852 and 1877 floods, Portland fire 1866, Port Huron & Chicago fires 1871, Johnstown flood 1889, Galveston 1900, Toronto fire 1904, Pittsburg 1907, Dayton 1913, Great Mississippi Flood 1927, Cincinnati 1937, and Los Angeles 1938; the list is almost endless. Most of these were rebuilt with little or no outside or Federal assistance (including most of federal D.C.).
- It is mostly about "wealth redistribution," for socialists. They demand that the successful fund the unsuccessful, the productive fund the unproductive, the educated fund the uneducated so life can be "fair." The fact that destroys a society is not important to them because their "intentions are good."
We can help the needy. We can help them to become productive but, we can't continue to fund them if they won't take advantage of the help to make them productive. We can provide education, training in new jobs, temporary assistance, etc. But, if they are going to keep demanding more than they give society then society doesn't need them and continuing to meet their demands only weakens the society.Posted by JanPBurr on 12/28 at 06:57 PM
- I disagree. Socialism is mainly about control. Socialists claim it is really about 'justice', but only subject to their definition what constitutes this justice. Socialist 'dialectic' waxes positively poetic about the need for control. It is a top-down mindset and it is this need for control that distinguishes it. Islam has it too, though not so much controlling wealth as outward behavior. There are other philosophies and religions that indulge in wealth-redistribution, but we call it by another name and doesn't involve control. In those cases, we call it charity.
- We are pretty much in agreement, I just put "control" as the means to the end. They have to have control which is why they centralize power and once they do that, they can have wealth redistribution that takes from the productive members of society and distributes that wealth to the under productive or non-productive who vote for them to keep doing more of the same.
Of course they then wonder why wealth, business and the productive become more scarce. They use "sound good" rhetoric to get power and then once they have power (elected to majority in Congress) they have the ability to control policy. But, you may be right. I just may be looking at it a little different. Control, either way, is absolutely necessary to them.
China right now is the "poster child" of reform. Yet, they are still totalitarian and will shoot you if they think "thou dost protest too much." They may have given people they home and a path to more money and material goods, and even a higher standard of living but, they still have "control" and didn't give the people their full freedom.
We have the freedom and what have we done with it. They have no choice in China. Here, we are seeing millions actually choosing to give up their freedom for socialism. Amazing.Posted by JanPBurr on 12/30 at 11:13 PM
That is just how I see it, but in reverse. Socialists use platitudes regarding 'justice' and 'social equality' and 'wealth-redistribution' as propaganda, the apparent object being to get the control necessary to implement same. They tell us J+SE+WR are their 'true' ends and insist control is just a 'necessary' means. However, the opposite is actually the case, at least at the top of the socialist foodchain. There, J+SE+WR are the means for getting us to relinquish control; and that is how it happens every time socialism is tried. The proof of this is socialist oligarchs never deliver on the goods once in power. Their revolutions invariably stops the moment they have control or very soon after.
Let's say, for the moment and for the sake of argument, they begin as idealists but become crazed for it the moment they have power, as if power were some unimaginably potent drug that grips its victim the moment he/she grasps it. This is how Hollywood oftens depicts it, and would explain the seeming transformation of socialists the moment in power. But, then, wouldn't just as many, those whose politics are the opposite of control, have the same problem whenever it is their turn in the barrel.