The View From 1776

Why the Presidential Election Matters so Much

Read Big Government Is a High-Stakes Affair.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 09/01 at 12:12 AM
  1. In the editorial by ERNEST S. CHRISTIAN and BILL FRENZEL posted by Mr. Brewton, the authors wring their hands in despair at the prospect that Obama and a Democratic congress might bring about radical change in Washington. Considering the epic failures of the status-quo-Conservative/Republicans, it is hard to see how change could be any worse than 4 more years of Bush-Cheney-world:

    Catastrophic unnecessary unending war
    Guantanamo
    Torture
    Abu Ghraib
    Kangaroo courts
    Extraordinary rendition
    Illegal black prison sites
    Halliburton
    No-bid contracts
    Cronyism
    Recess appointments
    Warrantless wiretapping
    Fired U.S. Attorneys
    Plamegate
    Katrina
    Doubling of the national debt
    Currency debasement
    Denying global warming
    Arrest and permanent detention without warrant, charge, or attorney
    Destruction of Habeas Corpus

    But one has to wonder, if the concern is that a President Obama would have TOO MUCH POWER, why the Republicans were so eager to allow the Cheney/Bush junta to vastly increase the power of the Executive, at the expense of the other two branches? Did they actually believe the Neocons would rule forever?

    They have made their bed, and now they must lie in it.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  09/01  at  03:07 PM
  2. The problem is that both are bad for America. I don't think any sensible person would want either one. Both are adding spending to a bankrupt nation. The GAO has warned Congress in their report to Congress that we already owe more than we own as a nation.

    Without unfunded liabilities, we have $49 trillion in city, state, personal, corporate and federal debt. With unfunded liabilities it is $111 trillion. Yet, both candidates are not only going to add more, but they aren't going to reform anything that might help. They will also, both use under reported inflation numbers and hedoncially adjusted GDP numbers to create more illusions things aren't as bad as they really are.

    The job of the President is to turn the people down when they want things that would threaten the economic viability of the U.S. not give them more. Yet, now for decades the President has treated the Federal Government like it was overseeing a democracy rather than a republic of democracies that were to solve their problems on social, moral and economic issues in their own states to keep from sinking the nation as a whole.

    Most voters don't even know we aren't a democracy nor should we be since democracies invariable start voting themselves benefits they can't and won't pay for. We have reached that point and both parties are so desperate for votes they keep promising the people they will give them the benefits they want and speed up the bankruptcy process. When nations go bankrupt, the default or hyper-inflate out of debt but, in either case, the loans to the U.S. will be cut off and we will be in a long depression.

    The most normal choice is hyper-inflation. That means a senior gets a social security check for $1,000 but it won't last a month. Congress has an emergency meeting and bumps it up to $2,000 but, by the time they do, it won't last a month either due to rising inflation. The following month they authorize $4,000 and that doesn't last 2 weeks and the following month $10,000 but that doesn't last either.

    In Zimbabwe they had to start printing 500 billion dollar bills and still had problems. A Big Mac cost over 2 million. That can happen to the dollar but even if it doesn't get as bad as Zimbabwe, people with $200,000 or so in the bank will be wiped out. Cash, bonds, money markets will be worthless in a matter of months as just a cart full of food will cost 10's of thousands.

    That is what the U.S. is headed for. As Von Mises stated.
    quote:
    "There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as a result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved.
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  09/02  at  10:20 AM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.