Is This the way Liberty Dies ?

Thanks, Jay.  I thought it was getting hot around here !

Doug - interesting thought.  I am not sure I agree.  There are always choices and sometimes, in my view, we may not be  considering the consequences of our actions.  There is always one political party or the other that will play upon the fears and concerns of the public and tell you how to blame someone else for your problems and offer to solve your problem if you vote for our party.  

I offered a video clip last month that was created in 1948 that is right on point.  This one was supporting capitalism against socialism or communism.  But I am sure that with research I could find a clip from the other side with the opposite point of view.  

The closing seconds of the clip (Make Mine Freedom - 1948) sounds like it was recorded last night on Fox News...

"When anybody preaches disunity or tries to pit one of us against the other through class warfare, racial hatred or religious intolerance, you know that that person seeks to rob us of our freedom and destroy our very lives."

Well, since I favor capitalism, I present this video and cheer for my side.  But there are other choices and I get that.

But I think that the history of the last century, the runup to our leap into socialism with Mr Obama, shows clearly that the socialist and communist systems do not work and the fall of the Soviet Union and the current problems in Europe demonstrate the problems we are moving toward.  

My life ( >60 years) has allowed me to observe some of the fits and starts that have been seen here and around the world I believe that our free enterprise system has created more wealth for more people than other systems on offer around the world.  But I will also admit that the benefits of our society did not reach into all of the corners and shadows and that we did not see everybody benefit in the same way.  I believe that we can provide equal opportunity for everybody - and that everybody that wants a job should be able to find one.  Our free enterprise system has, I think, a better probability of reaching full employment than any thing else.  Government in my view is not the answer - it is never the answer.  But there is where there will be disagreement among us - see Karl, above.  

I believe that the needs of "the poor", whoever that is, can be addressed on the short term by charity rather than welfare from the government.  I believe that if the government is not subsidizing certain companies or education that a more efficient method of providing goods and services can be found in the private sector.  

But it may be shown that stability is not a feature of our system and that a major upheaval must occur from time to time to reset the system.  I think that is where we are headed and I can't believe that we cannot solve the problems without going through that calamity. Pope John Paul II wrote in the 1950's as a Polish priest that Capitalism cannot survive without morality - and that is a commodity that may be in short supply around here from time to time. 

I want to elect businessman Romney and policy wonk Ryan because I think we need them both now.  I have been reading Ryan's plans for six years (I wrote about him in AR four years ago) and I think he is bright, articulate and has the courage to address the entitlement issues - which we need.  Our current course is unsustainable.  I think the current President doesn't have a clue about the economy of our nation and we need someone who will look at economic expansion rather than government spending as the solution for the issues of this time.  We tried the other guy for the last four years and I disagree with most things that he did intentionally.  

Everybody is going to have to decide these issues for themselves in thirty five days.  Think !  then vote.  I do not have a problem with Mr Obama's concern for the folks he used to look after as a community organizer or as a civil rights attorney.  I just think that we need avoid turning to government for the answers.  You can't raise some people up by bringing other people down - again in my view.  As I have said in other posts - in order for government to give me a dollar in benefits, they first have to take that dollar away from you by force. I have a problem with that in a society that was founded on theories of property rights and private ownership.  

Thanks to all for stopping by. 

Karl - I thought I was specific in the post - but I will tie the results to the policies in another post coming up soon,  Thank you for the question... I just need to go to work in my capitalist sweat shop at the moment. 

Karl - this one is for you.

It seems to me that the Administration has violated concepts of stability and rule of law.  Investors will not enter into the markets while there is no way to score a proposed investment to determine the probability of making a profit.  The administration has consistently threatened to raise taxes, which is a concern to the investor class.  The Obama Care legislation - passed in the face of substantial opposition by the public, according to polling information, contains many hidden taxes.  Obama claims that Romney is just interested in tax breaks for the rich - but in truth he favors tax rate reductions for all people who pay taxes.  Not quite the same thing.  

The auto bailout, in addition to substantial tax payer cost, seems to me to have violated the law regarding bankruptcy by disregarding secured creditors and ignoring the superior claims of bond holders for the benefit of the labor unions and the government - who took a stake in the company in hopes of recovering part of the taxpayer investment at some point.  The ad hoc policies which do not seem to follow established precedent make investors nervous.  

I oppose the direct investment in private companies.  The monies given to alternate energy companies have been bad investments and have been a government effort to choose winners and losers in the economy.  It  appears that Obama supporters have received billions of dollars in diirect investment into private companies.  I can remember when government support for research took place in University research programs or through government purchases of technology.  The Administration has also opposed oil and gas production and coal as a source of energy.  Gas prices are double what they were when he took office.  He has opposed oil exploration in the gulf and coastal waters.  EPA regulations - without congressional action, have made it difficult for coal fired plants to operate and discouraged coal production.  The Keystone pipeline needs to be approved to bring Canadian oil into the US to help us become less dependent on Middle East Oil.  

The Administration continues to try to provide regulations in the absence of Congressional actions.  Unable to pass Cap and Trade, the EPA plans to implement provisions by regulations and executive orders.

It is remarkable that the Administration has not provided leadership in the area of the federal budget.  No properly passed budget in three years makes it difficult to prioritize spending.  

The administration interferred with Boeing who wished to locate a major aircraft assembly facility in South Carolina despite the fact that no closure of Washington State facilities or relocation of programs from Washington were planned.  How can you justify stopping a major construction and manufacturing project when economic development and jobs should be the priority of the administration.

Foreign policy is also a problem.  I oppose the apology tours of 2009 where Mr Obama seemed to want to negotiate with a hostile world from a position of weakness.  The US walked away from a government in Egypt that had helped us stabilize the Middle East for more than 25 years.  The current situations in the Middle East have anti American demonstrations in 20 countries and the region is in flames with an  American Ambassador murdered in an American consulate in Libya.  This administration claimed it would enhance our position in the world.  Not what I see.  

Finally, the President seems to be intent on increasing the number of people who are dependent on government.  Current census figures show that 100 million people - fully a third of the country - live in households where at least one member of the household receives a means tested (welfare - excludes social security and medicare) government check.   

It is 3a in the morning so I am working from memory rather my preferred research for information.  Best I can do at the moment. 

Actually, Karl, all of my concerns have nothing to do with a Democrat in the White House - anymore than they are related to having the first Black President in the White House.  It is not who Barack Obama is that is the issue it is what his policies are that give me a problem. Unfortunately you have resorted to talking points rather than rational argument which make this discussion rather pointless.  I suggest we all move on to new posts as the readership of old posts diminishes rapidly.  

ObamaCare (The Affordable Health Care Act) is, in my view, a takeover of the Health Care system by the government.  Although the primary impact of the bill is not an improvement of health care - it is more a bill that changes the insurance industry.  The bill changes who is covered by insurance, imposes new levels of taxation to pay for benefits delivered in ways that are defined by the government.  I disagree with your previous statement that the provisions of the bill are loved by all except for the mandate... horsepucky.  The AHC act was opposed by the public from the beginning according to polling and continues to be opposed by a majority of those polled  - opposed to passage of the bill in older polls, supporting its repeal in most new polls.  

It is true that there has been some sort of public debt since the beginnings of our country with the exception of Andrew Jackson's term as President when we were actually debt free for one brief shining moment.  And it is also correct that we have dramatic increases in the national debt under the modern Presidents to include Reagan and Bush 43.  But the expansion of the Debt in the last four years exceeds anything that ever occurred under previous Presidents.  Six trillion dollars in debt out of the current debt level of 16 trillion dollars accumulated during the Obama term in office.  I object more to the debt accrued by Mr Obama than to others because he is accelerating the pace of new debt, he has favored policies which increase spending (of money we do not have), he has operated without a Congressional budget which is unconscionable (and has never happened before to my knowledge) and finally because Mr Obams is here and now and we are in an election cycle where the debt and handling of the economy is an issue and the election gives us an opportunity to stop him.  In the timeline of history, I can't do much to change the actions of prior administrations of either party.  We can talk about how we got here another day.  What we do right now to change the trajectory of the debt is a real opportunity to solve the problems. 

When companies fail, we have a procedure through bankruptcy to restructure the enterprise and, in most cases, bring back a healthy company to continue operating as seen with many airlines and banks.  Loans were made to Chrysler years ago because it appeared that they could recover and repay the money.  They did and they did.

We have a mechanism to take over failing banks and protect depositors.  But the 2008 situation was extraordinary and billions of dollars were provided to banks and financial institutions through TARP at the end of the Bush term.  What you seem to miss is that most of the TARP money was paid back and yet was not applied to pay off any debt during the Obama term.  

I believe that entry of government into new areas of control beyond the limits of the Constitution results in loss of liberty and I typically object.  And I did object to the Patriot Act under Bush.  I believe we have perverted the intended relationship of the Feds to the States.  It is not just wrong when Mr Obama moves in that direction, but it is happening today and can be objected to in the present tense - not as a footnote to history.

Egypt under Sadat and under Mubarek provided a keystone in the arch to stabilize the Middle East and protect the existence of Israel.  Mubarek became a repressive regime, but his government considered our interests and more lives were saved. I understand your point but letting his government fall may not have been in our long term interests.  

Government is just not the answer in many of the problems.  Seniors (ME for example) have paid into Social Security for 40 years and into medicare since its inception.  I may have certain expectations based upon the implied contract that I participated in for certain defined benefits.  But it is clear that we cannot continue to take in money from younger folks if we are unable to meet obligations in the future.  All may need to adjust their expectations if we are to survive.  As I have said previously, it is unwise to kill and eat the goose that lays the golden eggs if we intend to live on the continuing supply of golden eggs in the future.   

The press, fawning though they may be, in 2008 said to Mr Obama that he might have to back off of some of spending programs discussed in the campaign because of the financial crisis that arrived at the end of the Bush term.  His response was - no, he would make no changes to his plans.  This administration si fiscally irresponsible and they are digging the ditch,  that they claim was there when they got here, deeper and deeper at a frightening rate.  We will not spend our way to prosperity under either party.  But this man is not listening and is not acting responsibly - in my opinion. IN my 60+ years, I have never seen the credit rating of my country downgraded by the rating agencies as I have seen under this Administration.  When Clinton realized that his agenda was not going to work, he moved to the right where he could continue to govern with effect and progress.  This President was not smart enough to do that - and he follows failed policies and ideology right up to election day.  He deserves to lose, in my opinion.  I am voting for the other guy.

I have written previously that I can understand why folks voted for Mr Obama in 2008.  He is a spellbinder and spoke with what appeared to be moral authority and concern.  It now seems - in my view - that he is the amateur that has been written about.  His wishing for a world that he sees in his mind doesn't make it so. His administration is, in the Texas statement, all hat and no cattle.  It is time for a change.  He couldn't produce in his four years of power (plus two years of Democrat control of House and Senate before his Presidency began) and he has no claim or even argument for another term in office.  

We have the opportunity to fire the President in November.  I recommend that he be replaced with Mitt Romney.