A Sad Day in American History

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." -- Thomas Jefferson

I fear we have failed our founders and our freedom...

One Question...

With the onset and expansion of so many new government programs and spending (new cap and trade bill, universal healthcare, etc.), I find myself wanting to ask Obama one question. If I could be in a room with him face to face, here's what I'd want to know:

Are you stupid (completely ignorant of history and even present day examples of socialistic failure)? OR Do you genuinely believe that you can do it better than anyone who's preceded you, that these policies will work because you have a new and better way than the thousands who've tried for utopia before you? OR Are you simply power hungry and deliberately deceiving people so that you can make them dependent on you and enslaved forever?

It has to be one of those options, right? I know he's not stupid. So what do you think motivates Obama and other liberals?

America For Sale

Soooooo... another $819 BILLION of YOUR money is on its way into the hands of some government official to be used for who knows what... (alledgedly $350,000,000 of it to go to STD prevention education and so on and so on). I fear we are moving so far from our roots as a nation that we might not get back. And it's not just the Democrats. Bush opened the door for such "stimulus" plans with his failed attempt just last year.

The new stimulus package passed in the House today by a vote of 244-188. It's now on its way to the Senate.

Sometimes I wonder if lawmakers are deaf or just blinded by their own agendas... Cause there ARE some good ideas out there. Ideas that would not be mere short-term fixes creating more long-term problems, not to mention more dependence on Uncle Sam.

Below is one (a stimulus idea, that is) I came across earlier this week. What do you think? What would your solution look like?

AMERICA FOR SALE

GNP = M x V (where M is Money Supply & V is velocity of money)

"In large part, the $1 trillion stimulus package in discussion in both houses of congress right now is focused on the government’s ability to spend money and spend it as quickly as possible. The majority of our legislators understand, albeit to some small degree, that money has to change hands quickly in order to spur our economy. This is true, but they are going about it all wrong. Bureaucracies are not the nimblest of creatures. Government works projects don’t get launched in the time frame necessary to have a slowing effect on this downward spiral. By the time they begin to have an impact, everyone is pinching dollars even more than before and the net effect is nil.

The only way to reverse this slide is to empower the people at the expense of government. If every other axiom proves false, this one still rings true – Americans can sniff out a bargain. It’s time to put our country up for sale. Everything needs to be incentivized right now. Give a 20% tax credit for new machinery purchases for small businesses – but give an expiration date for this offer. Dole out employment incentives that make it an attractive time for employers to snatch up some of those people standing in unemployment lines. Offer a 4% mortgage rate for owner occupied home purchases made within the next six months – I’d personally jump out and buy. Go a step further and offer a 4.25% rate for investment properties, and I will guarantee you that this will stem the tide of foreclosures and cause property values to begin moving in the positive direction. Instead of propping up the auto industry with $25 billion in aid, give the American consumers $1500 tax rebates when they purchase American automobiles. All of these things will cause growth without creating a long term reliance on government.

The focus should not be on the money supply but rather on the velocity of money. Money has to change hands in order for growth to occur. You can run the printing presses 24/7 and our economy won’t turn around because people and banks are scared and tight-fisted. That’s why it’s possible, and quite probable, that deflation will persist in America even when the printing presses are overheating. We’re in a liquidity trap, and it will stick around a long time if we’re unable to motivate the American public to open up their wallets and spend us out of this mess.

Long term, we’re staring down profound inflationary pressures, raging deficits and a weakening dollar. Let’s not compound those long term problems with fruitless short term programs. More dollars & more debt are necessary at this point in time, but foolish programs that won’t conquer our short term problems will only pump excess money into our economy and exacerbate our long term ones. Only a year ago, we did just that by passing out refund checks. Predictably though, only 1/3 of those checks actually got spent – that’s not much bang for your buck. That’s why incentives are more powerful and much more fruitful - You actually have to spend in order to get the benefit. Right now, we don’t need promises of long term tax breaks or more government jobs. We need to get the heart pumping again, and nothing revs up Americans like a sale!"

Another Way

We here at The Sisters Wade have been pretty fed up with the lack of true conservatism among our politicians today. The Democratic party is WAY off... the Republican party is shifting farther and farther to the left. Socialism seems to be the buzz word these days, so let's shoot straight: Both parties are guilty of Socialism! Both keep implementing more central control. Both keep throwing federal money, bureaucracy and regulation at problems.

In this election cycle, I have heard more talk of choosing between the "lesser of two evils" than in times past. While liberals may have their long-awaited candidate of choice, I think it's clear to say that conservatives are anything but thrilled with theirs.

A two party system has been around in America pretty much from our inception (Federalists and Anti-federalists). Since the Civil War, the two parties in power today (Democrats and Republicans) have been the major political players. So what happens when we feel like we're losing our voice in the public arena?

Is there another way?

As conservatives, do we vote McCain in hopes of keeping Obama out of power and avoiding what could be extremely destructive social/economic policies, not to mention long-standing ramifications of liberal Supreme Court nominees? Do we stay home and hope our silence catches the ears of those who supposedly represent us in government; hope that the horrors of liberalism ignite a conservative revolution? Do we vote 3rd Party and perhaps stand beside a candidate who more closely espouses our worldview, regardless of his or her chance of winning?

These are questions we've been pondering. What do you think? We're interested in hearing how you've been wrestling through these things and reaching your decision in this very important election.

In case you're interested, here are two 3rd party candidates that we find appealing and noteworthy: Chuck Baldwin and Alan Keyes.

[By the way, I had a chance to hear Michelle Malkin speak tonight... Maybe she'll feature our blog on Hot Air someday. :)]

Just wondering...

Some random thoughts I've had as I follow the news this week:

• How is it possible for a company to fail when the guy running it walks away with millions of dollars?
• How is it right for taxpayers to cover bad decisions of politicians and executives?
  
• Does anyone feel like the government operates like they can just pull money out of the sky (oh wait, they kind of can)? I don't know about you, but if I don't have money to buy milk at the end of the month, then my kid drinks water. If I can't buy gas, then I get a ride. Could someone in Washington please operate on a budget!?!?
• How are bureaucrats gonna be effective at handling mortgages and insurance? I haven't seen them handle much well even in their current jurisdictions.
• Why is president Bush a liberal when it comes to spending?
• Does this change Obama's game plan? I highly doubt all those programs he's promised are possible now. Raising taxes would put the final death nail in the economic coffin. Plus, who wants the government running healthcare if they failed miserably with mortgages... FannieMae and FreddieMac?
• Back in 2005, Alan Greenspan warned of the failing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. There was a bill proposed to reform the institutions. Republicans voted for it... Democrats blocked it.
• McCain was one of the people calling for Fannie and Freddie reform in 2005/2006. Why is he not playing this up?
• Is Joe Biden serious? This gaffe was pretty funny: "FDR president when the stock market crashed and addressed the nation on t.v." News flash: Herbert Hoover was president and people didn't have t.v.'s. I can only imagine the outcry if Palin had made the same mistake.
  

Patriotism???

The Democratic Vice Presidential candidate, Joe Biden, said today that paying higher taxes would be patriotic for wealthier Americans.  He also said, "We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people."

Patriotism, according to Webster's dictionary, is "love of one's country; the passion  which aims to serve one's country, either in defending it from invasion, or protecting its rights and maintaining its laws and institutions in vigor and purity."  Last I checked, the basic rights of Americans include things such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  A foundational right of Americans is equality for every person before the law.  How, then, can one justify taking from some that which is rightfully theirs?  Where is the equality before the law in that?  And now, men campaigning for the highest offices in our land are not only justifying it, but calling it patriotism.

This, my friends, is not patriotism; this is called socialism.

The dominant feature of capitalism is economic freedom.  It allows people to voluntarily decide what they want to buy, how much of it, what quality, etc.  It allows people to decide what they want to do with their own money.  In sharp contrast, socialism wants to do away with this basic individual freedom and replace it with an elite group (the government), who will then exercise increasing control over the market, attempting to equalize it as much as possible.

Why, though, is this so bad?  In short, because it doesn't work.  You see, people are basically selfish.  For many people, if they know they will end up with the same amount as their neighbor regardless of how hard they work, they simply will not work.  They have no incentive.

Author Robert Scheaffer says, "no intellectually honest person today can deny that the history of socialism is a sorry tale of economic failure and crimes against humanity...Socialism is simply 'envy' writ large, and elevated to a moral ideal.  It brands the most productive as criminals, and makes heroes of those who have difficulty achieving anything at all.  The full potential of the human race can never be liberated under such a warped ideal."

What this does not mean is that we should ignore the poor and leave them to suffer.  It just  means that socialism is not the best way to help anyone.  The goal should indeed be for everyone to prosper; the question is simply one of how best to achieve this.

In America we have adopted a welfare system, a method of redistribution of wealth, which is s tenet of socialism.  On the surface it sounds good.  Why would we oppose a system which helps those living in poverty?  For one, it is unjust--it makes people unequal before the law, taking from some to give to others.  But furthermore, it is a system that perpetuates poverty instead of remedying it.

We should indeed give generously to those in true need, those who are actually unable to work.  (And by "we" I mean individuals, churches, private organizations, etc.).  But it is in no way compassionate to remove all incentive for those who are capable of hard work.  Hard work, not a handout, is a lifeline for those living in poverty; it's an escape route to prosperity.

Wealth is not inherently evil.  Sometimes people become wealthy by oppression and exploitation, and that is evil.  But many people become wealthy by hard work, sacrifice, risk-taking, genius.  Most of the time, in this country, the wealthy inevitably prosper countless others by virtue of all the wealth they generate.  They create jobs and opportunities that would not otherwise exist.  They invest in other businesses, thereby generating even more wealth and economic growth.  But the government in effect removes from them this potential if they take from them this prosperity.  The government takes a few dollars and minimally provides for a family for a day, but if this money were left in the hands of those who were capable of creating it in the first place, it just may have created a job that would substantially provide for a family for a lifetime.

On the flip side, we can certainly not stand by and watch some prosper by corruption and exploitation.  Our system of government can only work for a moral people.  I recently heard a theologian say that capitalism is a stool with three necessary legs:  political freedom, economic freedom and moral restraint.  We are, to a large degree, losing the leg of moral restraint.  Consumers have lost restraint in their spending, and some banks and other large companies have lost restraint in their willingness to take advantage of those who don't know any better.  What do you think we can do about this?  While we must be vigilant about not seeing our political and economic freedom eroded by an increasingly gigantic government, we must also be vigilant to stand against economic immorality.