The fact that there does not appear to be a single Republican leader who is capable or ready to challenge the assertion that “only government” can put our sputtering economy back on track shows we need a rebirth of the Republican Party. And that this rebirth must come from the grass roots.
Category: Quote of the Day
Quote of the Day
In 1975, when liberalism was on the march around the world, Reagan called for the rebirth of the GOP as a party “raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people.” A few months later, he declared that “I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism” — that is, the belief in small government.
Reagan’s stated beliefs made him the object of ridicule among those who considered themselves intellectuals, but he stuck to his guns. And then, in 1980, when the failures of Big Government were evident to all Americans, the people turned for leadership to the presidential candidate who had been right all along.
Over the last eight years, President Bush sought to tame Big Government and turn it to conservative ends. The administration experimented with the belief — as expressed by Huckabee, Gerson and Kristol — that Republicans and conservatives would do better by rejecting small-government conservatism and accepting Big Government. For generations, Democrats had bribed people to vote for them with one Big Government program after another, so Republicans did the same (No Child Left Behind, the Medicare prescription drug benefit, endless deficits and, finally, the bailouts). The results of the experiment are now in: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Harry Reid, President-elect Barack Obama.
Quote of the Day
Indeed, Toyota claims losses for the first time in 70 years—though how Toyota’s management was able to keep sales up in 1945, when Gen. Curtis LeMay’s B-29s were conducting their nightly visits, escapes me.
Bush may believe he has sinned against free-market principles, but he is following the path of his great free-market predecessor. Ronald Reagan, too, was not prepared to see Japan take down the U.S. auto industry, or steel industry, or computer chip industry, or Harley-Davidson.
Believing Japan was dumping to destroy U.S. companies, Reagan put patriotism before ideology and imposed quotas on Japanese imports. He, too, was castigated by the same commentariat that is berating Bush.
Vice President Cheney, too, has endorsed the bailout of Detroit. Of the senators who voted to pull the plug on General Motors, Cheney is said to have remarked, “It’s Herbert Hoover time” up there in the GOP caucus.
[….]
Like Prohibition in Hoover’s phrase, globalism is “an experiment, noble in purpose, that has failed.”
Quote of the Day
Neoconservatism, he announced, was a victim of its success. It no longer represented anything unique because the GOP had so thoroughly assimilated its doctrines. In 2004, a variety of commentators scrambled to pronounce a fresh obituary for neoconservatism. The disastrous course of the Iraq War, Foreign Policy editor Moisés Naím said, showed that the neoconservative dream had expired in the sands of Araby.
Quote of the Day
In recent years, this question of ownership has insinuated itself into my mind, and I can’t dislodge it. If my home (automobile, income) is really mine, why must I pay strangers to continue to live in it, use it, retain it? Is it MINE, or not?
Not only must I pay to keep what is presumably mine, but the strangers who demand the tribute have a greater claim upon “my” property than I do. Over the years, I’ve needed to have several repairs made to a shifting foundation, have had to replace the roof shingles, re-pave the driveway, install a sump pump, etc. If, because of unexpected expenses, I had been unable to pay the property tax bill, would the collector have understood when I told him I’d have to give him a pass this time around? Of course not. His claim upon my money (say, should that be “my” money?) outweighs my own.
But I digress. Back to the “bubble.” We have lived in this house for forty-two years. We started construction in the late summer, or early fall, of 1965, and moved in on January 20, 1966, just one week before my son was born. Now for the epiphany: while I was musing over the tax bill, it suddenly dawned on me that, over the years, we’ve paid the local rulers more than the house cost. Much more, in fact. It’s incredible, when you think about it. The local authorities did nothing to facilitate our purchase of the land, the building of the house, or its subsequent maintenance; that all came out of my pocket. Yet, over the years, they’ve collected more from me than I paid the developer for the land and the building. And, needless to say, it’s not ending here – I’ll be paying them until I die or sell the house.
And then there’s the inflation factor. As the dollar has withered over the years, the “value” of the house has increased to seven or eight times the amount paid for it. I’ve always marveled that a building that gradually deteriorates becomes more valuable as it does so. My income, over my working years, did not increase sufficiently to match the decline of the dollar, especially with Medicare forcing me to work for less with each passing year. But for the true, actual, owners of the house, it didn’t matter; their tax rate was based upon the inflated value of the house, so that as the dollars became more worthless, they collected more of them.
What a sweet scheme! No wonder those windbags in the state house, or city hall, never stop referring to home ownership (sic!) as the fulfillment of the American Dream! For them, it’s a sweet dream indeed; for us, it can be a bad dream, if not a nightmare. For every house built within their jurisdiction, they will, eventually, collect more than the contractor, the developer, the architect, etc., from that house, and without significant expense on their part, or liability for flaws or defects. And should some defiant home “owner” challenge them and refuse to pay, they’ll simply take his house away from him, and sell it to someone who will. To cap the climax, I suspect that when the municipality borrows money, it uses “my” home as collateral.
A housing bubble? Of course. Every building that’s constructed means a perpetual flow of income to the local authorities. It may look to you like a house, but to them it’s a cash cow. And you’re getting milked, no bull!
Quote of the Day
In today’s world, America faces nationalistic trade rivals who manipulate currencies, employ nontariff barriers, subsidize their manufacturers, rebate value-added taxes on exports to us and impose value-added taxes on imports from us, all to capture our markets and kill our great companies. And we have a Republican Party blissfully ignorant that we live in a world of us or them. It doesn’t even know who “us” is.
We need a new team on the field and a new coach who believes with Vince Lombardi that “winning isn’t everything. It’s the only thing.”
The Automotive Bailouts: The Other Side of the Story
I have been sitting here, trying to keep out of this. But I have sat and looked at the Republican and Neo–Conservative Spin on this Story and I’m sick of it. 😡
So, I am giving you, the other side of the story, from the horses mouth; without commentary from me.
I did not ask that you agree, I simply ask that you listen and hear this man out. Now I am almost sure, that the Blogs, that I have linked to, will remove my trackback, like the Neo-Con Fascists that they are. I mean, it is all about controlling the message with those guys. 🙄
Here we go:
Part 1:
Part 2:
Media Q & A:
Media Q & A Part 2:
Media Q & A Part 3:
There you have it. The other side of the story. You decide.
(Source UAW.ORG)
Quote of the Day
The fundamental problem of the incoming Obama Administration is that
their thinking is based on the very 2007 assumption that the
fundamental problem of scarcity was solved so now all we have to do is
redistribute wealth and reorganize society in a more SWPL fashion.
Instead, it turns out the Bush Boom was a Bush Bubble and we actually
have much bigger problems than the conventional wisdom of 2007 assumed.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Quote of the Day – Pearl Harbor
A short comment is no place to settle the controversies that have raged ever since the attack about what Roosevelt and his chief subordinates knew in advance, but one thing has been known for a long time: however “dastardly” the attack might have been, it was anything but “unprovoked.” Indeed, even admirers and defenders of Roosevelt, such as Robert B. Stinnett and George Victor, have documented provocations aplenty. (See the former’s Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor and the latter’s The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable.) On December 8, the same day that Roosevelt asked Congress for a declaration of war against Japan, former president Herbert Hoover wrote a private letter in which he remarked, “You and I know that this continuous putting pins in rattlesnakes finally got this country bitten.”
On the basis of facts accumulated over the past seven decades and available to anyone who cares to examine them, we are justified in saying that Hoover’s characterization of the war’s provocation was entirely accurate – both with regard to the Japanese imperial government as “rattlesnakes” and with regard to the U.S. government’s “putting pins in.” Indeed, we now have a much firmer basis for that characterization than Hoover could have had on December 8, 1941. Countless lies have been told, massive cover-ups have been staged, propaganda has flowed like a river, yet in this one regard, at least, the truth has undeniably been brought out.
Most American historians, of course, no longer bother to deny this truth. They simply take it in stride, presuming that the Japanese attack, by giving Roosevelt the public support he needed to bring the United States into the war against Germany through the “back door,” was a good thing for this country and for the world at large. Indeed, some actually shower the president with approbation for his mendacious maneuvering to wrench the American people away from their unsophisticated devotion to “isolationism.” In no small part, Roosevelt’s unrelenting dishonesty with the American people (Stanford University historian David M. Kennedy tactfully refers to the president’s “frequently cagey misrepresentations”) in 1940 and 1941 – plain enough if one reads nothing more than his pre-Pearl Harbor correspondence with Winston Churchill – is counted among his principal qualifications for “greatness” and for his (to my mind, incomprehensible) status as an American demigod.
I have noticed, however, that in polls of historians or lay persons to determine which presidents were “great,” the dead never have a vote. Lucky for Roosevelt.
Quote of the Day
Likewise, the paper “billionaires” of 1999—whose IPOs had yielded them options worth more than several African countries—were never anything like that rich. Their shares, which were “worth” $30 billion or something, were impossible to sell. The moment these 30-year-old hucksters started trying to unload the stocks, their value would plummet—based as it was on nothing. No profits, meager earnings, nothing more than the fantasy that a “greater fool” would come along to pay hundreds of millions for shares in a company that sold Hindu devotional mousepads made from recycled condoms. In the end, we ran out of fools.
So as I use my quarterly 401(k) statement to clean up after the beagles, I console myself with the thought that the annual gains of 25% which they earned throughout the 90s never really existed. They were promises of consumption, based not on previous savings, but the hope of future loans. Faery, insubstantial creatures of light and air, which vanished with the first ray of the dawn. The beagles, at least, are real.