Inflection Point
This is change alright. But, is it the change for which we bargained?
Whether because of arrogance or ideological blindness, President Obama, I believe, has grossly misinterpreted the will of the American people. The country voted for an individual who would enable government to work for us. Instead, we got a President who is causing government to consume us.
So, here we stand at perhaps the most profound inflection point in decades. The direction of the country hangs in the balance. Obama, much like Bush did in the aftermath of 9-11, is using exceedingly difficult circumstances to impose his agenda. Only this time, the proposed changes, arguably, have much more far-reaching ramifications for our sovereignty.
What kind of nation is it we want? The markets are certainly voting rather clearly. But what of the general populace? Do we prefer a meritocracy—one that respects the basic tenants of free market capitalism; or, do we desire to be a social democracy, similar to what has prevailed in most of Western Europe over the past 40 years or so? Make no mistake, the two are very different; unfortunately, as we're learning, they also don't mix.
Why do many demonize capitalism and romanticize collectivism? Might it be the benefits of the former and the baggage of the latter are not fully understood? The grass, as millions are learning, is not so green on the other side.
The role and implications of excess in a capitalistic system certainly seems to be misconstrued. Mistakenly, many believe excess can be legislated away and redistributed without impact to the underlying system. Yes, there are reasonable controls to be instituted, but when has government ever stopped at reasonable? Markets are not perfect by any means, but is government anywhere near as rational or efficient? Would things be this bad right now if the markets were not paralyzed by government's entropy?
What of the Big Government sympathizers? It's noble to want to improve conditions for the less fortunate. But, done improperly, without allowing the market to do the heavy lifting, the government often worsens things for us all. Look at Europe. Innovation and opportunity have been suffocated under the big fluffy pillow of social welfare. New business formation and job growth have stagnated for decades. Virtually nothing is spent on national defense. Perhaps it's not so bad for those who have grown up on the government teat, but it's an unmitigated disaster for the younger class—they're not eligible for the same benefits. The weight of an entitlement-centric system has caved in upon itself. And, because the market structure is crippled, options are limited. Even with an outrageous percentage of GDP dedicated to welfare, the continent has rarely been as poor as it is now. And, they've institutionalized away almost any capacity to get out from under the dead weight of government excess.
Is that what we want?
The Obama budget and "stimulus" appear to be pointing us in that direction. Incongruously, they combine extravagantly high-cost social programs with growth-inhibiting economic policies. Stunning in their arrogance, they scream the laws of economics don't apply—no matter the reams of documentary evidence to the contrary.
The ultimate responsibility for this predicament, however, lies squarely on our shoulders. Through our ignorance and indifference we've allowed intellectual dishonesty to permeate our political discourse. We've permitted counter-factual myths to take root and become generally accepted "truths." Consequently, devastatingly bad policy has been and is being built on that unstable foundation.
Most accept as a given that the "wealthy" don't pay their fair share of taxes, even though their burden has increased year after year and the top 1%, 5%, and 10% now pay 40%, 60%, and 70% of federal taxes respectively. The bottom 40% ostensibly pay zero.
It has been repeatedly drummed into our consciousness that the "wealthy" disproportionately benefited from across the board income tax cuts, despite the fact that those on the lower end of the scale enjoyed the largest percentage decrease, and the so-called wealthy invested the capital from reduced tax rates into jobs- and wealth-producing endeavors. The consequences for subscribing to these falsehoods are policies that render less efficient the very engine that supports our way of life and aspirations of emerging countries around the globe.
Many also buy into the "income inequality gap" propaganda. As a result, we've become victims of redistributionism. Notwithstanding a seeming misguided belief by scores in positions of power, our economy is not a zero-sum game. We cannot enrich the poor by taking from the "wealthy." Too bad the redistributionists don't have the foresight to recognize that when incentives are taken away from those who control capital, they're not motivated to, or capable of, creating the jobs the country needs.
Perchance, could it be more important for all to benefit, rather than for the gap to be narrowed? Isn't the gap a canard, anyway? Shouldn't the government be most concerned with adequate opportunity for all? Is it better to be equal and poor, or unequal and more well off? Shockingly, many seem to prefer the former.
It is critical that we continuously and tirelessly work to empower the underclass. To make it happen, though, the market must be allowed to flex its muscles. The government's role is to remove barriers to opportunity and prosperity, not construct them.
The path we're on is quite tenuous. It's time to pay attention and cut through the political doublespeak. Separate the truthful from the specious. Don't allow facts to be distorted. We're getting a firsthand look at what life is like in Big Governmentville. Speak up if you don't think it's so great. There may not be another chance for quite a while.
Remember, every great power has been felled by an inability to defend itself, government excess, or a combination of both.
Financial institutions have been excoriated by politicians for their excess and for becoming "too big to fail." How sadly ironic that the government is on the exact same course. Do as I say, not as.....
Whether because of arrogance or ideological blindness, President Obama, I believe, has grossly misinterpreted the will of the American people. The country voted for an individual who would enable government to work for us. Instead, we got a President who is causing government to consume us.
So, here we stand at perhaps the most profound inflection point in decades. The direction of the country hangs in the balance. Obama, much like Bush did in the aftermath of 9-11, is using exceedingly difficult circumstances to impose his agenda. Only this time, the proposed changes, arguably, have much more far-reaching ramifications for our sovereignty.
What kind of nation is it we want? The markets are certainly voting rather clearly. But what of the general populace? Do we prefer a meritocracy—one that respects the basic tenants of free market capitalism; or, do we desire to be a social democracy, similar to what has prevailed in most of Western Europe over the past 40 years or so? Make no mistake, the two are very different; unfortunately, as we're learning, they also don't mix.
Why do many demonize capitalism and romanticize collectivism? Might it be the benefits of the former and the baggage of the latter are not fully understood? The grass, as millions are learning, is not so green on the other side.
The role and implications of excess in a capitalistic system certainly seems to be misconstrued. Mistakenly, many believe excess can be legislated away and redistributed without impact to the underlying system. Yes, there are reasonable controls to be instituted, but when has government ever stopped at reasonable? Markets are not perfect by any means, but is government anywhere near as rational or efficient? Would things be this bad right now if the markets were not paralyzed by government's entropy?
What of the Big Government sympathizers? It's noble to want to improve conditions for the less fortunate. But, done improperly, without allowing the market to do the heavy lifting, the government often worsens things for us all. Look at Europe. Innovation and opportunity have been suffocated under the big fluffy pillow of social welfare. New business formation and job growth have stagnated for decades. Virtually nothing is spent on national defense. Perhaps it's not so bad for those who have grown up on the government teat, but it's an unmitigated disaster for the younger class—they're not eligible for the same benefits. The weight of an entitlement-centric system has caved in upon itself. And, because the market structure is crippled, options are limited. Even with an outrageous percentage of GDP dedicated to welfare, the continent has rarely been as poor as it is now. And, they've institutionalized away almost any capacity to get out from under the dead weight of government excess.
Is that what we want?
The Obama budget and "stimulus" appear to be pointing us in that direction. Incongruously, they combine extravagantly high-cost social programs with growth-inhibiting economic policies. Stunning in their arrogance, they scream the laws of economics don't apply—no matter the reams of documentary evidence to the contrary.
The ultimate responsibility for this predicament, however, lies squarely on our shoulders. Through our ignorance and indifference we've allowed intellectual dishonesty to permeate our political discourse. We've permitted counter-factual myths to take root and become generally accepted "truths." Consequently, devastatingly bad policy has been and is being built on that unstable foundation.
Most accept as a given that the "wealthy" don't pay their fair share of taxes, even though their burden has increased year after year and the top 1%, 5%, and 10% now pay 40%, 60%, and 70% of federal taxes respectively. The bottom 40% ostensibly pay zero.
It has been repeatedly drummed into our consciousness that the "wealthy" disproportionately benefited from across the board income tax cuts, despite the fact that those on the lower end of the scale enjoyed the largest percentage decrease, and the so-called wealthy invested the capital from reduced tax rates into jobs- and wealth-producing endeavors. The consequences for subscribing to these falsehoods are policies that render less efficient the very engine that supports our way of life and aspirations of emerging countries around the globe.
Many also buy into the "income inequality gap" propaganda. As a result, we've become victims of redistributionism. Notwithstanding a seeming misguided belief by scores in positions of power, our economy is not a zero-sum game. We cannot enrich the poor by taking from the "wealthy." Too bad the redistributionists don't have the foresight to recognize that when incentives are taken away from those who control capital, they're not motivated to, or capable of, creating the jobs the country needs.
Perchance, could it be more important for all to benefit, rather than for the gap to be narrowed? Isn't the gap a canard, anyway? Shouldn't the government be most concerned with adequate opportunity for all? Is it better to be equal and poor, or unequal and more well off? Shockingly, many seem to prefer the former.
It is critical that we continuously and tirelessly work to empower the underclass. To make it happen, though, the market must be allowed to flex its muscles. The government's role is to remove barriers to opportunity and prosperity, not construct them.
The path we're on is quite tenuous. It's time to pay attention and cut through the political doublespeak. Separate the truthful from the specious. Don't allow facts to be distorted. We're getting a firsthand look at what life is like in Big Governmentville. Speak up if you don't think it's so great. There may not be another chance for quite a while.
Remember, every great power has been felled by an inability to defend itself, government excess, or a combination of both.
Financial institutions have been excoriated by politicians for their excess and for becoming "too big to fail." How sadly ironic that the government is on the exact same course. Do as I say, not as.....
It is amazing how everyday we come closer to socialism. I still believe it is not to late to reverse this trend; but we need a strong leader to state the course of action. Before this, even, the ramifications of socialism must be explained in "plain English", or I hate to say it- the ramifications must be "dumbed down" for all to understand. I wanted to give the new president a chance, but he is quickly implementing socialism - perhaps so quickly that he hopes it to go unnoticed.
Reply to this