On 12/13/10, Keith In Tampa <keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:
> I didn't get too far into this article. I started looking for the author,
> to see his background and who he is affiliated with.
>
> Clearly, the author of this piece, maybe with the best of intentions, (but I
> doubt it) has his fact wrong, and bases his theories and premise on
> incorrect non-factual data.
>
> First, the Resolution Trust Fund that was set up in the late 1980s to deal
> with the assets of the failed savings and loans, was eventually profitable,
> and was able to liquidate somewhere close to 400 billion dollars of assets,
> compared to the 124 billion that our federal government (and taxpayers)
> initially loaned and utilized to bail the savings and loans out.
>
> Second, Ronald Reagan had nothing whatsoever to do with the failed savings
> and loan crisis....If you were going to blame a President, or I should say
> Presidents, which would also be incorrect, the three Administrations that
> were holding watch when the precepts of the savings and loan debacle was
> initiated and caused, was Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, and Jimmy
> Carter. All three Administations were socialist in nature, and advocated
> "big government".
>
>
> *"Regulation Q",* under which the Federal Reserve since 1933 had limited the
> interest rates banks could pay on their deposits, was extended to S&Ls in
> 1966. Regulation Q was price fixing, and like most efforts to fix prices (*
> See* price controls), Regulation Q caused distortions far more costly than
> any benefits it may have delivered. Regulation Q created a cross subsidy,
> passed from saver to home buyer, that allowed S&Ls to hold down their
> interest costs and thereby continue to earn, for a few more years, an
> apparently adequate interest margin on the fixed-rate mortgages they had
> made ten or twenty years earlier. Thus, the extension of Regulation Q to
> S&Ls was a watershed event in the S&L crisis: it perpetuated S&L maturity
> mismatching for another fifteen years, until it was phased out after
> disaster struck the industry in 1980. A remnant of Regulation Q
> remains—banks are still barred from paying interest on business checking
> accounts.
> Disaster struck after Paul Volcker, then chairman of the Federal Reserve
> Board, decided in October 1979 to restrict the growth of the money supply,
> which in turn caused interest rates to skyrocket. Between June 1979 and
> March 1980 short-term interest rates rose by more than six percentage
> points, from 9.06 percent to 15.2 percent. In 1981 and 1982 combined, the
> S&L industry collectively reported almost $9 billion in losses. Worse, in
> mid-1982 all S&Ls combined had a negative net worth, valuing their mortgages
> on a market-value basis, of $100 billion, an amount equal to 15 percent of
> the industry's liabilities. Specific policy failures during the 1980s can be
> directly attributed to Democrats, who just like their involvement in the
> Community Reinvestment Act, caused the banking failures by forcing banks,
> (In this case, Savings and Loans) to loan money to folks who could not
> afford to pay back the loans!
> At every financial crisis that has taken place during our Nation's history,
> it always can be attributed to those individuals and entities who want a big
> government, and believe that government is the solution to all issues and
> problems.
>
> The author's whole premise is incorrect, and exactly backwards.....It is big
> government involvement, and the lack of libertarian principles and tenets
> that has caused all of our financial quagmires. If Tom read, studied and
> understood the general principles of accounting, he would know this, but
> instead, he has chosen to mimic and parrot the far left, socialist-elitist's
> Marxist agenda.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 10:03 PM, Tommy News <tommysnews@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Brucie Girl Minor's Psychosis:
>>
>> Libertarianism: Loveably Kooky or Dangerously Crazy?
>>
>> Libertarians" have discovered this citadel of liberal (or progressive)
>> thought recently to challenge its users on their ideology. So let's
>> examine what the libertarians believe to challenge their ideology.
>>
>> ::::::::
>>
>> This election season put before the nation a philosophy that many
>> Americans gobbled up without questioning. That philosophy of
>> "libertarianism" was promoted by Texas Rep. Ron Paul as he sought the
>> Republican presidential nomination. He gathered little numerical
>> support for his philosophy but considerable zeal for what he espoused.
>> But what he proposed doesn't hold up to scrutiny as a solution to the
>> problems of a modern advanced industrial nation or society.
>>
>> The two main thrusts to libertarianism are economic freedom (i.e.
>> deregulation) and no taxes. On other secondary matters, such as
>> reproductive rights, flag burning as protest, separation of church and
>> state, morality, censorship, assembly, association, and dying without
>> government interference, some libertarians may often appear to be
>> closer to liberals than to conservatives, even if they don't recognize
>> that.
>>
>> This article will deal wish the two main factors of libertarianism;
>> business regulation and paying of taxes (or nonpaying) in which it has
>> a ironclad attachment with far-right conservatism. If there were a
>> modern nation operating on the libertarian philosophy it might be the
>> island nation of Haiti. That nation, is controlled by a small group of
>> wealthy elites, who live separated from the people and pay no taxes on
>> the wealth they gained in a regulation-free economy. Haiti, in which
>> the majority of the population is destitute, is the poorest nation in
>> the Western Hemisphere. The United States began its history as a
>> libertarian nation in which the federal government had limited power
>> of national defense, foreign relations and a uniform monetary system.
>> That was under the Articles of Confederation (1781-89) which failed
>> badly. If libertarianism failed in a simpler 18th Century in a nation
>> of less that 4 million population there is little reason to believe it
>> would succeed in a nation of more than 300 million people in a
>> complicated 21st Century.
>>
>> On deregulation, we have to look no further on the results of such
>> folly. When I was in graduate school studying constitutional law, one
>> professor stated that all regulations exist to counter evils present
>> in the system, and when those regulations are removed the evils
>> return.
>>
>> Since the rise of conservative control of our nation, commercial
>> regulations have been repealed or ignored and the evils have come
>> flooding back. Ronald Reagan loosened the oversight on banking during
>> his disastrous reign and we got the savings-and-loan failures and
>> scandals that the taxpayers have had to clean up. After the dust
>> cleared from that Reagan disaster, it was estimated that the cost of
>> getting past Reagan's mess was $500 billion. Anyone with money in a
>> savings account knows about the cost of that cleanup with interest
>> payments close to all-time lows as that $500-billion bill was being
>> paid. Reagan proudly declared that, "Government is not the solution to
>> our problems, government is the problem." He was wrong. The truth is
>> that "Reaganism is not the solution to our problems, Reaganism is the
>> problem."
>>
>> To see the folly of commercial deregulation we need not look past the
>> frauds and crimes surrounding corporations as Worldcom, Adelphia, Tyco
>> and Healthsouth. In each case, executives of the corporations looted
>> the companies so they could live lives of kingly splendor while those
>> who actually made the money for the companies lost their jobs,
>> careers, homes and retirements. Owners of the corporations, the
>> stockholders, lost much or all of their investments. The frauds and
>> crimes were illustrated by million-dollar birthday parties in foreign
>> lands for the CEO or $6,000 shower curtains in the CEOs home to
>> accompany gold-plated bathroom fixtures.
>>
>> Now we have the subprime mortgage scandal that threatens the nation's
>> financial health. In this present mess, mortgages were sold under
>> false promises to people who couldn't afford the interest rates that
>> would come years later. The sellers then packaged the mortgages to
>> unload on the financial market and pocket millions for themselves
>> while their victims lost homes, credit ratings and reputation.
>> Financial institutions that wound up holding those unsustainable
>> mortgages were threatened with bankruptcy. Former Federal Reserve
>> chairman Alan Greenspan ignored the looming crisis with the statement
>> that bankers didn't need oversight because they would do nothing to
>> harm the reputation of their industry. He was wrong.
>>
>> The petroleum industry is now giving us a picture of what could happen
>> when an important segment of commerce runs wild and does as it
>> pleases. While it has apparently broken no laws or regulations, the
>> industry is using speculation on the world petroleum market to enhance
>> its already record profits at the expense of everything else. Family
>> budgets are busted over the cost of gasoline or heating oil, shipping
>> of goods is too expensive for many truckers to make a living, food
>> prices that depend on that trucking are skyrocketing just as
>> everything else that must be moved to market.
>>
>> For the wonderful world of commercial deregulation and tax freedom we
>> have to look no further than the success of Enron, the giant Texas
>> energy-trading company that collapsed amid scandal and crime. Enron
>> had managed to free itself from regulations and taxes through close
>> affiliation to many politicians, contributing to their elections and
>> helping draw up the energy program for the Bush administration as it
>> took control of the nation in 2001.
>>
>> Because Enron had successfully escaped taxation, it listed any income
>> it had as profit thereby causing its stock price to soar. Executives
>> then cashed in on the high stock price to enrich themselves while
>> everyone else suffered. Employees lost the jobs, careers, life savings
>> and retirements tied to Enron stock they were forbidden to sell.
>> Investors lost billions.
>>
>> Enron was free of regulation and used that freedom to engineer power
>> shortages in many markets but even the money it extorted from its
>> victim-customers wasn't enough to prevent its collapse from the crimes
>> it committed under both deregulation and tax freedom.
>>
>> Business regulations can rightfully be called "economic law and order"
>> but those who want to control our private lives with "law and order"
>> don't want lawful economic behavior, even though we give government
>> power to confront commercial crimes through our Constitution.
>> Deregulation basically enables the dishonest businesses to have an
>> unfair advantage over reputable firms, that then must adopt dishonest
>> practices to compete and we all lose in the process.
>>
>> And the destruction of unions in America may do something for the
>> economic freedom of the aristocratic elite, it has done nothing for
>> the working class's economic freedom, which should include the freedom
>> from want.
>>
>> To justify their disastrous actions, conservative libertarians will
>> ever argue that regulations either do no good or actually harm the
>> businesses being regulated.
>>
>> That's total nonsense. But, if it ever it were true there is a simple
>> solution that wouldn't lead to the disaster deregulation always seems
>> to lead to. Article I, Section 8, paragraph 18, of the Constitution
>> says that all laws are to be "necessary and proper" in order to be
>> constitutionally legal. Corporations have multimillion-dollar legal
>> departments usually devoted to courting and paying politicians to get
>> the harmful deregulation they desire. Corporations could use those
>> legal departments to argue in court that a regulation or series of
>> regulations that do nothing are unnecessary. The overpaid lawyers in
>> those legal departments could argue that a regulation that harms the
>> business is not proper. Any competent judge in America would then void
>> such unnecessary and improper regulation or regulations. It might be
>> less expensive to go to court for a corporation rather than legally
>> "bribe" hundreds of corrupt politicians and we would have a
>> more-honest government in return. But corporations don't go to court
>> on these issues because they know they have no, or few, compelling
>> arguments. It might be noteworthy to observe that George W. Bush has
>> been busy appointing incompetents to the federal bench.
>>
>> There is an idiotic notion on the "libertarian" far right that there
>> is no law requiring Americans to pay taxes on their incomes. For
>> anyone to believe that they would have to be out of touch with
>> reality.
>>
>> The United States first imposed an income tax to pay for the Civil
>> War, but that tax was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court
>> after the war because it was a direct tax on individuals, forbidden by
>> the Constitution at that time, rather than a tax on the states, based
>> on their population. The states then taxed individuals, which made it
>> an indirect tax from the point of view of the national government,
>> which was constitutional. To pay for World War I, Congress proposed an
>> amendment to legalize an income tax. Congress drafted and passed the
>> proposal, then sent it to the states, which also passed it to make it
>> part of "the supreme law of the land."
>>
>> But righties of libertarian persuasion want us to believe that
>> Congress then forgot to make a law to collect that tax. The right
>> propagandizes the point constantly, and yet Congress doesn't notice
>> and pass an income-tax collection law? Right-wing nut cases have been
>> arguing, and losing, in court for years that there is no law requiring
>> them to pay an income tax, but still Congress neglects to pass a law
>> to collect the taxes? Are we to believe that of the hundreds of laws
>> concerning taxes that Congress has passed over the years not one
>> requires a tax collection? That we are told to believe even though the
>> Constitution says "The Congress shall have to power to lay and collect
>> taxes on income ..."
>>
>> Please note, the amendment doesn't specifically say that Americans
>> have to pay the income tax because that statement would be totally
>> superfluous as the 16th is clear in stating that Congress has power to
>> collect income taxes; that is the law. To impede Congress' power of
>> collection, or subvert its intention, is a crime. The Constitution
>> states what government has power to do, not what citizens or residents
>> must do or cannot do.
>>
>> To counter such a clear statement of purpose, the "libertarian"
>> right-wingers counter by saying that the Fourth Amendment prohibits
>> government from requiring the filing of a tax return without a
>> warrant. But the Fourth says a warrant is required only for "searches
>> and seizures" and a tax return involves neither. If someone lies
>> (perjury) about their taxes, government could send someone to examine
>> all financial papers and information the reluctant taxpayer possesses.
>> When that agent goes to a home or business to look over information
>> and takes those papers for evidence, that is search and seizure, which
>> requires a warrant.
>>
>> When the righty loses that argument, he or she resorts to the Fifth
>> Amendment, claiming revealing income facts constitutes testifying
>> against oneself. But the Fifth pertains to criminal trials, not
>> collection of information. The Fifth clearly says "criminal cases" and
>> filing a tax return isn't a criminal case. Most Americans are familiar
>> with the phrase in the Miranda decision that "what you say can be used
>> against you" in court. So what you say on a tax return can be used
>> against you in court. Plus, if one is capable of reading between the
>> lines of the Fifth, the clear intention of what James Madison was
>> talking about becomes evident. But when a "libertarian" can't
>> adequately read what is on the lines, reading between them is
>> impossible.
>>
>> To understand the issue, one must be able to use reasoning. Because of
>> the statement that "Congress shall have the power to lay and collect
>> taxes on income ..." we have to understand that any law based on that
>> statement must also address the power grant in the statement. That is,
>> all laws must empower the collection of taxes, and don't need to state
>> what a taxpayer "must" do, although most do. Congress established the
>> Internal Revenue Service to collect the taxes, and that is all one
>> needs to know.
>>
>> Libertarians will claim that if they have to pay taxes to sustain the
>> nation in which they live they are being "punished" by the government,
>> usually "punished" for the magnificent success they have created all
>> by themselves. That is a strange argument for it supposes that the
>> very nation whose government created and protects the conditions that
>> allowed this magnificent success doesn't need sustenance to continue
>> conditions for success. And no one ever achieved success completely
>> alone. We all need the society around us to succeed in any way. A
>> business needs customers with purchasing power to succeed. A writer
>> needs publishers to print and readers to read. An actor needs casting
>> directors to offer jobs, producers and directors to make the product,
>> which needs audience members paying money to make it all work.
>> Teachers needs schools and colleges to have a job, and those schools
>> and colleges need students and taxpayers. Insurance salesmen need
>> customers who need insurance. We all need each other.
>>
>> Then a libertarian refers to taxation as "robbery," which can only be
>> interpreted as meaning that libertarian thinks the United States of
>> America is a criminal entity, the men who wrote the Constitution that
>> authorizes taxation are just a bunch of common thieves and the
>> Constitution itself is a criminal conspiracy. But the Constitution is
>> a creation of, "We the people." As James Madison, father of the
>> Constitution said, "In the compound republic of America, the power
>> surrendered by the people ..." That means we have given to the
>> government the power to tax us. This is not a static one-time grant of
>> power by Americans long dead, it is ongoing grant, and by living in
>> the United States that authority continues to flow constantly from
>> each of us. The only way to stop that flow of authority by an
>> individual is to leave the jurisdiction of the nation receiving the
>> power.
>>
>> A libertarian wrote in a recent diary that, "To a libertarian the
>> difference between paying a person or company for a good or service
>> one desires and having the government take money by force (against
>> ones will) is obvious." That is nonsense, because by continuing to
>> reside in the United States that libertarian continues to give
>> government power to tax him. That is self taxation, not force, and
>> staying within the jurisdiction of the taxing government is completely
>> voluntary.
>>
>> Holding valid views of the role the Constitution plays on the issues
>> of commercial regulation and taxation could get one accused by a
>> staunch libertarian of advocating a police state or being a communist.
>>
>> There is no single definition of "patriotism." To some, waving the
>> American flag or wearing a flag pin on a lapel is patriotism. To
>> others patriotism is howling support for a war regardless of its
>> justification, but that's militarism, not patriotism. Some think
>> patriotism is sporting "I Support Our Troops" on the bumper sticker of
>> a gas-guzzling SUV that keeps us dependent on imported oil. To others
>> patriotism is merely the political party one belongs to or adherence
>> to their political ideology; blindly following a political leader
>> regardless of what kind of, or how many, crimes he commits; shouting
>> down anyone who holds a differing opinion or expressing disdain for
>> anything foreign, even subjecting foreign nations to US demands or
>> control. My definition of patriotism is two-part: putting the needs of
>> the nation ahead of personal interests and strict adherence to the
>> Constitution of the United States (which would include paying taxes,
>> correcting and atoning for national sins and admitting the nation was
>> founded on secular principles not religious). By this definition, no
>> libertarian can be a patriot.
>>
>> (Author's note: I grew up with libertarians and learned a valuable
>> life lesson from a libertarian family. I became a professional artist
>> in the fifth grade when David Niskanen paid me a nickel to draw a
>> ghost for him on his Halloween greeting card being made in art class
>> at Kenwood Elementary School in Bend, Oregon. David is the younger
>> brother of William Niskanen, one of Robert McNamara's Whiz Kids during
>> the Vietnam War, and who served in the Nixon administration's Office
>> of Management and Budget, was a member of Ronald Reagan's Council of
>> Economic Advisors from 1981 to 1985 and chairman since 1985 of the
>> libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, DC, whose "scholars" have
>> been furnishing crackpot economic theories to right-wing DC
>> politicians for decades, the theories that continually lead us into
>> economic trouble. In fairness, Bill is not a fan of the
>> "starve-the-beast" mantra of the political right and is a
>> balance-the-budget-before-cutting-taxes advocate, but received his
>> doctorate degree in economics at the University of Chicago, another
>> victim of Milton Friedman's economic teachings. The lesson I learned
>> is that "them what got the nickels pay us who got the talents to do
>> for them what they can't do for themselves." As mentioned above,
>> nickel owners need talent possessers just as much as the talented need
>> the nickel dispensers. It is also noteworthy that the Niskanen family,
>> which owned the Trailways bus franchise in Oregon for many years, used
>> the US court system and the economic regulations libertarians love to
>> hate to sue Greyhound Bus Lines for restraint of trade and win a
>> $23-million judgment ~ although probably settling for less in an
>> out-of-court settlement to avoid endless appeals ~ and that represents
>> a whole lot of brand-new nickels.)
>>
>> We can end with paraphrasing Reagan again by noting that,
>> "Libertarianism will not be the solution to our problems,
>> libertarianism will be the problem."
>>
>> More:
>> http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=7535
>>
>> On 12/13/10, Bruce Majors <majors.bruce@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Tommy News <tommysnews@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Keith-
>> >>
>> >> Your hatred, lies, and false smear are again evident in these false
>> >> statements.
>> >>
>> >
>> > that's a lie
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I never once said that SPLC was reputable, I simply said that is not a
>> >> "Hate Organization" as you falsely stated.
>> >>
>> >
>> > it's a tendentious and dishonest smear group and you circulate its
>> > calumnies
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I did not post any "missive full of lies." That is another false lie.
>> >>
>> >
>> > You are lying. You only post government propaganda and disinformation,
>> > quisling that you are
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I am most certainly not out of step with reality, that is false
>> >> slander, a lie, an insult, and a smear.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Another Tommy lie by the deluded brain dead step n fetchit Obama bot
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I am not a "Marxist", that is yet another slanderous false lie, and a
>> >> personal smear.
>> >>
>> >
>> > You just felch Marxist ass
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I am not a "Anti-American", that is yet another slanderous false lie,
>> >> and a personal smear.
>> >>
>> >
>> > You hate American values like individual liberty; you are a fascist
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Mocking me, "making your points", and continuing to spew forth your
>> >> homophobic lies and personal attacks is nothing to give thanks for.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Tommy hating you is not hating gays; you are a poor excuse for a gay or
>> for
>> > anything else except a crackpot
>> >
>> >>
>> >> You, Keith, should be deeply ashamed of your hate, lies, smear,
>> >> personal attacks, and your highly offensive vicious behavior.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> He should be ashamed he takes the time to reply to a dipshit like you
>> >
>> > --
>> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>> > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>> >
>> > * Visit our other community at
>> > http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
>> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
>> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
>> Have a great day,
>> Tommy
>>
>> --
>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>>
>> * Visit our other community at
>> http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment