Monday, August 2, 2010

Virginia Judge slap down Government Injunction Allowing ObamaCare Lawsuit to Continue

Scotty Starnes | August 2, 2010 at 12:03 PM | Tags: Barack Obama, commerce clause, Health and Human Services, health care law, health care mandate, Obama, Obamacare, President Obama, U.S. Constitution, Virginia, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/pvnFC-24n

Looks like the Commerce Clause will be challenge. Good news for Americans who believe in the U.S. Constitution.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

This just in: Virginia federal judge Henry Hudson on Monday ruled that he'll let the state of Virginia's challenge to the landmark health care law passed in March go forward, at least for the time being. Click here for the early Reuters story; here for the 32-page opinion.

The Department of Health and Human Services had moved to dismiss the lawsuit, which was filed in March (click here for the complaint), shortly after the passage of the law. But Judge Hudson on Monday denied the motion.

The ruling represents a setback that will force the Obama administration to mount a lengthy legal defense of the law. The suit, filed by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli alleges that the law's requirement that its residents have health insurance violates the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

Virginia's lawsuit is one of several trying to undo the health-care law. Another large one was filed in a Florida federal court by a handful of state attorneys general.

In his opinion, Judge Hudson ruled:

The guiding precedent [on the Commerce Clause] is informative but inconclusive. Never before has the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause been extended this far. At this juncture, the court is not persuaded that the Secretary has demonstrated a failure to state a cause of action with respect to the Commerce Clause element.

Remember, Obama said the health care mandate wasn't a tax, but now that it's in federal court, it is being called a tax. Either way, it will be ruled unconstitutional when/if it reaches the Supreme Court.

Add a comment to this post

WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe | Express yourself. Start a blog.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com

--
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.

I Told You So! Yes I Did

Barack Hussein Obama:
I Told You So!  Yes I Did
By Howard Galganov
Montreal, Quebec , Canada

When Obama won the Presidency with the help of the LEFTIST Media, Hollywood And Entertainment Liberals, Ethnic Socialists (ACORN), Stupid Non-Business Professionals and Bush Haters, I wrote: It won't take six months until the People figure this guy out and realize how horrible a mistake they've made. And when they come to that realization, the damage to the United States of America will be so great it will take a generation or more to repair - IF EVER.

The IDIOTS who not only voted for the Messiah, but also worked [hard] to promote his Lordship, are now left holding the bag.

Here are two things they will NEVER do: They will NEVER admit to making a blunder out of all proportion by electing a snake-oil salesman with no positive social history or management experience of any kind. They will NEVER take responsibility for the curse they've imposed upon the immediate and long-term future of their country.

In essence, the people responsible for putting this horror show in power are themselves responsible for every cataclysmic decision he makes and the consequences thereof.

In just six months, the Messiah's polls are showing the following:

1. On Healthcare Reform - He's going under for the third time with polling well Under 50 percent, even within his own Party. Even though he might be able to Muscle a Healthcare Reform Bill by using Chicago BULLY tactics against his Fellow Democrats, it will just make things worse.

2. On Cap and Trade (Cap and Tax) - The Fat-Lady is already singing.

3. On the Stimulus Package (Tax and Spend) - His popularity is in FREE-FALL.

4. On the TARP package he took and ran with from President Bush - It's all but Good-Night Irene.

5. On the closing of GITMO and "HIS" war on what he no longer wants called the War On Terrorism - He's standing in quicksand with his head just about to go under.

6. On a Comparison between himself and George W. Bush at the same six months into their respective first term Presidencies - Bush is ahead of him in the Polls.

7. On a comparison between He Who Walks On Water and the 12 preceding Presidents between WW II and now - Obama ranks 10th.

8. On a poll just conducted, that asks who would you vote for today between Obama and Mitt Romney - It's a dead heat. Between Obama and Palin - Obama's ONLY ahead by 8 points and she hasn't even begun to campaign. It seems to me that Obama wants to be everywhere where he shouldn't be.

He's personally invested in 'totally insulting' America 's ONLY REAL Middle Eastern ally (Israel) in favor of Palestinian Despots and Murderers. He's traveling the world apologizing for the USA while lecturing others on how to do it right, when in fact and truth he has no experience at doing anything other than getting elected.

He went to the Muslim world in Egypt to declare that America IS NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION while he heaped praises on Islam, where he compared the "plight" of the Palestinians to the Holocaust.

The Russians think he's a putz,

The French think he's rude.

The Germans want him to stop spending.

The Indians want him to mix his nose out of their environmental business.

The North Koreans think he's a joke,

The Iranians won't acknowledge his calls.

And the British can't even come up with a comprehensive opinion of him.

As for the Chinese, he's too frightened to even glance their way.

[After all, China now owns a large portion of the United States.]

Maybe if America's first Emperor would stay home more, travel less, and work a little bit instead of being on television just about everyday or stop running to "papered" Town Hall Meetings, perhaps he would have a little bit of time to do the work of the nation.

In all fairness, it wasn't HARD to be RIGHT in my prediction concerning Obama's presidency, even in its first six months, so I'm going to make yet another prediction:

OBAMA WILL PROBABLY NOT FINISH HIS 4-YEAR TERM, at least not in a conventional way.

He is such a political HORROR SHOW, and so detrimental to the USA and his Own Democratic Party, that the Democrats themselves will either FORCE him to resign or figure out a way to have him thrown out.

Who knows, maybe he really isn't a BORN US Citizen and that's a way the Democrats will be able to get rid of him. [He is a citizen, but not a naturalized* citizen with both mother and father being US citizens.] (I believe the writer meant "natural" citizen, not naturalized citizen... see explanation below.)

Or - MORE LIKELY THAN NOT, the Democrats will make Obama THEIR OWN LAME DUCK PRESIDENT.

I don't believe the Democrats have nearly as much love for their country as they do for their own political fortunes. And with Obama, their fortunes are rapidly becoming toast.

If you agree with this email please pass it along to everyone you know! If you don't agree with it, then just delete it and be part of the greatest problem this country has ever seen! My guess is, you don't think this "CHANGE" is what you expected either.

* There are two basic categories of United States citizens.

A natural citizen is someone born in the United States or born to American parents on foreign soil.

A naturalized citizen is someone who was born in a foreign country, but took a series of steps with the end goal of being granted citizenship.

MaryAnn

Developing: Judge Rules Virginia's Challenge to Health Care Deform May Proceed Forward

doctorbulldog | 2 August, 2010 at 9:43 am | Categories: Health, Justice System, Obama Sucks, politics | URL: http://wp.me/p1NPg-6m2

Good news:

Virginia Judge: The Suit Against the Health Care Law Goes Forward
Ashby Jones - WSJ

This just in: Virginia federal judge Henry Hudson on Monday ruled that he'll let the state of Virginia's challenge to the landmark health care law passed in March go forward, at least for the time being. Click here for the early Reuters story; here for the 32-page opinion.

The Department of Health and Human Services had moved to dismiss the lawsuit, which was filed in March (click here for the complaint), shortly after the passage of the law. But Judge Hudson on Monday denied the motion.

The ruling represents a setback that will force the Obama administration to mount a lengthy legal defense of the law. The suit, filed by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (pictured), alleges that the law's requirement that its residents have health insurance violates the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

Virginia's lawsuit is one of several trying to undo the health-care law. Another large one was filed in a Florida federal court by a handful of state attorneys general.

In his opinion, Judge Hudson ruled:

The guiding precedent [on the Commerce Clause] is informative but inconclusive. Never before has the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause been extended this far. At this juncture, the court is not persuaded that the Secretary has demonstrated a failure to state a cause of action with respect to the Commerce Clause element.

In other words, off to discovery we head.

Add a comment to this post

WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe | Publish text, photos, music, and videos by email using our Post by Email feature.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com

New Batch of Flu Vaccines Causes Seizures in Children

doctorbulldog | 2 August, 2010 at 9:22 am | Categories: Health, Medicine | URL: http://wp.me/p1NPg-6lZ

Just thought you should have a heads up:

Flu vaccine push already underway; first batch causes seizures in children

Mike Adams - Editor of NaturalNews.com

[...]

This year's vaccine push has begun with some curious admissions by the vaccine industry, reflected in a Reuters story (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS...). After the usual explanatory text about how flu vaccine manufacturers have started shipping their largest quantity of vaccines ever produced for flu season, the story prints this curious text:

"And U.S. officials said they were changing the labeling on a vaccine made by Australia's CSL Ltd (CSL.AX) because it appears to have caused a higher than usual rate of seizures in children."

Now hold on a second.

If you read between the lines here, this statement implies that: 1) Vaccines cause seizures in children. And then 2) This particular vaccines causes a higher rate of seizures in children than the usual rate of seizures in children.

Why is this curious? First off, because vaccine pushers have always sworn their vaccines caused no seizures whatsoever. No neurological problems. No spontaneous abortions in pregnant women. No increased rates of autism. Vaccines are all perfectly safe, they say, and no children are ever harmed by them.

That's the mythology, at least, behind vaccines. But the reality is far different: Vaccines do cause seizures in children, and this year's vaccines look like they're going to cause a significantly higher rate of seizures than usual.

Note, by the way, that this was not the headline of the story. This admission was tucked away in the text of a Reuters story, without any real emphasis. If Reuters was really interested in reporting the truth about vaccines, the story headline would have been, "Flu vaccines cause seizures in children."

Line up, sheeple!

The story goes on to say, "The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that everyone be vaccinated against seasonal flu this year."

Yep, everyone. That means one-month old infants. Pregnant women. Children with seizure disorders. Immune suppressed seniors. Everyone!

You see, in years past, vaccines were never recommended for everyone due to well-founded safety concerns. In some people, you see, the nearly-dead viral strains used in vaccines can actually cause the very flu they claim to prevent. So the CDC has, for as long as anyone can remember, always warned certain groups to be excluded from vaccines for their own safety.

Well not anymore. Any safety concerns have been thrown out the window in the quest to push more vaccines onto more people. Billions of dollars in pharmaceutical profits are at stake here, and health officials can't afford to let a little safety get in the way.

EPA Wants to Regulate Farm Dust

First cow farts, now farm dust. What's next?

EPA Wants to Regulate Farm Dust

doctorbulldog | 2 August, 2010 at 10:21 am | Categories: EPA | URL: http://wp.me/p1NPg-6mb

Is there nothing these Commie bastards in the EPA won't regulate?

EPA to Crack Down on Farm Dust
By Jacqueline Sit, NEWS 9

OKLAHOMA CITY -- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is considering a crackdown on farm dust, so senators have signed a letter addressing their concerns on the possible regulations.

The letter dated July 23 to the EPA states, "If approved, would establish the most stringent and unparalleled regulation of dust in our nation's history." It further states, "We respect efforts for a clean and healthy environment, but not at the expense of common sense. These identified levels will be extremely burdensome for farmers and livestock producers to attain. Whether its livestock kicking up dust, soybeans being combined on a dry day in the fall, or driving a car down the gravel road, dust is a naturally occurring event."

Read the letter to EPA signed by 21 senators including Jim Inhofe and Tom Coburn

Many in the Oklahoma farming industry are opposed to the EPA's consideration. One farmer said the possible regulations are ridiculous.

"It's plain common sense, we don't want to do anything detrimental," said farmer Curtis Roberts. "If the dust is detrimental to us, it's going to be to everybody. We're not going to do anything to hurt ourselves or our farm."

Roberts, a fourth generation farmer and rancher in Arcadia, said regulating dust in rural areas will hurt farmers' harvest, cultivation and livelihood.

"Anytime you work ground, you're going to have dust. I don't know how they'll regulate it," Roberts said. "The regulations are going to put us down and keep us from doing things we need to be doing because of the EPA."

Oklahoma Farm Bureau President Mike Spradling said the rules could be detrimental to farmers across the Sooner State.

"We as an organization do not feel dust is a pollutant," Spradling said. "It would almost be impossible to comply with what's being addressed now from the EPA as in agriculture. We're doing everything we possibly can."

"It's just common sense, we don't like dust in the morning but it's something we got to live with," Roberts said.

Add a comment to this post

WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe | Publish text, photos, music, and videos by email using our Post by Email feature.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com

Re: Someone give the Globe a clue bat - why are the rich spending less

Wait and see how less the spending will be if the tax cuts expire. I suppose this will be Bush's fault.
----- Original Message -----
From: "dick thompson" <rhomp2002@earthlink.net>
To: "James Anastos" <big2wheelrxx@gmail.com>, "MERLE MCKINZIE" <merlemckinzie@msn.com>, claguerra245@aol.com, calrose123@aol.com, "Michael Kerwin" <east90thst@yahoo.com>, rn326@aol.com, "TheAnchoress" <theanchoress@gmail.com>, "gocinatlanta" <gocinatlanta@bellsouth.net>, "Jim Miller" <jimxc1@gmail.com>, jim@parkwayreststop.com, "jane hoffman" <jarlene4058@embarqmail.com>, "John and Beth" <johnbethd@yahoo.com>, beckymason@cableone.net, "Boudicca Voice" <boudicah@hotmail.com>, "Tammi's World" <tammisworld@gmail.com>, biz@bizzyblog.com, generalremo@cox.net, pammillerhoward@woh.rr.com, annalthouse@gmail.com, politicalforum@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, August 2, 2010 11:16:43 AM
Subject: Someone give the Globe a clue bat - why are the rich spending less

Rich spend less, squeezing economy

Associated Press / August 2, 2010

Text size – +

WASHINGTON — Wealthy Americans aren't spending so freely anymore. And the rest of us are feeling the squeeze.

The question is whether the rich will cut back so much as to tip the economy back into recession — or if they will spend at least enough to sustain the recovery.

The answer may not be clear for months. But their cutbacks help explain why the rebound could be stalling. The economy grew at just a 2.4 percent rate in the April-June quarter, the government said Friday, much slower than the 3.7 percent rate for the first quarter.

Economists say overall consumer spending has slowed mainly because the richest 5 percent of Americans — those earning at least $207,000 — are buying less.

They account for about 14 percent of total spending. These shoppers have retrenched as their investment values have sunk and home values have languished.

In addition, the most sweeping tax cuts in a generation are due to expire in January, and lawmakers are divided over whether the government can afford to make any of them permanent as the federal budget deficit continues to balloon.

You really can't make this up - from Academia

Kenneth Howell Was Hired By The University of Illinois To Teach About Catholicism: So he taught about Catholicism. And then the university fired him for teaching what he was hired to teach.

If that sequence seems a little mysterious, you just have to remember that Catholic doctrine is politically incorrect in many areas, including homosexuality.

David French, a lawyer with the Alliance Defense Fund, which is representing Howell, underscores an important point: "Dr. Howell's case illustrates the absolute intolerance that has long been emerging on campus towards any kind of dissent or disagreement against the prevailing sexual orthodoxy. It's as if the university community views traditional Christian ethics as the moral equivalent of racism and treats Christians in the same way it would treat a white-sheeted bigot."

Old-fashioned liberals would have defended Howell on the academic freedom grounds, but there aren't many old-fashioned liberals left in our universities, and those that are left are not always willing to speak out on such a sensitive subject.

Professor Howell has been reinstated, which will please almost all of his students. The University of Illinois may have learned something about the 1st Amendment's protections for freedom of speech and religion, which will please most of us.

But what strikes me about this incident is how routine it sounds — until we get to the reinstatement. Everything happened as if the people involved were following a much-used script, from Howell's innocuous statement of Catholic doctrine, which triggered the anonymous "hate speech" charge, to the panicked firing. We've seen this all before, but usually it does not end as well as it has in Howell's case.

Because these cases are so common, we now have — and need — the Alliance Defense Fund, established in order to defend religious freedom, even on college and university campuses.

(FWIW — not much to administrators at the U of I — Illinois is one of our more Catholic states.)

- 7:42 AM, 2 August 2010 [link]

From Jim Miller on Politics

Do you really think this would be happening at all without the AZ lawsuit?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/02/us/02guard.html?th&emc=th

--
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.

Mises's Vision of the Free Society

Mises's Vision of the Free Society
Friday, July 16, 2010
by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

[Foreword to Liberalism by Ludwig von Mises]

Any political philosophy must address itself to a central question: under what conditions is the initiation of violence to be considered legitimate? One philosophy may endorse such violence on behalf of the interests of a majority racial group, as with the National Socialists of Germany. Another may endorse it on behalf of a particular economic class, as with the Bolsheviks of Soviet Russia. Still another may prefer to avoid a doctrinaire position one way or another, leaving it to the good judgment of those who administer the state to decide when the common good demands the initiation of violence and when it does not. This is the stance of the social democracies.

The liberal sets a very high threshold for the initiation of violence. Beyond the minimal taxation necessary to maintain legal and defense services and some liberals shrink even from this he denies to the state the power to initiate violence and seeks only peaceful remedies to perceived social ills. He opposes violence for the sake of redistributing wealth, of enriching influential pressure groups, or trying to improve man's moral condition. Civilized people, says the liberal, interact with each other not according to the law of the jungle, but by means of reason and discussion. Man is not to be made good by means of the prison guard and the hangman; should they be necessary to make him good, his moral condition is already beyond salvage. As Ludwig von Mises puts it in this seminal book, modern man "must free himself from the habit, just as soon as something does not please him, of calling for the police."

There has been something of a renaissance in Misesian studies in the wake of the financial crisis that first gripped the world in 2007 and 2008, since it was followers of Mises who had the most compelling explanations for economic phenomena that left most so-called experts stammering. The importance of Mises's economic contributions to modern-day discussion is apt to make us overlook his contributions as a social theorist and political philosopher. The republication of Liberalism helps to rectify this oversight.

The liberalism that Mises describes here is, of course, not the "liberalism" of the United States today, but rather classical liberalism, which is how the term continues to be understood in Europe. Classical liberalism stands for individual liberty, private property, free trade, and peace, fundamental principles from which the rest of the liberal program can be deduced. (When the first English edition of Liberalism appeared in 1962, Mises published it under the title The Free and Prosperous Commonwealth, in order not to confuse American readers who associated liberalism with a creed very different from the one he championed.)

It is no insult to Mises to describe his defense of liberalism as parsimonious, in the sense that, following Occam's razor, he employs on its behalf no concepts not strictly necessary to his argument. Thus Mises makes no reference to natural rights, a concept that plays a central role in so many other expositions of liberalism. He focuses primarily on the necessity of large-scale social cooperation. This social cooperation, by which complex chains of production function to improve the general standard of living, can be brought about only by an economic system based on private property. Private property in the means of production, coupled with the progressive extension of the division of labor, has helped to free mankind from the horrific afflictions that once confronted the human race: disease, grinding poverty, appalling rates of infant mortality, general squalor and filth, and radical economic insecurity, with people often living one bad harvest away from starvation. Until the market economy illustrated the wealth-creating possibilities of the division of labor, it was taken for granted that these grotesque features of man's condition were the fixed dictates of a cold and merciless nature, and thus unlikely to be substantially alleviated, much less conquered entirely, by human effort.

Students have been taught for many generations to think of property as a dirty word, the very embodiment of avarice. Mises will have none of it. "If history could prove anything in regard to this question, it could only be that nowhere and at no time has there ever been a people which has raised itself without private property above a condition of the most oppressive penury and savagery scarcely distinguishable from animal existence." Social cooperation, Mises shows, is impossible in the absence of private property, and any attempts to curtail the right of property undermine the central pillar of modern civilization.

Indeed Mises firmly anchors liberalism to private property. He is all too aware that to champion property is to invite the accusation that liberalism is merely a veiled apologia for capital. "The enemies of liberalism have branded it as the party of the special interests of the capitalists," Mises observes. "This is characteristic of their mentality. They simply cannot understand a political ideology as anything but the advocacy of certain special privileges opposed to the general welfare." Mises shows in this book and throughout his corpus of work that the system of private ownership of the means of production redounds to the benefit not merely of the direct owners of capital but indeed to all of society.

There is, in fact, no particular reason that people in possession of great wealth should favor the liberal system of free competition, in which continuous effort must be exerted on behalf of the desires of the consumers if that wealth is not to be whittled away. Those who possess great wealth especially those who inherited that wealth may in fact prefer to inhabit a system of intervention, which is more likely to keep existing patterns of wealth frozen. Little wonder that American business magazines during the Progressive Era are replete with calls for replacing laissez-faire, a system in which no one's profits are protected, with government-sanctioned cartel and collusion devices.

Naturally, given Mises's emphasis on the centrality of the division of labor to the maintenance and progress of civilization, he is particularly outspoken regarding the evils of aggressive war, which on top of its physical and human toll brings about the progressive impoverishment of mankind by its radical disruption of a harmonious structure of production that spans the entire globe. Mises, who rarely minces words but whose prose is generally elegant and restrained, speaks with indignation and outrage when the subject turns to European imperialism, a cause on whose behalf he will admit no arguments whatever. Just as his student, Murray Rothbard, would later identify war and peace as the foundational issue of the whole liberal program, Mises likewise insists that these questions cannot be neglected as they so often are by classical liberals in our own time in favor of safer, less politically sensitive issues.

The principal tool of liberalism, Mises maintained, was reason. That does not mean Mises thought its entire program must be carried through by means of dense and elaborate academic treatises. He greatly admired those who brought its ideas to the stage, the silver screen, and to the world of published fiction. But it does mean that the cause must remain rooted in rational argument, a much sounder foundation than the fickle irrationalism of emotion and hysteria by which other ideologies seek to stir the masses. "Liberalism has nothing to do with all this," Mises insists. "It has no party flower and no party color, no party song and no party idols, no symbols and no slogans. It has the substance and the arguments. These must lead it to victory."

Finally, a brief word on the translation. Ralph Raico's elegant rendering of Mises's words not only conveys the author's ideas with precision and care but also preserves his unique and captivating prose style. Readers of Mises's later works, many of which appeared originally in English rather than in translation, will be struck by how skillfully Raico has captured the voice they discover in those books.

We ought to rejoice at the publication of the Mises Institute's new edition of this old classic, particularly at such a perilous moment in history. With fiscal crises and the hard choices they demand threatening a wave of civil unrest across Europe, the impossible promises made by cash-strapped welfare states are becoming increasingly obvious. As Mises argued, there is no stable, long-term substitute for the free economy. Interventionism, even on behalf of such an ostensibly good cause as social welfare, creates more problems than it solves, thereby leading to still more intervention until the system is entirely socialized, if the collapse does not occur before then.

Mises's position runs counter to those who held that the market was indeed a place of rivalry and strife in which the gain of some implied losses to others. One thinks, for example, of David Ricardo, and his contention that wages and profits necessarily move in opposite directions. Thomas Malthus warned of a population catastrophe, which implied a conflict between some individuals (those already born) and others (namely, the alleged excess who followed later). Then, of course, there was the entire mercantilist tradition, which viewed trade and exchange as a kind of low-intensity warfare that yielded a definite set of winners and losers. Karl Marx set forth a classic statement of inherent class antagonism on the market in the Communist Manifesto. Even older than these figures was Michel de Montaigne (1533–1592), who argued in his essay "The Plight of One Man Is the Benefit of Another" that "no profit can possibly be made but at the expense of another." Mises later called this view the "Montaigne fallacy."

For the sake of civilization itself, Mises urges us to discard the mercantilist myths that pit the prosperity of one people against that of another, the socialist myths that describe the various social classes as mortal enemies, and the interventionist myths that seek prosperity through mutual plunder. In place of these juvenile and destructive misconceptions Mises advances a compelling argument for classical liberalism, which sees "economic harmonies" to borrow Frédéric Bastiat's formulation where others see antagonism and strife. Classical liberalism, so ably defended here by Mises, seeks no coercively derived advantage for anyone, and for that very reason brings about the most satisfactory long-run results for everyone.

Thomas E. Woods, Jr. (visit his website) is a resident scholar at the Mises Institute, where he will be teaching "The New Deal: History, Economics, and Law" this fall at the Mises Academy. He is the author of the New York Times bestseller Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse. His other recent books include 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask, The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy, Nullification, and The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History (a New York Times bestseller).

http://mises.org/daily/4500

Someone give the Globe a clue bat - why are the rich spending less

Rich spend less, squeezing economy

Associated Press / August 2, 2010

Text size – +

WASHINGTON — Wealthy Americans aren’t spending so freely anymore. And the rest of us are feeling the squeeze.

The question is whether the rich will cut back so much as to tip the economy back into recession — or if they will spend at least enough to sustain the recovery.

Economists say overall consumer spending has slowed mainly because the richest 5 percent of Americans — those earning at least $207,000 — are buying less.

They account for about 14 percent of total spending. These shoppers have retrenched as their investment values have sunk and home values have languished.

Greenspan speaks

Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan said that the push by congressional
Republicans to extend the Bush tax cuts without offsetting the costs
elsewhere could end up being "disastrous" for the economy.

In an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press," Greenspan expressed his
disagreement with the conservative argument that tax cuts essentially
pay for themselves by generating revenue and productivity among
recipients.

"They do not," said Greenspan.

"I'm very much in favor of tax cuts but not with borrowed money and
the problem that we have gotten into in recent years is spending
programs with borrowed money, tax cuts with borrowed money," he said.
"And at the end of the day that proves disastrous. My view is I don't
think we can play subtle policy here."

The comments from the former Fed chief were an elaboration of a
position he outlined in an interview earlier in the week. Speaking
with PBS' Judy Woodruff, Greenspan expressed his opposition to passing
legislation that would hold tax rates steady (under law the tax cuts
Bush passed ten years ago are going to expire, thereby bringing rates
back to Clinton-era levels). President Obama has pledged to continue
the tax breaks for those individuals making under $200,000 and those
families earning less than $250,000.

But Republicans want the entire package kept in place. Even so, they
have declined to say how they would pay for it, saying, in part, that
keeping the Bush tax cuts in place will pay for itself.

In addition to throwing cold water on that theory, Greenspan also
weighed in on broader economic issues and trends. The former Fed
Chairman relayed some sobering economic predictions, saying he
expected the nation's unemployment rate to remain at its current
level, mainly because there were few tools left to change it.

--
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.

Debt is Devouring Sovereign Nations, U.S. Deficit is being Monetized by the Fed

Scotty Starnes | August 2, 2010 at 6:00 AM | Tags: deficit, deflation, economy, fiscal deficit, Japanes-style deflation, recovery, The Federal Reserve, world economy | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/pvnFC-23J

This article shows why the Federal Reserve needs to be audited every year. Reading it will make you cringe and shake your head in disgust. Or cause it to blow up out of anger.

While we wait, watch and listen, the Fed hides when the banks will be given the word to start lending to get the domestic economy back to neutral. Action is needed quickly because the world economy is quickly deteriorating, and the recovery is simply not happening, as the administration admits to a fiscal deficit of $1.4 trillion. That would be down from a deficit of $1.9 trillion in 2009. Our long-term estimate has been $1.6 to $2 trillion

Over the past 18 months and after joint expenditures by government and the Fed of $2.3 trillion, all the administration has to show for their efforts are five quarters of stimulus growth of about 3-1/2%, which is now ending. In addition, economies worldwide are slowing as well. At the same time the credit crisis continues as the Fed's money machine funds banks and other financial institutions worldwide in a sea of perpetually degraded dollars. The only real mission for the Fed is to keep the financial sector afloat until the elitists are ready to finally pull the plug and bring about worldwide deflationary depression, as a trigger mechanism to force people's of the world to accept world government. Most of the major banks of the world are insolvent and keeping them functioning is the Fed's primary mission.

New World Order. Where have we heard this before?

Debt is devouring sovereign nations, especially in Europe, the UK, Japan and the US. Over the past 20 years ideas and policies have been discussed on how to handle such debt. Austerity programs and cutbacks have begun in a number of countries, each using their own formulas. In the US on the table are Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, all of which run at a substantial deficit. In fact, they come close to consuming all government revenue. This is causing difficult problems because off budget items cannot be funded. They have to be funded via deficits, which are shrouded in secrecy. That is understandable as America's wars have already cost taxpayers well over $1 trillion. These dollar denominated assets, when in fact secretly, are being funded by the privately owned Federal Reserve. The big secret of the past seven years is not a secret anymore. These are policies that are secret. If you ask the Fed specific questions all you get is that the answer is a state secret, it is classified. Of course, this is done to hide the Fed's activities. The same is true of commissions appointed by the president under the cloak of executive orders. These are the bureaucrats that will formulate how spending will be cut and revenues will be enhanced. Their conclusions are then rubber stamped by a purchased Congress and Senate. This procedure bypasses all debate and allows progress in semi-secrecy.

The deficit is being funded and monetized by the Fed, but they won't tell you that. Yes, foreigners buy debt, but so does the Fed.

Behind all this lurking in the shadows is the administration's decision to allow low tax rates to elapse, which will increase taxes by some 15%. This change should be reverified after the next election. Recently Treasury Secretary Geithner said tax increases should be pursued.

Then we also expect that moves will begin to expose the administration's program to tax or offer an exchange for retirement plans with government. Government would offer guaranteed annuity plans. This would be a method of securing assets immediately to offset deficits.

Whatever the administration wants to do they'll have to do it before November's election because of anti-incumbent sentiment, and anger over the financial reform bill and the medical reform bill. Now incumbents are under severe pressure. That has been complicated by a federal court decision to strip an Arizona law of its most important elements regarding illegal aliens. Democrats are going to bear a great deal of blame regarding this issue. Two surveys showed 90% and 94% of Americans agreed with the Arizona law regarding immigration. In addition, many solons are realizing that the accelerating deficit impedes government. Some Democrats and many republicans are sophisticated enough to see higher taxes could subdue the economy even further. If the Fed were to raise interest rates that would further put downward pressure on the economy. All these things leave few viable options. There is no question that the Fed is going to accommodate the economy, as we explained earlier, by cutting interest on banks deposits at the Fed and forcing banks' to lend, which would invigorate the economy and raise employment. This is why the market rallied from 9800 to 10,500. Remember since Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke took office the government's short term debt rose from $8.2 trillion to $13.3 trillion. We are sure you remember his 2002 speech as he described the Fed's printing press abilities. All monetary expansion has been done is buy time – it has not in any way solved the underlying problems.

We wonder what the Fed will do with the trillions of dollars in toxic waste bonds held on its balance sheets? They'll sell them and you will get billed for it. Don't forget foreign exchange of foreign nations in dollars fell from 64.5% of assets to 59.5% of assets in just 1-1/2 years. Our friends are sellers, including China.

What Washington, the Fed and Wall Street have to understand is that you cannot borrow your way to wealth. There is an eventual law of diminishing returns. Present prosperity cannot be paid for by future production and services. The public senses this and their confidence continues to dissipate. Seventy percent believe there will be no recovery. They are angry and want to purge congress and the Senate of the criminals they previously elected. This is a reflection in part of unemployment of 22-3/8%, falling hours and wages and perpetual loss of purchasing power.

As we pointed out previously Europe and the UK and the US have chosen different paths to solve their debt, finance and economic problems. Europe has raised taxes and implemented austerity. The US so far has done neither and continues to believe that quantitative easy (QE) is the best hope of success. Heretofore it has been unsuccessful, but they keep on doing it anyway for lack of an acceptable alternative. The US is in double dip recession already. The question is can the Fed act fast enough to stave off deflationary depression? This is what Europe has done and they are about to find out much to their chagrin that they have a deflationary depression on their hands, and they have lost control. That should eventually knock the euro for a loop. The solvent members of the euro zone are going to find they have thrown good money after bad. Europe heads for depression and the US will soon follow. It is the intention to create $5 trillion in QE over the next two years to carry the US economy through the next election. There is just three months to elections. The race is on to convince the US electorate that America is ok. We do not believe that will be successful.

The Fed continues to buy toxic debt instruments. They admit to having purchased $1.3 trillion worth, but we believe that the figure is more like $1.8 bullion worth. The difference is parked offshore.

As Fed chairman Bernanke says unemployment is the most pressing challenge. The way to help that situation is to have banks lend to small- and middle-sized businesses that create 70% of the jobs.

Add a comment to this post

WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe | Publish text, photos, music, and videos by email using our Post by Email feature.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com