I have been thinking about some interesting ideas about the economy. I have a few ideas. Here they are.
The attack is three fold
First: stop the bleeding of finances.
Second: restructure the system
Third: bring an influx of finances back into the system in an effort to bring about a budget surplus. This budget surplus should go to deflating the debt. At least a portion of it.
We start by doing an across the board stop for all spending. All. Everything. This is possible. I refer back to the nineties when the government actually did shut down at the hands of the republican congress under Newt Gingrich. It forced the democrats to comply and take the republicans seriously. And the net result was a balanced budget for the first time since who knows when. Even if the dems take credit for it because of Clinton.
Take a few weeks at most and go through the budget and seriously gut it. Cut all the spending that is redundant or unnecessary. People are going to hate it. But only the people that stand to loose there ability to take advantage of a lax system.
From here you can start the necessary spending once again but with a proviso. The proviso is each and every department will submit a budget of streamlined and cost effective restructuring to become the most efficient that they can be.
I feel that an independent group of business person’s should be the oversight of this process. And not be in contact with the congress or the various departments. This would alleviate favoritism of one or more expenditures that might be kept that should go.
We continue with a ten percent across the board pay reduction for every last federal employee. This could be temporary over a period of time to be restored later. Every cut should be enacted regardless of how small. Ie. Going paperless, ending all expense accounts. Outsourcing an internal job to a competitive bidding war designed to bring in the lowest cost per project.
A new priority should be established, preventative maintenance is cheaper than waiting for it to break. Giving funding to infrastructure and civic vital services, ie fixing traffic lights, sewer maintenance etc, is more cost effective in the long term. However this may have to be judiciously dolled out in the beginning.
A serious reduction of inflated returns on pensions should be done. A complete overhaul with regard to health benefits that are funded by the government in the realm of state and federal employees should be not looked at but done. Let them get other plans or pay a fair premium not subsidized by the government. Let them pay for there own care.
Drop the sales, corporate, income and all taxes by at least 25%. Where possible. Especially the corporate tax on businesses. All not just large or small but all businesses.
My favorite idea would be the reinstitution of the bond. In world war two the american people were greatly encouraged to by war bonds. The money was used to fight the war with Germany. A payable return was given based on a percentage. I think allowing businesses and individuals the ability to purchase bonds would bring an immediate influx with a pre determined point of maturity to each bond.
It should be noted that after about one year we should begin to save to repay those bonds based upon a projected cost for the whole of bonds sold over say ten or twenty years at 3 - 6% interest.
Give tax credits to all business that hire. But serious tax credits that allow the hiring to be worth while. A ten percent tax based on the employees yearly salary.
Also tax breaks to companies and a reduction of trade tariffs to companies that produce exportable goods.
From the Us to other counties.
These are just some ideas that if implemented could possibly go a long way in restoring our economy and job situation.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Sunday, February 21, 2010
What about the Military tribunals?
The controversy of military tribunals is a very hot and rather old topic. The argument goes back as far as the american civil war.
Lambden P. Milligan was sentenced to death by a military commission in Indiana during the Civil War; he had engaged in acts of disloyalty. Milligan sought release through habeas corpus from a federal court.
Habeas Corpus is a gaurantee that you will not be held against your will by authorities for no good reason. If you request to know why you are being held (habeas corpus) and it is insufficient to hold you the authorities must set you free. .essentially habeas corpus is a legal action, or writ, through which a person can seek relief from their unlawful detention or that of another person. It protects individuals from harming themselves or from being harmed by the judicial system. Of English origin, the writ of habeas corpus has historically been an important instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action.
This was the defense used in the supreme court case of Lambden P. Milligan.
The Supreme Court decided that the suspension of habeas corpus was lawful, but military tribunals did not apply to citizens in states that had upheld the authority of the Constitution and where civilian courts were still operating, and the Constitution of the United States provided for suspension of habeas corpus only if these courts are actually forced closed. In essence, the Court ruled that military tribunals could not try civilians in areas where civil courts were open, even during times of war.
It observed further that during the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, citizens may be only held without charges, not tried, and certainly not executed by military tribunals. After all, the writ of habeas corpus is not the right itself but merely the ability to issue orders demanding the right's enforcement.
It is important to note the political environment of the decision. Post-war, under a Republican Congress, the Court was reluctant to hand down any decision that questioned the legitimacy of military courts, especially in the occupied South. The President's ability to suspend habeas corpus independently of Congress, a central issue, was not addressed probably because it was moot with respect to the case at hand. Though President Lincoln suspended the writ nationwide on September 24, 1862, Congress ratified almost six months later, on March 3, 1863. Milligan was detained in 1864, well after Congress formally suspended the writ. That notwithstanding, military jurisdiction had been limited.
Here is a section of the constitution.
From the constitution:
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
This was the only right of an individual so important that the crafters of the constitution placed this statement in the body of the document. All others were included in the bill of rights.
President George W. Bush ordered that certain detainees imprisoned at the Naval base at Guantanamo Bay were to be tried by military commissions. This decision sparked controversy and litigation. On June 29, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court limited the power of the Bush administration to conduct military tribunals to suspected terrorists at Guantánamo Bay.
In December 2006, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was passed and authorized the establishment of military commissions subject to certain requirements and with a designated system of appealing those decisions. A military commission system addressing objections identified by the U.S. Supreme Court was then established by the Department of Defense. Litigation concerning the establishment of this system is ongoing.[3][4] As of June 13, 2007, the appellate body in this military commission system had not yet been constituted.
Three cases had been commenced in the new system, as of June 13, 2007. One detainee, David Matthew Hicks plea bargained and was sent to Australia to serve a nine-month sentence.[5] Two cases were dismissed without prejudice because the tribunal believed that the men charged had not been properly determined to be persons within the commission's jurisdiction on June 4, 2007, and the military prosecutors asked the commission to reconsider that decision on June 8, 2007. [6] One of the dismissed cases involved Omar Ahmed Khadr, who was captured at age 15 in Afghanistan after having allegedly killed a U.S. soldier with a grenade. The other dismissed case involved Salim Ahmed Hamdan who is alleged to have been Osama bin Laden's driver and is the lead plaintiff in a key series of cases challenging the military commission system. The system is in limbo until the jurisdictional issues addressed in the early cases are resolved.
section 10 #836 of the us code
(a) Pretrial, trial, and post-trial procedures, including modes of proof, for cases arising under this chapter triable in courts- martial, military commissions and other military tribunals, and procedures for courts of inquiry, may be prescribed by the President by regulations which shall, so far as he considers practicable, apply the principles of law and the rules of evidence generally recognized in the trial of criminal cases in the United States district courts, but which may not, except as provided in chapter 47A of this title, be contrary to or inconsistent with this chapter. (b) All rules and regulations made under this article shall be uniform insofar as practicable, except insofar as applicable to military commissions established under chapter 47A of this
It was this code that president used to institute the executive order convening the military tribunal for all the 9/11 terrorists.
He did not act as if it were just out of the blue to push these military tribunals’ there was a presidence in the Us code
section 10 #836 of the us code
(a) Pretrial, trial, and post-trial procedures, including modes of proof, for cases arising under this chapter triable in courts- martial, military commissions and other military tribunals, and procedures for courts of inquiry, may be prescribed by the President by regulations which shall, so far as he considers practicable, apply the principles of law and the rules of evidence generally recognized in the trial of criminal cases in the United States district courts, but which may not, except as provided in chapter 47A of this title, be contrary to or inconsistent with this chapter. (b) All rules and regulations made under this article shall be uniform insofar as practicable, except insofar as applicable to military commissions established under chapter 47A of this
It was this code that president used to institute the executive order convening the military tribunal for all the 9/11 terrorists.
This code does one of two things, it gave bush the ability and precedence to create the tribunals but it I believe also gives the Obama admin the ability to use the civil courts if they see fit.
It does however stir up one very real controversial point. The congress passed the bill allowing the tribunals. Largely a democratic congress at the time. They are doing there level best to distance themselves from complicit culpability but we as intelligent Americans’ actually do know better.
Is it right or wrong I’m not sure. There are actually valid reasons on both side’s of the fence. I do not think that this issue is a fight about policy. Because policy can be possibly interpreted to lean in either direction. This is a fight of feelings and beliefs. Because of how passionately you feel about 9/11. And it was the first effectual attack on Us continental soil. Although not the first. There is in fact a WW II attack by the Japanese of bombs, floated by balloons across the jet stream, a lone seaplane attacking mount Emily Oregon, a single submarine attacked fort Stevens at the mouth of the Columbia river.
I personally think that we should get all of the intelligence out of terrorists as possible. I’m not sure about the methods used. But I do think that the democrats as a general rule and more specifically Janet Napolitano, who has used terms to describe the terrorist shooting at fort hood as a man made disaster, anything but a war on terrorism, should take the threat of terrorism at least seemingly more serious.
Lambden P. Milligan was sentenced to death by a military commission in Indiana during the Civil War; he had engaged in acts of disloyalty. Milligan sought release through habeas corpus from a federal court.
Habeas Corpus is a gaurantee that you will not be held against your will by authorities for no good reason. If you request to know why you are being held (habeas corpus) and it is insufficient to hold you the authorities must set you free. .essentially habeas corpus is a legal action, or writ, through which a person can seek relief from their unlawful detention or that of another person. It protects individuals from harming themselves or from being harmed by the judicial system. Of English origin, the writ of habeas corpus has historically been an important instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action.
This was the defense used in the supreme court case of Lambden P. Milligan.
The Supreme Court decided that the suspension of habeas corpus was lawful, but military tribunals did not apply to citizens in states that had upheld the authority of the Constitution and where civilian courts were still operating, and the Constitution of the United States provided for suspension of habeas corpus only if these courts are actually forced closed. In essence, the Court ruled that military tribunals could not try civilians in areas where civil courts were open, even during times of war.
It observed further that during the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, citizens may be only held without charges, not tried, and certainly not executed by military tribunals. After all, the writ of habeas corpus is not the right itself but merely the ability to issue orders demanding the right's enforcement.
It is important to note the political environment of the decision. Post-war, under a Republican Congress, the Court was reluctant to hand down any decision that questioned the legitimacy of military courts, especially in the occupied South. The President's ability to suspend habeas corpus independently of Congress, a central issue, was not addressed probably because it was moot with respect to the case at hand. Though President Lincoln suspended the writ nationwide on September 24, 1862, Congress ratified almost six months later, on March 3, 1863. Milligan was detained in 1864, well after Congress formally suspended the writ. That notwithstanding, military jurisdiction had been limited.
Here is a section of the constitution.
From the constitution:
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
This was the only right of an individual so important that the crafters of the constitution placed this statement in the body of the document. All others were included in the bill of rights.
President George W. Bush ordered that certain detainees imprisoned at the Naval base at Guantanamo Bay were to be tried by military commissions. This decision sparked controversy and litigation. On June 29, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court limited the power of the Bush administration to conduct military tribunals to suspected terrorists at Guantánamo Bay.
In December 2006, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was passed and authorized the establishment of military commissions subject to certain requirements and with a designated system of appealing those decisions. A military commission system addressing objections identified by the U.S. Supreme Court was then established by the Department of Defense. Litigation concerning the establishment of this system is ongoing.[3][4] As of June 13, 2007, the appellate body in this military commission system had not yet been constituted.
Three cases had been commenced in the new system, as of June 13, 2007. One detainee, David Matthew Hicks plea bargained and was sent to Australia to serve a nine-month sentence.[5] Two cases were dismissed without prejudice because the tribunal believed that the men charged had not been properly determined to be persons within the commission's jurisdiction on June 4, 2007, and the military prosecutors asked the commission to reconsider that decision on June 8, 2007. [6] One of the dismissed cases involved Omar Ahmed Khadr, who was captured at age 15 in Afghanistan after having allegedly killed a U.S. soldier with a grenade. The other dismissed case involved Salim Ahmed Hamdan who is alleged to have been Osama bin Laden's driver and is the lead plaintiff in a key series of cases challenging the military commission system. The system is in limbo until the jurisdictional issues addressed in the early cases are resolved.
section 10 #836 of the us code
(a) Pretrial, trial, and post-trial procedures, including modes of proof, for cases arising under this chapter triable in courts- martial, military commissions and other military tribunals, and procedures for courts of inquiry, may be prescribed by the President by regulations which shall, so far as he considers practicable, apply the principles of law and the rules of evidence generally recognized in the trial of criminal cases in the United States district courts, but which may not, except as provided in chapter 47A of this title, be contrary to or inconsistent with this chapter. (b) All rules and regulations made under this article shall be uniform insofar as practicable, except insofar as applicable to military commissions established under chapter 47A of this
It was this code that president used to institute the executive order convening the military tribunal for all the 9/11 terrorists.
He did not act as if it were just out of the blue to push these military tribunals’ there was a presidence in the Us code
section 10 #836 of the us code
(a) Pretrial, trial, and post-trial procedures, including modes of proof, for cases arising under this chapter triable in courts- martial, military commissions and other military tribunals, and procedures for courts of inquiry, may be prescribed by the President by regulations which shall, so far as he considers practicable, apply the principles of law and the rules of evidence generally recognized in the trial of criminal cases in the United States district courts, but which may not, except as provided in chapter 47A of this title, be contrary to or inconsistent with this chapter. (b) All rules and regulations made under this article shall be uniform insofar as practicable, except insofar as applicable to military commissions established under chapter 47A of this
It was this code that president used to institute the executive order convening the military tribunal for all the 9/11 terrorists.
This code does one of two things, it gave bush the ability and precedence to create the tribunals but it I believe also gives the Obama admin the ability to use the civil courts if they see fit.
It does however stir up one very real controversial point. The congress passed the bill allowing the tribunals. Largely a democratic congress at the time. They are doing there level best to distance themselves from complicit culpability but we as intelligent Americans’ actually do know better.
Is it right or wrong I’m not sure. There are actually valid reasons on both side’s of the fence. I do not think that this issue is a fight about policy. Because policy can be possibly interpreted to lean in either direction. This is a fight of feelings and beliefs. Because of how passionately you feel about 9/11. And it was the first effectual attack on Us continental soil. Although not the first. There is in fact a WW II attack by the Japanese of bombs, floated by balloons across the jet stream, a lone seaplane attacking mount Emily Oregon, a single submarine attacked fort Stevens at the mouth of the Columbia river.
I personally think that we should get all of the intelligence out of terrorists as possible. I’m not sure about the methods used. But I do think that the democrats as a general rule and more specifically Janet Napolitano, who has used terms to describe the terrorist shooting at fort hood as a man made disaster, anything but a war on terrorism, should take the threat of terrorism at least seemingly more serious.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Obama and the Dalai lama
The dalai lama recently met with President Obama. Obama is apparently receiving criticism for meeting with The Lama in private with no cameras and trying to desperately not anger china. Well it’s a precarious position at best. Obama does have a desire to be seen on the world stage as a humanitarian. This is evidenced by his acceptance of the Nobel peace prize. I have often thought of the decisions that the president has to make and how would I react or what would I decide. Although I do not agree with the presidents basic set of policies and philosophy of the government I ask his critics this question, If you had the same responsibility as he, with the same information as he, would you make as good of a decision? Would everyone agree with you?
some history of our current economic travesty
Putting it all together.
Reverend Thomas Malthus is apparently the cause of it all. The economic crisis that we are currently creating and a global system that is top heavy with government control. Yup this guy is the start of it all.
Born on February 13th in the year 1766; he was to become one of England’s most respected evolutionary economists, and a founding macroeconomists.
Malthus I believe is the product of the ditch theory. Often used in church. The idea is that I disagree with a particular group of people who are off balance too far in one direction and I disagree so much that I go to the other side of the road and off into the opposite ditch. The Ideal of course would be to be in the middle of the road in a balanced state.
Being a minister of the Church of England he held a pre disposed position of respect and an outlet to bloviate his theories.
The popular theory when Malthus came to the stage was one of the essential goodness of man, and the eventual ability to attain a utopian society, and the ability for man to continually improve himself morally. As was characterized by political philosopher and Malthus contemporary William Godwin. Malthus did not agree with this sentiment. In fact he diametrically opposed it. Malthus believed that the woes of man were based on the seeming lack of wealth. The extravagant privilege of some derived on the backs of others. Sound familiar?
He believed that there was a limited supply that the earth had in which to sustain human existence and that population would always be affected by the limits of that supply. There just simply isn’t enough goods for every one if we keep expanding the population beyond what we can sustain. This leads to vice and crime and ultimately destroys mans ability to achieve that utopian society. He was to become an extremely influential force throughout history influencing Charles Darwin, Adolf Hitler, and Margaret Sanger who was the founder of planned parent hood.
Jump to the 20th century to England and John Maynard Keynes. A British economist and originator of the Keynesian theory of economics. Keynesian economics argues that private sector decisions sometimes lead to inefficient macroeconomic outcomes and therefore advocates active policy responses by the public sector, including monetary policy actions by the central bank and fiscal policy actions by the government to stabilize output over the business cycle. In otherwords - the private sector left to it's own devices can over a period of time lead to a recession. this would cause the goverment and central bank (in this instance the Fed banking commission and ben bernake) to put into place policies that would stabalize the falling economy.
Keynesian economics advocates a mixed economy—predominantly private sector, but with a large role of government and public sector—and served as the economic model during the latter part of the Great Depression, World War II, and the post-war economic expansion (1945–1973), though it lost some influence following the stagflation of the 1970s. The advent of the global financial crisis in 2007 has caused a resurgence in Keynesian thought. The British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and other global leaders have used the theory of Keynesian economics to justify intervening in the world economy.
In Keynes's theory, there are some micro-level actions of individuals and firms that can lead to aggregate or total macroeconomic outcomes in which the economy operates below its potential output and growth. Some classical economists had believed in Say's Law, that supply creates its own demand, so that a "general glut" would therefore be impossible. A brief moment to define a few things. Macroeconomics is a branch of economics that deals with the performance, structure, and behavior of the economy of the entire community, either a nation, a region, or the entire world.
Aggregate demand if you don’t know it is the total sum of the demand in society.
A general glut is an over abundance of a particular thing that has little or no demand for it.
Keynes contended that aggregate demand for goods might be insufficient during economic downturns, leading to unnecessarily high unemployment and losses of potential output. Keynes argued that government policies could be used to increase aggregate demand, thus increasing economic activity and reducing unemployment and deflation.
Keynes argued that the solution to depression was to stimulate the economy ("inducement to invest") through some combination of two approaches: a reduction in interest rates and government investment in infrastructure. Investment by government injects income, which results in more spending in the general economy, which in turn stimulates more production and investment involving still more income and spending and so forth. The initial stimulation starts a cascade of events, whose total increase in economic activity is a multiple of the original investment.[3]
The Keynesian line of thought was adopted by the “Chicago school” the university of Chicago is considered one of the for runners in economic education in the world. the term "Chicago School" is associated with a particular brand of economics which adheres strictly to Neoclassical price theory in its economic analysis, "free market" libertarianism in much of its policy work and a methodology which is relatively averse to too much mathematical formalism and willing to forgo careful general equilibrium reasoning in favor of more results-oriented partial equilibrium analysis. The Chicago school is associated with neoclassical price theory and libertarianism in its support of lower taxation and private sector regulation, but differs from pure free-market economics in its support of government-regulated monetary policy. In terms of methodology the stress is on "positive economics" – that is, empirically based studies using statistics to prove theory.
Theoretical models that can’t predict future economics in an unstable market are not the way to go. The all important equilibrium that left wing economists tout is a basic redistribution of wealth based on the Malthusian theory of not enough to go around. In support of a government regulated centralized economic structure will destroy the US dollar. It has too. The only way to level the playing field on a global scale is to redistribute the wealth of the wealthiest nation on earth - America.
one of the vasts differences of the keynesian approach to the great depression was WW II. the government pumped billions into the private sector in order to execute the war. in essence the government became a customer of the companies that built the nessisary munitionsand that helped revitalized our economy. it also led the way to the largest employment boom we have seen yet.
I gave all this background because if we understand the roots of the white houses thinking we can stop it from destroying our national Identity.
Despite my respect for the office of the president it is utterly amazing the grandiose scale on which president Obama has set his legacy to remain. He doesn’t want to change america. He wants to change the world. oh God pray for our country!!!
Reverend Thomas Malthus is apparently the cause of it all. The economic crisis that we are currently creating and a global system that is top heavy with government control. Yup this guy is the start of it all.
Born on February 13th in the year 1766; he was to become one of England’s most respected evolutionary economists, and a founding macroeconomists.
Malthus I believe is the product of the ditch theory. Often used in church. The idea is that I disagree with a particular group of people who are off balance too far in one direction and I disagree so much that I go to the other side of the road and off into the opposite ditch. The Ideal of course would be to be in the middle of the road in a balanced state.
Being a minister of the Church of England he held a pre disposed position of respect and an outlet to bloviate his theories.
The popular theory when Malthus came to the stage was one of the essential goodness of man, and the eventual ability to attain a utopian society, and the ability for man to continually improve himself morally. As was characterized by political philosopher and Malthus contemporary William Godwin. Malthus did not agree with this sentiment. In fact he diametrically opposed it. Malthus believed that the woes of man were based on the seeming lack of wealth. The extravagant privilege of some derived on the backs of others. Sound familiar?
He believed that there was a limited supply that the earth had in which to sustain human existence and that population would always be affected by the limits of that supply. There just simply isn’t enough goods for every one if we keep expanding the population beyond what we can sustain. This leads to vice and crime and ultimately destroys mans ability to achieve that utopian society. He was to become an extremely influential force throughout history influencing Charles Darwin, Adolf Hitler, and Margaret Sanger who was the founder of planned parent hood.
Jump to the 20th century to England and John Maynard Keynes. A British economist and originator of the Keynesian theory of economics. Keynesian economics argues that private sector decisions sometimes lead to inefficient macroeconomic outcomes and therefore advocates active policy responses by the public sector, including monetary policy actions by the central bank and fiscal policy actions by the government to stabilize output over the business cycle. In otherwords - the private sector left to it's own devices can over a period of time lead to a recession. this would cause the goverment and central bank (in this instance the Fed banking commission and ben bernake) to put into place policies that would stabalize the falling economy.
Keynesian economics advocates a mixed economy—predominantly private sector, but with a large role of government and public sector—and served as the economic model during the latter part of the Great Depression, World War II, and the post-war economic expansion (1945–1973), though it lost some influence following the stagflation of the 1970s. The advent of the global financial crisis in 2007 has caused a resurgence in Keynesian thought. The British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and other global leaders have used the theory of Keynesian economics to justify intervening in the world economy.
In Keynes's theory, there are some micro-level actions of individuals and firms that can lead to aggregate or total macroeconomic outcomes in which the economy operates below its potential output and growth. Some classical economists had believed in Say's Law, that supply creates its own demand, so that a "general glut" would therefore be impossible. A brief moment to define a few things. Macroeconomics is a branch of economics that deals with the performance, structure, and behavior of the economy of the entire community, either a nation, a region, or the entire world.
Aggregate demand if you don’t know it is the total sum of the demand in society.
A general glut is an over abundance of a particular thing that has little or no demand for it.
Keynes contended that aggregate demand for goods might be insufficient during economic downturns, leading to unnecessarily high unemployment and losses of potential output. Keynes argued that government policies could be used to increase aggregate demand, thus increasing economic activity and reducing unemployment and deflation.
Keynes argued that the solution to depression was to stimulate the economy ("inducement to invest") through some combination of two approaches: a reduction in interest rates and government investment in infrastructure. Investment by government injects income, which results in more spending in the general economy, which in turn stimulates more production and investment involving still more income and spending and so forth. The initial stimulation starts a cascade of events, whose total increase in economic activity is a multiple of the original investment.[3]
The Keynesian line of thought was adopted by the “Chicago school” the university of Chicago is considered one of the for runners in economic education in the world. the term "Chicago School" is associated with a particular brand of economics which adheres strictly to Neoclassical price theory in its economic analysis, "free market" libertarianism in much of its policy work and a methodology which is relatively averse to too much mathematical formalism and willing to forgo careful general equilibrium reasoning in favor of more results-oriented partial equilibrium analysis. The Chicago school is associated with neoclassical price theory and libertarianism in its support of lower taxation and private sector regulation, but differs from pure free-market economics in its support of government-regulated monetary policy. In terms of methodology the stress is on "positive economics" – that is, empirically based studies using statistics to prove theory.
Theoretical models that can’t predict future economics in an unstable market are not the way to go. The all important equilibrium that left wing economists tout is a basic redistribution of wealth based on the Malthusian theory of not enough to go around. In support of a government regulated centralized economic structure will destroy the US dollar. It has too. The only way to level the playing field on a global scale is to redistribute the wealth of the wealthiest nation on earth - America.
one of the vasts differences of the keynesian approach to the great depression was WW II. the government pumped billions into the private sector in order to execute the war. in essence the government became a customer of the companies that built the nessisary munitionsand that helped revitalized our economy. it also led the way to the largest employment boom we have seen yet.
I gave all this background because if we understand the roots of the white houses thinking we can stop it from destroying our national Identity.
Despite my respect for the office of the president it is utterly amazing the grandiose scale on which president Obama has set his legacy to remain. He doesn’t want to change america. He wants to change the world. oh God pray for our country!!!
Are we loosing our idetity
I have asked my self why did the white house mirandise a Nigerian citizen?
You can say yes he is an enemy combatant or not but my question is why?
I think the answer is the European Union.
This is a section of a report made to the London house of Lords from the European union.
I have extracted two segments dealing with an international version of Miranda rights.
Procedural rights in
EU criminal
proceedings—an
update
Report with Evidence
Ordered to be printed 5 May 2009 and published 11 May 2009
Published by the Authority of the House of Lords
London
…11. We draw the Government’s attention to our previous reports and
recommend that any minimum standard should…
• provide for the right to silence;
• provide for a right to information at the pre-charge stage, in
particular by the presentation to suspects of a “Letter of Rights”,
in a language they understand, explaining their rights under the
ECHR and the measure itself;
• give suspects a right to immediate legal assistance and advice,
including the services of an interpreter, in each respect on a
confidential basis and free of charge where necessary; and
• finally (a point stressed in our previous reports), ensure electronic
recording of police interviews.
Many of these “rights” are similar to our own. For example the right to remain silent is commonly read to US criminals. Our “Miranda rights.”
The right to information of why we are arrested is like our Constitutional right to Habeas Corpus.
In a speech made in march at the whitehouse US EU summit by
José Manuel Dur ã o Barroso
President of the European Commission
Statement of President Barroso at the White House
EU-US Summit
Washington, 3 November 2009
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I think President Obama and Prime Minister Reinfeldt have already made the most important points regarding this very productive meeting. I'd like to thank President Obama for his very kind words on the European Union. In fact, we believe that this relationship is more important than ever.
In this age of globalization it is quite obvious that the United States and Europe can make a real difference. There are so many issues on the global agenda, from climate change to financial and economic cooperation, to trade -- issues that we have discussed today.
Regarding climate change, I want to tell that I am more confident now than I was in the previous days. Progress on this issue has been slow, but I would like once again to pay tribute to President Obama's leadership. As I said earlier, President Obama changed the climate on the climate negotiations because with the strong leadership of the United States we can indeed make an agreement. We are working toward a framework agreement in Copenhagen that will be an important agreement for the world.
And we had a very good discussion on this today and I think it was one of the most important points of our exchange. Of course I want to repeat what President Obama and Prime Minister Reinfeldt just said. It is extremely important on the other issues like Afghanistan and Pakistan and the issue of global security also that we work together, now negotiating it with the Lisbon Treaty, the treaty that we will give the European Union a reinforced capacity to act, a more clear position also, externally working with our main partners, and of course working especially with our American friends.
President Obama is not necessarily a socialist. He is, I think, an internationalist. This is why he seems to hold every other nation’s opinion higher than his own nation’s. the nations of Europe have state run health care. Oprah compares our nation to Denmark. Praising the Danes and wishing that we the united states were as happy as they.
Glen Beck is claiming that there is an attack on our constitution and I think that he is right.
It seems clear that Obama’s biggest challenge is figuring out how to please everybody and shift America into a one world system. I believe, and your free to dissagree with me, that Obama’s disire to move us to the EU is why he was never able to completely explain his health care bill. It would require him to give up the presidency. American’s love america. An independent spirit founded this country and drove it to become the leader of the world.
America is in the middle of an Identity crisis, much like a teenager. We are asking ourselves and the world, “Who are we?” But just like a teenager that question’s answer comes from inside. Let us all Democrat, Republican, Conservative, Liberal, Independent, Tea Party-er, look inside and rediscover the inner glory that is the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!
GOD BLESS THE USA!!!
You can say yes he is an enemy combatant or not but my question is why?
I think the answer is the European Union.
This is a section of a report made to the London house of Lords from the European union.
I have extracted two segments dealing with an international version of Miranda rights.
Procedural rights in
EU criminal
proceedings—an
update
Report with Evidence
Ordered to be printed 5 May 2009 and published 11 May 2009
Published by the Authority of the House of Lords
London
…11. We draw the Government’s attention to our previous reports and
recommend that any minimum standard should…
• provide for the right to silence;
• provide for a right to information at the pre-charge stage, in
particular by the presentation to suspects of a “Letter of Rights”,
in a language they understand, explaining their rights under the
ECHR and the measure itself;
• give suspects a right to immediate legal assistance and advice,
including the services of an interpreter, in each respect on a
confidential basis and free of charge where necessary; and
• finally (a point stressed in our previous reports), ensure electronic
recording of police interviews.
Many of these “rights” are similar to our own. For example the right to remain silent is commonly read to US criminals. Our “Miranda rights.”
The right to information of why we are arrested is like our Constitutional right to Habeas Corpus.
In a speech made in march at the whitehouse US EU summit by
José Manuel Dur ã o Barroso
President of the European Commission
Statement of President Barroso at the White House
EU-US Summit
Washington, 3 November 2009
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I think President Obama and Prime Minister Reinfeldt have already made the most important points regarding this very productive meeting. I'd like to thank President Obama for his very kind words on the European Union. In fact, we believe that this relationship is more important than ever.
In this age of globalization it is quite obvious that the United States and Europe can make a real difference. There are so many issues on the global agenda, from climate change to financial and economic cooperation, to trade -- issues that we have discussed today.
Regarding climate change, I want to tell that I am more confident now than I was in the previous days. Progress on this issue has been slow, but I would like once again to pay tribute to President Obama's leadership. As I said earlier, President Obama changed the climate on the climate negotiations because with the strong leadership of the United States we can indeed make an agreement. We are working toward a framework agreement in Copenhagen that will be an important agreement for the world.
And we had a very good discussion on this today and I think it was one of the most important points of our exchange. Of course I want to repeat what President Obama and Prime Minister Reinfeldt just said. It is extremely important on the other issues like Afghanistan and Pakistan and the issue of global security also that we work together, now negotiating it with the Lisbon Treaty, the treaty that we will give the European Union a reinforced capacity to act, a more clear position also, externally working with our main partners, and of course working especially with our American friends.
President Obama is not necessarily a socialist. He is, I think, an internationalist. This is why he seems to hold every other nation’s opinion higher than his own nation’s. the nations of Europe have state run health care. Oprah compares our nation to Denmark. Praising the Danes and wishing that we the united states were as happy as they.
Glen Beck is claiming that there is an attack on our constitution and I think that he is right.
It seems clear that Obama’s biggest challenge is figuring out how to please everybody and shift America into a one world system. I believe, and your free to dissagree with me, that Obama’s disire to move us to the EU is why he was never able to completely explain his health care bill. It would require him to give up the presidency. American’s love america. An independent spirit founded this country and drove it to become the leader of the world.
America is in the middle of an Identity crisis, much like a teenager. We are asking ourselves and the world, “Who are we?” But just like a teenager that question’s answer comes from inside. Let us all Democrat, Republican, Conservative, Liberal, Independent, Tea Party-er, look inside and rediscover the inner glory that is the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!
GOD BLESS THE USA!!!
Is Obama a leader?
Recently the leader of China Hu Juntao has made a request of the white house that President Obama not meet with the Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lama is a world renown public speaker worldwide, often described as charismatic, he promotes ethics and interfaith harmony world wide. In 1989 he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. In 2007 he was awarded the United States Congressional Gold Medal of Honor in October. He has received more than 100 honorary conferment’s and major awards. In November or 2008 he announced his semi retirement. No longer the ruler of the Tibetan government in exile; they are now a parliamentary government.
I wondered why it would be so important for the Chinese government to continue to go after the Dalai Lama when he is no longer in power?
At best his influence is limited to humanitarian causes and Buddhist teachings.
But why China does not like the Dalai Lama is not as important as why China feels it has the position of influence to make such a demand.
China does own about 350 billion of our debt but this number out of 1.4 trillion is about one quarter. These numbers are off of wikipedia. But economists know that the old saying, “if you owe the bank a million, your in trouble, if you owe the bank several billion than the bank is also in trouble. China, by buying up so much of our national debt is now inexorably tied to us financially. But the sheer magnitude of the amount means that they can’t dump the Us dollar with out severely harming there own economy. So essentially even though they may feel entitled by there investment to dictate who our president can and can’t talk to they have no real leverage.
The key lies with President Obama. And the question - is he a leader?
If he does bend to the demand of china this is a small thing on the surface but a huge event concerning the credibility of the united states. With China receiving 15% of it’s oil from Iran, and Chinese businesses invested in Iran to the tune of over 100 billion this directly speaks to the strength of America.
We as a country can still be a part of the international community while still being a leader of the free world. As our leadership goes, so the country goes.
The president can not afford to cow-tow to what are silly demands that could have huge respect repercussions. In a global community that has been frankly laughing at us behind our backs and defying us to our face. I.e. Iran.
Please Mr. president, regardless of your policies, please be the leader that we need.
I wondered why it would be so important for the Chinese government to continue to go after the Dalai Lama when he is no longer in power?
At best his influence is limited to humanitarian causes and Buddhist teachings.
But why China does not like the Dalai Lama is not as important as why China feels it has the position of influence to make such a demand.
China does own about 350 billion of our debt but this number out of 1.4 trillion is about one quarter. These numbers are off of wikipedia. But economists know that the old saying, “if you owe the bank a million, your in trouble, if you owe the bank several billion than the bank is also in trouble. China, by buying up so much of our national debt is now inexorably tied to us financially. But the sheer magnitude of the amount means that they can’t dump the Us dollar with out severely harming there own economy. So essentially even though they may feel entitled by there investment to dictate who our president can and can’t talk to they have no real leverage.
The key lies with President Obama. And the question - is he a leader?
If he does bend to the demand of china this is a small thing on the surface but a huge event concerning the credibility of the united states. With China receiving 15% of it’s oil from Iran, and Chinese businesses invested in Iran to the tune of over 100 billion this directly speaks to the strength of America.
We as a country can still be a part of the international community while still being a leader of the free world. As our leadership goes, so the country goes.
The president can not afford to cow-tow to what are silly demands that could have huge respect repercussions. In a global community that has been frankly laughing at us behind our backs and defying us to our face. I.e. Iran.
Please Mr. president, regardless of your policies, please be the leader that we need.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
