The Current Crisis
Saving Liberty
Obama’s spending is costing us more than money — a lot more.
WASHINGTON — A few weeks back, at the dawn of the Obama Administration, I was at dinner with a very bright woman of middle years who called herself an independent. She found the new president very engaging, but she was alarmed by the music in the air: a government takeover of Detroit, a $700 billion government bailout of the banks, a $787 billion stimulus bill, a cap and trade bill that will add perhaps $800-$2,000 to every family’s tax bill, a massive healthcare reform now estimated to cost $1 trillion over the next decade. For the past thirty years, most of them good economic years, the federal bite into our GDP has been just under 20%. Calculating the cost of Obama’s spending it will be 28.1% this fiscal year, a peacetime record!
My dinner companion was alarmed. She was not simply alarmed by the bills our president and his Democratic colleagues were ringing up on the Hill. My friend, the independent, was alarmed by something much more important, the cost to our freedoms. As I believe she put it, “the question here is our liberty.” Increasingly, thoughtful Americans understand the Obama era in these terms. With the government suddenly looming so large in the life of every American, it is time for us to consider what is a singularly American possession, individual liberty. The Founding Fathers created a government that was uniquely solicitous about individual liberty. With the federal government so deeply involved in our healthcare, our banking, our manufacturing, and the many targets of its $787 billion stimulus program, it is time to think about your liberty vis-a-vis the government bureaucrats who are about to minister to you.
Ronald Reagan’s modern conservative movement began thinking about the loss of individual liberty to government encroachment half a century ago thanks in part to the wake up call from Friedrich Hayek, delivered in his indispensable book The Road to Serfdom. Hayek believed government was a threat to freedom, enterprise, and the rule of law. Later another vigilant advocate of personal liberty, Frank Meyer, came along and became a major figure for American conservatives, propounding the exhilarating argument that freedom is essential to mankind. Freedom, he wrote, is the “essence of [man’s] being,” for without it a citizen cannot be moral, by which he meant cannot choose good over evil. Meyer believed freedom was at our essence because God put it there. God gave us freedom to choose, good over evil, art over schlock, a knee replacement over a Botox treatment.
Personal liberty makes each American citizen a creature of dignity. Obama overlooks this. Though in presenting Congress a $3.9 trillion budget on February 24 he insisted that “I’m not” for big government, he is. Consider the vastness of the budget, its far-reaching domestic policies, and much of his background as a community organizer. Clearly he is a big government guy. No other American president has been so committed to big government.
Historically most of our experiences with big government have been unhappy. Big government is expensive, inefficient, and once corrupted very difficult to clean up. Moreover, once a government bureaucracy has made its judgment on you, whom do you appeal to? With Obamacare, government will decide when and if you can get that knee replacement. From the clear utterances of the president’s healthcare advisers, namely, Drs. Ezekiel Emanuel and David Blumenthal, that knee replacement will depend on such factors as your age and your overall health. If you are too old or decrepit, government will have a more economical place to spend its money. In other words, your health will not be decided by what you want to pay for it but by government policy. That test you wanted for colon cancer might be denied. You might just be too old. Such decisions are made by the nationalized British system all the time.
Almost any service the government provides can be more efficiently and effectively provided by private enterprise. The most striking example is the inefficiency of the money-losing U.S. Postal Service that has been swept aside by the internet and by such private carriers as UPS and FedEx. Government is not even very effective in its efforts at regulation. Consider the recent failures of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and at the Securities and Exchange Commission.
There is another unappreciated failing of government. It politicizes everything that it touches, including the simplest human relations. Agreements that ought to be arrived at voluntarily or through the rule of law are arrived at by lobbyists or thanks to the political power of your group — ethnic, economic, or otherwise.
One of the little noted projects of the government healthcare reforms being considered on Capitol Hill today is the channeling of healthcare money away from the elderly and toward community services and drug or alcohol rehabilitation. Equal rights before the law is all well and good, but it is political favor and political power that matter when big government is making your decisions for you.
That is why so many Americans have opted for freedom from government. We recognize that the free society is the most humane…and the most productive.
About the Author
R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. is the founder and editor in chief of The American Spectator. He is the author of The Death of Liberalism, published by Thomas Nelson Inc. His previous books include the New York Times bestseller Boy Clinton: the Political Biography; The Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton; The Liberal Crack-Up; The Conservative Crack-Up; Public Nuisances; The Future that Doesn’t Work: Social Democracy’s Failure in Britain; Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House; The Clinton Crack-Up; and After the Hangover: The Conservatives’ Road to Recovery.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (183) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.
More Articles From The Current Crisis
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/07/09/saving-liberty
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
- The End of the Castros?
- Self-Righteous Republic
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Deborah D | 7.9.09 @ 6:51AM
Amen and Amen, Mr. Tyrrell. This is the argument for a smaller government. Liberty. I was at the Cobb County Tea Party in Marietta, GA on July 2. Herman Cain (a black conservative, former owner of Godfather's Pizza and now a local talk radio host) spoke. He said his (great?) grandfather was a slave, and he was not going back to slavery whether to an "owner" or a government. I thought that a great argument.
He also said something that relates to your column here on liberty. He said something to the effect that you can’t have the “pursuit of happiness” without “liberty” and you can’t have “liberty” without being in control of your own “life.” He said that’s why the Founders wrote them in the order of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, because you can’t have the others without the first. I liked how he put it.
As government continues encroaching on our lives, we need to remember, we have a right to our lives. Our lives do not belong to the government. They belong to us. We can’t have liberty without control over our own lives. Outrageous taxation. Outrageous laws that force further government intrusion into our homes, our property and personal decisions for our families and ourselves is not liberty. Therefore, there will be no ability to pursue our own happiness. As Cain has said…slavery to the government.
Thanks for your column, Mr. Tyrrell. It was a good way to start the day.
Deborah D | 7.9.09 @ 7:02AM
Oops...I was at the Tea Party on July 3. Sorry, typo.
Galen| 7.9.09 @ 7:25AM
What's scary is how many approve. I joked that you'd wear badges to resturants and that would determine what you'd be allowed to order! I was told this was a good idea. So many are content to let the government run their lives and your life too.
drudge ette obama| 7.9.09 @ 7:30AM
Deborah D., I, too, was at the July 3rd tea party in Marietta - 7,000 plus people in a horse exhibition hall. We stayed for a while, then drove home, quietly listening to Cain on the radio. Way too many cars in those parking lots to risk getting stuck in a post-event jam.
These events are amazing. It's grass roots politics at its best.
Anyone wanting to learn more about Herman Cain can go to hermancain.com
By the way, I didn't see too many "rednecks" there.
Mattled| 7.9.09 @ 8:00AM
Why Doesn't Herman Cain run for John Lewis' seat? He ran for Senate a while back (2002?). Lewis has come out the last two elections and is now, in my eyes, the biggest racist in Georgia.
Anyhow, thanks Mr. Tyrrell. I've been reading your material since 1994 in the Conservative Chronicles. How about another Haley Barbour-like Rising Tide GOP TV? It would be nice to see some facts and logic coming out of our TV sets.
Deborah D | 7.9.09 @ 8:07AM
Hey drudge ette obama, I took pictures and wrote up a summary of the event and posted it here (if you have an interest): http://www.politicallyempowered.com/Blog/tabid/7125/EntryID/1250/Default.aspx
My husband doesn't have the patience with car congestion either, so we left around 9 p.m. It was a great event.
Warpublican| 7.9.09 @ 8:22AM
"Historically most of our experiences with big government have been unhappy. "
Yeah, tell that to the US Military - the biggest of big government - cradle to grave socialism at its finest...
Epiminondas| 7.9.09 @ 8:28AM
Secession is the only way out of this government trap. We must take control of our government at the state and local level. This is what created our country...this is what will save it.
TennesseeVolunteer| 7.9.09 @ 8:32AM
The next question as government encroaches on all industries is what hiring practices will the government require? If you've ever tried to get your drivers license or pay your property taxes or go to the Post Office. Rudeness, poor customer service and outright hostility are the employee standards of the day. This will all become just one big entitlement program.
Gary Andrews| 7.9.09 @ 8:37AM
It took 204 years for these United States of America to build up a $1 trillion debt (and that includes two World Wars!). In just 12 years of Reagan-Bush-o-nomics, it QUADRUPLED! That means, when Bush Senior left office, the Debt was $4 TRILLION! Clinton struggled to get that massive Debt under control and finally built up three years of SURPLUSSES! (which Bush, Cheney & Tom Delay quickly squandered on tax cuts for their rich friends). When Bush Junior left office, the DEBT was around $11 TRILLION! That means George W Bush heaped $5 TRILLION more onto the DEBT.
So, of the $11 TRILLION in DEBT since the founding of the nation, $8 TRILLION came to us courtesy of the Reagan-Bush-Bush administrations.
Isn’t it curious that the Neo-Cons and their acolytes of “Heritage Foundation” and “AEI” said nothing of value - absolutely nothing - when this mind boggling DEBT was being accumulated, but hyperventilate on cable TV now that we’re forced to spend a couple trillion more to clean up the mess they all made of the economy? One might be tempted to call their media show “The Hysterical Heritage of Hyperventilating Hypocrisy!”, or one might try to help them understand where they went wrong.
Let’s simplify this for them so even a 12 year old boy can grasp it. Say your 12 year old son pilfers the keys to the family car in Florida and goes on a joy ride with his friends through the countryside. He stomps on the debt accelerator, takes his hands off the regulatory wheel, and laughs to his friends Tom, Dick and Eric that this magnificent car is so good it doesn’t need regulation.
And he’s right - for eight long minutes.
When the car ends up in a huge “U” shaped ditch, the boy’s taxpaying parents call on Obama’s Garage to pull the car out and fix it. But the boy and his friends complain that the mechanics aren’t working fast enough, and it’s too expensive, and they should fix the paint job before straightening the frame so it won’t look so bad. “Never mind fixing the regulatory wheel,” they say, “It don’t need none!”
If you were one of their voting parents, and you had a wood shed, how would you help these boys understand what they’ve done?
Can history help guide us through a financial crisis that’s been 25 years in the making? Only if we learn from it.
Gary Andrews, author of "No Gods Before Me"
redd| 7.9.09 @ 8:51AM
She doesnt sound bright to me. A lot of us knew soetoro-obama was a communist, what was so hard about it? Should I mention the usurper and birth certificate? I guess it comes down to the meaning of the word "bright."
Gene44| 7.9.09 @ 8:55AM
Grassroots action is required and needed to stop the U.S. government from controlling every aspect of our lives. If you read the bill on Cap & Trade passed by the Congress you will soon realize that even food will cost more and more or else the companies will go out of business. What happens when manufacturing companies depart for foreign shores in larger numbers to avoid paying the Cap & Trade? Higher unemployment anyone? What happens when all the taxes collected from the so call rich disappear as this alone is not enough to fund the Cap & Trade and National Health Care program envisoned by the administration, higher taxes anyone?Remember the phase of Spreading the Wealth Around, it is being done, but, do not expect the people who earn above the magic $250,000 to support it. I can well imagine that everyone of them has been talking with the CPA's in America on how to avoid the tax increase. Since this number is 5% of the overall public how long will it be before the magic number is reduced to say $150,000 and then down to $50,000. Things to think about.
Irish Cicero | 7.9.09 @ 8:58AM
Yes. Thank you. I'm still waiting for real America to wake from its slumber. I'm doubtful that will happen, however.
Robert Rosencrans| 7.9.09 @ 9:02AM
The article was brilliant and left not much to say. However, one of the posts deserves a correction. Everytime I see the words Clinton and surplus I suspect a troll or misinformed liberal. Here's the truth and the facts about Clinton. I'm not denying Bush was a big spender and spent the Republicans down the tubes but Clinton was also a spender and there never has been a surplus in our time.
Hit the link for the facts about Clinton and his non-existent surplus.
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16
Time and time again, anyone reading the mainstream news or reading articles on the Internet will read the claim that President Clinton not only balanced the budget, but had a surplus. This is then used as an argument to further highlight the fiscal irresponsibility of the federal government under the Bush administration.
The claim is generally made that Clinton had a surplus of $69 billion in FY1998, $123 billion in FY1999 and $230 billion in FY2000 . In that same link, Clinton claimed that the national debt had been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years, presumably FY1998, FY1999, and FY2000--though, interestingly, $360 billion is not the sum of the alleged surpluses of the three years in question ($69B + $123B + $230B = $422B, not $360B).
While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it's curious to see Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.
Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury (see note about this link below) website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:
Fiscal
Year Year
Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion
As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.
Keep in mind that President Bush took office in January 2001 and his first budget took effect October 1, 2001 for the year ending September 30, 2002 (FY2002). So the $133.29 billion deficit in the year ending September 2001 was Clinton's. Granted, Bush supported a tax refund where taxpayers received checks in 2001. However, the total amount refunded to taxpayers was only $38 billion . So even if we assume that $38 billion of the FY2001 deficit was due to Bush's tax refunds which were not part of Clinton's last budget, that still means that Clinton's last budget produced a deficit of 133.29 - 38 = $95.29 billion.
Clinton clearly did not achieve a surplus and he didn't leave President Bush with a surplus.
Rivenspeak| 7.9.09 @ 9:06AM
The founding fathers allowed for the role of government to evolve over time, as they could not predict what crises would face successive generations. Movements by the Obama administration to intervene in healthcare and the auto and finance industries is a direct result of the free-market's inability to adequately regulate itself.
Rather the "individual liberties" that the founding fathers were protecting against are the types of government interventions that social conservatives champion. Why does the government have a right to intervene with a woman's right to choose? That's an infringement on her individual liberty. Why does the government have a right to dictate what constitutes "marriage"? How is this not an infringement on the individual liberties of gays and lesbians?
The problem with people like Tyrrell is that you drum up fear about government intervention and how the government is taking away our freedom on Thursday, but on Friday you hypocritically cry for that self-same government to wade into social issues and impinge upon the freedom of others.
redd| 7.9.09 @ 9:07AM
Typical for a woman to find the usurper "engaging" rather than finding him a communist. Adolph Hitler was engaging. Sounds like the dinner date was between dumb and dumber.
Deborah D | 7.9.09 @ 9:16AM
"Movements by the Obama administration to intervene in healthcare and the auto and finance industries is a direct result of the free-market's inability to adequately regulate itself." No, it's the direct result of government intervention in all of these areas that has caused the current mess we find ourselves in. You have it backwards.
Government intervention screws everything up, then when it falls apart, government (and liberals) blame the private sector so they can gain even more control.
Rivenspeak| 7.9.09 @ 9:31AM
""Movements by the Obama administration to intervene in healthcare and the auto and finance industries is a direct result of the free-market's inability to adequately regulate itself." No, it's the direct result of government intervention in all of these areas that has caused the current mess we find ourselves in. You have it backwards."
How is a relaxation of financial regulation equivalent to more government intervention? It was precisely the lack of regulation and oversight that led to financial institutions taking on risks they did not fully understand?
In what way is direct government intervention responsible for soaring healthcare and insurance costs?
No, you're wrong. Laissez-faire free markets look great on paper, but don't work in reality.
Rivenspeak| 7.9.09 @ 9:32AM
..also, you're deliberately missing the point of my comment, which is that the right cries out against government intervention out of one side of their mouths, while begging the government to intervene in other matters from the other side of their mouths.
Norton| 7.9.09 @ 9:38AM
Rivenspeak, you and others seem to truly misunderstand what the term 'pro-life' means.
Social Conservatives disagree with abortion because it deprives a citizen of its right to life.
When we say "Right to Life" we are NOT talking about the mother's. Her life is not involved in the issue. It is the child, the young citizen, whose most basic constitutional right is being denied, without the benefit of any legal protections available to the most base criminal in out society.
We don't believe that the constiution provides for a "woman's right to choose", but it is clear it does provide for the right of any citizen to life.
Perhaps you should attempt to understand our views before you vilify them.
redd| 7.9.09 @ 9:51AM
Next time you take this frump to dinner and before you order the cheese fries, try googling frank marshall davis, obama's commie grandparents, obama's commie sunday school in hawaii, obama's moms commie school outside seattle, billy ayers etc. I am sure you would now find the conversation "engaging."
Rivenspeak| 7.9.09 @ 9:51AM
Norton,
I agree that there is a point at which a fetus crosses the threshold from a mass of cells into a living being, and at some point, that fetus should be protected by the same rights as our most base of criminals.
However, it should also be understood that up to a certain point, a fetus is not viable separate from the mother; that it cannot live without the life-support only a mother can provide. Until this point, I believe the choice should lie solely with the mother - and not with the government. If your morals and values dictate otherwise, then make that choice for yourself. I am not pro-abortion. I am pro-choice.
lame duck| 7.9.09 @ 10:00AM
barac is already a lame duck president. the american people have now strongly rejected his ideas. we don't want communism. unfortunately liberal california, illinoi, and new york democrats will probably walk the plank right along with him. Just like buffalo off of a cliff. Hispanics and whites are now sticking together. we realize that barac just has a special agenda for blacks only. look at sotomayer she discriminated against hispanic fire fighters.
Big J| 7.9.09 @ 10:01AM
Wake up, Rivenspeak, and do a little research.
Barney Frank ring a bell? How about Chris Dodd?
The right cries for less regulation? Whatever.
Also, I find your choice of words interesting. Murder is justifiable if it is a "mass of cells" or a "fetus".
Lucky for you, your mother didn't see things the same way.
bammer| 7.9.09 @ 10:02AM
OBAMA'S STIMULUS IS INCREASING PRIVATE SECTOR UNEMPLOYMENT
Look at what Louis Woodhill said in his July 6th article in RealClearMarkets
GET READY FOR 14% UNEMPLOYMENT
While doing nothing to boost demand, Obama's "stimulus" will depress PBI (Private Business Investment), and therefore employment. This is because the "stimulus" plan requires selling an additional $787 billion in government bonds. The money to buy these bonds will have to come from somewhere, and much of it will come from people who would otherwise invest in starting or expanding businesses. Indeed, the bonds will have to be priced so that this risk-free investment is more attractive to investors than their other alternatives.
In the fourth quarter of 2008, the Federal government ran a deficit of $303 billion (and therefore had to sell $303 billion of new bonds) and business investment fell by 21.7%. In the first quarter of 2009, the Federal deficit was $650 billion and business investment fell by 37.3%. The economy is being forced to invest in Barack's Bailout Bonds rather than in businesses that create jobs.
Virtually everything the Obama administration wants to do will have the effect of increasing unemployment. As bad as joblessness is now, be prepared for it to get much, much worse.
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/07/06/get_ready_for_14_percent_unemployment_97295.html
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PNFIC96
http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/nonresfi.htm
Richard Baker| 7.9.09 @ 10:05AM
Rivenspeak:
When the Declaration of Independence says "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" I didn't notice that it said anything about viability from outside the Mother. Or do you just see it as a lifeless blob of protoplasm until a Federal judge declares otherwise? If it's not Life, then why doesn't the body reject it as a foreign body? Answer: Because it's alive. Consult your dictionary, if confused.
Tony in Central PA| 7.9.09 @ 10:07AM
I'm really struggling to maintain a positive attitude about the future, but I think we're in for some hard times. Under Democrat and Republican, our government has become like some enormous beast that must be fed. You look at the deficit this year in particular and our exploding debt and its hard to believe that the government will be functioning in a couple of decades, even as it continues to enlarge itself at an ever - accelerating pace.
I just think a large number of people really don't care about the truth or the future. A lot of them are federal officials. Its become particularly obvious since this President assumed office. We now regularly have record - sized spending bills passed in minimal time that receive little scrutiny and almost no public debate. This actually started under Bush with his stimulus and the TARP bill. The people voting for these bills don't know what they contain and the media doesn't inform the public. The media seems to feel the public would rather tune into the news to find out about the latest celebrity gossip. Maybe they're right.
Rivenspeak| 7.9.09 @ 10:16AM
Big J,
Glass-Steagall ring a bell? Mortgages were a factor, but deregulation was a direct cause of our current situation.
Put a mass of cells on life support and see if it grows. My point is this - up to a certain point, science cannot allow a fetus to fully develop outside of the womb. Up to that point, the mother is the only thing that can keep the fetus alive, and therefore the choice should be hers, not "big government's". I wouldn't call it "murder" if the fetus cannot be kept alive by any means other than the mother's womb.
Big J| 7.9.09 @ 10:23AM
You know what they say:
Ignorance is bliss.
I have often wondered if it was true.
Tell me Rivenspeak, is it?
Deborah D | 7.9.09 @ 10:32AM
Hey Rivenspeak -- Check this out on health care and the history of insurance and gov't intervention:
http://www.american.com/archive/2009/may-2009/what-is-driving-rising-healthcare-costs
"Our healthcare system is in trouble today because we have consistently ignored market-oriented solutions and instead sought out policies based on public finance and top-down regulation. Historically, each crisis has brought its own government solution, which in time has given rise to new problems necessitating still more government intervention. This all began in 1944, when employers began offering health insurance and other benefits to attract prospective employees because government wage and price controls prevented the payment of higher cash wages. Thus government regulation had the unintended consequence of giving rise to the current system of employer-provided health benefits. In the mid-1960s, President Johnson’s “Great Society” gave us Medicare and Medicaid, which insured millions of senior citizens and in the process drove up the cost of medical care due in part to the third-party payment problems discussed above. In response to high prescription drug costs, President George W. Bush gave us an oddly designed Medicare prescription drug coverage benefit (Medicare Part D). Apart from being excessively complicated, the plan is a great example of the misuse of insurance—Medicare Part D should cover catastrophic drug expenses, not mundane drugs such as Viagra. "
Much more at the link. If health insurance was more like auto insurance, we wouldn't have nearly the problems we have. Lots of info at the link.
Richard| 7.9.09 @ 10:48AM
Rivenspeak,
The attached article makes the case that government intervention, not de-regulation, is actually responsible for the crisis. I suggest you take the time to read it.
http://mises.org/story/3165
Ammo Guy| 7.9.09 @ 10:48AM
On a strictly personal level, it peeves me to have to operate my stupid “low flush” toilet several times in order to achieve the same effect as my old traditional commode – for which I have to thank Congress; similarly, I am unhappy about having to get by without incandescent light in the near future…just call me pro-flush and pro-Edison. OTOH, I look forward to all the new restrictions on my freedom that will be proposed by the current Congress and POTUS. And, as I reach dotage, I hope the ruling class will also conclude that once I “cannot be kept alive by any means other than the [insert your favorite medical device here]” it will OK for Obamacare to end my misery.
KyMouse| 7.9.09 @ 10:54AM
Rivenspeak, there may be several times in a person's life during which he/she is helpless and dependent upon another person or other people -- e.g., before birth, after a debilitating accident or illness, and during infirm old age. In all of those cases except the first -- before birth -- our society still requires that the helpless person in question be cared for, not killed. Yes, there are tragic exceptions, but civilized people still prefer life over death for helpless people.
A child in the womb is a different person from his/her mother; a mother, who is female, can give birth to a son, who is male. From the moment of conception, the child has DNA which is a blend of his/her parent's DNA, but ultimately different from theirs.
Science long ago established when a new human life begins; for example, I have in front of me a copy of "The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology," fourth edition, which was written for medical students. On page one, it says, "Human development is a continuous process that begins when an ovum from a female is fertilized by a sperm from a male...Zygote: This cell results from fertilization of an ovum by a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being."
A "mass of cells," as you put it, would remain only a mass of cells. But as soon as that zygote comes into being, everything the new human life needs in order to become an adult is there -- all that needs to be added is TIME and NOURISHMENT. At one point, you, too, were a zygote; after the proper length of time, you became an newborn, then a toddler, later an adolescent, and now you are an adult. You have been the same unique human being throughout the entire process.
There is no "threshold" to be crossed before that "mass of cells" you spoke of becomes a "living being." If the zygote is not alive, it cannot grow and develop -- if it is not living, it is dead. There is no halfway condition between "living" and "dead." The point of abortion is to kill the developing baby; if the baby is not "alive," why does he/she need to be killed? If the baby is not alive and growing, why the rush to abort him/her before a certain deadline?
As someone said, "Anyone who has ever bought a pack of condoms knows when life begins."
It's curious that people such as you speak of "the right to choose," but don't want to talk about what is being chosen -- the death of a child.
Rivenspeak| 7.9.09 @ 10:55AM
Deborah,
Good link. Well-written article, with a lot of valid points. While the quoted text highlights your point about increased healthcare costs being the direct result of government regulation, the link between employers offering coverage in 1944 as a result of wage / price controls to current healthcare costs is a little tenuous. One could similarly argue that the "free-market" solution of including healthcare as part of compensation packages to be more competitive led to the current troubles we are in; there were many other options employers could have offered aside from healthcare, but they freely made that choice.
I think the argument about health insurance vs. automobile insurance is valid, and really should be explored in greater depth. Also, if you note, in the article, the author actually favors government interventions in the market place.
"Health insurance should not cover basic or routine medical services, but instead should cover major illnesses, surgeries, etc. Moreover, the government should require that healthcare providers charge all patients the same fees for out-of-pocket medical procedures (insurance companies and the government should be free to negotiate discounted prices for the services for which they directly pay, but these preferred rates would not apply to the services paid out-of-pocket by their members)."
Additionally, his call for the AMA to increase the supply of doctors could not be accomplished without a government mandate.
"As championed by the late Milton Friedman, the American Medical Association must cease restricting the supply of medical doctors. "
It is in the AMA's (and it's members') best interest to keep the supply restricted to have more control over costs.
(Also, Big J, since you seem very angry, I would have to say no, ignorance is not bliss)
Big J| 7.9.09 @ 11:00AM
KyMouse, brilliant. I sense that Rivenspeak (henceforth called Doublespeak) is a little out of his/her league here.
JerseyJ| 7.9.09 @ 11:25AM
Is it just me or has "hypocrite" replaced "racist" as the latest rallying cry for liberals?
Pingback| 7.9.09 @ 11:40AM
If you don’t think personal liberty is that big a deal…just keep loving Obama links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Old Texican| 7.9.09 @ 11:40AM
Mr. Tyrell
Thank you for your thoughts....again.
I fear things MUST get far worse before the pushback begins in earnest.
I'm thinking nothing less than a National constitutional convention can turn all this around.
At some point, we the people will be heard, but I fear the interim.
Rivenspeak| 7.9.09 @ 11:44AM
KyMouse,
Can a mother with a zygote drive in the HOV lane? Does a chimera have to buy two tickets to an amusement park? Different DNA does not always count as a different person.
I agree, a zygote is the BEGINNING of a new human being, as your book says, but is not yet considered a human being. And I agree, that with time and nourishment, a zygote becomes a newborn. Things that are not alive can grown and develop, such as crystals.
At some point a fetus has the ability to exist outside of the womb, and should be afforded that right to life. As science progresses, this threshold can be pushed further and further back.
However, I don't think the government should be able to force someone to carry a child, particularly if it is unwanted and that is decided at an early stage.
In your scenario, what will happen to the child after it is born? Be neglected? Sent into an already over-crowded orphanage? There is no shortage of children already waiting to be adopted, and yet you want to add more. Are you advocating relegating a child to that sort of life?
Freedom Fan | 7.9.09 @ 11:52AM
Excellent article, Mr. Tyrrell.
I only hope we are not too late to save freedom.
Old Texican| 7.9.09 @ 11:58AM
Freedom fan
It is never too late...until we are dead.
Big J| 7.9.09 @ 12:01PM
Obviously, Doublespeak holds the same position that our Dear Leader holds:
"If my daughters make a mistake, I don't want them to be punished with a baby."
I still haven't seen ample proof to support this position, but maybe I just don't get it.
I wonder, Doublespeak: How many women have you known that have actually had abortions? How do THEY feel about the "choice" they made?
Feel good about it, do they?
Do it again, would they?
Maybe you could enlighten us on the reason that "Roe" is campaigning against her very own Supreme Court decision.
No, not angry. Just passionate. You still haven't responded to the "choice your mother made".
I wonder what value you actually place on your own life? Can't be much, just a "mass of cells".
Apologies to all, as this appears to have gotten off topic.
Wait a minute, maybe not. Without life, there can be no liberty.
Then again, I guess a mass of cells doesn't have the right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.
My bad.
Freedom Fan| 7.9.09 @ 12:13PM
Old Texican,
Yes, it's definitely not too late. I am excited about today's RealClearPolitics poll of King Obama's approval ratings. I have watched them stay in the stratosphere without budging for months, thinking "what is wrong with my fellow Americans-- are they nuts?".
Well, today they are plummetting. Although they have been falling steadily all week, today Obama's approval ratings fell a stunning 1.1% to 56.3%. This is the most I have ever seen in one day. One component, the Rassmussen poll of likely voters even has him at 51%.
When his approval ratings fall below 50% then that will be a very bullish signal for the stock market and the economy. It will mean that his Cap-and-Tax and ObamaCare will likely fail.
"I hope he fails."- Rush Limbaugh
Me too, Rush. Me too.
Mary| 7.9.09 @ 12:14PM
Maybe I just don’t get it. But I don’t think a cry for liberty that isn’t the final sentence in a paragraph about competence will mean much. Most people will be thinking that liberty “is just another word for nothing left to lose.”
I think that awful sense of incompetence that followed Bush and Paulson hasn’t abated much because the new boss is the same as the old boss.
As GW warned of collapse he just kept reading from his script with his head down. Obama’s polished palaver aside, maybe he’s the smartest kid on the busted-down block because at least he knows that people are apt to prefer a leader who speaks to them while looking them in the eye.
Cheney’s approval rating would have jumped an extra 15 points if he could have delivered his AEI speech with his head up; his eyes meeting those of his audience.
I think Obama needs his TelePrompTer because without it his halting ejaculation of facts or data still can’t convince that he can assimilate. That outside of his ambition there’s not much macro going on, except perhaps a kind of past-due account collecting for a Country he believes is shameless fraud.
I do think an Ad Fontes talk is necessary, but conservatives would have to deliver that talk to themselves first.
From Hayek's Individualism and Economic Order:
**I need not say much on the first point. That true individualism affirms the value of the family and all the common efforts of the small community and group, that it believes in local autonomy and voluntary associations, and that indeed its case rests largely on the contention that much for which the coercive action of the state is usually invoked can be done better by voluntary collaboration need not be stressed further. There can be no greater contrast to this than the false individualism which wants to dissolve all these smaller groups into atoms which have no cohesion other than the coercive rules imposed by the state, and which tries to make all social ties prescriptive, instead of using the state mainly as a protection of the individual against the arrogation of coercive powers by the smaller groups. Individualism: True and False**
From his Why I Am Not A Conservative:
** This fear of trusting uncontrolled social forces is closely related to two other characteristics of conservatism: its fondness for authority and its lack of understanding of economic forces. Since it distrusts both abstract theories and general principles,[6] it neither understands those spontaneous forces on which a policy of freedom relies nor possesses a basis for formulating principles of policy. Order appears to the conservative as the result of the continuous attention of authority, which, for this purpose, must be allowed to do what is required by the particular circumstances and not be tied to rigid rule. A commitment to principles presupposes an understanding of the general forces by which the efforts of society are co-ordinated, but it is such a theory of society and especially of the economic mechanism that conservatism conspicuously lacks. So unproductive has conservatism been in producing a general conception of how a social order is maintained that its modern votaries, in trying to construct a theoretical foundation, invariably find themselves appealing almost exclusively to authors who regarded themselves as liberal. Macaulay, Tocqueville, Lord Acton, and Lecky certainly considered themselves liberals, and with justice; and even Edmund Burke remained an Old Whig to the end and would have shuddered at the thought of being regarded as a Tory.**
Mr. Tyrrell, as the last paragraph in Hayek’s piece notes your task is to influence public opinion. He explains that can only be done if the political philosopher “consistently defends the ‘general principles which are always the same’."
Obviously you’re doing that here, but if you don’t mind me saying, you have to dig deeper.
Very smart Art.
Links:
http://tinyurl.com/arfxd
http://tinyurl.com/nb8tn3
http://tinyurl.com/lj68hq
Mary| 7.9.09 @ 12:18PM
First two links are in reverse order. Sorry about that.
Pingback| 7.9.09 @ 12:29PM
Peace through strength: a Reagan lesson for Barack Obama « Jim Blazsik links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Robert Rosencrans| 7.9.09 @ 1:55PM
Here is a roundup of the latest Gallup polls on public perceptions about the economy and the State of the Nation.
The Gallup polls indicate that Obama is failing.
The first indicator is that Obama's approval rating has fallen to 57%. Not bad but it continues to fall.
The second indicator that is tied right into the Democrats is the State of the Nation. Sixty seven percent are dissatisfied.
The third major indicator is consumer mood. Sixty percent are negative. That's a horrible number for Barack Obama and the Democrats.
The fourth indicator is consumer spending. It has collapsed from earlier this year falling from over a $100 per day reported spent to just about $60. Again, it looks like the economy is shrinking by about 40%.
Only 10% believe that the economy is good while 51% believe it is poor. Another horrible set of numbers for the Democrats.
Job loss still outpaces job creation and 60% of the public believe the economy is getting worse.
All in all the Gallup polls indicate that the public has little faith in government to turn things around, and just about zero faith in the Democratic financial schemes promulgated by Barack Obama to actually succeed.
Any politician can tell you that when you can't get the public to believe in you, you have failed.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/121406/Weekly-Economic-Wrap-Little-Fourth-July-Cheer.aspx
FeralCat| 7.9.09 @ 2:03PM
We tried to warn them
But they held their blue noses up high
All the time we warned them
But they only passed us by
We tried to tell them
But I guess they didn't care
They turned their backs and
Left us standing there
All the destroyed parts of America that have fallen after him
All the lonely feelings and the burning memories
Everything Obama trashed each time he closed a freedom door
Destroyed parts of America lost forevermore
Obama tried to get me to take a job a while ago
When I finally saw it was just printing more fiat money for his cronies I didn't want to go
The party Ronald Reagan gave to us
The Rinos just tore it all away
Now there's nothing left for us to say
All the destroyed parts of America that have fallen after him
All the lonely feelings and the burning memories
Everything Obama trashed each time he closed a freedom door
Destroyed parts of America lost forevermore
When years have passed they'll start thinking
What fools they've been
They'll look back into the past and
Think of way back then
They'll know that America lost everything they thought that it could win
I guess they should have listened to their friends
All the destroyed parts of America that have fallen after him
All the lonely feelings and the burning memories
Everything Obama trashed each time he closed a freedom door
Destroyed parts of America lost forevermore
Destroyed parts of America lost forevermore
factis| 7.9.09 @ 2:07PM
I am willing to help speed the failure of the present Federal Bureaucracy. Such behemoth incompetence and inefficiency is certain to fail; it is only a matter of time. Great unpleasantness and inconvenience would follow in the aftermath but the temporary pain would be worth it in the long run. The sooner the bottom drops out of the AFLCIO bureaucracy, the better. Hold still. This is gonna hurt...a lot.
KyMouse| 7.9.09 @ 2:21PM
Rivenspeak, the fact that a mother does not want the child she carries does not mean that no one else does. Pro-life surveys have found that there are as many as 2 million couples who would love to adopt "unwanted" babies. While it is true that there are many older children awaiting adoption, the ones who are younger (still in the womb) should have their chance as well; they might find loving homes after they are born. Many do. Why should they be denied that chance? Besides, the mother may change her mind as her pregnancy advances. Is there any child who doesn't deserve the chance to live out his/her life?
Talking about crystals doesn't advance the discussion about human life; we aren't crystals. A baby developing in the womb is either alive or dead.
You said, "I agree, a zygote is the BEGINNING of a new human being, as your book says, but is not yet considered a human being." How can the beginning of a human being not be a human being? There is a being, and that being is human; that's a human being in the earliest stages of development. At one point, you WERE a zygote -- you didn't come from one, like a chicken coming from a shell. You WERE a zygote -- a human being very small, and undergoing perfectly normal stages of development on the way to being what you are today.
There are many people whose futures seemed very bleak at the beginning of their lives. Have you ever heard of Ethel Waters? She was conceived through rape when her mother was only 12 years old -- a black girl living in a slum. Ethel grew up to be a famous singer and actress ("The Member of the Wedding" is my favorite of her films). She always was grateful for having been given the chance to live, even though "society" thought she had no chance, and she was very generous to others throughout her adult life.
You may deny the humanity of the very youngest of our brothers and sisters all you like, and play all the word games you like. Abortion kills babies, and often injures (and sometimes kills) their mothers -- do a Google search about Lou Ann Herron and Synthia Dennard to read about two young mothers were died at the hands of legal, licensed abortionists.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Every woman deserves better than abortion, and every child deserves a chance.
Al Adab| 7.9.09 @ 2:26PM
feralcat,
With due apologies to Mike Curb former Lt Gov of Ca. Not a bad parody at all.
Cris| 7.9.09 @ 2:53PM
Rivenspeak
In the early 20th century, the viability of an unborn fetus outside its mother’s womb was most likely at 8 months. Today, my premature twin grandbabies were born at 7 months, weighing in at only 3 ½ pounds apiece. Infants weighing as little as 1 pound can be nurtured and allowed to continue their development through the use of medical advancements. My daughter did not look at her newborn infants and see blobs of tissue – which by your definition the mother of the same children would have seen in 1900. Have you ever looked at pictures of the 1 pound babies they are now able to save? They don’t look like blobs of tissue to me.
As science progresses the “viability” issue becomes more and more obscured. If your definition of life is based on viability – then your definition changes with advancements. I’m sorry – but your argument falls apart on this fact alone. Life begins at conception. The moment the sperm enters the egg is it a human being. The Kenyan has no problem extending US rights to terrorist, but he furthers the agenda of those who would kill our unborn citizens.
ben| 7.9.09 @ 3:13PM
Robert Rosencrans.
You also forgot to mention that we went deeper into the hole under Clinton. Our foreign debt did shrink under Clinton thanks to the extra Social Security revenues from the dot-com boom. But all this SS money that we used to pay off our foreign debt will need to be paid back to us at some point. Clinton effectively borrowed from Peter to pay Paul. Our debt was not decreased under Clinton it was just repositioned.
Rivenspeak.
All people, including you, are just a glob of cells. Children grow to adults through the process of cell division. So I ask, what number of cells are required to be considered a life? Do you consider single cell creatures alive?
General of the Culture Wars| 7.9.09 @ 3:20PM
The big polling disconnect stairing us in the face? Gallup reports the American voter has become more conservative in the past year. Yet they also voted for Obama and the Democrats! Either these shifters have no idea what conservatism is, or they about to throw Obama and the Democrats off their leaky ship. Unfortunately, the liberal media has already slept through three or four wake-up calls, so these new conservatives will have to make the coffee on their own. Having voted in haste, they can now sober up at their leisure. Sheesh!
Thom| 7.9.09 @ 3:48PM
Robert Rosencrans, I agree with your points on this idea of a balanced budget or surplus but it is simpler to explain and more serious than what most people grasp. I’m 57 and at no time in my life has there been a balanced budget or surplus. I don’t know about before Social Security came into being but from that first check on we’ve been running a deficit in effect. People interested in accounting tricks conveniently ignore unfunded future mandates on the liability side of the equation. Even in 1935 the accounting math combined with the actuary math would not add up for Social Security. I simplify the situation down to a 30 year mortgage example. If you take out a loan on a $300,000 home, pay nothing but interest on the loan for 29 years and have say 8% left after paying all you other bills are you running a surplus, in balance or a deficit? When the principle comes due in the 30th year who is going to end up with the house? In effect we’ve just been paying interest on a mortgage on our society in general who’s first big lump back payment is coming due in about 6 years time. We are paying almost half a trillion now in interest on the debt and Obama is going to double that in a few short years right on top of this real big lump (read deficit) payment coming due.
Thom| 7.9.09 @ 4:05PM
Rivenspeak your logic that a developing mass of fertilized DNA/RNA is not human life makes about as much sense as saying either one of the following:
Draining all the swamps, ditches and putting chemicals in every pool of standing water to stop the spread of Mosquito borne diseases (and thus wipe out all Tadpoles) is not going to impact the Frog population.
Harvesting all the buried eggs of endangered Sea Turtles along coastal areas will not impact the endangered Sea Turtle population at all.
The human womb is nothing but a vessel with nutrition IV attached for a developing human(s) that goes through the exact same gestation process as every egg laid externally or carried internally by Reptiles and Birds. If someone advances either of the two suggestions above they would be rightfully criticized for being both ignorant and an idiot. If you can rationalize a difference here then boy I’ve know a place with lots of ovens that could have used your services 65 years ago.
Ryan| 7.9.09 @ 4:29PM
Several issues with some of the left-leaning posts...
The current issues can be linked back through several government-laid issues - the CRA, which pushed banks to make bad loans, which they wound up selling because they knew they wouldn't make money on them otherwise; Freddie and Fannie; the matter that the financial and insurance and medical "markets" are among the MOST regulated in the United States (really, can you name anything more regulated...and yet the left still calls for more regulation on them?)
The "pro-choice" paradigm is INTENSELY ingrained into the mind of its adherents. I come at the angle from primarily religious grounds (fearfully and wonderfully made; known while I was in my mother's womb), which, Biblically speaking, outright condemn abortion at worst, and do not condone it at best.
That being said, what right do we, as humans have, to NOT declare an unborn child alive or not?
What right do we have to tell the child it is not worthy of life?
Abortion is inherently selfish as well.
I've heard rumors - yet unsubstantiated as well - that someone did a study that stated that a HIGH amount of abortions are pushed for at the behest of the father or some outside person, not the mother.
Aquanomics| 7.9.09 @ 5:23PM
I'm as frightened as the next person, but the fault for the current crisis lies not at Obama's feet but ours. And ours alone. For decades voters of the right and left have asked, no demanded, more and more from government with little or no regard to the consequences of those demands. Well now we see the consequences all too clearly and it's, "...boo hoo hoo, poor, poor pitiful we."
Every vested group in America (which includes 100% of us, like it or not) would rather see another's ox gored first. Corporate welfare, farm welfare, union welfare, teacher welfare, student welfare, immigrant welfare..... Welfare.
We sowed the wind and are shocked at having to reap the whirlwind.
I am sorry to say it serves us all right.
ben| 7.9.09 @ 5:23PM
"Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of."
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
KyMouse| 7.9.09 @ 5:29PM
Ryan, you're absolutely right. Advocates of abortion rights talk about "a woman's right to choose" death for her baby, but it is most often NOT the mother who wants to abort him/her. It's someone else in her life -- a parent, boyfriend or husband, perhaps. The abortion is not her choice at all, but rather a terrible decision she is pressured into making, against her will.
According to "Forced Abortion in America," a 2004 report issued by The Eliot Institute, as many as 60 percent of abortions may be the result of coercion (some studies say around 64 percent). The Washington Post reported in December 2004 that MURDER is the leading cause of death for pregnant women and new mothers. The newspaper quoted Pat Brown, a criminal profiler in Minnesota, who said that when a woman won't abort her baby, the man in her life may think that "if SHE goes away, the problem goes away."
Thomas Euteneuer, president of Human Life International, put it this way: "Pro-choice men are the Number One perpetrators of violence against pregnant, pro-life mothers."
The "right to choose"? Many women are, through intimidation or violence, denied the right to choose to give their babies life. The RIGHT to abort has become the OBLIGATION to abort.
Mary| 7.9.09 @ 5:30PM
Today's Rasmussen:
**The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 30% of the nation's voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-eight percent (38%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of –8. The President’s Approval Index rating has fallen six points since release of a disappointing jobs report last week (see trends).
Thirty-nine percent (39%) now give the President good or excellent marks for handling the economy while 43% say he is doing a poor job.
There is a gender gap when it comes to perceptions of Obama’s performance. By a 46% to 27% margin, men Strongly Disapprove. Women are more evenly divided—33% Strongly Approve and 30% Strongly Disapprove.
Voters not affiliated with either party trust Republicans more to handle the economy by a 46% to 32% margin. **
Democrats have a lead of only 4 points on healthcare, and only 2 on education. Wrong track number is inching back up. This is about jobs but I'm thinking it might also be about wanting to be rid of the morose ideology of Obama. We’re a joyful people. We’re not constituted for the beatnik life he’s preparing to foist upon us. It’s not about prosperity. It’s about a natural, free-breathing life lived.
Every time I’ve traveled to Italy, I couldn’t wait to come home. In ’97 I wandered around Rome for quite awhile looking for tea and toast. I never did find it.
Thom| 7.9.09 @ 6:07PM
Mary, imagine what it would be like without a State Run Media backing Obama?
Jeff | 7.9.09 @ 6:09PM
1. The 700 billion dollar bank bailout was initiated by a Republican former head of Goldman Sachs Treasury Secretary.
2. The CBO said the climate bill will cost families 150$ a year. Much of which will be offset by rebates. Why you decided on 800-2000 is telling.
3. I dont think anyone who isn't a complete moron thinks Obama wants to run GM.
4. Stop whiping your ass with facts.
Big J| 7.9.09 @ 6:17PM
Jeff,
"Your guy started it" is a school-boy argument. I recommend finding a new one.
The CBO estimate is flawed, as it doesn't take all the facts into account (like the reduction in economic output as a direct result of the new restrictions). For the REAL deal, go the The Heritage Foundation:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/tst062609a.cfm
Just one moron's viewpoint here, but Obama wants to run everything. Stop listening to what the teleprompter in chief is saying, and start looking at what he is doing.
That is all.
Thom| 7.9.09 @ 6:19PM
Jeff, $150.00 increase in energy cost for me is 3 months average electric bill or 10 weeks of gasoline use at today’s prices for me. I’m supposed to be happy about that? That figure is also the average across what is a wide range of regional impacts for the beginning of the tax, not the average as the tax ramps up in out years. The rebates go to the “poor” you know Democrats. The bulk of the middle class won’t see anything at all. I’m still waiting for my tax cut for 95% of working Americans? I don’t make even a third of what Obama says are the rich. Try dealing with the facts occasionally comrade.
Richard Baker| 7.9.09 @ 6:30PM
Rivenspeak:
Do you have your Margaret Sanger commemorative abortion framed and mounted upon the wall? How about your eugenics decoder ring? Life is still life.
Old Texican| 7.9.09 @ 6:47PM
Well...I just had to chime in to wrap up this discussion.
Moms who kill their babies are ending a line of "non-viable reproduction".
This discussion was supposed to be about "saving liberty".
Nevermind.
We shall save liberty the old fashioned way in the final oopsie!
Angel| 7.9.09 @ 9:16PM
No, Rivenspeak, you're not pro-choice--you're pro-abortion. 24/7 Abortion is paramount to you; please tell the truth.
Liar, liar, pants on fire.
Mary| 7.9.09 @ 9:16PM
Thom, you’re absolutely right.
That poll probably also reflects some aggregate angst. A plurality is now against Sotomayor. Her defects are a reflection of a poor choice on his part.
Roberts: Look, I’m here to call balls and strikes. That’s the best way I know for fairness and justice to prevail.
Sotomayor: Look, there are physiological differences in Latina women that make it easier to arrive at a superior conclusion than white men. It’s about La Rrrrrrrraza, stupid! What, you didn’t really think the Tribe didn’t matter, did you? That’s just what we tell you before we get to the top.
Angel| 7.9.09 @ 9:20PM
If it's true that Obama is directing health care funds away from the elderly toward community resources--does that mean the old crapper democrat senators in office now will receive worse medical care, too? Hmmm?
Mary| 7.9.09 @ 10:10PM
Since we’re already off-topic…
A majority of Americans call themselves pro-life. This same majority also doesn’t want RvW to go be overturned. It may be because they think overturning it would lead to a complete ban on abortion. It could also mean that, plus the desire to retain the convenience. And the thing is, once you provide people with such a convenience it’s very unlikely they’ll be willing to give it up.
Even though it’s not worth much, we’re at least not so deep in the anti-nomian pit that we don’t know abortion is wrong. The pro-choice argument is rather sloppy, that probably contributes to why people say they're pro-life. Same thing probably holds for why people more readily call themselves conservatives. Who wants to be tied to the cotton-headed imaginings of today’s liberals. I mean look at the beating that Pelosi took following revelation of what was in Obama’s first stimulus package.
I have a friend whose parents passed away quite a while ago. They were Rockefeller Republicans. I liked them. The Mom graduated from university in ’47. She taught Latin. Her high school books showed me just how much standards had been lowered between her time and mine. I graduated from high school in ’74.
O/T again, but did you know that Oliver North won a regents scholarship? I thought that was kind of interesting. I don’t think I ever enjoyed a spectacle more than the Iran Contra hearings. To see George Mitchell bested was a beautiful thing. The senators thought to themselves, this guy’s just a stupid soldier. He'll be so easy. They offered him immunity before they even knew what he was going to say. :) North and his squad had made it out of Vietnam alive. I know breaks is breaks, but still you have to know that serious smarts played a big part. It was great watching him best them one by one.
Anyway, not all that long ago a child was a
child
from the beginning.
Integrity!
http://tinyurl.com/aafnph
Marc Jeric| 7.9.09 @ 10:43PM
Mt. Tyrrell is right but not enough: government is growing at the expense of liberty and prosperity but there is worse in Obama's program. With the help of socialists in Congress and the paid ACORN brownshirts we are entering the stage of final communization. In Russian "community organization" means "soviet" - local organizations in charge of voting.
Flower Power| 7.10.09 @ 2:32AM
Mr. Jeric, I take your warning seriously, but we're not a real compliant people--not really. We have LOTS of guns, and lots of men and women ready and willing to use them. I include you in this illustrious group, Sir.
Also, I know a lot of vets who don't take kindly to the idea of a paramilitary force within the borders of our country.
marxbites| 7.10.09 @ 10:22AM
Ravenspeak
Constitutional changes by ammendment - yes. Towards MORE freedom and not less - yes.
Towards less govt restraint - no.
The fact is, clueless, that govt intervention has always been the actual problem w/the markets, and NEVER the markets themselves.
America hasn't had anything close to free market capitalism since the RR's bought themselves the ICC as barrier to competitive entry and guaranteed profits at all others expense via special privilege govt sanction. Like ALL the biggest industries now enjoy along w/their tax funded subsidies n/a to small business who pays for it all.
Get the education we were ALL denied, by our self interested compulsory educrats a la Bismarck, at mises.org - 7TBs of free online publishing incl. mp3 lectures and video. The webs most highly trafficked economics and history website extant.
Non-partisan pro-freedom they are, plus being the only economists that called this FED created disaster - which likely is just as purposely created as the panic of 1907 foisted as reason for the FED and its criminal counterfeiters.
Support auditing the FED and Fort Knox as well, for certainly the shylocks now have ALL our gold.
Its time to reconfiscate the people tons of flesh they've stolen in interest, gold and inflation, and let them swing as the constitution calls for for treasonous counterfeiters.
ds80| 7.11.09 @ 6:17PM
Rivenspeak, you are too clever by half, with all of your sniffy sophisticated talk of "zygote".
What's clear to folks with common sense is that human conception results in a child. And abortion kills that child.
Alka | 8.23.09 @ 6:01AM
Izgotovlenie lestnic
ghd straighteners | 11.3.09 @ 10:46PM
Your article is write very well, I like it very much ~
I wish you have a wonderful day!Thank you.
fatburningfurnace | 12.9.09 @ 4:37AM
Equal rights before the law is all well and good, but it is political favor and political power that matter when big government is making your decisions for you. I agree!
Tony Gray| 12.24.09 @ 9:19PM
It is time to think about your liberty vis-a-vis the government bureaucrats who are about to minister to you.
jump higher and Mp3 rocket pro
Greg Markinson| 1.11.10 @ 10:35PM
hog ring pliers
Pingback| 3.8.10 @ 1:20PM
Fred Thompson on the Economy | EconomyIssues.info links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
jangan gila donk| 3.25.10 @ 8:36AM
traveling tour
automotive parts
Kim| 3.31.10 @ 8:49AM
Secure SSL Certificate
Thawte SSL Webserver - Find cheapest ssl @ clickssl.com
Pingback| 3.31.10 @ 4:21PM
Rachel Maddow Shows Up Republican Hypocrisy For What It Is……BS | RepublicanDaily.info links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
kopi| 4.7.10 @ 7:44PM
Saving Liberty is good article thanks you very much for your information
Poptropica
Poptropica
boburu| 4.11.10 @ 8:26PM
at first i didn't think this is true skinny jeans
Trackback| 4.19.10 @ 7:38AM
Work the Law of Attraction and Manifestation, on Work the Law of Attraction and Manifestation, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Tony Tran | 4.25.10 @ 11:38AM
Obama is good president for United State. For first some month from he start his job. I just wondering how long does he stay in white house. I hope that for more than four years.
computer software games | 5.10.10 @ 5:04AM
I am very happy with this article, very informative and helpful, a very good work my friend so you can write a useful article for someone else ....
sa
health state | 6.1.10 @ 12:37PM
It is excellent to have the opportunity to read a good quality article with useful details on topics that a lot are interested on. The reason that the data stated are all first hand on actual experiences even assist more. Keep doing what you do as we like reading your work.
Bluetooth Stereo Headphones | 6.14.10 @ 9:34AM
nice post about liberty..... ^_^
James H| 12.8.10 @ 5:09AM
To self build liberty you have to give up basic rights, which in itself is a contradiction
kaos couple | 1.2.11 @ 9:12PM
Wonderful article . Its increase my knowlegde by reading this article . You are an awesome writer . Keep posting...
Verona hotels stay | 4.8.11 @ 10:23AM
Nothing against the article, but I disagree with a couple of points to some extenct. I’m probably a minority though, lol. Thanks for sharing.
出会い | 7.20.11 @ 4:45AM
heloo
IBCBET | 8.1.11 @ 1:05AM
There is another unappreciated failing of government. It politicizes everything that it touches, including the simplest human relations. ibcbet-th IBCBET ibcbet online