The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Tea Party Intellectuals

Text Size

Tea Party protesters seem to reference Ron Paul, Adam Smith, Ayn Rand, and other small-government figureheads as the intellectual founders of their young movement (or at least this is my experience covering tea parties in DC). But maybe they should be citing Kenneth Rogoff of Harvard and Carmen Reinhart of U. Maryland instead. Reinhart and Rogoff have produced a study examining the effects high public debt levels have on the economy. (This study adds to their recent book.) They find that public debt above 90 percent of GDP dampens growth, which would seem to corroborate the tea partiers' most basic complaints, that being that the government is incurring too much debt.

From their abstract: "...the relationship between government debt and real GDP growth is weak for debt/GDP ratios below a threshold of 90 percent of GDP. Above 90 percent, median growth rates fall by one percent, and average growth falls considerably more."

James Picerno highlights this graph from the paper, showing that the US is among the countries that have most increased their debt burden following the financial crisis, because of bailouts, stimulus, etc.:

Picerno writes:

A recent estimate of U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio is 84%, according to Reinhart and Rogoff--dangerously close to the 90% threshold, as illustrated in the [above] chart taken from the paper.

The bottom line: Bailouts are expensive, perhaps more expensive than generally realized. The worst of the financial crisis and Great Recession may be over, and perhaps that's due partly to the intervention of central banks and governments around the world. (The business cycle was a factor too.) But let's not celebrate just yet. The cleanup era has only just begun and it's not yet clear how much it's going to cost.

Picerno is actually wrong about the debt level -- 84 percent is the change, not the level. According to the CBO, the public debt will be about 65 percent of GDP this year, well below Reinhart and Rogoff's critical number.

But under the CBO's projections of the budget going forward (pdf), we will be at 81 percent within a decade. And the CBO's estimation is based off of the administration's assumptions about future policies and politics. While those assumptions are plausible, they are definitely rosy compared to a number of alternate scenarios that could play out. The most obvious example would be health care reform costing significantly more than anticipated, which is very likely.

The real bottom line: bailouts are expensive, and the folks rallying in tea parties just may have a better realization of that fact than Congress does.

View all comments (53) | Leave a comment

Francis Beckwith| 1.8.10 @ 6:04PM

Ron Paul, an intellectual? Who knew?

Red Phillips| 1.8.10 @ 8:04PM

Oh good grief! First you swipe at the Alaska Independence Party and the JBS, now Paul? Is that really you or is someone posting under your name? Are you going academy on us?

Ron Paul graduated from Duke Medical School, and they don't let dummies in there. I know that being an "intellectual" is not the same thing as being smart, but Paul has contributed well more than enough in the way of books, articles, and public advocacy to be considered a public intellectual.

Now Rand on the other hand, while I won't begrudge her the title of intellectual, is very problematic as an influence due to her atheism and un-Christian selfishness nonsense.

Joseph Lawler| 1.8.10 @ 6:18PM

Re: Paul -- the point being, they could do better in terms of intellectual leaders.

Red Phillips| 1.8.10 @ 8:13PM

The Tea Partiers who are inspired by Paul, as opposed to those who are inspired by Palin for example, primary reason for opposition to spending and debt is not because debt is dangerous or spending ineffective, although they certainly wouldn't deny that. It is because they are wrong and beyond the legitimate scope of the federal government. So while they certainly wouldn't argue with economist who prove that debt is harmful, they are more likely to be inclined towards intellectuals and academics who argue first premises, like someone who defends original intent fo example.

KnuckleDraggers| 1.19.10 @ 7:02PM

Actually, those who call themselves 'intellectuals' in our government are really criminals with high self esteem that is not warranted.

Ron Paul is a doctor, understands the monetary system, and knows the limitations that the Constitution puts on government.

These are things the current crop of criminals in the administration ought to learn...

DJ| 1.8.10 @ 6:35PM

The Ron Paul Revolution was the spark that got the tea parties lit. Now the tea parties have been co opted by the nationalist "kill the Arabs for Jesus" crew.

Red Phillips| 1.8.10 @ 8:06PM

They haven't been completely co-opted yet DJ. Not yet.

KnuckleDraggers| 1.19.10 @ 7:03PM

That's utterly ridiculous!

Bob| 1.8.10 @ 8:05PM

There is no question that current debt levels are dangerous for our future. But then again, health care costs at 17% of GDP are just as dangerous. Together, they make manufacturing in the U.S. unprofitable and thereby reduce the number of jobs available. That is actually occurring at present.

However, it is obvious by the signs they carry, that the Tea Party people are populists, not educated in economics or even governance. As such, unfortunately, they are the wrong people to carry this important message because they are ridiculed by most educated individuals. Thus, anyone in the power structure in this country will not attach themselves closely to this group. Their hero is Sarah Palin -- an unknowledgeable quitter who is only intent on making money right now and couldn't care about average people.

Furthermore, they don't understand the ramifications of cutting the budget and the size of government to reduce this debt. The federal budget is comprised of 53% Medicare/Social Security, 12% debt, 20% Military and now only about 15% non-military discretionary money. They are not willing to cut their Medicare benefits or Social Security as most of them are at or over 65. They believe in a strong military so that 20% won't be cut. And you cannot cut interest payments. The 15% discretionary includes many things they want including the Congress, White House, the State Department, Foreign Aid, etc. So the only way to make the cuts at any significant level is to cut Medicare, ration health care, and get rid of Social Security. They don't seem to be intelligent enough to understand the impact of their desires.

Thus, the Tea Party people are a joke because their is no solution to their needs -- i.e., they don't have any significant plan. Cutting pork is so minor that you won't see virtually any impact. Add to that, the fact that the primary job of politicians is to get reelected -- not to govern -- and that means giving perks to large donors for their money.

The beginning of any movement must start with term limits so at least half of all legislators are free to govern and not to raise funds. Secondly, people must realize that health care must be rationed -- there is simply no other way to reduce costs. That means people will die if they don't have the money for hospitals and doctors. Can't live with that? Then forget about lowering the debt. We must also seriously look at military spending. Perhaps, in today's environment, we should spend more for soldiers and less for technology. We spend more than ALL other countries of the world combined on military spending.

Just a making a budget at home is difficult, putting the government on a diet is difficult. That's why although Republicans have the rhetoric to cut the debt, they never make government smaller. Reagan grew government and so did Bush. We know the Dems will grow government.

Until we educate people in basic economics and tell them what they must sacrifice to lower the debt, it will never happen. The key to our future is an educated electorate -- and half of our kids are not finishing high school. And on this board, people demean Ivy League schools when they should be supporting the best academic options for our children.

One side note. Ayn Rand is a hero to this group. You must realize the reason she was so good is that she was an atheist and was therefore willing to utilize logic, rather than belief, to address the major issues of the time.

Red Phillips| 1.8.10 @ 8:16PM

You can always count on Bob to have his anti-Christian chip on his shoulder.

Bob| 1.8.10 @ 8:32PM

Just pointing out, Red, that TRUE liberty is best pursued by rational reason rather than irrational belief... Besides, my rant is not "anti-Christian", it is anti-religion. But then again, you see no other religion except Christianity as your statements have proven.

Red Phillips| 1.8.10 @ 8:46PM

Yeah, that French Revolution worked out just great didn't it?

S.L. Toddard| 1.9.10 @ 6:12PM

Not to mention the Communist revolution.

Dr. Phillips, I have agreed with Bob on the past here, but his deification of Reason exposes the un-conservative, Jacobin mindset that is at the root of his philosophy. It is useless to even engage such a person in a conversation about the place of religion in a free society: his mind is closed. He is unaware of the positive role religion played in forming what we think of as the West, or of how the ideas of "Liberty" he holds dear would be impossible - would not exist - independent of the Christian societies in which they have their genesis. The statement "TRUE liberty is best pursued by rational reason rather than irrational belief" is meaningless, and undeserving of any response.

KnuckleDraggers| 1.19.10 @ 7:04PM

@Bob: True liberty shows tolerance and allows religious freedom.... no?

victor| 1.8.10 @ 8:23PM

Blah Blah Blah Ron Paul Blah Blah Blah Libertarians Blah Blah Blah Vote Third Party Blah Blah Blah How Bloody Elitist of Me Blah Blah Blah

JP| 1.8.10 @ 8:42PM

Bob,
The military budget for FY 2010 is around $600 billion, and the total outlays are almost $4 trillion, and the GDP is around $12 trillion. That puts military spending (which includes Afghanistand Iraq) to about 15% of the total budget, and about 5% of the GDP (less if you subtract Iraq and Afghanistan). When Carter was President, military spending was about 3% of GDP and rose to a high of 6% under Reagan before dropping again.

Also, total Social Security and Medicare spending is about 25% of the budget (almost $1 trillion). But these 2 entitlements are dependent upon demographics. Simply put there are not enough workers in the work force to support the number of retirees we shall have. Those 50 million aborted children would sure come in handy right about now. As it stands there are not enough people in the work force to support the infusion of 60 million new retirees. Our economy would need to grow about 6-8% per anum to generate the tax revenues needed to support the Boomers with the life style they are expecting. That of course is impossible when one considers the small number of people entering our work force.

Bob| 1.9.10 @ 10:16AM

JP, I was talking about the % of budget, not GDP except in the case of health care. Here's the exact 2009 breakdown:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2.....ral_budget

If we add Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, Unemployment and Welfare, we get about 52% of the federal budget. If we add up all of the military related spending, we get 24% of the budget (it includes veterans affairs, Army Corp of Engineers, Defense and the Wars). Interest on the debt is now about 8% but will grow rapidly in the next decade.

When we look at cutting spending, I think we have to look at the percentages of the federal budget, not the percent of GDP. If more people understood where the money is going, then they'd understand how ridiculous their demands are. The fact remains, if you want to SIGNIFICANTLY reduce spending, you must reduce Medicare, Social Security, and military spending. There is no other way except to raise taxes -- which neither of us want to see.

Ran / Si Vis Pacem| 1.10.10 @ 12:02AM

"However, it is obvious by the signs they carry, that the Tea Party people are populists, not educated in economics or even governance. As such, unfortunately, they are the wrong people to carry this important message because they are ridiculed by most educated individuals." - Bob

If Bob wishes to apply ad-hominem as an argument against Tea Party protesters and against Sarah palin, then ad-hominem it is...

Bob happens to be the "educated individual" who entertained us with this:"MRB -- I am familiar with the Pope's Regensburg speech. I studied religion when I was young and translated the original five books of Moses from the original Aramaic when I was 10." [Although the Wellhausen Theory points to at least four distinct styles comprising the Five Books (the Pentateuch), all of them are entirely in classical Biblical Hebrew. (Aramaic, a regional dialect, shows-up in Biblical writing centuries later.)]

As a Newfoundlander friend of mine says "You just can't make this stuff up!" Amen.

Let me tell you, Bob, who is "ridiculed by most educated individuals." Liars and pretenders. QED.

Happy New Year to Red Phillips, Ken and Mary Louise!

KnuckleDraggers| 1.19.10 @ 7:05PM

Gee I for one tea partier speak three languages, have an advanced degree. And I know that a private bank should not be in charge of printing money.

Mary Louise| 1.9.10 @ 8:51AM

Do better in terms of intellectual leaders? You can say that again! Between Goin' Kira and Goin' Galt your only hope is suicide. What a load of hyper-rationalist crap! She's Barbara Cartland: The Engineer. Wiskey? Tango? Foxtrot?

Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche: any day of the week, week of the year, year of the decade, decade of the century over Rand's adolescent and immature 'philosophy.' Let's at least have a virile Pagan and mystic.

Paul is mainly a money guy. As soon as he opens his mouth on Foreign Policy he's in theoretical territory and he has to stay there. Chamberlain was a finance guy too, wasn’t he? I'm just sayin'.

The Law of Nations has become a lot more complicated.

It seems to me that Hayek was concerned with social cohesion. His work on Order tells me that. His willingness to allow that his opponents wanted what he wanted, but were wrong in assuming they could achieve it through coercion and force tells me that too. I don't know if Mises was concerned w/cohesion or not. His work on Socialism basically and truthfully points out that without capitalism, socialists would have neither the leisure nor the money to engage in their attempts to save the world. The Decembrists and their successful progeny were not wise and overworked peasants.

Mr. Lawler this piece by Jim Manzi is quite good.

The Tea Party People might be able to slow or stop the advance of Obama's behemoth, but I don't think they can set the Country on the right track because I don't think social cohesion is something they think or worry about.

And the Republicans too are so steeped in anti-government talk that they probably don't even really know how to reach down and begin to think anew. To speak with hope of responsible and enlightened government. It probably wasn't dereliction of duty that kept them from addressing health care, it was probably lack of competence. Tort reform may be good, but does it really pass the savings along to health care buyers. The reform in Texas doesn't seem to be clear on that.

I think we need a sharp, National Government. One that can protect its citizens from suicide bombers and capitalist pigs who cause economic collapse and then refuse to accept the creative destruction otherwise known as bread and cheese lines. They come begging for the little guy to protect their flat, long and wide haunches from financial ruin.

God bless McCotter, by the way. And others too, but especially him for style as well substance.

Mary Louise| 1.9.10 @ 9:05AM

It would be smart of Republicans to take whatever might be good in this health care plan and work with it.

For instance addressing the need for scaling back Medicare, and laying it the lap of the Democrats not as fault but as imperative. Challenge Steele's cynicism and irresponsible ways. Engage Senior Citizens, truthfully appealing to love of Country not just for the moment but for the future. Sin boldly: "tell the Truth" and DON'T "tell it slant." Presently, "success in circuit" doesn't lie.

pallet racking| 1.9.10 @ 10:25AM

http://www.t-racking.com
http://www.cold-store-equipment.com

Bob| 1.9.10 @ 1:26PM

Mary Louise -- I'm tremendously impressed with your last two posts and agree wholeheartedly with the minor exception of your extreme views about Rand.

Current Republicans cannot do anything "smart", because they eschew anything intellectual. The Tea Party protagonists are just a populist extension of that belief.

Mary Louise, we do not agree on the importance of Religion in our lives or social conservatism, but we agree totally on the secular views you represent.

Again, I'm tremendously impressed with your post. That's why I consistently challenge the lack of critical thought at AmSpec and the consistent slant its protagonists portray. We've got to get away from this bias and utilize factual information without any significant slant.

Our backgrounds are different, but critical thinking rises above background. For example, I keep on saying that lowering taxes is not stimulative and have the data to back that up. No one here has been able to come up with inflation adjusted graphical data to refute those arguments because they don't know how to think for themselves.

Keep up the good work.

Mary Louise| 1.9.10 @ 2:49PM

Thanks, Bob. I appreciate the vote of confidence.

My views on Rand are not extreme. She's got a rape scene in the Fountainhead. She's a very minor intellect compared to Hayek, Mises, Nietzsche, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc.

Bob, the rational isn't all there is. The mystical is there, and most people try to reach for it. And it'll never die because it's necessary for most people.

I'm not a practicing Roman Catholic, but my RC formation will only die when I die. And I am my brother's keeper. That doesn't mean nothing is expected of my brother, just that nothing befits a Christian more than Mercy.

It's pluriformity or war though, that's for sure. When there's an us, there's a them and you know what that ultimately leads to.

Anyway, all the best to you.

Bob| 1.9.10 @ 3:10PM

Mary Louise, as one trained in theoretical math, it is difficult for me to accept the mystical. It is acceptable to me not to have all of the answers. I don't need religion to "fill in the blanks". When most people don't have the answers, they reach towards something mystical. In college 45 years ago, I wrote a paper on a definition of "The Good". I used set theory to show that this definition was derived from something we shall call, the common good. The interesting thing about the us-them continuum is that it is generally two-sided with both sides believing they are on the side of "righteousness". In my view, religion and irrationality bring us this bellicose philosophy.

Mary Louise| 1.9.10 @ 5:11PM

Bob, I understand. I really do.

The mystical, though does not really demand filling in the blanks. In fact, I think God is grasped through tension and not resolution. And joy should be the product of that, if faith is secure.

Deuteronomy was both the cause of the collapse of my trust in Christianity, and the what kept me tethered, however precariously, to God.

I had my own blog for a while. Who didn't, Bob? :)

Anyway, as an adjunct to your thought on the bellicose, and if you'll indulgen me, this was one of my entries a short while before the collapse.

I called it Split Image. It's not too terribly long, and a bit of a disclaimer here, I lost a brother at 20 years old. He was 7 and he was hit by his school bus, and he died about 30 feet from my home.

**Double predestination is probably the only way predestination can actually be true. But how in the world are you going to preach Christ crucified in this way?

You can't sell a double-predestinating Christian God to the world. Maybe that's not anyone's goal, but even Jesus' disciples had to "sell" God to their world. St. Peter advised that we always be ready and willing to tell the world the reason for our Joy. But how can you do that with a predestinating God? How can you tell the woman who has just lost her child that he's with God? Even if the child is Christian with a double predestinating God, you can assure her of nothing.

Have you ever heard a sermon on God's reprobation? I've only heard one, and it was piously bellicose but essentially incoherent.

Double Predestination is very seldom talked about or advanced, but to any person who cares about truth of doctrine it has to be thought about and thought through.

The God of Scripture, plus this Divine Reprobator, if they are the same God, sent His Son to die for the world, but in the end He really lived and died only for His elect.

This is not a God you can bring to the world.

Here's a glimpse into medieval teaching on the subject of Hell and little children. It's a tract written by Rev. Joseph Furniss (2 million distributed, I think), from a book for children titled The Sight of Hell:

"The little child is in the red-hot oven. Hear how it screams to come out; see how it turns and twists itself about in the fire. It beats its head against the roof of the oven. It stamps its little feet on the floor....God was very good to this little child. Very likely God saw it would get worse and worse and never repent, and so it would have been punished more severly in Hell. So God in his mercy called it out of the world in early childhood."

And the above is actually an earned Hell. For the Hell which is meted out by a God who determines the end, but not the means, and in which no work figures, a completely different tract would need to be written. The child would have a similar fate but one which you couldn't really explain, and while you could embrace Baptism as a hope, that would only work if it had regenerative powers and which would allow childhood, up to the age of reason, to be free from the responsibility of sin and the pain of Hell.

A divine reprobator, a god who condemns not because of anything you did but because He didn't choose you is just dreadful news, and there's no getting around it.***

Bob| 1.9.10 @ 5:36PM

Mary Louise (that does sound like a nun's name),

The danger of religion is that it elevates belief over reason. People refuse to look at fact and data to derive enlightened decisions. Furthermore, they eschew intellectual activity and the pursuit of education.

I find that viewpoint strongly presented at AmSpec -- and it is dangerous for the future of our country. On the other hand, I have no problem with individuals who pursue reason even if they are religious. If the data conflicts with belief, an intelligent individual must reconcile the difference -- or at least recognize the dissonance.

Republicans used to be good at that, but now that ability has been completely abandoned by the right wing social conservatives and tea partyists who dominate the party. For those of us who think fiscal conservatism is a reasoned approach to governance, that is a huge problem.

Ran / Si Vis Pacem| 1.10.10 @ 12:34AM

Religion does not elevate belief over reason. Indeed, religion is where faith and critical thinking coexist best. Your comment was so naive, so ignorant - hard to know where to begin. It's obvious that you understand neither.

Many people fear religion - indeed, rail against it - because they feel guilt in having betrayed their own.

It was a deeply religious man (I think it was Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, or was it Rashi?) who observed that the first punishment for sin is that we'll tend to repeat the sin. This is particularly easy to observe of liars, isn't it? Any objective student of the human condition notes the phenomenon.

Bob| 1.10.10 @ 7:44AM

Well, you certainly have rationalized your logic. I would agree that there exists a rather small group of religious intellectuals who value reason. I have known a few of them in my life and respect them greatly -- and it may be true of you. However, for the majority of "the earth is 6,000 years old" and "men rode dinosaurs" people that live on the fundamental right and who post here at AmSpec, there is no question that they value belief over reason.

Therefore, your comment shows extreme ignorance and bias when it comes to evaluating groups of people. In psychology, we call that "projection".

I know you must project your views onto others -- that is simply an adjunct to utilizing belief over reason.

And I don't fear religion at all. I simply recognize that you don't see rigorous analysis on the extreme right (or at AmSpec). No one here shows charts and data to support their arguments perhaps because they don't have the capability to do so. If you value belief over reason, there is no need to "prove" your case.

Interestingly enough, Ran, you are one of the few people on this board I respect even though we disagree on many things. When I brought up that "Aramaic" thing that I remembered when I was young, you corrected me with fact -- even though it was slightly overstated. I believe the comment you have just made shows the blinders that religion places on an individual. You cannot seem to understand individuals who believe the importance of reason in their lives.

There is a huge historical question of whether or not this world would be better without mysticism like religion. Certainly, the world conflicts today have been dramatically enhanced by religious beliefs.

And let us face it, neither you nor I are completely objective. We are human beings with our own backgrounds, selected learnings, and limitations. That's what makes the study of reason so very interesting.

S.L. Toddard| 1.10.10 @ 4:01PM

What you are talking about, Bob, has nothing to do with religious faith. You are talking about the tendency of the Fox News Right to engage in identity politics. They vote, generally, according to a simplistic Black/White narrative (the mirror image, in fact, of the one most Liberals adhere to) with their side in the white hats. It is entirely emotion- and personality-based, which explains their infatuation with someone like Sarah Palin, who has no discernible conservative qualities whatsoever (in the Burkean sense, or in any pre-Buckley sense).

It is certainly characteristic of the Fox News Right to base their worldview on anything but Reason, but that has nothing to do with religion. They don't base their worldview on Christianity either. They base it on what they hear blathering out of their radios, and shrieking hysterically out of their televisions.

Ken (Old Texican)| 1.9.10 @ 4:16PM

Well, Bob and Mary Louise
I hope you two have a wonderful life basement to share. heh.

Your intellectualoid musings are cute and for once, interesting. You guys make a great couple. heh.

Personally, I have never let my "intellectualoidism"get in the way of my "gettingthedamnedjobdoneism".

I have had access to some mighty intellects over the years. I hired many of them and let them be useful for once.

I met some mighty intellects while at Baylor, including without question the mightiest intellect of the twentieth century. I did my thesis on his work and actually got to hear him speak...there at Baylor.
You two, of course have never heard of him. He was awarded the Chairmanship of the Freudian School of Psychotherapy at the Vienna Polyclinic following Freud's demise.

With the help of a German student there at Baylor, I stumbled through all 17 volumes of his theories and working methods to heal people.

He is heralded in every single serious intellectual community in the world as the "midget standing on the shoulders of giants"...with his own broad smile.

I would challenge either of you to name him...or quote his three principles, but the internet makes it too easy with the clue I have already given you.

Nevertheless, intellectuaoids, do a bit of research about a man who actually accomplished something with the brilliant intellect he was gifted.

Bob| 1.9.10 @ 4:49PM

Ah, so this is the guy who is too cowardly to meet and then lies about his resources? I see you learned a great deal in school. Aren't you also the guy who couldn't make it in psychology so you went into selling insurance? Hmmm.....

What kind of inferior ego makes a statement like this:

"I have had access to some mighty intellects over the years. I hired many of them and let them be useful for once."

What kind of ego does that take?

Tex, you need some psychological help... Perhaps someone who got his degree online would be more your style....

Ken (Old Texican)| 1.10.10 @ 7:52AM

Here you go, Bob.

http://www.logotherapyinstitut.....works.html

I have had the honor of learning from him for a lifetime.
PS: I gave you my name already, right here in a public forum. You don't have to bait me. I have earned my spurs and am all over any search engine you might want to check. My bio. is in so many places...and heck, I can barely believe it...and I was there. heh
You can narrow your search parameters by simply adding Texas to my name.

Oh...and I am probably the most humble man you will ever converse with. I played in the "Big Leagues"...the biggest. Heck, I got handed my arse on a regular basis. heh.

Ken (Old Texican)| 1.10.10 @ 7:57AM

Bob, ps jr: I was the one that invited you to meet, anywhere anytime..."make it easy on yourself..I have my own plane and can get there easily."
email me.
kbjudgeroybean06@gmail.com
In confidence, my word of honor.

Mary Louise| 1.9.10 @ 7:13PM

Two more quotes and then I’m outta here. Got a date with a retired Cop. You know if it works out, since he’s retired and I won’t be for a good decade, he can cook. That’ll be like hitting the jackpot! I’ve already confessed I’m only good at eggs, white pizza and bread; I’m a fan of ABBA, my sauce stinks and I’m allergic to garlic. His best buddy, a retired firefighter, says: “your parents must feel so ashamed!” Another acquaintance of mine said the very same thing years ago.

Anyway, From The Passionate Sage, pg. 164:

**Adams did not object to banks because they were distorting the natural rhythms of a burgeoning capitalistic economy. He objected that government regulations were not in place to assure that the flow of money and property served the public interest rather than private interests. Rather than free banks altogether from federal control, he thought that all banks should be public institutions under the control of the national government: “My own opinion has invariably been, that there ought to be but one Bank in the United States,” he wrote in 1811, “and that a National Bank with a branch in each State…This ought to have been a fundamental Article in the Constitution.” **

Disclaimer: I don’t think one National Bank is a good idea. I’m just trying to get to know the Founding Fathers, side by each as they say in Nova Scotia.

Next up, Nietzsche:

**Heavy is the price of coming to power: power makes its possessor stupid…"Deutschland, Deutschland ueber alles" [national anthem], I fear that has ended German philosophy…You cannot live beyond your means, whether as an individual or as a Nation. Both possess certain limited energies of understanding , seriousness, will and self-transcendence; if you squander these energies on the side of power, power politics, economics, world trade, parliaments and armies, then you cannot spend them on the cultural side. Culture and the state -let there be no wishful thinking about this- are enemies. The one flourishes at the expense of the other. All great epochs of culture have been epochs of political decline. What is culturally great has always been unpolitical, even antipolitical.” [Part of Viereck’s Conservative Thinkers from John Adams to Winston Churchill, pg. 169-70. Translated by P. Viereck from Nietzsche, Die Goetzen-Daemmerung, 1889; Gesammelte Werke, Munich, 1920-1929, vol. 17, VIII, 1-4. ]**

Bob| 1.10.10 @ 7:48AM

Now if more people would actually THINK and REASON, we'd be a much better country in much better financial condition.

By the way, you can find a soulmate later in life -- I did and hit the jackpot in doing so. And I didn't learn how to cook until I retired. Now I do all of the cooking.

Margie| 1.10.10 @ 12:45PM

"Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool." Is. 1:18.

Margie| 1.9.10 @ 8:28PM

Mary Louise,
God condemns no one. We condemn ourselves.
All the men in the universe can't change the truth. The Bible is the only source we should look to if we want to know how to seek and find Him. And He desires to be found by all, because it's His will that none should perish. 2 peter 2:9.
"For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him." Jn. 3:17.
He who believes in Him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God." Jn. 3:17&18;.

Bob| 1.10.10 @ 7:56AM

The bible is the only source???? Why go to school and learn math when we have the bible? You don't eat bacon or shellfish, do you? Do you rest on the sabbath or do you go to football games? We need to tell Muslims, Buddhists, and of course, Jews that they are certainly wrong and you Christians are the only ones that are right.

Of course, if you a Muslim, you believe the opposite. Margie, you have a great deal in common with devout Muslims....

Margie| 1.10.10 @ 12:13PM

What a silly, silly rant. For a person who puts on such airs all the time, you certainly don't read very thoroughly, do you Bob?
In typical Liberal form of condescension and utterly misrepresenting what I said, above.. oh and leaving out the gist of what I said.. yes indeed the Bible is the only source we should look to to find out about how to seek and find God. That IS the place where "men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." 2 Pe. 2:21.
If you don't want to get lost and confused by Man's ideas.. go to the Source.
God gave us the Bible for that very purpose. The New Testament is all about the miracles that Jesus performed and reading those alone will plant the seeds of faith in your heart. If you want to know about the Good News of the Gospel and how Salvation is available to ALL, that's the best place you can go.

Ken (Old Texican)| 1.10.10 @ 9:29AM

Yes, Bob, the Bible is the only source. You want to learn math? Go to the book of "Numbers".

See, until those pesky Israelites started poking around with math rules "Decreed by the Creator" the world's cultures always had an asterisk* equivalent by every sum.
ie: 2+2=4* ( .....unless some major "god" had a grumpy day with the other "gods" and changed all the rules.
heh.
...And yes, Margie has a great deal in common with devout muslims. She continually preaches.

(...Uh except she preaches "Love, (agape'), one another" and spreads the Good News of God's free gifts to mankind.
...uh, and devout muslims preach to enslave everyone other than them...or kill us if we refuse to submit to slavery.
You are really funny, Bob. In your eyes the horses are identical...except of course one is black and one is brown.
heh.

Margie| 1.10.10 @ 12:30PM

Thanks Ken.
It's hard for Bob to deal with reality.. but he has somewhat a a grip on it because he sends his children to Catholic school, (he said in another thread).. that's interesting because though he's an Atheist he wants to make sure his children have some learning about the God he doesn't believe in! Have you heard the Atheists prayer? It goes like this:
"God... if you exist, please show me a sign."
You see, we all were created (by Him) with a God shaped vacuum in our hearts. }Blaise Pascal~ " There is a God shaped vacuum in the heart of every man which cannot be filled by any created thing, but only by God, the Creator" ...It can only be filled by Him.. as long as we go wandering around in life with that emptiness inside we try and fill it with other things... all the things the world has to offer. But how happy does it all make us? Why are the very rich who have everything never truly happy? Just look at Hollyweird.. Why is it that people think "oh, if I only had this, or that.. or do this or that.. then I'll be happy and fulfilled?" So why aren't we? Why are we always seeking but not finding? We read "the Greats" thinking knowledge is the answer. It's great to have knowledge but that won't fill the God shaped vacuum inside.
Because only He can fill it.

pallet racking| 1.10.10 @ 9:41AM

http://www.t-racking.com
http://www.cold-store-equipment.com

Liberal Reader| 1.10.10 @ 9:53AM

No question: God taught man math in the book of Numbers.

He also taught man the concept of exiting in the book Exodus. The concept of beginning or birth in the book Genesis. The concept of revelation in the book of Revelations.

Wow. I see it all before me now. And so simple!

Margie| 1.10.10 @ 12:39PM

What IS simple enough, is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.. the Good News of Salvation. The Old Testament is about the Law of God. The New Testament is about the fulfilling of the Law by Christ.
"Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them." Mt. 5:17.
Wise men still seek Him.. if you want to know how, read the New Testament. If you're not interested, then by all means, don't.

Bob| 1.10.10 @ 9:54AM

"Yes, Bob, the Bible is the only source. You want to learn math? Go to the book of "Numbers""

Hey, Tex, that's absolutely hilarious. I should never have taken linear algebra -- the bible would have told me the same thing. I wonder how Pythagoras, Parmenides, Euclid, Archimedes, and Hipparchus learned math without the bible? And the church killed people because they thought the earth was round and not flat. Yes, you can learn a great deal of math and science from the bible as your only source. No wonder you lack logic and reason....

So, Ken, how early did senility affect your thinking?

Ken (Old Texican)| 1.10.10 @ 10:53AM

Heh!
I just knew my remark would bring on you guys. heh.
An interesting discovery I made studying ancient history: those brilliant "first thinkers" you mentioned above, and several others, notably in Egypt, were often frightened by their own insights, even as they were exhilarated.
...once again the "whimsy of the gods" issue.

Another possibly congruent idea based upon "Jewish history". How in the world could the unique dietary laws and hygiene rules that made the ancient Israelites so healthy as a people have been initiated only by them?
Even the classic Greeks and Romans developed no "germ theory" to explain why those rules were so efficacious for "Jews".
Just some random thoughts on a Sunday morning.

Bob| 1.10.10 @ 2:11PM

Thank you, The-Bible-Teaches-You-Math-Tex, for your historical lesson. Now, do you have the data to back up your claim that biblical hygiene laws made the Jews healthier than the Greeks, Romans, or Chinese? No? I didn't think so. This is another of your belief without reason diatribes... Right????

You are so funny....

Margie| 1.10.10 @ 7:57PM

What I find mind boggling is that the Leftists Bob, LibRead, et al.. you're whole modus operandi is to come in here and preach what suits your beliefs..constantly! It's what you're all about. The Leftist view of the world and of reality.
And the opposite of the Left and what you guys believe in (or don't) is God. I figure it is fair for me to preach what I believe as well. Contrary to Bob's view of reality, which we all know is skewered :) you cannot separate your beliefs from your politics.. you are what you believe, and you preach it.
So let's stop with the hypocrisy.. and also how about the nastiness and demeaning characterizations toward those of us who don't go along with with the anti-God Leftist views that you share? No?.. of course not. That'll never happen because it's all you guys got. Isn't it?