Against the backdrop of the White House’s budget, a “$3.778 trillion spending plan for the year that begins in October, which called for about $1 trillion in tax increases over 10 years and higher spending on programs such as education, transportation and mental-health services” (WSJ), consider the following:
* “The top 1 percent of Americans in income pays 37 percent of all income taxes. The top half of wage earners pays 98 percent of all income taxes” (Pat Buchanan).
* “9 million Americans ages 20 to 64 years old – nearly 5 percent of the working-age population – is receiving disability pay (Pat Buchanan). 81,000 Americans went on disability just last month. The government is spending $260 billion a year on disability programs, more than it spends on food stamps and welfare combined (Lou Dobbs).
* 47.8 million Americans receive food stamps, “at a cost of $80 billion” (Pat Buchanan). The percentage of Americans on food stamps has risen by 70 percent since 2008.
* 90 million Americans have dropped out of the labor force (Here).
* 50 million Americans are living below the poverty line (Lou Dobbs).
* And who can forget the national debt? It’s $16.8 trillion.
…public intellectuals … thought nothing of delivering South Africa into the hands of professed radical Marxist terrorists. Any one suggesting such folly to the wise Margaret Thatcher risked taking a handbagging. The Iron Lady ventured that grooming the ANC as South Africa’s government-in-waiting was tantamount to ‘living in cloud-cuckoo land.’
Tell me that fools are not attempting to redefine, à la postmodernism, the very definition of news. And why not? Academics have similarly broken down the ancient concept of the intellectual discipline.
“Intellectual disciplines,” historian Keith Windschuttle has written, “were founded in ancient Greece and gained considerable impetus from the work of Aristotle who identified and organized a range of subjects into orderly bodies of learning. … The history of Western knowledge shows the decisive importance of the structuring of disciplines. This structuring allowed the West to benefit from two key innovations: the systematization of research methods, which produced an accretion of consistent findings; and the organization of effective teaching, which permitted a large and accumulating body of knowledge to be transmitted from one generation to the next.” (The Killing of History, Keith Windschuttle, Encounter, pp. 247-250)
Failing to lead the news with coverage of Mrs. Thatcher’s passing is in-itself big news.
UPDATE I: MSNBC’s odious Martin Bashir, a Briton, is dismembering Thatcher. His correspondent’s source of analysis: Meryl Creep’s depiction in “The Iron Lady.”
As I said, disciplinary breakdown.
Of course, many of Thatcher’s moves I‘d oppose, however it is undeniable that she was perhaps the only true great female leader other than old Golda Meir. I cannot think of a woman with a Thatcher-like intellect in international politics. Golda didn’t have that intellect, but she was quite the character. Both were nothing like today’s whiny, idiot fems.
UPDATE II: Don’t bother searching the articles penned by the presstitutes in the UK and the US, about Baroness Thatcher. Her remarkable oratory they call simple—to these cretins plain-spoken reason is counter-intuitive and hence, simplistic. The so-called 10 best quotes from Mrs. Thatcher’s are really stupid things said about her by her intellectual inferiors in Labor.
Here is Mrs. Thatcher displaying that incisive intellect of hers:
“…What the honorable member is saying is that he would rather the poorer were poorer, provided the rich were less rich.”
Watch the above bit of parliamentary flyting as only the British can do, and tell me the woman was not brilliant. Even her opponent delights in her retort.
“I detest every one of her domestic policies,” the Member tells the PM. To which she replies without flinching, in that crisp beautiful English:
“The honorable gentleman knows that I have the same contempt for his socialist policies as the people of East Europe who’ve experienced it have.”
On the famous U-Turn:
“For those waiting with bated breath for that favorite media catch phrase the U-Turn, I have only one thing to say: ‘You turn if you want to. The lady’s not for turning.'”
The exchange below with the pompous Peter Mansbridge of CBC is particularly relevant to the empty talk about “compromise” infesting current debates:
What perturbs Peter Mansbridge, a Canadian institution in his own right—a stuffy, ossified, yet rather able lefty journo—is what he calls “the uncompromising style of Thatcherism.” A liberal doesn’t like a debate about substance, for it demands intellectual argument. Rather, the liberal is compelled to make silly points about style for those allow for an emotional approach (“Baroness, you make me feel bad; you hurt my self-esteem”).
Mrs. Thatcher offers up a gorgeous metaphor for the pursuit of truth: “When you’re starting a journey over the seas, you steer by stars that are always the same in the heavens. If you haven’t any stars to steer by, then it’s a pretty nondescript journey. …consensus doesn’t seem to be a very good star to steer by.”
Exquisite.
And Mrs. Thatcher’s coup de grâce: “Why are you so interested in compromise and consensus? Why are you not interested in having clear objectives; and having been elected on clear objectives, knowing full-well that the difficulties would emerge first and the benefits later?”
The question, I guess, is rhetorical. Still, why does Frontpage Magazine describe Steve Moore, of the War Street Journal, as “One of the country’s sharpest economic minds,” who can “explains how conservatives can save America from left-wing destruction”? This introductory blurb is on the front page of FPM, today, April 2.
Here’s how I introduced this beautiful neoconservative mind on BAB, starting in 09.30.08:
Stephen Moore authored a book paradoxically titled Bullish on Bush: How the Ownership Society Is Making America Richer.
Yes, Bush was a bailout bandit”: “Bush’s ownership society, built as it was on quicksand, quickly metamorphosed into the bailout society.”
Bush lobbed his financial WMD first by nationalizing the heavily socialized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, another formality. …
Buried in Bush’s blather was a tacit acknowledgment that government’s deep infiltration of the mortgage and homeownership markets encouraged a laissez faire attitude toward lending and borrowing.
“Because [Fannie and Freddie] were chartered by Congress,” confessed Bush, “many believed they were guaranteed by the federal government. This allowed them to borrow enormous sums of money, fuel the market for questionable investments, and put our financial system at risk.”
Fannie and Freddie’s “charter” partners Bush exonerated.
Moreover, nowhere did Bush come clean about the continual expansion of credit by the Central and commercial banks. Loose monetary policy has caused interest rates to fall below the natural market rate, and had precipitated an artificial stimulation of economic activity reflected in the colossal malinvestment and misallocation of resources witnessed in the housing market.
The Bush government—and previous administrations—had eliminated the risks of mortgage lending. The subprime fiasco, in a nutshell, was a consequence of extending credit to the un-creditworthy, chief of who were minorities. “The Diversity Recession” is how VDARE.com commentator Steve Sailer has aptly dubbed the mortgage misadventure.
You had the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) colluding with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to provide taxpayer-subsidized home loans to illegal immigrants, no questions asked.
You had the 1974 Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the 1975 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, and the US Fair Housing Act are—all arrows in the quiver of the federal government and the Department of Justice, aimed at forcing banks to throw good money after bad by lending it to those with low credit ranking. Mainly minorities.
Under the guise of remedying (alleged endemic) root-and-branch racism, the State [under Bush] had legislatively removed the risks of mortgage lending, thus precipitating the housing bubble.
Magnificent mind Steve Moore wrote an entire book in praise of Bush’s role in that kind of “ownership.” Will anyone ever make Moore own that?
Being Establishment means never having to say you’re sorry (or atone for your mistakes).
Lawrence E. Rafferty, guest blogger on Professor Jonathan Turley’s blog, confirms what those of us who cleave to the Austrian school of economics already know: The workings of fractional reserve banking guarantee one thing only: Your deposits are not your own.
Booster to the banks Stuart Varney, of Fox Business, stressed today that he believes with all his heart that the US Congress [the same intemperate group that has helped accrue the US government’s 17 trillion dollar debt] will protect the private property of American depositors from the state-sanctioned theft suffered by Cypriot savers.
Rafferty sunders the Varney pie-in-the-sky,revealing that,
“A joint paper by the US Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Bank of England dated December 10, 2012, shows that these plans have been long in the making; that they originated with the G20 Financial Stability Board in Basel, Switzerland (discussed earlier here); and that the result will be to deliver clear title to the banks of depositor funds. ” NationofChange
The above article explains that most of us do not realize that when you deposit money in a bank, that it becomes the property of the bank and we become unsecured creditors of the bank! “Although few depositors realize it, legally the bank owns the depositor’s funds as soon as they are put in the bank. Our money becomes the bank’s, and we become unsecured creditors holding IOUs or promises to pay. (See here and here.) But until now the bank has been obligated to pay the money back on demand in the form of cash. Under the FDIC-BOE plan, our IOUs will be converted into “bank equity.” The bank will get the money and we will get stock in the bank. With any luck we may be able to sell the stock to someone else, but when and at what price?” NationofChange
If I deposit $1,000 dollars in my local bank, I trust that the funds are safe and protected by FDIC insurance and that even if the bank fails, I will get my money back. Under the plan listed above, we may not even be able to fall back on the FDIC insurance coverage. The FDIC-Bank of England plan would supersede our FDIC coverage and we would be relegated to become a “shareholder” in the failing bank or its successor entity. Let me see if I understand this scheme. The bank who is failing due to mismanagement or due to risky investments could steal my funds and force me to accept stock in a company led by poor businessmen with an even poorer business record! If you are brave enough, check out the full FDIC-Bank of England plan here.
Cyprus wasn’t the only place where a bankster grab of deposits was put into place or is being discussed. It is being discussed in New Zealand as well. “New Zealand has a similar directive, discussed in my last article here, indicating that this isn’t just an emergency measure for troubled Eurozone countries. New Zealand’s Voxy reported on March 19th:
Yippee! For your “hard earned deposits,” you’ll receive shares in a bankrupt, banking institution.
As Lew Rockwell put it recently, the most patriotic thing one can do is to partake in a run on the bank.
Before the fact, of course.
Moreover, and as I’ve long argued, thanks in no small part to Congress, various global agreements, mediated by a global bureaucracy—these embroil individual Americans absent their consent—have usurped the US Constitution and the power of Congress.
International treaties are often nothing more treason tarted up.
