Uh Oh... N. Korea troubles

It is a bit strange to see the sudden concern of liberal Democrats for the size of the Federal Debt. The huge National Debt has never seemed to bother them as they've piled one spending program on top of another. Obligating the Federal Treasury to pay for social programs has been one of their great appeals to the American voter. A little something for everyone, and the only people who will be made to pay are those dastardly 1.5 million Americans who have incomes in the millions. The answer to the problems of Social Security and Medicare funding is to, expand the programs and spend more thereby increasing the National Debt.

Now it seems that they've discovered the downsides of the National Debt. Perhaps curbs on social spending programs will finally be cut with the support of those great American statesmen, Eduard Kennedy, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton.

There are two circumstances that most conservatives, I think, would agree where deficit spending is not only acceptable, but necessary. First, is to support the military during times of great national peril. Every war is expensive and beyond the the costs always outstrip revenue. Revolutionary War debts were perhaps the largest in the nations history, and the economy in 1786 was in one of our worst depressions. The Anti-Federalists (the political ancestors of today's Democrats) first argued that the Federal government should not assume the Revolutionary War debts of the various States, and then they urged Washington, Adams and Hamilton to repudiate the debt altogether. That debt continued for over half a century. The War of 1812 (Mr. Madison's War) added more to the National Debt, even though the Revolution was still being paid for. The next really big increase was during the Civil War, and the cost of that war endured through the rest of the 19th century and into the 20th. More debt was piled on during the Spanish-American War, and WWI war spending drove the Debt even higher. WWII and the Cold War were fought with loans as well.

The second sort of deficit spending that is justified, though some conservatives may not agree, is to stimulate a stagnant, or shrinking economy. Federal money has a long history of stimulating the economy. When the Federal government buys ships, improves waterways and transportation systems, the whole nation greatly benefits both directly and indirectly. Putting money into circulation encourages people to found businesses, and for existing businesses to grow. Until the 1930's the Federal government was constrained from directly spending federal revenues for social programs. A very long history of Supreme Court decisions held that the Constitution made it improper for the Federal government to intrude upon the private lives of individuals, or into the conduct of State governments. FDR disagreed sparking some of the most contentious fighting between the Executive and Judicial Branches of government in our history. Most of FDRs programs were struck down, but Social Security and the idea that the Federal Government can be justified in spending federal money to institute social change have endured.

Arguably, FDR's programs did have some effect in improving the conditions that existed during the Dust Bowl and Great Depression, but National Indebtedness for social and entitlement programs made it certain that we would never again be totally without debt. LBJ's social spending was even more lavish, and we are now committed to paying for those programs as well. Did they do some good? Sure, but there was a price and that debt will be passed along for countless generations.

Is borrowing money to improve the social order justified? Democratic liberals say yes, and most conservatives and Republicans say no.

My point here that deficit spending for economic reasons isn't based on the desire to mend, or to further some egalitarian goal. It is instead, the need to control the currency, and through it to control inflation while maintaining economic growth at a reasonable pace.

In today's world, the National Debt is still increasing. The cost of the War on Terrorism is driving up the debt, but in very small proportion to the deficits that are related to the cost of social and entitlement programs. The actual percentage of the national GDP spent for the War is a fraction of the total, and far less than that spent on WWII.

0 Replies

A quick question for those who contend that by the actions of The Ongoing Administration The US has "Lost the respect and support of the world" - just when over the past 2 Centuries, apart from the immediate Post World War periods and in the proximate aftermath of 9/11, has the US ever been other than accorded suspicion, antagonism, and outright opposition by "Most of the world"?

Another note, for those who contend The US Economy is anything other than robust and unendangered, the US contribution to the Global Economy, whether measured by percentage or absolute dollar figure, currently is the greatest in history, US GDP growth not only is the strongest in over two decades, it is a multiple of the GDP growth of just about any other developed nation, the US Budget Deficit is below the average level for the entire post WWII period, US interest rates and inflation are at historic lows and all but unequalled anywhere else on the planet, US tax rates are at historic lows, US unemployment is well below the average level established over the past 125 years for which such records exist, and in no other nation on the planet is individual home ownership higher than in the US. If that's a troubled economy, I'll take it, and more of the same.

0 Replies

Asherman, you need to take a visit to our good friend, factcheck.org, before you talk about the growth in government spending.

0 Replies

Exactly what is that you believe erroneous? That the National Debt increases during periods of warmaking? That prior to the New Deal almost all of the National Debt could be traced to war spending? That most of todays revenues, and indebtedness results from social and entitelement programs? My point, in any case, is that the nation has seldom been without a large National Debt, and that during some periods in our history that debt was even larger, in comparative terms, than we have today.

I may have miswritten a percentage somewhere, but I don't think there is any substantive errors. Perhaps you'd be so good as to point them out.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Steppenwolf wrote:

I'm repulsed by the suggestion that it requires propaganda to vilify the likes of Kim and Saddam. History will place both of these fiends at the bottom of the human race where they belong, and not one lie or exaggeration will be required to establish their rank there.

I haven't suggested that we need propagande to vilify despots and dictators--they do a fine job of that on their own.
What I was referring to is the internal dialogue that goes on within the US borders from levels high and low that champions the nation as the pillar of democracy and the epitome of greatness, while the rest of the world sees quite the opposite.
If the US hasn't historically acted with so much self-interest, acting when it suits them, or acting when they stand to make a financial or territorial gain (for themselves or for an ally), then perhaps the image in the mirror may also be the image the rest of us see.

0 Replies

ehBeth, a bit of prowlin' around at The Government Accounting Office will reveal that Government Spending is not increasing at a rate in excess of GDP growth, and that despite massive Federal tax cuts, the rate of Federal Tax Revenue Collection is in excess of projections, a circumstance attributable entirely to more robust economic growth than had been forecast.

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
I'm repulsed by the suggestion that it requires propaganda to vilify the likes of Kim and Saddam. History will place both of these fiends at the bottom of the human race where they belong, and not one lie or exaggeration will be required to establish their rank there.

I haven't suggested that we need propagande to vilify despots and dictators--they do a fine job of that on their own.
What I was referring to is the internal dialogue that goes on within the US borders from levels high and low that champions the nation as the pillar of democracy and the epitome of greatness, while the rest of the world sees quite the opposite.
If the US hasn't historically acted with so much self-interest, acting when it suits them, or acting when they stand to make a financial or territorial gain (for themselves or for an ally), then perhaps the image in the mirror may also be the image the rest of us see.

So, which countries DO act when it doesn't suit them or they do NOT stand to make a financial or territorial gain?

I am having a hard time coming up with this long and illustrious list.

0 Replies

May I once more point out, candidone 1, that the "image" of which you speak has been a relative constant for over 2 Centuries. Notable among US National traits is the refusal to subordinate sovereign interest to foreign concern. Its sorta tradition with us.

Oh, and welcome to A2K.

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
I'm repulsed by the suggestion that it requires propaganda to vilify the likes of Kim and Saddam. History will place both of these fiends at the bottom of the human race where they belong, and not one lie or exaggeration will be required to establish their rank there.

I haven't suggested that we need propagande to vilify despots and dictators--they do a fine job of that on their own.
What I was referring to is the internal dialogue that goes on within the US borders from levels high and low that champions the nation as the pillar of democracy and the epitome of greatness, while the rest of the world sees quite the opposite.
If the US hasn't historically acted with so much self-interest, acting when it suits them, or acting when they stand to make a financial or territorial gain (for themselves or for an ally), then perhaps the image in the mirror may also be the image the rest of us see.

So you personally find American pride offensive and that was your round about way of pointing it out? Confused

I suspect the citizens of most countries view their country as better than most, but what has that got to do with propaganda? It seems American pride is the most offensive. Is that perhaps because it fits better in the boasting category than in the wishful thinking category? Idea

So, I gather you are either not a citizen of the U.S. or maybe a lefty caught up in self loathing? I've never understood what makes the blame American first club attractive to Americans.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

So you personally find American pride offensive and that was your round about way of pointing it out? I suspect the citizens of most countries view their country as better than most, but what has that got to do with propaganda? It seems American pride is the most offensive. Is that perhaps because it fits better in the boasting category than in the wishful thinking category? So, I gather you are either not a citizen of the U.S. or maybe a lefty caught up in self loathing? I've never understood what makes the blame American first club attractive to Americans.

I thought it was a little less than round-about.
Listen...the fact that you're on this board demonstrates a certain level of political interest, perhaps a higher level of education, and maybe even enlightment in one or more schools of thought. My experience has tought me that Americans love America but wrongly think that the rest of the world reciprocates that love.
Blame America First is an exclusive club, and we only blame America when blatent hypocracy of values and intent are displayed in the global community--and there are plenty of Americans who have seen that what they are told (or should I say sold) about their country is in fact a very well greased version of the truth.
That American pride is the most offensive is what makes it the most toxic. There is obviously a deep inability for many Americans to see the wrongs that their wonderful country has done because their flag hinders their view.
My opinions of "Americans" as people is dependent on those I interact with and understand as individuals. My opinion of "The United States of America" is held in much lower esteem--so please, if you're going to get riled up over me hating the US, then PM me, becasue this is not the right topic for this thread.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Meanwhile, they're now breaking down, in detail, exactly how Saddam Stole over 20 billion dollars and used it in part to cut paychecks to the families of fallen terrorists for their heroic actions. Yet the Anti-War crowd continues to insist he didn't sponsor terrorism As we get closer to the truth of just how deep the UN corruption goes, Kofi Annan continues to stonewall the investigation.

O'Bill - I didn't get to see the live hearings on Fox today (saw you post that on another thread)...but, can you imagine how much this could have turned into if he'd been left in power???? That's just now dawning on me and I'm starting to think that this fact alone is good enough reason that we took him out! Forget WMD! The implications of what I'm reading tells me it would have been much, much more, and I don't think anyone's in the dark as to how he was and would have used it!!

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

So you personally find American pride offensive and that was your round about way of pointing it out? I suspect the citizens of most countries view their country as better than most, but what has that got to do with propaganda? It seems American pride is the most offensive. Is that perhaps because it fits better in the boasting category than in the wishful thinking category? So, I gather you are either not a citizen of the U.S. or maybe a lefty caught up in self loathing? I've never understood what makes the blame American first club attractive to Americans.

I thought it was a little less than round-about.
Listen...the fact that you're on this board demonstrates a certain level of political interest, perhaps a higher level of education, and maybe even enlightment in one or more schools of thought. My experience has tought me that Americans love America but wrongly think that the rest of the world reciprocates that love.
Blame America First is an exclusive club, and we only blame America when blatent hypocracy of values and intent are displayed in the global community--and there are plenty of Americans who have seen that what they are told (or should I say sold) about their country is in fact a very well greased version of the truth.
That American pride is the most offensive is what makes it the most toxic. There is obviously a deep inability for many Americans to see the wrongs that their wonderful country has done because their flag hinders their view.
My opinions of "Americans" as people is dependent on those I interact with and understand as individuals. My opinion of "The United States of America" is held in much lower esteem--so please, if you're going to get riled up over me hating the US, then PM me, becasue this is not the right topic for this thread.

Nope, no riling here. I only asked if you were American because I wanted to know. Plenty of people have plenty of legitimate reasons to hate America and I wouldn't begrudge them for it... necessarily. However, you do make clear that you find Americans thinking their country is superior more offensive than citizens of other nations doing the same. Since America is superior in some... well actually in many ways, our feelings of superiority aren't all unfounded.

The flip side of the coin you've described is the faction of folks that like to overcompensate for American arrogance by holding us to the higher standard that many of us propose. This is the Blame America First club I am referring to. Typically, I factor in a little rightful disdain for non-Americans because they will naturally be less inclined to praise America, having a home of there own. Consequently, my opinion of American members of that club is much lower than non-American members, so this reflects well on you. Smile

Do understand; since we have very different points of perspective, some of the views you might consider enlightened, I might consider offensive... and sometimes we might both be right at least from the shoes we're standing in. Don't be to quick to assume that we accept what we are told (or should you say sold) without first considering everything you may have. Sometimes we just disagree. Our local Blame America First club makes this mistake all the time. Believe it or not, sometimes we actually agree with our President.

0 Replies

Good point JW! Not to mention if we were going to pretend to buy his dog and pony show, we would have been compelled to lift the restrictions as well. Shocked

I just hope we insist on Kofi handing over the necessary information to complete the investigation. I don't believe it's coincidence that Russia, France and Kofi's own kid is getting so much mention. The money laundering bank appears to be in Paris... I hope we'll see one way or another.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Plenty of people have plenty of legitimate reasons to hate America and I wouldn't begrudge them for it... necessarily. However, you do make clear that you find Americans thinking their country is superior more offensive than citizens of other nations doing the same. Since America is superior in some... well actually in many ways, our feelings of superiority aren't all unfounded.

.

Ahem <cough>: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4020523.stm

0 Replies

gav wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Plenty of people have plenty of legitimate reasons to hate America and I wouldn't begrudge them for it... necessarily. However, you do make clear that you find Americans thinking their country is superior more offensive than citizens of other nations doing the same. Since America is superior in some... well actually in many ways, our feelings of superiority aren't all unfounded.

.

Ahem <cough>: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4020523.stm

Ireland, eh? Laughing

I feel ya.

0 Replies

That can't be too accurate. At least one awesome country didn't make the top 10(Costa Rica :wink:).

0 Replies

Gav...Thanks for the link. Very interesting. A magazine (I forget which one) does a similar thing here with "Best American Cities". It's annual and I always find it fascinating. I can't remember which city was named #1 this year, though, LOL.

As for the patriotism thing - I always thought each of us thought our own countries were the best. I certainly feel grateful to be where I am (here in America), but all you have to do is look at the pride (sometimes tearful) of all the Olympic athletes when their national anthems are played as they're up on the podium receiving their medals. I think they compete as much for their country as for themselves, in most cases.

I can't bring myself to be too critical of another's country since I am rather thin-skinned myself on the subject. Except for France LOL. (My apologies to all French people on this board).

Just my thoughts.

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

... My experience has tought me that Americans love America but wrongly think that the rest of the world reciprocates that love ...

And there is the fatal flaw in your argument.

Now, I'll not deny the widely held perception of American arrogance has some foundation. That is unfortunate, even regretable, but undeniable. I submit, however, that much of the impetus behind Anti-American sentiment stems from jealousy and envy, and from a sense of impotent futility. It is perfectly understandable there would be suspicion and enmity directed toward a nation clearly and demonstrably capable of consistently and uncounterably serving its own sovereign interest regardless of foreign opinion or action. That is something unchanged in over 2 centuries, and something unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.

"Most Americans" do not believe "The World loves America", but much of the world resents America because Americans love America before and beyond any other polity. "Most Americans" have little regard for "What The World Thinks of America"; world opinion simply isn't a concept with much local currency in America.

In sports, a dominant team or athlete typically is reviled by fans of teams or athletes consistently unable to best the champion. That does nothing to lessen the dominance of the champion, but rather, in its futile discontent, serves merely as acknowledgement of that champion's superiority on the field of play. In sports, a dominance rarely extends unbroken for more than a few seasons. In the global arena, America ain't been beat yet, and while since the end of the 18th Century that has pissed some folks off bigtime, that is the way it is and promises to remain.

No matter what "The World" "thinks". And while that may sound arrogant, it is neither more nor less than fact. Arrogance is particularly perceived in the instance of persistently demonstrated accomplishment.

"The World" likely is quite well justified in its perception of American arrogance. And to "The World", "America" says not "Get over it", for that would be un-American, but rather says "You ought to be used to it by now".

0 Replies

In my email.....a note from a friend who has a friend (LOL) in Japan. Seems there are reports in one of their papers of anti-regime flyers being posted in lots of places in North Korea.

Has news of this been mentioned here already?

Apparently, the most prevalent flyer is called the "sixteen lies" of tyrant Kim and his tyrant father and it takes apart the fundamental myths and propaganda regarding the cult of the Kims and outlines the failings of the regime. Another flyer is based on the thesis that Kim Jong-il killed his father.

The official portraits are missing or have been taken down and now this clear civil disobedience?

Could this get any weirder?

0 Replies

I've seen mention of distribution of anti-Kim flyers - plain-paper, apparently computer-printer-reproduced copies of hand-written orginals - being distributed surreptitiously, even mysteriously, in a number of DPRK cities, but so far as I know at present there are merely reports of this; no examples have been presented by independent news sources. Just recently there has been buzz relating to significant uncharacteristic, unannounced redispositions of DPRK military assets, along with reports of odd goin's on at airport and port facillities, none of which buzz has been independently corroborated, let alone verified. In the past few hours there has been similarly nebulous suggestion of Chinese military redispositions or status changes.

About all that is certain is that it appears something the nature of which is unclear may be goin' on.

0 Replies

Uh Oh... N. Korea troubles

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know