Sunday, April 27, 2008
Eliot Spitzer and the Progressive-liberals
There is a distinct parallel between the short career of Eliot Spitzer and the history of progressive-liberalism. Eliot Spitzer claimed to be for morality and to hate money laundering, but instead he was philandering with hookers and engaging in money laundering. The progressive-liberals claim to be interested in helping the poor, but instead they harm the poor in the interests of their professions, universities, banks and business. Like progressive-liberals in general, Eliot Spitzer did the direct opposite of what he claimed to be doing. He did it, as progressive-liberals do it, for self-aggrandizement and personal gain.
One Problem the Republicans Need to Address
Please press the downward arrowhead on the right of the toolbar and the "+" in the dropdown menu to make the chart larger.
One problem that Republicans need to address is declining American household income. According to the Census Bureau real household income declined between 2000 and 2003. The reason is inflation. Flat and declining real family incomes have been characteristic of the American economy since Richard M. Nixon finally abolished the gold standard for foreign dollar holders in 1971. Nixon's decision was very much in the tradition of New Deal progressive liberalism and followed FDR's earlier abolition of the domestic gold standard in the 1930s.
Under George W. Bush and earlier the Repulicans have followed a progressive-liberal inflationary strategy. The Fed has created new dollars, transferring wealth to real estate developers, bankers and Wall Street (to include hedge fund managers, Warren Buffett and George Soros). In the late 19th century increasing real household income was coupled with low profits and non-increasing stock market valuations. The business community did not like this situation and claimed that there were depressions in every decade, in the 1870s, 1880s and 1890s. But real incomes were increasing throughout the post Civil War period despite massive immigration, and in 1913 real wages were considerably higher than they were 20, 30 or 50 years earlier. In 1913, the Wilson administration established the Federal Reserve Bank.
Since World War II stock market valuations have soared while real household incomes have remained flat. During the past ten years the American public has borrowed more extensively than at any point in history, cloaking its impoverishment through debt. Productive workers have been punished through the income tax and creeping inflation while speculators and borrowers have been rewarded by seeing their loan values diminished through inflation.
A nation that rewards speculators and punishes producers will not remain wealthy forever.
The American people have been slow to realize that they are poorer than before and that personal wealth has not grown as it had before President Nixon abolished the gold standard in 1971 and before the Wilson administration established the Fed in 1913. Notice that both Wilson and Nixon claimed to be for limited government.
However, the public has begun to realize that something is wrong. Unfortunately, George W. Bush has behaved as a progressive-liberal and argued for increasing Fed activism.
The choice between the two major parties is: 1. Party (a) inflation. 2. Party (b) inflation. Both parties advocate inflation and so aim to impoverish America. Perhaps it is time for Republicans to wake up and shed the pro-government platform of Bush, Huckabee, Reagan and Nixon that has led to declining household income and massive private and public indebtedness.
One problem that Republicans need to address is declining American household income. According to the Census Bureau real household income declined between 2000 and 2003. The reason is inflation. Flat and declining real family incomes have been characteristic of the American economy since Richard M. Nixon finally abolished the gold standard for foreign dollar holders in 1971. Nixon's decision was very much in the tradition of New Deal progressive liberalism and followed FDR's earlier abolition of the domestic gold standard in the 1930s.
Under George W. Bush and earlier the Repulicans have followed a progressive-liberal inflationary strategy. The Fed has created new dollars, transferring wealth to real estate developers, bankers and Wall Street (to include hedge fund managers, Warren Buffett and George Soros). In the late 19th century increasing real household income was coupled with low profits and non-increasing stock market valuations. The business community did not like this situation and claimed that there were depressions in every decade, in the 1870s, 1880s and 1890s. But real incomes were increasing throughout the post Civil War period despite massive immigration, and in 1913 real wages were considerably higher than they were 20, 30 or 50 years earlier. In 1913, the Wilson administration established the Federal Reserve Bank.
Since World War II stock market valuations have soared while real household incomes have remained flat. During the past ten years the American public has borrowed more extensively than at any point in history, cloaking its impoverishment through debt. Productive workers have been punished through the income tax and creeping inflation while speculators and borrowers have been rewarded by seeing their loan values diminished through inflation.
A nation that rewards speculators and punishes producers will not remain wealthy forever.
The American people have been slow to realize that they are poorer than before and that personal wealth has not grown as it had before President Nixon abolished the gold standard in 1971 and before the Wilson administration established the Fed in 1913. Notice that both Wilson and Nixon claimed to be for limited government.
However, the public has begun to realize that something is wrong. Unfortunately, George W. Bush has behaved as a progressive-liberal and argued for increasing Fed activism.
The choice between the two major parties is: 1. Party (a) inflation. 2. Party (b) inflation. Both parties advocate inflation and so aim to impoverish America. Perhaps it is time for Republicans to wake up and shed the pro-government platform of Bush, Huckabee, Reagan and Nixon that has led to declining household income and massive private and public indebtedness.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Man-Eating Progressive Zombies Run Wild in New York
The 2007 sci fi film I am Legend is a remake of two earlier films, The Omega Man (1971) and The Last Man on Earth (1964). According to Wikipedia, the films are based on Richard Matheson's novel, I Am Legend, which is about the last man in LA.
This movie is about the last man in New York, and I have been pondering the reason for the change of venue.
This movie is about the last man in New York, and I have been pondering the reason for the change of venue.
The reason is that the film is about progressivism, and New York offers a better venue to dissect progressivism than any other state. It was the home or birthplace of several of the founders of progressivism, to include Herbert Croly and Theodore Roosevelt, as well as their New Deal acolytes, to include as Al Smith, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Francis Perkins (Perkins was born in Boston but attended Columbia and subsequently made her career in New York before becoming Secretary of Labor under FDR).
I am Legend's plot is that a new treatment for cancer causes a virus that wipes out 90 percent of the the human race and turns the remaining 9% into a species of man-eating zombies. About one percent of the population is immune to the virus, but most of those who are immune (except for Robert Neville) have been eaten by the zombies. The story focuses on Robert Neville (Will Smith) who has remained in New York to attempt to find a cure for the virus. Unfortunately, his efforts have been unsuccessful. He is able to avoid the zombies but he is accidentally exposed, leading to a climactic battle between Smith, armed with an M-4 machine gun, and hundreds of zombies.
I am Legend is clearly a movie about progressive-liberalism. The experiment that killed the human race was federally funded. The zombies look suspiciously like New York's progressives.
I am Legend's plot is that a new treatment for cancer causes a virus that wipes out 90 percent of the the human race and turns the remaining 9% into a species of man-eating zombies. About one percent of the population is immune to the virus, but most of those who are immune (except for Robert Neville) have been eaten by the zombies. The story focuses on Robert Neville (Will Smith) who has remained in New York to attempt to find a cure for the virus. Unfortunately, his efforts have been unsuccessful. He is able to avoid the zombies but he is accidentally exposed, leading to a climactic battle between Smith, armed with an M-4 machine gun, and hundreds of zombies.
I am Legend is clearly a movie about progressive-liberalism. The experiment that killed the human race was federally funded. The zombies look suspiciously like New York's progressives.
Progressive-liberalism claims that the poor should eat the rich, but really aims for the rich to eat the poor. Somebody eats somebody. How many human beings have been murdered through socialist or left wing ideology? The zombies' hive pattern is clearly a reflection of progressivism.
Moreover, the left has long behaved as a mindless horde of zombies whose policies destroy all who do not fit its politically correct mold. The left aims to establish a zombie-like world where all disagreement is suppressed and all human instincts eradicated.
Smith is the lone conservative in a city of progressives who are trying to eat him alive. I know because I have lived in New York. What better example than Mayor Michael Bloomberg? Can you seriously argue that he is not a zombie?
While New York's population base exits almost as fast as depicted in I am Legend, this film fairly depicts progressive New York. At the end, a surviving character moves to Vermont. A zombie who looks suspiciously like Bernie Sanders awaits.
While New York's population base exits almost as fast as depicted in I am Legend, this film fairly depicts progressive New York. At the end, a surviving character moves to Vermont. A zombie who looks suspiciously like Bernie Sanders awaits.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Calvin Coolidge on Delegation
"In the discharge of the duties of the office (of the presidency) there is one rule of action more important than all others. It consists in never doing anything that some else can do for you. Like many other good rules it is proven by its exceptions. But it indicates a course that should be very strictly followed in order to prevent being so entirely devoted to trifling details that there will be little opportunity to give the necessary consideration to policies of larger importance."
---Calvin Coolidge, The Autobiography of Calvin Coolidge, p. 196.
---Calvin Coolidge, The Autobiography of Calvin Coolidge, p. 196.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
