It’s dead, Jim
Blake says Republican Conservatism is officially dead. Time of death March 16, 2006 at 11:17 a.m.
Update: Offical cause of death: Cranial, rectal inversion.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
March 17th, 2006 at 12:58 pm
But hey, at least the tax cuts had nothing to do with this…
March 17th, 2006 at 1:07 pm
The major culprit is spending.
March 17th, 2006 at 3:15 pm
Tax cuts are a good thing. Cutting government spending is also a good thing, esp. if you’re cutting taxes.
March 17th, 2006 at 4:23 pm
A tax cut without a matching spending cut is not really a tax cut at all; it’s simply tax deferment. You can cut spending without cutting taxes, but you can’t do the converse.
But it’s okay, because I specifically remember Uncle insisting that all this deficit spending wasn’t going to increase the national debt, and that I should trust him on this, because he’s an accountant! 😉
March 17th, 2006 at 4:54 pm
No. I said deficit spending does not yield a dollar for dollar deficit, which is particularly true due to non cash things like depreciation, interest expense and the money they’re spending on a social security trust fund.
March 17th, 2006 at 6:13 pm
But the topic of the discussion was whether or not deficits created as a result of tax cuts would increase the debt. Had your answer been “sure they do, just not dollar for dollar,” that might be a valid defense. But in your zeal to defend tax cuts, you were clearly trying to paint a picture that deficits were no big deal.
March 17th, 2006 at 9:43 pm
No, the topic of discussion was tax cuts and how the debt works. If revenue is 2 and expense is 3 we don’t automatically incur debt of 1. Increasing debt involves a sale of a bond or other instrument. And even if spending was under control and taxes were high, the debt would still rise because people still buy bonds. As such, deficits do not create debt.
March 18th, 2006 at 11:32 am
The unconstitutional Federal Reserve–which is neither by the way, allows federal polticians to continue deficit spending while the banking cabal prints more money and loans it to us at interest. It goes along so-called “free trade” sellouts of our economy and the expenditure American treasure and blood abroad to construct their global fascist New World Order.
Woops! can’t say that–it’s a “conspiracy theory” they say.
March 19th, 2006 at 12:14 am
Please explain your basis for claiming that the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional.
March 19th, 2006 at 5:50 pm
It’s a private banking cabal; the money is not issued by the U.S. Government as specified in Article I, Section 8.5.
It, a central bank controlled by private interests, was repeatedly warned against during our history:
Thomas Jefferson wrote: “The Central Bank is an institution of the most
deadly hostility existing against the principles and form of our Constitution…if
the American people allow private banks to control the issuance of their
currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that
will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until
their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers
conquered.” The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people,
to whom it properly belongs.
History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse,
intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over
governments by controlling money and its issuance. -James Madison
If congress has the right under the Constitution to issue paper money, it was
given them to use themselves, not to be delegated to individuals or
corporations. -Andrew Jackson
The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and
credits needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power
of consumers. By the adoption of these principles, the taxpayers will be
saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the
servant of humanity. -Abraham Lincoln
“Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of
all industry and commerce.”
-James A. Garfield
Even the President who signed it said:
Woodrow Wilson signed the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. A
few years later he wrote: I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined
my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit.
Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and
all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of
the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments
in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a
Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the
opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men. -Woodrow Wilson
March 20th, 2006 at 9:24 am
The relevant clause of Article I, Section 8, cl. 5 merely provides that Congress has the power “[t]o coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.” It doesn’t say word one about how the Congress should go about doing this. Common sense would dictate that any statute aimed at accomplishing this lawful purpose will therefore be constitutional, unless of course it violates some specific prohibition of another part of the Constitution.
The remaining quotes are neat-o, but they have nothing to do with the Constitution.
March 20th, 2006 at 10:03 am
Xlrq,
So Congress can hand over any of its delegated powers to private or international entities as long as it’s a “common sense” way to handle it?
If so, then can the other branches of government, the President or the Courts also give over their delegated powers into private hands? If Congress can do it why can’t an elected President handing over his delegated powers to whomsoever he chooses?
March 20th, 2006 at 12:44 pm
I don’t know what a “common sense” way to handle anything is, but that’s basically right. As a general rule, if the Constitution says one branch of government has the power to do X, and doesn’t spell out how X is supposed to be implemented, it’s up to that branch of goverment to decide. Not all options are good, of course, but good != constitutional, and bad != unconstitutional.
March 20th, 2006 at 5:25 pm
Uncle:
Maybe that’s what you were talking about, but it’s not what everyone else was talking about at the time. At issue was that deficits ultimately lead to debt (the money’s got to come from somewhere), even if not at a 1:1 ratio. And even if not absolutely always, virtually always. In any case, if that’s what you were talking about, you were picking a technical nit of little relevance to the topic at hand. At the time, it struck me as an attempt to distract attention away from tax cuts leading to accelerated debt, given that this might lessen support for tax cuts.
Speaking of picking technical nits:
Increasing debt involves sale of such instruments at a higher rate than that at which existing ones are being repaid. If I borrow $10,000 from bank X, and in the same year I repay $20,000 in old debt to bank Y, my overall debt has been reduced by $10,000. 🙂
March 20th, 2006 at 5:29 pm
That’s not inconsistent with what I said. Not sure why you’d pick that nit.