Hugh Hewitt, in his August 27, 2010 article, called the Obama approach to economics "placebo economics." His point is that his plan was never intended to cause a cure for the economic ills of the country so much as to rick Americans into feeling like the country was past the fallout of the housing bubble and the panic. This feeling would lead investors to resume their pattern of investment, risk, and return that fuels democratic capitalism. It would be the equivalent of a "sugar high" fueled by $850 billion in "stimulus" as well as the massive hikes in baseline spending from 2007 forward was supposed to trigger real economic growth. Therefore, it did not matter that census jobs and spikes in federal and state employment are not the sort of jobs that raise real national GDP. Basically, such placebo economics was supposed to induce recovery through a sort of mass psychological pumping up. It did not work. It never could have worked. People do not invest for sentimental reasons. They invest and take risks in order to make real economic advances. Investors are looking at the massive tax hikes that the nation will experience in 2011 and the weight of "Obamacare" in the near future. Cap and Tax, the program that Obama wants to deal with supposed human-caused global warming, is a further weight.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Sobering thought on the two political parties and spending
When Lyndon Johnson was elected into office in 1964, federal spending was $118 billion. When he left office in 1968, federal spending was $178 billion, a 66 percent increase. Worse than the massive increase in federal spending, his administration and Democratically controlled Congress saddled us with two programs that have helped fuel today's fiscal disaster -- Medicare and Medicaid.
he 2000 election of George W. Bush as president gave Republicans what the Democrats have now, total control of the legislative and executive branches of government. When Bush came to office, federal spending was $1.788 trillion. When he left office, federal spending was $2.982 trillion. That is a 60 percent increase in federal spending, although it took twice the time as it did Johnson.
Of course, since Bush, government spending has been placed on steroids. In fact, the amount of deficit federal spending is already more than it was under Bush.
he 2000 election of George W. Bush as president gave Republicans what the Democrats have now, total control of the legislative and executive branches of government. When Bush came to office, federal spending was $1.788 trillion. When he left office, federal spending was $2.982 trillion. That is a 60 percent increase in federal spending, although it took twice the time as it did Johnson.
Of course, since Bush, government spending has been placed on steroids. In fact, the amount of deficit federal spending is already more than it was under Bush.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Mosque Near Ground Zero, August 2010
The public debate concerning building a mosque near ground zero seems to have one "side," namely, the side that sees nothing wrong with building the mosque as proposed, unwilling to listen to the concerns of their opponents. Supporters use the classic "straw man" argument, claiming that their opponents are bigots regarding Islam, are against the freedom of these people to use private property as they wish, and do not really accept the constitutional protections for freedom of religion. The top executive of the United Methodist Commission and Christian Unity and Interreligious Concerns, Rev. Stephen J. Sidorick, Jr., takes this approach. This "side" of the debate, in other words, refuses to listen to their opponents, who make it clear that the objection is not to all mosques, that Muslims already have places of worship close to ground zero, and that Muslims have great freedoms in the USA to worship as they choose.
As a United Methodist pastor, I must also deal with the position of the my denomination. The book of Resolutions calls for "better relationships between Christians and Muslims on the basis of informed understanding, critical appreciation, and balanced perspective of one another's beliefs." Another resolution calls for United Methodists to denounce discrimination against Muslims and "counter stereotypical and bigoted statements made against Muslims and Islam, Arabs and Arabic culture." We are called to love your neighbors, of course, and this includes our Islamic neighbors.
What could possibly motivate someone to oppose the building of this particular mosque? What I am going to suggest is that opposition may come from an informed understanding of what Islam actually is, rather than what we wish it were. Opposition may come from a true reading of Muslims and Islams, rather than a bigoted and stereotypical one. Opposition may actually come from love, a love willing to say "No."
For some people who live in the vicinity, the building should have been declared part of the memorial for ground zero, for the wheel of one of the planes that the World Trade Center hit the building. For some, then, the building becomes part of history that should be protected.
However, much of the opposition comes from a reading of Islam and its objectives. Most of global Islam has not had an "enlightenment" period, in which Christians learned the value of the separation of church and state. Most adherents of Islam Former US Army Lt Gen. William Boykin, in an interview he gave to W. Thomas Smith on August 23, 2010, points out that Islam is not a religion in the sense in which we who live in Western Civilization understand religion. Rather, globally, Islam is a totalitarian way of life with a religious component. His experience in the field is that Islam is a legal, political, and financial system, a dress code, a moral code, and a social structure that differs in every way from what Western Civilization has constructed. He further points out that too many people are unaware of its history and basic tenants. He states that the major objective of Islam is to replace the American constitution with Sharia Law. If we take their history seriously, from the beginning, with Mohammed, who defeated the nomadic tribes in Mecca, they built a mosque at their holiest of sites. The message was one of triumph. Islam has defeated you and reigns over you. They did the same thing at Cordoba in Spain. They did it again in Jerusalem. The message was always one of conquest and victory. For him, then, Islam wants to build a mosque at the site of ground zero to proclaim that Islam reigns supreme. What it will mean to Muslims all over the world is that it will be easier to recruit people to the cause of Jihad against the USA and Western Civilization. For him, the support of pastors and rabbis for this project shows an extraordinary lack of understanding of what Islam is doing.
Patrick Buchanan, in an article of August 17, 2010, notes that Islam is a rising faith, Islam is a rising faith, the largest on earth, with 1.5 billion adherents. It is a militant faith that believes it will one day encompass all humanity. It holds there is but one God, Allah, that his last and greatest prophet was Muhammad, that Islam, the path of submission, is the path of salvation. It believes that its sacred book, the Koran, should inform the culture, that Sharia should be the basis of civil law.
Buchanan offers this reminder of what happens where Islam becomes the dominate faith. It has been intolerant of rivals, especially Christianity, because it was the faith of the crusaders. He concedes that most Muslims are not of the Osama bin Laden variety, but many are uncompromising in their belief that, once their faith becomes the majority faith in a community or society, Muslims should write the rules and Muslims should make the laws.
Rev. Stephen Bauman, a United Methodist pastor who has worked with Feisel Abdul Rauf, the Immam leading the near ground zero projected Mosque, says he trusts what Rauf says concerning the purpose of the mosque. When I watch the interview in which Rauf says that bin Laden "was born in the USA," due to its policies, I must say that I see a typical Middle East cleric at work, one who wants to Sharia Law imposed on the USA. The matter of trust is a personal one, of course. No, I do not think the man is sincere. He wants to send a message of aid and comfort to the enemies of the USA and Western Civilization.
Those of you who support the building of the mosque, I simply invite you to consider a question. In your heart, do you think that Islam is consistent with pluralism, ecumenism, and a belief in the equality of religious and lifestyle pursuits, from the standpoint of legal right? Are these values it brings with it when it becomes the dominant religion in Africa or Asia?
Now, I also invite the reader to consider that I have not called those who disagree with me names. I have invited you to consider the possibility that those who disagree with your support for a ground zero mosque being built may have reasonable grounds for doing so, if these reasons are not persuasive to you. Further, if I took the same approach to the argument as do you, who support the near ground zero mosque, I would be accusing you of homophobia and sexism, since Sharia Law discriminates thoroughly against both. My point, of course, is that we need to listen. We need to stop pulling out the bigot and phobia cards, and genuinely listen to what the other person is saying.
As a United Methodist pastor, I must also deal with the position of the my denomination. The book of Resolutions calls for "better relationships between Christians and Muslims on the basis of informed understanding, critical appreciation, and balanced perspective of one another's beliefs." Another resolution calls for United Methodists to denounce discrimination against Muslims and "counter stereotypical and bigoted statements made against Muslims and Islam, Arabs and Arabic culture." We are called to love your neighbors, of course, and this includes our Islamic neighbors.
What could possibly motivate someone to oppose the building of this particular mosque? What I am going to suggest is that opposition may come from an informed understanding of what Islam actually is, rather than what we wish it were. Opposition may come from a true reading of Muslims and Islams, rather than a bigoted and stereotypical one. Opposition may actually come from love, a love willing to say "No."
For some people who live in the vicinity, the building should have been declared part of the memorial for ground zero, for the wheel of one of the planes that the World Trade Center hit the building. For some, then, the building becomes part of history that should be protected.
However, much of the opposition comes from a reading of Islam and its objectives. Most of global Islam has not had an "enlightenment" period, in which Christians learned the value of the separation of church and state. Most adherents of Islam Former US Army Lt Gen. William Boykin, in an interview he gave to W. Thomas Smith on August 23, 2010, points out that Islam is not a religion in the sense in which we who live in Western Civilization understand religion. Rather, globally, Islam is a totalitarian way of life with a religious component. His experience in the field is that Islam is a legal, political, and financial system, a dress code, a moral code, and a social structure that differs in every way from what Western Civilization has constructed. He further points out that too many people are unaware of its history and basic tenants. He states that the major objective of Islam is to replace the American constitution with Sharia Law. If we take their history seriously, from the beginning, with Mohammed, who defeated the nomadic tribes in Mecca, they built a mosque at their holiest of sites. The message was one of triumph. Islam has defeated you and reigns over you. They did the same thing at Cordoba in Spain. They did it again in Jerusalem. The message was always one of conquest and victory. For him, then, Islam wants to build a mosque at the site of ground zero to proclaim that Islam reigns supreme. What it will mean to Muslims all over the world is that it will be easier to recruit people to the cause of Jihad against the USA and Western Civilization. For him, the support of pastors and rabbis for this project shows an extraordinary lack of understanding of what Islam is doing.
Patrick Buchanan, in an article of August 17, 2010, notes that Islam is a rising faith, Islam is a rising faith, the largest on earth, with 1.5 billion adherents. It is a militant faith that believes it will one day encompass all humanity. It holds there is but one God, Allah, that his last and greatest prophet was Muhammad, that Islam, the path of submission, is the path of salvation. It believes that its sacred book, the Koran, should inform the culture, that Sharia should be the basis of civil law.
Buchanan offers this reminder of what happens where Islam becomes the dominate faith. It has been intolerant of rivals, especially Christianity, because it was the faith of the crusaders. He concedes that most Muslims are not of the Osama bin Laden variety, but many are uncompromising in their belief that, once their faith becomes the majority faith in a community or society, Muslims should write the rules and Muslims should make the laws.
Rev. Stephen Bauman, a United Methodist pastor who has worked with Feisel Abdul Rauf, the Immam leading the near ground zero projected Mosque, says he trusts what Rauf says concerning the purpose of the mosque. When I watch the interview in which Rauf says that bin Laden "was born in the USA," due to its policies, I must say that I see a typical Middle East cleric at work, one who wants to Sharia Law imposed on the USA. The matter of trust is a personal one, of course. No, I do not think the man is sincere. He wants to send a message of aid and comfort to the enemies of the USA and Western Civilization.
Those of you who support the building of the mosque, I simply invite you to consider a question. In your heart, do you think that Islam is consistent with pluralism, ecumenism, and a belief in the equality of religious and lifestyle pursuits, from the standpoint of legal right? Are these values it brings with it when it becomes the dominant religion in Africa or Asia?
Now, I also invite the reader to consider that I have not called those who disagree with me names. I have invited you to consider the possibility that those who disagree with your support for a ground zero mosque being built may have reasonable grounds for doing so, if these reasons are not persuasive to you. Further, if I took the same approach to the argument as do you, who support the near ground zero mosque, I would be accusing you of homophobia and sexism, since Sharia Law discriminates thoroughly against both. My point, of course, is that we need to listen. We need to stop pulling out the bigot and phobia cards, and genuinely listen to what the other person is saying.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Pondering National Debt August 2010
The CBO report, "Federal Debt and the Risk of a Fiscal Crisis," points out that the national debt, which was 36 percent of the Gross Domestic Product three years ago, is now projected to be 62 percent of GDP at the end of fiscal year 2010-- and rising in future years.
Tracing the history of the national debt back to the beginning of the country, the CBO finds that the national debt did not exceed 50 percent of GDP, even when the country was fighting the Civil War, the First World War or any other war except World War II. Moreover, a graph in the CBO report shows the national debt going down sharply after World War II, as the nation began paying off its wartime when the war was over.
By contrast, our current national debt is still going up and may end up in "unfamiliar territory," according to the CBO, reaching "unsustainable levels." They spell out the economic consequences-- and it is not a pretty picture.
As the Congressional Budget Office puts it, if the national debt continues to grow out of control, a "growing portion of people's savings would go to purchase government debt rather than toward investments in productive capital goods such as factories and computers; that 'crowding out' of investment would lead to lower output and incomes than would otherwise occur."
Just paying the interest on a growing national debt can require higher tax rates, which "would discourage work and saving and further reduce output," according to the CBO.
As Thomas Sowell, in his article on these matters on August 4th noted, it would probably do no good to send Robert Gibbs-- or Barack Obama, for that matter-- a copy of the government's own Congressional Budget Office report. Spending vast sums of money in politically strategic places helps the Obama administration politically, and that is obviously their bottom line.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)