RoR: Forum

"If this isn’t the same as slavery I don’t know what is. No one asked the slave’s permission to be coerced to labor as told by the masters. No one asked the slave whether his or her life is here for others to use and dispose of as the masters choose."

It would be difficult for anyone to be able to explain the difference between slavery and the socialist/communist combination of 100% taxation with 100% regulation (where a bureaucrat choses your vocation for you). Therefore, it is difficult for anyone to explain why 50% taxation and 50% regulation is not actually nothing other than 50% slavery.

An argument that the "slavery" of socialism is for a "greater good" is unacceptable without a further explanation of how it can be known that the actual slavery of the past veered away from this same "greater good."

For instance, I'm sure that there were a few plantation owners who took pride in providing their slaves with a kind of universal health care (limited only by budget). They might say: "Sure, I ask a lot of my slaves, but I also give them so much in return. Because of my mitigated generosity and more-than-ample 'fellow-feeling', they are achieving a greater good than they'd get elsewhere."

You can see how the argument rests on a presumptive premise that people could not have gotten along better on their own -- so that some kind of collectivism would lead to a better life than the practice of an individualism could have provided. It's incredibly arrogant and contemptuous -- almost like it's a God-complex, or something.

Ed

Post 1

Friday, September 13, 2013 - 8:43pm

Professor Machan, I couldn't agree more. My most fervent wish is that the vast majority of the people in our country could feel that same sense of outrage you articulated. Feel it, and hold on to it, and vote from it.

Post 2

Saturday, September 14, 2013 - 7:39am

Here's a quote from a 1772 defense of slavery (by Malachy Postlethwayt), which shows that tyrannical statist-collectivists -- those who gain a narrow kind of benefit from power asymmetry -- try to convince themselves that they are helping the public:

"... yet it does not appear from the best Enquiry I have been able to make, that the State of those People is changed for the worse, by being Servants to our British Planters in America; they are certainly treated with great Lenity and Humanity: And as the Improvement of the Planter's Estates depends upon due Care being taken of their Health and Lives, I cannot but think their Condition is much bettered to what it was in their own Country."

These guys have a God-complex (possibly an intractable one) and they are willing to put us through hell for the societal implementation of their personal visions of Utopia.

Ed

P.s., Note the argument for a health care that is free of charge to the servants.
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 9/14, 7:44am)

Post 3

Saturday, September 14, 2013 - 11:03am

Back during the US military draft, during the Vietnam War, Rand once compared the burden of young men being drafted to the burden of other citizens being taxed. I thought that was an obscene comparison at the time and still do. Conscription is involuntary servitude fully. Taxation today and tomorrow (including the inflation tax) leaves more freedom to the individual than full slavery, such as in military conscription.

An aside about the position of grandchildren: Yes, the philosophers' designs would have some of our grandchildren less able to produce and keep. Moreover, quite aside from those philosophers, there is a national debt to pay down. But which grandchildren will climb into what roles as adults, which produce, which would aim to be entrepreneurs, which wards, which politicians is unknown to grandparents at such early ages. The individualist ideal remains our best, which we hope for, regardless of whether one's own particular grandchildren follow a course steering toward what we think is the best or steer very far from that.

Post 4

Saturday, September 14, 2013 - 11:42am

Stephen,

I remember Rand being much more strongly opposed to the draft than you indicated. I took a look and here is what she wrote in an article in "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal":
------------------

Of all the statist violations of individual rights in a mixed economy, the military draft is the worst. It is an abrogation of rights. It negates man’s fundamental right—the right to life—and establishes the fundamental principle of statism: that a man’s life belongs to the state, and the state may claim it by compelling him to sacrifice it in battle. Once that principle is accepted, the rest is only a matter of time.

If the state may force a man to risk death or hideous maiming and crippling, in a war declared at the state’s discretion, for a cause he may neither approve of nor even understand, if his consent is not required to send him into unspeakable martyrdom—then, in principle, all rights are negated in that state, and its government is not man’s protector any longer. What else is there left to protect?

The most immoral contradiction—in the chaos of today’s anti-ideological groups—is that of the so-called “conservatives,” who posture as defenders of individual rights, particularly property rights, but uphold and advocate the draft. By what infernal evasion can they hope to justify the proposition that creatures who have no right to life, have the right to a bank account? A slightly higher—though not much higher—rung of hell should be reserved for those “liberals” who claim that man has the “right” to economic security, public housing, medical care, education, recreation, but no right to life, or: that man has the right to livelihood, but not to life.

One of the notions used by all sides to justify the draft, is that “rights impose obligations.” Obligations, to whom?—and imposed, by whom? Ideologically, that notion is worse than the evil it attempts to justify: it implies that rights are a gift from the state, and that a man has to buy them by offering something (his life) in return. Logically, that notion is a contradiction: since the only proper function of a government is to protect man’s rights, it cannot claim title to his life in exchange for that protection.

The only “obligation” involved in individual rights is an obligation imposed, not by the state, but by the nature of reality (i.e., by the law of identity): consistency, which, in this case, means the obligation to respect the rights of others, if one wishes one’s own rights to be recognized and protected.

Politically, the draft is clearly unconstitutional. No amount of rationalization, neither by the Supreme Court nor by private individuals, can alter the fact that it represents “involuntary servitude.”

Post 5

Saturday, September 14, 2013 - 1:46pm

Thanks for bringing forth that text, Steve. There Rand states her constant view of the draft as involuntary servitude. I looked further down the text, which is in "The Wreckage of the Consensus" (1967), and found also substantial paragraphs composed to make vivid the situation into which the young men were being forced, which plainly showed Rand's sympathy for their plight and her effort to get the situation changed. The part I had found offensive was actually in what was a postscript she added to the essay. But it was more complex than I had recalled through the years. She proposed to answer in the postscript the ridiculous question of whether one would be sanctioning the draft by submitting to it. It was in the specific context of knocking down that easy target that she compared being drafted with paying taxes. That is, in neither case is one sanctioning the institution by compliance. So it was not so bad as I had recalled. For she had not really said or suggested that the plight of and force against the guy who has received notice for a pre-induction physical was comparable to having a tax liability.

I see, however, what was not being said and would seem square to be saying in such a postscript concerning the young men who had written her concerning what they should do in their situation. Never does she say to them in the postscript that violent defense of themselves, however futile, might be a rational response of a free man to the kind of total force being initiated against him. (Live free or die.) Nor that escaping to Canada might be a rational option to consider. She suggested getting the advice of an attorney, which I doubt would help one to freedom, given the law. She did say the circumstance was one for "morality ends where the gun begins," which was at least a good hint for broadening one's options for what would be not wrong to do.

Post 6

Monday, September 16, 2013 - 10:20am

I have found it sensible to characterize taxation as a form of extortion. This is what it was when monarchs claimed that they owned the realm and everyone who occupied a part of it had to pay them for the privilege of utilizing it. Monarchs--at least many of them--believed that they own the country they happen to rule (because, some argued, God appointed them the caretaker of it). So if you make use of any portion, you need to pay them (taxes). It was just a fee extracted in return for the privilege of dipping into the monarch's property.

Post 7

Tuesday, September 17, 2013 - 6:35am

The obscenities that were VietNam were many, but not the least of them was the following: conscripted into service for a conflict that ended with "Never mind, America really didn't mean it", this nation responded to what was asked of it, and left 55,000 of its best in a meatgrinder. Its warriors won every battle in that conflict, in spite of the political mismanagement, selective targeting, and attempt to endlessly wage a low level lucrative conflict for as long as profitable instead of bringing every resource to bear to end it as quickly as possible by defeating the enemy. If it was acceptable for this nation's leadership to end that conflict after 12 years of defense contracts and dead heros with 'Never mind, America really didn't mean it,' then it was acceptable to have never entered the conflict in the first place.

The most amazing aspect of the history of Vietnam is that it didn't end with the biggest fragging in history-- with the perps dragged out of their Georgetown Bistros, where they'd been making safe, cozy deals inside the Beltway to run the war for profit only, out into the street and hung naked in the Sun, as a warning to the next inevitable bunch of spineless weasels, starting with Johnson and Nixon and working down to the bone. I still don't understand why that never happened. Well, Johnson died, and Nixon was impeached for some other weaseldom. That must have appeased the desire. But it stopped way short, because instead, the remaining weasels transitioned seamlessly to decades of weaseldom defending not this free nation but the CronyFest on the Potomac and their right to run that gig for power and profit.

That government is a government worth defending? Screw that government with a chainsaw.

We are in the last two weeks of the government's fiscal year. This is prime time for the 'use it or lose it' spending feeding frenzy that is DC in September. A minority contractor in DC shot up a center of government contracting.

I don't wonder if we will ever know his motivations,but I wonder; had he recently been turned down for 8(a) minority contractor status, and ended up working W2 for 'HP/The Experts' on their multi-billion dollar USMC network gig? Did he take offense during the recent end of fiscal year sharkfest to all the other WASP based 8(a) bandits raping and pillaging in DC?

If any of that pure conjecture is anywhere near the truth, we will likely never hear any of it, because there is no way this government is ever going to permit a light to be shined on business as usual in DC.

By law, 10% of the defense budget must be channeled through the 8(a) program, and what happens is, "spend it or lose it." So at the end of the year-- after scouring the nation for 8(a) companies that aren't just a phone, a fax, and a PO Box, who actually have some capability that the government actually needs, having come up short, there is a feeding frenzy where, rather than lose their budget, they just throw money at these firms for anything. Government purchasing officers 'route' other non-8(a) firms to these shells. These non 8(a) firms sell product to the 8(a) firms for 'X' who turn around and sell it to the government for '3X.' The government gets what it wants, and also serves the function of spending all of its 8(a) requirement.

Think about that process. It is insane. And if this minority contractor got anywhere near the feeding frenzy and saw how corrupt the process is, especially in the last two months of the government's fiscal year, if he himself had been turned down for 8(a) status, I can imagine him lighting off.

This is where our taxes go, to feed these spending frenzies.

Government chutes and ladders.

Watch how carefully this event is spun. DC is closing up around the gig. Don't want to kill the Golden Goose by shedding too much light on bidness as usual inside the Beltway. Cleanup in Asle 9.

Post 8

Wednesday, September 18, 2013 - 7:21am

In regards to Vietnam, I've used something like the following phrase several times: "If it was acceptable for this nation's leadership to end that conflict after 12 years of defense contracts and dead heros with 'Never mind, America really didn't mean it,' then it was acceptable to have never entered the conflict in the first place."

I hope that isn't misunderstood to mean that I think we shouldn't have engaged in Vietnam. What I mean is, it wasn't acceptable to conduct the war in that fashion and then end it on that basis.

There has been alot of left wing revisionism of Vietnam, but that is transparent and obvious; we entered because we were defending a free South Vietnam from the brutal aggression of a communist North Vietnam, and establuishing a principle. (Unfortunately, based on our conduct, it established exactly the wrong principle; one that has led to our decline.) America has long forgotten why we -entered- the conflict, what was being done on a systematic basis to the people of South Vietnam, and what was done to them after we cut and ran.

The failure in Vietnam is where the idea of America died. It has been sputtering on three cylinders ever since.

So my point is, if we were going to conduct that failure like we did(as a long running profit center for IKE's MIC), and end it like we did, then we might as well have not pretended that America was based on a truly great, heroic, and exceptional idea; the defense of freedom, and saved 55,000 America lives...so they could ride out America's decline with the rest of us.

It was in America's rational self-interest to defend freedom in Vietnam. We as a nation didn't clearly understand that at the time, and America has been paying the price of that failure ever since. We've been ever since rationalizing away why Vietnam was 'a mistake' in our attempt to ignore the fact that it wasn't 'a mistake' so much as it was a profound failure of America to defend freedom, and an announcement to the world of alternatives that what it could not do in Saigon it would not be able to do in Seattle, either.

That smell of rotted once beast we've been smelling ever since, the decline of America, is exactly the consequence of the many failures of Vietnam-- none of which were military failures.

regards,
Fred

Post 9

Wednesday, September 18, 2013 - 7:32am

Even if it is true that "it was in America's rational self-interest to defend freedom in Vietnam,*" it can still be asked whether the American government had the authority to conduct the war.

*"is rational self-interest applicable to other than human individuals? Does a country have a self, etc., etc.?

Post 10

Wednesday, September 18, 2013 - 8:12am

Fred,

I agree with you that once embroiled in Vietnam, we should have fought as if it mattered - fought full out and to win. We should have fought as if there were only one possible outcome: unconditional surrender - ours or theirs.

And the failure to fight as if the lives being lost mattered was a moral horror of massive proportions. But I don't agree that we should have entered that war. Yes, that was a case of cruel aggression by an evil communist dictatorship on a relatively free and peaceful peoples in South Vietnam, but it was not an attack on our nation. It is not in our national interest to expend American lives and treasure defending other nations and it wasn't constitutional to go to war without a congressional declaration of war.

Post 11

Thursday, September 19, 2013 - 7:39am

It was for sure not constitutional to enter that war without a Congressional declaration of war. There should be a high hurdle to such actions...and when that hurdle is reached, and only then, the consequences should be overwhelming, effective, terrible, awful, and conducted with the maximum available power over the shortest possible duration, with no sense of parity, nuance, fairness, or consideration other than to prevail in the conflict in the shortest possible timeframe.

You and six of your freedom loving friends are walking down one side of a street. Across the street, thugs are brutally terrorizing some random. They are not attacking anyone on your side of the street.

When, exactly, is it in your rational self-interest to concede the other half of the street to thugs? A decision to be made by each of the seven, individually. (As in, an all volunteer armed force.)

Because it is a unilateral declaration only that the thugs will be appeased with just one half of the street.

Or world.

But in terms of rational self-interest, better to do nothing as that seven, than to cross the street and act inneffectively as that seven.

By crossing the street effectively, and acting effectively and more importantly credibly once that street is crossed, the world is moved towards a condition of fewer circumstances requiring the crossing of streets-- exactly because of the credibility of past actions. The opposite-- by often inneffectively crossing the street for limited effect -- we declare open season on civilization, and vastly magnify the need to either cross streets, or watch streets crossed.

The rational self-interest of individuals who love their freedom is in the 1] rare deployment of 2] high hurdle authorized 3] credible use of force to thwart the destruction of freedom.

Otherwise, when JFK makes his 'pay any price for freedom' speech, America should just bunch up its panties and STFU while waiting for the meateaters to show up.

In todays world, that street is an ocean. In the specific instance of Vietnam, the victims of the thugs were -asking- for our help, which indeed started out as special ops advisors only and arms to defend themselves-- a 'limited' engagement. But it is revisionism of the worst kind to paint what the communists were doing in and to South Vietnam as a political struggle. It was brutal domination, period.

Gulf of Tonkin was manufactured? That is like accusing the seven crossing the street of jaywalking while the victim is being raped. But America did not act credibly in Vietnam, right from the start, and it was a drawn out ramping up from limited to less limited, and even at its peak, Hanoi and Haiphong were barely molested-- to the point where Jane Fonda was showing up to keep the commies morale up.

regards,
Fred

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 9/19, 7:48am)

Post 12

Thursday, September 19, 2013 - 8:01am

Lyndon Johnson was either an idiot, or trying to find a way to lengthen the conflict for as long as possible-- a criminal feeding IKE's MIC.

We have our answer: he was a politician.

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 9/19, 8:05am)

Johnson...Carter...Clinton...and now Obama. The Masters of Limited Engagments.

Carter announces to the world, after sending F15s to Saudi Arabia: "Don't worry, they aren't armed." Seriously?

Reagan: Cut and ran in Lebanon. Then, why were we there at all, if cutting and running was an acceptable outcome????

Clinton: Somalia "Project Restore Hope No We Were Only Kidding This Was Just a Post Gulf War 1 Victory Parade"

NO FLY ZONES. APCs sent to Rwanda four months after the slaughter, held up in the US because they had to be painted white. Seriously.

And now the latest Third Wayer. Jesus. What a nuanced cluster fuck.

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 9/19, 8:14am)

Post 13

Thursday, September 19, 2013 - 8:30am

Bush 41 after Saddam takes Kuwait: "This aggression will not stand."

Pretty simple assertion; American credibility on he line when a POTUS makes that statement.

Road to Basra Turkey Shoot: Bush 41 with his boot on the throats of the charred bodies of perps; throats that had just recently expelled the pink frothy mist that was once their lungs. An action to be taken not as often as possible, but as rarely as necessary.

That is what credible action looks like-- and look how rapidly America squandered that credibility, by almost immediately following it up with Somalia.

America in Gulf War I: we are credible.

Thugs in Somalia: are you sure?

America on way out of Somalia: not so much.

There is force, and then there is force. There is violence, and then, there is Superior Violence(force used in response to the unjust first use of force.) Reagan, at Normandy in 1984, paraphrased: "Force used for liberation is not equivalent to force used for domination and conquest."

Post 14

Thursday, September 19, 2013 - 11:17am

Fred,

We agree that when the president orders the military into a conflict, he has a moral responsibility to use as much force as is required to win. We also agree that there should be a high hurdle to be surmounted before engaging, and that our nation should be credible in its use of force, otherwise mistaken impressions will lead to future conflicts that would otherwise have been deterred.

There is a use of the military to protect American property or lives that does not require a declaration of war because it is limited and doesn't constitute entry into a war. Like where our Navy takes out some pirates in international waters.

But for the use of the military where it is war, it should be a congressionally declared war, and the president has the obligation to use all the force needed to end the war as soon as possible and with as little loss to American lives as is possible. And the only acceptable ending to a war is the unconditional surrender of the the other side. If it were me, I'd want to ensure the decision makers of the country that started the war against us were taken out in the first strike and use our intelligence services to know who to contact among the survivors to sign the surrender and be instructed in their new constitution.

Here is where we may differ. The declaration of war should be restricted to when our country is attacked, or where an attack is imminent, where the attack is on a national scale and of the significance that warrants a declaration of war. While I wish for freedom for the good people in other nations, I know that we have only three alternatives to choose from in how we use our capacity to wage war:
1.) As I suggested, only for the defense of our nation, or,
2.) We choose to be the world police and attempt to replace all tyrannical governments in the world, which I think is both impractical (we are broke and it wouldn't work) and it is not justifiable as a use of retaliatory or defensive force on behalf of our citizens. For us to remain honest, we would have to declare that we were going to become the world government (excepting only those nations that already meet some minimum standard of freedom, which we would need to publish), and then we would extend our national jurisdiction, and our constitution to cover all this new territory. We would be like Rome,attempting to replace barbarism with civilization, or,
3.) We would enter into wars against tyrants, but not all tyrants, and without any policy that says why here or there but not other places. A non-objective, whim-driven waging of war. Which is like our current policy, except that we only fight wars that are undeclared, and then the war effort is limited sufficiently to ensure that we end up losing, and we don't have any intelligible end-goals.
-------------

Our government's purpose is the protection of our individual rights, not individual rights of all people on the planet. We need the concept of geographically limited jurisdiction in generating the use of force in war as we do in the use of police. We can't make a car stolen from a Mexican national in Mexico City by another Mexican national a thing that our police should be responsible for. Same thing with going to war.
-------------

Jane Fonda should have been tried and convicted of treason. Vietnam was undeclared but our nation was at war and Americans were being killed and maimed. No matter how badly Johnson or Nixon prosecuted that war, or how unpopular the war was at home, there is no excuse for publicly supporting and aiding the people who were killing the young men sent over there, most of them against their will. I marched in protest against the draft, and I was opposed to the war as not in our national interest, but I never had any doubts about North Vietnam being the aggressor who was destroying the South's freedom.
---------------

As a side note I'll mention that most of the long-lasting tyrants survive because they receive outside support - usually ours. Real support in the form of military aid and foreign aid (which should be called Aid to Dependent Dictators). If we aren't supporting them, they probably get money from Cuba, Russia, or Saudi Arabia. Another form of support they get is moral. We treat some slimy dictator as an equal among presidents of civilized and mostly free nations. We tolerate and support the UN which grants legitimacy (and financial aid, along with the World Bank and various relief agencies) to tyrants. And our leaders don't publicly describe them as the illegitimate scum they are. This last failing may be the worst because it undercuts the moral strength of those in their country that would like to throw them out and institute a proper government.

The other failing we have is that we are not following our own constitution or in protecting our own freedoms. We borrow money from China to give out foreign aid, wage wars and do nation building around the world, while passing more and more regulations that strangle our freedoms here at home. If we forced our government to live within the constitution, made it live on some small fraction of our national income, and eliminated all taxes on businesses, we would have such a boom in economic growth and such a visible change in our national attitude and energy levels that we would be emulated around the world. That's the best way to fight for freedom.

Post 15

Friday, September 20, 2013 - 12:42pm

Steve:

The fundamental breakdown is, the lack of Congressional authorization. That is the missing high hurdle, and without that high hurdle, that allows 'leakage' in the concept of effective action.

You and I could disagree on what constitutes self interest in a given situation -- to cross the street/ocean or not when a thug is eating freedom on the other side of the street. Those differences would have to work out politically, in the seeking of Congressional authorization, and given that truly high hurdle, a bias towards less, not more actions.

But once that hurdle was reached, the fact of it would not only permit effective action in limited cases, but demand it. With a clear understanding of what is at stake -- not just the credibile use of force, but the frequency of future demands to exert credible force, no matter what we believe in the runup to the action, it is clearly in our best interests that such actions be overwhelmingly effective. We must only be willing to enter conflicts that we are 100% unwilling to lose. If we are willing to lose them, then we shouldn't be entering them; to do so would be and has been criminal insanity--especially in the case of Vietnam with conscripted force.

regards,
Fred

Post 16

Friday, September 20, 2013 - 1:38pm

Fred,

I agree with these points of yours:

The lack of Congressional authorization is a missing component in the high hurdle that must be cleared to authorize war.
There must be a clear understanding of what is at stake in the exercise of military force.
The force used must be credible and it is in our national interest that it be overwhelmingly effective.
It makes no sense to enter a conflict that we are willing to lose.
It is insanity to use less force than is needed when the result might be a failure to win a decisive victory.

But, here are a couple of considerations where we might not agree:

A given Congress might declare a war where it is not in our national interest - so they aren't the totality of a required high hurdle. More is needed to ensure we only fight just wars.
It is easier for a Congress to enter wars we shouldn't be in when there is no clear agreement on what constitutes justification for declaring a war.
Calls to "National Security" or "National Self-interest" or even "defending freedom" or "stopping the loss of innocent lives" are too vague and fuzzy to serve as bright lines in deciding when Congress should declare war. "National Security" and "National Self-Interest" should NEVER be part of a rational argument until and unless someone can give clear, detailed, non-ambiguous definitions of them. As to 'freedom' and the defense of innocent lives, the question is whose freedom, whose lives? Must we send American police officers to Mexico City to deal with the kidnapping of Mexican oil company executives by Mexican crooks? Why not, if anyone's freedom is as legitimate a call on our government as an American's freedom.
Only Self-defense - either after an attack, during an attack, or to prevent an imminent attack will work as a bright line of this sort. The word "self" here is referring to our nation - not another's. And we don't go to war for a single American being attacked by a foriegn subject, it takes an attack that warrants a war.
Only self-defense satisfies the legal grounds for a declaration of war, since our government is here only to defend our citizens and our nation.
Morally, it is altruistic to defend the freedom of other nation's citizens by sacrificing American resources.

You said, "We must only be willing to enter conflicts that we are 100% unwilling to lose."

I'd say, "We must only be willing to enter conflicts as a matter of self-defense, and then we must not hold back from using whatever force is required to achieve unconditional surrender and a total victory."

Post 17

Friday, September 20, 2013 - 1:50pm

Fred,

My heart goes out to those people around the world who are born into systems of political oppression. It is all well and good to say that it is the responsibility of a nation's people to institute a just government... to overthrow their tyrants. But the ugly fact is that it is not so easy to do.

When we have the power to change a regime in some banana republic and give people relief from a dictator who has been killing and enslaving his own people it is tempting. It is using resources we have, to fight for values we cherish. But it requires that we take our political structure and use if for a purpose that it isn't intended, and for which it shouldn't be used. The danger of using military force for anything but the defense of the nation is the greatest danger any people face, given that most of the people brutally murdered in the history of the world, were killed by their own government.

I can imagine a world where we had a far more rational and responsible UN. One that would not accept any member who did not meet a strict standard based upon their government's respect for, and protection of individual rights. With that kind of world, I could see that all members would be exempt from any interference by the UN but that any non-member, who violated their citizens rights to a major degree would be fair game for military interference by the UN. And the money would come from seizing the rogue government's assets (or better, the rogue government's officials and their backer's assets)... and voluntary contributions. No tax dollars from member nation citizens. Just a pipe dream at this point.

Post 18

Saturday, September 21, 2013 - 4:22pm

Steve:

Well, for sure, we need to get our principles in order. Not sure we will.

We are unable to effectively change our own regime; it only flips from an inside the beltway Democratic leaning regime to an inside the beltway GOP leaning regime. IOW, it doesn't really ever change, not in decades.

How many times are we going to see this debt ceiling Kabuke dance? "It's just to pay America's bills for money already spent."

House passes bill with Obamacare defunded...goes to Senate, who guts that and passes ball back to House. House will pass that, nothing changes, but they've established what everybody already long knows. House GOP wants to kill Obamacare, Senate and White House do not. In case we were unclear on that.

20Trillion? 25 Trillion? It's coming. More zeros on bonds. More debt on our kids.

regards,
Fred

Post 19

Saturday, September 21, 2013 - 4:51pm