Greece’s misfortune provides numerous teaching moments for America. Their circumstance is nothing to ignore: Greece is in dire trouble.
There is no question that the nation cannot survive on its own and will need money from another country in order for its own government to continue running. Plain capitalist economics provides very few options for an entity that is so flat broke. There are three options that I see: bankruptcy is one, or a merge with another entity, either voluntarily or in a hostile takeover by another. There is, actually the very rare third option, that Uncle George or Aunt Gertrude donate the money to their “nephew” in trouble with no strings attached.
While Greece is a country and not a business or person, its options are not too different. And while there is time for serious professional or light advocational speculation over their debacle, and which route—or combination of routes—they will choose, let’s put that aside for a moment to recognize a positive application. Greece is doing America a favor here. It is a lesson in both economics and government. Their situation reminds us that Democracies are no more immune to wobbly social economics than any other country’s government using socialism as its economic machine —all governments are susceptible but one—ours.
In all of history, socialism has proven to collapse the society it feeds off as money runs out over time. Without doing any math, history shows it to be so. The length of time before it does depends upon the combination of acts and controls but the end game is still the same. Monarchies, Dictatorships—regardless of style, Democracies, and Communists, by definition have no specific market preference. But America stands as the one lone exception. If was specifically designed to work with Capitalism.
American government, a constitutionally constructed Democratic Republic, is so custom-made that comparing the rest of the world to the U.S. is like comparing a Flintstone’s car to the first James Bond Austen Martin. If the people of America would adhere to the system, custom-created for them, and listen to the original group of coaches and referees who designed it, they would recognize whenever rouge elected officials try to destroy their economic system, Capitalism and interfere in their rights of freedom in tandem, or not.
There is no way to separate Capitalism from the two sets of liberties stated in our Constitution. To do so is to change the nature of our government. The first set, recognizes liberties that neither man nor government can interrupt or usurp without our permission. Those are the inalienable rights derived by none other but Divinity. The second set is vetted through that document, the Constitution and its companion predecessor, the Declaration of Independence, in order to provide states and the federal government power—not equal in relation to each other—to protect the first group of liberties. Any switch from Capitalism to Socialism in our government is an automatic erosion of either set of constitutional rights.
To be clear, the Founders never intended the Federal government to be completely disassociated from monetary discretion. But there is a whopping difference between monetary implementations and economic ones. The government needs money to run. But it is used on behalf of the people, not despite them. From the start of this government, there was debate on the role of government in relation to money and the economic system. The first controversial act of the Duo was in creating a bank. Oddly, that debate started over the issue of canals.
Their concern was whether it was appropriate for the Federal government to incorporate. Of course, the serious concern was that as a corporation the federal government would become a monopoly—the end game of socialism—thus controlling the economy. After passionate debate on both sides, Pres. Washington decided that it was in the best interest of the people for the government to find any and all ways possible to reduce the taxpayer’s burden from debt by creating streams of revenue through investment. –Hence the bank. In the end, his decision went to the intent of the Constitution to protect the people from the effects of government spending and borrowing and he incorporated to institute a national bank.
But the Founders also knew how fragile such an act was. It would take constant vigilance and control by the People to protect the bounds between monetary policies that leverage the people’s public money but also protect capitalism. The national bank was designed not to dominate other banks, but to one of many. The founders knew money policies must remain a matter of intent as they defined it, in order for government to stay out of the people’s business—literally. One turned head, one long blink, one sneeze by the people and their freedoms could be washed away if the economic system of socialism penetrating the protective shell of the Constitution.
Long passed turned heads, blinks, and sneezes, the people and their states are now gazing, eyes bulging, and mouths dropped at the changing nature of this country’s government through a full-on, complete move to socialism.
It is critical for Americans to study the nature of their uniquely custom made government to understand and recognize economic policies that go contrary to that design. Specifically, it is critical for us to see the relationship between Capitalism and our liberties. We are not Greece. We are not a Democracy. We have the only custom designed government system, that when followed, will never collapse from too much government, because both the federal government will remain small and therefore un-intrusive on the people’s economy.
It is both unfortunate and very clear that liberals, who by definition move away from the foundation of the country—as much as Colonial liberals moved away from their country’s foundation—together with this President , Mr. Obama, does not either have a foundation in American government and her history, or they do not care one iota about it. Most would believe the latter, but it is neither here nor there. The net result is the same. Mr. Obama’s newly submitted “jobs bill” is profoundly indicative of this lack of thought to the kind of country this is. This bill adds as many taxes in the form of “offsets” as it supposedly releases. Where Corporate businesses are provided the benevolence of no, or little corporate taxes they will lose credits in lieu of deductions and those deductions must take seven years rather than a little as two before. This allows more revenue to be taxed even though that money has actually already been spent on capital expenses such as autos, machinery, and in one clause, to planes purchased in the aviation industry; or failed drilling in the case of the oil and energy industry. This is horrifying economics as it stifles growth, rather than encouraging it. You might wonder why there are offsets in the first place. Where is that money going? To pay down the debt? No. That would be the only thing that would make sense of this. No, it goes to the jobs, Obama spoke of in his remarks to the Congress.
The 199 page bill provides improvements to over 35,000 schools, enlarges bridges and stretches of highway that, albeit more crowded than their early days, but they are not crumbling. One has to ask two compelling questions: First an economic one. Is it appropriate for the government to expand its projects in a depression, when money from all and to all sources is frightfully tight? Secondly, is it appropriate for the federal government to be doing school districts’ and states’ jobs? Indeed not! There is absolutely no clause or enumerated duty of the Federal government to do this. It is, in fact, the sole responsibility of the states’, according to Art.I Section xviii and the 9th and 10th amendments that clearly state all powers not specific to the federal government in Section 8 belong elsewhere. This bill is another major example of the detriment caused to capitalism when fundamental elements of the constitution are violated.
Conversely, the bill by the same name, filed four days prior to Obama’s bill that was produced by conservative representatives in the House simply removes corporate taxes. That is all. It is two pages—actually one and a half if one only read the text of the bill. There are no lists of jobs determined by the government to be filled; and no dictation of what schools districts and cities, counties and states should improve. There are no taxes configured elsewhere to regain what was lost in removing corporate taxes. The beauty of a bill of this nature, which will be extremely difficult for Democratic liberals to wrap their heads around, is that by leaving the plan as lacking in stipulations as this one does, it actually says volumes more on what it intends to tell American businesses. “Go. Do what you, as the ones in control of the economy, need to do in order to create your unique dreams, inventions, and help your companies grow.”
Contrary to current illiteracy, liberalism (in the form of socialism), in America, is not supportive of our extraordinary system. It would be if we were actually a Democracy–hence the confusion and the justification toward government involvement and intervention. But upon evaluating the differences, one must ask: Who would ever want to ride Fred’s car, when they could have their very own custom designed Austen Martin?
There is no question that the nation cannot survive on its own and will need money from another country in order for its own government to continue running. Plain capitalist economics provides very few options for an entity that is so flat broke. There are three options that I see: bankruptcy is one, or a merge with another entity, either voluntarily or in a hostile takeover by another. There is, actually the very rare third option, that Uncle George or Aunt Gertrude donate the money to their “nephew” in trouble with no strings attached.
While Greece is a country and not a business or person, its options are not too different. And while there is time for serious professional or light advocational speculation over their debacle, and which route—or combination of routes—they will choose, let’s put that aside for a moment to recognize a positive application. Greece is doing America a favor here. It is a lesson in both economics and government. Their situation reminds us that Democracies are no more immune to wobbly social economics than any other country’s government using socialism as its economic machine —all governments are susceptible but one—ours.
In all of history, socialism has proven to collapse the society it feeds off as money runs out over time. Without doing any math, history shows it to be so. The length of time before it does depends upon the combination of acts and controls but the end game is still the same. Monarchies, Dictatorships—regardless of style, Democracies, and Communists, by definition have no specific market preference. But America stands as the one lone exception. If was specifically designed to work with Capitalism.
American government, a constitutionally constructed Democratic Republic, is so custom-made that comparing the rest of the world to the U.S. is like comparing a Flintstone’s car to the first James Bond Austen Martin. If the people of America would adhere to the system, custom-created for them, and listen to the original group of coaches and referees who designed it, they would recognize whenever rouge elected officials try to destroy their economic system, Capitalism and interfere in their rights of freedom in tandem, or not.
There is no way to separate Capitalism from the two sets of liberties stated in our Constitution. To do so is to change the nature of our government. The first set, recognizes liberties that neither man nor government can interrupt or usurp without our permission. Those are the inalienable rights derived by none other but Divinity. The second set is vetted through that document, the Constitution and its companion predecessor, the Declaration of Independence, in order to provide states and the federal government power—not equal in relation to each other—to protect the first group of liberties. Any switch from Capitalism to Socialism in our government is an automatic erosion of either set of constitutional rights.
To be clear, the Founders never intended the Federal government to be completely disassociated from monetary discretion. But there is a whopping difference between monetary implementations and economic ones. The government needs money to run. But it is used on behalf of the people, not despite them. From the start of this government, there was debate on the role of government in relation to money and the economic system. The first controversial act of the Duo was in creating a bank. Oddly, that debate started over the issue of canals.
Their concern was whether it was appropriate for the Federal government to incorporate. Of course, the serious concern was that as a corporation the federal government would become a monopoly—the end game of socialism—thus controlling the economy. After passionate debate on both sides, Pres. Washington decided that it was in the best interest of the people for the government to find any and all ways possible to reduce the taxpayer’s burden from debt by creating streams of revenue through investment. –Hence the bank. In the end, his decision went to the intent of the Constitution to protect the people from the effects of government spending and borrowing and he incorporated to institute a national bank.
But the Founders also knew how fragile such an act was. It would take constant vigilance and control by the People to protect the bounds between monetary policies that leverage the people’s public money but also protect capitalism. The national bank was designed not to dominate other banks, but to one of many. The founders knew money policies must remain a matter of intent as they defined it, in order for government to stay out of the people’s business—literally. One turned head, one long blink, one sneeze by the people and their freedoms could be washed away if the economic system of socialism penetrating the protective shell of the Constitution.
Long passed turned heads, blinks, and sneezes, the people and their states are now gazing, eyes bulging, and mouths dropped at the changing nature of this country’s government through a full-on, complete move to socialism.
It is critical for Americans to study the nature of their uniquely custom made government to understand and recognize economic policies that go contrary to that design. Specifically, it is critical for us to see the relationship between Capitalism and our liberties. We are not Greece. We are not a Democracy. We have the only custom designed government system, that when followed, will never collapse from too much government, because both the federal government will remain small and therefore un-intrusive on the people’s economy.
It is both unfortunate and very clear that liberals, who by definition move away from the foundation of the country—as much as Colonial liberals moved away from their country’s foundation—together with this President , Mr. Obama, does not either have a foundation in American government and her history, or they do not care one iota about it. Most would believe the latter, but it is neither here nor there. The net result is the same. Mr. Obama’s newly submitted “jobs bill” is profoundly indicative of this lack of thought to the kind of country this is. This bill adds as many taxes in the form of “offsets” as it supposedly releases. Where Corporate businesses are provided the benevolence of no, or little corporate taxes they will lose credits in lieu of deductions and those deductions must take seven years rather than a little as two before. This allows more revenue to be taxed even though that money has actually already been spent on capital expenses such as autos, machinery, and in one clause, to planes purchased in the aviation industry; or failed drilling in the case of the oil and energy industry. This is horrifying economics as it stifles growth, rather than encouraging it. You might wonder why there are offsets in the first place. Where is that money going? To pay down the debt? No. That would be the only thing that would make sense of this. No, it goes to the jobs, Obama spoke of in his remarks to the Congress.
The 199 page bill provides improvements to over 35,000 schools, enlarges bridges and stretches of highway that, albeit more crowded than their early days, but they are not crumbling. One has to ask two compelling questions: First an economic one. Is it appropriate for the government to expand its projects in a depression, when money from all and to all sources is frightfully tight? Secondly, is it appropriate for the federal government to be doing school districts’ and states’ jobs? Indeed not! There is absolutely no clause or enumerated duty of the Federal government to do this. It is, in fact, the sole responsibility of the states’, according to Art.I Section xviii and the 9th and 10th amendments that clearly state all powers not specific to the federal government in Section 8 belong elsewhere. This bill is another major example of the detriment caused to capitalism when fundamental elements of the constitution are violated.
Conversely, the bill by the same name, filed four days prior to Obama’s bill that was produced by conservative representatives in the House simply removes corporate taxes. That is all. It is two pages—actually one and a half if one only read the text of the bill. There are no lists of jobs determined by the government to be filled; and no dictation of what schools districts and cities, counties and states should improve. There are no taxes configured elsewhere to regain what was lost in removing corporate taxes. The beauty of a bill of this nature, which will be extremely difficult for Democratic liberals to wrap their heads around, is that by leaving the plan as lacking in stipulations as this one does, it actually says volumes more on what it intends to tell American businesses. “Go. Do what you, as the ones in control of the economy, need to do in order to create your unique dreams, inventions, and help your companies grow.”
Contrary to current illiteracy, liberalism (in the form of socialism), in America, is not supportive of our extraordinary system. It would be if we were actually a Democracy–hence the confusion and the justification toward government involvement and intervention. But upon evaluating the differences, one must ask: Who would ever want to ride Fred’s car, when they could have their very own custom designed Austen Martin?
