Don't let the Economic Meltdown be a Repeat of the 1930s

The United States is presently experiencing the worst economic disaster since the disaster of the 1930s, with the national and private debt astronomical, and trillions of dollars of unfunded liabilities. I hate to spoil your hopes and prayers, but the change the Obama Administration offers is no real change. His support is whistling Dixie.

Essentially it's more of the same, and stepped up. Nothing Obama has said could possibly save the economy from a total collapse. The economy thrives when people have faith, rather than in government, faith in the economy. To be sure, government has been active in a bailout-to the tune of a trillion dollars-while investors watch in horror. When one sees his life savings disappear, and 10 million left jobless, which means less government revenue, more government cost, so far, the bailout has not stopped the free fall, how the hell does anyone in his right mind trust that things will get better with more of the same?. Give me a break! Platitudes mean nothing to producing Americans.
The pity of it is that a majority of Americans depend on government answers. Government is people. People are subjective. Those people in power, having given away the store, are desperately trying to hold their positions of power. There is no new thinking.

As a matter of record, the Roosevelt Administration's answer for the Great Depression of the 1930s didn't end it. The depression lingered for another 10 years. World War II ended the depression. What Roosevelt did was a drop in the bucket. Barrack Obama says he will follow the Roosevelt legacy. From where is the money coming? According to Obama, only the rich are going to pay more taxes, and he's backed away from that answer. Obama does not have an answer. His support, those who depend on government, is flying on a wing and a prayer.

If we're honest with ourselves, we've got to face the fact that America's comfort zone is history. The Great Depression ended when the survival of freedom was at stake, when no sacrifice was too great, when millions gave their lives for freedom's sake. A drastic change of thinking in America is essential. It will not come from sticking our heads in the sand and depending on government. Freedom requires a government of the people, for the people, which implies that you and I are responsible for our freedom, or the loss of it.

It is estimated that four million people, convinced that he has the right answers, will be present for Obama's inauguration. It's a bad omen, folks. When you look to government for answers to your problems, your answers will always be other peoples' answers, with their own interest in mind. The odds are heavily against you. History records that the majority loses when government calls the shots.

To be sure, the establishment has much to lose with real change. Presently, the majority of the American people depend on big government, big tax, and naturally, a robust economy. The Obama Administration has to pull it off with the same kind of thinking that has guided the establishment for the past 70 years. It ain't gonna happen. In my considered opinion, no way is the establishment going to bail out the economy.

Life for me had been trying to climb a greased pole. Government was my enemy. I cut from the herd in 1975-went strictly on my own. Everyone I knew thought I'd lost my mind. I challenged government in a legal action-beat the most powerful government in the world at its own game. I bought a live-aboard sailboat and set sail on the South Atlantic Ocean. When everything should have gone wrong, everything went right. During my two years at sea, I learned the power that nature put in me. I performed miracles. Not only did I save my own life, but the lives of six others. By cutting from the herd, I found love, and for the first time. By going on my own, I can now say my life is good. Was it the luck of the Irish? Louis Pasteur said that luck favors those with a prepared mind. This voice of experience says when one depends on government he is playing a fool's game. He's going against his own nature.

Hey you progressives in support of Obama! The first reason I can think of to take back personal control of your lives is your peace of mind. If enough of us have peace of mind, we'll have a world at peace. If enough of us depend on government, we can depend on war.

The second reason I can think of to take back personal control of your lives is that power begats power. By redistributing wealth, you give the redistribution agent unwarranted power. You lessen the chance for peace, increase the chance for hostility and division.

The third reason I can think of to take back personal control of your lives is that you increase your chance for prosperity. Leaving government in control assures you that you will be less prosperous; thanks to your effort, government more powerful. Am I right or wrong? Here's your chance to show me that I'm wrong. I'll assume no answer means that you can't find anything wrong in my reasoning.

It is a well know fact that politicians spend the greatest part of their time raising campaign money for their next election; they are not thinking about your interests. They don't look to the meek and poor for their campaign money. They look to the rich and powerful, those who have a lot to gain by giving generously to politicians. The rich and powerful know from experience that it pays.

Little by little, over the years Federal income tax has been engineered to favor the rich with deductions and other devises that keep them from paying tax on their profits. The very rich often pay a less percentage of their profits than the worker living from hand to mouth, thanks to their generous campaign contributions. The reasons we get from politicians for refusing to do away with Federal income tax are primarily that it would penalize the poor. Nonsense!

Federal income tax should be replaced with a tax on spending. The basic essentials would not be taxed at all. Politicians say that would be a problem. It is no problem. They have a problem. Diamonds, furs, yachts, palatial homes would have a high tax on them by reason that if high rollers want to live like royalty, they should pay a king's ransom in tax. Politicians say that would cost jobs. Again, politicians have a problem. If the rich wanted to invest in the economy, they would provide jobs, which helps us all, excluding politicians. The name of the game is power. Taxing the rich on their investments in the economy gives government control of the economy. The rich go where they are taxed less and America's economy loses. Mindless government gains more control. Any time a politician says he wants to tax the rich and give to the poor, he should be questioned. Any time the rich and powerful support big government they should be questioned.

In 1935, the Roosevelt Administration, over the objections of the Supreme Court, got Social Security passed. (Roosevelt threatened to double the number of justices on the Court, of course, with activist judges. The Court acquiesced.) At the time, the age to go on Social Security was 65. At first, the tax was minuscule. Only a few were receiving and a great many were paying. It was pay as you go, which meant the longer you go the more receive Social Security, the more you are taxed. When Social Security became law, the average age was 62. The newborn today are estimated to live to well past a hundred. Instead of raising the age for retirement, government has lowered the age. An eight year old, giving these facts, would not be in favor of Social Security. In order to avoid the inevitable, Social Security should be fazed out.

When Medicare became law, the real cost of health are was less than half what it is today. Medical practitioners are the highest paid people in the United States. They have the money and power to keep us paying them outrageous prices for their services. You can't have socialized health care and free enterprise at the same time. You've either got to have socialized medicine or free enterprise. What we've got is a gigantic health care ripoff.

The political game plan has always been to give now and let the future take care of itself. The Founding Fathers knew that. They wrote a Constitution that avoided what we have today. We, the people, should fault ourselves for allowing government to give us a bundle now and let our children and their children pay. In my "New Rules for the New Economy," I've given you folks "twelve dependable principles for thriving in a turbulent world." The long and the short of it is that the Obama Administration promises to make bad matters worse.

While politicians swear to protect and defend the Constitution, they know nothing of the "Higher Law," the background of the Constitution. It doesn't change. When activist judges interpret the Constitution in light of today's needs, they void the Constitution. They practice the law that might makes right. We are now learning that might makes wrong. You progressives better start thinking for yourselves.