Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
How Historians skew History: The Case Of Calvin Coolidge
#1
This is a great example how 'so called' historians tend to allow their own personal prejudices about the Political-Economy, taint the truth about the very history they are supposed to report accurately.

Quote:Interwar Presidents and the Fantasies of Historians

by Robert Murphy

It is understandable, though still harmful, when economists completely mischaracterize the policies of the Herbert Hoover Administration. But in his recent Salon piece on Sarah Palin's new book, historian David Greenberg distorts the legacies of both Calvin Coolidge and his ill-fated successor, Hoover. To set the record straight, it's worth pointing out exactly where Greenberg goes wrong.

The Legend of Silent Cal

Greenberg discusses very little of Palin's book, but instead uses her compliments for Calvin Coolidge to analyze the political right's fascination with the men who presided over the Roaring Twenties. Greenberg is not only a professor of history at Rutgers but also the author of a book on Coolidge. This allows Greenberg to share the following famous -- though perhaps apocryphal -- anecdotes:

Quote:To most people today, Coolidge is little more than a cartoon. If he's remembered at all, he's the grim-faced "Silent Cal," the man said by Theodore Roosevelt's daughter Alice to have looked as though he had been weaned on a pickle. His taciturn style provoked no end of jokes and anecdotes. One hostess, aware of the president's laconic reputation, was said to beseech him at an event, "I made a bet today that I could get more than two words out of you." Not missing a beat, Coolidge replied, "You lose."

Greenberg later mentions that "despite his reputation for silence ... Coolidge was a skilled speechmaker -- a prizewinning orator as a student and the last president to write most of his own remarks." Although his delivery could be helped with modern teleprompter technology, Coolidge's first recorded presidential address
is a wonderful critique of government taxes and spending, which at that time was the "stupendous sum" (his words) of $7.5 billion.

Coolidge versus the Progressives

After the fluffy prelude, Greenberg finally gets down to business:

Quote:Coolidge's vogue on the right goes beyond the conservative principles he extolled; it lies in his conception of the presidency. He took office at a time when Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson had transformed the executive branch, actively using their powers to restrain big business and secure a measure of fairness in economic life. Coolidge, in contrast, believed in a small federal government, a passive executive and light regulation of business. "If the federal government were to go out of existence," he said, "the common run of people would not detect the difference." The main legislative battles of his presidency were to implement the tax cuts favored by his plutocratic Treasury Secretary Andrew W. Mellon. He even balanced the budget.

In the first place, it is always interesting that the historians who are ostensibly concerned about "the little guy" revere US presidents in almost exact proportion to how many people were killed by their subordinates. Beyond Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson's wars, however, is their dismal record of economic interventionism.

It is a myth that antitrust legislation, "trust busting," was a vehicle to protect consumers and workers from rapacious big businessmen, as Tom DiLorenzo explains in this lecture. And Woodrow Wilson enjoys the dubious distinction of having ushered in both the Federal Reserve and the federal income tax. Adherents of the Austrian theory of the business cycle know that the Fed fueled the 1920s stock bubble (as well as the housing bubble in our own times), and so can hardly be seen as a promoter of "fairness." But even using empirical mainstream research, one can see that the Fed has been a source of economic instability -- as Selgin et al. demonstrate in this article.

As far as federal income-tax rates, it's true that Coolidge took the advice of his Treasury Secretary, Andrew Mellon, to cut them. But that was because they had been raised to an absurd level during World War I. As this history shows, even the rate on the lowest bracket jumped from 1 percent in 1913 to 6 percent by 1918. Moreover, someone who made $20,000 in 1913 paid 1 percent in federal income taxes, but because the brackets were redefined, someone earning the same money income in 1918 paid a whopping 20 percent in federal tax. (Note too that from June 1913 to June 1918 the Consumer Price Index rose 50 percent, so that a given money income purchased far less in actual goods and services.)

In contrast to this onerous burden created under Woodrow Wilson, during the Coolidge years the bottom bracket's tax rate was brought down to 1.5 percent by 1926, while an upper-middle-class (though hardly "filthy rich") household earning $20,000 saw its tax rate slashed to 9 percent.

As far as fiscal responsibility, Coolidge was superlative, perhaps second only to Andrew Jackson, who literally paid off the national debt (as well as slew the central bank). Coolidge had a much more modest success, in that he ran budget surpluses every year he was in office.

The Myth of the Do-Nothing Hoover

Although I have disagreed with Greenberg's remarks on Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, and Coolidge, the disagreement largely stems from our differing views on economic theory. But when it comes to the Hoover record, Greenberg simply invents history:

Quote:There is another reason, of course, that Coolidge -- and not Warren Harding or Herbert Hoover, the other conservative Republicans of the interwar years -- has become a hero to the contemporary right. Harding, who was probably more conservative than Coolidge, was discredited by the Teapot Dome affair. ... Hoover, who put the small-government philosophy into effect at an hour of crisis, saw it fail utterly. They do not appear in Sarah Palin's new book. (emphasis added)

This is demonstratively false; it would be akin to saying that George W. Bush sat back and did nothing in response to the collapse of Lehman Brothers. It's true, a die-hard interventionist could say Herbert Hoover didn't do enough, but it is simply not true to claim that he "put the small-government philosophy into effect."

Before looking at specifics, consider the broader picture. If it's really true that Herbert Hoover did nothing, and that's why the stock market Crash of 1929 devolved into the Great Depression, then what happened during all the previous crises in American capitalism? After all, there was no New Deal implemented during the panic of 1907, and yet the United States wasn't plunged into double-digit unemployment for a decade. And by many measures, the first year of the 1920—1921 depression was worse than the Great Depression; yet the economy bounced back quickly under the postwar budget slashing of Wilson and then Harding.

As I document in my book on the Depression, Hoover was in fact a big-government conservative. Perhaps his most fateful mistake was pressuring businesses to prop up wage rates after the stock-market crash. Coupled with the ensuing monetary and price deflation, this was a disastrous policy that raised the real wages of labor and contributed to the record levels of unemployment in the early 1930s. Yet here is Hoover's Secretary of Labor, James Davis, congratulating his boss's "accomplishment" in May 1930:

Quote:There never has been a crisis such as we have had as the stock market crash that threw . . . millions out of employment that there wasn't a wholesale reduction in wages. . . . If Hoover accomplishes nothing more in all of his service to the government, that one outstanding thing of his administration -- no reduction in wages -- will be a credit that will be forever remembered not by the working classes alone but by business men as well, because without money in the pay envelope business is the first to suffer.

Conclusion

When recoiling against a leftist professor's praise for Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, there is a dangerous tendency to lavish hosannas on "right-wing" presidents. Although Calvin Coolidge was a fantastic president compared to his peers, he obviously was at least partially to blame for the massive stock bubble that developed in the final years of his administration.

Even so, David Greenberg, as a history professor and author of a book on this period in US history, should know better than to recycle the myth that Herbert Hoover was a laissez-fair e ideologue. Even one of FDR's subordinates admitted -- years after -- that the New Deal had simply extended the pioneering interventions of the Hoover years.

If one wants to draw a straightforward lesson from Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover, it is this: tax cuts and budget surpluses go hand in hand with phenomenal economic growth, while tax hikes, budget deficits, and radical growth in government go hand in hand with economic disaster.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#2
I also found this, on the American Spectator, and it is enlightening. I disagree with his point about tariffs, but other than that I suspect he is correct.

Quote:Small Government's Last Hurrah

By Rev. Michael P. Orsi

The last time Democrats and Republicans matched ideologically in a presidential campaign was 1924, according to Garland S. Tucker, III, president/CEO of Triangle Capital Corporation, a publicly traded specialty-finance company. Republican Calvin Coolidge and Democrat John W. Davis shared the traditional American ideals of "limited government -- minimalist in Coolidge's case -- individual freedom and low taxes." After that election, "the Republicans remained on a rightward course, while the Democrats steered leftward; and there has been no major realignment since."

In his book, High Tide of American Conservatism: Davis, Coolidge, and the 1924 Election, Tucker observes that limited government made its last stand during Coolidge's term in the White House. Beginning with his successor, Republican Herbert Hoover (whom Coolidge derisively dubbed "Wonder-Boy"), a fateful series of legislative actions would spur the encroachment of the federal government into virtually all areas of life. In the ensuing years, the essential conservatism of the Founders, Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians alike, has made only brief and limited appearances -- in the unsuccessful 1964 campaign of Republican Barry Goldwater, and under Ronald Regan, beginning in 1981.

This is the kind of a book only a capitalist and practitioner of the American dream could write. Tucker longs for a return to those days when individual freedom allowed for the creation of personal wealth and American business thrived in an atmosphere of low taxes. Wistfully, he quotes Coolidge: "I want taxes to be less, that the people may have more." (He also passes along another of Coolidge's withering comments on Hoover: "That man has given me nothing but advice, and all of it bad.")
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#3
If you read "New Deal or Raw Deal", you will find the biases of historians well documented concerning the career of FDR.

I will not read a history book written after about 1960 just for the reason of the evident bias, unless I know the author well.
Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#4
jt Wrote:If you read "New Deal or Raw Deal", you will find the biases of historians well documented concerning the career of FDR.

I will not read a history book written after about 1960 just for the reason of the evident bias, unless I know the author well.

Me either. People really think that the newer things are, the more accurate when it comes to history books. I have to laugh usually.
Reply
#5
Double post!
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#6
Here's a nice article I read earlier. I'm not sure if I ever talked about it, but its well worth putting down for everyone to read.

Coolidge: my pick for greatest president of the 20th century.

Quote:The Great Refrainer
Amity Shlaes,

[Image: 0811_p16-shlaes-calvin-coolidge_398x280.jpg]

A president often brings a particular sport to mind, even one that he does not personally play. President George W. Bush evokes rugby; Al Gore--the near President--scuba diving; and President Jimmy Carter, curling. I am currently writing a biography of Calvin Coolidge, who, when I think of a sport, puts me in mind of windsurfing.

The image is dauntingly anachronistic but still suits. A windsurfer looks as though he's doing nothing at all, just riding the wind; however, the sport takes great strength. Even in a gust of wind the windsurfer must minimize his movement, holding still or pulling in. President Coolidge often looked as though he were doing nothing, and his peers, as well as later observers, mocked him for it. But in fact the Coolidge style of government, which included much refraining, took great strength and yielded superior results. Nowhere did the Great Windsurfer demonstrate such strength more than on the waters of economics.

In 1921, when Calvin Coolidge came to Washington as Warren Harding's vice president, the country was just coming out of a period of government hyperactivity. During his presidency Woodrow Wilson had pushed income tax rates up dramatically, with the top bracket hitting 77%. Those at the bottom paid 6%, one percentage point below what had formerly been reserved for the very top earners. By 1923 President Harding and his Treasury Secretary, Andrew Mellon, had cut taxes so the top rate was effectively below 50%.

Conversing in Pauses

When Harding died suddenly in 1923, Coolidge knew he was going to need another pair of hands to launch further reforms. One of his first moves as President was to reject the Treasury Secretary's resignation. Mellon became the navigator who charted Coolidge's economic course. The pair worked well together because they were alike; both were so taciturn that it was said they conversed in pauses. Whenever they could, Coolidge and Mellon, professional minimalists, pared away unnecessary features of their craft to make it sleeker.

They began with the tax brackets. Both disliked the fact that under Wilson the tax schedule had gone from seven brackets to dozens, confusing taxpayers to the point they didn't know what they should pay. Once the number of brackets was drastically reduced, more people could easily figure out what they owed.

But their grandest feat involved tax rates. Coolidge and Mellon tightened and pulled multiple times, eventually getting the top rate down to 25%, a level that hasn't been seen since. Mellon argued that lower rates could actually bring in greater revenues because they removed disincentives to work. Government, he said, should operate like a railroad, charging a price for freight that "the traffic will bear."

Coolidge's commitment to low taxes came from his concept of property rights. He viewed heavy taxation as the legalization of expropriation. "I want taxes to be less, that the people may have more," he once said. In fact, Coolidge disapproved of any government intervention that eroded the bond of the contract.

Another area Coolidge and Mellon greatly affected was monetary policy. Coolidge believed, accurately, that inflation was the twin of taxes and that it, too, was expropriation. In an inflationary environment those who hold the dollars find they can buy less. The Coolidge Treasury and the young Fed pursued a monetary policy that yielded deflation. Unemployment, for its part, politely held back, staying below 5%.

Coolidge also refrained--and caused the U.S. to refrain--in other areas. One of these was agriculture. More than once Coolidge vetoed what would later be called farm allotment--the government purchase of commodities to reduce supply and drive up prices. Coolidge also made a habit of refraining in his refraining. Rather than moving to veto a law, he often used the pocket veto--employing it so frequently it became an art form. Unlike many other successful politicians Coolidge also refrained from the temptation of running for a second full term. In 1928 he told voters, "I do not choose to run."

There were times when Coolidge really wiped out, such as when he willfully ignored the fragility of Weimar Germany and what it signified. But overall he and his partner at Treasury traveled smoothly. The U.S. averaged real growth closer to 4% than 3%, even during years of deflation. The Administration's budgets were in surplus. In 1927 Time magazine reported that Coolidge paid a call at the Mellon mansion in Pittsburgh and walked "near the smoky fork of the Allegheny & Monongahela Rivers." Together the men looked at the spot on the Allegheny where George Washington fell off a raft into freezing waters. The pair understood that their policies had helped them steer past a few potential disasters.

Many other Coolidge-isms are described by my fellow authors in a new anthology (this article is adapted from my contribution) published this month, Why Coolidge Matters (National Notary Association). The piece by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's David Shribman on Coolidge's common sense is especially interesting.

Today our government has moved so far from Coolidge's tenets that it's difficult to imagine such policies being emulated. But it is precisely this remove that is creating a new and national fascination with the Great Windsurfer.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#7
Historians are just as trustworthy as politicians, climate scientists, and user care salesmen... and their distortions are driven by a complex net of reasons, including politics, national security and personal financial security. Things get suppressed and one even would not understand why. For instance, why was this photo from the Yalta Conference kept secret for more than sixty years? S6
Sodomia delenda est

Reply
#8
Because the Rusky was on the Left of FDR, and Churchill was on the Right? We pretty much knew that already. I thought all they did at Yalta was play Hearts.

However, historians usually get it right in the end - but there is a lengthy conversion process, before their objective history replaces incorrect preconceived notions. Whenever I look at a history textbook, I check two things: Whether the Industrial Revolution was a time of lightening the workload or making it worse, and whether Columbus was stymied by the church who said the Earth was flat. Even in today's enlightened time when the answers are objectively known - there are still far too many text books being used that spread disinformation.
Reply
#9
Dr. Benjamin Carson's wonderful rebuttal of Obama's vision of a Collectivist nation, at the National Prayer Breakfast, has has some very positive remarks of late, and one of them is by Rick Richman of PJ Media. Here is what he has to say about Dr Carson, but mostly about the Forgotten President, Calvin Coolidge.

Quote:Calvin Coolidge, Dr. Benjamin Carson, and Us

In Coolidge, her elegant and engrossing biography of the 30th president, Amity Shlaes writes that perhaps the deepest reason for Coolidge’s recent obscurity is that he “spoke a different economic language from ours”:

Quote:He did not say “money supply”; he said “credit.” … He did not say “private sector”; he said “commerce.” He did not say “savings”; he said “thrift” or “economy.” … Coolidge at the end of his life spoke anxiously about the “importance of the obvious.” Perseverance, property rights, contract, civility to one’s opponents, silence, smaller government, trust, certainty, restraint, respect for faith, federalism, economy, and thrift: these Coolidge ideals intrigue us today as well.


Coolidge spoke in concise language about character, culture, and religion, all of which he considered we needed more than bigger government:

Quote:We do not need more intellectual power, we need more moral power. We do not need more knowledge, we need more character. We do not need more government, we need more culture. We do not need more law, we need more religion. We do not need more the things that are seen, we need more of the things that are not seen.(Obviously Coolidge was a huge fan of Bastiat)

Back in 1924, when the first biography of Coolidge appeared, it was prominently reviewed in the New York Times Book Review. The reviewer thought the author’s claim that Coolidge’s speech to the Massachusetts Senate as its president had been quoted as often as any in American history other than Lincoln’s Gettysburg address was an exaggeration; but that “if the speech has not been quoted as often as [the author] thinks it has, it deserves to be.” Parts of that speech, he wrote, “ought to be in every American citizen’s Bible.” He singled out this paragraph:

Quote:Do the day’s work. If it be to protect the rights of the weak, whoever objects, do it. If it be to help a powerful corporation better to serve the people, whatever the opposition, do that. Expect to be called a standpatter, but don’t be a standpatter. Expect to be called a demagogue, but don’t be a demagogue. Don’t hesitate to be as revolutionary as science. Don’t hesitate to be as reactionary as the multiplication table. Don’t expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong.

Fast forward nearly a century, to the February 17, 2013 review of Coolidge in the New York Times Book Review, which treated the book as part of an attempt to “resurrect” Coolidge as a “prophet” of an “austere doctrine” of “Republican Calvinism,” with a “liturgy” based on Coolidge’s belief that the federal government should shrink, not grow.

The use of the religious imagery was not intended as complimentary. The reviewer asserted that Coolidge’s “actual record” shows he was “an extraordinarily blinkered and foolish and complacent leader” who is “no model for the present,” but rather “a bleak omen from the past.”

Coolidge’s “actual record”: he inherited a national debt of $28 billion and reduced it to less than $18 billion; he cut the top income tax rate to 25% while balancing the budget and producing surpluses each year; and unemployment was reduced from 5.7 million at the beginning of the decade to 1.8 million when he left office. The economy became popularly known as the “Coolidge prosperity.”

As actual records go, that is not too bad — particularly compared to more recent ones.

The last four years have shown that “stimulus” (which Coolidge would have called “spending”) and “investments” (which Coolidge would have called “spending”) are not panaceas, but rather part of the problem. We have also learned that it is extraordinarily blinkered and foolish for a government that already has unsustainable financial obligations for existing “entitlements” (which Coolidge would have called “spending”) to enact not only a record “stimulus” and huge new “investments” but also a massive new “entitlement,” relying on borrowed funds and no budget.

It is a bleak omen, produced by a quasi-religious belief in the power of an ever-larger government to produce “fairness” while allegedly adding not one dime to the deficit, nor costing anything for 99 percent of the people, and allowing people who like their plan to keep it, although Catholics with religious objections will be ignored.

It seems less like a model for the present than like the last stage of an unsustainable plan.

We should have known by now that increased “revenues” (or “taxes,” as Coolidge would have called them) depends on a growing private sector (“commerce”) stimulated by lower tax rates. It has already been demonstrated not only by Coolidge, but by Kennedy and Reagan. We should know that the Clinton surplus in its later years was produced not by increased tax rates, but by acts that limited government and stimulated commerce: (1) the rejection of HillaryCare; (2) the welfare reform that imposed work requirements; (3) the NAFTA free trade legislation; and (4) the 40% reduction in the capital gains tax rate (from 28% to 20%).

Most of us know Coolidge only for his legendary reticence. He is famous for having told a woman, who had bet she could get him to say three words, that “you lose.” He once explained why he often sat silently through interviews: “Many times I say only ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to people. Even that is too much. It winds them up for twenty minutes more.” When he died, his will was 23 words long (it left his entire estate to his wife).

Coolidge’s eloquence is much less known, but for eloquence it is hard to match his July 5, 1926 “Address at the Celebration of the 150th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence” in Philadelphia, with its concluding paragraph that treated the Declaration as “the product of the spiritual insight of the people”:

Quote:We live in an age of science and of abounding accumulation of material things. These did not create our Declaration. Our Declaration created them. The things of the spirit come first. Unless we cling to that, all our material prosperity, overwhelming though it may appear, will turn to a barren scepter in our grasp. If we are to maintain the great heritage which has been bequeathed to us, we must be like-minded as the fathers who created it. We must not sink into a pagan materialism. We must cultivate the reverence which they had for the things that are holy. We must follow the spiritual and moral leadership which they showed. We must keep replenished, that they may glow with a more compelling flame, the altar fires before which they worshiped.

Is it too late for us to recover the values in the public sphere that Coolidge embodied, and to re-establish a more limited government as an ideal? Perhaps. Coolidge lived at a different time, in what seems like a less complicated world.

But Dr. Benjamin Carson’s recent speech at the National Prayer Breakfast is an indication that the values Coolidge articulated still resonate. (The YouTube videos of the speech have been viewed by nearly three million people so far.) The speech was Coolidge-like in its understated eloquence, its focus on moral decay and fiscal irresponsibility, its religious power and sense of history, and its warning against trying to build up the weak by pulling down the strong.

If we are unable to recover the values Coolidge championed, and if our politics cannot produce another president like him, it will ultimately say less about Coolidge than about us.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#10
Here's Beck's recent interview with Amity Shlaes on her biography of "Coolidge".

And note how she uses optimism here by stating that once we reach a certain point, we will start looking for another Coolidge like president. I certainly hope she is correct here.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#11
I hope she is right. However, no one "looked for" Coolidge and then elected him, nor did he get elected president on his own campaigning. Harding died, Coolidge took over. But silent Cal was re-elected. I sure like the stories about how he ran things. Shlaes is a good writer.
Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#12
Schlaes is a great writer. Especially a great historian, She's about a decade ahead of most others who are still rooted in incorrect preconceived notions.
Reply
#13
Here is her latest effort on Coolidge from Imprimus out of Hillsdale College.

Quote:Conservatives long for another Ronald Reagan. But is Reagan the right model? He was of course a tax cutter, reducing the top marginal rate from 70 to 28 percent. But his tax cuts—which vindicated supply-side economics by vastly increasing federal revenue—were bought partly through a bargain with Democrats who were eager to spend that revenue. Reagan was no budget cutter—indeed, the federal budget rose by over a third during his administration.

An alternative model for conservatives is Calvin Coolidge. President from 1923 to 1929, Coolidge sustained a budget surplus and left office with a smaller budget than the one he inherited. Over the same period, America experienced a proliferation of jobs, a dramatic increase in the standard of living, higher wages, and three to four percent annual economic growth. And the key to this was Coolidge’s penchant for saying “no.” If Reagan was the Great Communicator, Coolidge was the Great Refrainer.
Reply
#14
She's exactly correct, and would cause Rush's head to explode for being so critical of Magnus Opus. But for the very same reason I too am critical of Reagan. Coolidge was his hero too, but he failed to live up to his hero's stature.

That's what you get for allowing such high amounts of spending. And now we are off to the races, with only one end in sight.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#15
Well, let's think about this. A runaway train can end in several ways. We can easily see a train wreck, but there are many ways to avoid it.

One way is to empty the track ahead until the train runs out of steam. There are two analogies to that for our economy. Personal spending restraint and State spending restraint. We have been doing that - it is what happens automatically in the free market.

Next, we can douse the fire or stop shoveling coal into the hopper. Starve the fire of fuel. Even though the sequester is only less than two percent of the non-existent budget (and only a cut in the growth of spending) it still slows the pace. There are better ways to cut off the fuel supply, but they all deal with regaining political control and having the votes to control the fire tender, which are problematical, when the only party able to gain that control has been divided purposefully by the Left.

It is too easy to put all responsibility onto the blackened hands of the Engineer. Others need to take part and pull back on the throttle. They are there to do that job - but do need a little encouragement to overthrow Casey Jones.
Reply
#16
Calvin Coolidge was before even my time, but ever since I heard it, I always thought he had a cool slogan as a presidential candidate: "Keep Cool with Coolidge." Incidentally, he was the only American president whose birthday was the fourth of July. He was also known as "Silent Cal," and was not confrontational with his opponents--usually not even mentioning them by name. He was an ideological conservative. Link: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports...h-coolidge
Reply
#17
(03-06-2013, 12:50 PM)WmLambert Wrote: Well, let's think about this. A runaway train can end in several ways. We can easily see a train wreck, but there are many ways to avoid it.

One way is to empty the track ahead until the train runs out of steam. There are two analogies to that for our economy. Personal spending restraint and State spending restraint. We have been doing that - it is what happens automatically in the free market.

Next, we can douse the fire or stop shoveling coal into the hopper. Starve the fire of fuel. Even though the sequester is only less than two percent of the non-existent budget (and only a cut in the growth of spending) it still slows the pace. There are better ways to cut off the fuel supply, but they all deal with regaining political control and having the votes to control the fire tender, which are problematical, when the only party able to gain that control has been divided purposefully by the Left.

It is too easy to put all responsibility onto the blackened hands of the Engineer. Others need to take part and pull back on the throttle. They are there to do that job - but do need a little encouragement to overthrow Casey Jones.

I just love the trouble some go to in order to blame someone other than themselves for their problems.

Let me give you my own example, which I am sure you will not understand, but I'm giving it just the same.

Here we have a mother/father, who's son has been caught for gang related crimes, B&E, grand theft, and other crimes etc. The parents react in horror, saying "Please don't put him in jail. After all, he has been influenced by his "disgusting" peers, who have been corrupting him into being a bad son/citizen.

Instead of realizing that the son is their responsibility, with which they have failed, its someone else to blame. I remember how you have accused me of being manipulated by the Jackasses for having the audacity to wash my hands of your own little delinquent. Talk about hypocritical.

Its always somebody else's fault, isn't it Bill? After all cutting that umbilical cord is just soooo messy, isn't it? Perhaps some day you will finally see the light, but I fear you have a long way still to go. Perhaps never

So, blame all this on the Jackasses and their PR campaign. Its never our poor precious little delinquent's fault.

George Washington was correct.


___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#18
??? Always someone else's fault? You are so off the track.

Obama is a reckless egomaniac who is championing the Progressive Woodrow Wilson's agenda. It has been proven wrong, but it has also been defended by ignoramuses who will not accept the findings of history. The media and his sycophants are almost religious in their idolatry of him and his beliefs. Obama is more a danger than McCain, Boehner, or anyone who is on the Right leaning Left. Obama is instituting settled law that cannot be displaced under the Founders' plans. It was not supposed to be this way.

The threat is in dragging the country into a place where it cannot be salvaged. Using the ragged right as a scapegoat for what is happening doesn't stop it.

History says that the Democrats designed a plan to use disaffected Right-wingers against one another. No one has challenged that, have they? Carville and Begalla came right out and confirmed it. Using Saul Alynski's Rules for Radicals, Obama has pushed the whole country into a place it would never have gone without him. My entire interest has been to stop that push before it gets impossible to turn around. I do not champion the GOP as a godhead that is wondrous to behold and must be genuflected to - but you do the bidding of the Left - whether intentionally or not.

Remember they did heavy research and just tapped into a trend that was already there. They just added the focus groups and think tanks to find the best emotional spurs for the disaffected. They actually read what Marx and Engels put out there. They understand that using the disaffection of the Right tears a majority into splintered, bickering cliques that can be beat by a minority that is willing to work together.

Obama is currently trying to destroy his opposition for the midterm elections. He doesn't worry about whether a third party can grow and be a factor in twenty years - he just cares about the midterm. Once that occurs, if he has both houses, he will effectively estop the Constitution and set up an unending Wilsonesque government run by elites and safe from getting fixed.

Think about it. With America's natural resources, it can slide into a third world status, run by Progressive intellectuals, but never run out of money. He can redistribute the money that exists so it is only controlled by government - but with our resources, we can never really go broke. While we should be growing at over 4 or 5% per year, just holding the status quo while using resources to avoid a death spiral, is enough for him.

Nuclear power is there. By recycling and relaxing EPA regulations, it can be revived once control is ensured. Same with the clean but unavailable Kaiparowits coal, that was regulated off-limits. Same with off-shore drilling and known oil deposits that are now untouchable. There are myriads of resources there for the future. Fracking is just one of many things that has gotten loose, out of government's control, but it is barely out of Obama's bag. Don't believe for a moment that the Green agenda is a driving force for Obama. He ignores it at will, and only uses it to amass power.

I say he has to be stopped now with the tools we have, rather than pretend the future will take care of itself. I have seen no valid strategy for that pretense happening.
Reply
#19
The President Who Shrank Government. Definitely the greatest presiden of the 20th century, and probably the greatest of all time, even more than Washington.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#20
The President Who Shrank Government





___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)