FDR or Ronald Reagan - Which way will Obama go?

Commentary: From my perspective, it's already perfectly clear. BHO will do whatever his puppet masters - Kissinger, Rockefeller, Bryszinski, James A. Johnson (Perseus Capital)
( http://www.muckety.com/Perseus-LLC/5001487.muckety?big=true ) want him to do!
AB


By Patrick J. Buchanan.


Barack Obama, it is said, will inherit the worst times since the Great Depression. Not to minimize the crisis we are in, but we need a little perspective here.

The Great Depression began with the Great Crash of 1929. By 1931, unemployment had reached 16 percent.

By 1933, 89 percent of stock value had been wiped out, the economy had shrunk by one-third, thousands of banks had closed, a third of the money supply had vanished, and unemployment had reached 25 percent — among heads of households. And in those days, there was no unemployment insurance, no Medicare, no Medicaid, no Social Security, no welfare.

FDR’s answer: vast federal spending, tough new regulations on business and higher taxes — like Herbert Hoover before him, only more so.

The Depression lasted until war orders from the Allies brought U.S. industry back to life. Before 1940, not once did unemployment fall below 14 percent. In May 1939, Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau testified:

“We are spending more money than we have ever spent before, and it does not work. … I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started … and an enormous debt, to boot.”
Politically, the New Deal was a smashing success, with FDR’s landslides in 1932, 1934 and 1936 virtually wiping out the GOP.

Yet, economically, the New Deal was a bust, failing utterly to restore prosperity. Despite the indoctrination of generations of schoolchildren in New Deal propaganda, that is the hard truth.
Consider, now, how Ronald Reagan responded to the economic crisis of 1980, the worst since the Depression. In the “stagflation” of that Jimmy Carter era, interest rates had reached 21 percent and inflation 13 percent.

Reagan’s answer was the tight money policy of Fed Chairman Paul Volcker and across-the-board tax cuts of 25 percent, while slashing the highest rates from 70 percent to 28 percent.
While unemployment hit 10 percent in 1982 and Reagan lost 26 House seats, in 1983 the tax cuts kicked in.

From there on out, it was boom times until Reagan rode off into the sunset, having created 20 million new jobs. “The Seven Fat Years,” author Robert Bartley called them.
Reagan had followed the lead of Warren Harding and Cal Coolidge, who had cut Woodrow Wilson’s wartime tax rates of near 70 percent to 25 percent, resulting in “The Roaring ’20s,” a time of unrivaled prosperity.

The JFK tax cuts of the 1960s, also a Reagan model, were equally successful.

Harding, Coolidge, JFK and Reagan all bet on the private sector as the engine of prosperity. All succeeded. Franklin Roosevelt bet on government. And the New Deal failed. It was World War II that pulled the United States out of the Depression ditch of the 1930s.

Comes now the financial collapse and economic crisis of 2008, inherited by Obama, with 40 percent of all stock values wiped out in a year, foreclosures pandemic, and unemployment near 7 percent and surging.

In crafting his solutions, Obama seems to be brushing aside the Reagan, JFK and Harding-Coolidge models, and channeling FDR and the New Deal Democrats.

Already staring at a $1.2 trillion dollar deficit for the year ending Sept. 30, about 8 percent of the entire U.S. economy, Obama intends to add a stimulus package of $700 billion to $1 trillion, yet another 5 percent to 7 percent of gross domestic product. The resulting deficit would be twice as large as Reagan’s largest, 6 percent of GDP, which was the largest since World War II.

And how is this Niagara of money to be spent?

Hundreds of billions will go out in checks of $500 to $1,000 to wage-earners and individuals who do not even pay taxes. This is much like the George McGovern “demogrant” program of 1972, where every man, woman and child, if memory serves, was to get a $1,000 check from the U.S. government.

Other hundreds of billions will go to shore up state and municipal spending. Other hundreds of billions will go for “infrastructure” projects, another name for earmarks, which is a synonym for pork.
Now, as Obama does not intend to raise taxes, at least now, he is going to have to borrow this near $2 trillion from foreigners or U.S. taxpayers, or the Fed will have to create the money. Undeniably, this will have an impact upon the economy. But what will that impact be?

Where in history, other than World War II, is there evidence that such a mass infusion of spending restored prosperity?

Obama and the Democrats are taking a historic gamble, not only with their careers but with the country. If this monstrous stimulus package, plus the trillions in hot money, do not work; if the two ignite rampant inflation, rather than real growth, we are all out of options. The toolbox is empty.

And what will follow may truly resemble the 1930s.

My Bailout Plan

By Joseph Farah

WorldNet Daily

Congress is beginning debate on a $700 billion plan for U.S. taxpayers to bail out banks, mortgage companies and investment firms that made bad loans to unqualified consumers, including illegal aliens, and became insolvent as a result.

Officials say this plan is designed to protect us from further harm and to prop up the teetering economic system the government has created.

I have a better idea.

Let's not put more money into the hands of those who created the problem. Let's put the money into the hands of the people who were victimized. Why should the victims pay twice and the victimizers get off scot-free?

Here's my plan:
Those who bled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac dry by lying about the government-created mortgage companies' real worth so they could secure billions in personal bonuses should make restitution. They should be forbidden from ever holding any government job or position in the financial world for the rest of their lives.

Anyone who made more than $1 million a year in the other failed banks and institutions should be forced to contribute all their income in excess of $1 million a year to my bailout program.

The chairmen of the Senate and House banking oversight committees should be forced to resign in disgrace from their positions.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., who literally started the first bank run in California with his irresponsible public statements, should be forced to resign from the Senate.

All candidates for federal political office who received contributions from Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or any executives of those institutions, or the other failed banking, mortgage and investment firms, should be required to give the money to the bailout fund.

Since the Bush administration is trying to sell the idea that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac actually hold assets of greater value than the cost of their proposed bailout, I suggest they auction those institutions off to the highest private bidders.

Instead of paying $700 billion to prop up the institutions that created the mess, I propose $700 billion be paid directly to those victimized by the scandal – the American people – in the form of a tax cut. This would stimulate the economy and help the country grow its way out of this crisis.

I'm sure this plan has a few holes in it. That's because I made it up in about 15 minutes.

But I'm also certain it is far better than any official plan being floated in Washington today.

So, I'm asking you to get on board. Make amendments if you like. But tell those scoundrels in Washington stop picking your pocket and your children's pockets with this bailout of the banking class.

If my business goes belly up because of bad decisions I make in running it, no one is going to bail me out. I fail to see why businesses thousands of times bigger than mine should face no risk and, in effect, be insured against mistakes and bad judgment by the taxpayers of the United States.

This is not the way the free market works.

What is at stake in this bailout scheme is not just amounts of money few of us can even imagine.

What is at stake is not just massive tax increases in the future. What is at stake is not just rewarding criminals and shysters.

What is at stake is whether America will protect the last vestiges of a free enterprise system for our children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

No more quick fixes that, in fact, cost us far more in the long run.

No more cover-ups of wrongdoing.

No more rewarding the worst kind of fiscal irresponsibility.

545 People

By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget.

The president does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations.

The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country. I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ .

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Benz Speaks! How much is a billion?

This is too true to be funny.

The next time you hear a politician use the word 'billion' in a casual manner, think about whether you want the 'politicians' spending YOUR tax money

A billion is a difficult number to comprehend,but one advertising agency did a good job of putting that figure into some perspective in one of it's releases.

A billion seconds ago it was 1959.
A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive.
A billion hours ago our ancestors were living in the Stone Age.
A billion days ago no-one walked on the earth on two feet.

A billion dollars ago was only
8 hours and 20 minutes,
at the rate our government
is spending it.

While this thought is still fresh in our brain...
let's take a look at New Orleans ...
It's amazing what you can learn with some simple division.

Louisiana Senator,
Mary Landrieu (D)
is presently asking Congress for
250 BILLION DOLLARS
to rebuild New Orleans ..

Interesting number...
what does it mean?
Well... if you are one of the 484,674 residents of New Orleans
(every man, woman, and child)
you each get $516,528

Or... if you have one of the 188,251 homes in New Orleans , your home gets $1,329,787.
Or... if you are a family of four...
your family gets $2,066,012.

Politicians and Bureaucrats, wherever you are

Are all your calculators broken??

Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL License Tax
Cigarette Tax Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax
Hunting License Tax Inheritance Tax Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax Luxury Tax Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Property Tax Real Estate Tax
Service charge taxes
Social Security Tax Road Usage Tax (Truckers) Sales Taxes Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax State Income Tax State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Tax
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Tax
Vehicle License Registration Tax Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax

STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY

Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago...and our nation was the most prosperous in the world.

We had absolutely no national debt...

We had the largest middle class in the world...

and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

What happened?

Can you spell 'politicians!'

And I still have to press '1' for English.

I hope this goes around the USA at least 100 times

What the heck happened????

James Madison on Enemies of Public Liberty

Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. . . . [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and . . . degeneracy of manners and of morals. . . . No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
-James Madison

BATFE Spends $3 Million to Ruin gunshop

By Mark Anderson

TWIN FALLS, Idaho—Ryan Horsley seems confident that he will triumph over a government shakedown that has cost his family business about $200,000 in legal fees, as he fights to keep Red’s Trading Post, a fourth-generation firearms store, in operation.

Red’s is Idaho’s oldest surviving firearms dealership. Sometime this summer, federal judge Ed Lodge, who’s best known for presiding over the dramatic Randy Weaver case, will decide if the federal government is right in claiming that Red’s “willfully” violated the law by making a relatively small number of clerical mistakes in its firearms sales records.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives (BATFE), a relic of the prohibition days whose modern-day legitimacy is an open question, has been poring through the store’s sales records since at least 2005, looking for such “willful” clerical violations.

Although Horsley at first thought that the BATFE would not push the matter into court, in order to avoid any bad publicity that may accompany a ruling contrary to the government’s position, the matter did go to court on March 3-4, 2008 in Boise—about a year to the day since the battle heated up.

In early March of 2007, the federal agency revoked Red’s Federal Firearms License, but a judge granted an injunction against the BATFE to halt that process, thereby allowing Red’s to continue operating in Twin Falls, where another firearms dealer, Blue Lake Sporting Goods, was shut down by the BATFE. In that case, the store turned in its FFL and buckled under the weight of legal expenses.

Horsley, a particularly irrepressible man who so far has resisted what could easily have plowed his store under, told AFP on March 26 that he feels good about the court proceedings, believing that the government did not convince Judge Lodge that the store is a menace to public safety and deserves having its FFL revoked.

The FFL allows dealers to buy and sell firearms; revoking it would doom the store. Horsley also recalled that when the BATFE first tried to revoke the FFL, it claimed that Red’s was a “threat to public safety” but turned around and said that Red’s still could sell the 1,000 or so firearms already in stock—as long as it did not order additional guns to sell.

“You see what I’m up against?” Horsley said. Horsley’s attorney, Richard Gardiner, told AFP that Red’s largest number of clerical errors on BATFE Form 4473 involved something simple, such as not listing the county of residence of the gun-buyers. But he added that all these forms included zip codes. Many of the purchasers are from Twin Falls County, which has a city of the same name.

Gardiner thinks that Red’s practices do not break federal regulations in listing only the city (plus the zip code), even if the county of residence is sometimes not listed.

“We take the position that the regulations do not require both [city and county]” Gardiner said.

So, why did the BATFE bring what appears to be a weak case to court? Horsley’s view is that the agency cannot very well spend $3 million just on its case against Red’s—to try to revoke an FFL that cost the store just $300 every three years to maintain—and then drop the matter.

“If they just back off, they would have nothing to show for it,” Horsley said, as he struggled to comprehend why $3 million in taxpayer dollars have been spent on a case where no evidence has been found to suggest that Red’s has knowingly put guns into the hands of criminals or committed some other serious act.

Horsley feels the BATFE simply is trying to portray Red’s as a bad place, which, however, is a little tough, considering that local police officers have worked there.

“Many times we’ve had part-time law enforcement officers working for us,” Horsley said.

The local sheriff, Wayne Tousley, told AFP in a 2007 interview that, as the chief law enforcement officer of Twin Falls County, the BATFE is supposed to come to him first to conduct its investigations. But he said then that the agency typically bypasses him.

Reach Mark Anderson at truthhound2@yahoo.com

The People Speak

One of our readers has opined on the upcoming tax rebate coming forth from Uncle Sugar.

As you may have heard the Bush Administration
said each and every one of us would now get a nice
rebate.

If we spend that money at Wal-Mart, all the
money will go to China.

If we spend it on gasoline it will all go to
the Arabs.

If we purchase a computer it will all go to
India.

If we purchase fruit and vegetables it will all
go to Mexico, Honduras, and Guatemala.

If we purchase a good car it will all go to
Japan.

If we purchase useless crap it will all go to
Taiwan and none of it will help the American
economy.

We need to keep that money here in America, so
the only way to keep that money here at home is to
buy prostitutes http://www.bunnyranch.com/index1.html
and beer,http://nimbusbeer.qwestoffice.net/
since those are the only
businesses still in the US.

Welcome Note

Welcome to A Case of the Benz !

Here you will find the rantings and ravings of yours truly. The topics covered will the items that interest ME. Don't expect "fair and balanced" coverage, because you won't get it. You may get headaches, heartburn, high blood pressure and / or shortness of breath. You will get honest, straightforward news and views according to ME!

"We" (the editorial we) are politically incorrect - 24/7/365.
We are non-partisan. We abuse everybody in some way, shape or form.

Allen Benz
a-benz
A Case of the Benz