Going over the fiscal cliff is Democrat doublespeak for “We welcome another Great Depression.” And why not? The Great Depression gave Democrats their operating strategy: “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” The “good” crisis in the 1930s turned Americans away from individual liberties and towards big government. The Great Depression was fertile ground for utopian promises made by Socialists/Communists. Handing their freedoms to big government was the biggest mistake Americans made in the 1930s. Fight for more liberties and less government is the only way for Americans to beat Democrats at their own game when they push the economy over the cliff. Never mind that WWII —— not socialism —— ended the Great Depression. Today’s Socialists/Communists see another major economic crisis as a golden opportunity to frighten Americans, and the world, into surrendering what’s left of their freedoms. NOTE: The only difference between socialism and communism is how each one gets to totalitarian government. Socialists do it incrementally, while Communists prefer violent revolution. Communist prefer violent revolution until they are opposed with violence —— then they holler human rights, democracy, and every piece of philosophical garbage they can think up to stop violence being done to them. Unless Senator Murray is a complete idiot she had to know she threatened violence: Hoyer: Dems' 'fiscal cliff' threat different than last year's Republican default ploy By Mike Lillis - 07/17/12 02:58 PM ET http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mon...cliff-threat-different-than-gop-default-ploy- Even if Democrats and Republicans compromise for a short time —— cheap labor and high prices will push America over the cliff. Cheap labor is the Holy Grail in economics. Open-borders, illegal immigration, and outsourcing jobs are the best methods to use when cheap labor becomes official government policy. Buy low and sell high is the Holy Grail on Wall Street. Basically, Democrats do whatever it takes to insure that labor is bought low and sold high at the retail level. Under no circumstances will the government let competition determine the price of anything. The federal government is not alone when it comes to manipulating prices. State legislators pass laws that say this or that product may not be sold below a certain price in the state. California wine is one example. California wines are cheaper in NY than then they are in California. Hell, if you’re planning on a wine-tasting tour in order to buy some wine don’t go to Napa Valley go to NY. The irony in Murray’s threat is this: If she gets the crisis she wants Socialists will have to face the fact that more and more Americans cannot afford to buy the products they make because of socialism’s commitment to cheap labor and high prices. Workers unable to purchase the products they make was one of the most effective rallying cries Socialists and labor unions shouted from the rooftops in the early part of the 20th century. In time, not being able to afford food irrespective of huge farm subsidies will take hold. The growing number of Americans on food stamps is the tip of the crisis Democrats are engineering. The thing to remember is that Socialists planned equal distribution of poverty on a global scale a long time ago. They well-knew the day would come when working Americans could no longer buy the products the government IMPORTS even though those products were made by cheap labor in foreign countries. Once that happens Socialists can claim success for implementing equal distribution of poverty. Tens of millions of Americans will be reduced to the same living conditions one sees among the poorest in Third World countries. Guessing which foreign country America will become has been a popular parlor game for a decade or two. European countries usually get the nod. That is understandable but incorrect. Long before the ugly specter of multiculturalism raised its ugly head everybody still believed America would always be America. Everybody except me. While in Calcutta fifty or so years ago I had a premonition that someday America would become India in that great poverty would permanently coexist with great wealth. Back then, approximately four percent of India’s population controlled the wealth, while it was one percent in America. I believe those numbers are still in effect. India never had a private sector middle class to speak of, while America’s private sector middle class is being systematically dismantled by taxation. My point: When cheap labor and high prices combine with America’s vanishing middle class it won’t be long before America becomes India economically and culturally. Lest I be accused of immigrant-bashing let me point out that after many generations of immigrants from India coming to America they do not have the numbers, or the influence, to bring about a cultural change of the magnitude I’m indicating. Indeed, no single group of immigrants ever acquired that kind of clout when America was a melting pot. Monumental cultural change has to be rooted elsewhere. I’m suggesting that in addition to the government’s policy of cheap labor and high prices, a large unemployed pool of unskilled and semi-skilled labor to draw upon when needed is necessary to guarantee both cheap labor and great wealth. Finally, “collectivist” ideology and moral claptrap almost tripled America’s population since the Great Depression. Democrats are still working to keep the borders open. Think about it.
This is just repetition of a previous error. Outsourcing doesn't lead to cheap labour. In terms of more finely tuned comparative advantage, it generates two effects. First, it leads to wage gains in labour abundant country (one just needs to refer to standard isoquant-isocost analysis into economic efficiency to understand that). Second, the evidence shows that- as long as there is imperfect competition in the outsourcing country- employer/exployee bargaining is likely to generate domestic income increases (essentially referring to a redistribution of economic rents to the employee). To argue against that stance you have to refer to a more historical structuralist approach essentially based on Marxist analysis
+1 Its Cloward and Piven. Thats the only reason obama and his minions continue their failed policies. They want to cause a crisis so they can advance their agenda.
They continue their policies because they wish to defend capitalism and ensure the reproduction of capitalist profit. Good ole liberalism for you
Here’s an example of high food prices: Back in the early fifties Ronnie Gilbert of the Weavers could have been singing to Hussein: I walked down the street to the grocery store It was crowded with people Both rich and both poor I asked the man how his butter was sold He says one pound of butter for two pounds of gold http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=huOT6zCgZEU
At least try and construct mature remark! Perhaps something linking oil prices, biofuels and world food supply?
To Reiver: I assume my friends are smart enough to know that the price of food skyrocketed worldwide because of the ethanol subsidy which, in turn, came about because of environmental crapola. The Ronnie Gilbert bit was humor that apparently went over your head.
Senator McConnell is missing one element in Democrat strategy. They want to take the country over the cliff for the reasons I outlined in the OP, but they have to do it so capitalism gets the blame. During the Great Depression too many Americans automatically believed capitalism was at fault; so they turned to collectivism. Socialists/Communists have to very careful this time lest they and their policies get the blame as they should. [video]http://thehill.com/video/senate/271255-mcconnell-calls-for-vote-on-obamas-ridiculous-deficit-reduction-plan[/video]
During the Great Depression you saw the continuation of conservatism and the threatened destruction of capitalism. Unfortunately Keynesian sense was forced on the economy and the US continues to waste its resources and destroy social mobility
