most Americans were not paying attention. The ignorance with which the voting public concerns itself with whatever it is politicians talk about is probably the most alarming issue of our time. For some reason when statements such as that above are made no-one sees the treasonous nature of the verbiage. And treasonous it is, unless you are a Bill Clinton who would argue the meaning of the word is. Clinton....he's another New World Order guy. In his speeches he would encourage all Americans to have a "world view" and then he would go on and quote Bush's NWO and others seeking the same demise. George Bush (Bush 43) would rename the NWO, "Security and Prosperity" and went so far as to sign a treaty with Canada and Mexico which was not approved by the United States Senate or the American people. Secret agreements abound with those in power. When is the last time a candidate ran a campaign promoting a G20 or G8 Summit meeting. But that's what they do as soon as they're in office. They may have ran on "It's the economy stupid." or "Social Security", "Jobs", "Health Care" and even "Bring home the bacon issues and/or entitlements". But all this is fodder to feed and confuse the citizens into thinking that the politicians are looking out for them.“This is an historic moment...we have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order— a world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the UN’s founders.” (emphasis George Herbert Walker Bush ~ And who the hell is "we" ? ~ And since when has the United Nations ever been credible? ) ~ Norman E. Hooben
These politic elite are encouraged by numerous others that want to destroy America's Capitalistic structure in favor of Socialism where only the elite have all the capital. People like Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Cass Sunstein, John Holdren, and John Brennan to name a few, are all some sort of Leftist, Marxist ideologues that want to control not just the United States, but the entire world...a new world order under the United Nations. Before I go off on a rant about the UN, let me say this, "Guys like Brzenski, Brennan, and Sunstein (maybe all of them) want not only to control the people but the population...population as in numbers! Brzenski himself has stated, "Its easier to kill a million people than to control a million people" Then there was that top secret document referred to as project 2000 that dealt with controlling the population... And who was that architect? Why that was Henry Kissinger!" Most of us should know that these politic elite are not just democrats (although most of them are democrats) and republicans. They are selected over time for their political views and take the D or R after their name in order to win elections. Some are never elected but rather appointed. Take Henry Kissinger. Did he not work for both a Democrat and a Republican president? He sure did! How about the current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates? A Bush-Obama kind of guy...how sweet it is!
Back to the UN. Maybe I should just leave it as a question for you to ponder, "Can anyone tell me just one worthwhile thing the UN has accomplished since their beginning?" Just one.
Now for all you who hated George Herbert Walker Bush and voted for Bill Clinton did you realize that you got exactly what President Bush wanted. It was Bush 41 that tried to get NAFTA passed but somehow just couldn't come up with enough votes. Why? Even though the Democrats during the Bush Administration wanted NAFTA, they wanted it under their own guy, Bill Clinton. No sooner than when Mr. Bill gets into office, bingo!, NAFTA is a matter of law. Now what good did NAFTA do for the country. C'mon now, you voted for the guy so you should know the answer. Did it create jobs? Sure did! Jobs, jobs, and more jobs...in Canada, Mexico, and China plus maybe a few other places but not here in the U. S. of A.
So when George Herbert Walker Bush says, "When we are successful and we will be...". Who do you suppose the we is in that statement? I'll give you a hint, its not you and me. Another hint. Why do you suppose President George Hebert Walker Bush and President William Jefferson Clinton became best of buddies immediately after leaving office? Thats because the D and the R after their names blended into we...and we will!
Bush was also famous for another we quote, "If the American people knew what we have done, they would string us up from the lamp posts."
Well the we people in Washington have not changed (you wanted change you got more of the we) and the policies remain the same... Why just today I got an email referencing yet another of the we people, Hillary Rodham Clinton pushing the new world order for a new globalization (check that link out...read it and weep while you watch the videos) in front of the Council On Foreign Relations (Woe! watch out for those people, they run the country...check it out on one of those videos).
Meanwhile I started out with the idea that I was going to comment on the article below but somehow I think you can make the connection especially that part about NAFTA losing American jobs. ~ Norman E. Hooben
ps: Many people ask, "What can we do to solve our country's problems?" Sometimes it is necessary for a country to make a decision whereas if they don't either the country or the decision will be insignificant. If Barack Husein Obama is allowed to remain in office we may not have a country to worry about...he should be removed before his first term is up...there are provisions for doing this...we the people just got to do it!
_______________________________
The following from: EIC Economy In Crisis
Major Economic Problems Facing the United States
by Thomas Heffner on September 14, 2010 - 10:21am
The United States is facing economic disaster on a scale few nations have ever experienced. Most people are unaware of the easily observable signs of this emerging crisis. While we persist in our superpower mentality, we have quietly become a second-class country in many respects.
We no longer produce what we need to sustain ourselves, we import much more than we export, and we are selling off our assets and taking on massive debts to sustain a standard of living we can no longer afford. Not only was this not the way we became a superpower but it is a sure way to lose this status.
Foreign countries are using the funds earned through our trade deficits to buy many of our strategic companies. Over the past 10 years, foreign interests have purchased an unprecedented $8 Trillion worth of US assets.
The game plan of our international competitors is to render us completely dependent on foreign production, innovation, and financing. In losing domestic self-sufficiency, national security and leverage in foreign affairs will suffer greatly.
We are failing even to acknowledge predatory foreign trade practices undermining US industry. Instead we encourage US manufacturers to design, engineer, and produce in third world markets like Mexico and China.
Reversing the Trend: Some Suggestions for Action
What common-sense steps should we take to reverse the trend? First we should take direct action to reverse our out-of-control trade deficits. While our regulatory and tax systems have unnecessarily raised domestic business costs, the fundamental cause of the present crisis is three decades of extremely detrimental US trade and globalization policies.
Second, we must carefully manage access to our markets. We should not naively rest on the faith that other countries will hold themselves to our standards in areas such as the environment, labor, and competition policy. These standards affect the cost of production. If other countries fail to adhere to these standards, they gain an unfair cost advantage.
Access to our markets must be therefore conditioned on a strategic analysis of our own national needs first and foremost. As things stand, we have handed our sovereign rights to our domestic markets to international bodies like the World Trade Organization and are committed to disastrous “one-way free trade” agreements such as NAFTA and CAFTA. We are in a dramatically different position from emerging low-wage markets. They have everything to gain, and we have everything to lose. Our policies should carefully protect our wealth and resources rather than simply provide the lowest consumer cost regardless of the impact on our industries and our workers.
Finally, promoting open markets and economic growth abroad will not alone rebalance America’s trade accounts and domestic industrial collapse. Our industries have been so disarmed and dismantled that we now lack the knowledge, capacity, and investment capital to facilitate self-sustaining production. Dramatic new direction is required.
We no longer produce what we need to sustain ourselves, we import much more than we export, and we are selling off our assets and taking on massive debts to sustain a standard of living we can no longer afford. Not only was this not the way we became a superpower but it is a sure way to lose this status.
Foreign countries are using the funds earned through our trade deficits to buy many of our strategic companies. Over the past 10 years, foreign interests have purchased an unprecedented $8 Trillion worth of US assets.
The game plan of our international competitors is to render us completely dependent on foreign production, innovation, and financing. In losing domestic self-sufficiency, national security and leverage in foreign affairs will suffer greatly.
We are failing even to acknowledge predatory foreign trade practices undermining US industry. Instead we encourage US manufacturers to design, engineer, and produce in third world markets like Mexico and China.
Reversing the Trend: Some Suggestions for Action
What common-sense steps should we take to reverse the trend? First we should take direct action to reverse our out-of-control trade deficits. While our regulatory and tax systems have unnecessarily raised domestic business costs, the fundamental cause of the present crisis is three decades of extremely detrimental US trade and globalization policies.
Second, we must carefully manage access to our markets. We should not naively rest on the faith that other countries will hold themselves to our standards in areas such as the environment, labor, and competition policy. These standards affect the cost of production. If other countries fail to adhere to these standards, they gain an unfair cost advantage.
Access to our markets must be therefore conditioned on a strategic analysis of our own national needs first and foremost. As things stand, we have handed our sovereign rights to our domestic markets to international bodies like the World Trade Organization and are committed to disastrous “one-way free trade” agreements such as NAFTA and CAFTA. We are in a dramatically different position from emerging low-wage markets. They have everything to gain, and we have everything to lose. Our policies should carefully protect our wealth and resources rather than simply provide the lowest consumer cost regardless of the impact on our industries and our workers.
Finally, promoting open markets and economic growth abroad will not alone rebalance America’s trade accounts and domestic industrial collapse. Our industries have been so disarmed and dismantled that we now lack the knowledge, capacity, and investment capital to facilitate self-sustaining production. Dramatic new direction is required.
Comments:
Submitted by Bruce Bishop (not verified) on July 15, 2010 - 10:19am.
I agree with this article and with most of the comments.
To survive as a nation, we must have an industrial base, and we must have a thriving middle-class. These are all going away at an increasing rate. The solutions are simple and straightforward.
Becoming dependent on a criminal enterprise like Communist China is not "free trade." It's only free trade when they accept our goods in exchange for their goods. They don't!
Our government is dominated by Progressives who are cheering for globalization because it has been the middle-class that thwarted their dreams of a socialist Utopia. With a majority of people dependent on the government, the government will become powerful enough to give us "everything we need," and to "take away everything we've got."
Unfortunately, there is no Utopia at the end of the socialist road, only totalitarianism. Friedrich A. Hayek's book, "The Road to Serfdom," explains this very clearly. It was very popular when it came out in the forties, but that was before "American Idol." It's a small book, but it will change your outlook if you still think our government has your best interests at heart.
Bruce Bishop
To survive as a nation, we must have an industrial base, and we must have a thriving middle-class. These are all going away at an increasing rate. The solutions are simple and straightforward.
Becoming dependent on a criminal enterprise like Communist China is not "free trade." It's only free trade when they accept our goods in exchange for their goods. They don't!
Our government is dominated by Progressives who are cheering for globalization because it has been the middle-class that thwarted their dreams of a socialist Utopia. With a majority of people dependent on the government, the government will become powerful enough to give us "everything we need," and to "take away everything we've got."
Unfortunately, there is no Utopia at the end of the socialist road, only totalitarianism. Friedrich A. Hayek's book, "The Road to Serfdom," explains this very clearly. It was very popular when it came out in the forties, but that was before "American Idol." It's a small book, but it will change your outlook if you still think our government has your best interests at heart.
Bruce Bishop
Submitted by Benny (not verified) on July 12, 2010 - 2:05am.
The United States is facing economic disaster on a scale few nations have ever experienced.
Submitted by LALALALAL (not verified) on March 3, 2010 - 11:32am.
this helped me
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on February 27, 2010 - 6:38pm.
thanks you really helped me on my report for school
Submitted by John on February 7, 2010 - 5:15am.
Talking points & theory without the actual hard facts and plan is what got Obama elected, just empty sound bites we should do this and we should do that without ever spelling out the details about how to go about doing things.
We would either have to block some items or all items from coming into the country from certain countries or apply large tarrifs to them and without saying exactly what goods or products are going to be targeting it's just empty words.
Example, autos & auto parts.
We would likely not target Canada with tarrifs or limits so would need to actually say what exactly is going to be the limit or tarrif on imports of cars & parts and than proceed onto the next item or put an across the board tarrif or limit imports from a certain county, like name the country and spell out the limit or tarrif. It's easy to throw out a talking point, anyone could do that but when it comes down to the details they are always missing.
We would either have to block some items or all items from coming into the country from certain countries or apply large tarrifs to them and without saying exactly what goods or products are going to be targeting it's just empty words.
Example, autos & auto parts.
We would likely not target Canada with tarrifs or limits so would need to actually say what exactly is going to be the limit or tarrif on imports of cars & parts and than proceed onto the next item or put an across the board tarrif or limit imports from a certain county, like name the country and spell out the limit or tarrif. It's easy to throw out a talking point, anyone could do that but when it comes down to the details they are always missing.
Submitted by ReformerRay on March 4, 2010 - 6:06pm. #
I have the details. I think the U.S. Congress should pass a law establishing a schedule of gradually increasing tariffs (up to a limit of 40%) on all manufactured goods imported into the U.S. from the countries of China, Japan, Germany, Canada and Mexico.
Why these 5? In 2006, these nations collectively, had a tade surplus with the U.S. that accounted for 60% of all the surplus of goods imported into the country.
By limiting imports to certain countries and including all imports of goods from those countries, we escape from the criticisms usually directed at tariffs.
John is 100% correct. We need to talk about what should be done in specific terms.
Is this proposal specific enough, John?
Why these 5? In 2006, these nations collectively, had a tade surplus with the U.S. that accounted for 60% of all the surplus of goods imported into the country.
By limiting imports to certain countries and including all imports of goods from those countries, we escape from the criticisms usually directed at tariffs.
John is 100% correct. We need to talk about what should be done in specific terms.
Is this proposal specific enough, John?
Submitted by BIGuru on February 7, 2010 - 2:08pm. #
You may not want to create a serious disadvantage to Canada or any of our major trading partners. But you can say, if the partner has trade surplus, to reduce or eliminate that surplus in one year or face major tariffs. Most partners will agree because it is in their best interest. All the Partner has to do is buy some US goods to that surplus amount in Agriculture, Pharmaceuticals and even Machinery that they otherwise buy anyway!
Unfortunately our commerce department is run by morons.
Unfortunately our commerce department is run by morons.
Submitted by Daniella (not verified) on July 14, 2010 - 6:05pm. #
So I have taken a few econ classes and they have all said that free trade is the best way to go because of comparative advantage. Does anyone feel that this could be solved through internal policy change as far as taxes on businesses? I realize this would decrease government revenue, but why can't they cut their budget down? I realize this is probably a very simple solution and the situation is far more complicated than I am understanding, so can someone please explain to me?
Submitted by Joshua Sanders on August 2, 2010 - 3:09pm. #
I've taken those classes and beyond as well, and the problems with the economic model used to justify free trade are vast. Here are some problems I realize just from looking at the model.
1. The model is short-term
2. The model assumes too heavily that consumption is an indicator of economic performance and growth
3. The model is over-simplified, lacking in info regarding employment and long-term economic growth
4. Assumes consumption impacts an economy with the same magnitude as production.
5. Assumes all costs are directly pushed onto consumers.
6. Does not factor in cost-saving and tax lowering benefits of more protectionist trade policies.
Submitted by Bruce Bishop (not verified) on August 2, 2010 - 10:12pm. # 1. The model is short-term
2. The model assumes too heavily that consumption is an indicator of economic performance and growth
3. The model is over-simplified, lacking in info regarding employment and long-term economic growth
4. Assumes consumption impacts an economy with the same magnitude as production.
5. Assumes all costs are directly pushed onto consumers.
6. Does not factor in cost-saving and tax lowering benefits of more protectionist trade policies.
Mr. Sanders,
Your points about the free market sound like the "six blind men describing the elephant."
Is it possible that your professor had some sort of agenda or an ideological bias. Nothing you have written has any relation to the free market, although, were any of it true, it would certainly change the argument.
What makes you think the model is short term? Why wouldn't consumption be an indicator of economic performance and growth?
In your point 3, you say, "The model is oversimplified . . ." The model is dirt-simple. You are asking the rock to bleed. You might as well ask your bathroom scales to predict your weight in five years.
If you have answers for these questions, I will ask you to explain your other statements as well.
Bruce Bishop
Your points about the free market sound like the "six blind men describing the elephant."
Is it possible that your professor had some sort of agenda or an ideological bias. Nothing you have written has any relation to the free market, although, were any of it true, it would certainly change the argument.
What makes you think the model is short term? Why wouldn't consumption be an indicator of economic performance and growth?
In your point 3, you say, "The model is oversimplified . . ." The model is dirt-simple. You are asking the rock to bleed. You might as well ask your bathroom scales to predict your weight in five years.
If you have answers for these questions, I will ask you to explain your other statements as well.
Bruce Bishop
Submitted by BIGuru on August 2, 2010 - 5:51pm. #
Do not forget that the classical model does not take account the neuroeconomic factors (Even the Nobel Prize in Economics winner Daniel Kahneman had problems in developing the model). People have tried neural nets or fractal geometry and failed.
Submitted by BIGuru on July 14, 2010 - 7:56pm. #
Comparative advantage has something to do with production of goods. (which makes the world go around) Economists have no idea how to produce anything and therefore giving advice for trading goods is like Lawyers giving advice on brain surgery. There is no such thing as free trade when dealing with your trading partners in Asia as it is a belief system by western economists. You can tax zero percent to a business in western hemisphere and still will not be able to make any goods that would be cheaper than theirs. The way we manage Tax is completely different than the way they manage even though the words are similar.
Something to think about...
OBITUARY
THIS IS SAD---- BUT THINK ABOUT IT AFTER YOU READ IT THEN READ IT AGAIN!
In 1887 Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the
University of Edinburgh , had this to say about the fall of the
Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior: "A democracy is always
Temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent
Form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until
The time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous
Gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority
Always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from
The public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally
Collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a
Dictatorship."
"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the
Beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200
Years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage."
The Obituary follows:
"United States of America ", Born 1776, Died 2016
It doesn't hurt to read this several times.
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in
St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning
The last Presidential election:
Number of States won by: Obama: 19 Romney: 29
Square miles of land won by: Obama: 580,000 Romney: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by: Obama: 127 million Romney: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties
won by:
Obama: 13.2 Romney: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory
Romney won was mostly the land owned by the
taxpaying citizens of the country.
Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low
Income tenements and living off various forms of government
Welfare..."
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the
"complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of
Democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population
Already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase..
If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million
Criminal invaders called illegals - and they vote - then we can say
Goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.
THIS IS SAD---- BUT THINK ABOUT IT AFTER YOU READ IT THEN READ IT AGAIN!
In 1887 Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the
University of Edinburgh , had this to say about the fall of the
Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior: "A democracy is always
Temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent
Form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until
The time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous
Gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority
Always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from
The public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally
Collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a
Dictatorship."
"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the
Beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200
Years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage."
The Obituary follows:
"United States of America ", Born 1776, Died 2016
It doesn't hurt to read this several times.
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in
St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning
The last Presidential election:
Number of States won by: Obama: 19 Romney: 29
Square miles of land won by: Obama: 580,000 Romney: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by: Obama: 127 million Romney: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties
won by:
Obama: 13.2 Romney: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory
Romney won was mostly the land owned by the
taxpaying citizens of the country.
Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low
Income tenements and living off various forms of government
Welfare..."
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the
"complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of
Democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population
Already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase..
If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million
Criminal invaders called illegals - and they vote - then we can say
Goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.
1 comment:
What was Bush (41) talking about that they'd done that would make the American people string them up on lamp posts? I'm not clear on that part (and it's rather chilling).
Post a Comment