People often ask me why I want to major in political science. They know I love to write, and so usually assume I am going to be an English major. I do love to write; it’s a part of me that will never fade, but there is another desire that is close to my heart, and this is a desire for justice. I see injustice all over the world, but nothing frustrates me more than seeing injustice and corruption in America.
America is the home of the brave, but also of honor, liberty, truth and justice. I believe that all five of those intrinsically American ideals are in danger, and I feel strongly called to take action personally. I am an ardent patriot and I think it is the duty of Americans not only to take what America can give, but to uphold her values with our own lives. It is a crime to murder, steal and cheat. I believe it is also a crime not to confront those offenses. However, the biggest crime of all is to allow an innocent person to be convicted or repressed, whether by a fellow citizen or even the government.
Acquiring a degree in political science would prepare me not only to fight injustice, but to quell the corruption I see developing in our government. America is a strong, beautiful nation founded on strong, beautiful principles. However, every day I see more of those founding principles violated or ignored. Government officials find ways to circumvent the system of checks and balances; they take more unapproved power every day. I believe this is not only an unjust use of power, but a demonstration of a lack of integrity.
America is headed in a direction that is not brave, honorable, free, true or just. The question I ask myself is “What can I do?” I go back to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, looking at the founding principles of America. So many virtues that were once upheld strongly have fallen. I believe it is the duty of the people to look at their God-given rights, at the principles the country was founded on, and take action. America can only do so much without the help of her citizens. Action must be taken to restore integrity to our country, and to save her people from the injustices that mount daily. That is why I chose to major in political science.
~Kendra Logan
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Monday, June 6, 2011
New Deal vs. Reaganomics vs. Obamanomics
Essay by Kendra Logan
4.1.11
Since the 1930s, there have been twelve different presidents and at least as many ideas on how to run the country. One of the most important aspects of the United States is the economy, and as such how to handle it has been a controversial subject from the beginning. When the Great Depression struck in the 1930s, the economy game became more of a priority than ever before. Since the Depression, three presidents have made, or are making, very distinct economic eras for themselves: Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his New Deal; Ronald Reagan and his supply-side-based Reaganomics; and currently, Barak Obama’s socialistic Obamanomics. Each of these economic philosophies impacted Americans and the free market in different ways, but the long term effects of each plan were almost always unforeseen.
In 1933, Franklin Delano Roosevelt took office as the 32nd president of the United States. He came into office promising to help America recover from the Great Depression. However, he did not have a clear plan of action, and often reacted quickly with whatever seemed best at the time. His three main philosophies of leadership were that the government should do more for the people, the government should spend in order to stimulate the economy, and the American people should be made happy.
At the time, people welcomed these patterns of thought. Americans were largely unaware of what caused the Great Depression and were eager for anyone to step in and take responsibility for helping them. This fit nicely with FDR’s socialistic goals for the nation. As he ran for term after term, FDR expanded the government at a rate never seen before, stepping in and taking over jobs people had always done for themselves. He embraced Keynesian economic policies, which state that they way to stimulate the economy is for the government to spend more. This made him increasingly popular because he helped Americans very publicly, regardless of whether or not it would be beneficial in the long run. FDR depended on feelings more than any other president, using fireside chats to approach families in a warm and friendly way. FDR’s almost four presidential terms amounted to years of increased government involvement and an alphabet soup of new programs.
Beginning with his inaugural address, FDR promised a profound change for America. Even today, it is somewhat difficult to understand FDR’s plan in an organized way. Most historians organize his plan into three parts: relief, recovery and reform and/or into his First New Deal and Second New Deal.
Roosevelt’s First New Deal dealt with groups of people, such as banking and farming. Only the day after his inauguration, Congress passed the Emergency Banking Act, part of FDR’s reform agenda. This act declared a “bank holiday” for one hundred days while the banks were evaluated. They were not allowed to reopen until FDR was satisfied with their performance. By the end of 1933, over four thousand small banks were permanently closed.
Another result of the First New Deal was the Agricultural Adjustment Administration. With new machines being invented, farmers were doing well and producing more than ever, which resulted in overproduction and therefore lower prices. Instead of allowing the free market to even things out, FDR determined that it was the government’s job to fix things. The Agricultural Adjustment Administration restricted farm output by paying farmers not to produce. In the one small area of farm overproduction, this made some sense. However, when looking at the big picture, it was obvious that restricting the production of food was foolish. Farmers were being paid not to grow food at the same time that people were standing starving in soup kitchens. Farm income did go up as FDR planned, but not according to plan. Farm income rose because the farmers took the government subsidies while keeping their production rate at the same level. The government wasted American tax dollars on an unnecessary project that was not even executed correctly.
This type of intense government involvement sprang from the philosophies of John Maynard Keynes, a leading British economist. Keynes declared that the only way for an economy to flourish was for the government to control it and spend large amounts. FDR, and many other leading economists, embraced this philosophy, disregarding the fact that Europe’s attempt at a Keynesian economy had failed miserably. Instead of allowing capitalism to run its course, FDR insisted that government spending was the way to go.
One way that FDR saw the government grow and spend was with the creation of thousands of government-paid jobs. This part of FDR’s First New Deal began on March 9, 1933, when Congress passed a series of bills dealing with the unemployment rate. At that time, a record-breaking 25% of the population was unemployed. The special session of Congress where these bills were passed is known as the Hundred Days. Through the new bills, FDR put into play his main philosophy: the government should expand to take care of everything. His solution to unemployment was direct recruitment. People were paid to do inconsequential jobs that ultimately created more problems. Men were hired to build schools, but then towns were left with finding teachers, supplies, and funding for the schools. As a result, as new schools were build, existing schools closed at record rates. FDR seemed to lack confidence in the American people. He failed to realize that if a job was needed, someone in the private sector would pay to have it done! For the economy to truly recover, Roosevelt should have allowed money to stay in the private sector instead of draining it via taxes. Had he done this, jobs would have been created by citizens instead of the government, giving people both jobs and areas in which to exercise creativity and ingenuity.
Although FDR did appear to want to help the nation, there were political goals in play as well. Had he left the creation of jobs to the people, the economy would have fared better in the long-run, but his popularity would have suffered in the short run. FDR was always intent on making his good deeds public so that the American people would see that the government was “doing something” for them. With increased government dependency, it would become more likely for Democrats, or even FDR himself to dominate the government.
With FDR’s Second New Deal, programs and administrations sprang up left and right, totaling at least one hundred by the end of FDR’s presidency. This explosion of agencies and acronyms is referred to as an “alphabet soup” era. While the short term effects of the programs can be seen as helpful in some cases, the long term consequences suggest they were not wise investments.
The Agricultural Adjustment Act, mentioned earlier, was created to control the production of farm goods and raise prices by offering subsidies. Farm income did rise, but only because farmers ignored the government’s orders and kept up production rates while accepting the subsidies. This act, while not even executed properly, raised prices for starving consumers and was even found unconstitutional in 1936. In 1995, Congress found agricultural subsidies to be inefficient and discontinued it.
Another act of FDR, the Tennessee Valley Authority Act, was meant to provide government-subsidized electric power to private citizens. However the act only increased government involvement in the private sector and created monopolies in electric power.
In 1934, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was founded to insure bank deposits up to $5000. It succeeded in that, and also encouraged risky investments, costing the government a total of $800 billion.
It is difficult to find anything beneficial about the Revenue Act of 1935. It was put in place to offset huge federal deficits by raising taxes across the board. This accelerated notions of the redistribution of wealth, causing progressives to target upper class citizens. The act did not offset deficits in the least. Instead, it cemented the rich’s practice of moving business overseas to avoid taxation. This, as usual, left the middle and lower class citizens to bear the brunt of the new taxes.
Social Security was also passed in 1935. It was intended to provide old-age pensions, unemployment compensation, and aid to families with dependent children, specifically in the cases of single mothers. The latter portion of Social Security caused a huge rise in illegitimacy by encouraging couples not to marry. Today the system demands higher taxes while giving fewer benefits and is now predicted to be bankrupt by 2020.
One of the most famous programs of the time, the Works Progress Administration, or WPA (nicknamed We Piddle Around), created 9 million public jobs such as the construction of bridges, theaters, sidewalks and other projects. This administration damaged the overall economy and catered to the elites. It was ended in 1943 during World War II.
In 1938, the Fair Labor Standards Act passed. This program set minimum wages and maximum hours that could be worked. It raised the cost of employment such that companies could no longer afford to hire as many workers, raising the unemployment levels. New studies suggest that the act may even have prolonged the Depression.
In the long run, FDR’s 13 years in office represent some of the least economically beneficial in history. Though he achieved nearly everything he wanted, none of his agencies worked the way they should have, and most of them damaged the economy overall. FDR’s years of feel-good fireside chats, growing government and Keynesian spend-crazy policies set America on an unfortunate course that would not be turned around for years.
When Ronald Reagan was elected in 1981, he faced an America that was in economic turmoil. The aftermath of World War II left American industry struggling to survive and compete internationally. The recent restrictions and regulations on everything from car exhaust to well-digging virtually stamped out American creativity and contributed to the economic downward spiral. Reagan came into the presidency promising to reduce government, lower taxes and free people from restrictive regulations.
Those three goals can be seen as different facets of one philosophy: supply-side economics. For years, economists had sworn by the tried-and-failed Keynesian economic philosophy. Reagan knew it was not working and decided to rely on simple common sense, which pointed to supply-side economics. The term “supply-side economics” was first used by Nixon’s economic advisor, Herbert Stein. This simple philosophy states that true economic growth occurs when the barriers for people to produce are removed. For Reagan this included lowering taxes and chipping away at the bureaucracy the government had become. Reagan had confidence that if some of the stifling restrictions were removed, the American people could work their way out of any dark place.
Reagan’s first order of business was a 30 percent, across-the-board tax cut, meaning taxes for everyone— not only the lower classes—would be reduced. However, Congress did not want to cut the taxes all at once and passed the Economic Recovery Act in 1981. This act staged 5, 10, and 10 percent tax cuts over a period of three years. Congress said that an across-the-board cut might give the impression of favoring the rich, but it would be naïve to say Congress was not also afraid of having less money coming in. The reality, as Reagan argued it, is that tax cuts pay for themselves. When taxes are lowered, business owners bring their companies back from overseas, subjecting themselves to taxation. Not once in the years following the cuts did revenue decline. The government actually took in five times more revenue. Unfortunately, Congress’s staggering of tax cuts lessened the dramatic impact Reagan had hoped for, but nothing could make this brilliant idea completely void.
Reagan further demonstrated his passion for allowing people freedom by being the only administration not to raise minimum wage. Reagan had confidence that the people could come to reasonable employments without the government telling them what to do. Reagan believed in stimulating producers with tax cuts and greater freedom rather than stimulating the consumers. This philosophy is sometimes referred to as “trickle-down economics” in that success starts at the top and spreads to lower class citizens. This is not entirely accurate, as Reagan’s first major act was to cut taxes for everyone. However, “trickle-down economics” could actually make sense. If a citizen, even an upper class one, experiences success, he will then be able to buy more, invest more, and hire more, thereby stimulating the economy. Freeing the upper classes also encourages lower class citizens to succeed. On the contrary, if a system benefited only lower class citizens, upper class citizens have no incentive to stay successful.
Besides cutting taxes and removing restrictions, Reagan cut back on government spending, just as he had done as governor of California. The Department of Transportation, an agency that had imposed unrealistic restrictions on vehicles since 1967, was forced to slow down its creation of new regulations. Secretary James G. Watt, who had been a key leader in the Sagebrush Rebellion against the Environmental Protection Agency, aided Reagan in cutting back on overbearing government agencies. Watt helped to shrink the Environmental Protection Agency by opening up public land and water to development and helping to remove other restrictions on private land. As well as cutting back agencies, Reagan cut back on the government itself, forcing staff and service cuts in almost all departments.
Critics like to point out that the national debt rose considerably during the Reagan years. This is true. As a short-run strategy to reduce inflation, the United States borrowed domestically and abroad to cover Federal budget deficits. Reagan was also forced to elevate funds towards the Cold War, which he was determined to end. He did. Nevertheless, the crusade for lower inflation and ending the war raised the national debt from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion.
The wonderful long-term effects of Reaganomics are undeniable. However, in the short run it appeared that Reagan’s policies would were only making things worse. A steep recession began in 1981 and soon became the most severe since the Great Depression. Many blamed Reagan, but what critics were seeing was the delayed aftermath of prolonged Keynesian thinking. Even those who knew the recession was not Reagan fault complained that the government was not doing enough to fight it. People failed to realize that preventing the government from “fixing” the economy was the best thing Reagan could have done. By allowing capitalism to run its course, Reagan orchestrated the greatest economic boom the nation had seen in a long time. He knew that things needed to get worse before they got better and was not afraid to suffer brief unpopularity for long-term economic stability.
To the surprise of many, by November of 1982 the nation pulled out of the recession and surged forward at a pace never before seen. During Reagan’s presidency, 16 million jobs were created in the private sector only. The rate of growth in federal spending fell from 4% under Jimmy Carter to 2.5% under Reagan; the federal deficit fell from 6% of the GNP in 1983 to just over 3% in 1987. By 1988, the inflation rate had also fallen to 4.1% from its peak of 13.5% in 1980. After experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years, the average family income grew by $4000. Unfortunately in the years to follow Reagan, the average dropped almost $1500.
Ronald Reagan’s unwavering trust in supply-side economics, small government and the value of giving people freedom led America through eight of its brightest years. Reagan did what his senses of morality and logic told him was right, despite heated criticism. Unfortunately, in order for prosperity to last, the sound policies needed to continue. Reagan did what he could while he was in office, but modern-day politicians seem determined not to learn from his success—or FDR’s mistakes.
Barak Obama, elected in 2008, is the current president of the United States. He came into office declaring that the nation needed change and he was the one to provide it. Both are true statements that could not go together more poorly. The nation was in dire need of change, but the change Obama offers is poison in disguise. His main philosophies involve a Keynesian economic mentality, expansion of government and governmental control of the economy.
On February 17, 2009, Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, a $787 billion economic stimulus package aimed at helping the economy recover from the deepening worldwide recession. This package is the modern day answer to Keynesian’s government spending suggestion. Yet again, despite overwhelming failures in Keynesian economies, the philosophies of the British economist are coming back. The five stated goals of the stimulus were to 1) preserve and create jobs, 2) assist those most impacted by the recession, 3) spur technological advances in science and health, 4) invest in transportation, environmental protection, and other infrastructure, and 5) stabilize state and local government budgets.
The stimulus package, designed to create jobs and jump start the economy, includes $6 billion to turn federal buildings into “green” buildings; a $2 billion grant to FutureGen, a power plant in Illinois that was defunded last year because of inefficiency; $650 million for the DTV converter box coupon program; $248 million for furniture at the new Department of Homeland Security headquarters; and $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint. The stimulus package proposal is over 1500 pages long. Judging by the number of outrageous proposals such as these, it is obvious most people have not read it. The stimulus is hardly more than a recipe for big government and higher tax dollars.
Just a month after the stimulus package, the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department announced the Public-Private Investment Program for Legacy Assets, which contains provisions for buying up to $2 trillion in depreciated real estate assets. This is yet another example of the government stepping in to help citizens where they could potentially help themselves. Similarly, Obama authorized the renewing of loans for General Motors and Chrysler. This gave the government a 60% stake in the company. In June of 2009, Obama called on his cabinet to accelerate the investment because he was dissatisfied with the pace of the stimulus. He signed into law the Car Allowance Rebate System, more popularly known as “Cash for Clunkers.” This program was designed to provide economic incentive for citizens to purchase newer, more efficient cars. The initial $1 billion provided for this program was exhausted well before the program was scheduled to end. This prompted Congress to approve another $2 billion dollars for it.
In 2010, Obama stated than across-the-board tax cuts wouldn’t stimulate economy. After Reagan’s years, where tax cuts did wonders for the economy, that statement is almost laughable. Still, Obama has raised taxes left and right since the day he took office. He raised the tax on the top two income tax brackets from 33 percent to 36 percent, and from 35 percent 39.6 percent. He raised the capital gains tax and the tax on dividend income from 15 percent to 20 percent on married filers with incomes above $250,000.
Despite all the taxation, the national debt has risen $3 trillion during Obama’s first two years in office. Although Obama likes to blame former president Bush for the shaky economy and mounting debt, Obama’s stimulus will cost more than $100 billion, 15%, more than the entire Iraq War. Iraq War spending accounted for just 3.2% of all federal spending while it lasted, and accounted for less than a quarter of what Obama spends on Medicaid.
In the short run, Obama’s stimulus package did in fact create jobs, although the reports of how many are wildly inconsistent. However, this situation closely mirrors that of FDR’s New Deal. Jobs were created, but at what long term cost? The Congressional Budget Office itself says that Obama’s numerous bills will help in the short run, but result in so much government debt that within a few years the bills will crowd out private investment entirely. What people fail to understand is that the economy can benefit in the short run and still be frighteningly unhealthy. One can feed a child caffeine and watch his energy level skyrocket. However in time more and more caffeine will be required to keep up the effect; all the while the child becomes less healthy.
President Obama has repeatedly claimed that his budget would cut the deficit in half by the end of his term. The 2010 budget deficit was $1.3 trillion, or around 10% of the nation's gross domestic product. For 2011, the administration predicted the deficit will slightly shrink to $1.34, while the 10-year deficit will increase to $8.53 trillion or 80% of GDP. If our presidents continue to employ these unhealthy economic practices, the nation will not stay afloat for long.
One can only estimate what the long-term effects of Obama’s actions will be. However, we can learn from the past, and there are many lessons to be learned from FDR’s and Reagan’s presidencies. Before each president, Roosevelt, Reagan, and Obama, came into office, the nation was experiencing severe economic struggles. FDR and Obama reacted by increasing government involvement. FDR’s New Deal, which created at least a hundred new agencies and programs, bears similarities to Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Both plans involved higher taxes, Keynesian philosophy, and use of the government to control the economy. To some extent, Obama also resembles FDR in that he relies on public emotion and popularity rather than sound logic and common sense. Reagan came into the presidency faced with an economy as bleak as FDR and Obama. Yet instead of expanding the government, Reagan cut back on unnecessary programs. Instead of raising taxes, Reagan cut taxes across the board and brought in five times more tax revenue. Instead of doing what looked easy, Reagan did the hard things because he knew it would be beneficial in the long run. Although each president took office faced with economic challenges, only Reagan managed to pull the nation through with good long-term results.
Many Americans originally embraced Barak Obama’s and FDR’s big government methods of leading the country. More government involvement meant less individual responsibility, and with the nation in a recession, less responsibility sounded good to everyone. No one wanted to hear Reagan’s voice of reason saying that things had to get worse before they got better. Fortunately, Reagan had the skill to guide the nation through the tough times to sunny days on the other side. Unfortunately, all good things will come to an end unless fought for, and Keynesian philosophy, government expansion, and socialism are once again on the horizon. The economy cannot continue in this condition forever. Sooner or later, the economy and everything surrounding it will undergo a massive shift. The only question is, will the shift be orchestrated by another Reagan, or will it inevitably shake the nation against all efforts to prevent it?
~Kendra Logan
4.1.11
Since the 1930s, there have been twelve different presidents and at least as many ideas on how to run the country. One of the most important aspects of the United States is the economy, and as such how to handle it has been a controversial subject from the beginning. When the Great Depression struck in the 1930s, the economy game became more of a priority than ever before. Since the Depression, three presidents have made, or are making, very distinct economic eras for themselves: Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his New Deal; Ronald Reagan and his supply-side-based Reaganomics; and currently, Barak Obama’s socialistic Obamanomics. Each of these economic philosophies impacted Americans and the free market in different ways, but the long term effects of each plan were almost always unforeseen.
In 1933, Franklin Delano Roosevelt took office as the 32nd president of the United States. He came into office promising to help America recover from the Great Depression. However, he did not have a clear plan of action, and often reacted quickly with whatever seemed best at the time. His three main philosophies of leadership were that the government should do more for the people, the government should spend in order to stimulate the economy, and the American people should be made happy.
At the time, people welcomed these patterns of thought. Americans were largely unaware of what caused the Great Depression and were eager for anyone to step in and take responsibility for helping them. This fit nicely with FDR’s socialistic goals for the nation. As he ran for term after term, FDR expanded the government at a rate never seen before, stepping in and taking over jobs people had always done for themselves. He embraced Keynesian economic policies, which state that they way to stimulate the economy is for the government to spend more. This made him increasingly popular because he helped Americans very publicly, regardless of whether or not it would be beneficial in the long run. FDR depended on feelings more than any other president, using fireside chats to approach families in a warm and friendly way. FDR’s almost four presidential terms amounted to years of increased government involvement and an alphabet soup of new programs.
Beginning with his inaugural address, FDR promised a profound change for America. Even today, it is somewhat difficult to understand FDR’s plan in an organized way. Most historians organize his plan into three parts: relief, recovery and reform and/or into his First New Deal and Second New Deal.
Roosevelt’s First New Deal dealt with groups of people, such as banking and farming. Only the day after his inauguration, Congress passed the Emergency Banking Act, part of FDR’s reform agenda. This act declared a “bank holiday” for one hundred days while the banks were evaluated. They were not allowed to reopen until FDR was satisfied with their performance. By the end of 1933, over four thousand small banks were permanently closed.
Another result of the First New Deal was the Agricultural Adjustment Administration. With new machines being invented, farmers were doing well and producing more than ever, which resulted in overproduction and therefore lower prices. Instead of allowing the free market to even things out, FDR determined that it was the government’s job to fix things. The Agricultural Adjustment Administration restricted farm output by paying farmers not to produce. In the one small area of farm overproduction, this made some sense. However, when looking at the big picture, it was obvious that restricting the production of food was foolish. Farmers were being paid not to grow food at the same time that people were standing starving in soup kitchens. Farm income did go up as FDR planned, but not according to plan. Farm income rose because the farmers took the government subsidies while keeping their production rate at the same level. The government wasted American tax dollars on an unnecessary project that was not even executed correctly.
This type of intense government involvement sprang from the philosophies of John Maynard Keynes, a leading British economist. Keynes declared that the only way for an economy to flourish was for the government to control it and spend large amounts. FDR, and many other leading economists, embraced this philosophy, disregarding the fact that Europe’s attempt at a Keynesian economy had failed miserably. Instead of allowing capitalism to run its course, FDR insisted that government spending was the way to go.
One way that FDR saw the government grow and spend was with the creation of thousands of government-paid jobs. This part of FDR’s First New Deal began on March 9, 1933, when Congress passed a series of bills dealing with the unemployment rate. At that time, a record-breaking 25% of the population was unemployed. The special session of Congress where these bills were passed is known as the Hundred Days. Through the new bills, FDR put into play his main philosophy: the government should expand to take care of everything. His solution to unemployment was direct recruitment. People were paid to do inconsequential jobs that ultimately created more problems. Men were hired to build schools, but then towns were left with finding teachers, supplies, and funding for the schools. As a result, as new schools were build, existing schools closed at record rates. FDR seemed to lack confidence in the American people. He failed to realize that if a job was needed, someone in the private sector would pay to have it done! For the economy to truly recover, Roosevelt should have allowed money to stay in the private sector instead of draining it via taxes. Had he done this, jobs would have been created by citizens instead of the government, giving people both jobs and areas in which to exercise creativity and ingenuity.
Although FDR did appear to want to help the nation, there were political goals in play as well. Had he left the creation of jobs to the people, the economy would have fared better in the long-run, but his popularity would have suffered in the short run. FDR was always intent on making his good deeds public so that the American people would see that the government was “doing something” for them. With increased government dependency, it would become more likely for Democrats, or even FDR himself to dominate the government.
With FDR’s Second New Deal, programs and administrations sprang up left and right, totaling at least one hundred by the end of FDR’s presidency. This explosion of agencies and acronyms is referred to as an “alphabet soup” era. While the short term effects of the programs can be seen as helpful in some cases, the long term consequences suggest they were not wise investments.
The Agricultural Adjustment Act, mentioned earlier, was created to control the production of farm goods and raise prices by offering subsidies. Farm income did rise, but only because farmers ignored the government’s orders and kept up production rates while accepting the subsidies. This act, while not even executed properly, raised prices for starving consumers and was even found unconstitutional in 1936. In 1995, Congress found agricultural subsidies to be inefficient and discontinued it.
Another act of FDR, the Tennessee Valley Authority Act, was meant to provide government-subsidized electric power to private citizens. However the act only increased government involvement in the private sector and created monopolies in electric power.
In 1934, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was founded to insure bank deposits up to $5000. It succeeded in that, and also encouraged risky investments, costing the government a total of $800 billion.
It is difficult to find anything beneficial about the Revenue Act of 1935. It was put in place to offset huge federal deficits by raising taxes across the board. This accelerated notions of the redistribution of wealth, causing progressives to target upper class citizens. The act did not offset deficits in the least. Instead, it cemented the rich’s practice of moving business overseas to avoid taxation. This, as usual, left the middle and lower class citizens to bear the brunt of the new taxes.
Social Security was also passed in 1935. It was intended to provide old-age pensions, unemployment compensation, and aid to families with dependent children, specifically in the cases of single mothers. The latter portion of Social Security caused a huge rise in illegitimacy by encouraging couples not to marry. Today the system demands higher taxes while giving fewer benefits and is now predicted to be bankrupt by 2020.
One of the most famous programs of the time, the Works Progress Administration, or WPA (nicknamed We Piddle Around), created 9 million public jobs such as the construction of bridges, theaters, sidewalks and other projects. This administration damaged the overall economy and catered to the elites. It was ended in 1943 during World War II.
In 1938, the Fair Labor Standards Act passed. This program set minimum wages and maximum hours that could be worked. It raised the cost of employment such that companies could no longer afford to hire as many workers, raising the unemployment levels. New studies suggest that the act may even have prolonged the Depression.
In the long run, FDR’s 13 years in office represent some of the least economically beneficial in history. Though he achieved nearly everything he wanted, none of his agencies worked the way they should have, and most of them damaged the economy overall. FDR’s years of feel-good fireside chats, growing government and Keynesian spend-crazy policies set America on an unfortunate course that would not be turned around for years.
When Ronald Reagan was elected in 1981, he faced an America that was in economic turmoil. The aftermath of World War II left American industry struggling to survive and compete internationally. The recent restrictions and regulations on everything from car exhaust to well-digging virtually stamped out American creativity and contributed to the economic downward spiral. Reagan came into the presidency promising to reduce government, lower taxes and free people from restrictive regulations.
Those three goals can be seen as different facets of one philosophy: supply-side economics. For years, economists had sworn by the tried-and-failed Keynesian economic philosophy. Reagan knew it was not working and decided to rely on simple common sense, which pointed to supply-side economics. The term “supply-side economics” was first used by Nixon’s economic advisor, Herbert Stein. This simple philosophy states that true economic growth occurs when the barriers for people to produce are removed. For Reagan this included lowering taxes and chipping away at the bureaucracy the government had become. Reagan had confidence that if some of the stifling restrictions were removed, the American people could work their way out of any dark place.
Reagan’s first order of business was a 30 percent, across-the-board tax cut, meaning taxes for everyone— not only the lower classes—would be reduced. However, Congress did not want to cut the taxes all at once and passed the Economic Recovery Act in 1981. This act staged 5, 10, and 10 percent tax cuts over a period of three years. Congress said that an across-the-board cut might give the impression of favoring the rich, but it would be naïve to say Congress was not also afraid of having less money coming in. The reality, as Reagan argued it, is that tax cuts pay for themselves. When taxes are lowered, business owners bring their companies back from overseas, subjecting themselves to taxation. Not once in the years following the cuts did revenue decline. The government actually took in five times more revenue. Unfortunately, Congress’s staggering of tax cuts lessened the dramatic impact Reagan had hoped for, but nothing could make this brilliant idea completely void.
Reagan further demonstrated his passion for allowing people freedom by being the only administration not to raise minimum wage. Reagan had confidence that the people could come to reasonable employments without the government telling them what to do. Reagan believed in stimulating producers with tax cuts and greater freedom rather than stimulating the consumers. This philosophy is sometimes referred to as “trickle-down economics” in that success starts at the top and spreads to lower class citizens. This is not entirely accurate, as Reagan’s first major act was to cut taxes for everyone. However, “trickle-down economics” could actually make sense. If a citizen, even an upper class one, experiences success, he will then be able to buy more, invest more, and hire more, thereby stimulating the economy. Freeing the upper classes also encourages lower class citizens to succeed. On the contrary, if a system benefited only lower class citizens, upper class citizens have no incentive to stay successful.
Besides cutting taxes and removing restrictions, Reagan cut back on government spending, just as he had done as governor of California. The Department of Transportation, an agency that had imposed unrealistic restrictions on vehicles since 1967, was forced to slow down its creation of new regulations. Secretary James G. Watt, who had been a key leader in the Sagebrush Rebellion against the Environmental Protection Agency, aided Reagan in cutting back on overbearing government agencies. Watt helped to shrink the Environmental Protection Agency by opening up public land and water to development and helping to remove other restrictions on private land. As well as cutting back agencies, Reagan cut back on the government itself, forcing staff and service cuts in almost all departments.
Critics like to point out that the national debt rose considerably during the Reagan years. This is true. As a short-run strategy to reduce inflation, the United States borrowed domestically and abroad to cover Federal budget deficits. Reagan was also forced to elevate funds towards the Cold War, which he was determined to end. He did. Nevertheless, the crusade for lower inflation and ending the war raised the national debt from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion.
The wonderful long-term effects of Reaganomics are undeniable. However, in the short run it appeared that Reagan’s policies would were only making things worse. A steep recession began in 1981 and soon became the most severe since the Great Depression. Many blamed Reagan, but what critics were seeing was the delayed aftermath of prolonged Keynesian thinking. Even those who knew the recession was not Reagan fault complained that the government was not doing enough to fight it. People failed to realize that preventing the government from “fixing” the economy was the best thing Reagan could have done. By allowing capitalism to run its course, Reagan orchestrated the greatest economic boom the nation had seen in a long time. He knew that things needed to get worse before they got better and was not afraid to suffer brief unpopularity for long-term economic stability.
To the surprise of many, by November of 1982 the nation pulled out of the recession and surged forward at a pace never before seen. During Reagan’s presidency, 16 million jobs were created in the private sector only. The rate of growth in federal spending fell from 4% under Jimmy Carter to 2.5% under Reagan; the federal deficit fell from 6% of the GNP in 1983 to just over 3% in 1987. By 1988, the inflation rate had also fallen to 4.1% from its peak of 13.5% in 1980. After experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years, the average family income grew by $4000. Unfortunately in the years to follow Reagan, the average dropped almost $1500.
Ronald Reagan’s unwavering trust in supply-side economics, small government and the value of giving people freedom led America through eight of its brightest years. Reagan did what his senses of morality and logic told him was right, despite heated criticism. Unfortunately, in order for prosperity to last, the sound policies needed to continue. Reagan did what he could while he was in office, but modern-day politicians seem determined not to learn from his success—or FDR’s mistakes.
Barak Obama, elected in 2008, is the current president of the United States. He came into office declaring that the nation needed change and he was the one to provide it. Both are true statements that could not go together more poorly. The nation was in dire need of change, but the change Obama offers is poison in disguise. His main philosophies involve a Keynesian economic mentality, expansion of government and governmental control of the economy.
On February 17, 2009, Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, a $787 billion economic stimulus package aimed at helping the economy recover from the deepening worldwide recession. This package is the modern day answer to Keynesian’s government spending suggestion. Yet again, despite overwhelming failures in Keynesian economies, the philosophies of the British economist are coming back. The five stated goals of the stimulus were to 1) preserve and create jobs, 2) assist those most impacted by the recession, 3) spur technological advances in science and health, 4) invest in transportation, environmental protection, and other infrastructure, and 5) stabilize state and local government budgets.
The stimulus package, designed to create jobs and jump start the economy, includes $6 billion to turn federal buildings into “green” buildings; a $2 billion grant to FutureGen, a power plant in Illinois that was defunded last year because of inefficiency; $650 million for the DTV converter box coupon program; $248 million for furniture at the new Department of Homeland Security headquarters; and $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint. The stimulus package proposal is over 1500 pages long. Judging by the number of outrageous proposals such as these, it is obvious most people have not read it. The stimulus is hardly more than a recipe for big government and higher tax dollars.
Just a month after the stimulus package, the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department announced the Public-Private Investment Program for Legacy Assets, which contains provisions for buying up to $2 trillion in depreciated real estate assets. This is yet another example of the government stepping in to help citizens where they could potentially help themselves. Similarly, Obama authorized the renewing of loans for General Motors and Chrysler. This gave the government a 60% stake in the company. In June of 2009, Obama called on his cabinet to accelerate the investment because he was dissatisfied with the pace of the stimulus. He signed into law the Car Allowance Rebate System, more popularly known as “Cash for Clunkers.” This program was designed to provide economic incentive for citizens to purchase newer, more efficient cars. The initial $1 billion provided for this program was exhausted well before the program was scheduled to end. This prompted Congress to approve another $2 billion dollars for it.
In 2010, Obama stated than across-the-board tax cuts wouldn’t stimulate economy. After Reagan’s years, where tax cuts did wonders for the economy, that statement is almost laughable. Still, Obama has raised taxes left and right since the day he took office. He raised the tax on the top two income tax brackets from 33 percent to 36 percent, and from 35 percent 39.6 percent. He raised the capital gains tax and the tax on dividend income from 15 percent to 20 percent on married filers with incomes above $250,000.
Despite all the taxation, the national debt has risen $3 trillion during Obama’s first two years in office. Although Obama likes to blame former president Bush for the shaky economy and mounting debt, Obama’s stimulus will cost more than $100 billion, 15%, more than the entire Iraq War. Iraq War spending accounted for just 3.2% of all federal spending while it lasted, and accounted for less than a quarter of what Obama spends on Medicaid.
In the short run, Obama’s stimulus package did in fact create jobs, although the reports of how many are wildly inconsistent. However, this situation closely mirrors that of FDR’s New Deal. Jobs were created, but at what long term cost? The Congressional Budget Office itself says that Obama’s numerous bills will help in the short run, but result in so much government debt that within a few years the bills will crowd out private investment entirely. What people fail to understand is that the economy can benefit in the short run and still be frighteningly unhealthy. One can feed a child caffeine and watch his energy level skyrocket. However in time more and more caffeine will be required to keep up the effect; all the while the child becomes less healthy.
President Obama has repeatedly claimed that his budget would cut the deficit in half by the end of his term. The 2010 budget deficit was $1.3 trillion, or around 10% of the nation's gross domestic product. For 2011, the administration predicted the deficit will slightly shrink to $1.34, while the 10-year deficit will increase to $8.53 trillion or 80% of GDP. If our presidents continue to employ these unhealthy economic practices, the nation will not stay afloat for long.
One can only estimate what the long-term effects of Obama’s actions will be. However, we can learn from the past, and there are many lessons to be learned from FDR’s and Reagan’s presidencies. Before each president, Roosevelt, Reagan, and Obama, came into office, the nation was experiencing severe economic struggles. FDR and Obama reacted by increasing government involvement. FDR’s New Deal, which created at least a hundred new agencies and programs, bears similarities to Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Both plans involved higher taxes, Keynesian philosophy, and use of the government to control the economy. To some extent, Obama also resembles FDR in that he relies on public emotion and popularity rather than sound logic and common sense. Reagan came into the presidency faced with an economy as bleak as FDR and Obama. Yet instead of expanding the government, Reagan cut back on unnecessary programs. Instead of raising taxes, Reagan cut taxes across the board and brought in five times more tax revenue. Instead of doing what looked easy, Reagan did the hard things because he knew it would be beneficial in the long run. Although each president took office faced with economic challenges, only Reagan managed to pull the nation through with good long-term results.
Many Americans originally embraced Barak Obama’s and FDR’s big government methods of leading the country. More government involvement meant less individual responsibility, and with the nation in a recession, less responsibility sounded good to everyone. No one wanted to hear Reagan’s voice of reason saying that things had to get worse before they got better. Fortunately, Reagan had the skill to guide the nation through the tough times to sunny days on the other side. Unfortunately, all good things will come to an end unless fought for, and Keynesian philosophy, government expansion, and socialism are once again on the horizon. The economy cannot continue in this condition forever. Sooner or later, the economy and everything surrounding it will undergo a massive shift. The only question is, will the shift be orchestrated by another Reagan, or will it inevitably shake the nation against all efforts to prevent it?
~Kendra Logan
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Government Help
It’s a terrible thought that someone might go hungry at night, or be left in the rain because they lack money. People are important no matter what their income. For a child to grow up without proper nutrition or clothing is a crime. I think every American believes that the poor are to be pitied, and helped.
So why don’t the American people help them? Instead of forcing government action, let the people do it themselves! Instead of forcing taxes on citizens, let them chose to give money to private organizations themselves! Instead of feeding the attitude of bitterness brought on by forced giving, encourage the people to support churches and other organizations freely!
By advocating government involvement, one underestimates the power of the American people. If we could all help each other of our own accord, it would make America stronger economically, more stable socially, and more upright morally. The answer here is not government aid. The answer is for each American to put his money, and actions, where his mouth is and build a stronger society, where the government doesn’t have to force the people to do what is right.
~Kendra Logan
So why don’t the American people help them? Instead of forcing government action, let the people do it themselves! Instead of forcing taxes on citizens, let them chose to give money to private organizations themselves! Instead of feeding the attitude of bitterness brought on by forced giving, encourage the people to support churches and other organizations freely!
By advocating government involvement, one underestimates the power of the American people. If we could all help each other of our own accord, it would make America stronger economically, more stable socially, and more upright morally. The answer here is not government aid. The answer is for each American to put his money, and actions, where his mouth is and build a stronger society, where the government doesn’t have to force the people to do what is right.
~Kendra Logan
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Does Capitalism Lead to Socialism?
"Karl Marx said that capitalism is a step along the way to socialism. This is a very uncomfortable thought to me, I must confess. To gain some perspective, it helps to look at a little history..." ~ "Maybe Marx was right" by David Bailey.
I thought this was a pretty interesting post, especially considering I love philosophy. Check it out if you want!
I thought this was a pretty interesting post, especially considering I love philosophy. Check it out if you want!
Monday, November 23, 2009
"Animal Farm"
“Animal Farm”, written by George Orwell, was published in 1946 just after World War II. The story follows a farm of animals as they rebel against their master. They overthrow the evil Mr. Jones, and begin a new system of government called “Animalism”, founded on the principle that “all animals are equal”. The story first appears to be almost childlike, but it soon becomes obvious that Animalism bears uncanny resemblance to totalitarianism/communism. Orwell proves his point well in this fairytale of symbolic characters: when a government is based on the prospect that all are equal, it becomes inevitable that some will end up “more equal than others”. - Kendra Logan, from the essay "Animal Farm".
Read the book.
Read the book.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Power
"Absolutely power corrupts.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
- John Emerich Edward Dalberg, 1st Baron Acton
Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
- John Emerich Edward Dalberg, 1st Baron Acton
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Freedom and Equality: Pick One
Free people are not Equal;
and Equal people are not Free.
If freedom reigns, some people will prosper while others will not.
If freedom reigns, people will like "Rachel" better than "Matilda".
If freedom reigns, your house will be bigger than my house.
If freedom reigns, you will fail and I will succeed.
If everyone is equal, you will be forced to do average when you should do fabulously.
If everyone is equal, we will be forced to like Rachel and Matilda the same.
If everyone is equal, you will be forced to have an average-sized house.
If everyone is equal, you will be forced to succeed whether you like it or not because I did.
Free people are not Equal;
and Equal people are not Free.
and Equal people are not Free.
If freedom reigns, some people will prosper while others will not.
If freedom reigns, people will like "Rachel" better than "Matilda".
If freedom reigns, your house will be bigger than my house.
If freedom reigns, you will fail and I will succeed.
If everyone is equal, you will be forced to do average when you should do fabulously.
If everyone is equal, we will be forced to like Rachel and Matilda the same.
If everyone is equal, you will be forced to have an average-sized house.
If everyone is equal, you will be forced to succeed whether you like it or not because I did.
Free people are not Equal;
and Equal people are not Free.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Taking a Stand: The Monster Unleashed :D
Some of you may recall a blogger named JT Norlander who commented on Alex's post during Followers Say. He did not seem to think I was firm enough about my position against homosexuality. He suggested on his blog that I should "take a stand".
Those of you who know me in person: try not to laugh out loud XD
One thing I've had to be very careful about in my life is how I come across to people. When I research something and form an educated opinion, my opinions are, if you'll pardon the reference to Mulan, written in stone. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever standing up for myself and my beliefs. I frequently have to run my comments by someone else to make sure I am not completely blowing holes in what other people are saying.
Some people might call it having a temper, but I prefer to think of it as being "strong-willed". *smirks* All good training for law school, right? XD
So, just to be make it clear that I am very much a True Christian, let me run through the 11 basic beliefs we've covered on Carpe Noctem.
1. The New America: America is falling. Our founding priciples are crumbling, personal freedoms are slowly being taken away.
I thought the "New America" would be decades from now. I thought the big changes and awful things would come later.
I was wrong.
The New America is here. It is now.
America is going to fall, and when she does, who is going to pick her back up? People who are educated and persuasive. People who are good thinkers and people who can use logic.
When America falls, we will need LEADERS. Leaders with good ideas, principles and morals who can build America back up to the nation she was meant to be.
Plenty of people have good ideas, principles and morals, though. Most of them will not be able to help. Do you know why?
Because they don't know how to think, how to write, how to persuade.
It's a very basic concept, one that can be good or bad.
Winners, leaders, are not chosen because of their outstanding character. Not really. They are chosen because they know how to persuade people.
End of mini rant.
Controversial, extremist, and offensive point: When America falls, classically educated homeschoolers will rise to power because they know how to think, use logic, persuade, speak publically, and articulate their ideas well.
2. Feminism: It's not a dirty word. Feminism is not a sin. It can be pretty stupid, but it's not a sin.
Girls are just as smart as guys, but, face it, WE'RE NOT SUITED FOR THE NFL.
The whole attitude of Girls-Can-Do-ANYTHING-Guys-Can-Do-So-HAH attitude is getting really old and is frankly not true.
Girls and guys were made differently, so instead of pretending to be guys, let's celebrate the difference, shall we?
3. Discrimination: Racial discrimination is a terrible thing, a definite no-no. Discrimination, however, is not a bad thing.
Discrimination: to note or observe a difference; distinguish accurately
Is that wrong? Nope. When chosing a babysitting for your three year old, are you going to chose the tidy girl who make straight As and is always smiling, or the girl wearing black lipstick cussing her brains out at a stranger on the street?
Discrimination. Not bad in itself, just where we point it.
4. Global Warming: Bite me. You can tell me global warming is true, BLAH BLAH BLAH, but the HARD, COLD, FREAKIN' FACT is that it's
NOT.
Sorry. Do you research. All the big-name weather guys are telling you the same thing: LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE, PEOPLE. GLOBAL WARMING IS FAKE, FAKE, FAKE.
There is NOTHING WRONG WITH OUR ATMOSPHERE in the long run. This is a PHASE.
I've said this a bunch, and I'll say it again. It's a hoax. Do your reasearch.
5. Weird vs. Normal: It's all so relative that there's really no such thing.
6. Being Great: C'mon, you scaredy cat. DO SOMETHING. BE MISUNDERSTOOD. DARE TO BE GREAT.
7. Terrorists/War: Can't we just live and let live?
To put it simply, NO.
Now, some people say that we should stop fighting the terrorists. Leave them alone, they say. Live and let live.
I'm fine with that. You're probably fine with that. Most people (serial killers not included) are good with that.
Except the terrorists.
THEY WANT TO KILL US. It's part of their religion. Their Bible explicitely says "KILL ALL THE NON-MUSLIMS!"
Yay, peace. Peace is good. But I think for peace to work, both sides have to agree to NOT KILL EACH OTHER.
I am all for peace. Really. As much as I enjoy stirring up trouble and debating, world peace is a wonderful that I want us to have! I think it would be WONDERFUL if we could live in harmoney with the Muslims. Some of them are probably really great people.
But as long as they are bombing America, it is America's job to fight back.
America is not "attacking" the terrorists. It is purely self-defense.
8. Articulacy: Ah, articulacy. The lost art. Let's think. If people were all articulate and persuasive, what could we achieve...?
We could paint picture in the air with our words!
We could solve disputes in half the time.
We could skip all the tedious daily arguments.
We could persuade people to do all kinds of things.
We could make people understand us.
We could talk our way up the corporate ladder.
We could charm the most uncharmable character.
We could rise to infinite power!
So, what are you waiting for? Get out a dictionary and learn to talk.
9. Going Green: Don’t get me wrong, I am all for keeping Earth alive for as long as possible, especially considering I live here. But the whole concept of “going green” has gotten SO ANNOYING. I am getting a little fed up with the whole GAHHH!!!-DID-YOU-JUST-THROW-THAT-CAN AWAY-THAT-IS-RECYCLABLE-MATERIAL!!!!!! thing. It’s really starting to get on my nerves.
The whole world is “going green”, which is a fine thing, just not when every time I open a magazine they’re screaming “secrets” about how to go even GREENER than we already are. It’s in children’s programs, even! Entire episodes of Curious George have been dedicated to making sure kids know they’re killing trees with every drawing they create.
Everyone already knows about being green. Do we have to keep dedicating entire episodes and magazine issues to the movement? Just let it sit for a while. Bring it up again for the next generation.
If we really wanted more “green” tips, we could Google it.
10. Evolution: *HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA*
*wipes tears from eyes* *gasp*
Okay, sorry. I'm not even going to go into this. If you look at your facts, you'll come to the same conclusion. If you look at the facts and don't, there is something wrong with you.
11. Homosexuality: It's bad. It's against God. It's a choice.
Line of Logical Reasoning (this will only go for those who proclaim themselves Christians):
All sin is a choice.
Homosexuality is a sin.
Therefore, homosexuality is a choice.
And it's that simple.
Hopefully this reitteration of my beliefs has helped you guys. JT, congratulations on unleashing the monster ;)
Those of you who know me in person: try not to laugh out loud XD
One thing I've had to be very careful about in my life is how I come across to people. When I research something and form an educated opinion, my opinions are, if you'll pardon the reference to Mulan, written in stone. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever standing up for myself and my beliefs. I frequently have to run my comments by someone else to make sure I am not completely blowing holes in what other people are saying.
Some people might call it having a temper, but I prefer to think of it as being "strong-willed". *smirks* All good training for law school, right? XD
So, just to be make it clear that I am very much a True Christian, let me run through the 11 basic beliefs we've covered on Carpe Noctem.
1. The New America: America is falling. Our founding priciples are crumbling, personal freedoms are slowly being taken away.
I thought the "New America" would be decades from now. I thought the big changes and awful things would come later.
I was wrong.
The New America is here. It is now.
America is going to fall, and when she does, who is going to pick her back up? People who are educated and persuasive. People who are good thinkers and people who can use logic.
When America falls, we will need LEADERS. Leaders with good ideas, principles and morals who can build America back up to the nation she was meant to be.
Plenty of people have good ideas, principles and morals, though. Most of them will not be able to help. Do you know why?
Because they don't know how to think, how to write, how to persuade.
It's a very basic concept, one that can be good or bad.
Winners, leaders, are not chosen because of their outstanding character. Not really. They are chosen because they know how to persuade people.
End of mini rant.
Controversial, extremist, and offensive point: When America falls, classically educated homeschoolers will rise to power because they know how to think, use logic, persuade, speak publically, and articulate their ideas well.
2. Feminism: It's not a dirty word. Feminism is not a sin. It can be pretty stupid, but it's not a sin.
Girls are just as smart as guys, but, face it, WE'RE NOT SUITED FOR THE NFL.
The whole attitude of Girls-Can-Do-ANYTHING-Guys-Can-Do-So-HAH attitude is getting really old and is frankly not true.
Girls and guys were made differently, so instead of pretending to be guys, let's celebrate the difference, shall we?
3. Discrimination: Racial discrimination is a terrible thing, a definite no-no. Discrimination, however, is not a bad thing.
Discrimination: to note or observe a difference; distinguish accurately
Is that wrong? Nope. When chosing a babysitting for your three year old, are you going to chose the tidy girl who make straight As and is always smiling, or the girl wearing black lipstick cussing her brains out at a stranger on the street?
Discrimination. Not bad in itself, just where we point it.
4. Global Warming: Bite me. You can tell me global warming is true, BLAH BLAH BLAH, but the HARD, COLD, FREAKIN' FACT is that it's
NOT.
Sorry. Do you research. All the big-name weather guys are telling you the same thing: LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE, PEOPLE. GLOBAL WARMING IS FAKE, FAKE, FAKE.
There is NOTHING WRONG WITH OUR ATMOSPHERE in the long run. This is a PHASE.
I've said this a bunch, and I'll say it again. It's a hoax. Do your reasearch.
5. Weird vs. Normal: It's all so relative that there's really no such thing.
6. Being Great: C'mon, you scaredy cat. DO SOMETHING. BE MISUNDERSTOOD. DARE TO BE GREAT.
7. Terrorists/War: Can't we just live and let live?
To put it simply, NO.
Now, some people say that we should stop fighting the terrorists. Leave them alone, they say. Live and let live.
I'm fine with that. You're probably fine with that. Most people (serial killers not included) are good with that.
Except the terrorists.
THEY WANT TO KILL US. It's part of their religion. Their Bible explicitely says "KILL ALL THE NON-MUSLIMS!"
Yay, peace. Peace is good. But I think for peace to work, both sides have to agree to NOT KILL EACH OTHER.
I am all for peace. Really. As much as I enjoy stirring up trouble and debating, world peace is a wonderful that I want us to have! I think it would be WONDERFUL if we could live in harmoney with the Muslims. Some of them are probably really great people.
But as long as they are bombing America, it is America's job to fight back.
America is not "attacking" the terrorists. It is purely self-defense.
8. Articulacy: Ah, articulacy. The lost art. Let's think. If people were all articulate and persuasive, what could we achieve...?
We could paint picture in the air with our words!
We could solve disputes in half the time.
We could skip all the tedious daily arguments.
We could persuade people to do all kinds of things.
We could make people understand us.
We could talk our way up the corporate ladder.
We could charm the most uncharmable character.
We could rise to infinite power!
So, what are you waiting for? Get out a dictionary and learn to talk.
9. Going Green: Don’t get me wrong, I am all for keeping Earth alive for as long as possible, especially considering I live here. But the whole concept of “going green” has gotten SO ANNOYING. I am getting a little fed up with the whole GAHHH!!!-DID-YOU-JUST-THROW-THAT-CAN AWAY-THAT-IS-RECYCLABLE-MATERIAL!!!!!! thing. It’s really starting to get on my nerves.
The whole world is “going green”, which is a fine thing, just not when every time I open a magazine they’re screaming “secrets” about how to go even GREENER than we already are. It’s in children’s programs, even! Entire episodes of Curious George have been dedicated to making sure kids know they’re killing trees with every drawing they create.
Everyone already knows about being green. Do we have to keep dedicating entire episodes and magazine issues to the movement? Just let it sit for a while. Bring it up again for the next generation.
If we really wanted more “green” tips, we could Google it.
10. Evolution: *HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA*
*wipes tears from eyes* *gasp*
Okay, sorry. I'm not even going to go into this. If you look at your facts, you'll come to the same conclusion. If you look at the facts and don't, there is something wrong with you.
11. Homosexuality: It's bad. It's against God. It's a choice.
Line of Logical Reasoning (this will only go for those who proclaim themselves Christians):
All sin is a choice.
Homosexuality is a sin.
Therefore, homosexuality is a choice.
And it's that simple.
Hopefully this reitteration of my beliefs has helped you guys. JT, congratulations on unleashing the monster ;)
Friday, September 25, 2009
Food freedoms
[How do I start this? Introduce myself? Give a formal into like on a paper? heh]
Bethany here.....if you know me well at all, you know that food and health and such are some of my major preoccupations.
I've always eaten healthily, it runs in the family so to speak. But I only really embraced what almost has to be called a worldview of health when I was about 13. That was when I started getting "political": which I use as a collective term for various general opinions and thoughts classified in my head under keywords as follows:organic, Monsanto, Ron Paul, The Presidensity, food, farms, feedlots, alternative medicine, methylparaben in shampoo, preparedness, Campaign for Liberty, the Constitution, survivalism, doomsteading, Countryside magazine, vaccinations, 2nd Amendment rights, and other hot topics which most people would not call politics at all!
But food. How food is raised, marketed and consumed is a process that I could talk about for way too long.
Freedom of choice (in labeling)
If you are not free to choose your own food, you can't call yourself free.
Labeling.....some states have attempted [and succeeded in PA, I think] to make it illegal for farmers to label their milk as being free of the artificial growth hormone rBGH. The reason? Monsanto company [which makes rBGH] says "it would instill fear in consumers about the safety of rBGH" [in non-labeled milk].
(rBGH is being to some extent discontinued, mostly because it makes the milk cows sick. Dairy cows are already taxed to the limit to produce as much milk as possible; rBGH causes even higher production and a lot of symptoms including mastitis and foot problems and death.)
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are not required to be labeled, even though polls have shown that a majority of the population wants labeling. GMOs have not been sufficiently tested over long periods of time [many diseases take repeated, long-term exposure]. There have been a number of tests that show health problems in animals fed GMOs. Yet, they are in an estimated 60% of all processed food today; without being labeled.
Humane treatment of animals
I'm not even going to approach the question of vegetarianism, except to say that I would be a vegetarian if I didn't have access to free-range meats and such; for both humane and health reasons.
The laying hen, like the dairy cow, is bred and fed to produce the greatest amount of eggs possible. This stresses their bodies--most die of "cage-fatigue" which is calcium deficiency--eggshells demand calcium and it will come out of the bones eventually.
I think you've all seen pictures of the tiny crates they are raised in.
Broiler chickens' lives are mercifully shorter. Much shorter, in some cases: apparently a sizeable number die each day in large-scale chicken farms.
The feedlot steer cannot be said to be "happy" but at least it has room to walk about. The danger there is to the consumer.
Health and safety
Food recalls are becoming more common every year, mostly because farms are tending to get bigger. One contaminated piece of meat will get spread at large. [Nice little tidbit of info here: a single hamburger can contain meat from up to 100 different cows.]
E. coli is the largest threat from beef.
Last spring I practically got my thesis in free-range and pasture theory so excuse me if I prattle on for a bit :)
The rumen [stomach] of a grass-fed cow is naturally not very acidic. Cow bacteria, therefore, are not very resistant to the acid in humans' stomachs. Hence, bacterial contamination is not a threat to people.
Grain-fed cows, on the other hand [and all mainstream beef is grain-fed] have much more acidic rumens. The first thing I learned when researching the care and feeding of ruminant animals like cows and goats is: be careful with grain! Over-eating grain causes the rumen to become rapidly acidic, causing acidosis and death. Low-level acidosis [as in beef cattle] causes general unhealth which must be remedied with low levels of antibiotics. And low levels of antibiotics create resistant bacteria. Vicious cycle, hmm?
But oh yes: acid-resistant bacteria are, you guessed it, capable of making people sick.
The meat-packing industry
If you want the real goods on the slaughter-house industry, go read The Jungle.
Oh whoops, excuse me.....that was last century. Nowadays it's Fast Food Nation.
It can be neatly summed up with Eric Schlosser of FFN's memorable statement, "There is [crap] in the meat."
The whole idea of food production is not mainly "prevent contamination" but instead "kill the contamination". Hence pasteurized milk, irradiated produce, and meat cooking minimums.
The raw milk conflict
I live in a state where it is illegal to sell milk that has not been cooked. You can debate all you want on the safety and health of pasteurization but the fact remains that I should be allowed to buy the food I want to.
I have a source [fairly mainstream, at that] for raw goats' milk, and drink it all the time. I don't know if there's a special clause for goats' milk or not, I don't think so. I think it's only a matter of time before that little spot on the shelf is bare.
Raw milk is a question-mark because it has made people sick. My only concern would be tuberculosis, which cows have to be tested for anyway, and goats are immune to.
It is just as "clean" as past. milk when it comes out of the cow....cleaner, in fact, because you have to be a lot more careful if you aren't going to kill the bacteria later on. But of course if you aren't careful with it, it will be dangerous. And it should be labeled with the usual cautions. And I should be able to buy it.
Conclusions: There is a delicate balance between too much restriction and too little. You have the right to know what you are eating: whether it has artificial hormones or GMOs, whether it's organic, local, grass-fed, whatever.
Please comment, ask questions, whatever. I love to talk about this sort of stuff!!
Bethany here.....if you know me well at all, you know that food and health and such are some of my major preoccupations.
I've always eaten healthily, it runs in the family so to speak. But I only really embraced what almost has to be called a worldview of health when I was about 13. That was when I started getting "political": which I use as a collective term for various general opinions and thoughts classified in my head under keywords as follows:organic, Monsanto, Ron Paul, The Presidensity, food, farms, feedlots, alternative medicine, methylparaben in shampoo, preparedness, Campaign for Liberty, the Constitution, survivalism, doomsteading, Countryside magazine, vaccinations, 2nd Amendment rights, and other hot topics which most people would not call politics at all!
But food. How food is raised, marketed and consumed is a process that I could talk about for way too long.
Freedom of choice (in labeling)
If you are not free to choose your own food, you can't call yourself free.
Labeling.....some states have attempted [and succeeded in PA, I think] to make it illegal for farmers to label their milk as being free of the artificial growth hormone rBGH. The reason? Monsanto company [which makes rBGH] says "it would instill fear in consumers about the safety of rBGH" [in non-labeled milk].
(rBGH is being to some extent discontinued, mostly because it makes the milk cows sick. Dairy cows are already taxed to the limit to produce as much milk as possible; rBGH causes even higher production and a lot of symptoms including mastitis and foot problems and death.)
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are not required to be labeled, even though polls have shown that a majority of the population wants labeling. GMOs have not been sufficiently tested over long periods of time [many diseases take repeated, long-term exposure]. There have been a number of tests that show health problems in animals fed GMOs. Yet, they are in an estimated 60% of all processed food today; without being labeled.
Humane treatment of animals
I'm not even going to approach the question of vegetarianism, except to say that I would be a vegetarian if I didn't have access to free-range meats and such; for both humane and health reasons.
The laying hen, like the dairy cow, is bred and fed to produce the greatest amount of eggs possible. This stresses their bodies--most die of "cage-fatigue" which is calcium deficiency--eggshells demand calcium and it will come out of the bones eventually.
I think you've all seen pictures of the tiny crates they are raised in.
Broiler chickens' lives are mercifully shorter. Much shorter, in some cases: apparently a sizeable number die each day in large-scale chicken farms.
The feedlot steer cannot be said to be "happy" but at least it has room to walk about. The danger there is to the consumer.
Health and safety
Food recalls are becoming more common every year, mostly because farms are tending to get bigger. One contaminated piece of meat will get spread at large. [Nice little tidbit of info here: a single hamburger can contain meat from up to 100 different cows.]
E. coli is the largest threat from beef.
Last spring I practically got my thesis in free-range and pasture theory so excuse me if I prattle on for a bit :)
The rumen [stomach] of a grass-fed cow is naturally not very acidic. Cow bacteria, therefore, are not very resistant to the acid in humans' stomachs. Hence, bacterial contamination is not a threat to people.
Grain-fed cows, on the other hand [and all mainstream beef is grain-fed] have much more acidic rumens. The first thing I learned when researching the care and feeding of ruminant animals like cows and goats is: be careful with grain! Over-eating grain causes the rumen to become rapidly acidic, causing acidosis and death. Low-level acidosis [as in beef cattle] causes general unhealth which must be remedied with low levels of antibiotics. And low levels of antibiotics create resistant bacteria. Vicious cycle, hmm?
But oh yes: acid-resistant bacteria are, you guessed it, capable of making people sick.
The meat-packing industry
If you want the real goods on the slaughter-house industry, go read The Jungle.
Oh whoops, excuse me.....that was last century. Nowadays it's Fast Food Nation.
It can be neatly summed up with Eric Schlosser of FFN's memorable statement, "There is [crap] in the meat."
The whole idea of food production is not mainly "prevent contamination" but instead "kill the contamination". Hence pasteurized milk, irradiated produce, and meat cooking minimums.
The raw milk conflict
I live in a state where it is illegal to sell milk that has not been cooked. You can debate all you want on the safety and health of pasteurization but the fact remains that I should be allowed to buy the food I want to.
I have a source [fairly mainstream, at that] for raw goats' milk, and drink it all the time. I don't know if there's a special clause for goats' milk or not, I don't think so. I think it's only a matter of time before that little spot on the shelf is bare.
Raw milk is a question-mark because it has made people sick. My only concern would be tuberculosis, which cows have to be tested for anyway, and goats are immune to.
It is just as "clean" as past. milk when it comes out of the cow....cleaner, in fact, because you have to be a lot more careful if you aren't going to kill the bacteria later on. But of course if you aren't careful with it, it will be dangerous. And it should be labeled with the usual cautions. And I should be able to buy it.
Conclusions: There is a delicate balance between too much restriction and too little. You have the right to know what you are eating: whether it has artificial hormones or GMOs, whether it's organic, local, grass-fed, whatever.
Please comment, ask questions, whatever. I love to talk about this sort of stuff!!
Thursday, September 10, 2009
The New America is Here
As I was reading through some older (from summer '08) story bits of mine, I came across something that astounded me. (Just in case I ever finish this, no taking the horrible idea XD) I had started a story titled "The New America". One of the most important characters is one that you never meet or see, but just gets talked about. I called him Alexander Williams.
Let me quote from my "Story Ideas" folder:
"Alexander began to see that things were going badly in America. People were losing jobs, inflation was up, global warming was taking over (bite me), people were looking for somewhere to turn. Alexander stood up and said, 'Hey, follow me. Listen to me. I can help you. I can make everything all better. I'll give you jobs, homes, stability, someone to count on and look up to.'
"With the help of a couple of friends, Alexander led the American people slowly to change their thinking. Alexander rose to power, eventually becoming the leader of America. Most people loved him, and anyone who didn't was labled "old-fashioned" or "against change". Alexander promised change, good change, and people believed him.
"After a little while in power, he began to lead the American people to change their faulty ways. He made new laws that, although they were completely against the Constitution, gave Americans less responsibility, and allowed them to lean more on the government, giving them peace and stability. Alexander made laws and regulations that covered so many aspects of life, that things were just plain easy for the people! No one had to take responsibility for anything anymore! It was a dream life.
"Even when Alexander's laws began to restrict things like what you could say, whom you could talk to, and how you could treat sick people, everyone loved him because he would make life better for them.
"Eventually, Alexander had laws governing almost every aspect of life. He had been ruling longer than most other leaders, but no one seemed to mind. Children were taught that Alexander had saved America, and everyone must love him. Alexander had complete power over the people, and no one seemed to care."
There's Alexander for you, just as his character sketch straight from my notes from summer/fall 2008 depict, word for word. Funny isn't it? How personal freedoms and the republic died at the hands of the most popular man in America? Isn't that funny?
Yea, I'm not laughing either.
I know this isn't in my Evolution series, and it's not Saturday, but this has been preying on my mind all day, I wanted to say that.
I don't understand. I just honestly don't understand. I don't understand how someone could swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, and then say in an autobiography that he thinks the founding fathers have no place in today's society, and the Constitution is a joke. Why would you swear an oath like that if you believed so the opposite? And why haven't people seen that?
How can you try to pass a health reform bill that restricts freedoms and is completely unconstitutional?
How can you promise to give better health coverage, to more people, and swear that it will cost LESS?
How can you peddle all these paternalistic ways of thinking and call this America? A Constitutional Republic? America is not about the leaders patting people on the back and saying, "There, there, I'll take care of you. You don't worry about a thing, I've got it covered." Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime.
America is about teaching a man to fish, not giving him the fish on a silver platter and then telling him how to eat it.
Big government is what we ran from in England. Small government, power to the people, "give me liberty or give me death", stop taxation without reprsentation. Has America really forgotten all of this? Has America forgotten that people, good people, fought bravely and DIED so that we would never have to live with the kind of government our president is promoting? Have we forgotten, America?
The American people are one of three things at this point:
1. Against the direction our government is heading
2. Ignorant of the direction our government is heading
3. In support of the direction our government is heading
You can't really believe that this is heading a good direction. If you think it is, or you think it's at least not heading in a BAD direction, then you are fooling yourself. I'm sorry, but these kind of laws and ways of thinking lead to only one thing (socialism), and that is NOT what America is all about.
Do you support where this is going? If so, fine. Support it. If you are ignorant of it, please, open your eyes.
I am a strong believer in people chosing their own beliefs, thoughts, principles, ideas. Don't let yourself be indoctinated. Think. Look at history. This story we're living has been told hundreds of times in many different eras and civilizations. Time and time again governments do this. This leads to one thing, and one thing only: socialism, loss of freedoms, and destruction.
I have nothing left to say except, "Think." Think, America. You have a brain. You have a voice. Use them.
Let me quote from my "Story Ideas" folder:
"Alexander began to see that things were going badly in America. People were losing jobs, inflation was up, global warming was taking over (bite me), people were looking for somewhere to turn. Alexander stood up and said, 'Hey, follow me. Listen to me. I can help you. I can make everything all better. I'll give you jobs, homes, stability, someone to count on and look up to.'
"With the help of a couple of friends, Alexander led the American people slowly to change their thinking. Alexander rose to power, eventually becoming the leader of America. Most people loved him, and anyone who didn't was labled "old-fashioned" or "against change". Alexander promised change, good change, and people believed him.
"After a little while in power, he began to lead the American people to change their faulty ways. He made new laws that, although they were completely against the Constitution, gave Americans less responsibility, and allowed them to lean more on the government, giving them peace and stability. Alexander made laws and regulations that covered so many aspects of life, that things were just plain easy for the people! No one had to take responsibility for anything anymore! It was a dream life.
"Even when Alexander's laws began to restrict things like what you could say, whom you could talk to, and how you could treat sick people, everyone loved him because he would make life better for them.
"Eventually, Alexander had laws governing almost every aspect of life. He had been ruling longer than most other leaders, but no one seemed to mind. Children were taught that Alexander had saved America, and everyone must love him. Alexander had complete power over the people, and no one seemed to care."
There's Alexander for you, just as his character sketch straight from my notes from summer/fall 2008 depict, word for word. Funny isn't it? How personal freedoms and the republic died at the hands of the most popular man in America? Isn't that funny?
Yea, I'm not laughing either.
I know this isn't in my Evolution series, and it's not Saturday, but this has been preying on my mind all day, I wanted to say that.
I don't understand. I just honestly don't understand. I don't understand how someone could swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, and then say in an autobiography that he thinks the founding fathers have no place in today's society, and the Constitution is a joke. Why would you swear an oath like that if you believed so the opposite? And why haven't people seen that?
How can you try to pass a health reform bill that restricts freedoms and is completely unconstitutional?
How can you promise to give better health coverage, to more people, and swear that it will cost LESS?
How can you peddle all these paternalistic ways of thinking and call this America? A Constitutional Republic? America is not about the leaders patting people on the back and saying, "There, there, I'll take care of you. You don't worry about a thing, I've got it covered." Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime.
America is about teaching a man to fish, not giving him the fish on a silver platter and then telling him how to eat it.
Big government is what we ran from in England. Small government, power to the people, "give me liberty or give me death", stop taxation without reprsentation. Has America really forgotten all of this? Has America forgotten that people, good people, fought bravely and DIED so that we would never have to live with the kind of government our president is promoting? Have we forgotten, America?
The American people are one of three things at this point:
1. Against the direction our government is heading
2. Ignorant of the direction our government is heading
3. In support of the direction our government is heading
You can't really believe that this is heading a good direction. If you think it is, or you think it's at least not heading in a BAD direction, then you are fooling yourself. I'm sorry, but these kind of laws and ways of thinking lead to only one thing (socialism), and that is NOT what America is all about.
Do you support where this is going? If so, fine. Support it. If you are ignorant of it, please, open your eyes.
I am a strong believer in people chosing their own beliefs, thoughts, principles, ideas. Don't let yourself be indoctinated. Think. Look at history. This story we're living has been told hundreds of times in many different eras and civilizations. Time and time again governments do this. This leads to one thing, and one thing only: socialism, loss of freedoms, and destruction.
I have nothing left to say except, "Think." Think, America. You have a brain. You have a voice. Use them.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Attention All Loquacious Followers
On Saturday September 26th there is going to be a special eddition of Carpe Noctem: "Followers Say..." You will be granted access to posting on Carpe Noctem from midnight on the 25, to 11:59pm on the 26. You will be allowed to post up to three posts on any of the following topics. You may pick up to three topics, and post up to three times total.
I know my awesome followers have lots to say on lots of issues, and it's difficult to fully explain your point just through commenting.
Topics:
1. "I believe/disbelieve Evolution because..."
2. "I believe/disbelieve in God because..."
3. "My oppinion on our president is..."
4. "I am a republican/democrat because..."
5. "My view on political-correctness is..."
6. "What I think God meant in Genesis is..."
7. "I think global warming..."
8. An in-depth critique or response to any of my previous posts.
9. An idea of your own. (Please email me your idea ahead of time just so I'll know.)
"Rules":
-You can chose 1-3 topics from the above list.
-If you have another topic you would like to discuss, please shoot me an email ahead of time just so I'll know.
-You can post up to 3 times during the 12 hour period.
-Profanity is discouraged, but if that's the only way you can think to express yourself, go right ahead. Hopefully, though, we're all articulate enough to avoid that whenever possible.
-Preferrably, you must be a follower of Carpe Noctem to participate, but you don't *have* to be. I'd appreciate it, though :)
Preferred formatting of your post(s):
-Please put your name and the title of your post in the title.
-Please state which idea you chose at the beginning of your post.
-Please address one idea per post. (Don't address all the possible ideas in a single post.)
This is an extremely laid-back kind of thing. I'm not going to remove part or all of your post because it offends me. Even if it does, this is your time to share, not mine.
If you or someone you know would like to participate in Followers Say...email me at livinglovinglaughinglearning@gmail.com and I'll send you the link to join Carpe Noctem for the day of September 26. Hope you decide to join!
I know my awesome followers have lots to say on lots of issues, and it's difficult to fully explain your point just through commenting.
Topics:
1. "I believe/disbelieve Evolution because..."
2. "I believe/disbelieve in God because..."
3. "My oppinion on our president is..."
4. "I am a republican/democrat because..."
5. "My view on political-correctness is..."
6. "What I think God meant in Genesis is..."
7. "I think global warming..."
8. An in-depth critique or response to any of my previous posts.
9. An idea of your own. (Please email me your idea ahead of time just so I'll know.)
"Rules":
-You can chose 1-3 topics from the above list.
-If you have another topic you would like to discuss, please shoot me an email ahead of time just so I'll know.
-You can post up to 3 times during the 12 hour period.
-Profanity is discouraged, but if that's the only way you can think to express yourself, go right ahead. Hopefully, though, we're all articulate enough to avoid that whenever possible.
-Preferrably, you must be a follower of Carpe Noctem to participate, but you don't *have* to be. I'd appreciate it, though :)
Preferred formatting of your post(s):
-Please put your name and the title of your post in the title.
-Please state which idea you chose at the beginning of your post.
-Please address one idea per post. (Don't address all the possible ideas in a single post.)
This is an extremely laid-back kind of thing. I'm not going to remove part or all of your post because it offends me. Even if it does, this is your time to share, not mine.
If you or someone you know would like to participate in Followers Say...email me at livinglovinglaughinglearning@gmail.com and I'll send you the link to join Carpe Noctem for the day of September 26. Hope you decide to join!
Saturday, March 14, 2009
The New America
Journal Entry I wrote back in October. WARNING: I AM NOT SLAMMING PUBLIC SCHOOL KIDS. Not really. This was just something that I wrote thinking about the kids at my school. I am well aware that public schoolers can be every bit as smart as Classical kids, okay? Lol, don't be offended. And if you are, that's actually fine. Just comment and share your thoughts.
"Sometimes, I hate our government. It has too much power over us. It’s going against the constitution in a lot of ways. Did you know the 16th amendment wasn’t even ratified? At least that’s what someone told me. I’m going to look into it myself. But now, the CIA doesn’t even have to have a permit to tap your phone line. They can listen in anytime they want. All they have to do is fill out a little form. They don’t even have to be qualified! The government can do pretty much anything.
I also think this bailout is stupid. The economy is going to heal itself. It always has in the past. Why do people think this bailout is necessary? It’s natural for the economy to rise and fall. Leave it alone. The bailout is just going to put us further in debt—the black hole the government created and then jumped in to. They’re never going to pay the debt off, either, so why even put it there? The bunch of hypocrites. We get in trouble if we don’t pay out taxes and credit card bills—debt—but they can rack up debt till kingdom come and not even get in trouble.
And then there’s the whole inflation thing. Doesn’t the government realize they’re making the same mistakes the Romans made? And guess what? The Roman empire fell because of that. Hello! History repeats itself. Get a clue! Those who don’t learn their history are doomed to repeat it. And we’re going to pay the price.
Another example of the government controlling our lives is education. Schools cannot teach creation now. Now, I’m not necessarily saying that only creation should be taught, but at least give it along with Evolution! Our government is corrupt and too powerful. The people of the US are only going to stand this so much longer. Tensions are building. The economy is being tampered with. Inflation is worse than ever before. The government is taking more and more power. Our government is going from good, to bad, to worse. Don’t the people realize this is what we ran from in England and rebelled against in the Revolutionary War?
This is not going to stand much longer, Journal. The people will only put up with this for so long before they explode. Our government is corrupt. There is going to be a rebellion eventually. That’s all there is to it. It’s going to happen. This government has been here a long time.
Nothing lasts forever.
I suggested in class the other day that we should take over the government. We could be so much better. Of course, at the time it was mostly a joke. Now, I see how true it was, though I didn’t know it. When America collapses and the people rebel, we’re going to have to build a new government. Who is going to be in charge?
We are.
The world needs people who can think. The publics schools are not teaching people how to think. We Classical kids know how to think. We will begin building a New America. Better, stronger, smarter than before. We know economics. We know logic. We know history. Science. American government. Public and persuasive speaking. How to write well.
We are the New America.
Now all that’s left is to wait. The timer is ticking for this Old America. How long will she last? We don’t know.
So we study. We learn. We write. We read. With think. We speak. We do.
We must be ready. America’s timer is ticking. When will her time be up? Who knows, but we do know this:
When the timer dings, we’ll be ready.
~Kendra Logan
P.S. And to think, Journal; two months ago, I thought politics was boring! :)"
"Sometimes, I hate our government. It has too much power over us. It’s going against the constitution in a lot of ways. Did you know the 16th amendment wasn’t even ratified? At least that’s what someone told me. I’m going to look into it myself. But now, the CIA doesn’t even have to have a permit to tap your phone line. They can listen in anytime they want. All they have to do is fill out a little form. They don’t even have to be qualified! The government can do pretty much anything.
I also think this bailout is stupid. The economy is going to heal itself. It always has in the past. Why do people think this bailout is necessary? It’s natural for the economy to rise and fall. Leave it alone. The bailout is just going to put us further in debt—the black hole the government created and then jumped in to. They’re never going to pay the debt off, either, so why even put it there? The bunch of hypocrites. We get in trouble if we don’t pay out taxes and credit card bills—debt—but they can rack up debt till kingdom come and not even get in trouble.
And then there’s the whole inflation thing. Doesn’t the government realize they’re making the same mistakes the Romans made? And guess what? The Roman empire fell because of that. Hello! History repeats itself. Get a clue! Those who don’t learn their history are doomed to repeat it. And we’re going to pay the price.
Another example of the government controlling our lives is education. Schools cannot teach creation now. Now, I’m not necessarily saying that only creation should be taught, but at least give it along with Evolution! Our government is corrupt and too powerful. The people of the US are only going to stand this so much longer. Tensions are building. The economy is being tampered with. Inflation is worse than ever before. The government is taking more and more power. Our government is going from good, to bad, to worse. Don’t the people realize this is what we ran from in England and rebelled against in the Revolutionary War?
This is not going to stand much longer, Journal. The people will only put up with this for so long before they explode. Our government is corrupt. There is going to be a rebellion eventually. That’s all there is to it. It’s going to happen. This government has been here a long time.
Nothing lasts forever.
I suggested in class the other day that we should take over the government. We could be so much better. Of course, at the time it was mostly a joke. Now, I see how true it was, though I didn’t know it. When America collapses and the people rebel, we’re going to have to build a new government. Who is going to be in charge?
We are.
The world needs people who can think. The publics schools are not teaching people how to think. We Classical kids know how to think. We will begin building a New America. Better, stronger, smarter than before. We know economics. We know logic. We know history. Science. American government. Public and persuasive speaking. How to write well.
We are the New America.
Now all that’s left is to wait. The timer is ticking for this Old America. How long will she last? We don’t know.
So we study. We learn. We write. We read. With think. We speak. We do.
We must be ready. America’s timer is ticking. When will her time be up? Who knows, but we do know this:
When the timer dings, we’ll be ready.
~Kendra Logan
P.S. And to think, Journal; two months ago, I thought politics was boring! :)"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
