TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Is U.S. in Slow Motion to Socialism?
Pages (4): [1] 2 3 4 »
Is U.S. in Slow Motion to Socialism?
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=7373
Human Events Online
May 6, 2005 | Stephen Moore
Last week the House and Senate agreed on a $2.6-trillion budget for fiscal year 2006. There was much chest-thumping about the fiscal restraint imbedded in this budget blueprint--which was mystifying since federal outlays will grow by well over $100 billion in 2006 when the cost of the War in Iraq is added to the equation.
Just the increase in the budget this year is equal to what it cost for NASA to put a man on the moon. Republicans in Congress have become so enamored with big government that they now celebrate a budget with a $100-billion increase as a sign of progress.
Fiscal Niagara Falls
But our real budget crisis--and what Newt Gingrich aptly calls the "crisis in conservatism"--is the worrisome longer-term trend line in federal spending, as calculated by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), if we stay on the course we're on today. To put it bluntly, Uncle Sam is in a canoe, without paddles, swirling around in foamy waters, headed toward Niagara Falls.
Here are the depressing numbers in brief: Today, we spend about 20% of our total economic output on the federal government.That percentage will rise to a record 25% of output in 2025 and then to 34% in 2040.
These numbers do not include what state and local governments spend. Today states and cities swallow up roughly another 12% of our paychecks.
Even if we assume unrealistically that the state and local component of national output remains constant, what the new CBO numbers tell us is that America is on a path toward government's taking 46% of all output. America will be half private ownership and control and half government ownership.
Let's not mince words: This is a path toward socialism--albeit we are taking it in slow motion. Walter Williams, the brilliant economist from George Mason University (whose columns appear in HUMAN EVENTS and who is a frequent guest-host for Rush Limbaugh), has a special talent for putting these foggy numbers in terms we can all easily understand. He says that if slavery was someone else's owning all of a man's output, then government's taking ownership of 50% of GDP means all Americans are half slaves and half free. Depressing but true.
The economic impact of this spending path is not hard to envision. We know what happens when a nation becomes half Socialist. It begins to look like Old Europe--France, Germany, Italy. These nations with their obese welfare states, confiscatory tax systems, government ownership of industry, and stifling regulations, are economically catatonic. They are not growing. They are not creating jobs. They are rusting. They have twice the rate of unemployment we have in the U.S. today.
The latest budget forecasts have hardly caused a peep of concern from our political class. Some budget hawks--such as Rep. Jeff Flake (R.-Ariz.) and Sen. Tom Coburn (R.-Okla.)--have taken up pitch forks and are raising Cain. But they're about as popular with their colleagues as the bartender at a bachelor's party who announces last call.
Too many Republicans, says Coburn, have made their separate peace with big government and have no intention of cutting it down to a more manageable size. And, of course, the Democrats, behind their new philosophical torchbearer, Hillary Clinton, want health-care, child-care, pension, transportation and energy-policy socialism accelerated.
Where is the growth of government going to come from? That question is answered in the graph below. Almost all the future explosion of government spending and debt comes from Social Security and Medicare, with Medicare being the primary future borrower.
The prescription drug benefit bill from last year alone added more than $10 trillion in government outlays with one stroke of the pen. I recently asked Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin what the total unfunded liability is for the long term with respect to the prescription drug bill. His answer: "It is infinite." Too big to be counted or calculated. This Republican bill may have been the most financially irresponsible legislation of the last 30 years.
Treasury Secretary John Snow recently announced that the total unfunded liabilities of the United States government total $80 trillion. Ouch! That's a debt load equivalent to about six times our current GDP. It is almost twice as much as the value of all goods and services produced everywhere in the world last year. And it is more money than has been earned by every American cumulatively since the Mayflower landed here 500 years ago.
What is speeding us toward this fiscal collapse is the hyperinflation in health costs. Since we turned our health care system largely over to government, medical inflation has outpaced inflation of everything else we buy by 142%.
These numbers should frighten even welfare-state liberals. John Goodman, president of the National Center for Policy Analysis, finds that, if we don't slam on the brakes of big government, within 25 years all of our federal revenues will go to pay for hospitals, doctors, and retirement checks to senior citizens. There will be no federal money left for roads, for military weapons, for our soldiers, for schools, for the courts, the FBI, or the air traffic control system, let alone pork items such as the Cowgirl Hall of Fame, honey-bee subsidies, and the Grammys.
The Republican budget, in short, is on an unsustainable and economically reckless course. The bond raters at Standard & Poors recently declared that if we don't change our fiscal eating habits in Washington, one day during our children's working lives, Uncle Sam's credit rating will be junk bond grade--which is where Argentina is today.
President Bush has taken one enormous step toward fiscal sanity by trying to fix the Social Security long-term crisis. Democrats are floating around on the planet Pluto when they say "there is no crisis" to fix. President Bush's plan would lower the long-term liabilities of Social Security by half--and that's a very good first step in fixing the leakages in our ship of state.
The next logical step is one that President Bush won't be so enthusiastic about, but it must be done. The financially catastrophic Medicare prescription drug bill must be repealed immediately before seniors get hooked like opium on this new feature of American-style socialism. Once they do, there's no taking the benefits away.
Reagan Republicans Needed
Next we need to radically overhaul Medicare. David M. Walker, director of the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently told Congress that the unfunded liabilities are so gigantic that "There is no way we are going to deliver all of Medicare's promises. No way!" The Bush Administration's cost-containment strategies--such as health savings accounts, co-payments, and medical liability reforms--are a promising start to slowing the stampede of medical costs. But a whole new philosophical shift must occur in health care so that today's workers understand that they themselves will be primarily responsible for paying their own health care costs, not their children and grandchildren.
The slow road to socialism is a path to tyranny and economic decline, as F.A. Hayek warned us 50 years ago. That is why Newt Gingrich is right that the conservative movement has arrived at a crossroads. For 25 years the strategy of conservatives has been to elect Republicans to rein in big government. But the beast has escaped and is now back on a rampage--and this has occurred on the GOP's watch.
We need a new generation of Ronald Reagan Republicans who, instead of making a separate peace with big government, will fight a containment policy that concedes not another inch of territory to the Socialist agenda. Where such leaders are right now is anyone's guess--but it's doubtful they will be found in Washington.
we are going to have a 81trillion debt?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by metalgearsolid we are going to have a 81trillion debt? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by George Smiley Yes and the only way to get round it is to abolish all taxes and you can all bloody well fend for yourselves! |
Spending will go up, but this thread is kind of misleading. You're leaving out that private healthcare costs are also skyrocketing and projected to drastically increase in the future, so privatizing medicine further will not reduce costs for Americans. It is not that government is taking over significant aspects of the nation's healthcare, it is that lifestyle & enivronmental factors are causing more Americans to get sick more often and the CBO is projecting those numbers based in large part due to longer lifespans and greater health problems. Promoting safer environmental standards and healthier food would greatly help reduce such costs. If anything, we're moving further away from being a socialist country, considering even VA spending & federal police grants to states were reduced in the most recent budget despite the deficit, which doesn't even include the emergency supplemental money for Iraq in the budget.
I'm sorry. I just don't think a massive parasite confiscating .50 of every dollar produced in this country can ever be a good thing. Privatizing medicine WILL reduce costs greatly for most Americans. Those who need drugs can buy them direct on the open market, through insurance plans, or they can rely on private charity and state governments.
I would rather die than sign HALF of our nation (and our freedom) over to this $3 trillion federal monster.
Remember, 50% of GDP is what we can expect now, but in 50 years, the number could easily hit 60% or 70%. Children of that generation will never know what it was to live in a free USA.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Capitalizt I'm sorry. I just don't think a massive parasite confiscating .50 of every dollar produced in this country can ever be a good thing. Privatizing medicine WILL reduce costs greatly for most Americans. Those who need drugs can buy them direct on the open market, through insurance plans, or they can rely on private charity and state governments. I would rather die than sign HALF of our nation (and our freedom) over to this $3 trillion federal monster. Remember, 50% of GDP is what we can expect now, but in 50 years, the number could easily hit 60% or 70%. Children of that generation will never know what it was to live in a free USA. |
.
Not much George. Irrelevant question anyway. Even if I earned .01 an hour, I would feel the same way about the enslavement of our country.
Look man you cant privatise everything because some greedy corporation will then take control and prices will be higher and there will be more trouble for the people. The US should start a move towards Socialism becasue right now the corporations are in control. If ppl controled more it would be fairer because not every american is white-collared
Yep its the fiscal Niagra Falls for America.......and this could be an omen.....Niagra Falls is in Canada......
Re: Is U.S. in Slow Motion to Socialism?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Capitalizt Is U.S. in Slow Motion to Socialism? |
| quote: |
| "The Fabians were an elite group of intellectuals who formed a semi-secret society for the purpose of bringing socialism to the world. Whereas Communists wanted to establish socialism quickly through violence and revolution, the Fabians preferred to do it slowly through propaganda and legislation. The word socialism was not to be used. Instead, they would speak of benefits for the people such as welfare, medical care, higher wages, and better working conditions. In this way, they planned to accomplish their objectives without bloodshed and even without serious opposition. They scorned the communists, not because they disliked their goals, but because they disagreed with their methods. To emphasize the importance of gradualism, they adopted the turtle as the symbol of their methods (...). Thumbing his nose at the docile masses is H.G. Wells who, after quitting the Fabians, denounced them as "the new Machiavellian." The most revealing component, however, is the Fabian crest which appears between Shaw and Web (prominent leaders). It's a wolf in sheep's clothing." - G. Edward Griffin, The Creature from Jekyll Island |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Capitalizt I'm sorry. I just don't think a massive parasite confiscating .50 of every dollar produced in this country can ever be a good thing. Privatizing medicine WILL reduce costs greatly for most Americans. Those who need drugs can buy them direct on the open market, through insurance plans, or they can rely on private charity and state governments. I would rather die than sign HALF of our nation (and our freedom) over to this $3 trillion federal monster. Remember, 50% of GDP is what we can expect now, but in 50 years, the number could easily hit 60% or 70%. Children of that generation will never know what it was to live in a free USA. |
Re: .
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Capitalizt Not much George. Irrelevant question anyway. Even if I earned .01 an hour, I would feel the same way about the enslavement of our country. |
Re: Re: Is U.S. in Slow Motion to Socialism?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by myself Our very own CFR, perhaps just like a phoenix, was born from the ashes of the Fabian Society. |
How the hell do you find these videos trancer?
I totally forgot I posted this article...It's amazing that in 2005, the budget was 2.6 trillion, and just two years later we have already hit the $3 trillion mark.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Capitalizt How the hell do you find these videos trancer? I totally forgot I posted this article...It's amazing that in 2005, the budget was 2.6 trillion, and just two years later we have already hit the $3 trillion mark. |
| quote: |
| There are currently 20 World Heritage Sites and 47 Biosphere Reserves comprising more than 51 million acres on U.S. territory, including 68% of all U.S. National Parks, monuments and preserves. Many more World Heritage Sites are contemplated in the U.S. "Decisions about American land should be made by Americans," said David Ridenour, vice president of The National Center for Public Policy Research. "Although presently the United Nations is not controlling U.S. property, as the United States enters into international agreements, the use of private property held in America by American private citizens can be affected. Rep. Don Young's bill is a basic good government bill. Congress _ which is responsive to the American people -- should have the right to legislate, not some international body." "Land designations under the World Heritage and Biosphere Reserve programs have been created with virtually no congressional oversight and no congressional hearings, " Representative Don Young, sponsor of the legislation, has said. "The public and local governments are rarely consulted." Many of the 67 current and proposed UN World Heritage sites in 40 U.S. states are man-made, such as the Statue of Liberty, Philadelphia's Independence Hall, Frank Lloyd Wright's home and studio and 10 other sites in Illinois, the Brooklyn Bridge, the Bell Telephone and General Electric Research Laboratories in New York, Eads Bridge in Illinois-St. Louis, Fallingwater outside Pittsburgh, Monticello, Moundville Site in Alabama, Louisiana's Poverty Point, Mound City Group National Monument in Ohio, Fallingwater outside Pittsburgh and the Washington Monument. Others, such as the Grand Canyon, the Everglades, Yosemite, Grand Teton National Park, Crater Lake, Yellowstone, Bryce Canyon, Smoky Mountains and the Mohave Desert, among many others, are natural. A list of current and contemplated World Heritage sites in the U.S. is available on the Internet at http://www.cr.nps.gov/worldheritage/list1.htm (excerpted from http://www.nationalcenter.org/PRLandSov299.html) |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Trancer-X |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by venomX Wait, let me get this right, the UN is trying to help preserve sites that Americans should be proud off, and you are scoffing at the fact that what, they shouldn't be? Maybe your congress should hire more people then and waste resources on having a committee that evaluates potential sites and preserves them. It's not like you people complain all the time of how bloated government is, I am sure they should be taking on more costs and responsibilities. |
Re: Re: Re: Is U.S. in Slow Motion to Socialism?
| quote: |
"I am not a Labor Leader; I do not want you to follow me or anyone else; if you are looking for a Moses to lead you out of this capitalist wilderness, you will stay right where you are. I would not lead you into the promised land if I could, because if I led you in, some one else would lead you out. You must use your heads as well as your hands, and get yourself out of your present condition."
It's true, we destroy ourselves with our own simple-minded ideologies and rigidity of stance on issues we understand very little the consequences of.
Vote Debs.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Trancer-X You guys really like to twist things to make them seem all fine and dandy, don't you? Yeah, ceding land to another country is going to help preserve American landmarks. Your (what seems to be a counterfactual conditional) argument is fallacious, btw. I need to brush up on my list of fallacies but I'm still able to gather that much. |
| quote: |
A UNESCO World Heritage Site is a specific site (such as a forest, mountain, lake, desert, monument, building, complex, or city) that has been nominated and confirmed for inclusion on the list maintained by the international World Heritage Programme administered by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee, composed of 21 State Parties (countries) which are elected by the General Assembly of States Parties for a fixed term.[1] (This is similar to the United Nations Security Council.) The programme aims to catalogue, name, and conserve sites of outstanding cultural or natural importance to the common heritage of humanity. Under certain conditions, listed sites can obtain funds from the World Heritage Fund. The programme was founded with the Convention Concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage, which was adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO on 16 November 1972. Since then, 184 (as of July 2007) States Parties have ratified the convention. As of 2007, a total of 851 sites are listed: 660 cultural, 166 natural, and 25 mixed properties, in 142 States Parties. UNESCO references each World Heritage Site with a unique identification number; but new inscriptions often include previous sites now listed as part of larger descriptions. As a result, the numbering system currently ends above 1200, even though there are fewer on the actual list. [b[Each World Heritage Site is the property of the country on whose territory the site is located[/b], but it is considered in the interest of the international community to preserve each site for future generations of humanity. The protection and conservation of these sites are a concern of all the World Heritage countries. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by venomX Link First off, last time I check the UN isn't really a country, although it may enjoy country-like priviledges. Second, World Heritage sites are not ceded to the UN, they don't become UN territories that the host country can not touch, use or modify. So again, what's the problem with having World Heritage sites. And mind you there are 142 countries participating in this. |
| quote: |
| "Like so many other agencies within the United Nations, the Heritage Area program has become a power hungry, bureaucracy that seeks to override the laws of nations" - Rep. Richard Pombo (R - CA) |
| quote: |
| H.R. 883 - American Land Sovereignty Protection Act PURPOSE OF THE BILL H.R. 883 will restore the Constitutional role of Congress in managing lands belonging to the United States, preserve the sovereignty of the United States over these lands, and protect State sovereignty and private property rights in non-federal lands adjacent to federal lands. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION The American Land Sovereignty Protection Act (H.R. 883) asserts the Constitutional power of Congress over management and use of lands belonging to the United States. Under Article IV, section 3 of the United States Constitution, the power to make all needful rules and regulations governing lands belonging to the United States is vested in Congress. Yet over the last 25 years, an increasing expanse of our nation's public lands have been included in various international land use programs, most notably United Nations Biosphere Reserves and World Heritage Sites, with virtually no Congressional oversight or approval. The international agreement covering World Heritage Sites, for example, largely leaves Congress out of the nomination process. United Nations World Heritage Sites, Ramsar Sites and Biosphere Reserves are under the jurisdiction of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). World Heritage Sites and Ramsar Sites are recognized by UNESCO under `The Convention Concerning Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage' (World Heritage Convention) and `The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat' (Ramsar Convention), respectively. Biosphere Reserves are part of the U.S. Man and Biosphere Program which operates in conjunction with a worldwide program under UNESCO. The U.S. Man and Biosphere Program is not authorized by Congress and has no legislative direction. Over 68 percent of the land in our national parks, preserves and monuments have been designated as United Nations World Heritage Sites, Biosphere Reserves or both. Biosphere Reserves alone cover an area about the size of Colorado, our eighth largest state. There are now 47 UNESCO Biosphere Reserves, 20 World Heritage Sites and 16 Ramsar Sites in the United States. In becoming a party to these international land use agreements through Executive Branch action, the United States may be indirectly agreeing to terms of international treaties, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, to which the United States is not a party or which the United States Senate has refused to ratify. For example, The Seville Strategy for Biosphere Reserves recommends that participating countries `integrate biosphere reserves in strategies for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use, in plans for protected areas, and in the national biodiversity strategies and action plans provided for in Article 6 of the Convention on Biological Diversity.' Furthermore, the Strategic Plan for the U.S. Biosphere Reserve Program published in 1994 by the U.S. State Department states that a goal of the U.S. Biosphere Reserve Program is to `create a national network of biosphere reserves that represents the biogeographical diversity of the United States and fulfills the internationally established roles and functions of biosphere reserves.' Also disturbing is that designation of Biospheres and World Heritage Sites rarely involve consulting the public and local governments. At the five hearings held on the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act since the 104th Congress, state and local elected officials as well as grassroots citizen activists from Alaska, Arkansas, Missouri, Minnesota, New Mexico and New York testified that no one consulted with the public or local governments when international land designations were made in their states. The domestic designation process for World Heritage Sites and Biosphere Reserves is so controversial that the Alaska, Colorado and Montana state legislatures have passed resolutions in support of the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act. In addition, the Kentucky State Senate recently passed a resolution opposing creation of any biosphere reserves within Kentucky and supporting the concepts embodied in this legislation. In fact, UNESCO policy apparently discourages an open nomination process for World Heritage Sites. The Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention state:
Federal regulatory actions could cause a significant adverse impact on the value of private property and on the local and regional economy. The involvement of the World Heritage Committee (WHC) in the National Environmental Policy Act review process for the New World Mine Project near Yellowstone National Park, a World Heritage Site, exemplifies this problem. The New World mine project is outside of the boundary of Yellowstone National Park and is not included in the World Heritage Site. In fact, nearly all of the proposed minesite is located on private property, and U.S. law (16 U.S.C. 470a-1(c)) prohibits including any non-federal property within a U.S. World Heritage Site without the consent of the owner. The fact that the proposed project was not a part of the Yellowstone World Heritage Site did not prevent the WHC from holding a `hearing' on the project. Creation of a buffer zone, possibly ten times as large as the Park, was suggested by at least one member of the WHC. However, by excluding the federal lands on which a small part of the New World Mine Project lies from an adjoining wilderness area, Congress had already determined not to create such a buffer zone and to make these lands available for multiple uses, including mining. It is clear from this example, that at best, World Heritage Site and Biosphere Reserve designations give the international community an open invitation to interfere in U.S. domestic land use decisions. More seriously, these international agreements potentially have several significant adverse effects on the American system of government. Domestic land use policy-making authority is further centralized at the federal/Executive Branch level, and the role that ordinary citizens have in the making of this policy through their elected representatives is diminished. The Executive Branch may also invoke these international agreements in an attempt to administratively achieve an action within the jurisdiction of Congress, but without consulting Congress. The current framework for implementing the World Heritage Site and Biosphere Reserve programs has eaten away at the power and sovereignty of the Congress to exercise its constitutional power to make the laws that govern U.S.-owned land. Perhaps the most serious problem with international agreements, such as the World Heritage Convention, is that the international bodies which administer them do not represent the American people and cannot be held accountable by them. In a May 5, 1999, letter to Congressman Bruce Vento, former U.N. Ambassador Jeane J. Kirkpatrick says it best:
|
| quote: |
| "Our public lands are an American treasure. But the executive branch has decided American land can be put into international reserves, without the consent of Congress. The American Land Sovereignty Act says to the president, 'No more'" - Rep. Mike Simpson (R - ID) |
Re: Re: Re: Is U.S. in Slow Motion to Socialism?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Trancer-X How come nobody ever talks about the Fabians, damn it!?!? |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.