We know the Ukraine crisis is hot, with Ukraine and Russia accusing each other of terrorism and east Ukraine basically expecting a Russian invasion. But what interests me is the larger backdrop: the erosion of the U.S. dollar as the world “reserve currency” (or centerpiece of global finance and trade).
You see, the more President Obama tries to isolate Putin, the more he pushes Russia and its trading partners – such as China, India, Germany, Iran – to speed their efforts to integrate their economies and financial systems, to the exclusion of the U.S.
Consider the following news items. None are earth-shattering, but each reveals a bit of the picture.
- As I blogged two weeks ago, Russia and Iran are making progress on a large trade deal, which is being called ‘barter’ because the U.S. dollar won’t be used.
- Now the U.S. has warned Russia against that deal, saying it would trigger immediate, greater sanctions against Russia.
So, Russia annexing territory (the Crimea) is not really a big deal to Washington; it triggers token U.S. sanctions. But Russia trading with its own neighbor (Iran), in a way that bypasses the dollar-based financial system and thus the U.S. ability to eject little countries from world trade – that gets Washington’s attention. That tells you where the sore spot is.
To continue:
- Russia has doubled military spending since 2010 and continues to increase it.
- Russia has doubled the price that Ukraine must pay for natural gas, and makes threatening noises about Ukraine’s failure to pay.
- Could those things be warnings to Europe? Why yes, along with more direct warnings: for example, Putin suggests that Europe’s gas supplies will be reduced if Europe doesn’t play ball with Russia.
- Could the threats work, prying Europe loose(r) from the U.S.? Possibly: A top German official warns that Germany needs Russian gas.
- Russia is set to strike a new gas deal with China, which speaks to further Russia-China integration.
- And Russian companies are getting set to issue Yuan-denominated debt, another sign of growing Russia-China integration.
Do you see where this is going? Not toward Russia being isolated. Maybe, in time, toward the U.S. being isolated.
UPDATE: Ordinary Russians are only annoyed, not frightened, by U.S. sanctions.
China’s massive holding of US debt means China has little interest in seeing the dollar decline too far. They will do what they can to keep the dollar semi-strong while trying to fire warning shots when they can.
America is a resource rich nation. The world’s food supply is dependent on America. We have more gas than we need. Our manufacturing is becoming cheaper because our energy is cheaper and the worker is more productive.
The US is better positioned for the future. Russia has 2 cards left – energy and its huge banking influence in London. Once those goes, they got nothing left and their economy becomes stagnant – it already is. China’s growth has not spurred the domestic consumption needed to become self sustaining. As they import more energy, their costs become higher and the massive internal debt their municipalities have will become unsustainable.
America has some fundamental problems, but our diverse economy, and resources make us better positioned to overcome than than our rivals.
Perhaps, but people tend to overrate that factor. I agree that China has no *immediate* interest in seeing the dollar crash. But I’m not talking about an immediate decline anyway; I’m talking about a multi-year process.
There is no getting around the fact that the U.S. has ceded a huge amount of financial (and industrial) power to China. China has some immediate problems but, sooner or later, they will be ready to move the yuan higher against the dollar (thus, dollar decline). At that point, their people will have a rising physical living standard as they “export goods to themselves”, and the U.S. a declining standard.
And Russia is even more so. And much more willing to exploit it (thanks to the U.S. “green” Left).
We are a food exporter, but to describe the world as “dependent” on us is an exaggeration. Also note that, even with the food net exports, we have imported more than we’ve exported for years. In other words: For years, we have consumed more than we produce. That is what has strengthened China’s financial position, and weakened ours.
Based on what? Obama has been turning the U.S. into a Euro-socialist type of stagnant mere, and will continue to.
If Russia is badly off, then why is it a U.S. creditor? Why do they have money to loan us (that we desperately need)?
Our only hope for a brighter future is to U-turn to real freedom – that is, real capitalism (complete with business failures and individual failures, or no more bailouts) under small government and sound-ish money. Do you see that happening soon? I don’t.
I think it’s hilarious that “mike” thinks this is a healthy country when over half of the population isn’t working and is living on welfare benefits taken from the productivity of the other half.
One has to remember the mindset of liberals like “mike”, though, which is simply parasitic. “mike” doesn’t care about productivity or anything like that; he just wants the welfare check and doesn’t want to work for it. All the Obama Party’s rhetoric is geared toward the welfare parasites like “mike”, as we see from Nancy Pelosi bragging that unemployment benefits are better than work, or Harry Reid and Barack Obama bragging that Obamacare lets people quit their job and live on welfare.
#2
All I am saying is the US is better positioned than the tinfoil hatters at zerohedge/infowars think. We are in the top 5 of oil producing nations, and the #1 producer of gas. We are essentially energy and food independent – especially if you consider Canada and Mexico firmly within our sphere (which you should) The US worker is vastly more productive and skilled (Russians would dispute the skilled part)
The economy is much more diverse compared to Russia and China. For example, when the US starts exporting gas, the Russian economy could collapse as their whole model is based on exporting to Europe.
Long term, Russia will need Europe more than Europe needs them.
China is dependent upon its cheap labor which is becoming more expensive. Chinese municipalities have serious account deficit problems, and money is fleeing China faster than they can print it. – Want to know why bitcoin was so successful? Because Chinese bought a bunch and used it to move money out. – Long term, China will need the US, far more than it needs China. Every .01% that US cuts from trade with China is 10K jobs cut in China. (This is a rule of thumb and not a hard fast number, but you get the idea)
“Our only hope for a brighter future is to U-turn to real freedom – that is, real capitalism (complete with business failures and individual failures, or no more bailouts) under small government and sound-ish money.”
Is interesting that your prescription for fixing America is exactly the opposite of what Russia and China (the two countries you seem to fear) are doing. Both countries rely on Government to direct investment, neither are free and surly they are not relying on free capitalism. – But China does have a lack of environmental regulations and if you want that, come to Beijing and breathe for a bit.
America is vastly more free than those two countries in terms of personal liberties and economically.
So if you think “big government” is the boogeyman why do you fear these countries who are basically state controlled?
Ah, but you see, “mike”, your Barack Obama and your Barack Obama Party oppose and have done everything in their power to block oil and gas production and thus strangle any and all chance at oil and gas independence, much less exports.
And this was precious:
Which makes your Obama and your Obama Party’s insistence on doing exactly the same thing as China and Russia — nationalization of industries, complete government control of everything — even more hilarious.
You really don’t have a coherent argument, “mike”. You simply are here to scream “nyah nyah, you’re wrong” like a child because you are nothing more than an Obama cultist who is desperate to spin and lie for the incompetent Barack Obama and for the failed socialist wealth redistribution policies of your Obama Party.
mike – Sounds to me like a great deal of wishful thinking on your part.
Some would argue that China is more capitalist now than the U.S. I stress that it is highly arguable, given that the political system is a corrupt dictatorship with no real protections for individual rights/property (making true capitalism impossible). On the other hand…the U.S. is not what it used to be; the U.S. is gradually deteriorating into, well, a corrupt dictatorship with few real protections for individual rights/property, making true capitalism impossible. It will get that much more interesting, as China continues to gradually abandon its “dollar peg” (whereby it basically imports inflation from the U.S.) and put its currency onto a sound basis.
And however Russia or China might be, there is no way the U.S. can find its unique type of health and courage without staying true to its heritage of individual freedom. The U.S. simply isn’t Russia or China. *Even if* they succeed (temporarily – likely not in the long run) by being corrupt dictatorships, the U.S. still can’t find success on that same road, and absolutely shouldn’t try to. Left-wing progressives will continue to find that the more they succeed in erasing the U.S. original heritage of individual rights and free enterprise, the more the U.S. slips into a malaise that the Left cannot cure.
But I don’t. Rather, I fear the U.S. being basically State-controlled.
“Some would argue that China is more capitalist now than the U.S. I stress that it is highly arguable, given that the political system is a corrupt dictatorship with no real protections for individual rights/property (making true capitalism impossible).”
China IS proof positive of why you need a strong national regulatory framework that governs emissions, food safety, water safety and zoning. My god the trash in the rivers, the smog, the unsafe food, unsafe medicines…it really makes you appreciate the EPA/FDA.
“Rather, I fear the U.S. being basically State-controlled”
OK.
But that a different subject. Your original post is typical fearmongering of the death of America at the hands of China and Russia. I am merely saying America is stronger than you think.
Furthermore, I think saying America becoming a state controlled dictatorship is a bit of hyperbole but I get it, thats what you conservative internet media guys do because a “D” is in the white house. When the “R” is in the white house life is good. I am sure its the same at Daily Kos.
Nope. A Communist dictatorship is the very essence of a “strong national regulatory framework”. China IS proof positive of why that accomplishes nothing-or-worse and why you need, instead, a foundational commitment to individual rights of life, liberty and property.
Now you’re just getting hysterical, mike. My post is nothing like that – it’s more describing some stuff that’s been happening in the world lately – but you would need, it seems, to claim otherwise. Go for it.
“A Communist dictatorship is the very essence of a “strong national regulatory framework””
Except they don’t enforce those particular regulations as they don’t have inspectors, or companies threaten the GDP growth of a local province and continue to pollute, or CEOs ditch the country after selling poison as food. You need to realize that mid-level Chinese officials #1 metric is GDP growth. So they let companies do whatever they can do in the name of economic progress.
Without strong national regulations, national government inspections and enforceable laws, companies pollute – a lot – and the pollution is disgusting, and unsafe.
No commitment to individual rights of life, liberty and property will stop a consortium of 5 separate companies, who set up shop around your property and burn unfiltered coal, rubbish and whatever else destroying your lungs and your property. Which one do you sue to recover your property loss? Which one do you sue now that your kid has birth defects? How do you prove which one is responsible? – answer you don’t.
Situations like this is why I consider your philosophy Utopian. It just doesn’t work in the real world. In the real world, a government is needed to enforce, inspect and ensure that companies are not polluting. Those agencies and need to be well funded through taxes.
ILC, You’ve recently suggested considering building one’s personal arsenal of gold, guns, and emergency supplies in the context of the decline of the U.S. dollar.
While you are providing painstaking detail to these developments you’re noting directly and indirectly to the U.S. dollar (which is appreciated), you’re also painting a sea change that is looming on the horizon that is something new, unwelcome, and a change from what we’re used to. Perhaps it’s not the “death of America,” but it’s the end of an ideal you seem to cherish.
Or, are you going on record as what’s happening might be good? I can see how you might be going for a neutral POV, but I can’t say that you’ve been successful, yet.
So “mike” is now claiming you can’t sue private companies for pollution.
Then what the hell has Chevron been in court over for the past decade?
You would think someone from a party whose hero is Erin Brokovich and who is partially funded by trial lawyers would know better.
But the reason “mike” wants government to do it is shown by the Chevron case: leftists, for all their screeching about pollution, have to forge documents, make things up, and otherwise act illegally to harass and punish companies they hate, and the justice system can make them stop.
So they turn to government, where they can act illegally to punish companies as long as they donate correctly.
So “mike”, the reason you and your fellow fascists tell lies like this is because you see regulations as a means to punish companies and bring them under control. The court system and free market both contain the possibility that you could lose and not get your way, and you can’t tolerate that.
For point of example in terms of “mike” dishonestly pushing “regulations”, let us examine how mike feels about “regulations” when they impede a major cash flow source for the Obama Party.
And indeed, mike’s own Obama Party, despite insisting that more regulation, more inspection, and more enforcement is always good and justified, screams the exact opposite when it comes to requiring abortion clinics to meet health and safety standards that everyone else must — because, they hilariously claim, regulation increases costs, reduces access unnecessarily, and just harasses businesses.
Cognitive dissonance yet, mike?
And finally, as an entertaining counterpoint, let’s repost what “mike” claimed above:
Except for the fact that “mike” wants oil and gas production shut down because his Obama Party claims it causes earthquakes, and wants pipelines from Canada and Mexico blocked because they cause cancer.
So what we see here is “mike” and his fellow Obama supporters making ludicrous scare claims to justify regulating industries they dislike out of existence based on their ideology and junk-science assertions. Just as Barack Obama stated that his goal was to use regulations to bankrupt coal-fired power plants and force gas and electric prices to “necessarily skyrocket”.
So “mike”, you’re flat out lying. You and your Obama Party use regulation to coerce and force people into doing your theocratic bidding and punish them for not. As abortion clinics show, you don’t care about safety or health if a company donates and is ideologically aligned with you.
Conservatives want this power taken away from the government because it is abused. You want this power in government because you and your fellow Obama supporters intend to be the abusers.
Yes, and thank you for stating it carefully there (as I did in my original).
…or noting a sea change that now develops gradually before our eyes, yes.
Having the dollar as the world reserve currency isn’t my ideal or anything I cherish; thus not anything I fear losing. To the extent that it has enabled our present socialist malaise (a corrupt government that racks up giant debts by over-spending, spies & regiments its country into the mire, and encourages its people to think they can consume more than they produce), it could even be a bad thing. So yes, losing it could be good – depending on how intelligently we react to the loss.
At any rate, “it is what it is”. The end is coming – of a peculiar situation or privilege that has existed for America since WW2. Not the end of the world, and not the end of America – though perhaps the end of the illusory, Santa Claus America where everyone retires early on their government benefits and follows Nancy Pelosi’s advice to become a dropout-poet or whatever. I am warning people, because I don’t see the media doing the job. If some people don’t want to hear it, that’s OK: let them not hear it.
“”Conservatives want this power taken away from the government because it is abused.””
That’s a terrible standard. For example, sometimes police abuse their power, but I don’t want to live in country with no cops.
Whats your alternative to strong environmental regulations? After the fact lawsuits?
Yikes, thats not a world I want to live in.
littlelettermike is a very dull student as he has displayed time and time again on various threads.
But, presto-chango, littlelettermike appears @ #1 with a comment constructed well above his pay grade and possible ken*. [*knowledge, understanding, or cognizance; mental perception: as in an idea beyond one’s ken.]
But, after much copying and pasting, the real littlelettermike shows up @ #15. He grabs a sentence from NDT and goes flaming berserk. To wit:
NDT: ”Conservatives want this power taken away from the government because it is abused.”
littlelettermike: “sometimes police abuse their power, but I don’t want to live in country with no cops.”
ILC: “The end is coming – of a peculiar situation or privilege that has existed for America since WW2. Not the end of the world, and not the end of America – though perhaps the end of the illusory, Santa Claus America where everyone retires early on their government benefits and follows Nancy Pelosi’s advice to become a dropout-poet or whatever.”
littlelettermike: “Whats your alternative to strong environmental regulations? After the fact lawsuits? Yikes, thats not a world I want to live in.”
littlelettermike would tax us and regulate us into prosperity. He does not explain how China and Russia are pulling this trick off, but that is his game plan. Read his comments. He paints the rosiest of scenarios for the good old USA where farmers are deprived water for crops and tapping fossil fuels on federal lands is all but forbidden and where some mythical manufacturer is not going off-shore for labor and to find a better tax structure and less restrictive regulations.
But, you see, if we relax any EPA regulation, all water will be poison and the trees will die and the Earth will die.
So sayeth littleletterchickenlittlemike.
#16 – I guess a thread on this site isn’t complete without bit of strawman building. I expect that from NDT as that is his shtick, but…looks like you want in too
For example:
“But, you see, if we relax any EPA regulation, all water will be poison and the trees will die and the Earth will die.”
Yeah. That’s what I said.
What I said was:
“In the real world, a government is needed to enforce, inspect and ensure that companies are not polluting. Those agencies and need to be well funded through taxes”
Besides the typo, what about that do you disagree with?
heliotrope: I just think of mike as someone who does not understand – and who perhaps, now, would not wish to learn – how human freedom works.
In a free country, people still commit mistakes and/or crimes, just like they do in dictatorships. But there are counterweights. People have meaningful speech rights; a free flow of consumer information; a press that hasn’t been captured by
the White Housethe government; a government that enforces criminal law impartially, and instead of oppressing people or extorting from them; meaningful property rights whose protection and exercise deter at least some mistakes or crimes; the freedom to start new businesses to displace bad ones; the freedom to start citizen groups or charities to fight bad conditions and upset the powerful; and so forth.In a dictatorship or Big Government situation, the counterweights operate less (or not at all), and conditions are more desperate generally, so that people’s mistakes and crimes have that much greater negative impact.
China and Russia are such dictatorships, and the U.S. has enough Big Government to be sadly on its way. And all three countries have some damn poor results to show for it. But mike just wants to blame capitalism – even though real capitalism is human freedom, or the opposite of dictatorship; the situation in which the good counterweights are able to operate (operate *freely*, so to speak).
It’s interesting to see mike’s defense of Big Government, because it’s weak. It’s driven by ideology and has moments where mike is upset enough that he misrepresents even the post I just wrote. And then mike accuses others (me) of being ideological, creating hysteria, etc. “Oh, well.”
mike, you want to talk about straw men? Here’s one for you:
Now that is a straw man. It reflects, and tries to assert, underlying assumptions that:
1) We thankfully live in a world where our environment regulators are benevolent people who protect us from serious environmental problems; and
2) The only alternative to such a world is environmental disaster.
Both are grotesquely incorrect.
(To recall only one example: Environmental regulators were the people who drove BP into doing deep-ocean drilling, something that regulator-free markets probably would have chosen to avoid because of its difficulty and inefficiency. Furthermore, the Obama administration was in bed with BP and blessed the BP actions in the deep ocean that led to the Gulf disaster.)
Actually, that’s incorrect, “mike”; you and your fellow Obama supporters are quite happy to strip police of their powers and banish them using abuse as an excuse.
Once again, “mike”, we see that you are lying. You insist that more police action and confiscation of guns is required to keep people “safe”, but you refuse to enforce regulation when it conflicts with your poetical ideology and would negatively affect your preferred groups. As this shows, clearly you do not consider regulation or law necessary; instead, you see it solely as an instrument to coerce and punish those who disagree with you politically.
Hence, “mike”, your lies are exposed. You do not care about inspections or regulations when they negatively impact liberal donors like abortion clinics. You do not care about gun ownership and possession when it negatively impacts liberal voters. You so not care about laws when your favored Obama supporters like Lisa Jackson violate them. And this can also be shown that you do not care about poisoning the environment if the proper liberal obeisance is shown and donation checks written.
You blather repeatedly about “good governance”. However, as you have shown, your response to being shown acts of clear and obvious government malfeasance, your only response is to claim that conservatives want to poison the air and water. You are a malicious and malignant liar, “mike”, and at your core a fascist, a hateful ideologue who intends to use government to punish those who disagree with you. You counsel criminal acts by the EPA administrator because she seeks to punish companies you hate and want driven out of existence. You push gun confiscation from law-abiding owners even as you demand that police allow armed gangbangers to walk the street with impunity. You harass law-abiding businesses looking for infractions while you studiously ignore Obama donors like Kermit Gosnell and other abortionists.
[name-calling deleted]
“Now that is a straw man”
No. That is not a strawman argument. I did not falsely state your position, and beat the tar out of something you don’t believe in. In fact, its the exact opposite a strawman because I am asking you to clarify your position.
So I will ask again:
Whats your alternative to strong environmental regulations? After the fact lawsuits?
Is there a reason you are avoiding that question?
From Wikipedia:
I pointed out that you were putting out (and thus asserting) some false assumptions, including the false assumption that the only alternative to your desired form of environmental regulation would be environmental disaster. Clearly, no one here advocates environmental disaster and, in effect, you created a fake opponent for yourself to defeat – a straw man, as it were. I hereby concede that, if we use the names of fallacies/tactics strictly, then yours must be called “false dichotomy” rather than “straw man”. But the two tactics resemble or blur into one another, because both are instances of a broader strategy – namely, arguing against nonexistent opponents and constraining the debate, by injecting false assumptions into it.
No dice. I asked you a question all the way up at #2, that you still haven’t answered. If you want to play “Answer the question!” games, then you are surely up at bat, first. Answer my question.
That, ILC, is where you and I disagree.
“mike” is fully aware of how human freedom works — and is completely and implacably opposed to it.
The mindset of people like “mike” is very simple to understand. These are people who want power, who want control, and will do anything to get it.
The private market requires you to perform and exert effort in order to accrue power, which eliminates the “mikes” of the world in short order. Furthermore, lying and ignoring laws in the real world gets one thrown into the court system, where facts and evidence overturn lies and demagoguery.
So people like “mike” go into government, where they can control peoples’ lives at gunpoint with zero to no recourse.
You notice how “mike” constantly demonizes private industry and corporations, claiming that they are all crooks and criminals who want to poison the air and kill children and thus must be tightly controlled and regulated.
However, when confronted with examples of government malfeasance, “mike” pretends that it never happened, that government can always be trusted, that government is always right, and that people should surrender their freedom to government in the name of safety.
The explanation is simple. Power. “mike” does not care about safety or pollution or good governance or any of the things that he twaddles about. Those are simply excuses to extend more government power — and thus more power for him — over other people.
Watch. “mike” refuses to condemn the EPA for not following its own laws. “mike” refuses to condemn leftist Obama donor lawyers for lying about and attempting to destroy Chevron using false claims. “mike” refuses to condemn failure to inspect abortion clinics and, despite his insistence that all regulation is good and necessary, insists that abortion clinics should not be regulated or inspected.
The answer whenever looking at leftists is simple: power. They are not misguided people; they are malevolent and vicious people with no morals who will say and do anything to get and keep power.
“I asked you a question all the way up at #2, that you still haven’t answered. ”
With my apologies, but the only questions I see in #2 I thought were answered in #4.
Please let me know what clarification you are seeking.
Regarding your strawman comments, I wonder if you are intentionally being obtuse here.
“I pointed out that you were putting out (and thus asserting) some false assumptions, including the false assumption that the only alternative to your desired form of environmental regulation would be environmental disaster”
I asked you:
Whats your alternative to strong environmental regulations? After the fact lawsuits?
What false assumption does that question impose?
Answer: It doesn’t.
Why?: Because I am asking you for your alternative. There is no assumption of “no alternative” – Do you think its your bias that makes you think there is no alternative?
But you are free to give any answer you choose.
However, think carefully, because human history has shown, w/o strong laws and regulations protecting the environment, life gets polluted.
But you are free to tell me why you think I am wrong.
Classic.
Despite providing no facts, no relevant or intelligent argument, and no answers, “mike” claims that ILC is lying, ILC is being obtuse, ILC is a bad person who wants to poison the air and water and kill children.
Of course, this is all projection. Liberals like “mike” who want power must dehumanize and destroy anyone who does not give in to their attempts to pervert government to impose their own ideology. They abuse, they attack, they slander, they demonize. They have no facts, no logic, and no evidence, so they attempt to “other” and claim that people like ILC and others here who question their attempts to strip freedoms away from others are murderers.
littlelettermike is a Progressive and he is too dogmatic to permit classical liberalism. He used to be a modern liberal, but he and his crowd sullied the name and had to run away from it.
We classical liberals believe 1) that all men are created equal, 2) are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, 3) that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.
littlelettermike is part and parcel with the crowd that wants to roll backward to the state awarding powers to the people and people have rights only from the consent of the state. He does this in the name of state determined, imposed and sanctioned “equality.”
littlelettermike and his ilk created modern conservatism. He has forced us to defend the status quo of classical liberalism. We know there is nothing which can be added to those three principles (stated above) that improves our human progress of self-governance.
littlelettermike is a reactionary. He yearns for statism and the ancient control of the people that has made up the history of the world until the United States showed a new and better way. His statism is a religion, a theocracy of transient and light political correctness de jour imposed by a power elite. His forbears cheered the Nazis, worshipped Napolean, worked with the Stasi, loved Evita, adored Mussolini, marched with Mao and were kamikazes. The state for everyone and everyone for the state. littlemindedmike is a useful idiot.
littlelettermike twists a meaning and says the “sometimes police abuse their power, but I don’t want to live in country with no cops.” That is fundamental “Straw man” fallacy and really, really plebeian and phlegmatic.
We have a representative democracy and many, many of us feel that our representatives have turned into professional grifters who line their pockets and misrepresent us. We want a purer, more noble group to represent us.
littlelettermike is all in for ruling the people through the courts and by the labyrinth of executive orders and executive regulations. He looks at the Bundy ranch cowboys and he sees disorder and scoundrels disobeying the state. That, to littlelettermike, can•not•stand. No mere citizen dare be allowed to oppose the all powerful and mighty state.
I will speak to littlelettermike’s fatuous two part inanity:
The first part is: Whats your alternative to strong environmental regulations?
The regulation must clearly reflect the intent of the legislation which enabled it and it should be “strong.” What earthly purpose is served by writing “weak” regulations? They only end up being dragged through the bureaucracy and the courts in an attempt to find their meaning.
The second part of the asinine “question” is a sentence fragment: After the fact lawsuits?
Never, would I forbid a citizen the right to petition his government for a redress of grievance through the court system. It is part of the process connected with the government trampling on inalienable rights.
littlelettermike’s intent in his vacuous posturing is to say that it is too late to do any good after the ancient giant sequoia has already been sawed down or the Fukushima radiation catastrophe has occurred.
So, littlelettermike, let’s play your game by your rules: Obamacare is laden with regulations which are ignored, waived, postponed, with consistent regularity. Is Obamacare your ideal of “strong regulations” and smooth running statism for the good of the people? What is your alternative, after the facts lawsuits?
What’s even funnier, heliotrope, is that they can.
For instance, littlelettermike screams along with Pelosi and Reid and Obama that immigration laws and laws forbidding illegals from receiving welfare should not ever be enforced and that anyone who does so is racist.
This is what makes the lies of littlelettermike so risible. Littlelettermike demands law after law after law after regulation after regulation after regulation be slammed down upon law-abiding American citizens — and then exempts and blocks and demagogues enforcement of them for Obama Party power and to push Obama Party control.
There is nothing about good governance or the rule of law in littlelettermike’s rantings. Littlelettermike’s simple rule is this: obey the Obama Party and you can do what you want, disobey and the government must be used to crush you.
#26 – “The regulation must clearly reflect the intent of the legislation which enabled it and it should be “strong.” What earthly purpose is served by writing “weak” regulations? They only end up being dragged through the bureaucracy and the courts in an attempt to find their meaning.”
Agreed, the EPA derives its regulatory authority from around 70 different laws. It would be great if congress could come together and modernize the laws and ensure that the regulations are strong, clear, based on common sense enforcement and those who enforce them are well funded.
So after all that we agree? Great!
“Obamacare is laden with regulations which are ignored, waived, postponed, with consistent regularity. Is Obamacare your ideal of “strong regulations” and smooth running statism for the good of the people? ”
The citizens implementing the Affordable Health Care act informed the president “Hey common sense says we should do such and such” and so he authorized it. Don’t you think that is is a good thing? They didn’t just say “the law says blahbidy blah” and followed like automatons.
It would be great if the EPA, IRS and other agencies could have such leeway to do things based on logic instead of arcane rules
‘After the fact lawsuits”
I would never say a citizen can’t sue for something. I am saying after the fact lawsuits only redress the already done harm to property, life and happiness. While in my opinion, laws, regulations and regulators are the best tools to ensure property, life and happiness are not infringed upon.
Nicely done, heliotrope; you have driven littlelettermike to complete incoherence in a desperate attempt to hide his fascism.
Followed by:
So littlelettermike is demanding that Congress pass laws that Obama and the unelected bureaucracy can ignore and rewrite at will.
Which is hilarious, because during the Bush presidency, both Obama and his shill littlelettermike shrieked that the President had to follow the law to the letter and could not bypass it by regulations or waivers or exemptions.
Of course, what we see here is that fascist littlelettermike is simply attempting to emasculate government to install right-thinking nobility like itself, who will live at taxpayer expense and be free from any concern about law.
littlelettermike cannot deal with this (from my comments @ #26) :
Socialists, communists, fascists, Nazis, statists and Progressives are all alike in one manner: the power is in the state, not derived from the consent of the people. littlelettermike is a Progressive and he has a reactionary’s disgust with the consent of the people, because he is superior to the people.
We have three levels of government. At the local level, government and its actions are closest to the people and in the best of all possible positions to listen to the governed. Since local governments need intrastate organization, state governments serve as the body to best serve the people throughout the state.
littlelettermike is all for the Progressive rule of the people from Washington, D.C. down to the tag on your mattress. He does not give a moment’s concern about the consent model of government in any way. For the citizen, it is all about being anointed with social justice, equality, fairness, rights, entitlements and certain freedoms by the great and wonderful national state and the man with the oval office.
I am underwhelmed that littlelettermike has decided that I agree with him about the EPA. I will only be in agreement with littlelettermike in any possible form when he reveals that the has embraced classical liberalism.
For littlelettermike to start stuttering about common sense and the EPA is only weakly admitting that the people have a basic right to oversight on what the state does and has the power and obligation to correct the failings of the leviathan.
This is stupidity made incarnate.
littlelettermike wants “leeway” for the EPA, IRS and other agencies to skate all over the written intent of the law and for the EPA, IRS and other agencies to “do things” which seem like common sense to them at the time and screw the law.
Why do I think that when a cop tazes littlelettermike because it made common sense to him at the time he tazed littlelettermike that the same littlelettermike will cry foul like a scalded brat?
Never has mindlessness been so prominently on display. What are the chances that littlelettermike has any concept of the meaning of “the consent of the governed”?