IMF: The United States is Bankrupt

[keaggy220]

The only three people seemingly unaware are Pelosi, Reid and Obama... We are going to pay dearly for there two year reign.

U.S. Is Bankrupt and We Don't Even Know: Laurence Kotlikoff

Let’s get real. The U.S. is bankrupt. Neither spending more nor taxing less will help the country pay its bills.

What it can and must do is radically simplify its tax, health-care, retirement and financial systems, each of which is a complete mess. But this is the good news. It means they can each be redesigned to achieve their legitimate purposes at much lower cost and, in the process, revitalize the economy.

Last month, the International Monetary Fund released its annual review of U.S. economic policy. Its summary contained these bland words about U.S. fiscal policy: “Directors welcomed the authorities’ commitment to fiscal stabilization, but noted that a larger than budgeted adjustment would be required to stabilize debt-to-GDP.”

But delve deeper, and you will find that the IMF has effectively pronounced the U.S. bankrupt. Section 6 of the July 2010 Selected Issues Paper says: “The U.S. fiscal gap associated with today’s federal fiscal policy is huge for plausible discount rates.” It adds that “closing the fiscal gap requires a permanent annual fiscal adjustment equal to about 14 percent of U.S. GDP.”

The fiscal gap is the value today (the present value) of the difference between projected spending (including servicing official debt) and projected revenue in all future years.

Double Our Taxes

To put 14 percent of gross domestic product in perspective, current federal revenue totals 14.9 percent of GDP. So the IMF is saying that closing the U.S. fiscal gap, from the revenue side, requires, roughly speaking, an immediate and permanent doubling of our personal-income, corporate and federal taxes as well as the payroll levy set down in the Federal Insurance Contribution Act.

Such a tax hike would leave the U.S. running a surplus equal to 5 percent of GDP this year, rather than a 9 percent deficit. So the IMF is really saying the U.S. needs to run a huge surplus now and for many years to come to pay for the spending that is scheduled. It’s also saying the longer the country waits to make tough fiscal adjustments, the more painful they will be.

Is the IMF bonkers?

No. It has done its homework. So has the Congressional Budget Office whose Long-Term Budget Outlook, released in June, shows an even larger problem.

‘Unofficial’ Liabilities

Based on the CBO’s data, I calculate a fiscal gap of $202 trillion, which is more than 15 times the official debt. This gargantuan discrepancy between our “official” debt and our actual net indebtedness isn’t surprising. It reflects what economists call the labeling problem. Congress has been very careful over the years to label most of its liabilities “unofficial” to keep them off the books and far in the future.

For example, our Social Security FICA contributions are called taxes and our future Social Security benefits are called transfer payments. The government could equally well have labeled our contributions “loans” and called our future benefits “repayment of these loans less an old age tax,” with the old age tax making up for any difference between the benefits promised and principal plus interest on the contributions.

The fiscal gap isn’t affected by fiscal labeling. It’s the only theoretically correct measure of our long-run fiscal condition because it considers all spending, no matter how labeled, and incorporates long-term and short-term policy.

$4 Trillion Bill

How can the fiscal gap be so enormous?

Simple. We have 78 million baby boomers who, when fully retired, will collect benefits from Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid that, on average, exceed per-capita GDP. The annual costs of these entitlements will total about $4 trillion in today’s dollars. Yes, our economy will be bigger in 20 years, but not big enough to handle this size load year after year.

This is what happens when you run a massive Ponzi scheme for six decades straight, taking ever larger resources from the young and giving them to the old while promising the young their eventual turn at passing the generational buck.

Herb Stein, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under U.S. President Richard Nixon, coined an oft-repeated phrase: “Something that can’t go on, will stop.” True enough. Uncle Sam’s Ponzi scheme will stop. But it will stop too late.

And it will stop in a very nasty manner. The first possibility is massive benefit cuts visited on the baby boomers in retirement. The second is astronomical tax increases that leave the young with little incentive to work and save. And the third is the government simply printing vast quantities of money to cover its bills.

Worse Than Greece

Most likely we will see a combination of all three responses with dramatic increases in poverty, tax, interest rates and consumer prices. This is an awful, downhill road to follow, but it’s the one we are on. And bond traders will kick us miles down our road once they wake up and realize the U.S. is in worse fiscal shape than Greece.

Some doctrinaire Keynesian economists would say any stimulus over the next few years won’t affect our ability to deal with deficits in the long run.

This is wrong as a simple matter of arithmetic. The fiscal gap is the government’s credit-card bill and each year’s 14 percent of GDP is the interest on that bill. If it doesn’t pay this year’s interest, it will be added to the balance.

Demand-siders say forgoing this year’s 14 percent fiscal tightening, and spending even more, will pay for itself, in present value, by expanding the economy and tax revenue.

My reaction? Get real, or go hang out with equally deluded supply-siders. Our country is broke and can no longer afford no- pain, all-gain “solutions.”

(Laurence J. Kotlikoff is a professor of economics at Boston University and author of “Jimmy Stewart Is Dead: Ending the World’s Ongoing Financial Plague with Limited Purpose Banking.” The opinions expressed are his own.)


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-1 ... ikoff.html

[jbuck919]

What it can and must do is radically simplify its tax, health-care, retirement and financial systems, each of which is a complete mess. But this is the good news. It means they can each be redesigned to achieve their legitimate purposes at much lower cost and, in the process, revitalize the economy.

Oh, is that all? Why didn't someone tell us before?

[keaggy220]

What it can and must do is radically simplify its tax, health-care, retirement and financial systems, each of which is a complete mess. But this is the good news. It means they can each be redesigned to achieve their legitimate purposes at much lower cost and, in the process, revitalize the economy.

Oh, is that all? Why didn't someone tell us before?

I agree. It's going to take a complete meltdown before our fantasy-based nanny-state is addressed. In some ways it's fortunate Obama has accelerated our mess...

[jbuck919]

What it can and must do is radically simplify its tax, health-care, retirement and financial systems, each of which is a complete mess. But this is the good news. It means they can each be redesigned to achieve their legitimate purposes at much lower cost and, in the process, revitalize the economy.

Oh, is that all? Why didn't someone tell us before?

I agree. It's going to take a complete meltdown before our fantasy-based nanny-state is addressed. In some ways it's fortunate Obama has accelerated our mess...

But my point is that if you said "simplify health care" it would mean repeal the recent bill, which would not bring health care costs down, while if I said it it would mean go to a reformed Medicare for all, which potentially would. Also, reform of all the systems the guy mentions is not necessarily simplification. Social Security retirement is already about as simple as it gets, but that has not kept it from presenting a finance issue. Eventually something will be hammered out, but it will not only not please everyone, it will not entirely please anyone, it will not address all the problems, and it will only be achieved after another gut-wrenching struggle among vehemently discordant lawmakers.

[keaggy220]

What it can and must do is radically simplify its tax, health-care, retirement and financial systems, each of which is a complete mess. But this is the good news. It means they can each be redesigned to achieve their legitimate purposes at much lower cost and, in the process, revitalize the economy.

Oh, is that all? Why didn't someone tell us before?

I agree. It's going to take a complete meltdown before our fantasy-based nanny-state is addressed. In some ways it's fortunate Obama has accelerated our mess...

But my point is that if you said "simplify health care" it would mean repeal the recent bill, which would not bring health care costs down, while if I said it it would mean go to a reformed Medicare for all, which potentially would. Also, reform of all the systems the guy mentions is not necessarily simplification. Social Security retirement is already about as simple as it gets, but that has not kept it from presenting a finance issue. Eventually something will be hammered out, but it will not only not please everyone, it will not entirely please anyone, it will not address all the problems, and it will only be achieved after another gut-wrenching struggle among vehemently discordant lawmakers.

I think the solution is fairly simple, but painful. The government needs to substantially cut programs. We have been living a fantasy. We are in the middle of a huge government bubble. Anyone thinking the federal government can possibly fund more nanny-state projects is not looking at the barbarians at the gate. Rome was starved into submission, we however, are gluttons for debt. Our feast is about to end.

[Cosima___J]

It's going to be painful, very painful. But whoever said that "we can't spend our way out of this economic mess" was a smart person. When a family buys a house that they can't possibly afford, that house ends up in foreclosure. This country has bought into ever-expanding entitlements that we can't possible afford. So are we as a country going to end up in foreclosure?

What will that foreclosure look like? I am very worried.

[keaggy220]

It's going to be painful, very painful. But whoever said that "we can't spend our way out of this economic mess" was a smart person. When a family buys a house that they can't possibly afford, that house ends up in foreclosure. This country has bought into ever-expanding entitlements that we can't possible afford. So are we as a country going to end up in foreclosure?

What will that foreclosure look like? I am very worried.

I think a preview is huge unemployment - including unprecedented layoffs in the public sector, unfathomable deflation, stock market crash, bond market crash, credit rating destroyed, etc... Basically this will be the revenge of free market...

The poor and middle class will be destroyed and it will take decades to recover. I think this will happen in the next 5 to 10 years.

It will usher in a revolution called "reality." I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see a good argument to state otherwise.

[BWV 1080]

the lowest hanging fruit is our bloated defense and national security complex which consumes over 40% of tax revenues

[Cosima___J]

Yes, I misspoke when I said entitlements must be cut. Actually, entitlements and a whole lot of other things must be trimmed. We should all bear the pain of achieving a balanced budget.

[rwetmore]

I just can't believe how many people still haven't even figured out they're being TOTALLY SCREWED by Obama (and the Dems). They are intentionally bankrupting the country all while telling us what they're doing is to help the economy recover and "get our spending under control" (Obama actually said that). They get away with it because the vast majority of the public is economically illiterate and extremely naive. Wake up people. Obama is a fraud. The plan from the get go was the scam pubic and bitch slap the nation - to leave it in shambles militarily and economically, never able to recover.

"Oh but that's so awful...why would anyone want to do that...Obama is such a nice guy, he's for the people, he's democrat - they're the good guys". Well just keep saying that to yourself ("that couldn't be happening, he couldn't be doing that") and he'll keep succeeding in advancing toward that end all while telling you he's doing the opposite.

[jbuck919]

They get away with it because the vast majority of the public is economically illiterate and extremely naive. Wake up people.

Yup. Between that and all those scientists practicing pseudo-science, we're doomed.

[lennygoran]

>The plan from the get go was the scam pubic and bitch slap the nation - to leave it in shambles militarily and economically, never able to recover.<

You can't mean this, can you. If you're saying his plan will do the above that's one thing. But are you actually saying that his goals were the above--this would make him a terrorist, wouldn't it? Regards, Len

[Cosima___J]

I think Randall has spent a little too much time listening to Rush. I sometimes listen to Rush and agree with some of what he says on his radio program, but when Rush starts saying the things Randall repeated, that's where I part company.

Yes, I know Randall said he hasn't listened to Rush for a year now, but that's the thing about Rush. When you've heard a couple of his shows, you've heard everything he has to say. From then on, it sounds like repeats. But I still keep listening to him, because sometimes he's right.

[Barry]

the lowest hanging fruit is our bloated defense and national security complex which consumes over 40% of tax revenues

The Right Defense Cuts
Gates slashes fat, saves muscle

August 11, 2010
Ralph Peters

On Monday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced a common-sense plan to cut Pentagon fat to preserve battlefield muscle.

He'll be damned for it.

Gates is breathtakingly willing to take on poisonous political interests, unscrupulous contractors and bloated institutions. He may be the only senior official in our lifetimes who genuinely cares about both the troops and the taxpayers.

In his take-no-prisoners statement, the SecDef noted: "Our headquarters and support bureaucracies . . . have swelled to cumbersome and top-heavy proportions, grown over-reliant on contractors, and grown accustomed to operating with little consideration to cost."

Now the money's drying up. Our military's bare-bones "grunts and gear" needs demand budget increases of 2 percent to 3 percent a year -- but real increases won't exceed 1 percent. The old money-for-nothing ways of doing business aren't sustainable -- unless we cut troops to protect defense-industry profits.

Somebody has to feel the pain. Gates already had directed the services to identify $100 billion in internal cuts to free up funds for baseline needs. On Monday, he made another assault on the status quo.

Amid his wave of initiatives, five stand out:

The free ride for contractors is over: The SecDef revealed that, in 2009, private contractors made up 39 percent of the Defense Department workforce. And that's not counting contractors in Iraq or Afghanistan.

For years, we've heard the politics-driven nonsense that "private industry can do things more cheaply and efficiently than government." Iraq proved that to be history's biggest lie not told by a half-naked teenager. Contractors can do a few things, such as run chow halls, better than the military -- but few save us any money.

Instead, we've seen the worst war-profiteering orgy in history by "patriotic" corporations packed with hireling retired generals and admirals and gushing campaign contributions. Gates is calling them out.

Certainly, there are conscientious defense contractors -- but they tend to be the smaller outfits. The big boys, with their informal cartel, pay more attention to lobbying, advertising and suing the government that pays them than to the mission.

Generals, admirals and senior civilians will be axed: Since 2001, flag-officer positions have increased by over 100, while Senior Executive Service slots grew by 300. As Gates noted, this "brass creep" is often "fueled by the desire to increase the bureaucratic clout or prestige of a particular service, function or region, rather than reflecting the scope and duties of the job itself."

Fifty generals and admirals will get their walking papers, while 150 top civilians will go. That's only halfway back to semi-sanity, but by DC standards, it's a massacre.

The challenge lies in forcing the services to cut their dead-wood good ol' boys, not their up-and-coming innovators. Today, the Army's senior generals are more inbred than a hillbilly family snowed in for a generation. And the Air Force is worse.

Goodbye, Joint Forces Command: Created to foster joint force compatibility, this newish headquarters in Norfolk, Va., never found its footing. Even Gen. Jim Mattis, an incredible Marine, couldn't make much of it.

JFCOM simply hasn't been worth its cost. With more contractors than government employees, it's become little more than a jobs program.

And therein lies the problem: Immediately upon Gates' announcement, every politician in Virginia -- including Sen. Jim Webb, who knows better -- howled that, without JFCOM's thousands of local jobs, a vast alliance of Islamists, Communists and cannibals would conquer the heartland.

President Obama doesn't need congressional approval to shut down JFCOM, though. Will he do the right thing just once?

Redundant information-technology offices get a mercy killing: The Pentagon's IT offices and organizations have spread faster than bedbugs. The duplication of missions and bureaucratic turf wars mired serious efforts to get things done. So Gates is chopping his own DoD bureaucracy and wiping out the Joint Staff's J6 division to set the example.

No more expensive studies for everything: This may sound like small-change stuff -- if you're a BP executive. Thousands of DoD personnel, countless hours, innumerable contractors and hundreds of millions of bucks go into producing a deluge of studies, mandated or self-imposed. A few have value; most are self-licking ice-cream cones.

The test of whether Gates has a chance of doing the right thing by those in uniform and you, the taxpayer? JFCOM. If the Virginia delegation in Washington can save a bloated headquarters that does nothing much, we'll know who won.

Have a comment on this PostOpinion column? Send

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/op ... z0wOU53WNl

[rwetmore]

You can't mean this, can you. If you're saying his plan will do the above that's one thing. But are you actually saying that his goals were the above--this would make him a terrorist, wouldn't it? Regards, Len

This is very good question. I'm being rather one dimensional of course, but yes his objectives are to weaken the United States economically and militarily (BTW, I don't mean he wants to lose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan). The motivations of Obama and why he wants to do these things are so complex, requiring the mixing of so many different components together, it would take pages and pages to try and convey. Right now I just don't have the energy for it. Maybe some other time.

[rwetmore]

I think Randall has spent a little too much time listening to Rush. I sometimes listen to Rush and agree with some of what he says on his radio program, but when Rush starts saying the things Randall repeated, that's where I part company.

Yes, I stole the "bitch slap" metaphor from Rush. I thought it captured the mentality absolutely perfectly, and was a great analogy. The "scam the public" thing, however, is my own.

Yes, I know Randall said he hasn't listened to Rush for a year now, but that's the thing about Rush. When you've heard a couple of his shows, you've heard everything he has to say. From then on, it sounds like repeats. But I still keep listening to him, because sometimes he's right.

Interesting. My assessment is the exact opposite. Rush takes quite a while to figure out. At least a month of regular listening would be required to gain even a rudimentary understanding of him. Limbaugh himself claims it takes at least six weeks of steady listening before you can understand the context of the things he says. The problem with Limbaugh is he's major prankster and buffoon - he loves tweaking people, especially liberals. The context of most of the things he says are only understood by the long-term listeners. On the surface he seems like a pseudo intellectual buffoon that thinks he knows a bunch of stuff but really isn't very knowledgeable. This is by design. He frequently says things in a goofy, sounding stupid kind of a way so as to be interpreted that way by new listeners, who then go around saying things like "Rush Limbaugh's an idiot", "I despise Rush Limbaugh" etc. never knowing they're played. The whole thing is absolutely pure genius, IMO, because it's endlessly amusing to watch over and over again how easily the same people fall for it again and again. Limbaugh is serious thinker, who is generally extremely well informed on political and societal issues. If anyone doubts this, look at the PEW data, which shows his listeners among the best educated and most intelligent in the nation.

[rwetmore]

Yup. Between that and all those scientists practicing pseudo-science, we're doomed.

I don't know about "doomed" but certainly in serious trouble.

[Cosima___J]

Randall, as I said, I keep listening to him. And I'd agree that the person who only listens to maybe 2 or 3 days of Rush will not understand the comments he makes. But once you have reached that understanding, as I have, you can just listen occassionally and not miss that much. But that could be said about most commentators. Once you understand their point of view, the rest just repeats and elaborates.

[rwetmore]

Randall, as I said, I keep listening to him. And I'd agree that the person who only listens to maybe 2 or 3 days of Rush will not understand the comments he makes. But once you have reached that understanding, as I have, you can just listen occassionally and not miss that much. But that could be said about most commentators. Once you understand their point of view, the rest just repeats and elaborates.

I know what you mean, but I would have to say that it took me a few months or more of regular listening before I no longer misunderstood the context of any his remarks and commentary. And probably closer to 6 months before I thoroughly understood all the intellectual and evidential underpinnings behind his general point of view.

I have to admit I was played on a lot of stuff myself at first. What makes the show so much fun is when he says certain things, I know how they are being interpreted by the people who don't know their context and where their minds are going. It's amusing. Then many of them go around reporting things he said, many people just reading the words on some blog or hearing them from the media, and then Limbaugh showcases the whole thing the next day with commentary clips and so forth from people who don't listen to the show and don't know the context, etc. It's endlessly amusing how easily he's able to do this over and over again.

I think this is best summed up by a comment he made one day that went something like "this is one of the funniest shows - I can tweak these people anytime I want and they don't even know they're being played." So true.

[Daisy]

I recently read where the NEA is considering eliminating "nich" subjects in our schools - such subjects as economics, civics, and history. Mere revision isn't good enough. I say that many of these people, including Obama, are a bunch of Communists. And in case no one has read the Communist Manefesto lately, (I read it in 7th grade as a school requirement. It has since been taken out of the schools, of course.) Marx outlined exactly what our Liberal progressives have been trying to do to us for a very long time. America is, I feel, in the throws of a soft Communist revolution, and most Americans see what is wrong even if they have never read Marx & Engels. Look it up for yourselves. It will make your hair stand on end when you realize how close we have already come to this ideal and how we are heading right down the Communist path. And think of all those people who will have suffered or died for nothing.

[jbuck919]

I recently read where the NEA is considering eliminating "nich" subjects in our schools - such subjects as economics, civics, and history.

The NEA does not determine curriculum content. Economics, civics, and history are all part of what in the US is called social studies, which is universally considered core curriculum and not "niche." Teachers unions have always been in favor of the enriched curriculum, if only to keep teachers of non-core subjects such as music and art employed. If you have a citation, please give it.

As for the vision of communism embodied in the Manifesto, it was about a revolution of an oppressed working class against the ruling bourgeoisie. It has no congruity with the current state of things in any modern industrial democracy. If you don't like what a liberal administration is doing, you'll have to do better than that.

[lennygoran]

> his objectives are to weaken the United States economically and militarily... Right now I just don't have the energy for it. Maybe some other time.<

Okay I'll remain vigilant for your answer. Regards, Len

[keaggy220]

> his objectives are to weaken the United States economically and militarily... Right now I just don't have the energy for it. Maybe some other time.<

Okay I'll remain vigilant for your answer. Regards, Len

One of the funniest lines - ever...

[Cosima___J]

If Corlyss were here, she'd award Len the coveted "Post Of The Day" award!

[lennygoran]

>If Corlyss were here, she'd award Len the coveted "Post Of The Day" award!<

Wow and I didn't even make it with my regular computer--it came from my blackberry while in NYC--maybe I oughta use that bb more often even when home! Regards, Len

[rwetmore]

Okay I'll remain vigilant for your answer.

Now I feel pressured.

[lennygoran]

>Now I feel pressured.<

Maybe a trip down the Jersey Shore to relax a little would be in order! Maybe Long Branch or Ocean Grove? Regards, Len

[Daisy]

I recently read where the NEA is considering eliminating "nich" subjects in our schools - such subjects as economics, civics, and history.

The NEA does not determine curriculum content. Economics, civics, and history are all part of what in the US is called social studies, which is universally considered core curriculum and not "niche." Teachers unions have always been in favor of the enriched curriculum, if only to keep teachers of non-core subjects such as music and art employed. If you have a citation, please give it.

As for the vision of communism embodied in the Manifesto, it was about a revolution of an oppressed working class against the ruling bourgeoisie. It has no congruity with the current state of things in any modern industrial democracy. If you don't like what a liberal administration is doing, you'll have to do better than that.

If I can relocate the citation, I will certainly post it. But I do know for a fact that historical revisionism has been a big part of the NEA's agenda for a long time. One of the reasons my son was homeschooled was because of the dismal revisionism in the grade schools! I did make a mistake about the elimination of history lessons. What I meant to say was that American history today is being taught strictly from a Liberal viewpoint. Shall I package up a 4th grade history textbook and send it to you so you will believe me and see for yourself what I am talking about? They make it sound as if America was the worst country on the planet, and we know this is not the case.

I find it interesting that you don't get it about Communism. Have you ever actually read what it teaches? In order to achieve the perfect Socialist Utopia (communism), you have to do the following things: You have to destroy the backbone of society which comes from religion and the family. The people to reach first are children, and the schools are places of indoctrination rather than real learning. The believe in complete redistribution of the wealth, that capitalism is entirely evil (in fact, it is what keeps the economy moving). In other words, no matter how hard you study and work, you will always be either a government employee or a helpless welfare case forever on the dole, and it really doesn't matter because hose on the dole get all the money the workers create, and presto - everyone has equal income, and wealth has been "fairly" redistributed. They believe in government control of pretty much anything, and they demonize anyone who dares to contradict them. I could go on, but I want to end this with something else inescapable. In the4 Communist world,the ordinary people are left with little or nothing, while a "superior elite" (like Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Kerry, Gore, Kennedy, etc...) looks down their noses at us and live priviledged lives of wealth and comfort. The wealth isn't the issue - the issue is hypocracy and greed and lust for power. It has been my experience that, despite the claims of Liberal Democrats, the real racists, anti-semites, Christian-baiters, and greedy rich are not Republicans and other Conservatives, but the Liberal Democrats, whose greatest accomplishments are to lie, cheat, and steal their way to into permenant control.

No, I'm sure you don't really want to support such people either.

[jbuck919]

I recently read where the NEA is considering eliminating "nich" subjects in our schools - such subjects as economics, civics, and history.

The NEA does not determine curriculum content. Economics, civics, and history are all part of what in the US is called social studies, which is universally considered core curriculum and not "niche." Teachers unions have always been in favor of the enriched curriculum, if only to keep teachers of non-core subjects such as music and art employed. If you have a citation, please give it.

As for the vision of communism embodied in the Manifesto, it was about a revolution of an oppressed working class against the ruling bourgeoisie. It has no congruity with the current state of things in any modern industrial democracy. If you don't like what a liberal administration is doing, you'll have to do better than that.

If I can relocate the citation, I will certainly post it. But I do know for a fact that historical revisionism has been a big part of the NEA's agenda for a long time. One of the reasons my son was homeschooled was because of the dismal revisionism in the grade schools! I did make a mistake about the elimination of history lessons. What I meant to say was that American history today is being taught strictly from a Liberal viewpoint. Shall I package up a 4th grade history textbook and send it to you so you will believe me and see for yourself what I am talking about? They make it sound as if America was the worst country on the planet, and we know this is not the case.

That won't be necessary. The position you are taking is at least within the realm of reasonable debate, though I somehow doubt that we would agree on how to revise public school history texts.

I find it interesting that you don't get it about Communism. Have you ever actually read what it teaches? In order to achieve the perfect Socialist Utopia (communism), you have to do the following things: You have to destroy the backbone of society which comes from religion and the family.

That is precisely why communism is not a threat to US society.

I could go on....

I concur that you have said quite enough for now.

[lennygoran]

>though I somehow doubt that we would agree on how to revise public school history texts.<

I thought last week's PBS Need To Know had a good segment on the subject of textbooks for the schools:

Is the Texas school board rewriting history?
May 14th, 2010

Next week, the Texas State Board of Education will vote on new ideologically driven curriculum standards for the Texas public schools. Elected officials are going line-by-line — deciding what should and should not be included in state textbooks. And as one of the biggest textbook buyers in the country, Texas could influence what kids learn in other states, as well.

Don McLeroy, dentist and active board member, has proposed adding a requirement to study the rise of conservative icons like Phyllis Schlafly, the Heritage Foundation and the Moral Majority. There’s also a new emphasis on the role religion played in the founding of the country, and on the constitutional right to bear arms. In all, there were more than 300 amendments proposed to the social studies standards. All these amendments will fundamentally change what kids are taught in school.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/cu ... story/736/ Regards, Len

[keaggy220]

>though I somehow doubt that we would agree on how to revise public school history texts.<

I thought last week's PBS Need To Know had a good segment on the subject of textbooks for the schools:

Is the Texas school board rewriting history?
May 14th, 2010

Next week, the Texas State Board of Education will vote on new ideologically driven curriculum standards for the Texas public schools. Elected officials are going line-by-line — deciding what should and should not be included in state textbooks. And as one of the biggest textbook buyers in the country, Texas could influence what kids learn in other states, as well.

Don McLeroy, dentist and active board member, has proposed adding a requirement to study the rise of conservative icons like Phyllis Schlafly, the Heritage Foundation and the Moral Majority. There’s also a new emphasis on the role religion played in the founding of the country, and on the constitutional right to bear arms. In all, there were more than 300 amendments proposed to the social studies standards. All these amendments will fundamentally change what kids are taught in school.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/cu ... story/736/ Regards, Len

A good point is that Christianity did play a HUGE role in the founding of the country and many of the institutions, such as our most esteemed universities, hospitals and founding documents were greatly influenced by Christian thought and beliefs - so yes, I think the influence of Christianity needs to be emphasized in history class.

The thing I remember about Christianity from high school was The Crucible, taught in English class, about how those mean old Christians killed those nice women.

[lennygoran]

>A good point is that Christianity did play a HUGE role in the founding of the country and many of the institutions, such as our most esteemed universities, hospitals and founding documents were greatly influenced by Christian thought and beliefs - so yes, I think the influence of Christianity needs to be emphasized in history class. <

Still I'm concerned when people like the man they featured are running the decisions on what text books are to be used--incidentally that guy did lose in his bid for reelection.

From another source:

"With childlike glee, McLeroy flipped through the pages and explained what he saw as the gaping holes in Darwin’s theory. “I don’t care what the educational political lobby and their allies on the left say,” he declared at one point. “Evolution is hooey.” This bled into a rant about American history. “The secular humanists may argue that we are a secular nation,” McLeroy said, jabbing his finger in the air for emphasis. “But we are a Christian nation founded on Christian principles. The way I evaluate history textbooks is first I see how they cover Christianity and Israel. Then I see how they treat Ronald Reagan—he needs to get credit for saving the world from communism and for the good economy over the last twenty years because he lowered taxes.”

and

"Among other things, they aim to rehabilitate Joseph McCarthy, bring global-warming denial into science class, and downplay the contributions of the civil rights movement."

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/featur ... blake.html

Regards, Len

[jbuck919]

The thing I remember about Christianity from high school was The Crucible, taught in English class, about how those mean old Christians killed those nice women.

If you read The Crucible as a condemnation of Christianity rather than of the witch-hunt mentality, then perhaps the teacher failed to provide a proper context, which is not the fault of the text. Surely you don't consider an interpretation of the events at Salem that makes the community despicable and those who were killed innocent victims a misrepresentation of history? In fact, the witch trials were almost immediately recognized even by locals as a horrible miscarriage of justice requiring repentance and restitution.

[keaggy220]

>A good point is that Christianity did play a HUGE role in the founding of the country and many of the institutions, such as our most esteemed universities, hospitals and founding documents were greatly influenced by Christian thought and beliefs - so yes, I think the influence of Christianity needs to be emphasized in history class. <

Still I'm concerned when people like the man they featured are running the decisions on what text books are to be used--incidentally that guy did lose in his bid for reelection.

From another source:

"With childlike glee, McLeroy flipped through the pages and explained what he saw as the gaping holes in Darwin’s theory. “I don’t care what the educational political lobby and their allies on the left say,” he declared at one point. “Evolution is hooey.” This bled into a rant about American history. “The secular humanists may argue that we are a secular nation,” McLeroy said, jabbing his finger in the air for emphasis. “But we are a Christian nation founded on Christian principles. The way I evaluate history textbooks is first I see how they cover Christianity and Israel. Then I see how they treat Ronald Reagan—he needs to get credit for saving the world from communism and for the good economy over the last twenty years because he lowered taxes.”

and

"Among other things, they aim to rehabilitate Joseph McCarthy, bring global-warming denial into science class, and downplay the contributions of the civil rights movement."

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/featur ... blake.html

Regards, Len

I think most counties have School Boards which are representative of the local population so there's accountability. Sure, there are brief periods where constituents are not well represented (just look at this present Congress) but that's part of the messiness of our liberties. I think the anomaly is how under-represented Christianity has been in our schools compared to the massive influence it's had on our country. This is an amazing problem of ignorance facing our society. A real problem that should be of upmost concern to those who value education.

[keaggy220]

The thing I remember about Christianity from high school was The Crucible, taught in English class, about how those mean old Christians killed those nice women.

If you read The Crucible as a condemnation of Christianity rather than of the witch-hunt mentality, then perhaps the teacher failed to provide a proper context, which is not the fault of the text. Surely you don't consider an interpretation of the events at Salem that makes the community despicable and those who were killed innocent victims a misrepresentation of history? In fact, the witch trials were almost immediately recognized even by locals as a horrible miscarriage of justice requiring repentance and restitution.

I think if you ask most people exposed to The Crucible in high school you will find a perception much the same as mine.

Off topic, personally I believe the witch-hunt mentality misses the point as well... The Salem tragedy was about perverse control of leadership. A problem still all around us today. We've learned nothing...

[lennygoran]

>I think the anomaly is how under-represented Christianity has been in our schools compared to the massive influence it's had on our country. This is an amazing problem of ignorance facing our society. A real problem that should be of upmost concern to those who value education.<

Well could you elaborate--what's not being taught in public schools that should be taught with regard to Christianity. Another thing that concerns me is that a member on that text book board feels this way about Obama:

"Among the new cadre were some fiery ideologues; in her self-published book, Cynthia Dunbar of Richmond rails against public education, which she dubs “tyrannical” and a “tool of perversion,” and says sending kids to public school is like “throwing them into the enemy’s flames.” (More recently, she has accused Barack Obama of being a terrorist sympathizer and suggested he wants America to be attacked so he can declare martial law.) "

Regards, Len

[keaggy220]

>I think the anomaly is how under-represented Christianity has been in our schools compared to the massive influence it's had on our country. This is an amazing problem of ignorance facing our society. A real problem that should be of upmost concern to those who value education.<

Well could you elaborate--what's not being taught in public schools that should be taught with regard to Christianity. Another thing that concerns me is that a member on that text book board feels this way about Obama:

"Among the new cadre were some fiery ideologues; in her self-published book, Cynthia Dunbar of Richmond rails against public education, which she dubs “tyrannical” and a “tool of perversion,” and says sending kids to public school is like “throwing them into the enemy’s flames.” (More recently, she has accused Barack Obama of being a terrorist sympathizer and suggested he wants America to be attacked so he can declare martial law.) "

Regards, Len

Again I think what is or is not being taught in local schools is up to the local community. It's of no concern to me unless it's my community. The anomaly we have today is the media's penchant to swoop in with scare tactics to try and influence communities.

I don't know who this dastardly gentleman is you are referring to, but he seems quite the monster, that is, according to PBS. I haven't seen the report on him, but I'm willing to bet that there's nothing good about him at all according to PBS. But who's the real monster here? The man, or the "impartial news" outlet pretending to given the whole story? It seems like we're revisiting Salem... Again, we've learned nothing...

[jbuck919]

Off topic, personally I believe the witch-hunt mentality misses the point as well... The Salem tragedy was about perverse control of leadership.

Not off-topic at all (except in the sense that the thread has already gone that way). In fact, quite insightful--something for me to think about.

[lennygoran]

>Again I think what is or is not being taught in local schools is up to the local community. It's of no concern to me unless it's my community. <

But didn't you say you were concerned that not enough about Christianity is being taught? Here's your quote: "so yes, I think the influence of Christianity needs to be emphasized in history class. " Is your community--I presume Va near Washington, DC giving it enough emphasis?

>I don't know who this dastardly gentleman is you are referring to, but he seems quite the monster, that is, according to PBS. I haven't seen the report on him, but I'm willing to bet that there's nothing good about him at all according to PBS. <

Well let's say that just this once PBS got it right and also the other material I cited--would you disagree with those statements if in fact they were made:

1. “I don’t care what the educational political lobby and their allies on the left say,” he declared at one point. “Evolution is hooey.”

2. "The way I evaluate history textbooks is first I see how they cover Christianity and Israel. Then I see how they treat Ronald Reagan—he needs to get credit for saving the world from communism and for the good economy over the last twenty years because he lowered taxes.”

3. “Read the latest on McCarthy—He was basically vindicated.”

4. And what Dunbar allegedly said: More recently, she has accused Barack Obama of being a terrorist sympathizer and suggested he wants America to be attacked so he can declare martial law.

Would it be possible for you to give me yours views on the above comments--iow do you think McCarthy is vindicated, do you think evolution is hooey and does Obama want the US to fail and to declare martial law. Regards, Len

[keaggy220]

>Again I think what is or is not being taught in local schools is up to the local community. It's of no concern to me unless it's my community. <

But didn't you say you were concerned that not enough about Christianity is being taught? Here's your quote: "so yes, I think the influence of Christianity needs to be emphasized in history class. " Is your community--I presume Va near Washington, DC giving it enough emphasis?

>I don't know who this dastardly gentleman is you are referring to, but he seems quite the monster, that is, according to PBS. I haven't seen the report on him, but I'm willing to bet that there's nothing good about him at all according to PBS. <

Well let's say that just this once PBS got it right and also the other material I cited--would you disagree with those statements if in fact they were made:

1. “I don’t care what the educational political lobby and their allies on the left say,” he declared at one point. “Evolution is hooey.”

2. "The way I evaluate history textbooks is first I see how they cover Christianity and Israel. Then I see how they treat Ronald Reagan—he needs to get credit for saving the world from communism and for the good economy over the last twenty years because he lowered taxes.”

3. “Read the latest on McCarthy—He was basically vindicated.”

4. And what Dunbar allegedly said: More recently, she has accused Barack Obama of being a terrorist sympathizer and suggested he wants America to be attacked so he can declare martial law.

Would it be possible for you to give me yours views on the above comments--iow do you think McCarthy is vindicated, do you think evolution is hooey and does Obama want the US to fail and to declare martial law. Regards, Len

No public school is giving Christianity enough emphasis. There is a difference between having a concern about issues and imposing my will on communities. I would never be so arrogant as to impose my will on a community that I'm not part of - as long as they are not harming people.

As far as the PBS so called accurate depiction of this "monster":

1) About 4 out of every 10 people believe in the theory of evolution. Does that exclude nearly 2/3's of our society from basic decision making in their communities?

2) Just about every conservative believes Ronald Reagan was one of the top 5 Presidents in US history.

3) McCarthy comment is a one liner - is that how you like your in-depth reporting?

4) Allegedly? This is what the MSM "news" has sunk to in order to proliferate their worldview?

As I said before - even if this man is a disaster - and I'm actually more convinced than ever that PBS is the monster in this case, most counties have a board which needs to pass curriculum changes so he's free to express the changes he would like to see in his community schools, but it doesn't mean he is the last word.

Again, freedom is messy. I wouldn't have it any other way.

[lennygoran]

I was just about to close my computer and go do some shopping when your message came through--my wife still expects me to go, darn it!

I don't feel you've answered my questions that well but thanks anyway.

For starters I asked if you could tell me what in Christianity you want more teaching of in your community--certainly you're entitled to impose your feeling there?

Secondly this list:

>1) About 4 out of every 10 people believe in the theory of evolution. Does that exclude nearly 2/3's of our society from basic decision making in their communities?<

I admit that I didn't know so many people rejected evolution but do you think evolution is hooey? I found these results from a 2009 Newsweek poll:

Nearly half (48 percent) of the public rejects the scientific theory of evolution; one-third (34 percent) of college graduates say they accept the Biblical account of creation as fact. Seventy-three percent of Evangelical Protestants say they believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years; 39 percent of non-Evangelical Protestants and 41 percent of Catholics agree with that view.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17879317/site/newsweek/

2) Just about every conservative believes Ronald Reagan was one of the top 5 Presidents in US history.

I liked him myself--still that Iran contra scandal came on his watch--what were his big economic achievements if I might ask.

3) McCarthy comment is a one liner - is that how you like your in-depth reporting?

Again this seems to evade my question but maybe I'm wrong--what are your feelings about McCarthy--I'll give mine--I feel he was a monster.

4) Allegedly? This is what the MSM "news" has sunk to in order to proliferate their worldview?

The alleged was my word--the article says thats was said but it wasn't in quotes so I used alleged. But I was asking you--forget that person--do you reject any thoughts that Obama wants us to fail and that he wants to declare martial law--isn't that a fair question to ask--I'll give you my view fwiw--I don't think he wants to fail and I don't think he wants to declare martial law--I can't prove this but it's how I feel. How do you feel?

>As I said before - even if this man is a disaster - and I'm actually more convinced than ever that PBS is the monster in this case, <

How so--I just don't get it--they presented the case imo very even handedly--they interviewed the guy and gave him plenty of time to state his opinions, they interviewed his Republican moderate opponent, they interviewed some scientists--I feel it was a very fair report and what's more important it gave me a chance to learn something on an issue with which I was unaware. How is that monstrous?

Now I better get to the store or my wife will turn into a monster! Regards, Len

[rwetmore]

Great questions, Len. I'll step in and answer a few myself if you don't mind (I hope).

I admit that I didn't know so many people rejected evolution but do you think evolution is hooey?

No, I believe in evolution. I think creationism is hooey, and so-called 'creation science' even hooey-er.

2) Just about every conservative believes Ronald Reagan was one of the top 5 Presidents in US history.

I liked him myself--still that Iran contra scandal came on his watch--what were his big economic achievements if I might ask.

His big economic achievement is his large tax cuts created a 25 year boom that actually ran a budgetary surplus at the end of the Clinton years. For the most part, the boom continued through until the collapse of 2008 (which itself was not the result of any of Reagan's policies).

The alleged was my word--the article says thats was said but it wasn't in quotes so I used alleged. But I was asking you--forget that person--do you reject any thoughts that Obama wants us to fail and that he wants to declare martial law--isn't that a fair question to ask--I'll give you my view fwiw--I don't think he wants to fail and I don't think he wants to declare martial law--I can't prove this but it's how I feel. How do you feel?

I don't know much about the so-called "hoping we're attacked, or weaking our defenses in the hope we're attacked so martial law can be declared". We know from history that the human mind in its lust for power is capable of doing something like this, but I don't know of any evidence for it in regards to Obama.

I have a question for you. You say "I don't think he wants to fail..." What specifically do you mean by that? Economically?

[lennygoran]

> I'll step in and answer a few myself if you don't mind (I hope).<

Thanks, I appreciate this!

>No, I believe in evolution. I think creationism is hooey, and so-called 'creation science' even hooey-er.<

Well you and I are pretty much in agreement on this!

> His big economic achievement is his large tax cuts created a 25 year boom that actually ran a budgetary surplus at the end of the Clinton years. For the most part, the boom continued through until the collapse of 2008 (which itself was not the result of any of Reagan's policies).<

This subject of supply side economics is just so complicated it's very hard for me to get a handle on but you could be right.

> but I don't know of any evidence for it in regards to Obama.<

Nor do I--for me it just flies in the place of logic.

>I have a question for you. You say "I don't think he wants to fail..." What specifically do you mean by that? Economically?<

Well I think he'd like all his moves to succeed. I think he wants the surge in Afghanistan to defeat al-Qaida and the Taliban, I think he would like to see Bin Laden captured, that he'd like a middle east agreement, his health plan to work, nuclear capabilities stopped in Iran, cheaper energy, people to return to work--in short the whole megillah--I just can't believe he really wants all his plans in any area to fail so he can declare martial law."

One other question--any thoughts on McCarthy?

BTW far from alleged here's a news story which seems to prove this Dunbar said what the media exhibits I presented said she stated:

"AUSTIN — State Board of Education member Cynthia Dunbar isn't backing down from her claim that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is plotting with terrorists to attack the U.S.

The Texas Freedom Network, a watchdog group that monitors the board, released a public statement on Monday asking Dunbar to retract the statement.

"I don't have anything in there that would be retractable," said Dunbar, R-Richmond. "Those are my personal opinions and I don't think the language is questionable."

In a column posted on the Christian Worldview Network Web site, Dunbar wrote that a terrorist attack on America during the first six months of an Obama administration "will be a planned effort by those with whom Obama truly sympathizes to take down the America that is threat to tyranny."

She also suggests Obama would seek to expand his power by declaring martial law throughout the country."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/met ... 92712.html

Regards, Len

[keaggy220]

Great questions, Len. I'll step in and answer a few myself if you don't mind (I hope).

I admit that I didn't know so many people rejected evolution but do you think evolution is hooey?

No, I believe in evolution. I think creationism is hooey, and so-called 'creation science' even hooey-er.

2) Just about every conservative believes Ronald Reagan was one of the top 5 Presidents in US history.

I liked him myself--still that Iran contra scandal came on his watch--what were his big economic achievements if I might ask.

His big economic achievement is his large tax cuts created a 25 year boom that actually ran a budgetary surplus at the end of the Clinton years. For the most part, the boom continued through until the collapse of 2008 (which itself was not the result of any of Reagan's policies).

The alleged was my word--the article says thats was said but it wasn't in quotes so I used alleged. But I was asking you--forget that person--do you reject any thoughts that Obama wants us to fail and that he wants to declare martial law--isn't that a fair question to ask--I'll give you my view fwiw--I don't think he wants to fail and I don't think he wants to declare martial law--I can't prove this but it's how I feel. How do you feel?

I don't know much about the so-called "hoping we're attacked, or weaking our defenses in the hope we're attacked so martial law can be declared". We know from history that the human mind in its lust for power is capable of doing something like this, but I don't know of any evidence for it in regards to Obama.

I have a question for you. You say "I don't think he wants to fail..." What specifically do you mean by that? Economically?

I believe in microevolution but not macroevolution.

Reagan's economic achievement is the wildly successful supply-side economics. You only need to look at fed revenues from the ridiculous tax code under Carter compared to Reagan's to understand the genius.

McCarthy was against Communism and he saw it as a huge threat to liberty, while the left embraced, coddled and dreamed of living under communism in this very country. He was correct in his assessment of Communism and the left was wrong. However, McCarthy trampled the individual liberties of Americans as he pursued enemies of liberty - no good in that...

I think Obama has almost a religious fervor in reshaping this country to position the federal government as the last voice in where all the money goes with a radical and dangerous determination toward so called social justice. A conservative looks at this as economic suicide.

[rwetmore]

I believe in microevolution but not macroevolution.

What's the difference?

Reagan's economic achievement is the wildly successful supply-side economics. You only need to look at fed revenues from the ridiculous tax code under Carter compared to Reagan's to understand the genius.

It's amazing to me that so many still don't realize (or refuse to accept) how well this worked when the evidence is so clear.

[rwetmore]

Nor do I--for me it just flies in the place of logic.

I don't know that I would agree that it flies in the face of all logic, but even if I assume Obama could possibly be interested, it would be an awfully risky move on his part - it could backfire really easily. What would be his plan? Whatever these people are, they're not stupid - they'd have to have a really well thought out plan. You could not just declare martial law indefinitely or for very long because the citizenry would get suspicious very quickly. I don't even think the President has the power to declare martial law without a significant majority vote from congress, does he?

I think he wants the surge in Afghanistan to defeat al-Qaida and the Taliban, I think he would like to see Bin Laden captured, that he'd like a middle east agreement,

Agreed.

his health plan to work,

Define "work".

nuclear capabilities stopped in Iran,

Agreed.

cheaper energy,people to return to work

Disagree.

just can't believe he really wants all his plans in any area to fail so he can declare martial law."

Agreed. However, he wants certain plans of his to "fail" for other reasons because their failure serves to advance his cause, which actually makes them a "success" (at least in his mind).

Would you like me to elaborate?

[lennygoran]

> I don't even think the President has the power to declare martial law without a significant majority vote from congress, does he?<

Gee I certainly don't know--found this:

"Article 1, Section 9 states, "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." Habeas corpus is a concept of law, in which a person may not be held by the government without a valid reason for being held. A writ of habeas corpus can be issued by a court upon a government agency (such as a police force or the military). Such a writ compels the agency to produce the individual to the court, and to convince the court that the person is being reasonably held. The suspension of habeas corpus allows an agency to hold a person without a charge. Suspension of habeas corpus is often equated with martial law.

Because of this connection of the two concepts, it is often argued that only Congress can declare martial law, because Congress alone is granted the power to suspend the writ. The President, however, is commander-in-chief of the military, and it has been argued that the President can take it upon himself to declare martial law. In these times, Congress may decide not to act, effectively accepting martial law by failing to stop it; Congress may agree to the declaration, putting the official stamp of approval on the declaration; or it can reject the President's imposition of martial law, which could set up a power struggle between the Congress and the Executive that only the Judiciary would be able to resolve.

In the United States, there is precedent for martial law. Several times in the course of our history, martial law of varying degrees has been declared. The most obvious and often-cited example was when President Lincoln declared martial law during the Civil War. This instance provides us with most of the rules for martial law that we would use today, should the need arise."

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_mlaw.html


>his health plan to work,Define "work".<

Well I guess he wants more poor people to be covered under a decent medical plan--I know it may not work but certainly he wants it to work or so I believe.

>[cheaper energy,people to return to workDisagree.<

Again I'm not saying his plans will work but why wouldn't he want cheaper energy for the US? And if people would return to work he'd look like a genius--right now it seems lack of jobs is haunting him and the country.

>However, he wants certain plans of his to "fail" for other reasons because their failure serves to advance his cause, which actually makes them a "success" (at least in his mind).
Would you like me to elaborate?<

Definitely. Regards, Len

[keaggy220]

I believe in microevolution but not macroevolution.

What's the difference?

Reagan's economic achievement is the wildly successful supply-side economics. You only need to look at fed revenues from the ridiculous tax code under Carter compared to Reagan's to understand the genius.

It's amazing to me that so many still don't realize (or refuse to accept) how well this worked when the evidence is so clear.

Micro = evolutionary change within a species
Macro = major evolutionary change i.e., mutations to form brand new species...

At least that's what it means to me...

Reagan rocked the world in many ways...

[rwetmore]

> I don't even think the President has the power to declare martial law without a significant majority vote from congress, does he?<

Gee I certainly don't know--found this:

"Article 1, Section 9 states, "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." Habeas corpus is a concept of law, in which a person may not be held by the government without a valid reason for being held. A writ of habeas corpus can be issued by a court upon a government agency (such as a police force or the military). Such a writ compels the agency to produce the individual to the court, and to convince the court that the person is being reasonably held. The suspension of habeas corpus allows an agency to hold a person without a charge. Suspension of habeas corpus is often equated with martial law.

Because of this connection of the two concepts, it is often argued that only Congress can declare martial law, because Congress alone is granted the power to suspend the writ. The President, however, is commander-in-chief of the military, and it has been argued that the President can take it upon himself to declare martial law. In these times, Congress may decide not to act, effectively accepting martial law by failing to stop it; Congress may agree to the declaration, putting the official stamp of approval on the declaration; or it can reject the President's imposition of martial law, which could set up a power struggle between the Congress and the Executive that only the Judiciary would be able to resolve.

In the United States, there is precedent for martial law. Several times in the course of our history, martial law of varying degrees has been declared. The most obvious and often-cited example was when President Lincoln declared martial law during the Civil War. This instance provides us with most of the rules for martial law that we would use today, should the need arise."

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_mlaw.html

That's interesting.

>his health plan to work,Define "work".<

Well I guess he wants more poor people to be covered under a decent medical plan--I know it may not work but certainly he wants it to work or so I believe.

>[cheaper energy,people to return to workDisagree.<

Again I'm not saying his plans will work but why wouldn't he want cheaper energy for the US? And if people would return to work he'd look like a genius--right now it seems lack of jobs is haunting him and the country.

>However, he wants certain plans of his to "fail" for other reasons because their failure serves to advance his cause, which actually makes them a "success" (at least in his mind).
Would you like me to elaborate?<

Definitely. Regards, Len

Len,

I'm sorry, but I realize I've bitten off more than I'm up for chewing at this point in time. The answers are really numerous, long and complex - very hard to articulate. Feel free to disregard what I have said on the basis that I haven't provided my logical support for it.

I realize it's very hard to understand and "see" these things without first hand exposure to the numerous evidence trails and behavioral patterns that support them. The best analogy I can think of to explain this is like in Wheel Of Fortune when you have a blank phrase you have to figure out. With just one, two or only just a few letters, you don't have enough information to fill in the gaps and see the whole phrase. As you keep getting more and more letters, eventually the full phrase becomes obvious and you can fill in all the blanks easily. It's the same thing with Obama and the left. With just one piece, or even a few pieces, it still doesn't quite add up or translate into some kind of whole logical sense. If you get enough of the pieces eventually you can clearly "see" all the logical extensions, fill in the gaps and see the whole of it for what it is.

[lennygoran]

>I'm sorry, but I realize I've bitten off more than I'm up for chewing at this point in time. The answers are really numerous, long and complex - very hard to articulate.<

Well don't worry about it--actually all I'm saying is that I just don't see anyway Obama wants the US to fail--if his policies succeed he'll be a hero and get reelected and I believe that's what he wants. As for martial law and becoming a dictator I don't think there's any proof for that--I think they said that about Nixon too one time. I still think that PBS show on the Texas text books was fair and informative and I don't think PBS is a monster--now McCarthy and Texas school board member Dunbar--that's another matter! Regards, Len