<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Spending Ourselves to Death</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2009/08/24/spending-ourselves-to-death/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2009/08/24/spending-ourselves-to-death/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=spending-ourselves-to-death</link>
	<description>@TAC</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:23:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Arnold L. Stewart</title>
		<link>http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2009/08/24/spending-ourselves-to-death/comment-page-1/#comment-9403</link>
		<dc:creator>Arnold L. Stewart</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:06:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.amconmag.com/blog/?p=2108#comment-9403</guid>
		<description>I must take the seemingly strange position of agreeing with not only the article in question, but also the seeming dichotomy of the first two commenters, Barney Rebble, and Zac in California. Mr. Patrick Buchanan is right as far as he goes, which is not far enough. Barney Rebble is frighteningly accurate as to the highly suspect agenda of the current administration. And while I consider socialism as only slightly less deadly than communism, I do agree with Zac in California that capitalism as currently practiced in this country is only slightly less deadly than fascism - since it is obvious that the real powers that be in America today are big business - who can afford to influence government on any subject dear to their hearts, mainly obscene profits at the expense of the real engine of the economy - the American working man or woman.

Any thinking person today can see that government in general, this administration in particular, and the fat cat capitalists who really call the shots (despite Obama&#039;s obfuscatory show of batting down General Motors and policing the banking and finance bogeymen) are the only real enemies of these United States. We no longer need fear foreign powers (if only we stay out of other countries&#039; affairs), but only those domestic enemies who seek our downfall.

This nation began with the best of all possible blueprints - The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. Bolstered by the other writings of our Founding Fathers, we had - and have - a foundation unequalled in human history. We have chosen to abandon that foundation and instead have built our hopes and fortunes on very shaky ground indeed. We now find our house crumbling beneath us. Rats, termites, and other vermin have taken such a toll on our beloved home that if it were indeed a physical &quot;house&quot;, it would now be sporting a &quot;Condemned&quot; sign.

Returning to our original foundation and rebuilding our home upon it is the only way we can salvage what was once the bright hope of humanity, in which we were justly proud. This entails not just the opinions of one of the three afore-mentioned writers, but all three,  and more besides.

Drastic reduction of the power and purview of the Federal government, concomitant increases in the power of state and local governments, strict term limits on elected office, much stricter oversight of judges - with retention elections accompanied by a written record of their rulings, and living within our collective means at all levels would be a good beginning. To complete the rebuilding process would also require love of country and serious re-dedication to our founding ideals, rather than to partisan politics and our self-serving what-can-you-do-for-me attitude. 

The cure will be painful, but the alternative is death.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I must take the seemingly strange position of agreeing with not only the article in question, but also the seeming dichotomy of the first two commenters, Barney Rebble, and Zac in California. Mr. Patrick Buchanan is right as far as he goes, which is not far enough. Barney Rebble is frighteningly accurate as to the highly suspect agenda of the current administration. And while I consider socialism as only slightly less deadly than communism, I do agree with Zac in California that capitalism as currently practiced in this country is only slightly less deadly than fascism &#8211; since it is obvious that the real powers that be in America today are big business &#8211; who can afford to influence government on any subject dear to their hearts, mainly obscene profits at the expense of the real engine of the economy &#8211; the American working man or woman.</p>
<p>Any thinking person today can see that government in general, this administration in particular, and the fat cat capitalists who really call the shots (despite Obama&#8217;s obfuscatory show of batting down General Motors and policing the banking and finance bogeymen) are the only real enemies of these United States. We no longer need fear foreign powers (if only we stay out of other countries&#8217; affairs), but only those domestic enemies who seek our downfall.</p>
<p>This nation began with the best of all possible blueprints &#8211; The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. Bolstered by the other writings of our Founding Fathers, we had &#8211; and have &#8211; a foundation unequalled in human history. We have chosen to abandon that foundation and instead have built our hopes and fortunes on very shaky ground indeed. We now find our house crumbling beneath us. Rats, termites, and other vermin have taken such a toll on our beloved home that if it were indeed a physical &#8220;house&#8221;, it would now be sporting a &#8220;Condemned&#8221; sign.</p>
<p>Returning to our original foundation and rebuilding our home upon it is the only way we can salvage what was once the bright hope of humanity, in which we were justly proud. This entails not just the opinions of one of the three afore-mentioned writers, but all three,  and more besides.</p>
<p>Drastic reduction of the power and purview of the Federal government, concomitant increases in the power of state and local governments, strict term limits on elected office, much stricter oversight of judges &#8211; with retention elections accompanied by a written record of their rulings, and living within our collective means at all levels would be a good beginning. To complete the rebuilding process would also require love of country and serious re-dedication to our founding ideals, rather than to partisan politics and our self-serving what-can-you-do-for-me attitude. </p>
<p>The cure will be painful, but the alternative is death.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Zac in California</title>
		<link>http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2009/08/24/spending-ourselves-to-death/comment-page-1/#comment-9371</link>
		<dc:creator>Zac in California</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Aug 2009 16:36:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.amconmag.com/blog/?p=2108#comment-9371</guid>
		<description>You know, bankers and insurers may not set out to destroy capitalism, but that&#039;s what they tend to do. 

See: Great Depression, Great Recession, etc. It&#039;s not The People who get caught with their hands in the cookie jar and bring down the whole kitchen; it&#039;s the business elite. Roosevelt, like his work or not, was trying to save capitalism rather than let it destroy itself (as it is wont to do); Obama (and, to a lesser extent, Bush) has/have tried to do the same thing.

You can always count on a liberal to try and salvage capitalism, while his conservative colleagues will try and push its limits that much further, towards the brink. 

Being a socialist, I don&#039;t consider saving capitalism to be well-intentioned whatsoever, so I agree that the Obama administration is neither well-intentioned nor transparent.

One last thought, and this is for Mr. Buchanan:
Sir, your examples of lavish government spending are, more than not, programs that help the poor against the worst excesses of capitalism. War is federal assistance for the wealthy, I&#039;ll grant, so that example is acceptable, but where is your outrage at massive agricultural subsidy, or corporate tax havens and loopholes, or rampant (continuing) cronyism in the executive branch?

Slave labor in the third world provides cheap goods for Wal-Mart to sell to Americans; in turn, Wal-Mart workers earn so little that they qualify for government aid. Thus, Wal-Mart is abetting slavery abroad, and government dependency at home. This is somehow less wasteful than food stamps? For shame, sir!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You know, bankers and insurers may not set out to destroy capitalism, but that&#8217;s what they tend to do. </p>
<p>See: Great Depression, Great Recession, etc. It&#8217;s not The People who get caught with their hands in the cookie jar and bring down the whole kitchen; it&#8217;s the business elite. Roosevelt, like his work or not, was trying to save capitalism rather than let it destroy itself (as it is wont to do); Obama (and, to a lesser extent, Bush) has/have tried to do the same thing.</p>
<p>You can always count on a liberal to try and salvage capitalism, while his conservative colleagues will try and push its limits that much further, towards the brink. </p>
<p>Being a socialist, I don&#8217;t consider saving capitalism to be well-intentioned whatsoever, so I agree that the Obama administration is neither well-intentioned nor transparent.</p>
<p>One last thought, and this is for Mr. Buchanan:<br />
Sir, your examples of lavish government spending are, more than not, programs that help the poor against the worst excesses of capitalism. War is federal assistance for the wealthy, I&#8217;ll grant, so that example is acceptable, but where is your outrage at massive agricultural subsidy, or corporate tax havens and loopholes, or rampant (continuing) cronyism in the executive branch?</p>
<p>Slave labor in the third world provides cheap goods for Wal-Mart to sell to Americans; in turn, Wal-Mart workers earn so little that they qualify for government aid. Thus, Wal-Mart is abetting slavery abroad, and government dependency at home. This is somehow less wasteful than food stamps? For shame, sir!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Barney Rebble</title>
		<link>http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2009/08/24/spending-ourselves-to-death/comment-page-1/#comment-9183</link>
		<dc:creator>Barney Rebble</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:34:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.amconmag.com/blog/?p=2108#comment-9183</guid>
		<description>The problem with your thesis is that you are ascribing good intentions and transparency to the current administration.

Should we remind folks that those who started Obama&#039;s training had a different view?  Will they bother to look up, and understand, Cloward-Piven or Saul Alinsky?

The folks who started ACORN and SEIU, and trained Obama in his formative years, laid out a blueprint for destroying a capitalist system.  Have they faded into his PAST?  Or are they STILL AROUND?  What role do they play?

Let&#039;s release terrorists, and investigate their interrogators.  Some think this is &quot;smokescreen&quot; for the healthcare debacle.  What if this is smokescreen for Obama&#039;s new &quot;High Value Target Interrogation Center&quot;?

Why does the ENERGY DEPARTMENT need a new &quot;PSCHOLOGY RESEARCH CENTER&quot; to &quot;help pursuade those who don&#039;t believe in global warming&quot;?

Why does the HEALTHCARE bill set up a department for &quot;Counseling Seniors for end-of-life decisions&quot;?

What, exactly, is the Federal Government getting ready to do?  Pat Buchanan, I think you are looking in the wrong direction, and the situation is more critical than the subject you are processing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The problem with your thesis is that you are ascribing good intentions and transparency to the current administration.</p>
<p>Should we remind folks that those who started Obama&#8217;s training had a different view?  Will they bother to look up, and understand, Cloward-Piven or Saul Alinsky?</p>
<p>The folks who started ACORN and SEIU, and trained Obama in his formative years, laid out a blueprint for destroying a capitalist system.  Have they faded into his PAST?  Or are they STILL AROUND?  What role do they play?</p>
<p>Let&#8217;s release terrorists, and investigate their interrogators.  Some think this is &#8220;smokescreen&#8221; for the healthcare debacle.  What if this is smokescreen for Obama&#8217;s new &#8220;High Value Target Interrogation Center&#8221;?</p>
<p>Why does the ENERGY DEPARTMENT need a new &#8220;PSCHOLOGY RESEARCH CENTER&#8221; to &#8220;help pursuade those who don&#8217;t believe in global warming&#8221;?</p>
<p>Why does the HEALTHCARE bill set up a department for &#8220;Counseling Seniors for end-of-life decisions&#8221;?</p>
<p>What, exactly, is the Federal Government getting ready to do?  Pat Buchanan, I think you are looking in the wrong direction, and the situation is more critical than the subject you are processing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

