Today's Dollar Crisis: An Economic Pearl Harbor?

I like Ron Paul. He is one of the very few politicians who has courage to speak frankly and unapologetically about the dire straits America faces.

He's got a lot of great talking points. Unfortunately when it come to economic policies, he is hopelessly naive and his well intentioned ideas would actually cause more economic harm and distress because of his 18th c. Constitutional zeal blinds him to the real world consequences of a deconstructivist actions.

Abolishing the IRS would put the poor folk at a permanent disadvantage to the wealthy. Those CEO's earning billions would be able to keep even more of their loot and those earning minimum wage would be able to keep the extra $1.25 an hour.

All the thievery through tax shelters, tax breaks, off shore accounts, trust funds and other tax avoidance vehicles and maneuvering would essentially be rewarded. The cheaters will be victorious over the hard and honest hard worker. American corporations who have done their utmost to underpay taxes, underfund the PBGC, offshore profits, and factories, damage unions, default on pensions through banckruptcy reorganization, and pollute the environment would essentially have gotten away with it and won the economic game at the expense of the hard working American public.

In other worlds the Cheaters would have been rewarded for cheating and there would be no recourse for the American public who have been swindled.

Additionally, dissolving social programs such as Social Security and Medicare, might save taxpayers money, but would constitute a gross injustice to those who are poor and needy and reliant on those programs to survive.

Should the govenment adopt mean spirited policies to cheat and punish the poorest of the poor and the neediest of the needy?

All those who have faithfully paid into the system to pay for others before them would essentially be cheated of getting their fair share.

This would scarcely hurt the wealthy, but the middle class and lower classes would be unjustly short changed and without recourse. They would have paid into a system for decades only to be ripped off in the future.

A well intentioned disaster would result because of a naive understanding of economics and a desire to streamline government services without consideration of those who support and have paid for these services from the beginning.

Ron Paul means well. But good intentions and sound policy are very different animals.

We need Ron Paul who has over and over again faithfully warned this nation about these issues. This man is a true lover of America and has been fighting these men who have given this nation over to loss of rights, Nafta, Cafta,
Globalistic greed, Money Lenders, etc. We need the one, trueblue person who cares about us and won't sell us for 20 pieces of silver, nor any amount.

This excerpted article from Business Week mag contains a line and nefarious implication that is so flatly false to even a casually informed reader, that I wonder what other historical revisions the editors will cook.

Equating FDR with the Bush administration is like comparing Michael Jordan with a 7th grade beginner in basketball or Mother Theresa with Dennis Koslowski.

Perhaps the editors of the magazine have a sense of humor in their revisionist history making absurb comparisons?

Folks, a little real history lesson is needed.
Just a few of the numerous differences between these men:

1:FDR was elected president. Bush was appointed president by the Supreme Court (in 2000).

2:FDR created the WPA and the CCC to put America back to work, create jobs, social benefits, and restore the country to strength and integrity. Bush's legacy is one of amnesty for illegals to undercut workers, deporting American jobs, free trade with Communist China, and dismantling/defunding social security nets to cripple citizens.

3:FDR pulled America out of the Great Depression. Bush seems to be creating one just as his Father was doing at the end of his term.

4: FDR was a great orator. Bush is still working on sentence assembly.

5:FDR saw the inevitable war coming and prepared for it by ramping up of the production of military equipment and supplies and creating and succeeded at a voluntary draft getting thousands of new recruits to enlist before Pearl Harbor even happened. Bush did not act wisely to prevent 9/11 from happening even though the scenario of flying buildings into was discussed as a possibility. A record 52 terror alerts for hijackers on planes were issued during the summer of 2001. Both Clinton as well as Bush's own security chief Richard Clarke warned him repeatedly about an imminent attack on U.S soil.

6:Bin Laden had officially declared holy war on America in the 1990's and had made strikes against the embassy in Africa and in Oman to the U.S.S. Cole as well as the previous 1993 terrorist attack against the WTC.
Conversly Japan only declared war on our nation after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
7:FDR saw the war to completion almost(save his death in Spring '45) and Truman successfully finished the job. Bush has disbanded the CIA's Bin Laden unit and declared in the 2004 debates with Kerry that 'I don't really know where Bin Laden is and don't give it much thought'. What would've happened if FDR gave up on battling Hitler?

8:FDR fought a defensive war. Bush is fighting a preemptive war with moveable goalposts.

9:Bush has allowed torture, suspension of Habeas Corpus and illegal wire tapping to invoke fear. FDR said famously: "There is nothing to fear but fear itself" and respected Constitutionally enshrined human rights far better (though not perfectly).

10:Bush has assured us of the noble character of Vlad Putin, and Mushareff, and numerous "trustworthy"Iraqi presidents and sent billions in aid to their nations. FDR accurately judged the character of Truman, Stalin, DeGaulle and Churchill and acted wisely giving America the win in the war and an economic boom for our country which followed in the 50's