America Beyond the Point of No Return

fossten

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
11,817
Reaction score
6
Location
Louisville
America Beyond The Point Of No Return

By Doug Patton
September 23, 2008

"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it." - George Bernard Shaw

A half century ago, Russian-born writer Ayn Rand warned about the creeping socialism she saw in America even then. In her thousand-page tome, "Atlas Shrugged," Rand told the story of John Galt, a shadowy figure who is so fed up with high taxes, burdensome regulations and interference from government, he secretly recruits the best and brightest of American capitalism - the captains of industry - to withdraw from society to the mountains of Colorado, leaving the growing welfare state without any visible means of support.

Imagine what Ayn Rand would say about the federal government coughing up quantities of cash even career bureaucrats didn't talk about in the 1950s; all to bail out quasi-government entities whose overseers were complicit in the failures of those very institutions.

Republicans and Democrats alike share the blame for this mess. It was largely created out of a misguided need (mostly by Democrats) to feel as though America was actually doing something to help the poor own their own homes. This may be a worthwhile goal, but when people who have absolutely no hope of paying back loans are approved to buy a home, one has to ask, "Who is going to pick up the tab for all this?" Answer: You are, to the tune of at least a trillion dollars, a sum most of us cannot even fathom.

Over the last decade, Democrats like U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-MA, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, and U.S. Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-CN, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, have insisted that these ridiculous loans be made. Former Attorney General Janet Reno, carrying out the wishes of her boss, threatened legal action against any institution that discriminated or "redlined." I was very disappointed to hear John McCain say on CBS's "60 Minutes" that he admired New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and would consider him to head up the Securities and Exchange Commission. As Bill Clinton's Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Cuomo was up to his eyeballs pushing the sub-prime mortgages that started these dominoes tipping in the first place.

And where were Newt Gingrich and the Republicans in the 1990s when Clinton and his cronies were building this house of cards? The GOP held the House and the Senate during most of Clinton's tenure. After 2000, they also held the White House. Why did this situation continue?

The rule in Washington seems to be this: If you squander your money and fail to provide for yourself, the government will take care of you. If you save, invest wisely and prepare for your retirement, you will be penalized in order to pay for those who did not. A perfect example was the tax increase passed by Clinton and the Democrats who still controlled Congress during the first two years of his administration. Seniors who had saved and invested for retirement, and who made more than $34,000 ($44,000 per couple) received a tax increase under that plan.

The frightening thing about the trillion dollar bailout is that everyone seems so willing to go along with it. It is as though we have finally accepted the idea that government is the one entity that has the resources to pull off such a plan. Well, guess what. Government doesn't have a nickel. Government is in the hole to the tune of ten trillion dollars. (Put that number in your pipe and fathom it!) But government has two things no one else has. Government has the power to print money and the power to raise taxes.

Alternatives may yet see the light of day in Congress. Perhaps in this hour of crisis, our representatives will see that the private sector could probably pull itself out of this with some very favorable tax policy. At least try repealing the capital gains tax to see if private firms wouldn't consider buying up these companies.

Or better yet, how about the Fair Tax, so that the billions in offshore accounts can come flooding back into the economy without fear of being sacked by the feds?

Those who for years have predicted America's slide into the cesspool of collectivism have been vindicated by the taxpayer-financed bailout of the mortgage and insurance industry. In essence and in fact, the United States government has nationalized these industries. Hugo Chavez no doubt is amused.
 
Mocking as usual. Thank you for your noncontribution to the thread.

Actually, I think it was ment in a facetious/ironic manner to lighten the mood. "Who is John Galt?"

From here:

The question "Who is John Galt?" is asked repeatedly throughout the story. Despite rumors and legends, the identity of the actual Galt is learned only after a prolonged search by Dagny Taggart, the female heroic character, with whom Galt has a romantic relationship. Galt is the same character as the Mystery Worker.

Since everyone across the country is repeating the phrase, "Who is John Galt?", it is natural that many people have attempted to answer that question. The phrase becomes an expression of helplessness and despair at the current state of the novel's fictionalised world. Dagny Taggart hears a number of legends of Galt before finding the real John Galt and eventually joining his cause, and learning that all of the stories have an element of truth to them.

I don't really see it as "mocking".

I will admit I could be wrong. I haven't read the novel yet (don't have time).
 
Actually, I think it was ment in a facetious manner to lighten the mood. "Who is John Galt?"
I've read the book, recently. Nowhere inside does it say "And do we care?"

Personally, I wish we did have a John Galt right now. I'd be looking him up.
 
I've read the book, recently. Nowhere inside does it say "And do we care?"

Yeah, don't know about that part...

You read that thing recently? And had time to post here too?! You must not get any sleep! That book is HUGE!:eek:
 
Recently = Last year.

It's a pretty deep book. You can't skim your way through it. Once you've read it, it stays with you.

I'm thinking of tackling "Animal Farm" pretty soon.
 
I've said this before and I'll say it again.

The noble characters of Atlas Shrugged don't exist in real life. If big business was run by people like John Galt, Dagny Taggart, and Hank Reardon, we wouldn't need government to intervene. But there are Ken Lays out there to muck things up for everybody.

For the record, I too am vehemently opposed to bailing these people out. Let the cards fall where they may I say. I firmly believe the only solution to this is a complete "reset" of the global economy. If that means a depression, then so be it. We NEED a hard dose of reality every few generations. But then I'm just a radical.
 
I've said this before and I'll say it again.

The noble characters of Atlas Shrugged don't exist in real life. If big business was run by people like John Galt, Dagny Taggart, and Hank Reardon, we wouldn't need government to intervene. But there are Ken Lays out there to muck things up for everybody.

For the record, I too am vehemently opposed to bailing these people out. Let the cards fall where they may I say. I firmly believe the only solution to this is a complete "reset" of the global economy. If that means a depression, then so be it. We NEED a hard dose of reality every few generations. But then I'm just a radical.
Maybe the noble characters don't exist in real life, but the corrupt, statist, money grabbing, looter government types DEFINITELY exist in real life, and they're pontificating right now about how this is all the fault of lenders and consumers.

And I need to repeat myself again, evidently: This bailout is a band-aid on a problem that government intervention created in the first place. Shag has made this point before: The problems created by corruption in the market pale in comparison to the problems created by corruption in government. This collapse is a government-created problem. No denying it.
 
That book is well... unless you really want to go into a discussion of Ayn Rand and her viewpoints - I won't go into that. I have read I think all of Ayn Rand, and "Atlas Shrugged" about 4 times... whew, misspent youth...

But, I did use "Who is John Galt" as the preference to...
The phrase becomes an expression of helplessness and despair at the current state of the novel's fictionalized world.

If you remember the people who wrote, stated and looked for the answer to the question "Who is John Galt" were looking for answers outside of themselves. They thought there should be someone who had all the answers to their problems, and would solve those problems for them. Eventually the book leads you to the fact that you find the answer to the question "Who is John Galt" within yourself.

So, you shouldn't care "Who is John Galt?" Don't look for answers that others give, look for your own answers, demand your own results, depend on yourself to better yourself.
 
That book is well... unless you really want to go into a discussion of Ayn Rand and her viewpoints - I won't go into that. I have read I think all of Ayn Rand, and "Atlas Shrugged" about 4 times... whew, misspent youth...

But, I did use "Who is John Galt" as the preference to...
The phrase becomes an expression of helplessness and despair at the current state of the novel's fictionalized world.

If you remember the people who wrote, stated and looked for the answer to the question "Who is John Galt" were looking for answers outside of themselves. They thought there should be someone who had all the answers to their problems, and would solve those problems for them. Eventually the book leads you to the fact that you find the answer to the question "Who is John Galt" within yourself.

So, you shouldn't care "Who is John Galt?" Don't look for answers that others give, look for your own answers, demand your own results, depend on yourself to better yourself.
Meh. You're conveniently ignoring the central premise of the book - in order for people to be able to become self-reliant, government needs to get the hell out of the way.

And thanks for resisting the temptation to go off topic and go after Ayn Rand in an ad hominem fashion. Sticking with the book's theme is a good idea.
 
I agree with fossten on this one :eek:

Government has it's place, and it's been stepping on our feet for too long. Some regulation. Not complete control.
 
Maybe the noble characters don't exist in real life, but the corrupt, statist, money grabbing, looter government types DEFINITELY exist in real life, and they're pontificating right now about how this is all the fault of lenders and consumers.

And I need to repeat myself again, evidently: This bailout is a band-aid on a problem that government intervention created in the first place. Shag has made this point before: The problems created by corruption in the market pale in comparison to the problems created by corruption in government. This collapse is a government-created problem. No denying it.
So you're still pushing this CRA nonsense? After it's been shown that the majority of lenders giving out these bad loans weren't even affected by CRA?
 
So you're still pushing this CRA nonsense? After it's been shown that the majority of lenders giving out these bad loans weren't even affected by CRA?
Dude. It's not nonsense. It's FACT. And Janet Reno strengthened it by threatening to sue lenders who "redlined."

Google repeal glass steagall.
 
My ‘Who is John Galt?’ question wasn’t about the other idea in the book (there are two main ideas in the book – to glorify individualism, and to defile government). They do intermingle in Atlas Shrugged, but as a whole they are presented as two concepts of Utopian thought. The intersection point comes from the question ‘can one exist as an individual if government doesn’t get the hell out of the way?’

It is hard to argue Utopian thought. Almost always it is presented in very black and white terms. Ayn Rand is quite adept at presenting her viewpoints in that vein. Either you agree that all government is good, or you have to conclude that all government is bad. No gray.
 
My ‘Who is John Galt?’ question wasn’t about the other idea in the book (there are two main ideas in the book – to glorify individualism, and to defile government). They do intermingle in Atlas Shrugged, but as a whole they are presented as two concepts of Utopian thought. The intersection point comes from the question ‘can one exist as an individual if government doesn’t get the hell out of the way?’

It is hard to argue Utopian thought. Almost always it is presented in very black and white terms. Ayn Rand is quite adept at presenting her viewpoints in that vein. Either you agree that all government is good, or you have to conclude that all government is bad. No gray.
Having read the book recently, I disagree with your interpretation of the book's view of government. Rand most certainly attacked the looter aspect of government, but she did not attack government in general, nor did she advocate anarchy. Not in that book. Not once did I come away thinking that we should have zero government, but I did get the sense that government should be there to protect our rights, not take them away.

Even when John Galt is captured by the Feds, and they beg him to help them with PR, he doesn't demand that they resign; he simply says, "Fine. Get rid of income taxes."

You're drawing conclusions about her that are outside the scope of the book.
 
Foss, you may be right about that book’s viewpoint of government… It has been about 10 years since my last read of it – don’t plan on revisiting it anytime soon.

Although it/Ryan doesn’t place an anarchist viewpoint on government (that I do remember, once you reminded me – especially about the PR business – all parts of government aren’t bad) and I did state that incorrectly, I think it does state/imply that all government intervention or regulation into business (capitalism) is wrong. I think that part was pretty black and white.
 
I think it does state/imply that all government intervention or regulation into business (capitalism) is wrong. I think that part was pretty black and white.
I actually tend to go along with that part. Although lack of government oversight can lead to bad business practices, the slippery slope of government interference leads to far worse consequences. It's a conundrum which I confess I don't know the answer to, and I suspect nobody else does either. But one thing is clear - if you're going to have overseers, someone's got to oversee the overseers.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top