Today Sarah Palin took notice of the rumors floating about that a number of Arab, Asian, and European states were going to drop the dollar for their oil purchases. Actually, given current trajectories, this would be the smart thing to do. But unfortunately, this is not good news for the United States. If the dollar loses its status as the world reserve currency, the value of the dollar will crash even further, and the purchasing power of all our money will be devastated — leading to a decline in our standard of living.
She states:
All of this is a result of our out-of-control debt. This is why we need to rein in spending, and this is also why we need energy independence. A weakened dollar means higher commodity prices. This will make it more difficult to pay our bills – including the bill to import oil.
Although the first sentence is correct, and energy independence is a worthwhile goal, this is missing the elephant in the room, so to speak. The reason the dollar will ultimately lose its status (and it will, it’s a matter of when, not if) is a mix of the warfare state, the welfare state, and the Federal Reserve printing money for both.
Conservatives are not serious about putting an end to any of those three things.
Filed under: Politics
I am certainly a serious Conservative and I do want to end all three of those things. So please, don’t lump all conservatives in one basket here.
The welfare state needs to end, but in such a means that the poor do have a means to raise themselves into a more productive citizens (jobs).
We need to stop printing money NOW.
And we do need a good decade or more with no wars.
I would propose a special task force to take out would be terrorist leaders using special forces designed principally for that job. (UBL’s head would be in a basket within 30 days, guaranteed).
By “conservatives” I mean conservative politicians that have any chance at national political power
“Conservatives are not serious about putting an end to any of those three things”
That depends on your definition of “conservative”. The archaic definition refers to a person who believes in maximizing freedom by minimizing government. The modern definition (epitomized by Caribou Barbie) refers to a person who fears loose women, gay men, and brown people with accents and who further believes the government should grant whatever wish they want at any given moment, while granting no wishes for others, for free.
An archetype that was once proud, courageous and independent is now characterized by fear and a grubby, clueless sense of self-entitlement.
Based on my limited studies, when the average person in the street hears the unidentified ideas of Barry Goldwater today, it’s considered liberalism.
It was a sentence John Kerry did not use enough in 2004: “Saying it doesn’t make it so.” Rush, Ann, Bill, Glen, George, Karl and the overwhelming majority of posters on this site can call themselves conservatives all they like. Their only hope is that Stalin was right – repeat the lie often enough and it becomes the truth.