With a dark concealing hood and a deadly scythe, the Grim Reaper lethally selects it's victims. Which one survives, which one falls into an eternal sleep? The Grim Reaper has the ultimate and eternal choice. In some English literature, characters have been known to outwit or bribe the deadly decider out of their fate. Until now, the Grim Reaper has remained anonymous, it's identity legendary. Until now...
Many sectors of our economy are on their death beds, gasping for air, pleading to be saved. The arch angel of death, hovering over with morbid satisfaction of the ultimate power he has been given. Which company survives, which one slips into the blackness of bankruptcy or complete collapse? Our Congress, and Secretary of Treasury have taken on the roll of the economic Grim Reapers. Will the 'Big 3' auto-companies die from their self-inflicted hemorrhaging? Will Citi-Group kick the bucket as Behr Sterns did, or receive 'life-sustaining' aid as AIG or other major companies had? Instead of leaving this decision to the free-market, the Reapers swooped in and is picking and chosing who must stay and who must go. "They are too big to fail" they chide, as they pull more money out of our shrinking pockets to fill these corporations. Who else will be too big to fail? These morbidly obeise companies should die of natural causes, instead of prolonging their agony and bleeding us dry.
(We needed a little eye-candy during this Obituary!)
Did you know that our new "Joe Black" has proposed to lend $7.4 trillion funds to rescue the suffering financial system? I thought $700 billion was the absolute and ultimate ceiling to government financial aid, I should have known better. $7.4 trillion is not a made up number, like zillion or kabillion. Where is this money going to come from? Us, the tax payers. And who is it exactly going to? According to Bloomberg.com, "as regulators commit far more money while refusing to disclose loan recipients or reveal the collateral they are taking in return, some Congress members are calling for the Fed to be reined in." Only some Congress members think the 'Fed [needs] to be reined in'? Where are the others? I would argue all of the American people know the Fed must be reined in! Congressman Scott Garrett states, "The time has come that we consider what sort of limitations we should be placing on the Fed so that authority returns to elected officials as opposed to appointed ones." Sorry Scott, I don't know if I trust either the elected or appointed officials. What now? Get your finances in order. Save your money, especially while taxes are relatively low. Store food and other necessaties before historic inflation kicks in. Enjoy low gas prices while they last. Pay off debt. Balance your checkbook, the way you wished the government would balance theirs.
9 comments:
I say burn all the big trees and let the little trees grow...
Nice analogy! And what I find extremely frustrating is the founding father's were against monopolies, yet what does this create? The whole concept of 'too big to fail' is setting one company above another, although they have conducted horrible business and that is why they are in trouble. It's almost like a government ordained corporation, or an 'established business' (instead of religion)! And where do we stop? First lenders. Then automakers. Then fast food chains? Is Starbucks too big to fail?
I especially liked how the senator last week at the hearings called the Big 3 out on how they all arrived in DC in their corporate jets! Priceless.
I honestly would rather face a depression than continue to allow this to happen....although we could still see a depression even if they do all this. What did the milk lines in Russia represent? Definitely not a thriving economy. I'm just waiting for Circut City to get the next big govt. check, then perhaps Linin's N Things. Where does it end?
Oh ya, bring on the Depression! Soup lines, people starving, children dying. Social Darwinism at its best. Good times!!
keep up the socialism and we'll get communisum. why don't you do a little research on Ezra Taft Benson. He was the most vocal of the prophets regarding communisum and politics and it's future effects on the US. I'm not trying to be all doom and gloom, just realistic and prepared.
I don't think anyone is looking forward to a depression. No matter how much I enjoy Campbell's goodness, I don't want to wait in line for it. Either road we take, our destination is a depression. And the road we're taking, the government going belly up will be the final nail in the coffin. They are bankrupting themselves, creating their own instability, but trying to give corporations theirs. It is baffling. I have not seen any govt policy that makes me think, this is the detour from depressionville. I feel all of the bail outs and govt debt is speeding up the process.
On another site I found this:
Regarding Ezra Taft Benson and his political comments. Many are attributed to him as a Prophet, but what is usually left out is that these statements were not statements made as the spokesman for God (or even while he was Prophet for that matter), rather they were made in political discussions or speeches he gave while he worked for the government, or statements he made to individuals in personal conversation.
In fact, Benson was openly chastised by the Church when he used Church property for political purposes or voiced his political opinions in Church settings. If it were fair game to attribute Benson's statements concerning politics as words spoken under the divine office of Church President, than we would also have to include his statements regarding the civil rights movement. For example:
"Former Agriculture Secretary Ezra Taft Benson charged Friday night that the civil-rights movement in the South had been 'formatted almost entirely by the Communists.' Elder Benson, a member of the Council of the Twelve of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said in a public meeting here that the whole civil-rights movement was 'phony'." (Deseret News, Dec. 14, 1963)
President Hugh B. Brown, a member of The First Presidency under President David O McKay, particularly did not like Benson's right-wing rhetoric. When Benson was sent to oversee a mission in Europe, W. Averill Harriman, the U.S. Under-secretary of State for European Affairs, wrote to Hugh B. Brown asking how long Benson would be abroud. President Brown's response:
“If I had my way, he'll never come back!"
David O. McKay's son also noted, after Benson met privately with his father:
"We shall all be relieved when Elder Benson ceases to resist counsel and returns to a concentration on those affairs befitting his office. It is my feeling that there will be a serious curtailment of his Birch Society activities."
-(the John Birch Society is a conservative, anti-communist organization that Benson belonged to at the time).
Here is another quote from President Joseph Fielding Smith:
“I think it is time that Brother Benson forgot all about politics and settled down to his duties as a member of the Council of the Twelve. He is going to take a mission to Europe in the near future and by the time he returns I hope he will get all of the political notions out of his system. I am glad to report that it will be some time before we hear anything from Brother Benson, who is now on his way to Great Britain where I suppose he will be, at least for the next two years. When he returns I hope his blood will be purified."
-Joseph Fielding Smith
Elder Benson became President Benson in 1985 when he took over the Church Presidency. From that point on, he NEVER mentioned politics in ANY of his sermons.
rjeanwms,
I did a search on the quotes listed above and there were 2 places I found them. The first place was an almost exact quote and the site is a blog called http://thefaithfuldissident.blogspot.com/2008/10/ezra-taft-benson-vs-democratic.html. Either you are the "John" who wrote them or you copied and pasted them. Either way, they are not written in full context. I also found some of the quotes on http://www.angelfire.com/mo2/blackmormon/q51.htm. The quotes at the second mentioned site are much better and seems to be more accurate and puts the quotes in better context. Many of the quotes on the 2nd mentioned site were said while President Benson was an apostle. Just because they were said prior to him being a prophet doesn't make his statements null and void. He did serve as the head of the Dept of Agriculture and is a very wise and knowledgable man. He was in the middle of everything and had much more insight than anyone of us can have looking back on history.
He couldn't have been SOOOO far off to later become a prophet. When he became a prophet it isn't accurate to say "he NEVER mentioned politics in ANY of his sermons". He spoke regularly about the Constitution. Just because he remained more politically neutral, which is expected of our church leaders--especially our prophet, doesn't mean that as a prophet he changed his opinions, but rather he had to stay politically neutral and focus specifically on the matters of the church.
He was not incorrect in his statements regarding the Civil Rights movement (see second refereced website), Martin Luther King did have communist ties and while the movement freed blacks, it quite possibly could have been done in a better manner without communist links. Also, it seems that President Benson had much compassion for the "negros" and felt they were being used to further a communist agenda. So the question is not regarding the suppression or freedom of blacks, but rather the mannor in which this movement occured. Was it done with the right intentions and did it bring forth the best results for the blacks? Maybe they would be even better off today if this movement occured under more righteous leadership.
Regarding the point of him being openly chastized by the church, President David O. McKay allowed him to be the Sec. of Agriculture while he was an apostle. So, apparantly he didn't have any issue with him being involved with politics. Perhaps the issue isn't with his opinions, but rather when he stated his feelings at the pulpit. Which may or may not have been a problem because I can't seem to find a reliable source for this "open chastizement"--if the chastisement happened it was more likely in a private conversation. Could you please provide documentation for your assertion.
Post a Comment