[ExI] economic oath (was u.s. military oath)
painlord2k at libero.it
Tue Jul 28 09:03:50 UTC 2009
Damien Sullivan ha scritto:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 04:16:43PM +0200, Mirco Romanato wrote:
>> Republicans could undermine the Health Care Reform and other "stimulus"
>> laws enacted by the Democratic Congress and from the White House with
>> something like a "nucular option".
>> They could take the political position that, when they will have the
>> control of Congress and Presidency, they will not recognize / accept to
>> repay any debt or other liability the federal budget would incur caused
> This seems like a good reason for them to not be elected ever again. If
> they, after their own long borrowing sprees, promise to renege on the
> public debt and ruin 200 years of cultivated reputation based on their
> innumerate hysteria, they're clearly incompetent or treasonous.
Please, take note of the details, because they are important.
I never advocated to renegade all the public debts, only the future
debts the government would take to pay the health care reform (or others
like this) or other "reforms" like this.
It is like to warn the car dealers to don't sell cars to Uncle John,
because he have a bipolar disorder and sometimes he go on a shopping
spree. We cover Uncle John debts until now, because he is family, but
not over this. Sellers are warned.
If a seller sell a car to someone he know have no way to pay for
himself, and know / was warned others will no more pay for him, I think
he have no bases to complain if he is not paid back and will behave in a
>> I think it is time to force people to be responsible for their
>> behaviors. If they lend or make business with crazy governments or
>> tyrants, they can not expect that when a different government come to
>> the power, it will be the burden of all the craziness done before him.
>> If you did businesses with Saddam, do not expect to be paid if/when
>> Saddam is overthrow. If you sell batons to the Iranian Police do not
> So you're comparing Obama to Saddam and Iran? And you wish to imply
> that *he's* crazy?
He crazy? I doubt.
His policies? Policies can no be crazy, only damaging to someone and
useful to others.
His policies are damaging to the US economy, he raised the debt a
trillion or more, and the economy in tanking, the unemployment is at
record levels and the structural problems were not sorted out.
But his policies are useful to his "friends" that was paid so much money
for their support. Unfortunately, the economy will not work if you print
enough money and "spread the wealth around" or if you burden the
producers with too much taxes.
Unfortunately it appear that no one noted that I'm referring to the
"Odious debt" doctrine that was developed at the beginning of the XX
century in the US.
Odious Debt - "Don't owe - wont pay"
You could argue that Obama is not despotic or that the US lawmakers are
elected freely. But is this really important?
Alexander Sack wrote "If a despotic power incurs a debt not for the
needs or in the interest of the State, but to strengthen its despotic
regime, this debt is odious for the population of all the State. This
debt is not an obligation for the nation."
If we take away the "despotic" do the concept change in any way?
More information about the extropy-chat