'Economic patriotism' dangerous
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Thursday, Oct. 11, 2012, 9:01 p.m.
I think the Trib underestimated the full meaning and danger of President Obama's “economic patriotism” idea in the editorial “The debate: A Romney knockout” (Oct. 4 and TribLIVE.com).
That notion is of the same sort that Soviet and Nazi totalitarians used. Claiming that people who are more oppressed by government takings are somehow more patriotic is as perverse as claiming that raising tax rates to reduce the deficit caused by $1 trillion-plus in new annual spending and new regulations will have no negative effect on the people's wealth or on economic growth — or that Obama's violation of the Contract Clause of the Constitution in his first months also had no negative impact on the economy.
It demonstrates that it has never occurred to Obama that government is a necessary evil or that liberty retreats as government advances. His collectivist dogma doesn't recognize that as government grows, the people's share of their own wealth logically must decrease. Someone that foreign in his thinking has no business being in a position of power in the United States, especially having the power to choose federal judges.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Beneficial, irreplaceable
- Proven success
- Funding priorities questioned
- Prison plan & the public’s say
- Ukraine & history
- Shredded Wheat & ‘Low T’