Mixing up some terms, I think.
Globalism? Do you mean free trade, as in the opposite of Protectionism? Cheap goods are a good thing and raise everyone's standard of living. As I recall, it was interference with free trade through tariffs and taxes that fomented the first American revolution. And the American colonies would never have survived without trade.
Sell off of the nation? Do you mean allowing foreign investors to buy and own American property? And for America to be a player in the global economy? That is not necessarily a bad thing -- unless you mortgage America by the political expediency of trillions of dollars of deficit spending and then borrow the money from the Federal Reserve Bank (a bank that has absolutely nothing to do with the American "federal" government) and effectively let someone other than American voters set American financial policy. Check into the history of the Federal Reserve System and what Woodrow Wilson said about it. Ever wonder where all the gold an silver went?
When massive deficit spending and borrowing occurs, then it is the international banking community that holds all the notes and the power over our government. When politicians buy votes with public projects, bail outs and entitlements, then borrow the money from the Federal Reserve, then the World Bank, or something very like it surely "owns" the American political system. Which, I supppose, is what you mean by selling off independence and sovereignty. It's like every single American having many thousands of dollars of debt on their international Visa bill -- now we just gotta argue over who is going to pay the monthly minimum payments. We could default, I suppose, but then the international banking system might downgrade America's credit and the value of the dollar, and by so doing, essentially confiscate the wealth of every American investor. Do you wonder where the trillions of dollars of "wealth" that is represented by a fall of stock market values from around 12,000 to around 8,000 points on the Dow Jones actually went? And by the way, who owns the world bank? I'll have to ask Suros and some of the other billionaire banking fanciers I know that question the next chance I get. I bet he knows. And wasn't he helping to substantially finance one of the American Presidential candidates. I forget . . . Anyway, I think America's credit must be getting pretty thin, if the markets are any indication.
So, do you want to be independent and sovereign? Get out of debt. Want to get out of debt? Quit borrowing. Cut spending. Raise tax revenues.
Want to raise tax revenues? Kenedy and Regan knew how, remember -- lower taxes, eliminate capital gains, encourage business and free enterprise here at home, drill here, drill now, etc. Remember Jimmy Carter? Remember Ronald Regan? Remember the "go go 80's when America had it's own oil industry (Texans, Pennsylvanians, and Alaskans do, I'll bet). Gone now.
Want to drive businesses out of America or out of business altogether? Raise corporate taxes and set progressive income taxes at such confiscatory rates that it takes away the bulk of any financial incentive for entrepreneurs to take the risk of starting new American businesses on American soil with American workers, pay half their payroll taxes and provide them with medical care. "No thanks, we'll just build that next factory in Mexico, or Korea, or China" -- labor is cheap and taxes are much lower than in America (2nd highest rate of corporate taxes in the world and soon to go up). Sure GM and Ford are all for American goods and American jobs, they are just going bankrupt trying to compete with Korean and now, to a lesser extent, Japanese auto makers. Or maybe we could just borrow the money to bail out Detroit, keep things going a few more years and go deeper into debt. Wonder which option the Labor Unions prefer?
So I am for Independence and Sovereignty. But there is a price for that. It is a price we can pay by producing and selling American energy resources to Americans, and by promoting American businesses and American jobs by a more rational tax policy, and by downsizing government, and a price we pay by being more self sufficient instead of demanding government entitlements like free health care. Let's think about that . . .
No, thanks -- never mind. Socialism sounds like the easier "change" -- just let the government take care of "us the people", institute social justice, and share the wealth -- New World Order. New World Obama. That's the ticket! I am going back to sleep now.
PS: Socialism really is a "We the people" to "Us the people" shift, isn't it? No longer are "we" responsible for ourselves, someone must now take care of "us". A shift from active to passive, from responsibility and self determination to entitlement and victimization, from independence to serfdom.
air gunzzzzzzzzzz, etc.
