[ APRIL 9, 2011 ]

We have just survived the (first) Government Shutdown Threat of 2011. 

The basis in economic science for the recent "nearest the Great Depression" falls most on an "it was all the Democrats' fault"?  Or, are you still thinking it was/is just "it was just some the fault of the Democrats"?

"Economic science" is a conundrum - much so since Clintonomics I was about an awarding in Economic excellence to "emotional economics" and yet now Democrats with essentially their Clintonomics II have been betraying the "science" of its thought days of actually having worked.  It seems accepted as fact and invariable that Obamanomics has been like Clintonomics "unleashed" with their team back to do what they had wanted to do before.

The Clintons survive as a paradigm.   And still quite surprisingly so.  How they both remain so much at fault and yet still untouched with any  or appropriate "blame" stays as an "is" still not that "is."

There may or may not be a "pattern" to such - and that may be their secret.  That the "New Depression" may be an unknown "bastardization" by Clintons may mostly be because most people don't want it to be so.   To restore America to a "material world" with a steady and not too irregular growth market/economy even the President now may have to check back to days of real conception -- President Obama may be wrong or naive to suggest our United States should have or can have an economy without emotional highs and lows, but that is what he is still suggesting.

Did they knowingly kill the "material world" economics once the heart of gross producing and net, nationally and locally?   Is it just accidental from a lack of fore thought/fore thinking and some naivete that Democrats are most to blame for economic meddling from planting through pruning involvement?  And yet arguably as Democrats acting/meddling separately with no or just inadequate efforts to a necessary synthesis or integration - is it still debatable that "New Depression" not from what they wanted to accomplish but from how they tried to act and did act too emotionally and independently?

If there is a "LOTUS" moment to look to for a better understanding of Democrats as the farmers of such a blooming it is either the CLINTONS' SURPLUS or the Clintons' wishes that banks find a new way to manage risks about the "risky loaning" they wanted to encourage and did.  It may be better to look still for just one seed as these two possible seeds otherwise would confuse around issues of hybrids.  It is more as if Clintons let two such be untamed weeds naturally to a strangling of each other, and their roots.

Beating a near exhausted Republican "work horse" further for turmoil not of its hoeing/trodding may be sporting to Democrats still about their "BLOOD SPORT" and "WE'RE RIGHT - THEY'RE WRONG, but it now with (first) GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN of 2011 dramatizations has little any viability/roots.  You can even address the problems and causes of "New Depression" quite well without mentioning any Republican "LOTUS" theorizing.  We can well still root out this crisis without involving much of Bush decidings.

Our economics may now benefit from many Republicans needing new "work horses" but how much animosity is there around such and with Republicans with too little "demand" yet to justify a new "growth" economic?  On top of all that has Democrats to a "responsible for" of near "New Depression" we now on top of such poor machinations by them now have them with a hoeing to a very polarized and partisan new "emotional economy."   The Clintons encouraged banking friends to try to come up with a way to "gamble away" new risks about the "risky loaning" they wanted to push as federal social program, disguised as not such.

Some related economic history about such as all this is that I have been, as many of you know, of an involvement and past integrations, economic, that started making some Democrats look better than they were and since before Governor Clinton and "Hillary" ever entered their "two-fer" in 1992 races.  My collection of helping with such era of concerns and campaigning is much/mostly contained in my collection of political poetry titled mostly under THE CHARGE OF NEW FEDERALISM.  You could say my concern for "emotional economics" of those days was more serious and thorough than theirs was - such may be even truer than I realize.  In those early days of a divergence it has been bewildering to try to understand how they must have thought their way with a different interpretation could work - time has left me as bewildered and yet confident in my early disagreements - really wonder still how they could have used so much without asking a source if deeper concerns were strategically brushed over, maybe, and necessarily to its integrated wholeness to progress and growth.

Fundamentally it is easy (easier?) and elementary now to suggest that the near "New Depression" is from the bastardization of a more conservative and wisely more cautious old "material world" gross economics.  The Clintons not only wanted Americans worked into risky loans but also wanted personal and bankable political popularity for a SUPRLUS - an unexpected and though "IMPOSSIBLE" governance to a surplus.  The Clintons did set us and many others to an economics that should strangle itself first at its roots and then finally in clear view --- The "risky loan" program was a federal "social program" of economic science historically needing balancing in markets with federal spending, not rash and irresponsible cutting such as their extra trillion cut for "SURPLUS" popularity.

The Clintons' SURPLUS most at the roots of our current nearness to a "New Depression" but maybe not alone as of the Democrats' hoeing involved to such famine.   It either years later would need a global scaring to suddenly alter its high risk leaning without adequate footing like GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISM or would need some other 'anti-capitalist' and "socialist" over-reaching like "Hillary" with "Hillary for President" early proclamations to a sudden "seizing of all oil company profits."  Left alone without such questionable additional affectations, economic or social, the Clintons' SURPLUS of their near sudden removal of an extra and unjustified trillion might have brought us all as near such edge, by itself, by itself with the "risky loan" asking of their banking friends to try to "gamble away" the risks of "risky loaning" even before considering the risks from violating there to fore "economic science" that such as a social program would need federal spending to keep up job saving or creating out at least the next four to six years.

The fall to near a "New Depression" may have needed more spending by President Bush to right these "LOTUS" plantings of Clintons, yes, but then "Pelosi Congress" and Democrats, generally, were proud and defensive and to such a grand prohibition from necessary countering of Clintons' SURPLUSES that a save wasn't possible.  

The Clintons' economic machinations so then counter to "economic science" and more a "gaming" of systems still may have needed its high risk teetering to be kiltered by a GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISM that as it did so spiked oil and gas prices with "GUILTING" inected in fuel markets/pricing.  Still though "Hillary's" socialist over-reaching as a new candidate with "I will seize all oil company profits" may have otherwise have been enough to topple our otherwise working more conservative "material world" habits.

Now like a "Mr. President I knew Stalin - you are no Stalin" we have problems exposed now specific to hoeing under guise of OBAMANOMICS - CLINTONOMICS II, if you have trouble separating the people involved in both from their workings or motives, or hopes.   The recent GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN scare/threat has spoiled their cover, and revealed their rotting roots --- Government spending was needed with Clinton 'two-fer' "risky loan" pimping, or their SURPLUS needed no such federal social program to put our economic balances so near or over teetering points.  And, now most Washington Democrats have shown that they are inadequate in personality or administrative skills to their "socialist" ideology - especially for not realizing that such 'domestically' encouraged should be balanced necessarily with and equal or greater reaching into global pockets to similar "redistributive" ends.

Like really near "Mr. President, I knew Stalin - you are no Stalin" but not really.  That Moscow holds record for all cities as home to the most number of billionaires and that President Obama has been inadequate to his "socialism" is a distraction from so much about causes at root of us recently so near another DEPRESSION.  Democrats may have to regroup in many ways and so to to state and local levels where wealth and property taxation methods are naturally and better suited to their "socialism" yet still President Obama has to face the MIRROR and come to terms as well with his administration not having been expansionist enough for his "redistributive" new mores to have a chance.

As well, that they attempted to till America to a "universal care" Clinton paradigm, anew, as again with an unjust basis national and on income and/or profit/loss instead of a revenue justification about wealth or property taxation and with Obamacare a "Hillarycare II" and Obamanomics a "Clintonomics II" these points are reinforced and not weeded out.  We may have been saved as well from our national revenues being protective and variable with national emotions and motivations to production as it stays a primarily income based national expression. 

If our Washington leaders (recently)had their paws on wealth and property taxation most of our governors could retire, could close their offices as little would be left for states to call their own.  We likely still would have had the convenience of a economic crisis for Democrats to seize the day and usher us to a new "socialist" state but not the bulwark of "representative" democracy basis on variables about income to steel us from a more seeming mores then just about wealth inequality and not earning inequality.

Our communities and our states are our places in our establishments of governance for disparities in wealth and property to be checked and balanced, at least by designs to a "most effectively" and "justly."  But that is not where our crop of current Washington Democrats sought to reign and reign in a "National Socialism."  Such may have caused us to teeter over the fine edge that Clintonomics pushed so many so dangerously near to but still such near a "New Depression" may have been already unavoidable because Dems around Pelosi Congress had been so prohibitive to President Bush countering the Clintons' SURPLUS sufficiently in due time.