Political News and Commentary with the Right Perspective. NAVIGATION
  • Front Page
  • News
  • Multimedia
  • Tags
  • RSS Feed

  • Advertise on RightMichigan.com


    Get the RightMighigan.com toolbar!



    Who are the NERD fund donors Mr Snyder?

    Raise the curtain.

    Fiscal Conservatism Illustrated: The Potential GM Move from Detroit

    By Political Agenda, Section News
    Posted on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 05:05:12 PM EST
    Tags: GM in Detroit, GM in Warren, Warren Michigan, GM, GM move, GM headquarters, Economics, trickle-down economics, trickle-up economics, Dave Bing, Renaissance Center, Renaissance zone (all tags)

    Political Agenda with Danian Michael

    In January of this year, Democrats everywhere declared that fiscal conservatism was the devil reincarnated. Big greedy corporations and wealthy white men needed to be put in their place, in jail or at the bottom of our society. This denigration of big corporations is only restrained by the threat that they will take their business elsewhere. We were also told that top-down economics does not work. As a matter of fact, wealth redistribution is being offered as the antidote to that failed policy.

    Enters reality! I love reality, it so easily refutes liberalism.

    Democrats have been telling us for as long as I can remember, but with greater intensity since Obama took office, that fiscal conservatism is how we got into the mess in which we now find ourselves. It was unchecked capitalism and tax breaks to the wealthy that were the sole proprietors of blame for this recession. On trickle-down economics President Obama said the following:

    "The past eight years have discredited once and for all the philosophy of trickle-down economics -- that tax breaks, income gains and wealth creation among the wealthy eventually will work their way down to the middle class." Obama went on to say, "In its place, we need economic opportunity to trickle up." [1]

    Isn't it interesting how trickle-down economics is being redefined by simply replacing the mechanism by which money flows down from big business and the wealthy? To be sure, trickle-down economics is unavoidable; it is impossible for money and opportunity to flow up from the poor for obvious reasons. Interestingly, taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor is simply another form of trickle-down economics. Changing the mechanism from free people doing business together to the government intervening and forcibly moving their money to the poor does not transform trickle-down economics into trickle-up economics. There is actually a more traditional and sinister term for what Obama is describing as trickle-up economics. It is called Socialism, or at the very least, the rudiments of it.

    So now, in agreement with Obama's trickle-up economic theory, the very liberal Detroit and our very liberal Governor, Jennifer Granholm now face the very real and big problem of GM leaving Detroit. How pray-tell will they solve this problem? The following quotation outlines how the city of Detroit intends to keep GM within its borders and how the city of Warren intends to lure them away:

    "Warren Mayor Jim Fouts has pitched tax breaks to the company to shift its headquarters there. Bing and Wayne County Executive Robert Ficano announced the proposal for Renaissance Zone status at the Detroit Regional Chamber's Mackinac policy conference this morning. This deal would include 2.2 million square feet of office space in the RenCen's four main towers plus the Detroit Marriott Hotel in the Renaissance Zone, which provides tax incentives including a waiver of city income and utility user taxes, most city and county property tax, plus state income tax or business taxes." [2]

    Please note two things with me. First, we are witnessing the attempt of two local city government to apply trickle-down economics. Both are catering to a big in the hope that the people of their respective cities will be the beneficiaries.  Second, note the mechanism being used to help GM.[3] Basically the city of Detroit and the city of Warren are competing for the title of "most conservative." Cutting taxes is how these two cities intend to help GM, but conservatives have made that claim since the dawn of this great country. Yet Democrats have the audacity to claim that conservatives are just a bunch of rich white men who are only looking out for big corporations and who have no compassion for the poor.[4] But when Democrats have to eat their words realizing that in reality, their tax-the-rich policies are suppressive to growth, then they are merely being considerate of the needs of our society.

    Those of us who claim to be conservatives have a long road to travel in reminding our fellow Americans that conservatism works when it is applied. In 2010 and 2012 we will have one big advantage. We will be able to point to the fact that when Democrats apply conservative principles they help our economy and when they apply liberal principles they destroy it.

    Danian Michael
    Political Agenda.


    [1] (The Washington Post:) In an article titled, "In Obama Tax Plan, A Shift of Wealth From the Top Down" Obama's economic plan and approach is detailed.

    [2] (Newsfeedresearcher.com) The news story titled, "The battle for GM's HQ: Good moves or bad policy?" outlines the battle between the city of Detroit and the city of Warren to house the General Motors' headquarters. The headquarters of GM is now located in the Renaissance Center in downtown Detroit.

    [3] I submit that what is really going on here is the fact that both Detroit and Warren are trying to entice GM by being the most HELPFUL to the Auto Company.

    [4] Black conservatives like me are not really free thinkers, we are the victims of Stockholm syndrome and as such, we are not really a part of the republican party. Ergo the rich white men label.

    < Okay - I Get The Hint - I'll Write About Examining Principles! | High Speed Rail: Very Expensive >

    Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

    Display: Sort:
    A debate on this article (none / 0) (#1)
    by Political Agenda on Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 08:22:58 PM EST
    The following is a response to my article followed by my response: The comments were made on my website: Political Agenda with Danian Michael

    John Wrote:

    Forget, please, "conservatism." It has been, operationally, de facto, Godless and therefore irrelevant. Secular conservatism will not defeat secular liberalism because to God both are two atheistic peas-in-a-pod and thus predestined to failure. As Stonewall Jackson's Chief of Staff R.L. Dabney said of such a humanistic belief more than 100 years ago:

    "[Secular conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today .one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth."

    Our country is collapsing because we have turned our back on God (Psalm 9:17) and refused to kiss His Son (Psalm 2).

    PS - And "Mr. Worldly Wiseman" Rush Limbaugh never made a bigger ass of himself than at CPAC where he told that blasphemous "joke" about himself and God.

    Danian Michael replies:


    I want to first say that I really appreciate the fact that you have read and responded to my article. I took a look at your website to learn a little more about you, specifically what you meant by recovering Republican. Do you still consider yourself a republican? And if not, what have you recovered to? It appears to be the case that you call yourself a Christian first and foremost. If that is the case, you have a brother in Christ here at Political Agenda.

    With that said, I must point out that there exist many variations of the Christian worldview: There are Christian Arminians and Christian Calvinists (I am a Calvinist myself. I appreciated your piece on Luther). There are Baptist Christians, there are Lutheran Cristians and there are Reformed Christians. And... there are liberal Christians and Conservative Christians. Is it not possible for a Christian to hold to sola-scriptura while at the same time hold to a belief that the federal government should in general hold to low taxes? Or that the Federal government should be limited in its size? You infer antagonism where none exist; there is no antagonism between being a Christian and a conservative, unless you believe conservatism presupposes a belief in a naturalistic world. You might be saying, if a worldview does not positively state a belief in the Christian God, then that worldview is Atheistic or Anti Christian and as such is no good. If that is what you are saying, then I would agree with you in principle. But of course when we Christians are talking about civil life and the "good works" contained therein, we are not talking about the rich biblical notion of good works, the kind that pleases God and that cannot come from unregenerate people. What did you mean by secular conservatism? Are you implying that there is a spiritual conservatism? Or, are you saying that all conservatism is secular and thus seek to ignore and/or minimize the Christian God? In the final analysis you have stated your displeasure with conservatives (I get that) but you have not explained why that is the case or what any of this has to do with the subject of my Article. Your argument seems to go something like this: Conservatism is destructive, Danian Michael (me) is a conservative; Danian Michael's article is destructive. But you need to independently proved that all conservative ideas are destructive otherwise all you have is a tautology, in the tradition of the evolutionist doctrine of survival of the fittest.

    What did you think about the substance of the Article?

    Hope you write again.

    Display: Sort:


    Make a new account

    Tweet along with RightMichigan by
    following us on Twitter HERE!
    create account | faq | search