This is a rather long lecture by Milton Friedman on the issues of government in medical care. As it is so long I’m not going to write a lot, but you should watch it because, despite being over 3 decades old, every word is still very relevant.
Category Archives: Obama
So Republicans in typical fashion are trying to shoot themselves in the foot with their “Defund Obamacare push” (hint the liberals want the GOP to win on this one so they don’t have to have Obamacare hanging around their necks in 2014 and 2016, so they can keep the White House and take back Congress just long enough to make sure no one can ever take Obamacare out…if you want to get rid of Obamacare, really, really get rid of it, you need to make people see, and unfortunately feel, the misery they voted for. The point here is to get rid of the idea that government is the answer, not just a temporary reprieve on one horrific law. The Defund Obamacare group is looking to win the battle, possibly at the cost of losing the war). But while this is going on, Democrats are spending billions just to advertise Obamacare (if a law is so bad you have to advertise it, that should tell you something). And to top it all off, a couple days ago Obama made his one of his typically brain less statements. “Because in the United States of America, health insurance isn’t a privilege – it is your right.”
Why do I bring all of these different groups up in the same paragraph? Because they’re all idiots. They are all predicated on the idea that the government has to do something (less idiotic for the Republicans, but they seem to have given up the idea of full repeal, the only real answer, because they seem to acknowledge the lie that government needs to provide something). At best this belief is idiotic. At worst it’s just plain evil. (On another side note evil people are very rare, but evil ideas are all too common, and morons have a long history of latching onto evil ideas with the best of intentions. So please understand I’m not calling the people supporting Obamacare evil–unless their name is Harry/Nancy/Barrack/Michelle–merely their idea is). Why is it stupid/evil? Well, let me be as clear as I can possibly be:
YOU DO NOT HAVE A !@#$%^& RIGHT TO HEALTHCARE!!!!
Like the right to property, and the right to pursue happiness, you have the right to earn a living and to use that money as you see fit, perhaps by buying healthcare or healthcare insurance, but you have no natural right to healthcare.
Sorry, Barry, but just because you want something, it’s not a right.
I know I am about to repeat things that I have said before, but I feel I need to. I feel everyone needs to until this country learns that rights are not entitlements, rights are not things given to you but opportunities to be taken care of, and to exercise your rights does not require the acts, intentions, or contribution of anyone else.
A natural right as conceived of in the theory of natural rights and in the Declaration of Independence is something you would have without the presence of government or even society. It’s what does Robinson Crusoe have when he’s on the island before he decides to violate Friday’s natural right to freedom. Well, if you find yourself trapped in a bad episode of “Lost” you have the right to life, liberty, property, and to pursue happiness. A lot of what the original Bill of Rights includes is also there (speech, religion, assembly, arms, and self-incrimination) but notice that if you’re on an island by yourself you don’t have medical care. You have the right to take care of yourself, but islands in the middle of nowhere are not staffed with hospitals and doctors just waiting for you to get sick. So it’s certainly not a natural right.
But we don’t live on an island in the middle of nowhere. The upside to this is that we don’t have to engage in a philosophical war with a black cloud; the downside to this is that we do have to deal with other people. And while most people are rational and good intentioned, there are the random people who don’t respect your rights and try to take what isn’t theirs. Because of these random few who ruin everything, and because, we want complex things that we can’t do without laws and someone being in charge (like roads) we turn to the necessary evil of government. Now good government is a skill and it took us a while to realize that limits need to be put on it because just following the guy who can kill you or the guy with the best bullshit may not have been the best choice in the beginning, even though it’s what historically happened. So we had to come up with a whole new set of rights (quartering, due process, equality under the law). But notice all these other rights limit what the government does. Nowhere have you been given anything. You were either born with your rights, some of which you gave away to ensure protection against stupid people violating your rights, and other “rights” were restrictions placed on the government on top of which your natural rights were completely off-limits. But still no right has been given to you that you already didn’t have. And again, you didn’t have the right to health care if you were stuck in the state of nature.
The right to healthcare is a ridiculous, idiotic and borderline evil idea called a “positive right.” A negative right means something that no one has the right to take away from you–like your life, your liberty, or your property. Those are things you’re entitled to, thus no one has any right to reduce your rights to them. A positive right on the other hand means something that you have a right to expect to be given to you. If you’re reading that last sentence a few times because it seems to make no sense, good, that means you’re sane. Healthcare is a positive right. It is the idea that just because I showed up you have to give me healthcare. Just because you’re alive other people have to give something to you? Well I know that really egocentric people act like this, but to actually portray this as a theory of government is insane. And while virtues of love and charity say that ethically we should give people more than they may deserve, it doesn’t work in the opposite way where you have the right to demand people give you more than you serve—that’s not ethics it’s also insanity.
But more than insane it’s wrong. You can’t give a piece of property or a service without taking it from someone else–i.e. theft or slavery. Now while I believe the capitalist system isn’t a zero-sum game that always creates more and more, theoretically having no limit to how much wealth it can create, the kind of property transfer that the government deals in is a zero-sum for whatever moment it exists in. The government stealing things and giving it to others, transferring wealth from one person to another, not only harms the ability to create more wealth, but given government inefficiency, it actually creates less wealth (especially given the government’s addiction to spending money it doesn’t have). The government can’t just give people drugs without stealing it from drugs companies…if it pays for those drugs then it can only do that by stealing hard earned wealth from the taxpayers. Either way it’s theft. A person can’t be guaranteed healthcare without doctors being forced to treat them. After all either the doctors are paid (and if the government’s involved it’s paid with stolen taxpayer money) or simply forced to work as a slave. And you’ll find most doctors will not want to work in that system which will cause the greatest healthcare system in the world, the US, to become one of the worst when all the doctors leave or simply retire.
But some idiots (Alan Colmes to name one) say that the government has a right to help the people under the actual Constitution. They quote Article I Section 8:
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and
Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general
Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be
uniform throughout the United States;”
And then they point to the part that says “General welfare” , isn’t providing healthcare promoting the general welfare? Well one that would first depend on the government being able to do anything well, which it can’t, but more importantly it is a gross misunderstanding of the meaning of “general welfare.” Even if you took the most liberal meaning of the phrase at the time the Constitution was written the term general welfare does not mean helping people like our current meaning of welfare–it means providing improvements to the whole of the country that affects everyone (roads, bridges, communication systems, in other words – infrastructure). The key is the word general. It needs to be something that can be used by everyone. I can’t take your doctor prescribed drugs after you’ve taken them, so there is nothing general about a system that helps individuals. (And don’t even give me that bullshit about their being able to provide for society if they were healthy…if they were providing for society they would have a job with which they could afford healthcare).
The government isn’t there to protect you from yourself or from nature. It’s there to protect you from other idiots. Your bad living habits and your genetic disposition toward a disease, while unfortunate, is not the government’s responsibility. But given that the government has stolen and inefficiently used the money that people who might have been able to charitably donate to your healthcare, the government is not only destroying their rights it’s destroying their ability to help you.
The government destroys all it touches–it can’t help it, it’s its nature. Especially when it tries to give you things you don’t have a right to. And you don’t have a right to healthcare!
So this week started out with Paul Ryan stating that he is still planning on the complete repeal of Obamacare. And from what he said before his keynote speech at CPAC…I’m laying even odds that he starts a chorus of “Do You Hear the People Sing” and leads a march to build a barricade around the White House.
But it’s good to know that the crusade to end what is perhaps the worst bill in memory (it’s hard to say it’s the worst bill of all time when you have to compare it to the terrible socialist bills of FDR and LBJ’s presidencies)…still this bill is pretty close to being the straw that broke the camel’s back for this country and it must go before we can fix all the other monstrosities.
But liberals, being the whiny brainless sort that they are will whine “but medical costs are too high. But people have a right to insurance. But people have a right to healthcare!”
Ignoring the simple fact that healthcare isn’t a right by any stretch of the imagination and that if you need healthcare, get a job and earn it, let’s deal with their claim that medical costs are too high.
I would agree medical costs are too high. But, like a bad doctor, liberals want to treat the symptom not the disease. Healthcare costs too much, throw money at it; that should cut the costs.
Conservatives however, like to determine the causes of high costs, which is the disease and treat that. So what are the causes of high costs (hint, it’s not the private sector)?
(Everything that will follow will assume that Obamacare has been justly killed because there is nothing in the bill that should be saved).
So what are the three main costs to medical care: Insurance, doctor’s/hospital bills, and drug costs?
So how do we cut insurance costs?
Tort Reform. Tort Reform. Tort Reform.
Every state that has instituted tort reform has seen medical costs drop, the number of doctors increase, the number of unnecessary procedures drop like a rock and even the number of deaths drop. If the federal government and every state were to institute real and sweeping tort reform you would see every single thing you buy drop in price, but you would probably see the biggest increase in the quality of medicine.
We allow insurance companies to cross state lines. Right now all insurance companies are banned from selling insurance across state lines. Look at any insurance card you have. Farmer’s Insurance of California. Blue Cross of Arizona. There may be a national corporation, but it owns 50 separate corporations in 50 different states. That’s a lot of overhead. It also stifles competition. A smaller company can’t expand beyond its own state because it can’t afford to set up a whole infrastructure to have a multi-state operation. This limits competition, and as anyone knows the less competition the higher the prices. If we remove the federal block against insurance crossing state lines you will see drops in every form of insurance you have: medical, car, house.
Just those two things would easily drop the cost of health insurance to probably 90% of its pre-Obamacare costs, perhaps more.
But why stop there? Doctor’s bills themselves also contribute to a large portion of the costs. So what can we do there?
Well a lot of the initial costs come from the fact that when doctors start their career they are laden with college and med school debt. Obscene levels of debt. So let’s fix that.
The reason why college costs are so high is because the federal government subsidizes them at outrageous prices. Subsidies always increase costs. Always! So cut all tuition subsidies and grants. Within a year you will see college costs drop. Now this won’t have an immediate effect as the doctors without massive debt will be years away from entering the market, but long term this will not only solve part of our medical problem but our massive college debt problem.
But part of the reason why doctors charge so much is because they know that Medicare and Medicaid aren’t going to pay them their full billing price, so to stay in business this has a threefold fix.
Adopt the Ryan Plan which will allow more competition in Medicare and Medicaid, which will both ensure doctors get better payment AND lower the cost to the taxpayer for these costs.
In a second step we need to move as much of Medicare and Medicaid costs to the states as possible. While the private sector does better when done on large scale, government and bureaucracy work in the exact opposite manner. The closer any government program is to the people the more efficient and the lower the cost. Lower costs means that Medicaid and Medicare will be able to get closer to pay 100% of doctors’ asking prices for their services (not to mention more doctors taking Medicare and Medicaid patients) which means they will be able to drop their prices for the rest of us and still make a tidy profit for their practice.
Increase the penalties for Medicaid and Medicare fraud. We’re talking about nearly $500 Billion in fraud every year. $500,000,000,000.00! I’ll let that number wash over you for a second. That’s one of the main reasons why Medicaid and Medicare can’t afford to pay full price to doctors. Now while I generally don’t believe the government should criminalize more things or come up with even stronger punishments, fraud is something even the most libertarian government must prosecute and fraud against the government doubly so. Penalties and enforcement need to be much stronger. If there’s $500 Billion in fraud it means the risk is much, much lower than the reward. Much lower. If we have to get a little Draconian, so be it, we need to make it very clear that the risk is now worth the reward.
Now the cost of drugs is also an issue. So how do we lower the costs of drugs (and liberals throwing money all willy-nilly at research never works).
However there are things we can do.
Allow drug patents to start when the FDA approves the drug. Right now a drug patent (20 years) begins when the drug is patented. So when a drug takes 10-15 years to get FDA approval. This means that the company only has 5-10 years to recoup all of the cost of not only research for that drug, but of all the other drugs that failed. So they have to recoup all of their investment for all R&D in only 5 years. And you wonder why the cost is so high. If we started the 20 year clock when the FDA grants approval they would have more time to recoup costs and thus would not need to charge as much.
Reform the FDA. Right now the FDA prevents human testing of experimental drugs on willing patients with terminal diseases….because the drug might kill them. You know if I have a terminal disease the last thing I care about is if a drug will kill me, because I know for a fact the disease will. A lot of medical costs are in cancer treatment; to allow willing patients to try experimental drugs could not only rapidly speed up research (thus cutting costs to a fraction of their current levels) but actually find some cures and real treatments to one of the biggest costs in the medical industry.
And then there are some other things we could do that could help medical care. Nanny’s in the government like to talk to us a lot about eating healthier which is odd since government programs are designed to make sure we don’t eat healthier.
End all government subsidies, tariffs, and controls for agriculture. We pay people to grow tobacco, we pay them to grow sugar, we pay them to leave ground fallow. We even pay people to grow corn only to be turned into fuel (ironically it takes over a gallon of fuel to produce a gallon of corn ethanol…that’s efficient.) When you subsidize something you get more of it. And you wonder why it’s hard to get healthy food. Yes, ending subsidies and tariffs on sugar would initially drop the price of sugar, but it would also result in less being produced which would again raise the price. It would also leave more ground for producing the fruits and vegetables we’re not getting right now because fresh food is so overpriced.
Suggestion # 10
And while we’re at it, if we want people to eat healthier maybe we could stop regulations on food. Stop sending SWAT teams at raw milk distributors, stop fining people for having their own gardens of fresh food, stop preventing the Amish from taking fresh food across state lines. You know little things like that.
Special Idea #11 Fluoridation
Now I usually hate talking about fluoridation. Why? Because so many wacko conspiracy theorist nuts think it’s some grand government conspiracy to control people. It’s not. It was, as with most government actions, a well meaning but idiotic plan. Let’s put fluoride in the water to strengthen their teeth (we can’t trust people with their own hygiene). Yeah let’s put a substance in the water that causes lower IQ’s, higher cancer rates and drastically lowers the thyroid gland (which might have something to do with obesity). What could possibly go wrong? You know between the expansion of the dental industry, better access to toothpaste, and personal responsibility I think our teeth are fine. Let’s stop fluoridating water.
Special Idea #12
Walmart and other such stores apparently want to get into the healthcare business. I say let them. They want to open small clinics. Honestly what they’re proposing will basically act as a triage center. They will tell all the people with just a cough to just get Sudafed, treat the small wounds, and thus clean up the real traffic at urgent care and the ER. This will almost certainly cut down costs from needless tests.
Notice something about this. With the exception of #6, involving the prosecution of criminals (a proper function of government), each and every one of these calls for less government not more. Why? Because government and regulation are what is causing so many problems.
A couple of years ago I did a series on laws the GOP should pass and in that I did a series of compromises I suggested we conservatives should suggest some laws that give liberals what they say they want but in such a way that we also get something in return and even though we’re giving them what they want we’re doing it in a way that does not violate our values (for instance make marriage a religious issue that government has nothing to do with, government only offers civil unions—they get the equality under law they want, we get the religious nature of marriage untouched by government).
And in this vein I have come up with the ultimate compromise, one that will in the end mean the decimation of Democratic and progressive power, but one that will be just too good an offer for the stupid liberals to turn down.
Lately there has been a call among the libs, idiots that they are, to overturn the 22nd Amendment…now to save you the time (because I’ll be honest after 19 they all get a little mixed up for me too) the 22nd is the one that limits any person from serving more than 2 terms (technically 10 years total) in the office of the president. Why? Because the liberals are so enamored of their divine savior that they think that His Holiness the transcendent Obama should just be allowed to serve 3 or 4 or 10 terms. He is just that good. (Yeah because that doesn’t sound like a dictator at all.)
And I say we give it to them. Pass an amendment that overturns the 22nd Amendment.
What! Do I want this nation to be destroyed? Do I want us to have a GDP lower than a hunter-gatherer tribe lost in the Gobi? Am I looking to spark a 2nd Dark Ages?
No. Hear me out.
For this, in the same Amendment (because this has to be an all or nothing thing) we overturn the 26th (the idiotic one that says unspeakably stupid and immature 18 year olds can vote). And not only do we overturn it we replace it with the new bar that no one younger than 30 can vote* for a federal office (House, Senate, Electoral College)** AND that all states must verify their electoral votes by making voters show valid ID.
Okay so? Why would that make allowing Obama have a chance at a third term acceptable?
Because it will mean the end of the liberal movement. It should come as no shock that the young, the immature, and the stupid from lack of experience tend to be liberal. Also people who have not built up any property (again mostly the young) tend to liberal—yes I know it’s a shocker that the correct (read, conservative) governments, for whom one of the central functions is protection of property rights, isn’t popular with the people who haven’t been alive long enough to earn much. Also strangely the age group that finds the Daily Show to be their primary source of information tends to be the most liberal.
Okay, so we know that young people are dumb, big deal. So what?
Well the benefits of Voter ID alone are almost too good to pass up. We all know that liberals have stolen an obscene number of elections through illegal voting.
I’ll tell you so what. If voters under 30 had been barred from voting Romney would have won by nearly 70 Electoral College votes. Obama would have only won California by about 9 points (I could pull up the charts with all the math, but I don’t want to make your eyes bleed)…that’s right California would be at just the edge of swing state territory. Swing states would become solid red and states that haven’t seen a Republican in ages would suddenly be battleground territory. (And that’s before you take out all the illegals voting through Voter ID…if you had those 2 things it’s conceivable that California could once again be the state that gave us Reagan).
Almost every single thing that makes a person more inclined to be fiscally conservative (experience, marriage, children, income, wealth, employment, spirituality) is tied to age. And think about it when the voting age was 21 in the colonial era, it wasn’t because people were so much more mature than by nature it was because the life expectancy was around 45. You were already living on your own by the age of 19, still two years before you could vote.
By doing this conservatives gain an easy majority in the Senate and likely a consistent veto-proof majority in the House.
Now social issues will probably continue to lean a little left, but that’s just the evolution of society.
Now you may say, okay that will work for now, but once those 20 somethings get older they’ll be liberal with a vengeance in their 30’s. Not so, because after a conservative Congress and conservative president institute real pro-growth policies, these otherwise idiotic young people will actually have something to work for and earn in their 20’s, will have families to care for, will have experience to guide them, and statistically they will vote for conservative economic policy.
Or you may say, the Democrats will never fall for it.
To which I have to say, you’re forgetting these are the idiots who fell for Obama’s shtick, deep thinkers they are not. If you offer them the chance to re-elect their God-king one more time they’d do things far worse than destroy their own party. They’re deluded to think that he’ll get re-elected every time no matter what. Yet the numbers show that’s not the case, but these idiots don’t understand numbers very much (as shown by their economic policies).
Now some of you still probably believe they’re not dumb enough to fall for this. That they’ll see through the ruse and just vote for Obama-lite in 2016 and 2020. Let me just point out that some of his idiot followers are attributing a cure for AIDS to the man, trust me they’re well beyond the point of being dumb enough. They really think this man is their lord and savior. They’re well beyond dumb enough. Well, well beyond.
They’ll fall for it. And they’ll destroy their party in doing so. So who’s with me on this?
*I’m more than willing to include an exception for active duty members of the military and veterans under 30.
**If states want to let the immature vote in state and local elections that’s their stupid choice.
So last year I did a list of the best and worst presidents for President’s day. Not much has changed in a year. I still
won’t rank Obama until he’s not in office (but I’m sure we can guess which end of the spectrum he’s going to end up on). So this year I thought we would look at some of the people who wanted the office but didn’t get it.
Now most presidents are forgettable at best (at worst the majority are terrible)…and the also-rans are worse for the most part. I went over the list. Seldom were there truly horrific candidates who were actually worse than the people they ran against. And only a few times has there been someone of real caliber who lost to a terrible president. Most of the elections can be classified as a race between Tweedle-Dumb and Tweedle-Dumber. Most of the 1800’s is just semi-useless politicians for all parties, neither worthy of praise or dishonor, and just because there are bad presidents in the1900’s, the opposition didn’t always run particularly good challengers. Still let’s look at some of the people who could have been president.
I will cover the two groups, the bullets we dodged in not electing truly horrific candidates, and the great candidates we should have elected if we had had any brains.
(A quick disclaimer I tried going through all the history books I had and what reliable web resources I could get but the fact of the matter is that history tends to ignore the losers so I wouldn’t call this a definitive list because I’m sure there are issues and character traits I just couldn’t find out about. It’s partly why the majority of the people on this list are from the last century, I know more about them…the other reason is that as we have gotten more towards a mob based democracy we’ve gotten a more erratic quality of candidate.)
Okay so here’s how I’m judging things.
1. Everyone on this list has not served as President. Yes we dodged a major bullet in getting rid of dim Jimmy Carter the 2nd time but we made the stupid mistake of electing him the first time and conversely another term of Quincy Adams would have been nice, but he served so he doesn’t get on this list.
2. They must have been better for the greatest that “never were” (and conversely worse in the “dodged a bullet” crowd) the person who did get elected. Whiny, idiotic, cowardly, and useless RINO John McCain would have been a horrific president, but disturbingly an even worse jackass got in. Conversely Charles Pickney, Dewitt Clinton, and Rufus King would probably have made excellent presidents but they all lost to good presidents so it doesn’t really count.
3. They must have actually run in the general election. Rudy Giuliani and Steven Forbes would have made great Presidents, but they didn’t get the nomination…and I just can’t open myself up to looking at all the possible primary and convention candidates, it was hard enough doing the research I had to do.
4. They have to have stood at least a semi-serious shot. I’m not going to count third parties that never stood a chance. Yes Ron Paul would have let the world fall to evil and Ralph Nader would have been dumber and more corrupt than even Obama but we were never in any real danger.
So let’s start with the worst presidents that never were, the “Dear we Dogde A Bullet Candidate.”
4. Strom Thurmond and George Wallace. Different elections but they’re terrible for similar reasons, namely that they were racist pieces of offal. Yeah I know it was a bit of a stretch that these idiots could win, but they did get further than they should have. The unlikelihood of them actually getting elected is why they’re this far down, despite how bad their presidencies would have been. Want to wonder what having racist idiots who believe in using big government to further their beliefs that people should be divided against so as to gain even more power for themselves…actually that’s not to hard to imagine what their presidencies would have looked like. (O ring any bells?)
3. Walter Mondale.
“My opponent will raise your taxes. So will I.”
Walter you sweet talker, be still my heart with your soft words.
Now, Mondale, VP for anti-Semitic trash, ran on a platform in 1984 of trying to destroy what recovery had started after his former boss, Jimmy “There’s never been an Islamist terrorist I didn’t support” Carter had done a swell job of destroying the economy. Remember that economic growth in the 90’s?…that was to a great degree because of the Foundation Reagan created. You would have had none of that if Mondale had been President. Remember that Soviet Union collapse?…would have eventually happened just not for several years more and unknown world destruction.
2. Al Gore.
Think of Obama’s economics mixed with having issued an unconditional surrender on September 11th…that he would
have sold the country to the Islamists…like he’s done with other things. Al Gore is so abhorrently immoral and unfit for dealing with foreign policy issues if he had responded by doing something other than attempting full isolationism after 9/11 (only to find that would have done nothing to stop the attacks) is he would have responded with the usual liberal overkill of striking everything he can…idiot probably would have launched nukes before we even knew who to blame. Yes I am saying there is a good chance Gore could have started WWIII, I really think he’s that dumb.
1. Aaron Burr. The man was one vote away from being president. He later was tried (and acquitted) of attempting a coup against the US government. He may have been
acquitted because of weak evidence, but no one in their right mind thinks this man wasn’t up to something. And anyone who is willing to commit treason against the US, kill Alexander Hamilton, and be someone so despicable that Hamilton would vote for his arch-nemesis Jefferson over Hamilton…yeah, that man would probably have ended the union in its early days.
Dishonorable mentions: Bob Dole (RINO), William Jennings Bryan (Populist hack), anyone running against Lincoln who would have kicked the can down the road even further, John McCain (yeah the other guy is slightly worse, but let’s be honest here RINO McCain would have done everything Barry did but the GOP would get the blame).
Okay so that’s the pack of losers we should be glad didn’t get what they wanted…now onto the men we should weep that didn’t get.
4. John C. Fremont. 1856. The first Republican candidate to run for President. None of Lincoln’s ambivalence about freeing the slaves (also none of Lincoln’s manic-depression). Yeah he would have also caused a Civil War (and 4 years earlier) but I can’t believe he would have done things as ineptly as Lincoln (I know it’s an anathema to say such a thing but Lincoln couldn’t pick a general to save his life, couldn’t keep his cabinet or party under control, had no understanding of economics. It’s truly a miracle we survived.) I’ve looked over this and in a lot of ways I feel a Fremont presidency (in great part to circumstance out of his control) would have resulted in a Civil War that was significantly shorter, and probably less disastrous for the US.
3. Wendell Willkie. 1940. A pro-business, anti-isolationist, anti-New Deal candidate. I don’t agree with everything he believed in, but he was running against FDR, the man who sent a boat filled with Jews BACK to Germany to suffer and die. Minor difference with Willkie compared to evil incarnate…oh, tough call. A lot of Willkie support was hurt by the isolationist faction of the GOP (sounds vaguely familiar). To top it off the character in the great film State of the Union was loosely based on Willkie, which just make me like him more.
What would a Willkie presidency have looked like? Well we still would have entered the war. He probably would have supported defeating the Communists in China after WWII ended (the benefits of that should be obvious) and hey there’s a fair possibility that he would have backed Patton’s idea to arm the Germans and head back in to take out Stalin (so the possibility that there would be no Communist or Fascist government after WWII). He was in favor of a world government body, but as president he probably wouldn’t have let it become from its inception the den of evil that it was and is. And that’s just on the foreign front. He would likely have dismantled much, if not all of the New Deal apparatus which would mean that we would have been in an even stronger economic position before we entered WWII and a significantly stronger position after it. Oh and he probably would have pushed civil rights even earlier than we did and we wouldn’t have had to wait for the Republicans in the 1950’s and 1960’s to do it (although Dems would probably still have taken the credit).
Would he have been conservative for my tastes on an objective level? No. But he was certainly more conservative than FDR and would have made a much better president.
2. Barry Goldwater. It should be obvious all the benefits here. Better economy. No War on Poverty, no slow down of the growth of the middle class, no welfare and Medicaid and Medicare driving us to debt. A capitalist Vietnam. A Soviet Union and China weakened even earlier. Oh and to top it all off, no Nixon. There are no downsides here.
1. Mitt Romney. This should be obvious. We have a treasonous, idiotic, tyrannical jackass in the office right now who dares to say we should protect our diplomats and intelligence officers overseas when he is the one who left them to die. We are hurtling toward major economic problems and the growth of tyranny abroad. Romney would have brought about an economic transformation that would have made Reagan look weak. He would have held the line on tyrants overseas and driven back those who would impose their will by force. The nation and the world would have been a better place with Romney, it will be a worse place with Barry. I don’t think there has ever been a clearer choice in this nation where the people made the wrong choice. This will be viewed by history as one of the dumbest moments in history. And it pisses me off that those of us who aren’t idiots have to live through the incredibly bad choices of those of us who are.
So it becomes very clear from the State of the Union either due to incredible arrogance and idiocy or just vile evil Obama and his ilk are out to destroy this nation. Yeah let’s raise the minimum wage, that only ever lowers employment and hurts the economy. Let’s spend more and tax more, because that always works. Let’s pay only lip service to the problems abroad. We’ve got problems in education let’s throw money at it, that always works. Even his best example, the return on the Human Genome Project, has a bizarrely overblown number attached to it…and oh, that’s right, the private sector did better on spending and results in their concurrent research. And gun control I’m sure that will make us all safer. Either intentionally or through idiocy, it really doesn’t matter, Obama’s plans seem to be putting us on a one way course for economic ruin, the expansion of tyranny the world over, and the contraction of freedom and prosperity everywhere.
Some people, clearly not the masses of idiotic liberals, but some rational people are worried about this. There is a lot of depression out there lately. From the people who see a coming economic collapse (but the stock market is really high…yeah because a lot of long term investors just got out and this bubble is being fuelled by day traders and emotional buyers…you know just like it does before every crash…when you look at the fundamentals we’re in for some pretty bleak moments) to those who are seeing a revolution coming (not a desirable outcome by any stretch of the imagination but certainly one that will happen if this idiot were to actually make the move against private ownership of guns he seems to be suggesting). Any honest look for the long term outlook of this nation is worrisome. And many are worried.
But I’m not.
I know liberals, and probably libertarians as well, have a problem with this, but there is something truly special about this nation.
This nation has been knocked down over and over again. This nation has not just beat but defied odds, defied likelihood, defied certain destruction. We have come so close to death so many times, and each time like a Phoenix risen from the mess we have created.
“Some people believe that our Declaration and Constitution were written by very brilliant men, others believe that they were divinely inspired when they wrote it—I believe it was a bit of both.”
The documents were written by men, albeit brilliant men, but men nonetheless, who were capable of error and thus you could not claim absolute perfection in their documents…but also the beliefs and ideas in these documents represented an immeasurable leap forward in human society and that at some level the hand of God was present. Name for me a time when you would have an Adams, a Jefferson, a Washington, a Franklin all in the same room together. History provides few men of such insight, intelligence, and character (not that they were perfect, but they were certainly ahead of their time by massive steps); occasionally you get two of them together at the same time; at very special moments you get three together at once…at both the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention you had whole rooms of these men. Please tell me of another time in history when you had such a grouping (and to see it happen twice in one generation). To a group of men who believed in ideals of right and true being more important than their personal fortunes (a good portion of the signers of the Declaration went broke, many were tortured all of them suffered for signing that document…not one recanted their signature.) How do you not see the hand of providence in that?
If more divinely inspired words have been written, I do not know about them.
How do you not see it in:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Please tell me which passage of the Tanakh, the New Testament, the teaching of Buddha, the Gita, the Tao or any other holy book surpasses that passage in its understanding of the relationship between God and man (that we are given free will and liberty by our creator with the expectation that we will use them), that understands the teleology, the purpose, the end of life (to achieve Happiness), and how men should treat one another (not violating the rights of others, but setting up a society to protect them from those that do seek to violate those rights). The heart of metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and politics answered correctly in one sentence. And you don’t think God had anything to do with that? Do you see the hand of God in anything?
And then you look at our history. Time and time again, if Vegas odds makers had existed from the 1750’s to today, you would have bet against the survival of the U.S. over and over again. Yet somehow we’re still here. The history of America is often the history of convenient accidents. Convenient in that reinforcements were mistakenly diverted from helping General Burgoyne at the Battle of Saratoga, letting the Americans win when they most needed a win. Convenient that when Lee, a general of unquestionable skill, was a week’s march from capturing D.C. he has the 3 dumbest days of his life at a little town in Pennsylvania. Convenient that all of our carriers were out of harbor on December 6. Convenient that we found the Japanese Navy almost by chance at Midway. To name a few, there are so many others. In science, in economics, in politics, we have been blessed with having the right people in the right place in the right time over and over again. You can believe in chance, I don’t.
I don’t believe in chance and I don’t believe we get all these lucky breaks just because…
We make mistakes, and dear God have we made some abhorrent ones. Liberals love to point out all the evil things we have done, ignoring that at anytime in history, we didn’t even rank in anything but the top third of what the rest of the world was doing at that time. Oh and I know pointing that out is wrong, because that’s their culture. Oh that’s right anyone else does something worse than America and it’s racist to hold them to the same standard…but we have to hold America to the standard of perfection (which, ironically, shows that even liberals believe in American Exceptionalism, otherwise why hold it and it alone to such a standard). We’re not perfect, no one is. But we have always been the beacon that sings to the best in humanity, not the example that speaks to the worst.
We’re the nation that fought to create a republic where the haves and have nots gave equal measure. We’re the nation that fought our own citizens to free slaves. We’re the nation that pioneered capitalism and law that gave liberty and opportunity and progress to more people than any other country in history. We’re the place where “tired, the poor, the huddled masses” come to be energetic, successful and stand on their own feet. We’re the country that conquers whole nations so that others may be free then tries to rebuild them and then leaves without tribute or power. If you don’t think we’re the “shinning city on the hill” you don’t know history, philosophy or human nature. We’re not perfect, we’re not always right, but we are consistently the nation that calls for the best in humanity to put down the worst.
Too often I think people forget that this is a nation where people still regularly risk their life to get to. America-or-die isn’t a slogan it’s a fact of existence. Whether you were born here or came here you should take more than just a day out of every year to remember what a blessing this country is. Of course there are some ignorant jackasses out there, who don’t seem to understand this blessing who say “I didn’t sign up for a country that’s the rest of the world’s police, I just happened to be born into it.”
And these ideas are important. This is a nation founded on the purest, most noble ideas yet to grace the face of the Earth and even though we waver we always come back to them. And that is why I think we see the hand of Providence, yeah I said it, in our history. This country should have fallen by now, but it hasn’t and one or two times you could put it up to the American nature of not giving up and our ingenuity. But time and time again everything has lined up just right for us, in ways I can’t see for any other nation in modern history.
For some reason we have been pulled back from the brink, and I believe it is because of the truth and righteousness of our ideals. And we haven’t lived up to them yet. We haven’t spread them over the world. We haven’t finished being the shinning city on the hill. So I can’t see why we would have been pulled back all those other times and simply let go this time.
I have faith that some higher power has a purpose for America that has still yet to be completed, so I am not worried too much over the next few years. Yes I know they will be terrible, but I know that something better is on the other side. That what I fight for and strive for is not in vain and that I will not witness the end of this nation and its ideals, but rather see them rise again, stronger, brighter, more just and right than they ever have before.
And yes you can whine about how I’m believing in faith, and God, and something you don’t believe in. But odds are you’re one of the people I’m fighting against, so I don’t really care for anything you have to say about my faith.
And for those of you who do have faith but are having a hard time to have hope…do you really believe that the ideal this nation stands for would be abandoned after all this time? I doubt it.
So the latest pointless legislation to come from idiots on the left is the ‘Paycheck Fairness Act’:
Mikulski and DeLauro said the Paycheck Fairness Act would also allow women to seek punitive damages for pay discrimination, establish a grant program to strengthen salary negotiation and other workplace skills and require the Department of Labor to enhance outreach and training efforts to eliminate pay disparities.
Oh great more laws to enforce “fairness” between wages because of the myth that women earn less than men.
Yes because government programs, grants, Federal involvement in negations, and regulations will result in far more equal pay. This equal pay will of course come in the form of more unemployed people because grants, programs, regulations and overreach tends to result in the contraction of the economy. And everyone is equal when you don’t have a job. But don’t worry we have the Obama and his Jobs Council to help find those people new jobs…oh, wait, we don’t.
But at least we have the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to protect us. Obama said so in his inauguration.
Okay let’s first talk about the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act…or as I call it bullshit. What is it really? It’s a bone to the trial lawyers who now have legal cover to sue for perceived injustices that are decades old. It’s the exact opposite of the tort reform we so dearly need. Because it has nothing to do with equal pay.
But back to the myth that men make more than women. It’s only true if you ignore all relevant detail. It’s like saying that people in their 40’s make more than people in their 20’s and blaming age discrimination. Factually the wage gap is true, but it ignores all the relevant reasons as to why it’s true.
Did you know that when you correct for experience and education and the job then women of any age earn more? (See Thomas Sowell’s book Economic Facts and Fallacies for more on this) It’s just that women take these large swaths of time off from their careers…the Obama administration can find no explanation but sexism for the time women take off from their jobs.
Since women in their 20′s are making more than men in their 20′s, actually if you had equal work for equal pay it means most men should be making more…hmmm…..oh wait because we’ve put in card check and unfair practices at the federal labor board everyone will be in a unions with a few year whether they want to be or not. Thus we will all be getting paid the same, irrespective of education, work, merit, seniority or skill.
Or consider the fact that 93% of all workplace fatalities are men. Did anyone want to talk about workplace equality for this? Or did anyone want to consider this suggest that men are statistically taking more dangerous jobs which pay more for the risk, thus accounting for the discrepancy between wages when you consider ALL MEN and ALL WOMEN.
Yes when you consider all men to all women men make more. But when you look at the same job for two people with the same education and years of experience, women make more.
Women you want to make more? Take jobs that pay more and don’t take off time to have children. That’s all you have to do, value income more than a job you may enjoy and value income more than having a family. Statistically that’s all you have to do and you will make more than your male counterparts. You don’t need legislation.
(Of course if we took that route we might have to acknowledge things like Obama’s economics have hurt women more than men, or that Obama is funneling guns and combat jets to countries that treat women as little more than slaves, or that one of the few places women are paid less than men is Obama’s Administration, or that the real war on women might be gender selective abortions pushed by Planned Parenthood and defended by Democrats*)
In the end this is just another BS law by the left using government to infantilize people and make them feel entirely dependent on a government to protect them and take care of them.
*I’m pro-choice but I think even pro-choice people can admit that gender selective abortion are really sick…although ironically the people who would have such an abortion are the last people I would ever want to raise a child–it’s the sad irony of all abortion.
In amongst all of this brouhaha, there are some claims that we can all agree on “common sense gun control.” And this sounds reasonable. More strenuous background checks, preventing the mentally ill from getting guns, and the like. Of course all of these measures must be implemented by the government. You know the same government that gave the very guns it’s now claiming should be banned to Mexican Drug Cartels. I’m sorry but I would give a schizophrenic a gun before I give a gun to drug cartels (with the schizophrenic you might have a 50/50 chance they won’t do anything, with the cartels you have a 100% chance that mass murder will occur).
But I do believe in common sense gun control.
I believe in common sense gun control…but common sense gun control can only be instituted by a government that has common sense that means common sense spending, which means you do not spend more than you have. You do not believe that you can spend your way out of debt or into prosperity. Common sense requires that you ignore everything idiots like Krugman, Bernake, Geithner, Lew, and Keynes have ever said because common sense tells you their ideas are harmful and idiotic. Obviously I can’t trust the government to institute common sense spending.
Common sense gun control can only be instituted by a government that has common sense that means common sense taxation. It means you recognize that raising taxes on the rich will not solve anything, that if you raised taxes on the rich to 100% it wouldn’t begin to make even a dent in our year to year budget (let alone the complete national debt). Common sense taxation would show that the entire code is far far too complicated. Common sense taxation requires that you recognize that taxes only hurt the economy and never help, that they must all be cut and cut drastically if we are to get out of our problems. Obviously I can’t trust the government to institute common sense taxation.
Common sense gun control can only be instituted by a government that has common sense that means common sense regulation, which means understanding that regulations only harm, and that a government that has the best interest of the people and the economy in mind will only have the bare minimum amount of regulation. Obviously I can’t trust the government to institute common sense regulation.
Common sense gun control can only be instituted by a government that has common sense that means common sense foreign policy which means understanding that isolation is both foolish and immoral…and that the only thing more foolish would be to engage in getting rid of the bad guys without a plan (Bush) or being the ally of the very nations which are out to kill us (Obama). Thus using common sense you would never allow lunatics like Hagel, Kerry, Brennan near our foreign policy infrastructure. Obviously I can’t trust the government to institute common sense foreign policy.
Common sense gun control can only be instituted by a government that has common sense that means common sense legislation. Common sense legislature would not include bills longer than Russian novels or being told that you have to pass something to know what’s in it. Obviously I can’t trust the government to institute common sense legislation.
Common sense gun control can only be instituted by a government that has common sense that means common sense immigration. That would include things like real border security, real reform that allows workers to come in as guests, professionals to come in with an easy way to Visas and citizenship, stopping anchor babies and allowing immigrants to take handout from entitlements. Lots of things. It would not include amnesty and Dream Acts via illegal executive order. Obviously I can’t trust the government to institute common sense immigration.
Common sense gun control can only be instituted by a government that has common sense that means common sense welfare. That would mean work and education requirements. Time limits. Working to roll back the rolls not expand. Working to make more people get off welfare not get on. You can’t praise the life of the utterly indefensible Julia and you can’t roll back work requirements. Obviously I can’t trust the government to institute common sense welfare.
Until then there is no such thing as common sense gun control because even the most reasonable proposals will be carried out by over paid, over educated, life long bureaucratic idiots and will always be carried out to a very non-common sense, illogical and harmful extreme.
Common sense gun laws wouldn’t depend on gun free zone which we all know don’t work.
It wouldn’t be championed by people from the most violent cities with the strictest gun laws that show beyond a doubt that gun laws don’t work. (Oh and before you begin with that, but they get their guns in places without those gun laws arguments…one needs to ask why isn’t the crime just as high in those places with the lax laws? Oh maybe because in those places criminals know people will shoot back).
Common sense gun laws may sound like “we’re not going to take away your gun if you’re a law-abiding citizen.” But let’s be honest here, is anyone a law abiding citizen anymore? With all the federal, state, local laws, regulations, statutes and judgements are you sure you haven’t broken any of them? Can a human being even be expected to know all of them? But that might be the point.
But really that might be the point….Anyone remember this scene?
“Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against – then you’ll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We’re after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you’d better get wise to it. There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now, that’s the system, Mr. Rearden, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”
Common sense gun control would be to enforce the laws you have, not have prosecutions go down 45% from the previous administration.
And common sense has nothing to do with 23 executive orders that create commission and spend more money but do actually nothing.
Or let’s try this bit of common sense. Countries like the UK and Australia that don’t allow hand guns have higher violent crime than the US (much much higher). States and cities with stricter gun laws have more violent crime than those that don’t. There has never been a mass shooting at an NRA meeting or a gun show…there are lots of shooting in gun free zones. Common sense and statistics tells us that John Lott was right, “More guns, less crime.” But that would just be common sense.
So don’t talk to me about common sense gun laws until you have a government that can enforce common sense gun laws. Until then I, and you, are safest when we are armed and able to defend ourselves.
But maybe we should just listen to the inherent argument for gun control and why it isn’t needed for to protect us from the government.
(1) Our government would never ignore the rights enumerated in the Constitution so we don’t have to worry about needing guns to defend ourselves against the government
(2) Therefore we don’t need guns.
(3) Since we don’t need guns the government should confiscate them, to hell if it’s a right enumerated in the Constitution, ignore it.
(4) What do you mean you see a contradiction between points 1 and 3? I can’t hear you LALALALALALALALALA!
It’s been a month since the election…and as you can tell from the limited number of posts, I’m still kind of depressed about this (and overworked at work, but that’s another story). I’m still shell-shocked that people could be that stupid—even I, who believe the masses are idiots, can’t fully comprehend that people are so fucking stupid as to vote in a tyrant not once but twice. It baffles the mind. If you care about only what you can get you should have voted for the guy who would guarantee a higher chance at raises and better jobs: Romney. If you cared about other people you should have cared about the guy who would have done the most to improve the middle class: Mitt. If you care about character it would be the guy who personally does charity whenever he can: Willard Mitt Romney. Intelligence, that would be the guy who got his J.D. and MBA in the same 4 years: The Governor. Experience, class, vision, leadership, surrounding himself with qualified people. On every criteria you can come up with it’s a no brainer, but, but, but…
People are really fucking short sighted, envious and dumb.
But are we just powerless to do anything? Are we at the mercy of party leadership to pull us out of this tailspin the country has voted itself in (dear god that’s a depressing thought)? Luckily no. Unfortunately I’m not promising anything easy either.
So what can we as individuals do?
Well first I would like to turn back to the exit polls. Now looking at ethnicity or gender or even age is pointless because there is nothing we can do to change that. People are what they are. (Yes, age changes, but it’s not like we have any actual control over it).
Now education can change (complete shocker that Obama the no intelligence/no high school bracket and the no real world experience/postgraduate bracket) but unless you’re a parent most of us can’t really affect people’s education. If you are a parent, I might suggest that you state you’re not paying for any kind of college education unless they get a degree in the Math/Science area and thus have marketable skills (if they want to get a dual major and have a liberal art as well, well you can negotiate) but parents do not pay for Sociology degrees they are worthless and breed dumb liberals.
Next we turn to gender and marriage status. A lot of to do was made about women in this election, but as you see it wasn’t really women so much as single women. And I have seen conservative writers talk about how the single women pose a threat to liberty as they seem to look to the government for the security nets…but it if you look at the data single men are also pretty dumb. The conclusion I’m drawing here isn’t that women are liberal, it’s that single people on the whole are liberal and need to be stopped. (Yes, I as a bachelor, may not want to throw stones in a glass house, but I’m not as dumb as my fellow singles who voted for Barry…but if you are or know any single, intelligent, conservative, spiritually open women in the Phoenix area…well…my email address is posted…). Now does this mean we should all go out and get married without standards or relationships, that marriage is an end unto itself. No. One of the reasons we have a high divorce rate is that people don’t take the time to plan and make sure they’re making a right choice. So really unless you want to start playing matchmaker which some of us are more qualified than others (this would certainly not be a skill of mine).
And then we see that Obama did well with the non-religious crowd* and Romney did well with the religious crowd. Let me put these last two points in context. It doesn’t have as much to do with faith or companionship. For a lot of people it is an issue of safety. If you have a spouse, if you have an active church community you have someone you know you can fall back on if things go bad, if you don’t have these things, then the psychology of most people is to seek something you can fall back on: the government. Now I would rather people evolve and see themselves as their fallback (or at least maybe God) but if we’re going to get there we first have to have an economic system that allows people to take care of themselves (i.e. we need to get rid of liberals and progressives at every level).
So what does this have to do with religion? Well it means that if you’re a member of a church you need to encourage, push for, and if necessary demand, that your church be more active in the community—charity, public works and improvement projects, fundraisers not for the church but those honestly in need. This should have nothing to do with demonization or dogma. Only about helping the community and strengthening the bonds of community.
If you’re not in a church, say a New Ager, it couldn’t hurt to find a non-pushy church out there and see if they would like help with those charity projects.
If you’re in a church that does do these kinds of charity projects then see if you can invite people you know to help, don’t proselytize, don’t make it about belief, only about helping others. (Also may I suggest making your charity functions known to the local middle and high schools—students, especially college bound students, are more and more looking for community service on their resumes—and let them know their parents are invited as well).
This has nothing to do with dogma, it has to with a core tenet in every religion I can think of, charity, community, compassion.
Show people that government isn’t the only source that they can fall back on. Look at it this way, the way people talk about others often shows how they themselves think. I call it the “I am the world” fallacy, and I’m guilty of it myself sometimes, we all are. We tend to make assumptions about the way people act based on our own habits and thoughts. Conservatives naturally tend to think that the government isn’t needed because we ourselves are more generous and just assume everybody does the right thing. Liberals assume others are avaricious, cruel, irrationally selfish, and miserly not because they’re saints and know everyone else is stingy, but because they themselves are not compassionate at their heart—they fear they will have no one to fall back on because in their heart of heart they know they won’t help other either. (Liberals give to charity less than conservatives and they volunteer a hell of a lot less than conservatives, see Who Really Cares by Arthur C. Brooks).
But if we get people who might not usually attend church to come to charity events we can show them that people do care for people and that we don’t need government to care for us…and maybe we can even show them there is personal joy in compassion and charity. Trust me, a person who does charity out of the joy it brings them never votes liberal, liberals give out of guilt not joy.
So get your church (or any other group that has the resources) involved in the community (if you’re not doing at least 3 events a month, it’s not enough), invite people to come just for the charity aspect, and watch their belief that the government is the only one looking out for them disappear (also with more human contact and larger social circles we might fix that single problem listed above).
Also this process will help destroy that one thing that Obama did well in “He cares about people like me.”
Charity and a strong community teach us that we are capable of caring for people who aren’t like ourselves.
But that can’t be all we have to do. Liberals have done a great job with controlling the media. News, movies, TV shows, you name it there are liberal messages. But we cannot give in on this.
So there are a few things we can do. The first is that we can try to pull their funding. Here at the Conservative New Ager we’re going after that Goebbels style propaganda wing MSNBC. We encourage people to write to their advertisers and pull their ads. It works. If a company just gets a hundred letters asking them to make sure the shows they are advertising on are only reporting the truth, they will either pull the ads or they will use the power their money buys them to get results. We have already heard from P&G and UPS.
The next thing is that we need to expose people to the truth. I would recommend everyone use all the social media they have to expose their friends to the truth. Now you don’t have to repost a thousand articles every day, but don’t be afraid to share something for fear of losing a friend. For everyone you lose you’ll likely help push a two or three that much closer to the truth. (And if you’re like me you don’t have many liberal friends left anyway, it’s the middle we’re trying to win, not the ones beyond hope).
Also if you get a real newspaper (there aren’t many left: The Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times…if it uses AP articles don’t bother) take it to work and leave it in the break room every day. It can only help expose people to the truth.
But on that note we need to share the media that is conservative we need to focus on the stuff that isn’t the news and isn’t explicitly political. Liberals have tried to infect every book, every movie, every show with liberal messages and just habituate people into thinking in liberal terms. The problem is that most good literature is more conservative in its themes. Self sufficiency, rational thought, ethical behavior, connection to God. These subtle themes are in literature everywhere, even when it’s written by artists who are liberal themselves. George Orwell was a socialist, but 1984 and Animal Farm are scathing critiques of the very state Orwell would likely have supported. Given time, the truth will out, as a conservative writer once put it. What conservatives make the mistake of doing is trying to give people Atlas Shrugged and Ann Coulter and Thomas Sowell. It doesn’t matter that we enjoy those, those books only preach to the choir. If someone isn’t open to those ideas, if they’ve been indoctrinated to think conservatives are evil, Rand was psychotic, Coulter is vicious and Sowell is an Uncle Tom, it doesn’t matter if the facts are there, their emotional reaction to those works will prevent them from seeing the facts.
But that doesn’t mean you can’t share books and TV shows with friends, family, acquaintances. I’m sure we know lots of people who are not conservative but if they were introduced to those ideas the logic and reason of it would come out. That is why I am putting together a list of books, movies and TV shows that depict the conservative themes and that we agree with, without being explicitly conservative. The Individual, reason, ethical behavior, long term thinking, the truth. These are things that bring people close to conservatism. I would take a look at this list (and keep coming back as I hope to keep adding to it). Lend these works out to people who you think might be open to them. Give them as gifts for any holiday and any excuse you can. And then discuss them with the person after they’ve read or watched it (never give out something you’re not familiar with already! You don’t want to get caught where they make some silly liberal interpretation and don’t have a comeback for it). It seems silly but ideas have power, and once they’re in a person’s mind they spread not just to affecting the other ideas of that mind but in the way they behave to others and the way they influence the ideas of others. And if they get more conservative in their thoughts introduce them to the more explicitly conservative works…but don’t start with those, they’ll just shut people down.
Finally it’s the old stand-bys. Write a blog or letters to editors. Donate to organizations that promote your beliefs (right now I would focus on Heritage and Freedomwork because they do not seem overly obsessed with the social issues which are dragging this party down and giving the left too many easy targets), volunteer for campaigns, get involved. We have four years where we can do next to nothing to save the economy or well being of our allies across the sea. Nothing. We have this idiot tyrant in charge and he will wreck the place as much as he can through a combination of stupidity and malice. Focusing too much on that will be somewhat fruitless for us as individuals—but as individuals we do have the power to influence those around us and help bring them to our side.
*Also Obama did exceedingly well with people who aren’t not affiliated with any religion but are spiritual you know, the kind of people the Republicans and Reincarnation was written specifically for. If you know some of these people, could it hurt to give them a copy?
Okay so I needed to reflect on the election for some time before I wrote anything meaningful on this. Quick statements just to fill air time have over the past couple of weeks mainly been ignorant, self-serving or just stupid.
Why I was wrong
I was wrong because I made the incorrect assumption to trust that polls like Rasmussen would continue to be the most accurate.
I was wrong because I made the incorrect assumption to trust equally respected polls that showed huge Republican enthusiasm which would usually mean that the Rasmussen polls were off in favor of Republicans.
I was wrong because I simply assumed PPP polls would continue to hack partisan polls that were never all that close.
I was wrong because I assumed Democratic cheating wouldn’t be as effective as it was.
I was wrong because I, even I who have a very low opinion of people, couldn’t possibly conceive of people being so fucking dumb that they would reelect this idiotic wanna-be-despot. I really couldn’t believe America could be that dumb.
Why We Lost
First off, between counties that had over 100% turnout, military ballots being sent out at wrong times and then going missing, programmers saying every electronic machine was rigged, and buses of immigrants showing up to vote out of the blue, the fact is that there appears to be a heavy amount of cheating going on by the Democratic party. I’d say I’m shocked but I’m not. This is what democrats do. Now is every accusation of cheating real, doubt it, and fewer still are provable, but you’re living in la-la land if you think elections have been on the up and up when it comes to Democratic votes…it’s how they’ve won elections ever since Joe Kennedy bought the election back in 1960.
But I was expecting cheating and fraud…which means either the Democrats have gotten even better at it, or, as I’m more afraid is the truth, people were kind of dumb on November 6th. The fact that cheating was enough to sway the election means that we have problems because this shouldn’t have even been close, this should have been a landslide against Obama and yet it wasn’t. So that can’t be the only problem. What else went wrong?
We can also blame the media. Almost every reporter on the Romney trail and most of the major outlets were trying to find gaffes and slip ups. They were actively trying to portray him in the worst possible light. And they were conveniently ignoring everything about Obama and his record, including, low and behold that Obama let 4 Americans die through his depraved indifference because he thought going in might be bad for his reelection. But we can’t lay full blame on the media, because as annoying and biased as they are, there’s Drudge, there’s FOXNews, there’s Breitbart and the Blaze and Twitter and NewsBusted and the Washington Times and the Heritage Foundation and a 101 other sources. The information was there if people just listened.
Well apparently the ground game was abysmal from the GOP and great from Obama’s side. Now part of this is that Obama used his obscene huge data mine to play his usual game of divisive politics (more on this later) Part of the problem is also that Romney’s system which was supposed to help make sure all GOP voters got to the polls, ORCA, failed on election day—hmmm, an online system to help conservatives failed…I’m going to offer 50/50 odds that the terrorists known as Anonymous might have had something to with this. But whether they did or not, I have to ask where was the ground game for the GOP House, for the GOP Senate, from local state parties? As usual the entire party disappoints me. We had a terrible ground game and did not do enough to get people to the polls.
Now many idiots (Santorum, Gingrich, Levin, etc) want to blame Romney. This is beyond wrong because Romney didn’t do anything wrong. As Ann Coulter points out Romney wasn’t the problem. Romney was a conservative’s conservative. Now I think Romney was not as much of a fighter as he could have been…but I don’t think that would have made a difference because every time he tried to hit the worthless jackass hard the media spun it as Romney was a terrible person…so is it Romney wasn’t a fighter or is it that Romney just knew to avoid a fight he couldn’t win?
But even with all of that why did we lose? Well because Romney was right. There is a portion of this country that thinks they’re entitled to shit and Obama targeted specific groups and pandering to them by giving them gifts.
Oh before you dare complain about that statement, let’s look at a few facts.
According to the exit polls here are the groups Obama did really well with (I’m defining really as over 10%) Women, those under 30, non-white voters, those with a high school diploma or less (he was +29 with those with no diploma), the LGBT crowd, those people who never get out of academia known as the post graduate crowd, those making under 50K, people who do not go to church very often.
Hmmm let’s look at those groups again.
Women…pandered to with the fake war on women and Fluke’s endlessly whining.
Under 30…pandered to with promises of more college money (by the way you do know he’s cutting Pell grants right?)
Those without education and making less than 50K pandered to food stamps and welfare and a whole lot of other entitlements. As Dennis Miller points out you can make close to 45K just by living off the dole these days.
And those with Post Graduate degrees (already being fairly clueless of how the real world works) he pandered to with promises of more teaching jobs.
The LGBT crowd with promises of gay marriage (then turned around and said it wouldn’t be a priority for him).
And the largest group with the non Caucasian crowd, Latinos, he gave that Dream Act amnesty with the implication more was on the way.
Yes how terrible of Romney to point out that that Obama’s giving out things and making promises to specific groups was giving out things and making promises to specific groups. How dare he pay attention to the man behind the curtain and not just fall in line with the typical intentional ignorance of what is going on?
Obama divided people into groups, played on the most base impulses and fears of any individual and treated them as he sees them, only as groups. And this worked for him because education, media and the government have treated people only as groups for years. And we lost because of that.
Now the knee jerk reaction might be to start playing their game of identify politics, as some have suggested. But this is a losing strategy. The only way to win identify politics, to say that this group values things that other group don’t, is Obama’s way to give out gifts. We are conservatives, we believe in ideas, in values and in individuals, and to treat people as only members of groups is to betray our values and forget everything that makes America, America. Now there are things we need to do, and I’m going to go into more detail on that soon, but we must realize we lost because for years they have been playing this game of divisiveness and hatred and that we haven’t confronted it head on is the reason we lost.
“Mr. Rearden,” said Francisco, his voice solemnly calm, “if you saw Atlas, the giant who holds the world on his shoulders, if you saw that he stood, blood running down his chest, his knees buckling, his arms trembling but still trying to hold the world aloft with the last of his strength, and the greater his effort the heavier the world bore down upon his shoulders-what would you tell him to do?”
“I . . . don’t know. What . . . could he do? What would you tell him?”
To keep doing what he knew in his heart to be right, no matter the cost, no matter the struggle.
So in amongst all the stupid idiots claiming that Romney didn’t win because he wasn’t conservative enough (yes, because his economics were more conservative than Reagan’s, his foreign policy was as conservative as Reagan’s and like Reagan he seemed to have a certain libertarian streak for social issues at the federal level…no, not conservative at all) and all the bickering over “demographics are destiny” (possibly the stupidest line I’ve ever heard), I heard a very bleak assessment by Dennis Miler:
I like a country where people bust their tuckus, and I think this country’s gone a long way towards becoming more of a European model. And I would say, once again, read the book, Amity Shlaes’ book, The Forgotten Man. If you are out there now making $45,000 a year, busting your hump, being away from your family because it’s in your hard drive to do the ‘right thing’– the ‘right thing’ changed in this country yesterday. You can get close to that from the government. And I’m telling you, when Nancy Pelosi said ‘kids take some time off, read a book, learn an instrument’ well listen it’s not always about kids, sometimes it’s about these hard working guys out there who I feel sorry for. And I would tell them, get in the hand out line, don’t get in the hand down line anymore—it doesn’t make sense.
I understand where Miller is coming from…all too well. That’s what is so disheartening about this election is that 62 million people voted to ensure that the 300 million in this nation will continue to suffer, continue to struggle, continue to lose what they have made and continue to work for what must seem to no avail. And damn them and their shortsighted grasping evil ways. They voted in a tyrant that will hurt the people of this nation and the world. And it just hurts to see that there is nothing we can do about it right now.
But Miller is wrong; the right thing did not change on Election Day.
The right thing before the election and after is to do what is right. And it will never be right to take something that has been stolen from another person. It will never be right not do everything in your power to make your life, your family’s life and the world around you better through whatever means you have.
I understand what Miller is saying, and I understand why he feels that way. But I cannot give up. It is just not in my nature. I was pretty depressed on Tuesday night and I even briefly took a longer than usual look at all those emails I get with offers to teach overseas (they were still not tempting enough). But what got me through were two things. The first was my faith in the universe that everything happens for a reason and that eventually everything will work out as it should—even if there are periods of extreme pain and suffering.
The second were two quotes.
The first was from one of my preferred British politicians, Tony Blair:
That’s what we’re fighting for. And it’s a battle worth fighting.
And I know it’s hard on America, and in some small corner of this vast country, out in Nevada or Idaho or these places I’ve never been to, but always wanted to go…
I know out there there’s a guy getting on with his life, perfectly happily, minding his own business, saying to you, the political leaders of this country, “Why me? And why us? And why America?”
And the only answer is, “Because destiny put you in this place in history, in this moment in time, and the task is yours to do.”
The quote may have originally been about the war in Iraq, but the sentiment is still true. There is right and there is wrong. There are policies that promote liberty and there are those that promote tyranny. It doesn’t matter if you want the fight or not, if the fight is there and you recognize right from wrong then “destiny put you in this place in history, in this moment in time, and the task is yours to do.”
But what if I just let some else do it?
And that’s where the second quote comes in, from one of the greatest movies ever made: Casablanca.
When asked why we fight, the character of Victor Laszlo gives the perfect answer.
Rick: Don’t you sometimes wonder if it’s worth all this? I mean what you’re fighting for.
Victor Laszlo: You might as well question why we breathe. If we stop breathing, we’ll die. If we stop fighting our enemies, the world will die.
There is right and there is wrong. Good and evil. And every step Obama has made has been in the absolute wrong direction, and I have no faith he’s going to change course. (If he did, hell I’d support him—but I’m not so stupid as to think for one second he will). And thus whatever limited power I have through this blog, through my interactions with others; I have to use to push against this man and the ideology he represents.
Capitalism. Liberty. The Individual. What is Right, and Good, and True, and Just. America. These are things worth fighting for, regardless of whether we win or not. The fight holds its own virtue and is never in vain, for even if we don’t win this battle, or the next, or the next we provide the groundwork for the next person to pick up where we left off.
I’m not terribly convinced I’m going to win this fight in the short run. A miracle could always happen, but only a fool bets on them. But we do what is right because it is right, not because we are assured of winning. Yes there are times to make tactical retreats (which I think everyone forgets Atlas Shrugged was supposed to be, but Rand in her ever inefficient way hammered the let them have what they want point and forgot to hammer harder the point of we need to do this to have a chance to actually win in the long run) but that does not mean give up. So despite the taunting of some trolls, and despite Miller’s depressed statement. I will still be my workaholic self, because to be anything less would not be true to myself and for me would be unethical. And I will continue to use this blog and any other means I can find to advocate for what I believe to be true. Now I’m also going to divert a lot of the energy I’ve put into the blog for the last year into other projects I have neglected…
…but I will not shrug. And I hope I am not the only one.
So I recently said that I am tired of Obama claiming that he inherited this mess, that he prevented us from falling into another Great Depression, or that we can’t go back to the failed policies of the past as if it wasn’t his party instituting the failed policies that are actually to blame. All of these lines are lies. And I showed how Obama and his party’s policies are what caused the economic problems he likes to blame others for. Now, in what is to be my last attack on Obama (because after this Tuesday he will no longer be relevant) it’s time to deal with that second part that he prevented the next Great Depression and that we can’t go back to policies that didn’t work.
First let’s deal with he prevented the next Great Depression.
Now as anyone who has read Friedman or Shale’s The Forgotten Man knows that the Great Depression itself was extended by the idiocy of Congress, the Fed, and of course, moron-in-chief FDR (the man who showed great character by taking the popular step to send a boatload of Jews back to Nazi Germany…I don’t believe in Hell, but if it exists, FDR burns there). If not for those idiots trying to “fix” things the Great Depression would have been over before FDR even got into office and it certainly shouldn’t have lasted until the US got involved in WWII. Why did the Great Depression last so long, because government got involved. Why did the so called “Great Recession” (stupid name if ever there was one) last so long, you guessed it, because government got involved.
Now I could write volumes on what Obama could have done (lowered regulation, permanent tax cuts, trade negotiations, stable foreign policy…) but let’s focus on what he did do that caused this recession to last longer.
Cash for Clunkers: A ridiculous attempt to bolster GM that’s only had the side effect of subsidizing some people who were already going to get a new car and reducing the number of cheap used cars out there (which inflated the price of what remained on the market). Your car broke down? I’m sorry you’ll have to get an over priced car that you can’t afford because Obama’s policies lowered the supply in the market. And hey, GM is still broke. This means that there was less money available to the average person, less mobility for young people (which depresses spending…and that becomes cyclical in its harm)…so forth and so on.
The Stimulus! Let’s direct tons of money to Obama’s crony friends so they can line their own pockets and not create jobs (oh sure there were some businesses that would take out government money to build places like Solyndra which would employee people for a short while and then go bankrupt). This has the effect of driving up our debt and diverting resources from where they could be used productively. The debt then caused the rather hefty inflation problems we now have that makes our money worth nothing.
Unions The Obama administration has given unprecedented and preposterous support of unions. For instance they illegally backed the unions when Boeing wanted to move their production plant to a right to work state, the government stopped them. Yes the government said you can’t open a business where you want to (and you wonder why companies are leaving for foreign shores?). And Boeing is just one example of pervasive habits on the part of this administration to give unions everything they want and then some. This limits job opportunities and it radically raises the costs of finished products.
Obamacare. Do we have to go over why this kills business and growth?
Taxes Taxes. But he cut he cut taxes, he extended the Bush tax cuts, he cut the Social Security withholdings. Okay as to extending the Bush tax cuts. Cutting taxes is nice, but if you want taxes to have an effect on the economy long term you can’t have them come with sunset dates. Either have them as permanent as any law or don’t have them because businesses will rightly plan for when those taxes go away. So while he claimed he cut taxes he still ensured all the instability and worry that comes from high taxes.
Oh and cutting Social Security deductions just made an already underfunded system more underfunded which helped lower our credit rating and reduce the real value of our money.
Keystone Obama stopped the Keystone Pipeline. Lots of long term jobs, which would turn in lots of long term jobs in oil refining, which would translate into lower energy costs and more stability in the energy market. Thanks Barry for not doing that.
Oh, also thank you for increase regulation, less drilling and constant attacks on every other energy source.
Simpson Bowles Debt Commission Obama commissioned a plan on how to fix the debt…and while I wasn’t thrilled with everything about it, it would have been better than nothing. But he didn’t back his own debt commission! This also helped weaken the economy on numerous levels.
Everything, EVERYTHING, without exception this man has done has weakened the economy both long and short term. If he had just done nothing the economy would have recovered, but his actions have worked to worsen the economy.
However Obama has said one thing I will agree with we can’t return to the failed policies of the past.
Policies like Bush’s and Obama’s useless stimulus packages which did nothing but long term harm.
Policies like Bush and Obama putting a fucking idiot like Bernanke in charge of the Fed.
Policies like taking the Community Reinvestment Act of Carter and Clinton which caused the housing bubble and going for it again, like Obama wants.
Policies like the lack of even an attempt to reign in the size of government (every president in the last 100 years except Reagan).
Policies like cronyism and corporate welfare (Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama).
Policies that don’t have real and permanent tax reform (Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama).
Policies like expanding the scope of the government, creating new regulations (Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama).
A complete lack of tort reform.
Or an idiotic foreign policy.
Basically anything that is opposed to free market capitalism (Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama). These are the policies that have not worked. These are the policies of Barack Obama. These are the policies we cannot afford to go back to.
This is clearly not the most detailed blog I’ve ever done, but let’s be honest, I’ve gone over all of these time and again. Obama helped create his mess, continued his mess, and wants to continue it even further.
I am tired of Obama claiming that he inherited this mess, that he prevented us from falling into another Great Depression, or that we can’t go back to the failed policies of the past as if it wasn’t his party instituting the failed policies that are actually to blame. All of these lines are lies.
So let’s take these one at a time.
The first is that he inherited a bad economy. The truth is that he helped cause it.
Now how do I justify that?
Well think about the nature of what we say caused something. For instance if someone has HIV and dies, it’s not as simple as saying they have HIV and it killed them. It’s that they have HIV, which caused AIDS, which allowed a flu virus to wreak havoc on their body, caused pneumonia which causes their lungs to fill with water stress the cardio vascular system and either die from drowning or heart failure.
The economy works in a similarly complex way. The Great Depression wasn’t caused by a single point. The terms of the Treaty of Versailles weakened the international economy, caused gross inflation and many nations to default on loans, which hit at the same time as the bust in the natural boom and bust cycle of the US economy. Now if this were the only problem the late 20’s would have seen a strong recession but little else. Rather the US Congress in its usual stupidity considered the grossly idiotic Smoot-Hawley Tariff which would further depress the economy if implemented. Businesses seeing that the tariff would be passed and not being idiots, prepared for worse economic times and pulled back on labor and investment. This is what businesses do when they see bad times ahead, they cut, they save, they batten down the hatches so that they are lean enough and have enough reserves so that they can survive the bad times and still be around for the good times when they come again. (Remember this point I’m going to come back to it). This pullback to survive the coming bad times, combined with being at the height of an investment bubble, some bad banking policy, and the press overhyping the seriousness of the stock market, resulted in Black Tuesday. Now the government turned a moderate recession into a bad one with just the rumor of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff…but then they did two thing that were even worse. The first was that they actually passed the stupid tariff which further hurt trade and then the Federal Reserve, whose almost sole point during this period was to provide short term funds to get us out of emotional portions of panics and economic down turns, didn’t just not provide the funds which they were created to provide, but clamped down on funds and drastically pulled back on funds reducing the stock of money (the opposite of their intended purpose) which caused even more panic*, runs on banks, foreclosures and a whole host of other ripple effects which we call the Great Depression. (This was then further exacerbated by FDR’s policies which turned a depression of a couple years into a decade of suffering). (Am I simplifying here? Yeah. But let’s be honest you were already bored, you don’t want me going further into technicalities).
The point of these two examples is that there are structural problem (HIV and AIDS in the medical example; the boom and bust cycle, issues with banking structure, and the economic problems caused by Versailles in the economic one) and there are inciting incidents that cause the underlying problems to come out with a vengeance (contracting the flu or just considering the Smoot-Hawley Tariff).
How does all of this relate to Obama being the cause of the mess he said he inherited?
Well let’s deal with the structural problems in 2008. High debt (caused by both Democrats** and Republicans over spending), the government forcing banks to make bad loans via the Community Reinvestment Act, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (all Democrats to blame there) which caused a housing bubble, the threat of taxes being raised (Democrats to blame as they wouldn’t allow the Bush tax cuts to be permanent), energy price problems (mainly Dems to blame), corporate welfare weakening the fundamentals of businesses (most Dems, but also the GOP to blame), and over regulation getting in the way of commerce (again mostly Dems to blame).
But these had been issues for years so what was the inciting cause, the thing that made the bubble burst, and more importantly that prevented the usual kind of recovery we generally see in a boom and bust cycle?
Well we could probably find the cause by looking at how business reacts to changes in the political field. As I said before, businesses aren’t stupid, they make long term predictions based on likely outcomes so that they can survive the coming disaster. Under this assumption you would likely see them cutting the fat in their business within a month or so of a development that bodes poorly for the economy (I say a month because it takes about that amount of time for a corporate structure to decide which investments to cut and how many employees they need to shave off the rolls).
So let’s take a look at the job losses in 2008.
Now from this it is clear 2008 starts off bad but most of that initial loss you would usually see in a stagnant economy as those are the losses from seasonal jobs. What we actually see are two major changes: one in March where we shift from just mild trimming of the fat to full on cuts, and another in August which starts off a major firing phase. So if it takes a month to respond to what happened in February and July of 2008? Well in February Romney dropped out of the race telling businesses they were going to get stuck with center left Clinton, liberal McCain or socialist Obama…none of these good options. And in July it became obvious to everyone that Obama had the election. Amazing that every time that Obama went up in the polls losses grew. It’s almost as if business hearing the socialist shit he was peddling knew they were in for very long economic hardship…oh wait that’s exactly what they did.
Obama is the inciting incident that like the Smoot-Hawley Tariff sparked all the problems in the system to come to fruition. These were structural problems that for the most part existed for all of his predecessors as well, but only he brought out the worst in this situation. He didn’t inherit a mess, he created one. He took an unstable situation and was the very thing needed to make bad, worse. Yes others others, many others, are to blame for creating the structural problems (Bush included for being so weak willed and liberal in his attitude to the economy), but that doesn’t change the fact that Obama is the touchstone that set the whole mess aflame. And as we’ll see it was Obama who took this bad situation and made it much, much worse.
Now I know I still have to deal with his claims that that he prevented us from falling into another Great Depression, or that we can’t go back to the failed policies of the past as if he wasn’t already instituting the failed policies that are actually to blame…but this blog is already 4 pages long and the most common complaint I get is that these blogs are too long…so I’ll deal with them in follow up blogs.
*Nowadays the Fed has gone to the other idiotic extremes and instead of providing limited amounts of short term funds to help get through the emotion driven lows, they’re pumping money in by the boat load which is as disastrous and idiotic as pulling back.
**And when I say Democrats I’m including RINOs who will always turn on their supposed conservative beliefs just to get their own pork projects…Ron Paul and John McCain come to mind.
Paul Krugman is at it again. After having to make up lies to try and face off against Senator Rand Paul (He claimed the federal workforce is down under Obama…as blatant a lie as you can get…state and local employment is down, federal employment is up, way up) he further shows off his idiocy with a brand new rant of lies and desperation to keep Obama in power.
In “Obstruct and Exploit” he makes the rather farcical claim that the economy is not the fault of the Democrats (the Democrats who control the Senate and refuse to pass the budget) as good people and the Republicans are evil obstructionists.
Actually he makes several bizarre claims…like that Romney is a Keynesian who wants to use military spending to create jobs. Paul, I know you’re a dimwitted hack, but do you know how to listen to speeches or how to read policy papers? Romney is concerned primarily about defense spending because with Chinese expansion in the Pacific, a resurgent al-Qaeda from the Arab Spring, and Putin wanting to reestablish the Soviet Empire you’d have to be as dumb as Ron Paul or Neville Chamberlain to not see that maybe we might need an American military to deal with problems that are obviously coming. The fact that cutting defense would cut jobs merely tangential to the discussion, but true. The goal of Romney’s policies with defense spending are to protect America and Classical Liberalism in general, not to create jobs. But you’d have to actually read his statements to know that.
But let’s actually deal with the heart of his argument. You can’t blame Obama because his ideas have been stopped at every turn (let’s ignore that Obama had a Democratic Congress for two years and only did things that ruined the economy…yes I’m sure Obama would have suddenly come up with good ideas if his party was still in power…). For instance Obama has the American Jobs Act, which Krugman implies would have saved America. (Again let’s ignore that not all of Obama’s Democrats voted for the bill.) As Krugman points out “Obama proposed boosting the economy with a combination of tax cuts and spending increases,” (and let’s ignore the 5.6% tax increase on the wealthy that was in the bill so we can’t call it a tax cut, chalk another lie up to Paul Krugman). I’m personally stunned just at the statement lower taxes and raise spending…cause the raising of our debt even further is a bright idea how Paul? Show me cut taxes and cut spending and cut regulation and then you might have a plan that would work.
But let’s go over the AJA to see what it has in it. That Krugman in his infinite idiocy thinks would work…and for fun let’s compare the points from the Romney plan.
So here are the points of the bill according to the White House web page (and keep in mind this bill may be dead, but these are Obama’s ideas and this is what he will have in a second term so it is relevant even if this bill died).
- Cutting the payroll tax in half for 98 percent of businesses:
- A complete payroll tax holiday for added workers or increased wages
- Cutting payroll taxes in half for 160 million workers next year
So let me get this straight here, further making Social Security unsound is a good thing? Yes I love having more money, and I would love if we were to privatize the whole thing, just paying off on benefits for everyone who is going to be on Social Security in the next 10 years…but that’s not what this is. It’s keeping the same Ponzi scheme but simply making it more insolvent. Good plan genius. You know I like the extra money, and I hate social security…but under this plan it will cost me and future generations more in the long run.
Meanwhile the Romney plan offers real tax cuts that will actually spur growth of business (i.e. job growth) and actually end up putting more money in your pocket. (All points of Romney’s are taken from his 59 point plan and are italicized…Romney has a lot more than that plan…but I’m trying to be fair here and compare one bullet pointed plan to another…if I actually compared substantive proposals of Romney to what passes as substance from Obama it would just be more embarrassing for the President and Krugman)
Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains
Eliminate the death tax
Pursue a conservative overhaul of the tax system over the long term that includes lower,
flatter rates on a broader base
Reduce corporate income tax rate to 25 percent
- Extending 100% expensing into 2012
- Reforms and regulatory reductions to help entrepreneurs and small businesses access capital.
So we’re going to force more banks to make more bad loans (probably to Obama cronies like every other Obama “investment”) and we’re then going to let them write off the investment they made with money that banks were forced to give them (and if every other Obama venture is any indication they’ll be allowed to pocket the money, declare bankruptcy and have the loans forgiven by Obama). And as icing I’m sure Obama will blame the banks again for the effect on the economy.
And instead of regulations designed to help Obama supporters, Romney has real regulation reform in his plan that will help every business.
Repeal Dodd-Frank and replace with streamlined, modern regulatory framework
Amend Sarbanes-Oxley to relieve mid-size companies from onerous requirements
Initiate review and elimination of all Obama-era regulations that unduly burden the economy
Impose a regulatory cap of zero dollars on all federal agencies
Require congressional approval of all new “major” regulations
- A “Returning Heroes” hiring tax credit for veterans
Again picking winners and losers, not what the government should be doing. Not improving the economy to actually create more jobs, we’re just going to make it a good call for businesses to fire their existing employees, hire new ones (probably at a lower rate) and a tax write off for it. (Now the good news is most businesses won’t behave in this terrible fashion…except, you know, the kind of bastards who pay off Obama for crony connections).
Screw helping this group or that group, Romney has the reform that will kill the single biggest killer of jobs there is:
- Preventing up to 280,000 teacher layoffs, while keeping cops and firefighters on the job.
- Modernizing at least 35,000 public schools across the country, supporting new science labs, Internet-ready classrooms and renovations at schools across the country, in rural and urban areas.
Yeah that’s it, we need the federal government getting involved in local and state matters. Oh, and given the spectacular behavior of teachers in Chicago, getting an average of $76,000 a year (before benefits) to get 80% of students to learn nothing…it’s clear that what the education system needs is new facilities and keeping all the current teachers…and not, you know fire all the union pieces of shit who offend the very profession of teaching by daring to call their pathetic behavior teaching.
You really want to help workers and really want to get better hiring practices for not only government but all employees try these points from the Romney plan:
Appoint to the NLRB experienced individuals with respect for the rule of law
Amend NLRA to explicitly protect the right of business owners to allocate their capital as they see fit
Amend NLRA to guarantee the secret ballot in every union certification election
Amend NLRA to guarantee that all pre-election campaigns last at least one month
Or maybe let states deal with their own problems.
Give states authority to manage retraining programs by block granting federal funds
- Immediate investments in infrastructure and a bipartisan National Infrastructure Bank
Oh great because the Fed wasn’t enough, you need a new bank to fund your own bad behavior even more.
You can talk infrastructure build up…or you can reduce the regulations that prevent the private sector from building that infrastructure, like in the Romney Plan
Establish fixed timetables for all resource development approvals
Create one-stop shop to streamline permitting process for approval of common activities
Implement fast-track procedures for companies with established safety records to conduct pre-approved activities in pre-approved areas
- A New “Project Rebuild”,
I’m sure that project is shovel ready and won’t be a waste like every other thing you’ve done.
I’ll take not killing a project that will actually create jobs and improve the economy over Obama’s shovel ready BS.
Support construction of pipelines to bring Canadian oil to the United States
- Expanding access to high-speed wireless
Holy shit, when did Internet become a right? You want Internet you buy it or go to Starbucks like everyone else…I am not subsidizing everyone’s ability to access porn on high speed wifi
I’ll take energy over wifi any day
Open America’s energy reserves for development
The most innovative reform to the unemployment insurance program in 40 years:
Because people need more incentives not to go find a job.
A $4,000 tax credit to employers for hiring long-term unemployed workers
Again, trying to get businesses to just create jobs isn’t going to work. You need to improve the fundamentals of an economy to create growth (which would include lowering taxes, lowering regulation, lowering government, lowering the deficit, strengthening the dollar, and getting free trade agreements—none of which this administration has done).
Or maybe you can be responsible for your own life
Facilitate the creation of Personal Re-employment Accounts
- Prohibiting employers from discriminating against unemployed workers
So you mean I can’t take into account whether a person was fired or not in deciding whether they’re going to be a good employee…like every other form of “discrimination” legislation in the last 30 years this is just a pay off to the trial lawyers and will result in even less growth and less jobs.
Or instead of making more bad lawsuits you could have real Tort reform.
Reform legal liability system to prevent spurious litigation
- Expanding job opportunities for low-income youth and adults through a fund for successful approaches for subsidized employment, innovative training programs and summer/year-round jobs for youth.
“Subsidized employment.” You’re kidding right? You’re going to pay people to hire people. (And keep in mind Obama was touting this plan as including tax cuts…so where exactly is the money for this coming from? Oh I forgot Obama won’t be happy until the debt is three times the size of the GDP.)
But how about rather than subsidizing hiring people but actually making a climate where you can actually hire good people.
Support states in pursuing Right-to-Work laws
Reverse executive orders issued by President Obama that tilt the playing field toward organized labor
- Allowing more Americans to refinance their mortgages at today’s near 4 percent interest rates
This would be a choice for the banks, not the government…which means the President is planning to control the banks even more and force them to do more stupid things…you know the behavior that got us into this mess.
There is no exact counterpart to this, but the fact is that Romney will not rule by fiat, like some people.
- 5Fully Paid for as Part of the President’s Long-Term Deficit Reduction Plan. To ensure that the American Jobs Act is fully paid for, the President will call on the Joint Committee to come up with additional deficit reduction necessary to pay for the Act and still meet its deficit target. The President will, in the coming days, release a detailed plan that will show how we can do that while achieving the additional deficit reduction necessary to meet the President’s broader goal of stabilizing our debt as a share of the economy.
The humor of this part speaks for itself.
But Romney does have some real plans on how to deal with the insane size of government
Immediately cut non-security discretionary spending by 5 percent
Reform and restructure Medicaid as block grant to states
Align wages and benefits of government workers with market rates
Reduce federal workforce by 10 percent via attrition
Cap federal spending at 20 percent of GDP
Undertake fundamental restructuring of government programs and services
Pursue a Balanced Budget Amendment
The fact of the matter is that Paul Krugman putting up Obama’s abysmal American Jobs Act as the better part of his proposed legislation shows you how unspeakably stupid Krugman is and how bereft of any real ideas Obama is. Romney has real plans not just platitudes that have some conception of how the economy works. Now I’ve breezed over a lot of Romney’s plans, I do this intentionally, I want you to go and do the research on your own and see for yourself that his plans are
But this is really just the tip of the iceberg.
Because Obama makes statements like this:
I said, I believe in American workers, I believe in this American industry, and now the American auto industry has come roaring back. Now I want to do the same thing with manufacturing jobs, not just in the auto industry, but in every industry.
Dear God in Heaven! EVERY INDUSTRY!
So we’re all supposed to run businesses like GM
Bloated union salaries. CEOs that are answerable not to boards and shareholders but to czars and wanna-be dictators. Practices that violate the bedrock principles of capitalism and screw shareholders out of their investment. No really the stock is in near free fall. Run your company to near bankruptcy by building overpriced green death traps that explode and that no one wants to buy. Lose your government investment somewhere in the realm of 25 Billion Dollars. A company that while going under is investing 600 Million in a British soccer team…??? And that is just a highlight of the problems with GM. This company has become so dysfunctional from top to bottom that the millisecond government help stops it will crumble like a house of cards in a hurricane.
God help us. If we ran every company in the nation like this cluster!@#$ the Dark Ages would look advanced by the time Obama was done.
So why does Obama want to run every industry like GM…hmmm…let’s see. That would mean that the government would own a large portion of the every company and the president would have the ability to fire every CEO and would have the power to appoint his people to run every industry.
Hey what do you call that where the government owns and runs every business?
It starts with an S….um…shit for brains…serious deluded…senseless…stupid…all good answers…but no, I think the word I’m looking for is SOCIALISM.
His words, not mine.
Now I want to do the same thing with manufacturing jobs, not just in the auto industry, but in every industry.
He wants to do the same thing he did with the auto industry, a complete government take over and revoking of basic principles, with every industry.
Go on, I really want to hear from liberals how that isn’t a textbook definition of socialism. Government ownership and control of every industry.
Granted you could go with he’s a blithering idiot and doesn’t know what the hell he’s saying, which I fully am willing to buy…but that is just as much an argument against him being allowed to go back for four more years.
But while I do believe Obama makes Forrest Gump look like Sherlock Holmes, I believe he meant and understood (well as well as Obama’s limited mind can understand anything). He wants to control everything. I don’t know if it’s because he believes he can make it better (to hell with the lack of evidence) or because he wants to destroy the whole system. It doesn’t matter. He does want to be in control of everything, of every aspect of government and industry. And just ignoring the horrific despotic and unconstitutional overtones of that idea…let’s not forget that he has wrecked GM and it will go down within the next few years, only it will be worth less when we sell off the parts to other car companies, it will have hurt every taxpayer who has to eat the loss, and this whole debacle will have delayed real growth and real recovery. (And all of this ignores that eventually the courts will find that the Obama administration broke numerous laws in screwing over the bond holders which will cost the government a massive bundle of cash to boot).
This is true of GM and of industry Obama has or wants to get his hands on. This is true not only of Obama but of government in general. And Obama wants more government.
To hell with just “You didn’t build that” he wants complete socialism.
And half the country doesn’t see a problem with this?
A final point. Even though Obama is clearly a socialist (and an idiot, and an asshole, and a wannabe tyrant…and worse), many conservatives are still clamoring and screaming about the fact that Romney isn’t going to war against Obama, about him being too cowardly or being too nice and calling Obama out as the socialist he is. Yeah because Reagan won the election calling Carter a communist anti-Semite whose utter lack of intelligence makes you question how much inbreeding is going on down in Georgia…oh wait, no, Reagan ran a quiet campaign on the issues. Romney is running an intelligent campaign to win by a landslide, not a campaign to make the base feel good about itself; he’s running to make sure conservative ideals become policy, not to just spout conservative platitudes. He’s sitting quietly right now raking in cash, while Obama burns through his entire reserve just to keep the polls static. Romney will spend his money in the last months when it will actually have an effect on Election Day, while Obama will be broke by October. Besides with Obama saying crazy shit like this, why would you need to campaign, Obama’s mouth is already the best campaigner for Romney there is.