Category Archives: Taxes

The Sad Life of Julia Part V: Middle Age Dependency

It’s a shame Julia’s time in Head Start never taught her to not stand right in front of a frickin’ bus…there’s a reason little Zack never shows up again.  (This is what happens when you go to government funded schools that don’t have competition).

So I’ve already been over how Obama being beholden to unions and against choice is really bad for schools and will drive them down.  But let’s deal with the idea that Romney and Ryan would cut federal funding to schools.  So what if they did.  I can promise you, with a teacher’s view from the front lines, federal money does jack to actually help students.  It goes to programs and policies that benefit administration and bureaucracy, not students.  Now if individual states wanted to put in a rule that principals and superintendents can’t make more than twice their highest paid teacher (a good principal might actually be worth more than that…but a good principal in my experience is in the same category as unicorns and non-homicidal postal employees, they don’t really exist).

Also, I’m big on standards in education but regrettably the standards Obama has been hyping lately, now being referred to as the Race to the Top, are sadly underdeveloped.  The math standards seem to stop at Algebra and Geometry (maybe some of what would be included in Algebra II) and the English standards, which as an English teacher I’m very familiar with, actually are an improvement on the previous standards I was dealing with in Arizona…but are still woefully lacking.

Honestly their standards don’t do go further than halfway through what you’d expect a student should know halfway through 10th grade in an ideal world.  And I still have yet to see Science and History standards.  So we’re still aiming to only play second fiddle to the rest of the world in education.  I’m sure that will yield spectacular results.  Also may I add that in typical bureaucratic speak they take nearly 100 pages to say what could be said in 10 (I’ve even boiled it down to 1 page for my own personal use…but I have to use a lot of fragmented thoughts that still get the point across).

But Zachary really shouldn’t have to worry because, as you can see Julia has placed him in just the right place to join Obama’s grandma, Rev. Wright, Mubarak, Israel, Van Jones, and Hillary Rosen (among others) in being thrown under a bus when it’s convenient.  It’s SOP for the Obama bunch.

Now after 4 decades of the Philosopher King’s absolute rule construction by forced community service gangs (at this point community organizer takes on a whole new meaning—crack that whip) on the Great Pyramid of Chicago, which will serve as the divine one’s tomb, is nearly complete.  But even the massive structure, 10 times the size of its Giza counterpart, but still 100 times smaller than the ego of its future resident, needs promotion on the web.

So Julia thinks she should start a web design business of her own.

I have a few issues with this.

First, if the history of technology has taught me anything it’s that we don’t have an f’ing clue what technology is going to look like in 40 years.  Star Trek predicted we would have major genetic engineering by the 1990’s but cell phones wouldn’t come into use until the 24th century.  And I don’t see the hover-boards or high level of automation promised me by 2015 in Back to the Future.  And remember in the 90’s when they thought those virtual reality head gear things would take off…uh-huh.  And I think we can all agree we are tired of waiting and want our goddamn flying cars now; we’ve been promised them for over half a century and we want them NOW.  My point here is that it might be just a little arrogant to say with certainty that the internet as we know it will still be around…but then again that might make Julia’s web design business perfect to the Obama administration loans as I will bring up with my 2nd point.

Solyndra, and 13 other green energy companies, the black holes of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, AIG and every other incompetent bank, Government Motors and their fabulous death trap the Volt, not to mention that spectacular bit of idiocy Cash for Clunkers. The Obama administration sure knows how to pick’em.  So this only confirms my suspicion that Julia is in a now dead field, the Obama administration is giving her a loan…something they don’t do for people who could ever theoretically make money.

I also love how the internet business is going to “help grow the local economy.”  Screw what the internet is going to be like now, internet companies aren’t exactly limited by local market nowadays.

There are of course two reasons why Julia has to get a loan from the government and couldn’t get one from a private bank like the rest of us.  The first being that, as we have discussed, Julia, she of the 7 years to get her degree in a field you go to a 2 year tech school to get, has clearly never made very good decisions and is probably a shitty programmer to boot.  The second is that after 40 years of Obama, private banks will have gone out of business.  To recap, in the past and currently banks are being forced to continue making bad loans as the Obama administration is still pushing them, while, and I’m not making this up, simultaneously suing them for making those bad loans.   Private banks don’t stand a chance after 40 years of this insanity.  And that may make the idiots of Occupy Wall Street thrilled, but the rest of us have to understand such a move will result in an economy that makes the Great Depression look like the salad days of prosperity.  So Obama will be the only money lender in town.

My last problem with the logic here is that she’s 42, which makes Zachary 9? 10?  Who has time to start a business when you have a 10 year old?  They’re still too young to take care of themselves…oh wait I forgot, she threw him under the bus.

And I’m not sure where this 20% cut thing for Romney/Ryan comes from (I’d be happy with a 100% cut and possible jail terms for the people who work for the SBA) but I do know that while I haven’t heard anything about Romney talking about the loans the SBA gives out, he has been very clear on gutting the $1.75 Trillion annual burden of regulation this monster of an anti-capitalist organization places on the American economy.

And rather than giving out money, Romney and Ryan have put forward plans that will improve the fundamentals of the system and actually allow businesses to grow on their own and make profits, hire employees, create new markets, all without government help.  It’s this strange miracle of capitalism.  Even though it’s always been hindered to one degree or another throughout U.S. history it has created the greatest advance to quality of life and opportunity of any system conceivable.  But you would have to believe in America instead of Obama to understand that.

Also is that a biohazard symbol on the wall outside Julia’s office?  What kind of web design is she doing?

2 Comments

Filed under Aristotle, Budget, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Declaration, Education, Election 2012, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Free Will, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Individualism, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Obama, Obama Ceasar, Occupy Wall Street, Patriotism, People Are Stupid, politics, Taxes, Tea Party, Teacher's Union, Teaching, Tyranny, Unions, Waiting For Superman, Welfare

The Sad Life of Julia Part IV

So Julia is someone made it through childhood, adolescence and out of college (after 7 years) and has been working at web design for 9 years.  You’d think she would be doing well…but not our Julia.  No she still needs Obama to wipe certain things for her because she’s too inept to do that herself.

Wow, Julia is such a great web designer that not only is she apparently working for the crappiest web design company on Earth (since it appears they pick an insurance plan that doesn’t cover contraception)…and Julia apparently has such marketable skills that she can’t get hired anywhere else.  So what does she need, she needs the divine Philosopher King and Imperator Obama to make sure that all insurance plans cover birth control. And you know Julia is also working for the worst web design company on Earth because they don’t obviously pay her much…after all generic birth control is only $9 a month at Target or Walmart (assuming Obama hasn’t shut those down in his 24 year reign).  Clearly they’re paying her so little that an extra $9 a month is the choice between LIFE AND DEATH!  Great Obama economy you got there.

But what if she needs birth control for something other than contraception?  She needs Obama to pay for the particular kind of birth control she needs…not really if it’s for medical issues and her doctor says so, then even insurance plans that don’t cover birth control will still cover it.

But what if her psycho employer fires her for using birth control….well long before Obama came to power through the junta that established in his position for over 2 decades, there was this law called HIPPA.  HIPPA is a law that protects the privacy of your medical records and means your employer can’t know your medical history.  So if Julia’s employer fires her for using birth control, the lawsuit Julia will win against them for the HIPPA violation will leave her with money for life!  And she would win.  Imagine, she had protections before Obama the Great took power.

Meanwhile those mean Romney and Ryan bastards want to allow insurance policies to charge women more than men.  To think!  I think the 50% number is a bit silly, but yes women pay more for insurance.  Maybe because women have more medical costs than men…apparently testes take up far less medical expertise and have far fewer problems than a uterus.  This is mind blowing information I just found out about today.  Who knew?  But you see those medical insurance companies aren’t charging women more because they’re sexists bastards, they’re doing it because the actuarial tables say that it will cost more to insure women.  Did you want to also complain about the fact that women pay lower car insurance, lower life insurance, and I’m sure low just about every other kind of insurance (because aside from medical issues, women are typically a safer bet, according to the actuarial tables).  Did you want to raise all your other insurance rates to counter the rise in men’s health insurance rates (and make no mistake, if the insurance companies can’t discriminate based on the actuarial tables, then they’re just going to raise rates, not cut them anywhere).

Or you know I could have sworn a second ago Obama was demanding equal pay for equal work.  But now when women require more work he wants equal pay.  So because I never will need an OBGYN, I still have to pay for the coverage….yeah, that makes sense.

Or how about this, let’s introduce Romney and Ryan plans into health care which will introduce competition and drive down costs across the board.  And maybe introduce tort reform and thus ensure that your OBGYN is not paying the GDP of a third world nation every month in liability insurance costs…I think that may lower the astounding cost disparity caused from this particular specialty.

God help us all, she’s spawning!

Because none of that existed before Obamacare.  Before Obamacare a woman’s only option was to take care of herself for 9 months and then squat wherever she stood and give birth to the child right there, only because of Obamacare were the fields of gynecology and obstetrics created.  And if you repeal Obamacare then we will go back to the days where OBGYN’s could only operate out of dark alleys as their field was one punishable by death! Death I tell you! Death!

WTF?

This has to be my favorite slide because it is the most detached from reality.  Name for me an insurance plan that didn’t already cover all of that.  Guess what, you could repeal every line of Obamacare and all those things promised to Julia will still be there.

Also I hate to tell you this Barry, but Mitt Romney might not get a chance to overturn Obamacare, even though he is planning to send such a bill to Congress on his first day in office…Why might he not get a chance to overturn it?  Because odds are in favor of somewhere between 5 to 7 thumbs down from the Supreme Court, who, if nothing else, would like to remind you, O Great God King, that you are the weakest branch of the federal government.

On a side note, exactly how did she get pregnant?  I mean if there is a guy in her life, married or not, you would expect him to shoulder a great deal of the burden of the costs for medical care of pregnancy and raising the child…certainly he should be paying long before I or any taxpayer should have to.  And if she is gay and she and her wife decided to have a child, or even if she’s single and decided she just wanted to have a child on her own,  I’m confused by the fact because artificial insemination ain’t cheap (or am I as a taxpayer footing that bill too now for anyone who wants that service?)  Or is it, given that up to this point in Julia’s life I’ve never seen her with another human being that Julia magically reproduces asexually?  I’m going to deviate a little from just the life of Julia, but legally you have a right to have children without anyone telling you that you can’t…but ethically you are a piece of shit if you have a child when you do not have the money to provide for them.  You have a responsibility to any children you bring into the world to provide for them until they are adults and can provide for themselves, and shame on you if the only way you can provide for a child is by living off the government teat and the labor of others.  As a parent you are supposed to provide not only materially for your children but also by showing them the right way to live…and starting their whole life by showing them how to mooch off others is beyond disgraceful.

(Oh and the hair is again, inexplicably, back to that bizarre blue color).

4 Comments

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Economics, Education, Election 2012, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Free Will, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Health Care, Individualism, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Natural Rights, Obama, People Are Stupid, politics, Taxes, Tea Party, Tyranny, Unions, Welfare

The Sad Life of Julia Part III–The wacky college years

Our little Julia continues to be among the most worthless excuses for a human I’ve ever seen (not really, there are worse)

So now that we’ve covered her early life and adolescence let’s move onto her college years.


Ah, I remember the first time I had major surgery in my early 20’s, just like everyone I know…oh wait, no…most people don’t have surgery in their 20’s.  Assuming Obama took office when Julia was 3, that would mean he has been Fuehrer for 19 years so I can promise you that almost all private insurance companies have gone out of business as Obamacare is designed to put private companies out of business and have everyone go to government care  …but don’t worry most of the doctors and nurses will have already left the field long before the private insurance companies as there will be no way to make ends meet in the medical profession if Obamacare goes into full effect.  But don’t worry, long before this happens drug companies and medical supply companies will go out of business.  And have we talked about this thing called the adverse selection death spiral, which is as bad as it sounds, caused by Obamacare.   So Julia will be having her surgery in a government facility, being treated by third rate doctors (the first and second rate ones went to countries with fewer regulations on the medical field like Canada and the UK…maybe India will start importing doctors from America), being done on a very limited use of anesthetics and antibiotics.

So it’s actually a small miracle she makes it out of the hospital alive…truly God loves Julia, and of course, by God, I mean the divine Obama.

Let’s compare this to the Ryan plan or Romney’s proposals for health care.  You know the ones that would one up choice and competition, lower fraud, reduce prices, and improve quality all over.  Yes Julia and her parents would have to pay for her surgery…but it will be half of what it costs rights now and one-twentieth of what it would cost under Obamacare.  And God (and I don’t mean Barry) help Julia if the rationing board determines that her surgery isn’t worth the cost.

Well if there were any jobs left…which at this rate 110% of the populace will have dropped out of the work force by the time Julia is 23 and Obama has been ruling the People’s Republic of America for 20 years.  Of course with no one seeking jobs anymore the Department of Labor will declare 100% employment and praise Obama for his genius.

I’m curious about the fact that she’s starting her career two years before finishing college…but I’m just not going to touch this bizarre non-sequitur.

Okay let’s take 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.

Did you know that women in their 20’s make more money than their male counterparts in the same field?  Did you know that when you correct for experience and education and the job then women of any age earn more?   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 union by Julia’s 20’s whether they want to be or not.  Thus we will all be getting paid the same, irrespective of education, work, merit, seniority or skill.

But let’s see with lawyers suing up a storm expect everything to cost so much more which means even if Julia is making the same amount of money (which is odd as web design is often more of personal venture than a big corporation…but again let’s not get into the leaps of logic) it really doesn’t matter as with her inflated (caused by everything else Obama is doing to the economy) currency she will be able to buy even less!

I’m still a little confused, if she started her career 3 years ago and is still in the same field at 42…what was so important about college?  I think college is important, and when I have children it will be very clear that they will be going to college…but if you already have a career before finishing college and are making money off of it (and since she doesn’t switch careers between now and 42 she’s either making money or is very very stupid…oh wait)…but going to college has worked for a few like Paul Allen, Michael Dell, Ingvar Kamprad (IKEA), Larry Ellison (Oracle), Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Mary Kay Ash, John D. Rockerfeller, Mark Zuckerberg, and Robert Jackson (Attorney General of the United States, Supreme Court Justice, and chief prosecutor of the Nuremberg trials…never finished college let alone Law School) and I’m not so much of a snob as to chide someone for not going to college if they can make their career work…

Anyone a bit disturbed by the fact that it’s taken Julia 7 years to graduate from college?  It doesn’t quite make sense.  I can only assume she studied computer engineering, as she’s a web designer, but 7 years?  Web design actually wouldn’t take even an AA…so does she have a MA (still a year too long) or a Ph.D. in computer engineering…if so Microsoft, Apple or a dozen other programming firms would have hired her on the spot and lavished her with money, benefits and stock options…but she’s only a poor web designer.  And since she is still dependent on Obama for the rest of her existence I can only conclude it took her 7 years to get her B.A. (now we’re seeing why she didn’t get any scholarships and needed Obama’s help to pay for college tuition…and not a very bright college either as they don’t know that flag code requires that flag goes on the LEFT of the podium if you are facing the podium).

Also, and I’m not entirely sure here, but isn’t “web design” something you can get done it 2 years at ITT Tech or DeVry?  7 years?  Really?

And yes Obama kept the interest rates low, making that money cheap.  Which any basic understanding of how an economy works means that money that could have gone for investment in business or industry and created jobs will go to fund Julia and other slackers like her in their 7 year quest to become Web Designers.  Hey, Barry, look up the term “opportunity cost” and ask yourself if it has any bearing on artificially lowering the interest rate on college loans.  Of course it’s a lie that her loans are more manageable, the college jacked up their prices to be on par with what Julia could borrow…it’s just that Julia is really hoping for a bailout from Obama soon, like he bails out everyone.

(I wonder if Barry also paid for the dye job to her hair as it has gone from an inhuman shade of blue to red for no explicable reason).

So rather than letting the Romney/Ryan plan burst the bubble on college costs and actually make it more affordable for a far greater portion of the country, we must keep those prices artificially inflated.

3 Comments

Filed under Atlas Shrugged, Budget, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Declaration, Economics, Education, Election 2012, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Free Will, God, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Individualism, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Natural Rights, Obama, Obama Ceasar, People Are Stupid, politics, Taxes, Tea Party, Teaching, Tyranny, Unions, Unjust legislation, Welfare

The Sad Life of Julia Part II: The teen years

Now Obama ignores Julia’s age from 4-16…probably because those are years that Julia will have to suffer under incompetent teachers who will teach her nothing due to Obama’s staunch opposition to school choice, vouchers, and charters and his complete subservience to treasonous teacher’s unions (yes I said treasonous…I’m a teacher, I’ve seen the effects of their constant protection of low standards and corruption among teachers and the education system in general…and they are actively working to ruin this nation…it’s either treason or stupidity of such a level it is effectively the same thing).

But let’s get back to the slides

 

Yeah, she may take classes she needs to take, but as her union Elementary school teachers never bothered to teacher her grammar or arithmetic, her union Middle school teachers never bothered to teach her algebra, the scientific method, basic logic or how write an essay, and her union High School teachers are just as stupid, the course may have the right name on it, but she still isn’t learning anything.

Also as Obama has continued to crack down on school choice, her parents could get her into a better school than the one she is in but she is not allowed to transfer there.  Which is a little odd as even very liberal Juan Williams acknowledges that school choice is the “civil rights issue or our time.”  Good thing President Romney will be for it so there is a chance that our Julia may get educated. 

Oh, by the way, since those “tax cuts for the rich” which are actually reforms of the tax code which would actually have the rich paying more (through the reduction of loopholes combined with a lowering of rates) never went through, the economy of America shrank even more.  Which means a lower tax base to provide for public education, which translates to having more kids in every class as no one can afford 20:1 ratios anymore which further ruins Julia’s education.  And Obama’s lack of action on border control continues to let billions of tax payer dollars be wasted on educating the children of criminal migrants (I’m told the term illegal alien is now racist).

(Also does anyone find it ironic that Obama is constantly bitching about tax cuts for the rich when he himself extended the Bush tax cuts and chose not to push for the tax increases from his own debt commission…not to mention his favorite new rule, the Buffett Rule comes from a man whose company avoids taxes and lets its upper management make bizarre anti-Semitic statements).

 

Now Julia is off to college and oooh a $10,000 credit…for 4 years…that’s $2,500 a year (yeah, it’s not 10 grand every year it’s total!)…that might cover books and a bit of room and board…won’t cover room and board in whole, won’t cover tuition.  I have to ask, if Head Start was such a winner program back in the early years and her school was part of “Race to the Top” as stated why isn’t she earning any merit scholarships?  Could it be that those programs don’t actually achieve any tangible results and haven’t helped Julia be anything but a waste of space and volume who needs government assistance to know a whole in the from?…well… I mean I’m a high school teacher who has dealt with a lot of seniors, trust me for a college bound woman who makes high grades there is money available.  Colleges offer scholarship money for a myriad of things (merit, athletics, need) and there are also private sources of scholarship…but in Obama’s world (who apparently has been in office for at least 15 years? Clearly the result of some kind of coup) there is only the government there to help you.  And of course there is the time honored tradition of community college, saving, and paying your own way.  No one can get into or pay for college on their own, they must have Obama.   What would we be without Obama?  How did we survive before he graced us with his presence?
But rather than talk about tax credits or the lack there of, or interest rates on those loans…let’s talk about why college costs so much….hmmm let’s see college costs have grown faster than inflation for over 20 years…hmm maybe it’s the increasing government loans (read subsidies) to students.  Well the general rule is that when you subsidize something the price goes up, and so it was with colleges.  The government says it will give loans and colleges increased their tuitions by almost the same amount of the government increase.  This in turn has not only increased college cost far above their benefits, but it has created a culture of pointless research and focused on “publish or die” rather than actual teaching being the focus of college…but why would you care about such things when you can give tax credits for over priced education that will only drive the cost of college up even more and probably decrease the quality of said education.

Oh, and let’s not forget that the majority of students need to take remedial English and math in college and probably more than that just to be capable of participating in college (that is where our current education system is)– and Julia has demonstrated that she is part of the majority and not the exception.  Maybe that has something to do with those union teachers putting how Julia feels about herself being a priority over actually being good at something.  And let’s not forget that the spate of anti-bullying laws will probably not do anything to take down the rate of bullying, but will certainly teach children to never stand up for themselves and always seek the protection of government.  Thanks Obama.

Government and unions have made education low quality and overpriced…Obama certainly didn’t cause this, but he is certainly doing everything in his power to make the quality of education worse and costs higher.

How else is Obama ruining Julia’s adolescence?  Well his economy destroying policies are certainly making it all but impossible for Julia to get a job.  (Now the best way to help Julia would be to end minimum wage laws…but I don’t see even Romney able to get that passed, so next best option would be to never raise them, which I think Romney will probably do…oh to all of you Paulbots who are about to complain that he tied Massachusetts minimum wage to inflation, please remember that the Massachusetts legislature wanted to raise it even more and the inflation thing was the most he could get to hold them back).  Of course Obama’s stimulus policies matched with Bernanke’s insanity over at the Fed will continue inflation to the point where the economy will hurt even more.  So not only will college cost a fortune but she won’t have jobs or experience to get a job to help pay for it.  Sucks to be Julia in her adolescent years.

Of course all of this is a bit silly to discuss because after 15 years of Obama’s policies (at a rate of 5 trillion in debt for every 3 years in office) we’ll be another $25 trillion in Debt (assuming China keep bankrolling us) which may very likely induce Weimar Republic level inflation.

So tomorrow we will deal with Julia’s college years…all 7 of them…no nowhere does it say why it takes Julia so long to finish college only later to become a web page designer (a field that historically requires no college education).

In the mean time I would like to introduce you to Dawn, the anti-Julia.  You remember when Obama said that Republicans are heartless and stupid for telling people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps “when they don’t have bootstraps”…well Dawn proves that when you don’t have bootstraps you make your own and then you pull yourself up by them…and if you do that then others (not government) will help you in your quest because people, especially Americans under capitalism, are the most charitable people in the world.

4 Comments

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Economics, Education, Election 2012, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Free Will, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Obama, People Are Stupid, politics, Taxes, Teacher's Union, Tyranny, Unions, Unjust legislation, Welfare

The Sad Life of Julia Part I

By now we’ve all seen “The Life of Julia.” The story of cradle to grave socialism and complete and utter dependence in the form of Julia, a fictional woman who is utterly incompetent to do anything on her own.  Paul Ryan accurately called it “creepy” which it is…not only because it shows how Obama views people (especially women) as helpless, stupid, morons who would be lost if not for the greatness that is Obama…and for the fact that Obama seems to be declaring himself Caesar for life (as he seems to be ruling by fiat from when Julia was 3 to still ruling without objection when Julia is 67).  Also over at MSNBC one of their commentators said that we need Obama (again apparently for a lifetime dictatorship) because under a Romney/Ryan plan “she’d be in the grave by her mid-30’s”…this actually may be accurate given that Julia is portrayed as that special class of human being known as “Darwin Award Winner” and if she doesn’t have the cradle to grave socialist government to provide her every convenience in her life.

And while some have already made some great alternative versions to the Life of Julia (here and here and here)….I think it best to just take this head-on and detail all of the problems of Obama’s original piece of propaganda.  Now there are a lot of factual errors, so this will have to be a multi part series of blogs.

Wow she enrolled in Head Start.  Possibly one of the most useless wastes of taxpayer money ever conceived. 

By the way those 200,000 fewer slots are 200,000 new government jobs not created under the Romney and Ryan plans…because we can’t afford to create 200,000 new jobs that do NOTHING!

First off the Ryan plan does not cut the program, it only cuts the growth.  Now Romney, as far as I know, hasn’t suggested killing Head Start, although based on what he has said there exists the strong possibility that he will send the program to the states to be run from state capitals instead of from Washington (which can only lead to greater efficiency and more innovation…at the bare minimum it will cut the rampant fraud that plagues the worthless program).   Further the Romney/Ryan vision give the private sector and private charity time to grow and fill the void in this field, offering the better services at lower costs to everyone.

A word to those libertarians that would kill this program outright.  Now rather than hit Ron Paul at every turn let me just get this out here.  Some conservatives would rather just kill Head Start, or any of the other entitlement programs that we have become dependant on, the fact of the matter is that just killing these massive programs would cause ripple effects through the national economy that can only be negative in the short run.  These programs must be slowly torn apart, sent to the states, and privatized.  However, many libertarians would kill the programs right out, to hell with the immediate negative repercussions that would actually harm the speed of long-term recovery.  Ron Paul and his ilk wouldn’t care about economic common sense like that…no, let’s exist in a universe where actions and consequences don’t have any real connection.  Yes, small government is the best answer in the long term, but just killing everything when we’re so deeply entrenched in an economy based on heavy entitlements would be as disastrous. Also may I say if you listen to Ron Paul long enough you realize that if he were given the chance to, he would make sure his plans were initiated, whether Congress approved them or not…so like Obama, Paul looks to be a dictator who rules by fiat and not by law.  And as a conservative I’m supposed to want this kind of alternative to a real businessman like Romney?  No thanks.

So other fun facts about what another 4 years of Obama would do to 3-year-old Julia.

Well it will be a miracle if she gets to make it to 3 or even gets out of the hospital, no not because of continued support of abortion on demand at the taxpayer’s expense…but because as people stream into hospitals and emergency rooms because of Obamacare (like they do in Canada and Europe) they will become breeding grounds for disease and as TB and MRSA become completely drug resistant and as medical care drops because doctors and nurses leave the field I fully expect the infant mortality rate to rise.  Also expect less infant medical care since finding a pediatrician will become all but impossible.

And as the cost of everything goes up because Obama’s policies cause massive inflation and even further economic slow-down Julia can expect to eat worse, have fewer conveniences and see her parents less as both will have to work multiple jobs (if they can find them) just to make ends meet.

Oh and we didn’t mention food stamps!  The way that program is growing we’ll all be on food stamps if we give Obama another term.  Might have some mild thing to do with the government over regulating agriculture, forcing prices up by paying people to not grow things and even paying people to grow corn for ethanol (you know it only take 1.2 gallons of gas or ethanol to create one gallon of ethanol) which in turns skyrockets food prices (of course most of these programs a long line of presidents and congresses deserve blame, doesn’t mean Obama hasn’t done his fair share in this).

Great early childhood.

Up next let’s see how Obama’s policies will make her adolescence a hellhole.

5 Comments

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Declaration, Economics, Education, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Free Will, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Illegal Immagration, Individualism, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Natural Rights, Obama, People Are Stupid, politics, Taxes, Tyranny, Unions, Welfare

10 reasons why libertarians have become a joke…

The ever so poorly named “Reason Magazine” has put out an article preposterously titled “5 Reasons Why

Libertarians have this really bad tendency to follow leaders blindly. Hayek, Von Misses, Rand and now this lunatic. All of them had good ideas, but none of them were divine prophets to never be questioned...

Conservatives Should Root For a Romney Defeat.”    Lately Libertarians have been getting more and more annoying with their embrace of full blown isolationism (which given how it has NEVER worked, means they’re either very, very stupid or in favor of tyrannies being free to do whatever evil they wish) and their recent and exceedingly naïve push for the gold standard as a cure all for all economic woes.  This is not the libertarian party I once knew of sound economic restraint and social liberalism…this is now a libertarian party of cowards and cranks.  So let me refute their 5 reasons to not vote for Romney.

1.  Reason claims because the Supreme Court will only overturn the individual mandate but leave the rest of Obamacare…because Romney and the Republicans don’t have the guts now to overturn the rest of the law we should let Obama stay in office and let a real reformer get in office in 2016 who will then overturn the law.  Common sense states that you would give some reasons to back this up but Reason’s article seemed quite lacking, in well, reason.

This is stupid for three reasons.  The first being that if the Supreme Court overturns one part, they’re probably taking it all out (Scalia’s comment about “you don’t expect us to go through this line by line do you”)…further it would require you to believe that the justices who are voting to overturn the mandate would leave all the economically disastrous parts that a mandate was a necessity to pay for.  The second is that Romney has promised to overturn the law in toto and will send that law on the first day in office to Congress, which if passed in the first week of his administration it has the most chance of getting through Congress with little disagreement.  The third being that, while the economically stupid issue of covering preexisting conditions needs to go, after another four years of Obama it will NEVER be overturned as no Congressmen, no matter how conservative, will have the guts to take away something that has been around for so long.

2.  Reason’s second claim is in two parts , first that you just can’t trust that evil flip-flopper Romney.  This is a claim that is without basis.  Romney’s changed his position on abortion…everything else is liberal lies.  Thank you libertarians for being dumb enough to believe liberal lies and immoral enough to repeat them…not to mention demonstrating liberal tendencies by not doing the research!

The second part of their reasons to not vote for Romney is that he will make our military second to none.  Oh, how terrible.  When did libertarianism become the philosophy of cowards and complicity in tyranny via our isolation.

3.  They don’t trust Romney to do away with Crony Capitalism as he says he will do (and as he did as much as he could with limited power in Massachusetts).  Why doesn’t Reason believe him…because he supported the financial bailout.  Which is kind of dumb.  Yes TARP was a horribly conceived and horribly executed program…but to do nothing as libertarians seem to suggest would have been equally stupid.  For years government conspired to force the financial sector to give out all those crappy loans (and yes they did force and threaten them with criminal and civil lawsuits if they didn’t give them out) so while the financial sector is not exactly saintly and has more than enough blame to go around on its own, the government is equally at fault.  But the libertarians argue that after you’ve stabbed someone in the kidney it’s their responsibility to heal themselves.  Huh?  Yes TARP should have been drastically smaller and shorter, it should have been more targeted and not an industry wide panacea, it should have probably been designed to cure the shock waver after one of the major banks went belly up to prevent a panic not preventing them all from failing, but you know what, not doing anything would have been as bad if not worse.  And yes Bush, Congress and the Fed deserve a lot of blame for not doing a more limited plan, but that does not mean an outsider who had no say at any level of the decision making process should take the blame for supporting what may be the lesser of two evils.  So I can’t fully hit Romney for being pragmatic and saying, yes we need TARP.

Reason also claims that calling China on its economic corruption is a bad thing.  I’m confused by their stance, probably again because Reason failed to state any reason for their belief and rather preferred to make an uninformed hitpiece.

4.  Oh and if we elect Romney then no “real conservative” will be able to run in 2016.  True, I look forward to Romney’s second term.  However, since Reason’s definition of true conservative is a person who holds to the insane dogma of Austrian economics and who is a complete coward in foreign policy.  You know a “real conservative” unlike that filthy Monetarist, strong foreign policy, fake conservative Ronald Reagan.  Somehow I’m not being swayed by Reason’s arguments.

5.  And their fifth argument, losing will allow the GOP to collapse…and theoretically realign itself…despite the fact that, realignment actually usually occurs when a party wins the White House (Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, McKinley, FDR…and I can’t think of a realignment that occurred when the party lost…but these are libertarians, the people who ignored all the economic panics, recessions and depressions caused by the gold standard and who completely failed to notice the utter failure of isolationism throughout all of history…no shock they don’t understand how realignments work historically).

So let me now respond with 5 reasons why libertarians should back Romney.

  1. He has a history of actually doing what libertarians like: cutting government and not raising taxes.
  2. Romney is actually endorsing the plan of reformers like Paul Ryan.  He also is backed by a whole team of some the best minds in every field…just check his website…unlike Reason which apparently is working off of innuendo and media lies. And again go to his website, no candidate in my life time has ever had so much data to review as Romney has provided…and it’s all great
  3. For supposed economic conservatives I don’t understand why libertarians would be so hostile to someone who is actually from the private sector.  This is the kind of guy who actually knows what he is doing.  He is not a career politician (he’s only ever held one other elected office for one term), thus he is not beholden to the bureaucracy or the party, he has no favors to fulfill which will actually help to end cronyism. Also cronyism occurs when you have something to gain…remind me how you actually bribe a man who is both rich and not avaricious (as judged by his overly generous charitable contributions).
  4. This country cannot survive another 4 years of Obama.  4 more years of over regulation, taxation, government abuse of power, extreme deficit spending, and insane union support will gut this country and if it doesn’t result in a global depression to make the Great Depression look like a walk in the park, the only reason that we won’t become a 2nd   rate power is because everyone else will fall faster than we do.
  5. Do you remember how reviled the Greens were in the Democratic party after handing the election to Bush (yes I’ll admit if Nader hadn’t run then Gore would have won)…well if you jackasses were to hand the election to Obama then you would be even more reviled and will guarantee the death of the libertarian strain in the Republican party (i.e. you’ll be handing the party to the social conservatives).

6 Comments

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Charity, Congress, Conservative, Corporate Welfare, Economics, Election 2012, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Individualism, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Obama, People Are Stupid, politics, Problems with the GOP, Taxes, Tyranny, Unions

Paul Krugman just keeps getting dumber…

It’s been a while a since I’ve read a Paul Krugman article.  I’ve been busy with a lot at work (hence the lack of a lot of blogs lately) and well, Paul’s line of drivel you have to be in the right mood for anyway.  But I had some free time yesterday and it appears that this moron’s moron thinks he’s in a position to critique Romney’s understanding of economics (Remind me Paul, how many businesses have you created and saved over the years…zero?  Fascinating.)

So, Krugman’s critique is twofold.  First the Romney campaign had a photo-op speech at a closed plant, which they admit was symbolic of the Obama administration, but actually this plant closed during the Bush years…and it’s unfair to blame Obama for the fact that the bad economy started under Bush but has gone into a tailspin under Obama.  This is an interesting critique, because even the Romney campaign says the plant was a symbolic image not a literal one, and Krugman is throwing a hissy fit as if Romney is blaming the Obama for this particular plant closing…and not you know, using the image as a symbol.

The second part of his argument is that it’s all Bush’s fault and Obama is not to blame for anything….

“Which brings me to another aspect of the amnesia campaign: Mr. Romney wants you to attribute all of the shortfalls in economic policy since 2009 (and some that happened in 2008) to the man in the White House, and forget both the role of Republican-controlled state governments and the fact that Mr. Obama has faced scorched-earth political opposition since his first day in office.”

That’s right.  He had his hands tied “since the first day in office.”  You know the first day where he had a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate.  You have no idea the hurdles you have to clear…especially when like 10 Republicans in the Senate are RINOs.  Is Krugman the worst liar ever…or just unbelievably stupid?

“But that’s not the critique Mr. Romney is making. Instead, he’s basically attacking Mr. Obama for not acting as if George Bush had been given a third term. Are the American people — and perhaps more to the point, the news media — forgetful enough for that attack to work? I guess we’ll find out.”

Actually, Paul, he’s attacking Obama (man of higher regulation, deficit spending, increased medical entitlements, stimulus, government takeover of industries, letting the Fed get away with crippling low interest rates and inflation, over and under regulation in the wrong areas, and giving into unions at every turn) for actually acting just like Bush (man of higher regulation, deficit spending, increased medical entitlements, stimulus, government takeover of industries, letting the Fed get away with crippling low interest rates and inflation, over and under regulation in the wrong areas, and giving into unions at every turn)!  The fact that many of Bush’s policies didn’t help the economy is because they were inherently Keynesian, like Obama’s and like yours.  I liked and supported Bush at first because I liked his rhetoric of lower regulation, tort reform and less spending…but the facts are that he didn’t do any of that and in the end was just a hint of things to come with Obama.  So yes it is Bush’s fault for the start of our economic problems (and his Democratic Congress…can’t forget to blame them too)…and it is Obama’s fault for looking at a forest fire and deciding to throw kerosene on it.

But does Krugman admit that this?  That his Keynesian BS policies are to blame?  Nope.  In fact did you know we should get down on our knees and thank Obama for saving us?

“This is especially true if you focus on private-sector jobs. Overall employment in the Obama years has been held back by mass layoffs of schoolteachers and other state and local government employees. But private-sector employment has recovered almost all the ground lost in the administration’s early months.”

This is really interesting as Bureau of labor statistics say that in 2008 there were 113 million private sector jobs  and now they say there are 110 million private sector jobs.  (I’d love  to show you a single chart than can map the private sector employment month by month through the Obama administration…but the labyrinth that is the Bureau of Labor Statistics is designed not to give you raw data, only the spin of the administration in power).  So 110 million is “private-sector employment has recovered almost all the ground lost” from 113 million…if you ignore 3 million people…and all the people who entered the workforce…and ignore that a lot of those are double counted as a lot more people who have jobs have two jobs right now…and if you ignore that a lot more of the 110 million is lower paid jobs than when we had 113 million.  So if you ignore all that we’ve completely recovered.  Oh and as to his thing about teacher’s getting fired, first, lots of teachers do need to be fired, but as I doubt Krugman is going to argue to get rid of union’s favorite “last hired, first fired” policies his words ring rather hollow…the most inept teachers are still on the payrolls and still need to be fired.  And Krugman himself is one to point out that all of those state and city loses have been matched if not exceeded by the growth of federal government employment (you know the one sector that should NEVER grow during a recession, depression…or really ever under any circumstances).

“I guess accusing Mr. Obama of not doing enough to promote recovery is a better argument than blaming him for the effects of Bush policies. However, it’s not much better, since Mr. Romney is essentially advocating a return to those very same Bush policies. And he’s hoping that you don’t remember how badly those policies worked.”

Actually Romney isn’t advocating returning to Bush’s big government, spending craze.  But let’s look at what Obama could have done, which had he done these things we would be well into real recovery by now.

Cut spending. If Obama had cut every Department and Office by 5% on day one (which Romney is going to do) and then set down to finding out what can be further cut and keep cutting until we actually didn’t spend more than we take in (which Romney has also promised to do) the dollar would be stronger, inflation would be lower and we wouldn’t be feeling as many ripples from much of Europe’s imminent collapse (and keep in mind it’s collapsing for doing all the things Krugman has always said we should do over here…except maybe Sweden which has been becoming more and more capitalistic and oddly enough more and more economically stable).

Lengthen the time for medical patents…instead of regulating drug companies and the companies that make the chemicals that are needed to make those drugs to the point where most of them are planning to leave American shores forever if this jackass is reelected, thus causing massive shortages in the nation’s drug supplies…if you had cut regulations and extended the time to hold a drug patent you would have spurred further investment into private R&D (you know the kind that actually yields results).

Letting insurance cross state lines…hmmm actually allow insurance companies to have to compete.  As I recall competition always lowers costs.  Which would be much, much better than a government take over which will skyrocket costs.

Pass right to work. Instead of kowtowing to the unions which drive up costs and produce some of the worst teachers conceivable, maybe passing a right to work law in this country (which I believe Romney wants…and on a side note Santorum, like Obama would fight to the death to stop).

Cutting Fannie and Freddie loose. Instead of wanting MORE sub-prime loans which caused the housing bubble…maybe we could fire sale what these two horribly disastrous companies own and bring some sanity and stability to the market.

Reducing or ending all student loan programs…like the housing market, the government has over inflated the cost of college.  College loan programs needed to be gradually reduced and then ended.  Yes this will probably kill funding into theoretical physics, causes causing T.A.’s to be a thing of the past, and make professors actually teach their courses instead of writing useless journal articles that no one reads…I’m just so broken up by this.  Oh it will likely reduce every college student’s tuition costs, which means the middle class will no longer enter the work force already under crippling debt.

Cut regulation…in general there are too many regulations on the books. You know that expression that ignorance of the law is no excuse…well that was in a day and age when most laws were seemingly common sense…at this point there is no way that every American is not violating 50 U.S. regulations that they know nothing about nor could conceivably know.  Regulation is a just and necessary function of the government, but what the government is doing these days isn’t regulation, it’s tyrannical insanity.

Cut the minimum wage (or just end it).  Yes I know this is a long long shot, and not even Romney is proposing this…but it would actually spur hiring, especially for low skill workers who could, oh I don’t know get skills and experience.

Drill.  ANWAR, oil shale, Keystone, drill, drill, drill.  Even if it doesn’t immediately boost production it lowers the fears that oil speculation thrives on.  If you know what that there will be supplies for years to come then prices in any commodities market goes down.

Support border patrol and sane immigration and guest worker programs.  The fact is that the open border breeds both crime from the cartels (which have been supplied with a great deal of firepower by Eric Holder and Barack Obama…who if they weren’t who they were, would be guilty of aiding and betting in murder…or at least you would be if you knowingly ran guns for the cartels) and it breeds massive government expense in healthcare costs for illegal immigrants (which have crippled some border states) and education costs for the children they bring.  This needs to stop. Close the border, and allow guest workers (not their families) to come in.

Support democracies not terrorists…oh and maybe if we supported democratic revolts (like the Iranian protesters Obama just let get slaughtered) and not fascist juntas (like the Arab Spring) it might help stabilize the world economy, which would always be good for us.

Lower the capital gains tax.  Hell, do away with it.  Any first year economics student could tell you how this will be the economic equivalent of shooting adrenaline into the heart…it takes a Nobel Prize winning Yale economist (and he won for research in microeconomics…he knows less than anything about macro) to not know this basic fact of reality.

Tort Reform—I can’t beat this drum enough. Tort Reform. Tort Reform. Tort Reform!  Kill the ABA and their ambulance chasers, reducing insurance and overhead costs at EVERY level of every industry…you think that might have a cascade effect to spur investment and the economy.

Let’s go back to Krugman’s statement:

“I guess accusing Mr. Obama of not doing enough to promote recovery is a better argument than blaming him for the effects of Bush policies.”  Actually I blame Bush for not doing a lot of this too.  I just think that Romney will try to do a lot of this, and assuming he gets a GOP House and Senate he will be able to accomplish a lot of it.

“However, it’s not much better, since Mr. Romney is essentially advocating a return to those very same Bush policies.”  Well there’s a lie if ever I heard one.  Please, Paul could you give me a specific Bush policy that Romney wants to return to?  Because I think Ryan’s plan that Romney has endorsed is about as un-Bush as you get.

“And he’s hoping that you don’t remember how badly those policies worked.”  No, he’s not hoping that.  He’s knows that “It’s about the economy…and we’re not stupid” like you are Paul.

4 Comments

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Congress, Conservative, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Obama, Paul Krugman is an idiot, People Are Stupid, politics, Taxes, Tyranny, Unjust legislation

A Week of Obama Peddling Lies. Part II:He also peddles slavery

Okay so we have already dealt with the fact that this week, as with every other week of his existence, Obama has clearly shown he knows nothing (possibly less than nothing) about economics.  But that’s not the worst part.  If it was just his idiocy I might not feel my blood pressure jump to unhealthy levels every time I’ve heard him speak this last week.  No the reason I’m insulted by Obama’s words is not his economic ignorance, but because it is a perverted and near evil vision of human nature and government.

So let’s review what he said.

Deep breaths.  He’ll be gone in January.  Deep breaths.

“In the United States of America, we are greater together than we are on our own.  This country advances when we keep that basic American promise — if you work hard, you can do well enough to raise a family, own a home, send your kids to college, put a little away for retirement.  And it doesn’t matter who you are, where you come from, what you look like.  That’s what has created this extraordinary country of ours.  That’s what we’re fighting for. That’s the choice in this election.”

First off there is no promise of success in America.  There is no promise of success in life.  There is only a promise of the right to “pursue happiness.”  But he is right that it is the choice of this election: whether you will have the opportunity to live, work hard and live the American dream (Romney) or whether your liberty, opportunity, choice are all eliminated for a generation or longer (Obama).

And he is also right about us being greater together than when we are on our own.  When we join together out of friendship, out of love, out of mutual consent and benefit, human beings, not just Americans, although we have at times mastered the art, we can reach unprecedented heights of achievement and happiness.  But this is when it is by mutual consent.  Not when it is forced on them by dictatorial fiat.  When people are forced to work together because a higher authority says they have to then you will find in terms of personal happiness and societal prosperity it would have been better for everyone to be on their own.  We rise only when we work together by choice…and the key part is the choice not the working together.

“Their philosophy is simple:  You are on your own.  You’re on your own.  If you are out of work, can’t find a job, tough luck, you’re on your own.  You don’t have health care, — that’s your problem — you’re on your own.  If you’re born into poverty, lift yourself up with your own bootstraps even if you don’t have boots.  You’re on your own.  They believe that’s their — that’s how American has advanced.  That’s the cramped, narrow conception they have of liberty.  And they are wrong.  They are wrong.”

It’s not a philosophy; it’s a fact of life.  You are and always will be a victim or benefactor of your choices.  And your choices are your own.  If you can’t work, can’t find a job, did you get the education, experience and recommendation that would put you in a safe position or did you expect Obama to provide for you…because if you did the later, let me tell you you’re on your own because Obama and the government can and never will be a trustworthy fall back.  You don’t have health care?  Again did you do everything to get it or did you expect others to just subsidize your life…because if you just expected others to provide you with everything you want, you’re on your own.  We believe that America has advanced because of talent and skill and drive and friendship…and keep in mind friendship and companionship is a major portion of life…but in that too you’re on your own to make friends who will be there for you, they cannot just be provided by government fiat.  Ours is a philosophy of liberty.  Obama you claim that we have a “cramped, narrow conception [of] liberty.  And they are wrong.” No ours is philosophy of wide ranging liberty that comes with the downside of liberty, the possibility of failure.  But we have a strong belief that even in failure people can learn and grow and better themselves.  You would rather eliminate liberty, eliminate the possibility of failure and replace it with the at best the certainty of mediocrity (in reality the certainty of failure and misery for all in the long run) because you don’t believe people can better themselves, you don’t believe people can bring themselves up by their bootstraps, even if they don’t have any, then you don’t believe in human potential.  You don’t’ think that success or failure is, in the end a result of one’s choices and attitudes, which it is, you believe that we are victims of society, victims of the system, victims of those in power, your mantra is “I am not the master of my fate, the government is the captain of my soul.”  And you have the unmitigated gall to call us cramped and narrow.

“And we’ve got to make sure that we’ve got a tax system that is actually fair.  Part of that is something I call the Buffett Rule.  It’s very simple:  If you are making more than $1 million a year — I’m not saying you have $1 million, I’m saying you’re making $1 million every year — then you shouldn’t pay a lower rate than your secretary.  That’s a pretty simple proposition.”

I dealt with why this was a bad pragmatic plan last time. Let’s talk about the principled reasons why this is dumb.  “Fair.”  Let’s make the tax code fair.  Children, whiny, spoiled children whine about “fair”—adults talk about justice.  What is justice? Well the simplest definition would be that everyone gets what they deserve.  So is the tax code just?  Nope. There are far too many loopholes and deductions where the government quite unjustly tries to pick winners and losers, and the taxes are too high.  It’s a double injustice.  Now if you wanted to talk about justice instead of fairness you would get rid of the loopholes and lower the rates (although true justice would require that everyone pays at least something as everyone benefits from government protections of a military, police and court system).  Raising the rate on people because they’ve done well isn’t just, it’s punishing success (but liberals don’t believe money is made through skill and drive but because of corruption in despite of all knowledge of human nature and history).  But if you really wanted justice and not just a whine of fair you would support the Ryan Plan.  Hell, since, as Ryan has put out numerous times, it’s up the Ways and Means Committee to decide the future of loopholes…how about eliminating all deductions after $200,000…and reduce them for income after $100,000.  Republicans would support that. Because it’s just or at least more just than what we have now.  But raising rates isn’t just…it’s not even fair as you’re talking about raising rates on capital gains (money that derives from income which has already been taxed, and then invested in companies which also pay corporate taxes, so yes let’s tax it a third time…and if you buy anything with it we’ll slap some sales tax on that too…oh yeah that’s fair).  But please continue whining about fair.

Of course Obama then makes it seem that letting people keep their money is stealing from veterans, letting people freeze to death (“Or a family that’s struggling to get by maybe is getting less home heating oil assistance.”), old people’s healthcare…along with unconstitutional payments for student loans. As if taxing is the only option, rather than smart cuts, intelligent regulation, efficiency, reduction of waste, and turning programs over to the states.  No, Obama has only a vision of tax or no tax.  No other option is available because he isn’t even concerned with justice or fairness.

And then we get to the all important (read horrific) passage:

I hear politicians talking about values in an election year.  I hear a lot about that.  Let me tell you about values.  Hard work, personal responsibility — those are values.   But looking out for one another — that’s a value.  The idea that we’re all in this together — I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper — that’s a value.  The idea that we think about the next generation and we’re taking care of our planet — that’s a value.

By value I can only assume he means the complete lack of sane human values.  Let’s ignore the bizarre choice of paraphrasing a Biblical murderer (we could spend days talking about the odd choice of quotes, but a Pagan like me commenting on Biblical quotes is a little odd).  First off looking out for one another might be personal value but compassion being a beautiful thing between individuals does not mean that it should or even can be transferred to the government.  But it’s not even that, Obama’s disgusting vision is that we help those who want to lie around and do nothing but get paid and work to destroy everything we believe in (like his unwavering support for the teacher’s unions or the billion and one-half dollars he wants to give to the Muslim Brotherhood, which by any sane administration would be declared a terrorist organization).  But then of course he uses the quote “I am my brother’s keeper.”  Do you know what needs keepers?  Inanimate property, animals, and slaves.  I, and every person on this planet are human beings—with the exception of small children and those with serious mental problems we don’t need keepers.  Keepers are for slaves, to tell you what you can and cannot buy (which I believe the Obama administration said it has the right to do), to tell you when and where you can go (which the Obama administration tried to do through it’s rewrite of NDAA) and what you can and cannot see (which the Obama administration tried to do with SOPA).

The fact of the matter is that this is only Obama getting lazy and showing his true colors.  I’m sorry but in the context of every power grab this man has made I can’t just think that this is a poor choice of words.  This is a man who believes that he and his fellow government bureaucrats need to be our keepers and keep us in line.  This speech makes clear that his idea of liberty is straight out 1984 that “slavery is liberty” and that we will only be happy and productive little kept people when we are under his control.  Nothing he has said or done give me any reason to believe that I should give him the benefit of the doubt here.  When he says keeper he means it.  He means that he thinks that we need to sacrifice our lives and our liberties to take care of each other.  He views what most of us would consider the sickest of dystopias as his utopia.

I’m not going to call for anything here.  There’s no need.  If he and his team keep acting like they have done this past week, they will be powerless as of November and gone by January.  However, just because I don’t fear anything this man can do doesn’t change the fact that evil needs to be called what it is.  I know my blog won’t exactly convince anyone on the left, but for my readers, who probably don’t take as hard-line a view in their rhetoric, when you’re talking to people keep this evil in mind.  Keep in mind he is opposed to the basic concept of liberty at all levels, and while maybe with a little more finesse than I am demonstrating, point it out to the people you talk to.  The problem isn’t Obama, the problem is this belief that life is made better only through government and control.

2 Comments

Filed under Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Conservative, Constitution, Economics, Election 2012, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Free Will, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Happiness, Individualism, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, Natural Rights, Obama, Patriotism, People Are Stupid, politics, Stupid liberal quote of the day, Taxes, Tyranny, Unions, Unjust legislation, Welfare

A Week of Obama Peddling Lies. Part I

“I am my brother’s keeper.”

It’s kind of hard to attribute that quote.  I could either attribute it to a dozen or so Ayn Rand villains who at the time I first read her books appeared to be farcically overblown caricatures of a philosophy she was fighting against—an embodiment of collectivism, slavery, oppression, evil, an echo of the rhetoric of Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China, that our lives belong to others and the individual is nothing.  Or, you know, I could accurately attribute it to President, and asshole-in-chief, Barack Obama.

I want to deal with the quote above…but before I do I need to deal with all the other lies and rank idiocy in his speech before I drive the dagger home in to the heart of the darkness that is Obama’s vision of America.

Okay, but before we dig into the details of this heart of darkness and lies, let’s take a simple look at the stupidity he’s been hyping for the last few weeks.  The Buffett Rule.  If you’re reading this blog you probably already know that the Buffett Rule is a joke.  Appropriately it is named after a man whose company has evaded paying its taxes for years and done so with impunity because of its connections to Washington.  The rule, a fancy name for an increase in capital gains taxes on the richest Americans, would according to conservatives raise only about $40 Billion a year…but liberals say it will raise a whopping $50 Billion a year. And when you’re running a Trillion Dollar plus deficit every year that will make up for maybe 5% of the deficit (less really because you’ll see it bring in less and less with every year as investment dries up).  And it will further encourage people to not bother investing.  So in other words it doesn’t even begin to solve the problem, it only appeases the Occupy schmucks by making it look like you’re sticking it to rich people.  Further it stops businesses from investing as much (they will probably hoard more now as they become afraid of even more being taken) and allows government to throw away more on useless causes!

In the speech where he states he’s his brother’s keeper…you begin to see exactly why outside of playing to his base, who seem to believe what he says, he will not be able to actually run on his record.  His listing off his accomplishments is a list of lies and denials of reality peppered with stupidity and idiocy.  I’m only going to go over it in general…if you want to waste your time the full text is here.

(By the way, is it standard to always include applause in White House speech transcript?  Because if it is, then every president is just pathetic, if it’s just Obama, pathetic doesn’t even begin to cover it.) it would be standard in any transcript to not the pause for applause – what we do not know is if it is like television where they put up signs and let you know when to applaud and also add laugh/applause tracks??

He goes on forever about “change” in a string of lies and perversions.  He brags about “fair pay act” for women that will help only trial lawyers and hurt everyone else (regardless of gender) He talks about the auto bailout as a good thing and not an attempt to have the government assert control over industry, and set precedent for breaking contract law…not to mention preventing the whole industry from actually recovering by allowing the creative destruction all economic growth is dependant on.  He actually said that he signed legislation that “saves the typical family more than $8,000 at the pump.  That’s what change is.”  Which will do wonders for the 50K in debt they’re going to have to go in just to get through this summer’s outrageous gas prices caused by Obama’s bad domestic policy, bad corporate policy, bad energy policy, and bad foreign policy.    He brags about nationalizing the student loan industry as if further causing the insane inflation of college tuition is a good thingHe touted the Obamacare as change for the better…because Obama is clearly either mentally insane or mentally challenged.  He gives himself credit for ending don’t ask don’t tell…when he did nothing, when Democrats did nothing when it could hurt them, and only passed it in a lame duck session…showing that they didn’t believe in it so much as believed in pissing off social conservatives…if they really believed in it they would have done it sooner rather than later.  “Change is the fact that for the first time in nine years, there are no Americans fighting in Iraq.”  A bold face lie as we still have people in Iraq….and again he patted himself on the back for taking that brave stand that I’m sure all 43 other president (and most of their opponents) would have taken in the same position and ordered Bin Laden’s hit.  Then, my favorite lie about his accomplishments  “Our economy is getting stronger.  The recovery is accelerating.”  Exactly what figures is he using to justify this statement?  The fact that real unemployment is unspeakably high?   The fact that Bernake clearly has never read anything by the Chicago or Austrian school and is inflating our money to near worthlessness?  This inflation being worsened by the stifling rules of regulation?  Barry I know the a man who’s power you clearly envy and want said “The bigger the lie the more people will believe it” but even if you fool your idiot voters into believing it, it still doesn’t even come close to making it true…and I have my doubts that the majority of the American public is going to believe your pathologic lying more than their own wallet.

“We’ve got to make sure that the next generation of manufacturing takes root not in Asia, not in Europe, but in factories of Detroit and Pittsburgh and Cleveland. […]I want us to stop rewarding businesses that ship jobs overseas  — reward companies that are investing right here in the United States of America.” First, I’m glad that Obama and Rick Santorum are on the same page of “we need to focus on manufacturing” because clearly it’s 1870 and this is the future of America…you know let’s just ignore Gates and Jobs and every other expert in economics and industry that says the future of America is in high-end technical and information jobs…no clearly low education, low skill jobs of manufacturing are our future.  And yes we want to prevent jobs from going overseas…because if they did it might actually improve the economies of third world nations, bring stability, prosperity, and markets that are buying the high-tech stuff that only we can produce…no, no we can’t have that.  And I love how we’re “rewarding” companies for leaving, not, you know, punishing them with high taxes, high regulation,  complete devotion to unions  and corruption on our part…no it’s that they’re rewarded for leaving…because the laws of capitalism don’t stop no matter how hard you want them to.

Near the end of his speech he goes into some other stupid statements.  “I want to make our schools the envy of the world.”  You just don’t want to do what is necessary, like not only stop giving into the teacher’s union but actually working to gut them of their anti-education pro-corruption pro-incompetence stances.  I don’t see you stopping the obscene amount of waste that is passed off as professional development.  The useless bureaucracy. The lack of school choice.  The lack of nation wide standards.  The massive drain in money, time, and energy caused by educating the children of illegal immigrants.  You don’t seem to want to deal with any of the real problems.  You just want to raise union salaries, yes I’m sure throwing money at it will solve the problem.

“An economy built to last is one that supports scientists and researchers and science.”  But again I don’t see you doing anything to protect intellectual property rights and royalties.  I don’t see you doing anything to encourage discovery by lowering useless regulations.  I don’t see you doing anything but funneling money to your supporters into  scams like Solyndra.  I wonder what we’re going to find your kickback on that was in 10 years?

“I want our businesses and our people to have access to the best roads and the best airports, faster high-speed rail and Internet access.”  Okay, take away the regulations and let them build it themselves.  If they need it they’ll build it.

And then there is this utter lack of economic knowledge.

“The American story is not just about what we do on our own.  Yes, we’re rugged individualists and we expect personal responsibility, and everybody out there has got to work hard and carry their weight.  But we also have always understood that we wouldn’t win the race for new jobs and businesses and middle-class security if we were just applying some you’re-on-your-own economics.  It’s been tried in our history and it hasn’t worked.  It didn’t work when we tried it in the decade before the Great Depression.  It didn’t work when we tried it in the last decade.  We just tried this.  What they’re peddling has been tried.  It did not work.”

First, moron, the phrase is carry “their OWN weight”  emphasis on the own.  You seem to suggest we need to carry the weight of others, and I’ll get to how unspeakably evil that is in the next blog, but for now let’s just say that in addition to being morally reprehensible it shows no knowledge of how people act.  And actually it is competition, survival of the fittest, and you win or you lose on your own economics that has worked throughout all of human history.  When there is no competition there is no need to keep prices low and quality high (just look at the POS’s Government Motors puts out).  And jackass it did work in the 20’s.  What didn’t work is government interference at the first sign of a problem (see the collective work of Milton Friedman, especially A Monetary History of the United States  or The Forgotten Man by Shlaes…but I get the feeling Obama’s understanding doesn’t go beyond the childish Keynes and Krugman)…and, uh, I don’t think we can call the first decade of the this century a decade of capitalism.  When the president raises entitlements and Congress continues to try and rig whole markets, inflating prices to beyond unsafe levels (not to mention a buildup of decades of corporate welfare, Democrats and Republicans are to blame).  No what caused our problems from this last decade was, oh, gee, guess what, over spending! Over regulation in the wrong sectors.  Under regulations in the wrong sectors! You know Obamanomics-lite!  In your weekend address you like to point out that the 90’s was a time of economic prosperity…and stupidly you said it was because taxes were high?  Which not only begs the questions did he miss the GOP reigning in a little spending or welfare reforms (two things that will only happen if Obama is removed from office come January) … no it was only taxes.  conversely let’s look at the last time Obama’s economics were tried…the Carter years.  When unemployment and inflation were high…wait that sounds familiar.

Okay I could keep going but it should be obvious that A. I’m angry at Obama’s incompetence B. Obama is incompetence defined when it comes to economics (and regulation, and taxation, and foreign policy, and ….you get the idea), C. 4 more years of this dipshit will leave us a third world nation…I don’t need some grand conspiracy theory that he’s a socialist trying to destroy this country to believe that, I just need his absolute idiocy tempered by his raging ego.

Up next, why he’s not only an idiot, but possibly evil incarnate.

1 Comment

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Corporate Welfare, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Free Will, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Happiness, Individualism, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Obama, People Are Stupid, politics, Taxes, Tyranny, Unions, Welfare

The Possible Future of the Republican Party

 

“Look at Europe, you fool. Can’t you see past the guff and recognize the essence? One country is dedicated to the proposition that man has no rights, that the collective is all. The individual held as evil, the mass – as God. No motive and no virtue permitted – except that of service to the proletariat.

That’s one version. Here’s another. A country dedicated to the proposition that man has no rights, that the State is all. The individual held as evil, the race – as God. No motive and no virtue permitted – except that of service to the race. Am I raving or is this the harsh reality of two continents already? If you’re sick of one version, we push you in the other. We’ve fixed the coin. Heads – collectivism. Tails – collectivism. Give up your soul to a council – or give it up to a leader. But give it up, give it up, give it up. Offer poison as food and poison as antidote. Go fancy on the trimmings, but hang on to the main objective. Give the fools a chance, let them have their fun – but don’t forget the only purpose you have to accomplish. Kill the individual. Kill man’s soul. The rest will follow automatically.”—Elsworth Toohey, The Fountainhead [emphasis added]

 

Believe it or not Rick Santorum’s campaign gives me hope.   Why?  Because it proves beyond the shadow of all doubt that religious fundamentalists do not control this party.  Let’s be honest cowards are voting for Ron Paul, social conservatives for Santorum, (I haven’t the foggiest clue as to why anyone is voting for Newt) and fiscal conservatives are voting for Mitt Romney.

 

 

But listening to Santorum’s speech did make me think about his new theme: Freedom.  It’s ironic that this would be his theme as it is something that he is opposed to in every area of existence.  We know that Ricky is a social conservative and thus opposed to liberty in the social arena…no we need government laws and regulations backed with up with fines and jails and guns to control that part of the world.  From his earmarks, pro-union stance and wish to control the economy through loopholes and regulations we know he is opposed to economic freedom.  And while you might say at least he’s a conservative on the foreign policy arena, but you’d be wrong, as he doesn’t believe in holding the line against Islam-fascists or Communist China because of the relevant communist or fascists part…he opposes them because they’re Muslims and atheists…after all he has said it’s a “holy war” (his words not mine) that we’re fighting right now.  Rick Santorum, American Jihadist.  He’s not interested in beating back tyranny; he’s interested in beating back non-Christians.   In every form of political thought this man is opposed to liberty and freedom in every way possible.

And while Santorum may be in the running for worst politician in the history of presidential politics, it did start me thinking about the nature of freedom in relation to political parties (yes I’m weird and the most boring conversationalist…deal with it).

 

So, contrary to that two axis graph the libertarian love so much (with one axis being economic freedom and one being social freedom) modern politics is actually a balance of three axes.

  1. Economic Freedom ranging from zero freedom with socialism/communism (the name changes the government doesn’t) to full freedom (anarchy) with true capitalism being about 80-90% of the way to complete freedom.
  2. Social Freedom with communism/theocracy/fascism being at the zero end and again capitalism in the 80-90% range of full freedom.
  3. And finally you have the third access which I will call interventionism (for a much more protracted discussion see Republicans and Reincarnation).  This is the idea of whether or not we feel that freedom should be extended throughout the world as “all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights” at the full freedom side or feel that tyranny, socialism and oppression are fine so long as they stay outside our borders at the zero freedom side, we call this side isolationism.

Sadly, right now each political party embraces at least one of these evils.  Democrats embrace the evil of restricting freedom in the economic sphere.  Libertarians embrace the evil of allowing oppression in other nations so long as it doesn’t bother them (much like Whigs in antebellum America or isolationist pre-WWII who didn’t mind 6 million people dying so long as it wasn’t them…we all see how well those policies worked)…and the Republican party embraces the evil of government intrusion in the social sphere.

 

And this is why I chose the quote I did to open this post.  The system seems rigged (more by human nature to want to control something not by nefarious evil conglomerates trying to control our every choice) to leave us with a between government control in the social sphere or government control in the economic sphere…and if we’re too disgusted with those we go to a party that turns a blind eye to evil, no matter how atrocious and antithetical to our most basic principles,

 

But there is hope.  Because right now we are seeing a rejection of that very evil represented in Rick Santorum (yes he embodies all three evils, but he’s running on his social “conservative” agenda).

 

But there is more hope than just the destruction of Rick Santorum and the defeat of the social conservatives in this election…but the possibility of the defeat of them for all time.

 

Look at it this way.  Almost every Tea Party candidate who ran in 2010 won.  The ones who didn’t, the ones who cost the GOP in the Senate (most notably Angle and O’Donnell) were portrayed not as fiscal conservatives but as wacky social conservatives (I’ll not be getting into whether that depiction is correct or not).  So it appears that when Republicans run on fiscal issues they win. 

 

 

Or to look at it another way.  The highest Santorum has ever been is 39% of Republican voters who make up only about 36% of the voting public.  In other words social conservatives who place their social conservatism above all else make up only 14% (39% of 36%…and those are kind of high end estimates, it’s probably lower in reality) of the electorate.

 

Only 14%.  14% that has no choice but to vote for the Republicans or let a party that allows its economic liberalism turn into an excess of social liberalism.  Do you really think that 14% of the electorate that identifies itself as independent or libertarian aren’t driven from the Republican Party by its perverse adherence to social conservatism…to a belief that the government should tell people how to live their lives.  Hell, I know a few blue-dog Democrats who are fiscally conservative and whose only argument against Republicans is the pointless social concerns.

 

If we drove them out of power now, if we made this a party of fiscal and foreign policy concerns, and only of social moderation, that the government takes no sides in social issues (you know, as the Founders wanted)…and leave social issues to individuals, churches and local communities,  then we would experience not a drop in election results, but a surge, a powerful surge that would not only be a death blow to psychosis that is social conservatives desire to rule over people’s bedrooms but also to the evil that is the Democrat desire to rule over our wallets.

 

Or we can just keep going as we always have and let these lunatics have too much influence in our party.

Leave a comment

Filed under Capitalism, Conservative, Constitution, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Foreign Policy, Free Will, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Laws the GOP should pass, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, People Are Stupid, politics, Problems with the GOP, Republicans and Reincarnation, Taxes, Tyranny

More stupid and evil quotes from Santorum…

Arroyo: Now you’ve conceded that you can’t win the majority of the delegates, right?

Rick Santorum: No. I haven’t conceded that at all. I think we can win the majority of the delegates. That’s phony Romney math.

You think you can win the majority of the delegates Rick, but you and your ignorant followers are the only ones. You’ve been averaging 25% of the delegates and you need 70% of those left. Even Don Quixote would look at you and say “I said impossible dream, not incredibly stupid denial of reality and all existence drug induced delusion.”

I don’t usually listen to talk radio, but I do have some respect for Laura Ingram…but whoever this idiot is sitting in for her gives hacks a bad name by letting Santorum, who is running for the position of Ayatollah of America, get away with so many idiotic statements and outright lies.

Where to begin?

“I would say just the opposite. I think what people don’t realize is as soon as we get a nominee, the Obama Administration, the Obama campaign—as well as all of the national media—will turn its guns on whoever our nominee is. And those guns will be trained on someone who will basically be out of money, having just gotten out of these primaries. Let’s assume that tomorrow everybody drops out and we have one nominee. Starting the next day the media will train all of their guns, as well as President Obama, on whoever that nominee is. Right now they can’t focus on anybody. I make this argument, I’ve made this argument from the beginning: The longer this argument goes the better it is for us because there’s less opportunity for the media to pound the heck out of our nominee.”

So his argument is that as long as there isn’t a nominee Obama has no one to attack. So either he’s mentally impaired and hasn’t actually caught onto the fact that Obama is already running attack ads against Romney, and doing everything to help Santorum become the nominee or he’s just a pathological liar. (Actually it’s option 3: Both). Rick is a moron’s moron. Rather than only having Obama attacking Romney, a fight we all know Obama is going to lose…but Obama, Santorum and Newt attacking Romney is better than just Obama attacking him? Strategic thinking like this would make for fascinating foreign policy “We can’t support Britain during the Blitz because that would only encourage Germany to attack them.” “We can’t continue to give Taiwan military support because siding with them will only encourage China to invade.” “We can’t back Israel because as long as we turn our back on them Iran will not do anything.”

Rick do you know why they’re attacking Romney now and not attacking you? Because if you were the nominee it would take roughly, I don’t, 48 hours to have the majority of the public demanding your head on a pike. They just have to play the “Protestants are the servants of Satan clip” and “if my daughter was raped, the child would be a gift from God” speeches. You have said, perhaps some of the dumbest things in the history of politics. They’re not targeting you because they know that while most of us could get liquored up and vote for McCain, we would need a few shot of tequila beyond fatal alcohol poisoning before we could be dumb enough to vote for you, someone who wants big government in the social arena and big government in economics.
I also love how he says a long campaign will drain the candidates’ resources financially….but a long primary won’t? Do you really want to trust the budget to a man who doesn’t understand that money spent in a primary is the same money you’d be spending in a general election. Of course one could reasonably mention that in a general election you aren’t splitting the Republican fundraising between three candidates, but again that bit of blindingly obvious reasoning would once again show Santorum to be a stupid jackass.

He also mentions that he thinks he can win, and I’ll deal with his, to put it politely, shit-for-brains plan to win the convention later, but did you also notice how he says he plans to make sure that Romney “hobbles into the convention, having lost a bunch of the last primary states and not shown his ability close the deal.” So he’s a weak candidate because he won’t be able to close the deal…but you’re a strong candidate because you can’t get anywhere near that mark. I’m very confused. Oh by the way those last primary states Romney is going to lose according to Santorum include California (Romney +20), New Jersey (Romney +5), Montana (Ron Paul might do well, but Santorum’s big government certainly won’t), New Mexico (I hope Ricky goes there and tells them they all have to learn English too, it will be fun to watch that reaction at the polls) and the last primary before the convention…Utah. Who thinks Romney is going to lose Utah? Ignoring religion, Romney is the man who made the Olympics bring their state millions of dollars and allowed their scandal over that thing to be forgotten. Yeah I’m sure he’s going to have a real hard fight to win Utah. One must wonder how much LSD Santorum is taking on a daily basis.

But in the mean time he’s looking to the next two races…
He’s heading to Puerto Rico…
To tell a territory that has voted 4 times not to become a state that if they want to become a state they have to learn English. And what does he do when he finds out they don’t want to be a state? He doubles down and tells them they still need to learn English… I’m all for English only here in the 50 states…but I don’t go down to Mexico and tell them they need to learn English there. Oh it will be a Happy St. Patrick’s Day for the Team Romney.

He’s heading To Louisiana
One it’s a closed primary, so there goes a third of his voters. Two…well, I have problems spending money on anything, and I mean ANYTHING, at the federal level…but if it’s a choice between the bridge to nowhere (Sarah Palin’s pet project) or sending said money to Katrina victims. Oooh tough call.

“Gov. Romney, for example, right now he’s spending very little money in Mississippi and Alabama.” Santorum said that Tuesday morning. You can hear him yourself say that. Notice however that Tuesday night he said he won in spite of all the money Romney spent. Yes you could point to the fact that Santorum goes into discussion of SuperPACS…but doesn’t he have his own SuperPAC…can’t they spend as much? No? You mean Santorum can’t get anyone with money to back him? You think if they despise him now they’re suddenly going to show up in August to back his pro-union, pro-loop hole, pro-spending economic plan? No I didn’t think so either.

“Mitt Romney has raised about as much money as he ever thought he could raise.” That would of course be several time the amount that you’ve raised Ricky.

Oh but wait. Let’s not forget that Santorum actually thinks he can win and that we’re lying when we say Romney is inevitable. Of course that is because we’re using, in your words, “phony Romney math.” That would be the math that says 2+2=4. I know your special pixy dust power Obama/Santorum math comes out differently. But trust me Ricky, Romney has this in the bag and you would need an act of God to support you…and I hate to tell you this, God is not the close-minded, bigoted, evil and stupid person you are (he probably loves you, no accounting for taste, but I doubt he’s going to pull out a miracle for you).

And then there is how he views the convention. “Iowa we finished with 25% of the vote; we’re probably going to get three times that number of delegates [from Iowa].” He is right that Iowa is a nonbinding caucus and thus it could happen…although Iowa has 28 delegates, so that’s what 21 delegates. According to RealClearPolitics there are 368 delegates from non-binding states…let’s say he got them all, even in states we haven’t yet had a vote…then that would give him a grand total (combined with what he’s won already) around 508 delegates, still, you know, less than half of what he needs. Wow. He would still need to win 50% of the remaining delegates and he’s been averaging about 25%…and he’s behind in almost every winner-take-all state (if you assume Romney picks up the winner-take-all states he’s currently ahead in, then Santorum needs to win about 75% of those delegates in proportional state…) But here’s the problem, those non-binding people are Republican Party delegates, i.e. they’re politicians and businessmen. The average GOP delegate is 54 years old, college educated, and makes over $100,000 all groups Romney kills Santorum in EVERY exit poll. Also 30% of delegates are women and 30% are Catholic, groups Santorum repeatedly loses. Santorum talks a nice game, but the reality is that those unbound delegates are actually his enemy not his friend. Also in his little warped mind he thinks that if he can stop Romney from getting the 1144 delegates needed (most projections now have Romney going in with 1200-1500, so dream on Ricky) he thinks that he can win on a second ballot. That would mean that all of the delegates Romney has selected in states where he had to submit slates of delegates he would have to have (after 4 years of planning) picked people in a rush without vetting them who might betray him. Unlikely. It’s far more likely that Santorum who can’t even find enough people to submit in states as his delegates picked some who will defect. Not to mention that I think Ron Paul delegates will have a much deeper hatred of Santorum than of Romney…and Newt supporters that defect are just as likely to hate Santorum more than Romney. So even if the mathematically unlikely happened and this did go to a second or third ballot, it’s actually stacked against Ayatollah Santorum.

I also like how he said he would protest Arizona and Florida for making their votes winner take all. It makes it sound like this will end up giving him more delegates. It won’t. Arizona and Florida have already been penalized by this move and had half their delegates (all of which went for Romney), so they are already playing by the rules since this was the penalty they knew about and it has been enforced. But let’s say he does go forward and challenges this, for two states where Romney won big and Santorum did very badly…under a full delegate count and proportional distribution Romney gets EVEN MORE delegates! Way to go Rick, that’s some real good planning you have there. Is your policy to stop Iran to ship them refined uranium? Maybe your plan to stop hunger is to burn crops? The obscene stupidity of this man is just endless.

Oh speaking of obscene…don’t forget Rick will be making banning ALL internet porn a hallmark of his administration…because there weren’t any other issues we needed to worry about.

But the real question is who is the True Conservative?

And notice how Rick Santorum judges if you’re a conservative or not. On social issues and ONLY social issues…I’m convinced if you could find a quote of Marx stating he was against abortion and gays, Rick would declare Karl a great conservative hero.

He votes for a bill to spend tax payer money to Planned Parenthood (and votes for it so that all of his unethical earmarks can get through as well) and justifies it with other corrupt politicians doing the same thing. So in Rick’s mind voting to spend tax payer dollars on something he doesn’t agree with is fine so long as he gets taxpayer dollars for what he wants to spend it on…increasing the size of government everywhere.

Romney gives his personal money to charity (I know making personal donations to charity is a rather odd concept to Santorum as he rarely does it) but says that we’re going to end federal funding to the very same organization he makes private donations to. Thus limiting the size and scope of government.

Santorum big government. Romney small government. Remind me again which ones conservatives like. And remind me again by saying you’re a conservative.

“He gave his own personal money. I voted for a large big appropriation bill.” It’s sad he thinks the offensive idea in this is money given to Planned Parenthood…where a real conservative would find the words “large big appropriation bill” to be the offensive part.   Rick finds it okay to give your money to someone that he abhors as long as he gets his. But making a personal donation with one’s own earned money (a concept that likely eludes Rick as all of his money comes from corruption) offends Rick to no end. After all it should be the government, under it’s religious leader Rick Santorum, which gets to decide what charities exist and which don’t. I’m Rick but giving my money to an organization that I oppose without my consent is far, far worse than someone else giving their money to that organization. And the fact that you don’t see that difference is beyond disgusting and beyond reason to making me fear what your administration would hold.

And the worst part is he actually says that he thinks Romney’s attack is accusing him of being “pro-choice.” He doesn’t even get it’s an attack on his spending of taxpayer money. He has no conception whatsoever of fiscal conservatism. All that matters to him is abortion. Abortion and gays. Gotta outlaw them all ‘cause Jesus had whole sermons on the evil gays and abortion (at least it appears there were whole sermons on that in Santorum’s special edition in the Bible which no other Catholic has ever seen, but a few crazy Evangelicals in Westboro also seem to have that copy).

To Santorum all that matters is whether you are willing to make gay marriage illegal in all 50 states, make abortion and birth control illegal, everywhere, and of course making porn illegal. Because those are the things that are most important to Rick Santorum and his social conservatives. It does not matter that he believes in heavy government interference in the economy…he doesn’t oppose Obama because Obama is getting involved in the economy, he opposes Obama because he believes Obama isn’t getting involved in the right places.

Which makes him all the more the hypocrite by saying Romney had a government take over of healthcare…when in fact Romneycare was designed to prevent that. Santorum then goes on to say that Romney raised taxes by a billion dollars. That’s doubly a lie, first because it was $740 Million, but accuracy in numbers was never Rick’s strong suit. And second he didn’t raise taxes. He first closed a lot of loopholes in the Massachusetts’ tax system…which last time I checked was what we wanted to do at the federal level…oh wait those loopholes are designed to help pick winners and losers in the economy, a favorite thing for a socialist like Ricky. And he raised fees on a lot of services in Massachusetts…so instead of tax payers paying for services they didn’t use only the people who used those services paid for them. My God, how terribly capitalistic. I’m sure Rick’s grandfather, the one Rick speaks with endless praise of, the Communist Party Leader, is just spinning in his grave hearing how someone brought conservative capitalist reform that worked to increase revenue and treat everyone fairly to a blue state. So he didn’t raise taxes Rick, he just stopped the system from being rigged. Once again you have a hard time opening your mouth without lying or saying something stupid.

I also love “I never voted to increase spending.” This from the earmark king. And then he goes over all the other lies of Romney’s flip flops. I’ve dealt with all of those before. Oh and he lies about Romney supporting Obamacare, he never did. But if Rick Santorum has ever said a truthful word about Romney I’d be damned surprised.

“this is one of the most liberal guys we have ever had and for him to go out there and attack me as being a moderate is just truly laughable.” Sadly it’s not laughable that you, Rick, can consider your big government, pro-union, big spending total control of the economy ideas conservative. It’s not laughable, it’s disgusting. At least with most social conservatives they come with the virtue of wanting less government in the economy so they make decent allies in the fight of what is the biggest problem facing the nation right now. But you want government in every aspect of our lives. In our religion. In our homes, our beds, our work, our shopping. I would say that your mentality is everything that is wrong with the Republican Party, (but I can’t because, as I said usually, I get small government economics even in the worse aspects of the GOP)…your mentality, Rick, is everything that is wrong with Iran and Saudi Arabia, a perverse mix of fanatic and intolerant religion with socialist economics. Every evil belief in the world can be found in the words of Rick Santorum.

I could go on. Every single thing this man says boils down into one of three categories (1) lies (2) stupidity (3) evil, usually in some Venn-Diagram level crossover. But really what’s the point. You can listen to it all on your own. Unlike Santorum who feels he should make all your decisions for you, I trust you can see the utter hypocrisy and despicableness of this petty excuse for a human being.

Leave a comment

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Free Will, Gay Rights, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Health Care, Mitt Romney, Natural Rights, Obama, Patriotism, People Are Stupid, philosophy, politics, Problems with the GOP, Rick Santorum, Taxes, Tyranny, Unions, Welfare

Stupid Liberal Quote of the Day…our old friend Paul Krugman

So I tried to stay away from writing any political blogs for a few days, but as you can see that didn’t work.

Why?

Because Paul Krugman decided once again to spew his mentally challenged word out to the public. This time he tried to libel Mitt Romney. I’d even go as far as saying Romney should sue, but as I have serious doubts Krugman would be found mentally competent to stand trial for his actions, I know that won’t happen.

What did he say?

Well at the start of a long argument full of inane claptrap, he states:

Speaking in Michigan, Mr. Romney was asked about deficit reduction, and he absent-mindedly said something completely reasonable: “If you just cut, if all you’re thinking about doing is cutting spending, as you cut spending you’ll slow down the economy.” A-ha. So he believes that cutting government spending hurts growth, other things equal.

He then goes on to use this quote and some other random facts to suggest that Romney is a closet Keynesian. I won’t bore you with the whole set of facts, I’ve frankly seen better arguments from rabid conspiracy theorists on the moon landing (just so no one takes that quote out of context, I do believe that we landed on the moon numerous times).

Okay so before I get to what Romney actually said (I know what a shock that this quote was grossly taken out of context) let’s talk about something that Paul Krugman knows less than nothing about: Macro-Economics.

There are three main schools that are relevant to this discussion. Keynesians who argue that when an economy suffers the government should infuse cash into the economy and fiddle around with the prime interest rate to boost growth. Then you have the Austrians (Hayek) and Monetarists (Friedman) who while they would argue on a lot of things would both agree that the government should have little to no influence in the economy (beyond providing a bare bones safety net at local levels…and for Monetarists too at a regular rate increase the amount of currency in the system to prevent deflation). (This is of course grossly simplified but you don’t want me to get into the math of it, it would just bore you to death).

Now our government, and most governments since the Great Depression, have embraced Keynes to one degree or another and most have yielded the same problems that Austrians and Monetarists said they would. The problem with infusing cash into the economy through stimulus programs is that it works great in the short run, but the minute you pull the money back it stops working. Stimulus is a lot like black coffee, as long as you keep drinking it, it works…but the longer you go the more you need, and the minute you stop, you crash. No Austrian or Monetarists I know of would say that stimulus doesn’t have an immediate effect. It does. What Austrian and Monetarist economists point out is that you need an ever increasing level of stimulus to keep having the same effect and with that comes an ever increasing amount of public debt (see Greece, Spain, Italy, and Ireland…and possibly most of Europe and China pretty soon). No sane person argues that it doesn’t have an effect in the short run. What Austrians and Monetarists do argue is that (1) that ever increasing debt is often worse than the recession where you spent money you didn’t have in an effort to avoid (2) that you can’t avoid the recession, but the longer you delay it, the worse it will be (again back to my coffee analogy if you just got sleep when you were first tired you would only need 6-8 hours sleep, but after a full all-nighter you will now need 9-11 hours sleep to recover) and (3) the government interference during your stimulus package actually hurts the mechanisms for growth and improvement within the economy making the long term effects truly disastrous. (All other things being equal). So if you have a massive spending program, say spending $4 Billion more than they take in every day, and you suddenly just cut that spending, even Fredrick Von Hayek and Milton Friedman would say, yeah the economy would slow down in the short term. They would argue in the long term that would be a pro-growth plan (but long term is something Keynesians aren’t very good at, or seeing the big picture which is why no Keynesian has ever won a Nobel Prize for macro-economics…because Keynesian ideas don’t work long term in the big picture). Now Hayek and Friedman would probably also argue that to help mitigate this problem of short term loss, since any Keynesian government has probably also mucked things up with bad tax policies and too many regulations, that you should cut the regulation and improve the tax policy which hopefully will balance out the short term hit from cutting the stimulus. (…it’s a stretch of the analogy but think of when you cut the caffeine but immediately go to the gym and thus are able to push through to your second wind).

Okay so let’s look at what Romney said.

Now you know, unlike liberals I don’t like to give just clips and sound bites, but prefer to at least offer you the link to the whole speech or article…unfortunately I can’t find that…and I looked (if anyone has a full transcript please send it to me).

But it’s not really relevant because even what I could find is enlightening.

“If you just cut, if all you’re thinking about doing is cutting spending, as you cut spending you’ll slow down the economy. So you have to, at the same time, create pro-growth tax policies.”

Now notice the second part of that statement. A statement one might hear out of Friedman or Hayek. Improve the tax policy to counter the immediate hit in the short term. And he tried (didn’t always succeed) to cut regulation and taxes in Massachusetts and has said he’s going to cut regulation and taxes when in the White House. So he sounds like a Monetarist, acts like a Monetarist and behaves like a Monetarist*…so Krugman and Santorum’s idiot followers say he’s a Keynesian. How does that work.

*I didn’t say Austrian, because Ron Paul is in the Austrian school of economics and I do see a few differences between the two.

But let’s take a larger look at this. Do you notice that YouTube clip is from a liberal group? And Krugman is trying to hit Romney for being a Keynesian. And this was also heavily reported on MSNBC and a few other liberal outlets. Now if he really was a Keynesian, and therefore one of the liberals, wouldn’t they keep this to themselves, wouldn’t they try to hide something that could be used against Romney. (You know, like their complete silence on Santorum’s long history of pro-union, big government, intrusive policies). I mean if he really was that liberal, they would want him to get the nomination, that way they would be guaranteed a liberal no matter what happened. It’s almost like they’re really afraid that this guy won’t take a pen-knife to the government in a few symbolic cuts but rather take the machete to the bureaucracy. It’s almost like they’re trying to help their big government friend Santorum in any way they can. Oh, but that would mean that Santorum supporters have to be the dumbest idiots in the world to play right into their enemies hands.

3 Comments

Filed under Capitalism, Debt, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Paul Krugman is an idiot, People Are Stupid, politics, Taxes

A tale of two opinions on taxes

I know I said I wouldn’t do any writing on politics for the next couple of days (it’s proving difficult)…

But here are just two clips on the capitalist versus socialist view on taxes, I think they speak for themselves

From the capitalist…Sorry FOXNews makes it almost impossible to embed the clips, but the link works.

From the jackass who should be up on tax evasion charges…

Notice who is saying everyone should be equal and who is in a very subtle way threatening to strip people of their rights as Americans.

Leave a comment

Filed under Capitalism, Taxes

Marriage, Religion and Society… (And in a roundabout way, another reason why Santorum’s a jackass)

Ugh…I hate social issues.  I would love it if everyone could just keep their personal lives personal and not worry about what other people are doing so long as they’re not hurting anyone.  And while I am quite the civil libertarian in caring about other people’s lives it might have something to do that my personal life could not be more bland and conservative…which may be why I couldn’t care about other people’s lives.

But because of Tweedle-Dumb and Tweedle-Dumber (otherwise known as Obama and Santorum, I’m not sure which is which) and their ilk there will be no end to the discussion of these otherwise stupid topics for weeks if not months….no, no let’s not talk about saving the economy or dealing with absolute evil abroad, birth control and gay marriage is far more important than whether or not there will actually be a first world society in a generation. Far more important.

I’ve dealt with Obama’s overstep of executive authority in the guise of an attack on religious freedom so I guess it is now time to once again take on Santorum.  Of course that’s a whole mess of issues right there.  Well…let’s go to a few quotes:

“Marriage is not about affirming somebody’s love for somebody else. It’s about uniting together to be open to children, to further civilization in our society.”

“Two people who may like each other or may love each other who are same-sex, is that a special relationship? Yes it is, but it is not the same relationship that benefits society like a marriage between a man and a woman[.]”

“The basic building block of a society is not an individual. It’s the family. That’s the basic unit of society.”

“Do they have a right? Should society do their best to make sure that that child has the best opportunity to be raised by that mother and father? The answer is yes.”

…and if you think those quotes have a distinct communist/collectivist call for 1984, Brave New World, or Anthem I wouldn’t blame you.  Really I’m fascinated to hear that marriage has nothing to do with love (makes you wonder what his home life is like…I’ve got an idea let’s see if his wife or daughters ever smile while on camera in a way that isn’t obviously forced to see how happy that home life is.)  So in Rick Santorum’s mind you are here only to have children to propagate society and we give special privileges to these breeders…(It makes you really frightened of his call to TRIPLE the tax credit for children…because in a time when any right thinking conservative wants to lower taxes and CLOSE all loopholes, he wants to open loopholes with a crowbar so as to encourage massive overpopulation because it’s working so well for the third world).   Okay we can agree that Rick Santorum doesn’t have a single neuron firing in that head of his.  But that still doesn’t put the general issue of marriage off the table even if I’m Santorum is lord high king of the idiots.  So let’s talk marriage…

Yes marriage is an important function of society.  Rick is wrong about it being the basis of society, that has always been and always will be the individual…but individuals need human companionship (usually in the form of friendship and marriage, and if they’re one in the same, then you’re blessed).  Now is marriage only for the “uniting together to be open to children, to further civilization in our society”?  Not really.  People were having children and caring for them long before marriage, although marriage does help raising them, certainly, no one would argue that.  But it is not having a mother and father that helps, it’s having two parents that helps (increased income, increased ability for child care, increased experience) and anyone who thinks that gay people make bad parents isn’t just crazy, they’re flying in the face of a boat load of research (Just one example here).  But raising children isn’t the only thing marriage is for.  If Santorum wanted to ever crack a history book (which I don’t think he has ever done given his perverted views on the Founding Fathers view of liberty ) he might learn that property rights have traditionally had far more to do with marriage than children do…but that would require Santorum to care about property rights, which are an individual right and as he has much respect for individual rights as any communist or Asharite.  And while history is filled with moments where society progressed just fine without any strict government rules on marriage I would be foolish to say that marriage isn’t a great support for society.  However if Santorum and his followers think that gay marriage is a danger to marriage, or even if it’s that  relevant in the face of other government hits at marriage, then they’re idiots.

Granted, as I’ve said before, I would like the federal government and all the states to say that marriage is a religious institution and thus strike the term marriage from every law on the books…civil unions for everyone!  It’s up to your church whether to call what you have a marriage or not, not the government.  This has the advantage of A.) not letting government dictate what a religion can do (we’ll come back to this) (social conservatives get what they want) B.) Everyone will be equal (social liberals get what they want) C.)Nobody gets to win (because I hate people who think social issues are a function of government) and D.) Jackasses like Santorum will have to shut up (everybody on the planet wins).  All the legal privileges of the marriage could be easily transferred to these civil unions, but as it lacks the name it lacks the attack on a religious institution that expanding it encompasses.

But I will still admit that marriage, and a two parent family is important to a functioning society. You’d be a damn fool to deny that…but then again both social conservatives and social liberals are damn fools given how they act. Social liberals are idiots for what they’ve already done to weaken those social structures (and I’ll get to that in just a minute) and social conservatives are idiots for fighting a defensive war against gay marriage (which has nothing to do with the strength of the social institution, but it is very visible which suggest that their cause is more cynical demagoguery than heartfelt concern) rather than an offensive war against the liberal policies that actually have done harm to marriage and society.

But back to my statement about liberals actually having done some stuff have actually done to undermine the social institution of marriage (hint gay marriage isn’t going to be anywhere on this list).

Welfare and the Great Society.  Let’s pay unwed mothers money for having children.  That makes sense.  Because every economist from any school, be it Keynesian, Chicago or Austrian, will tell you that when you subsidize a behavior or product you get more of it.  Subsidize unwed children, guess what, you de-incentivize actually getting married or waiting until marriage to have children.  (This would also be tied to my opinion that Rick Santorum’s idea to triple the child tax credit when we have an over population problem is, well, brainless).  Really brain dead is that we pay for anything more than the first pregnancy.  I can see an argument for a safety net to help women who have had an accident, been dumped by the loser who got them pregnant, and need some help…one time is an accident (although I would prefer these to be run by counties and cities…not a distant bureaucracy in states and at the federal level).  But not two times.  And definitely not more than two.

Now if social conservatives really wanted to care about the well being of children and the defense of marriage as a social institution they would once again push for welfare reforms.  One that cut people off after the first pregnancy, ones that vigorously track down deadbeat dads (I wouldn’t mind upping what the minimum monthly payment is and bringing back debtors prison for those who won’t pay).  Or requiring the welfare recipients attend GED or job training to help ensure they get off welfare if they want to continue getting their check.  Or how about this one—we’ll keep track of every dollar you get in welfare payments you get from the government and the minute you start making over let’s say $25,000 a year the government will deduct 1% of your check until you’ve paid back what you took out, interest free because we’re not monsters (and the percentage of your check would go up slightly say 3% at $30,000 so forth and so on) this way no would ever view welfare as a free ride, thus removing many of the incentives for taking it.  But right now I’m hearing more about those evil, evil gays (who seem to be decent parents and no worse as couples than their straight counterparts) as what is ruining marriage.  Yeah couldn’t be the financial incentives against being married when having children.

Oh and speaking of financial incentives, why is that the call to end the marriage penalty at all levels has kind of disappeared?  As I recall the law passed under Bush to end the marriage penalty had a sunset date…isn’t that coming up?  How about this, offer a tax discount for those who get married.  Watch people get married and stay married when there are real financial incentives to do so.  Will some people get married for reasons other than love?  Probably, but how is that different from right now?  If you want to promote something don’t punish it.  But you haven’t heard that from social conservatives, now have you.  Hell, given the fact that children of single parent households have a higher likelihood of committing a crime, then financially incentivizing marriage would probably pay for the reduction in revenue via a drop in paying for imprisonment (among a whole mountain of secondary benefits, that was just the first one that came to me, trust me it would pay for itself ten times over).

I could go on, how Social Security and Medicare encourage people to dump bonds with their parents when they got old rather than bringing them into the household in a more stable extended family, how the government support for the liberal Teacher’s unions worked to destroy parental responsibility in raising their children, and a few other programs…but I think you get the point.  If social conservatives really cared about the state of marriage and the social benefits that the family brings there are things they could be doing that would be incredibly effective in strengthening the social institution.  But they would rather focus on something that has NOTHING to do with the strength of marriage.  (And liberals don’t go feeling self-satisfied about that last sentence, you actually have done some damage to the social institution of marriage, just because the conservatives are idiots and not calling you on it doesn’t make you less guilty.

Now social conservatives will probably come back with some stupid “gay marriage is the straw that will break the camel’s back” kind of argument.  But as we know in this case I think social conservatives are idiots.  If they really cared about the state of marriage and the need of married couple to properly raise children they would be attacking the liberal entitlement culture and not worrying about what gay people do.

Up next, why the Court decisions on Prop. 8 is actually the last thing the gay community should want because it’s going to hurt them…because the social liberal also need to be hit (with a peppering of insults against the right)

Leave a comment

Filed under Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Economics, Election 2012, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Faith, Fear, Free Will, Gay Marriage, Gay Rights, God, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Happiness, Laws the GOP should pass, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, Obama, People Are Stupid, politics, Problems with the GOP, Rick Santorum, Taxes, Welfare

Stupid liberal quote of the day…Obama Budget Defense

“There’s pretty broad agreement that the time for austerity is not today” –White House Chief of Staff, Jack Lew defending this abysmal mess of a budget.

(By broad agreement he means Obama, Soros and that mentally retarded jackass at the New York Times, Paul Krugman…anyone who actually has a functioning brain was not included in “pretty broad agreement.”  In the real world I think there is pretty broad agreement Obama is out of his gourd.   )
15 Trillion dollars in debt already. A massively growing size of the government. The continued and destructive intrusions on the free market. The ever expanding entitlement state. (Do you think at the point that the government is attacking the Amish for selling milk it might have become too big)
Among other things it would include $800 Million for countries that were involved in the Arab Spring. Remind me which of those nations is not right now controlled by Islamists who are hell bent on destroying Israel and the U.S.? Name one, I dare you. I love that my tax money is going to support these butchers.

“It would take the economy in the wrong way” if we implemented austerity. Which wrong way would that be? Would that be the way where we stop picking winners and losers (usually making the losers temporary winners, but ending up with everyone being a loser) and allow the fundamentals and groundwork for lasting economic growth be created? Would that be the way where people are not dependant on the government for their existence. Would that be the way of prosperity, of freedom, of choice, of liberty and limited government?  Nope can’t have that.

My favorite part is this statement from center-left organization Politico: “But Obama would also go outside the box by creating new mandatory spending initiatives costing tens of billions of dollars and for the first time, openly tap war savings to fund his domestic agenda.” Even the left can’t deny what a boondoggle this pile of shit is.

And this is not the time for austerity?
In the Obama world no day is ever the day for austerity because there should be no limit to the size, power and extend of the government…not until the Ministry of Peace, Ministry of Plenty, Ministry of Love and Ministry of Truth have been fully established. Remember the Obama mantra “Ignorance is strength” “Freedom is slavery.”*

Meanwhile in the real world, every day since the 1990’s has been a day for austerity and every day we have not instituted it has been a failure and disgrace.

*And before you ask, no I do not think 1984 references are uncalled for here given the insanity of increased government spending at this point.

Leave a comment

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Congress, Conservative, Debt, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Long Term Thinking, Obama, Obama Ceasar, Paul Krugman is an idiot, People Are Stupid, politics, Stupid liberal quote of the day, Taxes, Tyranny, Unjust legislation, Welfare