Category Archives: Taxes

Obama did say “You didn’t build that” and worse…Part II

“”They might be giants, and we might be pygmies; but we stand on the shoulders of giants, so we can see farther.” Attributed to Sir Isaac Newton

So just to be clear, Obama did say:

“If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that.  Somebody else made that happen.”

But why is this so bad?

It’s terrible because it shows us exactly what Obama thinks.  He thinks that without an activist government you cannot survive.  That without an activist government there is no progress.  That without an activist government there is no growth.

Intellectually, factually, morally and ethically he could not be more wrong.

Now some very, very stupid people trying to sound reasonable might say something like:

“Neither private sector nor public sector are sufficient. Both are necessary.”

Now in a grander sense, yes, this is true.  The necessary evil of government is necessary to provide a system of laws, a police and military force, and a court system for prosecution of crimes and arbitration of disagreements, a handful of various other services.  Not a single Classically Liberal or capitalist philosopher, be it Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, or F.A. Hayek, would ever argue that government is not necessary to a successfully run economy and society.  Capitalism is just as opposed to anarchy as it is to socialism and tyranny.  But every Classically Liberal and capitalistic philosopher will also point out that government’s function are there to provide rules, protect others from violence and fraud, serve as arbiter, and provide those few services that the private sector cannot easily provide.  And also, while many of them hadn’t seen the monster of an overgrown federal government, most would argue that where government does need to step in it should as locally controlled and locally funded as possible.

Now what is an example of a function that only the federal government can do.  Well you have the army and navy.  You have the post office in the early days of the Republic (although nowadays you could cut the Post Office down to 10% of it’s current size and FedEx, UPS, and local companies could more than pick up the slack at lower prices and higher efficiency).   I’m sure a private mail carrier could have made money in the early days of the Republic, but the Founding Fathers realized how useful the committees of correspondence were, and how communication is one of the most deadly tools against tyranny, and thus had to make sure there was always an option for communication that could not go bankrupt (as there exists with any private company)…which is also the reason I advocate drastically cutting the USPS but not completely destroying it.

But is infrastructure something that only the public sector can provide?

No it’s not.  And this is a self evident truth.  Governments were building infrastructure before they started using dimwitted Keynesian tactics of spending money they didn’t have.  Logically this meant that they were getting money from commerce to build infrastructure.  Commerce and business predated infrastructure, their success is not dependent on it…it is the reverse that is true, that infrastructure is dependent on business success.

Look at the entirety of U.S. history and you will see this.  In terms of transportation, stage coaches, ferries, and even railroads started out as private sector industries that did not have government funding (yes railroads became the transcontinental giants with government help…but they also became inefficient, monopolistic, corrupt and low quality when government money got involved).  Most of the infrastructure that raised Britain to an economic powerhouse in the Industrial Revolution was privately built.  I recall that a good portion of Hong Kong’s early infrastructure post-WWII was more privately funding by booming business more than by the hands off government of the colony.  Even in now uber-liberal California, we should all remember the completely private Red Car system provided efficient and cheap transportation (using it’s own infrastructure) to most of Southern California for nearly 4 decades before being taken over by the state.

Yes the interstate highway system is wonderful and has been a great boon to commerce…of course Ike built it as an easy way to move the military in the Cold War, the economic benefit was secondary so you don’t get to claim that it was built for the purpose of the economy.  However even if the highway system should have originally been a federal project to ensure that all states are connected…it no longer needs to be federal—at this point states are more than capable of up keep of their own roads as they need them to stay economically competitive (i.e. they won’t let them just fall apart) and the local control will keep overhead, graft, and inefficiency down (at least it will be far less than what a distant federal government would create).  So even the highway system isn’t an argument that Obama has.  Yes does the system of roads and bridges need work?  Yeah, it does.  Of course if it was such an important function why didn’t you get it done in the first 4 years Barry?  And why did you saddle the debts with such massive future debts via Obamacare so that they couldn’t deal with the problem themselves?

But maybe we’re not just talking about roads for infrastructure.  Electricity maybe?  No, that was originally built by private companies…and the modern government controlled national grid is such an unmitigated disaster that even liberal Thomas Friedman of the New York Times went off on what a joke it is in his book Hot, Flat, and Crowded.

Communication?  No.  Private company AT&T built the original infrastructure and controlled it so well that the government felt the need to unjustly break the company into the baby bells…which was really dumb because within only a few years the private built cell phone infrastructure made AT&T’s land-line infrastructure about as important as your appendix.

But the internet!  Oh I love this argument.  So the military builds a communication network and does nothing for over a decade (beside being a plot point in 2nd rate Matthew Broderick film…Shall we play a game?) and then private industry built on computers (which was also built on computers the government had been working on for years to no avail. Government had silicon chips since the 1960′s but it took a Steve Jobs to create the personal computer.) and suddenly makes use of it.  Trust me if the network the military (and Al Gore) built hadn’t been in existence there would have been some genius on par with Gates, Jobs or Ellison, who would have created a network that would have allowed computers to speak to each other easily.

Everyone seems to forget that the empty cities in China or Detroit have lots of infrastructure that does nothing for them.  However there are literally hundreds of towns  in this nation where a factory was built first and then the infrastructure and growth followed…if you look at the world and the joys of globalization and outsources (which makes life better both for America and the country work is being outsourced to) the examples reach thousands.  Business success always precedes infrastructure in a sane system.  To say the opposite is to say the cart pulls the horse.

The fact is that business has traditionally built the infrastructure it needs to grow if it is not already present.  Private companies wanted to build high speed rail back in the early 90’s but were stopped over and over again by environmental regulators in the government…and unlike the BS high speed rail Obama and California want to put in that doesn’t really go anywhere, the plans in the 90’s were for things like LA to Vegas…you know rail that would have paid for itself and paid for further expansion.

FedEx was stopped by government regulation and bickering from creating a second hub in its distribution infrastructure in the 90’s.

Private airlines where hampered in their growth early on by government regulation (usually taking off from fields that the airlines had built with their own money in the early days).

I could go on.

You would have to be a brainless troll or an idiot of the highest caliber to not see that industry builds the infrastructure it needs with its own money (often cheaper than the government) and has more often has had its growth hampered by government than it has been helped by it.

You can build all the infrastructure you want. It won’t create business.  It will help business…but it’s not like the business isn’t paying for that infrastructure (through income, corporate, sales, and a myriad of other taxes).  If the government doesn’t provide the infrastructure business will create it themselves or someone else will find some way to provide the service that infrastructure would provide, often at costs less than the inefficient government creation.  Government created infrastructure is never NECESSARY for business success.  Government laws and protection against harm are necessary, but not infrastructure.

Now some claim that we need government infrastructure to provide things like TVA giving electricity to rural communities…to which I respond, when did electricity become a right?  My grandparents lived quite contently in a house until the late 80’s, in California, without public electricity (they had a wind generator that they built)…it didn’t harm them.  If there is no economic reason to have electricity in an area, then it probably shouldn’t be there…and if you don’t like it, it’s a free country, move to an area that has those services or create a business that makes it feasible to bring those services out there.   Arguing we have to provide things to people where there is no financial reason to provide it to them is the mentality of building bridges to nowhere and repairing roads no one drives on it.  It is the mentality of government waste.  And that is the kind of infrastructure that Obama is touting…or do you think the man who thought Solyndra was a good idea knows more about infrastructure?

Everyone likes to point to highways, the internet, the advance of the space race….but everyone forgets these were military ventures with military goals, not economic ones (those were merely unintended side effects)—I bring this up because which area of spending do those who tout infrastructure call on most to be cut?*  And this leads to the reason why I have repeatedly said one of our biggest mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan was not spending more time on building infrastructure.  I wanted the communication and military benefits of modern infrastructure as a counter to the insurgency (which are getting their own benefits provided by other countries). Yes such projects put the cost of a system that would benefit commerce on those countries on the US taxpayer instead of the Iraq or Afghani businessman, but I believed in the long term the military benefit would pay for itself (if you think we’re not going to have to go back to Afghanistan within a generation because we botched it so badly this time, you’re crazy).

But back to Obama’s “You didn’t build that” quote.

In context he is referring to the businesses.  But even if you take his reading that it was government provided infrastructure you built your business on and you couldn’t have done it without that infrastructure…it’s still a bullshit statement.

With only a small exception in education, everyone has equal access to the benefits of infrastructure.  Everyone has access to the roads.  Everyone has access to the electric system and all the other utilities. From the things that only government can provide (police, courts, health control, an income safety net**) to those things that government and the private sector and justifiably provide (roads, schools, post service, electricity and water) to those things which the only private sector should be providing but the government can’t keep it’s stupid hands out (green energy, wifi, medical services) everybody pretty much has equal access to all of these benefits and all of this infrastructure.  And yet some build great businesses and some don’t.  Because some had the intelligence and the work ethic and the drive to succeed and some didn’t.  Because some people built that for themselves.  This is why there is that quote at the beginning about standing on the shoulders of giants…everyone is standing on the same giant but some choose to see further and some don’t.  Now success for many may not be building a business but doing something else…but it is because of their drive, their intelligence, their work, and their choices that makes them successful or not, not because of government.

Now I did bring up that education is not always equal. Its not. And education can be a greater equalizer in terms of access to opportunity than any road or Internet hub…and our system of education in America is screwed up.  But notice also in this most important of things the government provides it is Obama preventing growth, preventing change, preventing charters and vouchers and experimentation, and wholeheartedly backing the vile teacher’s union which seeks to maintain the status quo.  So in the one thing he could really affect to help give people more opportunity to build their own lives, he doesn’t actually want to improve that system.

Nothing in infrastructure determined who would succeed and who wouldn’t (except for education) it is will, intelligence, and work that does.

It is those things which build infrastructure.

And it is those things which Barack Obama is most opposed to and most wants to destroy.

*Not that that I don’t think the military couldn’t lose quite a bit of fat from its budget…however much of its waste is in Congressional pork projects that can’t be cut without Congressional approval…if you just cut the military’s budget the DOD doesn’t have the authority to cut those pork projects, only needed things like troops and body armor.

**Even Friedman and Hayek believed you need some form of income safety net, and they were right, you do…they were also right it needs to be for the lowest of the low (like the bottom 5%) not the for a third of the nation.

2 Comments

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

The Conservative New Ager and The Snark Who Hunts Back Review The Dark Knight Rises: A Tale of Heroes, Politics and Death

This last week we (The Snark Who Hunts Back and The Conservative New Ager) went to go see The Dark Knight Rises together for the second time (the first being a trilogy marathon on opening night). We delayed writing a blog then because it became obvious there was so much we would have to see it again to fully appreciate the depth…and even on a second viewing we realized there is more than a single blog here.

But let’s get the overture out of the way. The final piece of this spectacular trilogy, like almost all of director Christopher Nolan’s recent work is thematically based off a work of literature…A Tale of Two Cities, in the case of The Dark Knight Rises. And while it might be hard to find the undercurrents of Othello in The Dark Knight, Faust in The Prestige, or Zorro in Batman Begins (which for symmetry should be renamed The Dark Knight Begins).

But it’s not just literary, it’s political…or at least it appears to be. The Dark Knight seemed pretty obviously a defense of the War on Terror, and The Dark Knight Rises seems a pretty striking assault on the morals of leftist economics. Now Nolan claims that his works aren’t political (a common defense by those who want to survive in a hostile political environment) and Occupy Wall Street thugs think they’re really smart in pointing out that the movie was written before OWS so it can’t be about them (this poor argument ignores that their rhetoric of evil has been spouted by the left quite vehemently in the last few years and also they clearly are so ignorant of the history of their own ideas that they don’t know their filth was spouted by demagogues in ancient Athens, and shown to be stupid then…so just because Nolan didn’t know about OWS doesn’t mean he wasn’t responding to the evil)…and even if Nolan is telling the truth that he didn’t intend it to a political statement (which I doubt) it works too well as one not to make some comments about the philosophy of the work.

Now ignoring the message of the trilogy taken as a whole (that’s another blog for another time) we think there are three main philosophical statements to this film: The nature of heroism, the politics of progressivism, envy and “social justice”, and the fear of death.

The Nature of the Hero

“A hero can be anyone. Even a man doing something as simple and reassuring as putting a coat over a little boy’s shoulder to let him know the world hadn’t ended.”

One of the more unbelievable complaints I’ve heard about The Dark Knight Rises was that it made it look like the common man can’t do anything for themselves, that they need the rich to save them. Never mind the fact that, by the end, Bruce Wayne barely had a cent to his name or that his money certainly didn’t help him climb out of the pit. We would just want to know if the person who made the complaint was even watching the same movie that we saw with our friends.

Not long after Bruce Wayne loses all his money, due to Bane’s attack on the stock exchange, he has a conversation with John Blake, a police officer who knows Wayne’s identity as Batman. Wayne tells Blake that the whole point of Batman was that he could be anyone, Batman was meant to be an inspiration to the people of Gotham, something that is repeated in both of the previous movies.

In Batman Begins Bruce Wayne tell Alfred:

“People need dramatic examples to shake them out of apathy. And I can’t do that as Bruce Wayne. As a man I’m just flesh and blood, I can be ignored, destroyed. But a symbol….as a symbol I can be incorruptible, everlasting…..”

In The Dark Knight, the Joker asks the fake Batman, Brian what batman means to him. Brian answers “He’s a symbol … that we don’t have to be afraid of scum like you”. And the whole point of Batman, as we see come to fruition at the beginning of The Dark Knight Rises, was not to create a legion of caped crusaders, but an army of men like Harvey Dent (before his psychotic break) and Jim Gordon—a group of people willing to stand up for what is right.

But we digress. The point is what made the average person a hero in The Dark Knight Rises.

At no point did John Blake, Commissioner Gordon, or the other members of the resistance, sit down and go ‘well, I’m just a common person, I’m just going to wait for the government or Batman to come save us’ (except for the character of Foley, who was rightly called out for being a coward). They worked tirelessly to find a way out on their own, they realized they were on their own the moment Bane took over the city and began to look for ways to free the city’s police force from the sewers.

When Batman did come back, in an a miraculous 11th hour miracle, they didn’t wait for him to clean up the mess. The police banded together and marched on Bane’s army, many of them dying in the fighting to save their city.

Selina Kyle, despite telling Batman that she was leaving the city as soon as she destroyed the debris blocking the tunnel, turned around and risked her life to fight for the city and to save Batman’s life.

Lucius Fox risked death and drowning , trying to find a way to stop the nuclear bomb from detonating.

Even Ra’s al Ghul (don’t you hate it when you agree with the words, if not the actions, of a villain?) says, during Bruce’s training, “The training is nothing! The will is everything! The will to act.”

The heroes who kept Gotham alive while Batman fought his way out of the pit

Every one of these people, training or no, had the will to act. They were all willing to give everything for their city, for their freedom. What could possibly be more heroic than that?

Fancy toys, nice cars, and a cool suit will only get you so far if you don’t have the will to do what is necessary, even when what is necessary may end your life.

Heroism isn’t about money, toys, or good looks; it’s a state of mind and living life, not with no fear of death, but with a willingness to die to defend others and defend your beliefs.

You may not be a superhero, but anyone can be a hero. That’s what The Dark Knight Rises shows us about heroism.

Politics, Socialism and evils of envy

“Repression is the only lasting philosophy. The dark deference of fear and slavery, my friend, will keep the dogs obedient to the whip, as long as this roof shuts out the sky.'”—A Tale of Two Cities*

You would have to have been pretty dense not to get that this movie was thematically inspired by A Tale of Two Cities. Even Dickens, for all of his sickeningly naïve progressive rhetoric, had an inkling of the evil of the French Revolution. A quick review of history if it’s been too long since that high school history class. Louis XVI in response to economic woes and civil unrest had given the public everything they wanted: an assembly, power of due process of law, and abdicated much of the absolute power of the monarchy. And while many where happy with these changes, the ignorant rabble who were open to the rhetoric of the most extreme thought it wasn’t enough. They stormed the Bastille, arrested Louis and his wife (who if you actually study history was not the vapid slut a layman’s understand of history tries to depict her as), and placed power in the hands of radicals like Robespierre and Marat. The Terror, Madam Guillotine, rivers of blood, atrocities on a scale that wouldn’t be seen again in France until the Nazi’s allowed the French to revel in their anti-Semitism. (A similar pattern would be seen when the Russians replaced the Tsar with a democratic government…but soon got rid of that in favor of a psychotically evil government).

She learned to hate her “ideal” world quickly enough.

This history lesson is important because this is the same pattern Nolan shows in Gotham. For all of it’s corruption in the first two films, Gotham at the beginning of The Dark Knight Rises was a city that had everything it wanted: Clean streets, an efficient police force (a city of 12 million with only 3,000 uniformed officers means an obscenely low crime rate), a healthy economy (the city could afford multiple simultaneous construction projects by Dagget, that means an incredibly good tax base, ergo strong economy…and football stadiums aren’t packed to the brim with every last seat filled during hard times), a mayor who has survived for over 8 years in office (usually a sign of prosperity) Even Selina Kyle’s words of decrying inequality ring hollow, he “old town” (suggestive of the gutter) apartment is hardly a shabby SRO or the slum heap of “the narrows” from the first film—and while in Batman Begins criminals could carry on with their nefarious dealings out in the open, or hide them in the vast slums, this is a Gotham where there are so few places to hide your activities you literally have skulk in the sewers (everywhere else is too bright and too well off to hide such activities)…Like the French they had everything they had asked for. And, like France, it took only a little fear and few mad men to stir the lowest rungs of society and bring about anarchy.
There are of course differences between A Tale of Two Cities and the Revolution it describes and the events of The Dark Knight Rises. The Bastille was stormed not to free prisoners (there were hardly any left in the Bastille by the time of the Revolution) but to gain weapons to take over the city. And even if you buy the myth of the Storming of the Bastille, the prisoners released from the Bastille were primarily political prisoners…not hardened thugs of organized crime. The fact that the Dent Law in The Dark Knight Rises was passed because there was a martyr to push through the law, does not change the fact that it, like all three-strikes laws and mandatory sentencing laws, are a particular point of hatred for the progressive who think it’s unfair that people who do evil and horrific things should, heaven forbid, be locked up where they can’t do any harm. But be it the Bastille and the release of a mere seven political prisoners or the opening of Blackgate Prison and letting a host of violent criminals go free, the result was ironically the same: The Terror.

The terror: a system where justice and trials are a mockery and the innocent are held as guilty for crimes they never committed…and where there is only one punishment: death. The terror, a system that provides so much that it makes everyone so equal that they are all starving and tearing at each other for daily sustenance (or like the Soviet Union or Gotham you could have food imported from the capitalistic society because you can’t produce any on your own). The terror: the utopia every half brained progressive idealist praises, only to lead to their own downfall.

In the real French Revolution the villain was Robespierre who used high rhetoric to justify rank thugery as a progressive march to fraternity and equality. In A Tale of Two Cities the villain was Madame De Farge, a woman so hell bent on avenging her family’s murders that she will see the whole world burn to get her pound of flesh. Nolan gives us both villains in the form of Bane and Talia al Ghul. Which of course leads us into the villainy of their perverse understanding of economics.

Let me spout the politics of envy and class warfare knowing it will only lead to your eventual destruction!

Before we get into showing how Nolan destroys the ideals of progressivism by showing what it brings, let’s dismiss one semi-intelligent objection: Bane and Talia don’t believe in progressivism, they’re trying to show how it is a failed system and how people must reject it. That’s not entirely an incorrect point…but what you need to also realize is that just because the villains may be a tool they don’t really believe in doesn’t mean that it isn’t showing the flaws of progressivism…and that just because they don’t believe in progressivism doesn’t mean they’re capitalist. Point in fact, the entire League of Shadows from Ra’s Al Ghul’s first words to Talia’s last is a world view based on feudalism and cronyism. The League believes it should be the one who decides who shall be successful and who shall fail. Bane says as much when he tells Wayne, “I learned here that there can be no true despair without hope. So, as I terrorize Gotham, I will feed its people hope to poison their souls. I will let them believe they can survive so that you can watch them clamoring over each other to “stay in the sun.” You can watch me torture an entire city and when you have truly understood the depth of your failure, we will fulfill Ra’s al Ghul’s destiny… We will destroy Gotham and then, when it is done and Gotham is ashes, then you have my permission to die.” As we stated above they rule through terror, not reason, not ethics, not law, justice—they dress their words up in the clothes of these higher ideals but their actions show them to be as hollow and lacking in substance on the inside as any scarecrow (especially if said Scarecrow sets himself up as the instrument of justice).

Politically speaking, there is much that is applicable to our current political situation in our country. Now, to be fair, I don’t believe that Christopher Nolan’s intent was to create a modern political allegory. This movie was written and being filmed long before the Occupy Wall Street movement, which shares many of the villains sentiments, began.

During the first few weeks of the Occupy movement we both remember having many conversations about the similarities between that movement and the early days of the French Revolution. Which is why the connection between The Dark Knight Rises and OWS comes so easily.

The views of Occupy Wall Street were shown almost perfectly in Bane’s and Catwoman’s words, as well as the actions of the people who jump at the chance to drag the rich out and punish them for their success.

Bane’s entire speech outside of Black Gate Prison is so reminiscent of something from a ‘mic check’ at Occupy Wall Street

“We take power from the corrupt, who, for generations, have kept you down with myths of…opportunity and we give it back to you, the people. Gotham is yours, none shall interfere, do as you please. We’ll start by storming Black Gate and freeing the oppressed…an army will be raised, the powerful will be ripped from their decadence and cast out into the cold where we all have endured, courts will be convened, spoils will be enjoyed…”

-Bane (apologies for mistakes, I was working from a VERY scratchy audio clip)

and for those of you who remember the scenes that accompanied the final lines of that speech, the violence is so similar to the rioting at Occupy Oakland that is was almost frightening, especially when you realize that this movie was written months before any of that every happened.

Selina Kyle (Catwoman) starts out with the same exact rhetoric as many an Occupy Wall Street supporter. In a conversation with Bruce Wayne she says “You think this is gonna last? There’s a storm coming Mr. Wayne. You and your friends better batten down the hatches. ‘Cause when it hits, you’re all gonna wonder how you ever thought you could live so large, and leave so little for the rest of us.”

Though after her betrayal of Batman she appears to change her tone in a way that OWS never did. Upon entering a home that had been ransacked after Bane’s Black Gate speech she comments on the fact that ‘this used to be someone’s home’ when she looks at a smashed family photo. Her friend says ‘now it’s everyone’s home.’ Kyle, unlike just about everyone in OWS who only has to look to the failure of the Soviet Union, the collapse of Greece or the repression of China and North Korea to know what a failed system socialism, when she saw what her ideals brought about very quickly had no problem seeing their evil and abandoning them.

The Dark Knight Rises shows what happens when give us capitalisms for anarchy or socialism. You have perversion of justice. You have to survive on the handouts and scraps provided to you. There is no growth. No prosperity. No civilization. Only blood and the terror.

Now on to a slightly more hilarious turn of events.

Shortly before the movie came out the Obama campaign (and liberals in general) noticed something they thought they could use as a brilliant attack against Romney.

Did you know that Romney had a business named Bain Capital?

Bain/Bane…get it?**

One of these guys is someone rich who could easily leave others to fend for themselves but doesn’t…the other is named Bane. Which one reminds you the most of the presidential challengert?

“It has been observed that movies can reflect the national mood,” said Democratic advisor and former Clinton aide Christopher Lehane. “Whether it is spelled Bain and being put out by the Obama campaign or Bane and being out by Hollywood, the narratives are similar: a highly intelligent villain with offshore interests and a past both are seeking to cover up who had a powerful father and is set on pillaging society,” he added.

As the Friday release date has neared, liberal blogs were the first to connect Batman’s toughest foe with Romney’s firm.

– Christopher Lehane (via Washington Examiner)

Yeah, they actually did that.

Hilariously, when Rush Limbaugh dared to point out the name similarities, liberal bloggers thought he was being insane and completely ignored that their side was the one who made the comparison first.

Luckily conservatives had a fellow conservative Chuck Dixon, comic book creator, and coincidentally, the co-creator of the villain Bane, to smack some sense into liberals.

In an interview with ComicBook.com Dixon had this to say.

“The idea that there’s some kind of liberal agenda behind the use of Bane in the new movie is silly…I refuted this within hours of the article in the Washington Examiner suggesting that Bane would be tied to Bain Capital and Mitt Romney appearing. Bane was created by me and Graham Nolan and we are lifelong conservatives and as far from left-wing mouthpieces as you are likely to find in comics…As for his appearance in The Dark Knight Rises, Bane is a force for evil and the destruction of the status quo. He’s far more akin to an Occupy Wall Street type if you’re looking to cast him politically. And if there ever was a Bruce Wayne running for the White House it would have to be Romney.”

-Chuck Dixon (Via ComicBook.com)

Romney is Bruce Wayne? That’s the best pseudo-endorsement I’ve heard all year. If I wasn’t voting for Romney before, I sure am now.

The Fear of Death

Blind Prisoner: You do not fear death. You think this makes you strong. It makes you weak.
Bruce Wayne: Why?
Blind Prisoner: How can you move faster than possible, fight longer than possible without the most powerful impulse of the spirit: the fear of death.
Bruce Wayne: I do fear death. I fear dying in here, while my city burns, and there’s no one there to save it.
Blind Prisoner: Then make the climb.
Bruce Wayne: How?
Blind Prisoner: As the child did. Without the rope. Then fear will find you again.

Now on the Conservative New Ager we have a fairly low opinion of the fear of death. In numerous blogs it has been ridiculed as the foolish, childish, ignorant paralytic it is. However, it must be admitted, that in the rush of these blogs to point out that “Wise men at their end know [death] is right” and that it is nothing to be feared but merely a natural part of life, that the wise also “do not go gentle into that good night.”

Bruce Wayne doesn’t fear death for the first half of the movie, that is true. He is not hindered by the fears that he once was. The problem is that in this attempt to rid himself of fear he went too far and rid himself of the desire for life as well. While the movie only uses the phrase “fear death” it might seem that it is encouraging people to embrace fear. But from context the movie is not telling people to embrace the paralyzing fear of death because it is this fear that encourages the federal government and the people of Gotham to stand ideally by, and the fear that causes Modine’s Foley to hide, while a terrorist takes over the city. Rather, the movie is encouraging a balance—that the proper way is to rid one’s self of the paralyzing fear of death of Wayne did in the first film, but to maintain the love of live, and the appreciation of death and knowledge that each moment could be your last and must be fought for, that comes with this love of life. It is only this appreciation of death, that pushes Wayne to make a jump that he could not otherwise make, because he knows that if he is to live he must push himself—and he cannot push himself without both the knowledge that there is no turning back or without the desire to do something other than seek his own end.

And then of course, as a final thought we can’t forget how wonderfully patriotic this film is. Okay maybe not so much in it showing the President to be a sniveling coward who gives into terrorist demands (patriotic or not that might be an accurate assessment)…or in how cowardly the bureaucracy is when they blow the bridge condemning many to die (again might be an accurate conservative message). But you will notice that the people of Gotham (not the scum the who follow Bain mind you, but the people who are terrorized by them) stand for “The Star Spangled Banner” and the only person shown to not have his hand over his heart is the scummy mayor (who apparently is close to an even scummier Congressmen…again perhaps an accurate assessment of current events). And along with the police it is these people who fight against Bain. And you’ll notice that on the day of the battle even a British director like Nolan knows to show the tattered remains of the flag still flying, still offering hope, and as a symbol that on that day evil will fall. Finally the last words about Gotham, which they say is America’s greatest city, is that it will rise from the ashes of this act of terrorism…you would have to be pretty dense not to see this as a reference to New York, and a testament to how quickly America did pick itself up.

You don’t owe these people anymore. You’ve given them everything.

Not everything. Not Yet.

And the sad fact is that we’ve only scratched the surface of this film…

*On a side note, it should be said that, for all of Dickens’ flaws, A Tale of Two Cities is Dickens’ best work…too bad he stole half the plot from Victor Hugo’s Ninety-Three.

** Oh and if you want to to play the silly let’s compare political figures to fictional ones…I see your Bane/Bain…and raise you…
(Romney Ryan photos thanks to Heather Parsons)
 

4 Comments

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Art, Atlas Shrugged, Capitalism, Charity, Civil Liberties, Conservative, Death, Economics, Election 2012, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Faith, Fear, Free Will, Government is corrupt, Individualism, Literature, Long Term Thinking, Movies, Movies for Conservatives, Natural Rights, NeoConservative, Obama, Occupy Wall Street, Patriotism, Paul Ryan, People Are Stupid, philosophy, politics, Purpose of Life, Taxes, Tyranny, virtue, War on Terrorism

Liberal Desperation & Paul Ryan

The left has no facts to hit Ryan with…so they’re just going to smear him. SOP for Obama.

Liberals are going just crazy about Paul Ryan.  For the last couple of years the left has been trying destroy Paul Ryan.  They haven’t succeeded too well.
So now they’re getting desperate and hacks like Robert Reich (over-pompous Berkley Professor and terrible Secretary of Labor under Clinton…here’s just one of his disasters) are calling Ryan’s Plan social Darwinism.

“Paul Ryan exemplifies the social Darwinism at the core of today’s Republican Party: Reward the rich, penalize the poor, let everyone else fend for themselves. Dog eat dog.”

Now this brings up two points.  The first is that Reich (and many other liberals who have also developed an affinity for the term) is misusing the phrase “Social Darwinism”.  The second is that he’s lying about Ryan’s plan.

Let’s deal with the social Darwinism thing first.

Merriam-Webster defines Social Darwinism as:

 

an extension of Darwinism to social phenomena; specifically: a sociological theory that socio-cultural advance is the product of intergroup conflict and competition and the socially elite classes (as those possessing wealth and power) possess biological superiority in the struggle for existence

And the Oxford Dictionary defines it as

the theory that individuals, groups, and peoples are subject to the same Darwinian laws of natural selection as plants and animals. Now largely discredited, social Darwinism was advocated by Herbert Spencer and others in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and was used to justify political conservatism, imperialism, and racism and to discourage intervention and reform.

I also checked a few history textbooks and they all agree with these two definitions.  And every legitimate source ties the term to a theory that justified racism. And I don’t mean liberals modern definition of racism where liberals call you a racist if you say Israel’s culture of Classical Liberalism, hard work and innovation is what makes it more successful than Palestine’s culture of vicious irrational hatred, idiocy, and the glorification of butchers…no, the racism of Social Darwinism is that people of ethnic groups are biologically superior or inferior to others.

Further Reich’s argument that Social Darwinism is “let everyone else fend for themselves. Dog eat dog” ignores that Social Darwinism was always in practice more along the lines of Jim Crow laws (where people were not allowed to fend for themselves but rather had artificial burdens placed on them…thank the Democratic party for that invention), nor was it “dog eat dog” as “dog eat dog” would have allowed the oppressed groups be it in South Africa, British controlled India, or post-Civil War South to defend themselves with the same rights as anyone else.  Now Social Darwinism might include “Reward the rich, penalize the poor” if you change rich to privileged and poor to oppressed…but otherwise the whole sentence is just riddled with contradictory terms.

And this ignores that none of this is applicable to Ryan’s plan in the least.  But even ignoring that for the moment, the clear point here is that if Reich actually does know what the term Social Darwinism means (and it is a technical term that can’t just change with the changing fashion) then he is implying that there is something racist about Ryan’s plan.  I’d dare Reich to show me something racist in the plan but as there isn’t I’ll not force the dunce to back up his own statement.

So Reich is either an idiot and doesn’t know the meaning of words (certainly a possibility) or he is trying the tried and true DNC tactic of race-baiting by implying your opponent is a racist.  Your call, either is possible, both are despicable.

However one other fact that makes race-baiting a possibility is how other liberal leaning groups are treating Ryan. For an example I go to The Onion (which used to have some funny stuff on Bush…but now is so completely slanted to the left instead of doing what a comic should, attack everyone, has just become dull).

In The Onion’s article Focus: Who Is Paul Ryan?”there is this fun piece:

“Vice Presidential Vetting Process: Was asked if he was gay about 47 different ways”

Which is a not subtle way to both imply that he’s gay and Romney’s a homophobe (which gets them to get the undercurrent of homophobia in the culture against Ryan and the surface hatred of homophobia from the left against Romney…let’s ignore it was mainly the left who were the chief members of hounding Romney’s foreign policy aide who happened to be gay out of his position by making it impossible to do his job as every question was about his orientation).  So liberals will have all the fun in the world trying to hurt someone else by calling them gay, but if you eat at Chick-fil-a you’re a Neanderthal who wants to burn gays at the stake and must be imprisoned.  Hypocrisy and double standards much?*

Okay now let’s deal with Ryan’s plan.  You may want to familiarize yourself with it again.  (I’ve also included some videos at the end.)

I’m going to deal in broad strokes because there are differences between the 2011 and 2012 version of his budget bills (the latter watered down to try and get it past the Senate so Obama would have to veto it…good thing for Obama, Harry Reid illegally refuses to have a vote on it) and because there will definitely be differences between those two bills and what President Romney will send to Congress in 2013…and getting bogged down in details that I can’t guarantee will exist is just silly.

The first is does Paul Ryan’s plan destroy Medicare?  Liberals kept saying it did, hell they’re still saying.  And left-of-center Polifact called that “THE LIE OF YEAR FOR 2011!”

Does he lower taxes on the rich?  Yes.  He lowers taxes on everyone!  How is that a bad thing?

Now a consistent complaint by Democrats is that Ryan’s plan didn’t give details on deductions he would eliminate and exactly where the lines would be in the tax bracket changes.  This just goes to show how stupid Democrats are. Paul Ryan is on the Budget committee…the Ways and Means committee deals with loopholes and deductions.  Now I know liberals are used to a dictator in training who rules by fiat and thinks he’s all three branches and all three parts of the Trinity rolled into one, but we Republicans like doing things legally.  And legally Ryan’s committee can’t make those calls.   Now he has said that if it were up to him he just get rid of deductions for high earners (which is what both liberals and conservatives want…although conservatives want tax cuts accompanying that).

Is it “reward the rich and punish the poor” as Reich claims?  No.  It’s reward everyone both through tax cuts and then through the economic boom that will come from the extra money being put into the system.

Is it “let everyone else fend for themselves? Dog eat dog”?  No, it is save Medicare…and if you let him have at it he and Romney would reform and save Medicaid, Social Security, and Welfare so that they do their job rather than waste our money.

Does it strip money from education? No it just doesn’t grow those programs.

Is it an irrational plan?  Not in the least.  In fact someone called it “entirely legitimate proposal”…oh that would be Barry who said that.

The fact of the matter is that there are no legitimate, economic based complaints against the Ryan plan.







*Just in case you’re wondering doesn’t this make my making fun of Rick Santorum in numerous cases implying he is a self-hating closet case make me a hypocrite?  Nope.  I in my heart of hearts believe Rick Santorum is a self-hating closet case and I believe this is an important point because it explains why social issues are the only thing he cares about to the exclusion of any and all relevant issues.  It’s his self-hating behavior that makes him irrational and unfit to lead.  You’d (A) have a hard time convincing me of the same about Paul Ryan and (B) Ryan’s focus is economics, economics, and economics…he’s a social conservative, but his passion is economics so even if you believe it were true (I’m still not sure what you would be basing that on) it wouldn’t be relevant to his actions, unlike sweater-vest boy.

3 Comments

Filed under Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Individualism, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Natural Rights, Obama, Paul Ryan, politics, Taxes, Welfare

Obama did say “You didn’t build that” and worse…Part I

“They might be giants, and we might be pygmies; but we stand on the shoulders of giants, so we can see farther.” –Attributed to Sir Isaac Newton

So I was actually worried that with all the chaos of work and my untimely writer’s block I would miss my chance to comment fully on Obama’s “You didn’t build that comment”…but thankfully for me the Democrats haven’t just admitted that he said what he said and he keeps making it worse and worse for himself.

Also the fact is that this was perhaps the dumbest thing to say in a campaign (next to admitting you’re getting foreign policy advice from a five-year-old)…and as Charles Krauthammer has rightly pointed out, this line should be played over and over again to make it absolutely clear where Obama stands.

 

So let’s deal with the first claim that Obama was taken out of context.

Now I have the whole speech here, but let’s pull the whole section, of the “You didn’t build that “speech out.  [Emphasis added]

Now, one last thing — one of the biggest differences is how we pay down our debt and our deficit.  My opponent, Mr. Romney’s plan is he wants to cut taxes another $5 trillion on top of the Bush tax cuts.  Well, first of all, like I said, the only way you can pay for that — if you’re actually saying you’re bringing down the deficit — is to cut transportation, cut education, cut basic research, voucherize Medicare, and you’re still going to end up having to raise taxes on middle-class families to pay for this $5 trillion tax cut.  That’s not a deficit reduction plan.  That’s a deficit expansion plan.  I’ve got a different idea.  I do believe we can cut — we’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts.  We can make some more cuts in programs that don’t work, and make government work more efficiently.  Not every government program works the way it’s supposed to.  And frankly, government can’t solve every problem.  If somebody doesn’t want to be helped, government can’t always help them.  Parents — we can put more money into schools, but if your kids don’t want to learn it’s hard to teach them.  But you know what; I’m not going to see us gut the investments that grow our economy to give tax breaks to me or Mr. Romney or folks who don’t need them.  So I’m going to reduce the deficit in a balanced way.  We’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts.  We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more.  And, by the way, we’ve tried that before — a guy named Bill Clinton did it.  We created 23 million new jobs, turned a deficit into a surplus, and rich people did just fine.  We created a lot of millionaires.  There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back.  They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.  You didn’t get there on your own.  I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart.  There are a lot of smart people out there.  It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.  Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.  If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.  There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.  Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.  Somebody invested in roads and bridges.  If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that.  Somebody else made that happen.  The Internet didn’t get invented on its own.  Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.  The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.  There are some things, just like fighting fires; we don’t do on our own.  I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service.  That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires. So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together.  That’s how we funded the GI Bill.  That’s how we created the middle class.  That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam.  That’s how we invented the Internet.  That’s how we sent a man to the moon.  We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President — because I still believe in that idea.  You’re not on your own, we’re in this together.

Now I figure most of my readers are bright enough to see that yes he is quite blatantly saying that government is the reason you are successful, but let’s tear it apart line for line just in case someone didn’t get that.

 Now, one last thing — one of the biggest differences is how we pay down our debt and our deficit.  My opponent, Mr. Romney’s plan is he wants to cut taxes another $5 trillion on top of the Bush tax cuts. 

So let me get this straight.  Obama is in favor of TARP.  He’s in favor of stimulus.  And he’s in favor of even more spending.  Trillions of dollars worth.  Supposedly because spending money will help the economy. But cutting out the hideously inefficient middle man of the federal government will make putting more money in the system less efficient.  But taking money out of the system to spend it (and sending billions of those dollars to terrorist like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt).  This is the thing I never get about liberalism or Keynesian  ideas, the market is known for creating businesses that create wealth (Staples, Burger King, AMC theater…yeah that selection of businesses might not be that random) whereas the government builds bridges to nowhere, spends money on Solyndra, and sends money to despots to help them kill people and a thousand other ways that actually work to destroy wealth…on a very good day government spending leaves the amount of wealth created as neutral…on most days it destroys wealth.  On the same average day capitalism creates wealth.  So if I have a choice of where that money should go, to the private sector which has a history of creating wealth or to government which has a history of destroying it…hmmm tough call.

And does anyone else notice the sheer insanity of this portion when weighed against the next central point of the speech.  Here Obama is touting paying down the debt (that would be the debt that, if he tries really hard, he could very well double before he leaves in January) and in the next section he’s talking about the need to build more infrastructure projects.  I know liberals have problems with math but you can’t spend a dollar on both infrastructure and the deficit.  Doesn’t work.  At least Republicans have the argument of the Laffer Curve: that if you decrease the tax burden the economy will grow and your tax revenue will be the same as when it was at a the higher tax burden…you may disagree with the idea of the Laffer Curve (to hell if it’s been proven over and over again in country after country ) but don’t you dare make fun of my understanding of economics when you’re saying you can spend the same dollar in two (hell, with Obama 10) different places at the same time.

Of course pointing out this basic contradiction in the message from one part of the speech to the next I’m sure is taking it “out of context.”

 

Well, first of all, like I said, the only way you can pay for that — if you’re actually saying you’re bringing down the deficit — is to cut transportation,

Cut transportation?  Great.  Let’s sell the boondoggle that is Amtrack.  (Which has lost almost a billion over the last 10 years on food alone ).  And hell I’m sure if we privatized the TSA the whole system would be cheaper and more efficient and people might fly more.

cut education,

Cut education?  Good. The federal government shouldn’t be involved in education spending because it either goes to utterly useless research, the coffers of the unions or for programs that have nothing to do with education of children.

 cut basic research,

Basic research? Wouldn’t that be the responsibility of the private sector?  Oh yeah, we always tout the advances of the space race as government funded research gone well…but we ignore that those were the days we either outsourced everything to the private sector or to Nazi war criminals…the private sector can do research on its own and while there aren’t any particularly bright war criminals left, I’m not sure it’s worth the cost even if there were still a few lying around.  In the last 40 years what has government research given us?  Not much.

voucherize Medicare,

Cool!   You mean actually make it efficient and provide what people want?  Cool.

and you’re still going to end up having to raise taxes on middle-class families to pay for this $5 trillion tax cut.

Again, you cut taxes and revenues stay the same.  It’s why Clinton had enough money to start paying down the deficit, because Reagan cut taxes and let the next three presidents ride on the benefits…and before him Kennedy cut taxes and found the exact same thing to be true.

  That’s not a deficit reduction plan.  That’s a deficit expansion plan.  I’ve got a different idea. 

“I’m going to spend another trillion on worthless green companies that are going to fail and lose all your money.  That’s my plan and I’m sticking to it!”

 I do believe we can cut — we’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts. 

And if you believe that he’s made a trillion in cuts while the deficit has grown by almost six trillion…well  (A) you are very stupid and (B) call me I have a bridge to sell you.

If I cut my budget by a $1,000 during the year and find myself $6,000 further in debt by the end of the year…I didn’t really cut much did I?  (Especially when your revenue has been increasing over that time,  even in inflation adjusted dollars…yes there was a revenue dropoff from FY 2008 to FY 2009, but there have been increases in revenue every year since and the jackass’ spending keeps outpacing that growth in receipts)

 We can make some more cuts in programs that don’t work, and make government work more efficiently. 

You had 4 years. You expanded the scope, size and power of every single department with the exception of defense.  Go on…name for me a program that you want to cut.  Name one.  Hell name one non-defense program you have cut.  Pardon me if your attempt at sounding like a conservative rings hollow.

Not every government program works the way it’s supposed to.

Name one that does.  They all need to be cut.  Every single department could do with a 10% budget cut right off the top (even DOD which, if nothing else, has billions in useless pork construction and research projects).

  And frankly, government can’t solve every problem.  If somebody doesn’t want to be helped, government can’t always help them.  Parents — we can put more money into schools, but if your kids don’t want to learn it’s hard to teach them.

This line should actually be more disturbing than “You didn’t build that.”  You’ll notice here that is not just a government power to help, but it appears to be the government’s primary function to help people, and if you don’t succeed it’s because you didn’t let government help you…you dirty, disrespectful, evil child….how dare you refuse to let government help you.

Notice the implication here is that we’re all children and bratty ones at that if we don’t allow government to run our lives.

Also the line about schools and money is just out of place.  Yes, money makes no difference to education.  Kids can learn from low income schools, or not learn from schools rolling in dough…but this would have to be the first time I’d ever heard Obama talking about parental and student responsibility over shoveling more money to the teacher’s union—this would be the first time I’d ever heard Obama not view tax payer money as the panacea of all problems…but isn’t this the Obama who berated us all for wanting to cut federal funding for education like two minutes ago?…oh I’m sorry looking at the whole of the argument and the contradictions throughout must again be “taking things out of context.”

  But you know what; I’m not going to see us gut the investments that grow our economy to give tax breaks to me or Mr. Romney or folks who don’t need them. 

Again are you spending money (liberals say “invest” when they mean waste taxpayer money) or are you going to pay down the deficit, one or the other.  Also taking money from people seems to have done so well during the last 4 years, I’m sure taking more will do even more wonders.  You know Barry you should listen to this guy who said raising taxes in a recession would be a really dumb idea…oh, that was you.  Inconsistency is a big thing with Barry.

So I’m going to reduce the deficit in a balanced way. 

Again didn’t just a sentence ago wasn’t he talking about “investment.”  PICK ONE, GOD DAMN IT!

 We’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts.

Even if this lie were true…they weren’t enough.

  We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more.

Yeah because taking more money out of the system is a great idea.  Even Keynes would slap the shit out of you for suggesting raising taxes during a recession…in case you’re wondering I think Friedman would get a crowbar and Hayek would get a pair of pliers and a blowtorch and both would go medieval on his ass.

  And, by the way, we’ve tried that before — a guy named Bill Clinton did it.  We created 23 million new jobs, turned a deficit into a surplus, and rich people did just fine.  We created a lot of millionaires.  There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. 

I’m sure if Clinton was being really honest right about now his first words would be “who is this ‘we’ shit?”  Second, let us not forget that the great Clinton economy, which again more because of the long term effects of Reagan, was also partly due to the low regulation, better (not great) spending of the Republican controlled congress, and that Clinton put a lot money in short term loans that cut the deficit temporarily but screwed us in the long term…and welfare reform (which, Barack, you just gutted) http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/12/obama-guts-welfare-reform/

 They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.  You didn’t get there on your own.

You didn’t build that. Keep this point in mind.

  I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. 

Oh, Barry, no one with a brain thinks you’re smart.  In fact I think you’re so fucking dumb you make Carter look competent by comparison.

There are a lot of smart people out there.

Well, there are if we’re using you as the standard for smart.

  It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.

Again, I’m not entirely sure if you’ve ever worked a day in your life.   But the government still didn’t come out with idea of

  Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. 

Yeah and they loathe you taking money out of their wallets and destroying opportunities with your oppressive policies.

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. 

Yes, dipshit, everyone receives help.  Everyone has people around them willing to help them.  The question isn’t whether there was someone there to help you, the question is did you have the intelligence, the will and the work ethic to use that help.

There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.

Okay, as a teacher let me deal with this part in a little more detail and this will require a bit of tangent…but it will have a point.

I am a great teacher.  Not good.  Great.  I have the rarest of rare abilities in teaching to be able to get students to push themselves to their limits and push their own limits farther than they could ever believe themselves possible of.  Any teacher can “teach” higher level students and have them learn facts and skills; I can push them and force them to think.  One student once said “You have taught me more in 9 weeks than I have learned in 17 years.”  And if you track down some of my students, they will tell you that this paragraph is actually quite humble.  Why do I bring this up?  Because as good as I am, if any of my students ever become successful, I know I am not responsible.  I have helped, I have probably made it easier for them to succeed, made it possible to achieve success a little sooner, or perhaps aided in pushing their success just a step or two further…but I would never claim responsibility for any of my student’s success.  Their success is because of their will, their virtue, and their work.  And Obama disgraces and cheapens, my work, and the work of every good teacher, by saying we are responsible for our student’s success.

  Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. 

Yeah, the American system: capitalism.  You provide a system of laws that prevent theft, fraud and protect the earned property gains of work, and you get out of the way.

Somebody invested in roads and bridges.  If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. 

Ah the great sentence.  And you know what I love about this?  I copied this directly off the White House transcript.  They are the ones who made these two separate sentences.  Thus basic rules of grammar the “that” in the second half of the sentence refers to the “business” not the “road and bridges” in the previous sentence.  But maybe the person typing it up is as dumb as the person who delivered it.  Maybe they were supposed to be one sentence: “Somebody invested in roads and bridges–If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that.”  Nope that doesn’t work either.  “That” is singular, like “a business”—“road and bridges” are plural, if he had been referring to the roads and bridges he would have said “you didn’t build those.”  The nature of parallelism in the use of pronouns is kind of built into the brain (even if it’s not hardwired at birth, by the time you’re as old as Obama it’s hardwired) and if he had meant the road and bridges he would have said “those.”  He didn’t.

So he really did say “You didn’t build your business.”

Somebody else made that happen. 

No.  Again the THAT is referring to the business, and no, no one else built a business but themselves.  And this argument completely ignored the fact that those road and those bridges, and those teachers*, and whatever else the government provided were there for everyone.

And that these benefits exist because of those business for creating the wealth and providing the jobs.

 The Internet didn’t get invented on its own.  Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

And it sat there. The networks he talks about were created in the early 70’s. Just as the silicon chip was created in the early 50’s.  And both were sponsored by government research and they both did nothing for two decades under government control.  Just silicon chips had Steve Jobs who realized you could make money off it. And the personal computer was born. And for the same reason, the modern internet was born out of a capitalistic desire to create wealth.

But but but, they wouldn’t have been able to do that if the government hadn’t laid the ground work, some whiner will say…I’m going to go into this in more detail in the second part of this series, but please keep in mind the early electric grid infrastructure was private, AT&T built an entire private infrastructure that was so good that the government felt it needed to be broken up in the 1980’s, that all the baby bells created a private cell phone tower infrastructure.  If those crappy networks the government had created weren’t around to build off of, I promise you some computer geek would have developed it on their own because there was money to be made in the idea.

  The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.

Actually human psychology says it has more to do with competition and the drive that comes from it.

But yes most human success is because people willingly join together to achieve a common goal…notice the willingly, a concept opposed to the government which is designed around a principle of coercion.

  There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own.  I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires. 

Not hard to imagine.  History is filled with it.  Also there were town fire brigades, long before there was federal government.  People can do things without you Barack, in fact, while there are a few things that the federal government should do, I can safely say that this entire planet can do just about everything better without Barack…and it can do most things better without the government, than with.

 So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. 

The founders of this nation would loathe everything you do, jackass.

That’s how we funded the GI Bill. 

Not to be overly cynical here, but I think we helped fund the GI Bill by (A) not driving up the cost of college to insane levels as we’ve done in recent years and (B) by bombing the shit out just about every other industrialized nation on Earth, thus making the U.S. the only ballgame in town for a road to economic growth.  I don’t mean to say there was anything unethical in our bombing of the Axis, there wasn’t (in fact I think we should have done some more, again for ethical reasons*), but it certainly didn’t hurt our economic outlook for the 40’s, 50’s, and 60’s.

 That’s how we created the middle class. 

Again, who is this ‘we shit?  The middle class created themselves through hard work, intelligence, and will.  It is the government that has at every turn in the last century hampered their growth.

 That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam.

I find it interesting that he mentions the Golden Gate.  A project conceived entirely by a state legislature (no federal funding at all) and mostly bankrolled by Amadeo Giannini, founder of Bank of America.

 That’s how we invented the Internet. 

The private sector invented the internet. The government invented a system that sat for 20 years doing nothing.

That’s how we sent a man to the moon. 

Again, mostly due to the genius of private contractors…who were backed up by corrupt deals made by the government.

We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President — because I still believe in that idea.

I keep reading this sentence and I keep failing to see how the basics of economics (principles which Obama regularly ignores) has anything to do with his running for president.  Yes, with the nature of economics we do tend to rise and fall together (which begs the question why do you want to over tax the successful causing them to fall…which would cause everyone to fall).  But even if you ignore that it’s Obama, who loathes capitalism, saying this it still makes no sense.  The first point doesn’t demand the second point, no matter who is saying it…at least for anyone in U.S. history.

  You’re not on your own, we’re in this together. 

Well, jackass, if you’re president, I am on my own, or damn near it, because the entire apparatus of the government will certainly be against me.

3 Comments

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Congress, Conservative, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Founding, Free Will, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Obama, Patriotism, philosophy, politics, Ronald Reagan, Taxes, Teacher's Union, Tyranny, Unions, Unjust legislation, Welfare

Tax Returns, Rich Liberals, Stupidity and Hypocrisy

This thing about Romney’s tax returns is stupid, and I’m just tired of it. 

You have to consider a couple of things to start out with.  (1) It’s not like Obama’s White House and IRS don’t have access to those returns and (2) the IRS under Obama has been more than willing to harass Romney supporter as shown here and here (3) if there was anything damning in them don’t you think Obama would have already leaked that (after all if highest level classified national security information can be leaked to the New York Times to get reelected do you really think Obama draws the moral line at leaking his opponent’s tax information?).  Also given that people are upset about things like offshore accounts (which are actually good for growing and American economic growth) and the fact that Romney only pays about 15% on his income (because it’s pretty much all capital gains income which is taxed at a much lower rate than other income because if it wasn’t you would see the collapse of what is left of the American economy) it is clear that ignorant people are very agitated by the intricacies of finance when they have no understanding of what is going on…thus releasing even more financial information will allow liberals to make ethical, legal, and smart financial choices sound like unethical, illegal and stupid financial moves (like giving money to your cronies at Solyndra…oh wait that wasn’t Mitt). 

This then of course brings up a discussion of how the rich need to pay their “fair share.”  Let’s just ignore that 47% of the nation isn’t paying anything (is that fair?) or that the top 10% earn about 45% of the income but pay 70% of the taxes (yeah that sounds fair).  And Mitt only pays 15% of his income to the government, that’s not fair (of course he already paid taxes on when Bain earned the money and paid a corporate tax on it, then Romney paid taxes on the money Bain paid him, which he then invested in companies who paid their own taxes on the money they earned, and then Mitt paid his 15% on the income he earned from that investment.  Oh, and the US has the highest corporate tax rate of any nation (http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/corporate-tax-rate) …so it’s not like he hasn’t paid and paid and paid taxes on that income.  Yep he hasn’t paid his fair share.  Now there are other reasons that Mitt hasn’t paid income taxes in a while…like the fact that he didn’t take a salary as head of the Olympics or as Governor of Massachusetts–when you don’t earn anything you don’t pay taxes.  And of course this all ignores the fact that this is a man who gave away his entire inheritance to charity and gives about 15% every year to charity (some bigots will decry the fact that a large portion of that goes to the Mormon church, but even if you had theological issues with the church , you’d be a damn fool to say they are not in the business of numerous aid programs).

But liberals just dismiss this because (A) “he’s not paying his fair share” (still waiting to hear what percentage that is) and (B) it’s not to the charities they like. 

And this leads to an odd habit I’ve noticed among rich liberals.  They bitch and moan and whine about how we don’t support Planned Parenthood, or NPR, or PBS, or the arts or this or that project or organization enough.

Now as far as I know, and I haven’t verified every picture on this, but except for Mitt I think everyone in this picture is liberal…and as far as I know only a 4 or 5 give significant sums to charity (only a couple do it without seeking public praise for thier charity)…so the question is that if most of the these liberals feel that more money should be spent on the poor and thier pet projects, why don’t they put thier money where their mouth is?

Oddly enough these are often the same rich liberals who say that they aren’t being taxed enough.  (Let’s ignore for the moment you can just not take deductions and pay the full rate or you can give more than the minimum to government…and yet they’re taking deductions and not just giving money by the bushel load to the feds  (follow the link, it goes straight to where you can just give money to the Treasury Dept…I’m going to wager right now no one is going to give a dime).   That the rich should be taxed at much higher rate (one assumes to pay for all these pet projects they want funded).

Hmmm….rich people say the government is taking enough of their money AND they’re saying the government should give more to their pet projects…hmmmmm….

 

Am I the only one who thinks that they could just cut out the middle man and give more to all these things they say needs funding.  Just cut a check, and don’t worry about the government.

But, some whiny liberal will say, there are more rich Republicans.  But that’s not really true, it’s a bit more divided fairly evenly and statistics suggests it may be slightly biased to the left (performers are statistically more liberal and entertainment makes people very rich very quickly).  Also it might be helpful to take into account that Obama has raised 181 Million from large contributors and Romney has raised only 121 Million from large contributors (a 3:2 advantage for the left ) so while not a perfect way to calculate it (if nothing else Romney had months of fundraising that he had to share with Ricky and Newt that Obama could just rake in the dough) but there is still the fact is that there are still a lot of rich liberals .

Then of course the rich liberals will complain that it’s not enough if they do it, they need the money of ALL the rich to make an effort…apparently these people are forgetting what the overhead of the government is between numerous departments, lost interest on the money, corruption, waste, idiocy, Michelle’s vacations, trust me giving straight to the charity is far, far more efficient (or did we forget how much money the GSA is spending?) .

Now if liberals don’t want to spend their money that’s their right and I support it.  I believe in the virtue of charity, but I also believe that different people have different things to learn in different life times and the virtue of charity, while admirable in most cases (it’s not as if it’s done merely for good press…like, say, you say you’re going to give all your money away when you die, but you spend your days trying to avoid paying back taxes…Warren Buffet I mean you), but it is not the only virtue and I can see some spiritual lessons may require for not giving out money…and I’m not going to judge who is in what category.  But I will judge hypocrisy.  And if you claim more of your money should be taken for the public good, but don’t spend it on the public good when it is fully in your power to do so, you are a gutless, virtueless, hypocritical piece of filth.  I believe it also goes by the title DNC donor. 

The fact of the matter is that liberals don’t care about Romney’s tax records.  The bright ones know there is nothing untoward in there, they want a piece of propaganda to rile the more ignorant in their base.*  They don’t care about fair share or helping others because if they did they would put their money where their mouths are with or without the government’s help. 

*I’m not claiming there aren’t ignorant people on the right, there are, they were known as Santorum supporters…but his loss shows they’re not in the majority.

3 Comments

Filed under Capitalism, Charity, Congress, Conservative, Economics, Election 2012, Free Will, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Individualism, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Natural Rights, Obama, People Are Stupid, philosophy, politics, Taxes, Welfare

From Republicans and Reincarnation: Part of the Ethical Argument for Capitalism

Robbing Peter to Pay Paul vs. Peter giving to Paul

“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.” —Winston Churchill

            Let’s look at two hypothetical systems.

System 1:

Peter is rich.  Very rich.  The government takes what it considers a reasonable amount of money (which has nothing to do with what a reasonable person would consider a reasonable amount).  Let’s say 31 cents on the dollar.  The government then takes that money and spends about 18 cents, of every dollar Peter makes, on Paul.  So what is the point of this system?  Supposedly it’s to help Paul improve his station in life.  We take money from Peter because Peter can afford it.  So now let’s looks at this.  Through the questions we established earlier.

  1. Is the action leading to a positive, neutral, or negative end?
  2. Is the action unethical or ethical?
  3. Is the benefit this action is providing removing a material or spiritual obstacle, or both?
  4. Is this a long-term benefit or short-term benefit?
  5. Is the action benefiting a large number of people or a small number?

I’m going to take these in reverse order, so bear with me.  This is hurting at least on face value a smaller portion of the population (not really, Peter as representative of “the rich”[1] is actually a fairly large portion of the population) to help a larger portion of the population (again not really, Paul as representative of those on the dole is a relatively small portion of the population[2]…but we’re going to play in the opposition ballpark for the moment).  So at least the argument (no matter how flimsy it is) is that few people are hurt and lots of people are helped.

But how are they helped?  Is this a long-term benefit or a short-term benefit?  When we talk about this we have to think about what Paul will do with that welfare check.  Now I couldn’t find figures on how many welfare checks are spent on capital investment or college tuitions, but given the fact that until the 1990’s welfare reform the number of people leaving the dole could not be described as a mass exodus, I think it’s a safe assumption that not much of that money was being used to better Paul.  Quite frankly it’s human nature.  People value things by what they sacrifice to get it, by the amount of work that goes into it, by what had to be done to earn it—thus money just thrown at you without strings has little value.  As such it will be spent on things of no lasting value.  Yes there are numerous examples of people who climbed their way out of welfare, and I applaud these people for the strength of character to fight human nature’s more lazy and apathetic tendencies, but no one can be foolish enough to say that these few examples are indicative of the whole—nor ignore the fact that many of these people who have gotten themselves out of the cycle of poverty are some of welfare’s harshest and most vocal critics.  Thus welfare in general is at best a short-term fix; it by no means attacks the root of the problem.[3]

So it helps lots of people, but is only a short-term solution.  Now obviously this has material benefit (at least for Paul, to hell if it actually depresses the economy as a whole) but does it actually have any spiritual benefits?  Sadly, and rather obviously, the answer is no.  Peter gets none of the spiritual benefits described in the previous chapter that come from giving, because he did not give by choice, the money was taken from him against his will.  Nor is Peter also likely to give to charity now, or at least not as much, because human nature is that once that money has been taken, then that person feels that they’ve already given, when they haven’t.  In fact if anything this leaves Peter more negative and bitter toward humanity as he now sees money stolen from him and given to people who are less than deserving and not using said money to better themselves.  This is likely to make Peter more bitter toward humanity around him, more cynical, and overall a worse human being.  So it’s actually a spiritual negative.  How about for Paul?  The answer is again in the negative.  Paul feels no need to earn this act of charity; it was given to him by an unfeeling, cold, heartless institution, not another human being.  The insult to self-esteem alone comes as a spiritual negative.  More often than not the psychological effects of such a handout will make Paul feel even in less control of his life than before because now that he must depend on the government for his existence—this increases his feelings of powerlessness, increases fear that he is not in control of his existence and rather a mere victim of fate and circumstance.  In short another spiritual negative.

Finally is it ethical?  No!  The phrase is “to rob Peter to pay Paul” for a reason.  It’s stealing money from a human being by force.  I know I don’t pay my taxes out of the goodness of my heart; I do it because I don’t wish to go to jail or have a standoff with the FBI and ATF.  I’m pretty sure that’s the same reason you pay your taxes.  They have jails and guns, a lot of them—certainly more than I would like to make a standoff against.  So in the end it’s theft.  A clear violation of “Thou shalt not steal” or its numerous variations in every religion on earth, and New Agers are no different on this point.  Stealing is stealing; it’s a complete and total violation of any conception of ethics I can think of.   Now we do honor the myth of Robin Hood, but not because he was a thief, as someone once tried to disprove my point that we never believe theft to be a good thing.  Notice that if you actually look at all the legends, it wasn’t that he robbed from the rich and gave to the poor (a more modern socialist reinterpretation) but rather robbed from the robbing tax collector and gave back to the people who had actually earned the money.  His heroism isn’t in the theft, it’s in putting his life on the line to get back for people what was stolen from them, what was originally theirs (which is what we would like to think the police do when they put their life on the line for us).

But don’t the ends justify the means you ask—to which I respond: did you read the previous paragraphs?  Even if there were cases where the ends justify the means, I can’t see how stealing hard-earned money from people is justified by short-term material benefits and long-term spiritual and economic harm.  The welfare system in all its myriad forms is actually harming the spiritual growth of everyone it touches.  Unless you were an atheist you couldn’t possibly support it, and even then to believe that this system pragmatically worked you’d need to be an atheist and a moron to… (Or am I being redundant there?)

System 2:

            So let’s say that starting today we started reducing all welfare entitlements.  Making them harder to get, requiring more oversight of the people who get them, and requiring even further time constraints in regards to how long you can be on the program.  In terms of social security this would be cutting benefits, raising retirement ages and begin to either privatize or simply eliminate[4] through a phased out process.  Now you might be wondering why I’m not suggesting this second system as being one of completely wiping welfare, social security, Medicaid, and Medicare simply off the face of the earth.  The answer would be that for better or much much worse, these programs have unfortunately become part of the country’s society and while they do eventually need to die, just cutting them with a machete, while greatly satisfying, will cause short-term chaos, and long term societal scars.  Welfare, like heroin, is not an addiction that one just quits cold turkey.[5]  There does need to be a large initial cut to show we mean business of somewhere in the ballpark of 10% cuts right off the top—but this needs to be followed by a 10 to 20 year plan of phasing these programs out of existence.

So assuming we do the right thing, and cutting these programs back with the intention of eventually leaving them only as significantly smaller local programs or just out and out killing them.  What are the benefits and losses?

First, how many people are helped?  While I’m sure we all agree that supply-side economics doesn’t work quite as well or as quickly as everyone thought it did back in the ‘80’s, but it does work, albeit its effects take time to work through.  When the economy improves everyone benefits, and when you cut government intrusion the economy improves…eventually.  But the fact of the matter is that more money in the hands of the people is still more money circulating through the economy and not being lost in some bureaucratic nightmare land that creates nothing but red tape and paperwork and thus doesn’t really add anything to the flow of the economy.  More money, more things being bought.  More things being bought, more profit.  More profit, more investment.  More investment, more jobs…you know how this goes.  So certainly this will take time, but then again that’s what we conservatives like—long-term fixes, not short term band-aids.  Further if we do this properly as a long term rollback of funds people receiving these handouts should have time to plan and adjust to the changing environment (like doing things of such a radical nature as getting an education, getting a job, or actually saving for retirement…I know it’s radical thinking, but I believe it just might work for most people).  So there is no harm to this group either.  So everyone makes out with the status quo if not better.

As I already said these are long-term benefits.  Long term the economy does better, more people have jobs, more people have control of their lives, and if we don’t fall in the trap of socialism again, this is a self-perpetuating system.  Yes, long term we will have recessions, can’t do anything about that, but they will work themselves out, and if people begin to learn how to save properly and educate themselves properly to be able to move from career to career if needed they will not need to worry.

But more than these advantages, this puts the control of a person’s life back in their own hands.  A major spiritual benefit.  For both Peter and Paul, the government is no longer butting into their lives more than it needs to.   This will reduce the likelihood of fear in their lives.  It will also increase the feelings of security since for Paul survival depends on himself now, and for Peter there is less worry about how much the Brownshirts at the IRS will be taking this year.  Further, as I pointed out previously, more money in Peter’s hands will increase the odds and amounts that Peter will give to charity, and this charity will come from living human beings who care about people not the cold, mechanical system of welfare.  With this charity to Paul comes the emotional and ethical ties that will force Paul to in some way to be worthy of the gift he has been given and improve himself.

So materially, psychologically, spiritually this provides long-term benefits to the majority of people.  But is it ethical?  Well we’re not stealing from anyone, so there it’s ethical.  And as I stipulated this program has to be carried out slowly, so were not just uprooting people from the system they have become accustomed to…But I hear one last objection about it being ethical coming from the far left: That people have a right to health care or a livable wage, or a right to care from the government in old age and that to deny them that right is unethical.

The crux of this argument is that everyone has a right to these things.  If you believe this you A) have not the foggiest conception of what a right is and B) are just as confused about ethics.  No one has a right to health care or a livable wage or even happiness.  What you have a right to is that the government will not overtly deny you the chance to achieve, to earn, or to buy these things.  But neither the government, society, your neighbor, nor your brother owes you these things.  You have rights to what you come into this world with: Life, Liberty, and the ability to pursue happiness (emphasis on the pursue).  Nor is anyone ethically required to provide these things to you just because you exist (except for your parents as long as you can’t provide these things for yourself).  First and foremost a person is ethically bound to seek their own happiness, not yours.  Now we are ethically bound to help those in immediate need; the Parable of the Good Samaritan comes to mind, but notice that in that case the story revolves around people who are not victims of their own laziness but literally victims to the violence of others or circumstance completely out of their control.  Yes we are ethically bound to help those people.  We are even ethically called for to be generous and charitable, but keep in mind the entire concept of generosity and charity are dependant on the idea we are not bound to help people out of duty, law, or right…if we were it wouldn’t be generosity now would it?  Further generosity does not call for us to help everyone who would come and demand our help—that would bankrupt anyone and certainly lead to personal unhappiness, a very unethical end.  Charity, to have true meaning and worth, must be to those who will use it for their own long term benefit and betterment, not merely short term waste, and anyone who demands the work and property of others as their own isn’t someone who cares about personal betterment because this is indicative of a character that believes in not doing anything for themselves.  Anyone with this sort of entitlement and need for instant gratification can never better themselves, because they cannot even conceive of what is required to better themselves[6].  Hence they are not worthy of the generosity or charity you would give.

Charity is ethical.  But its generosity must be coupled with a desire to improve one’s self, otherwise whatever work or money that is given is merely wasted.  The claim that one has a right to other people’s works is an affront to that belief and merely helps to instill a feeling of helplessness and that is irresponsible.


[1] Of course this isn’t accurate as it is more like the top 50% of wage earners that liberals like to define as “the rich”…so ask yourself do you personally make more than $45,000…if you do, then many in Congress define you as “the rich”.

[2] Unless you count all those elderly people who were somehow too stupid to have any understanding of saving for retirement, and rather chose to live like leaches off people who actually have jobs and know what the stock market is for, but one has trouble feeling sympathy for someone who had over forty years to plan for the inevitable and didn’t do anything about it.  And if you tell me they expected the government to be there for them…well that makes me lose even more respect for them. Even the Sheriff of Nottingham wasn’t dumb enough to think Robin was going to give the money back to him when he retired.

[3] I’m actually going to exclude all job training and education problems from this critique as those do actually attack the root of the problem and do exhibit long-term thinking.  I have no problem in theory spending money on those…although I’m sure the money itself could be spent more wisely.

[4] Even privatizing the system is the government still saying you’re too incompetent to handle your own money…which I’ll grant you, a good portion of America does fit into that description, but it’s still the government calling you stupid…this from an organization currently run by some of the biggest buffoons the world has to offer.  A statement about pots and kettles comes to mind.

[5] Interestingly enough, welfare also shares the quality of heroin of leaving its users emaciated, soulless shells of their former selves.

[6] I would like to point out that this critique is not aimed necessarily at those who are poor, but rather at the demagogues and activists that propose such a system of entitlement and character flaws, who in effect create a system that encourages the poor to stay victims and not seek a better life.

To read more Republicans and Reincarnation: The Conscience of a New Age Conservative is available at AuthorHouse, Amazon, and Barnes & Noble 

Leave a comment

Filed under Books, Books for Conservatives, Books for New Agers, Capitalism, Charity, Conservative, Economics, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Free Will, God, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Individualism, Long Term Thinking, Love, Natural Rights, New Age, Patriotism, philosophy, politics, Republicans and Reincarnation, Taxes, Tyranny, Welfare

Trying To Snatch Defeat From The Jaws of Victory

Is the Republican Party out to kill itself?

I am perpetually bothered by the simultaneous lack of pragmatism and idealism in the GOP when it comes to campaigning this election.

Oh where to start?

(And let’s just ignore that I could get a whole blog off of all the Republicans who complained about the Tea Party that put them back in power in the House.)

Well let’s deal with Mitt Romney.  Nothing this man does makes conservatives happy…which is odd as we have been saying for years we need the common sense and wisdom of the private sector brought to government (check), we need someone with character (check) we need a fiscal conservative (check) we need a foreign policy conservative (check) we need someone  who will stick to their guns but make tactical concessions to achieve the larger goals (check again).  His record and his words are everything we have said we’re looking for (I’ll admit that the reality might fail, but I choose to hope for the best).  But somehow not only are liberals attacking him but our own party seems hell bent to do their job for them.

Now, as any reader of this blog is well aware I loathe the uberliberal RINO team of John McCain and Sarah Palin.  Really hate them.  Bleeding heart liberals and mindless populists who stand for nothing, every inch of them.  But I remembered the 11th Commandment during the election and didn’t publicly hit them every chance I got.  I had hopes of publishing Republicans & Reincarnation before the 2004 election, didn’t work out that way, but there isn’t a single word condemning either McCain or Palin because as much as I loathe them you don’t destroy your party’s brand and reputation over a single person.  But Republicans right now can’t hit Romney fast enough.

Romneycare!  A call which is ignorant of what was included by Romneycare and why Obamacare needs to go.  I’d like to remind Republicans we hate Obamacare for not just the mandate but for all the aspects of it: the loopholes, the creation of the massive bureaucracy, the restrictions of freedom of choice, the worsening of medical care, the destruction of the private sector, the intent to turn us into a single payer system…it’s just the mandate was the easiest thing to attack it on Constitutionally. The only one of those Romneycare has is the mandate (in fact Romneycare was designed to stop the Massachusetts legislature from doing all of that)…but the mandate, you know, the mandate which is unconstitutional to anyone who actually is capable of reading the Constitution (Roberts clearly does not belong in that list) but actually fully constitutional at the state level.  (This is even more ironic that the same people who hit Romney over the constitutional mandate at the state level, will also rightly scream about the federal government overreach in Arizona and that federalism demands that states have powers to act independently of the federal government….oh I see you only like federalism when it matches your beliefs…why are you a conservative again?)

Or “He raised taxes in Massachusetts!”  No he didn’t.  He raised fees (which is how a good libertarian and conservative government raises money) and he closed loopholes in the tax code (again something we conservatives want to do).  Yes it would have been nice if rate reduction had accompanied, but the pseudo-socialism of trying to give breaks to certain groups but not others is just as evil as high taxes.  Better only one evil than two.

I could go on but the fact of the matter so far is that any and all policy attacks on Romney at Bain, at the Olympics or as Governor turn out to be bullshit if you do the research.

But let’s get to the problems of Republicans saying he’s not campaigning hard enough, he’s not hitting Obama enough, he’s not on the attack.  That’s right.  Because we all know how history works.  Did Reagan win against Jimmy Carter by letting Carter always put his foot in his own mouth and then just calmly going “There you go again”?  No, he did it by attacking Carter every minute of every day and calling Carter out as the socialist and anti-Semite that he is.  Oh, no, I got those backwards, Reagan ran a fairly low key campaign constantly jabbing Carter, but letting dim Jimmy do most of the work by constantly talking like the f’ing moron he is…you know, much like Obama is doing.  In fact there are a lot of comparisons to be made between Romney and Reagan. 

But is history enough?  No.  Why should Romney take a national holiday off to spend time with his wife and family, thus showing character, and regaining energy for the push of this coming month.  Why should he take the day off when Obama once again humiliates himself by trying to use the 4th to push legislation no one wants.  No Romney should have been on the campaign trail,  “Get off the jet ski!”  Yes he should be out there politicizing the 4th as well, thus mitigating how much of a jackass Obama looked like making statements about the DREAM Act on the 4th.  Yeah that would have been brilliant.  (And if Romney had been on the campaign I’m sure the same people would be bitching how a real man would spend the holiday with his MS stricken wife and family).

Or in perhaps my favorite move, from Breitbart.com, the site that praised Thomas, Scalia, Alito, and Kennedy as being defenders of conservatism for saying it was an unconstitutional mandate not a tax but chided Romney as not being a conservative for saying it was an unconstitutional mandate not a tax…you have this lovely hit piece ROMNEY WATCH: WEBSITE NOWHERE ON LATEST UNEMPLOYMENT FIGURES (which I give you as  a screen shot because this is just too good to have claims I edited it)

So, ignoring that Romney gave an almost immediate statement

This message was carried on C-SPAN, Fox News, CNN, Drudge, and RealClearPolitics…he made similar comments on Twitter and Facebook.  So I’m not sure what the statement “Where is the Romney campaign?”  Where are you nameless Breitbart writer?  How did you miss all of this?  “Meanwhile Obama’s campaign’s website, Obama’s economic plan is near the top of the page.”

Oh really?  At the top I was greeted with an opportunity to share a meal with Joe Biden if I donate and I get a picture of Joe.  I’ll pay you to keep the dumbfuck away, but not to actually meet him (unless I get to slap him for every dipshit thing he’s said during his term as VP).

Scrolling down I see more begging for money…

And then,  I go up to the “Issues” category and find “Jobs and the Economy”

Now a look at Romney’s campaign…(a note I did not get around to getting these screen shots until 7pm Pacific Coast Time…but I will say this  is the typical kind of stuff you will see on Romney’s site any day).

Hmm…on the top of the Romney page…yeah can’t see a “Jobs & Economy” plan anywhere (A.  Yes it’s the forth slide in a series, but it is there if you’re even there for only a few moments B. This was there last week)

And if I scroll down a little (three things on the economy, one which, The Best of America, I know has been there since Wednesday)

And finally, yep the Jobs & Economic Growth in the same place, under the issues categories.

In other words, the Romney site is three time as blatant about the economic situation as the Obama page.  (Not to mention he’s right about the economy).

Of course my favorite part of the Breitbart hit piece is” The jobless statistics came out nearly three hours ago. Voters looking for answers from Mitt Romney are going to go to his campaign website—“  Three whole hours.  Wow, way to sound like a whiny liberal who needs instant gratification constantly.  Yeah, because for a written piece we should consider what Obama said, construct a well thought out response that attacks it on points…but no, we need an immediate knee jerk prewritten general piece.  Oh and I love how voters on Romney’s site don’t know how he will respond…you know because the 160 page plan with the 59 point plan and the 5 laws he will send to Congress and 5 executive orders he will sign (on day one) hasn’t been there since the early part of the primary…I’m so glad the writer of this piece has taken the last 10 months do his research and not found something that is staring him right in the face.

And to top it all off the Breitbart website let this trash be published without a name.

And you wonder why I think since Breitbart’s death his website has degraded into an MSNBC-esque Romney hit machine.

Oh, and to top it all off…

Then I was told by three people today that this morning’s review of how we stand in the Senate races was overly optimistic. (And two of them were Republicans!)  I’ll grant you the optimistic part, but not the overly.  I made the point that we could win all of the toss up states.  Unlikely but not impossible.  I pointed out a few races that were very likely but with the right set of circumstances (money, boots on the ground donating time and utterly demoralizing the opposition early) we could win them.  With the exceptions of the extreme long shots I posted all the relevant polling data.  I didn’t try to hide anything.  I trust my readers to be able to read and make conclusions on their own.  But apparently the “I’m overly optimistic “ thinks I should not show that we are in a position to win.  Oh yeah that will work.  Let me publish a headline.  “Our odds of winning the Senate is maybe 30%” (Honestly, with the currents winds of change and Obama poisoning the Democrat brand, our odds of taking the Senate are around 90%, but you get the point) …but let’s go with that really cautious line. I’m sure that will bring out the money and the volunteers, I’m sure of that.

“Well that’s not a balanced and dispassionate look at things” I was told.  This isn’t a balanced and dispassionate blog!  I’m sorry if you’ve missed this, but the reason I write is to hasten the demise of ideologies I abhor.  Until Communism, socialism, progressivism, Islamofascism, social conservatism, and isolationism  have all been thrown on the dust heap of history ranking up there with Carthage as moments in history  that not only failed, but failed with everyone involved being destroyed I will keep not being “balanced and dispassionate.”  Now don’t read into that I have illusions that I currently have a huge following or great sway—I have no such illusions—but I’m a high school teacher, I’ve learned the value saving one mind at a time (in case you’re wondering my politics don’t come into my classroom).

I’m sorry but people have to believe that they CAN win.  You have to be truthful, but tell them the good stuff.  Don’t lie, but downplay the weaknesses…because anything dealing with human beings has the risk of becoming self-fulfilling prophecy.  If the Republicans believe that they will win and that they have candidates who will wipe the floor with the liberal scum, then guess what, they’ll donate time, they’ll donate money, they’ll challenge friends and neighbors who insult their candidates and they’ll win a few converts along the way.  However, if you just hit your own side and say that “you’re being overly optimistic” you’ll kill morale and prove that you’re right we can’t win, because if people believe they can’t win, they’ll stay home, keep their money and may not even vote.

But let me be clear about some facts.

Fact 1: Romney is a fiscal and foreign policy conservative and if you say otherwise you’re either ignorant, an idiot or a liar.

Fact 2:  The Republican Party is in the position where it can win a majority in the Senate.

Fact 3: Put Fact 1 & 2 together and you have at least 2 years of very conservative policy and extreme economic growth.

Fact 4: That is worth fighting for.  With words.  With money.  With time donated.

Fact 5: If you’re just going to naysay and complain and speak against Facts 1 & 2 you’re not helping.

I don’t know what is wrong with this part of the Conservative party that seems hellbent on self-destruction, but I do know I will not give in.  We will fight and WE WILL WIN in November.

Leave a comment

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Anti-Semitism, Budget, Capitalism, Conservative, Constitution, Debt, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, NeoConservative, Obama, Patriotism, People Are Stupid, philosophy, politics, Problems with the GOP, Ronald Reagan, Taxes, Tyranny

The Most Patriotic Film Ever: State of the Union

“I can be interested in the county, without being interested in politics.”

State of the Union?  Haven’t heard of it have you?  (If you have you have to admit you’re in the minority on this).  Which is odd—it’s Tracy and Hepburn!  How can you miss Tracy and Hepburn?  And in a Capra film too!  It also stars Angela Lansbury as the woman trying to break our eternal couple up, and control Tracy…Lansbury always plays the villain, be it the communist mother in Manchurian Candidate or the weekly serial killer who always frames others for her crimes in Murder She Wrote (there’s no other way to explain the body count), she always plays the villain…

So since you probably are not familiar with the plot, let me quickly sum up. Estranged husband and wife Grant and Mary Matthews are thrown together when Grant decides to move from a highly successful business career to taking a chance at running for President in 1948.  But first he has to get the Republican nomination.  At first he speaks from his heart…but when swayed by Lansbury’s Kay Thorndyke, the other woman, and a W.R. Hearst-esque media baron, he begins to play the games of politics he had previously hated.  Here we see Capra in full swing detailing the cynicism of voting bloc politics, of playing one minority off against other, of making deals for votes.  This nearly destroys him, and his chances for election, until he’s brought back to his senses by his loving wife. Whether he wins or not, the movie doesn’t cover.

It’s a good story, but what makes this film so patriotic is that Matthews at several points makes comments on what does and doesn’t work in America. The character of Matthews is actually given to making some very detailed speeches, (which I sadly could not find clips of on youtube, found a couple edited to seem to benefit liberal positions alone, but not the full speech).  It is in these speeches that you see the virtue of America praised, and our flaws acknowledged and combated.

Matthews: Well the next time you’re up there, Mr. Conover, look down.  Look down on Pittsburgh, for example, what do you see?

Spike: Smoke

Mathews: That’s right, smoke.  From the steel mills.   Miles and miles of steel mills.  But you see something else, too, don’t you?  Farms, factories, lumber, mines, railroads, business, management, labor.  Not one able to exist alone, but together, working together with courage and imagination.  That makes America.  That’s a great picture from the air.  Yeah but come down to Earth and walk into one of those meetings like that one in Cleveland, and what do you find? Farmers, cattlemen, lumbermen, business, labor, they were all there.  All working together?  In a pig’s eye.  All scared to death, all fighting each other.  Each out for the biggest bite in the apple.  Well, there aren’t that many bites in the apple.

[…]

Because you politicians instead of helping pull the country together are helping to pull it part, just to get votes.  To labor you promise higher wages and lower prices.  To business, higher prices and lower wages.  To the rich you say, “Let’s cut taxes”.  To the poor, “Soak the rich”.  To the veterans cheaper housing.  To the builders uncontrolled prices. [Italics added]

Notice that here the win-win mentality of rational self-interest and capitalism is stated.  That capitalism is dependant on numerous individuals working together, out of their own rational self-interest, but together.  Rather than the greed and irrational, short-sighted self-interest of “what’s in it for me politics” of promising this group or that group something.  Notice this is in 1948, before the post-war boom, before the boom of the early 60’s before the boom of the 80’s and 90’s…and yet it foresees that our “courage and imagination” are the things that will bring about this great prosperity.  It subtly implies the truth, that while socialism simply divides the apple between this group or that, it is capitalism and capitalism alone that creates wealth (not just distributes it) so that there is actually an apple for everyone.

Or when he goes to see the White House while considering his run, a man chides him for bluntly stating the White House needs a new paint job:

Bystander: Do you know who lives in that historic mansion [the White House]?

Matthews: Yeah the spirit of all those who fought for human dignity lives there.  Moses, Buddha, Confucius, Christ, Paul, St. Francis, Thomas Aquinas, Roger Bacon, Joan of Arc, Martin Luther, Plato, Homer, Dante, Shakespeare, Michelangelo, Pasteur, Newton, Galileo, Edison, Franklin, Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson, Crispus Attucks, Lafayette, Garibaldi, Bolivar, Kosciusko.  The martyrs, the saints, and the poets.  Civilizations past and present. Man’s whole history. His evolution from worm to animal to Einstein, his long search for God, all those things live in that noble dwelling, but I still say it needs painting.

And of course the central point of the movie is when after giving an off camera speech filleting big labor he prepares to give an equally harsh speech against what would be called big business then, but now we use the more correct term cronyism. (Please note that in 1948 almost everything he says is the action we should have taken…from a man this principled however, the speech would be different on a few points, so please keep the times in mind as you read it).

Matthews: Those men [labor bosses] in there are the kind of men who are responsible for the wildcat strikes.  If I can make them see something bigger than their own jobs as head of their own locals and what little power they get from that…Why? What did I say to them? I just said that when the members stop running the unions, the unions start running the members.

[…]

Matthews: I’m going to tell them they do a lot of yapping about communism but as long as they think about high profits instead of high production, they’re playing the communist game.  High production is the way to kill high prices.

Conover: They want high prices.

M: High prices means inflation. Inflation today means depression tomorrow.  And a depression in these United State is exactly the ace card Moscow is waiting to draw.

C: They don’t want to hear these things.

M: They’re gonna hear them.  They’re going to hear that capitalism itself is being challenged.  If it doesn’t survive, it’s because men like themselves haven’t the guts or the imagination to make it survive.

C: You can’t talk to that crowd this way you’ll antagonize them.

All right.  So what?  So I’ll antagonize them.  I yelled my head off about labor, didn’t I, and its responsibilities.  Well, I’m going to lay it right on the line about industry too.  Now look here Jim, you know just as well as I do that there are men at that banquet who’ll be rooting for a depression, just so they can slap labor’s ears back.

C: And I suppose you have a few well-chosen words to say about tax reduction.

M: You better not worry so much about tax reduction until we accomplish some of the things we have to accomplish.  I’m going to tell the wealthiest nation in the world it is a failure unless it’s also the healthiest nation in the world.  That means the highest medical care for the lowest income groups.  And that goes for housing, too.  The one thing this nation is not rich enough to afford is not having a roof over our heads.  And I’m going to tell them the American Dream is not making money.  It is the well being and the freedom of the individual throughout the world from Patagonia to Detroit.  We can’t be an island of plenty in a world of starvation.  We have to send, food, clothing, machinery, and money to the bitter, impoverished people of the world.  Try to recreate their self-respect.  Give them the desire again for individual freedom.  And I’m gonna tell them that as long as dictatorships remain in the world, we better remain well armed.  Because the next time we’re not going to get two years to get ready.  They’re gonna jump us overnight.  And I’m gonna tell them that there’s only one government which is capable of handling the atomic control, world disarmament, world employment, world peace, and that’s a world government.  The people of thirteen states started the United States of America.  Well, I think the people of that many nations are ready to start a United States of the World.  With or with out Russia.  And I mean a “United” States of the World.  With one Bill of Rights.  One international law. One international currency.  One international citizenship. And I’m gonna tell them that the brotherhood of man is not just an idealistic dream, but a practical necessity if man is going to survive. [Italics added]

Here he correctly realizes that there are two sides to both labor and business.  In labor there are actual workers, and there are the corrupt union bosses who fleece their members, pad their pockets, and make ungodly campaign contributions to politicians who allow them to repeat the cycle. A bit prophetic in his critique of labor isn’t he?  I would never advocate for ending unions (except for public employees and professional), they serve an important function, but today they have become worse than the caricatured robber barons they were supposedly formed to end.

Meanwhile in business there are real businessmen like Matthews who enjoy making a great product and enjoy making profit off that great product (the heroes of an Ayn Rand novel) and there are those who like cronyism, who as this movie makes clear are very un-capitalistically for high tariffs, anti-free trade, protectionist legislation against competition from new inventions, and low taxes ON THEIR INDUSTRY (GE, GM, Google, Goldman Sachs, and basically all the biggest Obama contributors).  And I’ll forgive Matthews’ statement about not lowering taxes before we have paid for what we need to do, at least he’s advocating balanced budgets, and 10 years before Rand, 15 before Goldwater, 20 before Milton Friedman, and before Laffer and Reagan it’s forgivable to not know the truth and facts of supply-side economics (at least implicitly he understands the heart of supply-side economics by putting the focus on high production).  And before anyone thinks I’m giving up my conservative roots by praising his call for the healthiest nation and housing for all…go back and read your Hayek and Friedman…you need a safety net, it just should be at the local, not federal level (and in 1948, I can assume a Republican defines “the lowest income groups” as the bottom 5% not the modern Democratic definition of the “the lowest income groups” as the other 99%).

And I have to love the admission that America is not a nation of isolationists, as some would now have you believe.  We are the beacon of freedom in the world and that comes with a responsibility to spread freedom.  There’s a throwaway joke early on “After all Senator Fosdick was an isolationist.  I think he should be isolated.”  This was the correct view of isolationism: it doesn’t and can’t work.  Not just on pragmatic reasons, but on ethical ones.

And you’ll also notice that the ideal world government presented is one of a union of free nations, that will advocate and push for liberty around the world, not just throwing everyone into one body and being run through with corruption.

This is close to the kind of speech I want to hear now. Praising America’s greatness and condemning those who see it only as a way to make a quick buck for themselves and screw everyone else.

The movie is also quick to condemn the evils of identity politics and condemn those who trade in it (I’m looking at you Democratic Party).  It is expressed best by “Spike” McManous, a reporter sent to keep an eye on Matthews, “In Conover’s eyes a lazy people, an ignorant people, a prejudiced people are not free.”  And he’s sadly right; people who are lazy, ignorant, and prejudiced are always slave to those who would exploit those flaws.  And that is why it is the responsibility of Americans to keep themselves informed and reasonable…but it is also the responsibility of politicians to not to play to such disgusting habits.

And at the end of the film, when, after making a dozen crooked deals, Matthews realizes his sins, he takes to the air and gives an impromptu speech baring his soul and again showing what is great about this nation.

I had the right idea when I started to talk to you people of America. The idea that you voters, you farmers, you businessmen, you working men, you ordinary citizens of whatever party, are not the selfish scum that venal politicians make you out to be. I thought I could speak my peace straight out and forward. I thought I could tell you that this country of ours is young, it’s not old. That we’ve just begun to grow. That all we need is courage, and from out of that courage will come a greatness greater than we ever dreamed. I wanted to tell you that we Americans are the hope of the world, and the secret of our great plenty is freedom, and we’ve got to share that secret and that plenty with the other nations of the world. And I wanted to tell you that we face a great problem, because when people are cold and hungry and scared, they gather together in panicky herds, ready to be led by communists and fascists who promise them bread for freedom, and deliver neither.  [Italics added]

A sobering reminder we still need to this day.

As he says, we are a young nation.

Today we are 236 years old. 236 years old…just for comparison at 236 years the Roman Republic had managed to come up with a crappy constitution, get the city burned to the ground by Gaul’s and conquer most of Italy (which sounds impressive until you realize that France was once able to conquer most of Italy, and if France can do it, well…) and at 236 England had done…well…um….nothing. Same story for France. Certainly none of them were the center of the world at 236. Oh and before you ask none of these countries had art at 236 let alone jazz, rock’n’roll, Frank Lloyd Wright, almost all film, Faulkner, Twain, Hawthorne, Frost, Gibran, Whitman. Not bad for only 236 years.  None of these others were economic powerhouses, or beacons of any ideal. And that’s at 236 for nations that would leave an undisputed mark on history.  We’ve already begun to make our mark and it is one of spreading liberty, freedom, capitalism, and all that speaks to the best in human nature.

This movie, possibly more than any other, reminds me of what a great nation this can be, and what we are capable of.  It reminds me of our greatness that was, is, and will be if we just embrace the best within us and do away with the rest.

1 Comment

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Art, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Conservative, Economics, Election 2012, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Faith, Foreign Policy, Free Will, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Individualism, Long Term Thinking, Movies, Movies for Conservatives, Natural Rights, NeoConservative, Patriotism, philosophy, politics, Taxes, Tyranny

Only 100 days to go!!!!

Only 100 days to go until the release of Atlas Shrugged Part II. I’m still not sure why they felt the need to replace the entire cast, but I assume there is method to the madness.

3 Comments

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Aristotle, Art, Ayn Rand, Books, Books for Conservatives, Capitalism, Conservative, Constitution, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Free Will, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Individualism, Long Term Thinking, Movies, Movies for Conservatives, Natural Rights, Obama, Patriotism, philosophy, politics, Selfishness, Taxes, Tea Party, Tyranny

The Roberts Courts leaves us going…huh?…And how to solve the problem.

What the hell were they thinking?  If that statue could get up she would be lopping off head with that sword.

You know there are supremely bad Supreme Court calls–Swann v. Charolotte-Mechlenburg County Board of Education, which created racial busing; Gibbons v. Ogden, which gave the government too much power in regulating commerce; South Dakota v. Dole, which gave the federal government the right to control internal state matters; Kelo, which abolished private property rights–and there are truly evil Supreme Court calls (Dred Scott, Plessey, Korematsu…actually Kelo belongs in this category)…there are even well intentioned but just supremely stupid calls like Brown v Board of Education whose answer to government overreach of power was to give the government more power or Roe which for all the right reasons created the most useless headache in American history.

And then there is this shit which has me going WTF.

So let me get this straight. The Commerce Clause is limited, and the Obamacare isn’t Constitutional under the Commerce Clause. This would be nice if we interpreted this decision as over turning judicial BS like Gibbons and Wickard v Filburn which have always given the government the right to regulate all commerce (which the Founders never intended and were quite against) not just interstate commerce. And if this ruling is used to strike down such socialistic abuses of the federal government and restore us to a more capitalistic society, then great.

But while that is a correct interpretation of the Commerce Clause…Roberts and his idiotic liberal friends find an interpretation of the taxing clause to be so insane I have to ask if LSD has been put in the Supreme Court drinking water.

Here is everything the Constitution has to say about taxes:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken. (This clause changed by the 16th Amendment)

AMENDMENT XVI : The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Now, I’m not a Constitutional scholar, but I’m well read and can reason for myself. Most of the points about taxes have no bearing on this debate. The only relevant parts are the last two lines. Article 1 Section 9 denying all taxes but in direct proportion to the census and Amendment giving the federal government the right to tax income. Now stop me if I’m wrong here, but nowhere does it say they can tax me for not doing something. Further the 16th Amendment only gives the right to tax income, not punish, not impose fees. The government does have the right to impose fees and charges under the Commerce Clause, but we’ve already dealt with the fact that Obamacare is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause.

The 16th Amendment gives the right to tax income and income alone. I don’t see the right to tax actions or more importantly the lack of action. So please explain to me how this court decision does not give almost infinite power to compel obedience through the taxing clause instead of the commerce clause.

Now some conservative commentators have been trying to defend Roberts’ actions, as if stripping the Commerce Clause alone was a great thing. But what profit it conservatives if they should gain the commerce clause but lose capitalism? Roberts took us one step forward and 10 steps back. Excuse me if I’m not thrilled. What the hell was Robert’s thinking?

If they can “tax” me for not buying insurance, what else can I be taxed for? Can I be “taxed” for owning a foreign made car every year (after all we have to give Government Motors running)? Can I be taxed every year for not joining a union? Can I be taxed for not giving money to his divine holiness Barack Obama’s campaign? Where is the limit to taxing power Roberts and his ilk created today?

And how is a “tax” for non-action not in violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments guarantee I will not be deprived of property without Due Process? How is a fine designed to coerce action, which by nature must be unusually high, not in violation of the 8th Amendment’s statement that excessive fines will not be imposed. How is all of this not in violation of the general idea of the Constitution as a document to limit government power, not give carte blanche?

So Roberts is an idiot. And please don’t come off with your “you’re Constitutional scholar” crap unless you can tell me where the government has the right to tax me into compliance with their laws. I may not be a Constitutional scholar, but I am a citizen and it is not only my right, it is my responsibility to know the Constitution and question the action of government officials.

Now with the theoretical and long term problems this could present in that it now gives the government power to tax you into slavery…let’s deal with the pragmatic results and long term solutions…

First off, Obama just lost the election. One of the few things he had going for him was saying that he never raised taxes on the middle class (a lie, but he could get out of it by technicality). That technicality just ended. It’s a tax and he’s putting it right on the backs of the middle class.

And given how unpopular this law is, it’s not a shock that Romney has raised over 2 million since the Supreme Court came out with its brainless call this morning.

Instead of Romney having one issue to run on, the economy, he now has two to run on the economy and Obamacare. (Now add the fact that Egypt is probably going to do something psychotically evil and Europe is about to collapse, he’ll also have foreign policy to run on before November). Obama was at best running neck and neck this morning…now the conservative base is energized like never before, independents have something to fear, and the Tea Party has been given a shot of atropine to the heart. It’s over Barry.

Also a short term pragmatic effect is that this will kill any possibility of economic growth before November. Some businesses might have been hiring with hope that Obamacare was about to be overturned. That won’t happen now. Businesses aren’t stupid and they’re not going to take a risk on what they can’t afford…they will wait until November and see what happens rather than commit economic suicide and saddle themselves with employees they can’t afford. This in turn will help Romney win, but expect a few more months of hardship economically.

Okay so let’s ask how do we deal with this long term?

Well the first thing is we need to overturn Obamacare.

It needs to be replaced with tort reform to make care cheaper, reform of regulations in the FDA and drug companies to make the drugs cheaper, allowing insurance companies to cross state lines which will lower costs across the board. Further we need real immigration reform (1) to get rid of the illegals who are living off the taxpayer dole and who have been responsible for massive ER and medical provider closures throughout the country and massive state debts and (2) to further help attract those who are qualified medical care providers which we are short of right now.

As to the two popular points of Obamacare the covering of children until 26 and the preexisting condition coverage, both are actually easily fixed. You can require that insurance companies offer coverage of children until they are 26 for premiums to be paid by the parents. Most insurance companies are already saying they’re going to offer the 26 thing even if Obamacare is overturned…why? Because they get to justify raising their premiums to cover a segment of the population that next to never need medical attention. Better to make it an optional idea and then only if your parents want to pay are you still covered (even if they offered it for an extra 50 they’d still make a profit…the real question is are you such a whining college drop out that your parents aren’t going to waste the money on your useless liberal ass).

As for preexisting conditions, we all know why insurance companies don’t like to take them on. They’re going to pay more money for your care and thus not make a profit. They’re in business to make a profit. Your doctor is in business to make a profit. Every sane person is out to make a profit. Only the insane and evil are self-sacrificing. Now what we can do is write laws that, if you have a preexisting condition they get to charge you more, which is only fair as I would say the majority of preexisting conditions are at least partly caused by behavior and lifestyle…and that if you have a preexisting condition you agree to pay for that policy for a specified amount of time (say 15 years) which guarantees that you won’t just stop insurance once you get the treatment you need (the reason why taking on preexisting conditions is usually a loss) and that if you kick the bucket your insurance company is the first creditor to be paid off. This is both a just way to deal with the situation and it takes much of the risk out of taking on preexisting conditions.

However just solving the problem of Obamacare isn’t the only problem.

We still have the problem that the Supreme Court just expanded the powers of the government to what the Founding Fathers would have shot people over.

Now there is the fact that I can hope Romney will appoint better people than Bush did. But that still doesn’t fix the problem entirely.

And I know that getting a constitutional amendment passed is near impossible these days but we have to push for these if this nation is to survive.

  • We need an Amendment overturning this decision and Kelo reaffirming that private property is sacrosanct and that private property rights are one of the most central reasons for government to exist in the first place.
  • We need an Amendment limiting the government’s taxing power to only taxing actual monetary transactions (which bars them from taxing you for NOT doing something). I would prefer changing the whole thing to only being able to tax sales and abolish the income tax, but I’ll take barring them from not taxing me for not doing something.
  • We need an Amendment limiting the power of the Commerce Clause to ONLY commerce that crosses state lines (not theoretically could cross, not commerce that is tangentially involved in interstate, ONLY COMMERCE THAT CROSSES STATE LINES).

And we probably need something reaffirming the sacrosanct nature of a contract…but that’s tangential to this argument.

I know just the laws of tort reform and repealing Obamacare are going to be huge hurdles in and of themselves…but we need to focus on Amendments like this more than anything else or we risk legislation like this and bad court decisions like this every time the nation goes stupid and elects a liberal.

Leave a comment

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

Ron Paul vs. Mitt Romney…or Vicious Psychopath vs. True Conservative

Very recently I was asked why I hate Ron Paul so much.  Now it’s partly his racist anti-Semitic attitude.    Partly it’s his idiocy on foreign affairs.  Partly it’s his extreme idealism about economics that takes reality and history and ignores them.  And then there is his hypocrisy.  But most of all it’s his followers.

Paul vs Romney…the battle for the soul of the GOP between a lunatic and a conservative.

Paulbots are insane.  I understand focusing on your candidate’s strengths, that’s called intelligence.  But to deny minor flaws in  a candidate is intellectually dishonest…for instance, I will admit that I’m not the biggest fan of Mitt’s social policies, however, I don’t think that those will be his first priority as President and thus I’m not too worried about them.  You ever hear a Paulbot say anything even that negative about Ron Paul.  No, Ron walks on water.

Paulbots are psychotic.  Facts have no meaning to them.  You point out that Ron Paul’s newsletter was filled with numerous racist and Anti-Semitic statements.  They either tell you you’re a liar (even when you have proof) or say that he didn’t write those, it was just someone who wrote for the newsletter.  Okay that would mean that Ron Paul hired someone to speak in his name and was so poor an executive he chose vicious and unqualified people to work for him.  So he can’t even run a small business, i.e., he’s certainly not qualified to run a country.  And when the option is either Ron’s a racist or Ron is a bad leader it’s back to I’m a liar.    Because Ron walks on water.  Hallowed be his name.  His will be done in D.C. as on Earth.

And trust me I’ve got a million other things about Ron I’m going to go over.

This kind of mindless adoration has been seen before.  You saw it in Germany in the 1930’s.  You saw it Russia in 1918.  You saw it in the Manson Family.  You see it in Twilight fans.  And you definitely saw it in the Democratic Party from 2008 to the present.  And each and every time this mindless devotion to a person, idea or thing that is devoid of real substance leads to only disaster, chaos, and destruction.

But most of all this blind devotion to Ron Paul has made each and every Paulbot in the country more sanctimonious than Rick Santorum on his worst day.  For instance let’s go with this little article that seems to be attempting to go viral “Why I Am Endorsing Mitt Romney For President (And Not Ron Paul).”  There is wit, there is snark, there is rude sarcasm….this article which tries to insult Romney is none of those things– this is ignorance and arrogance deluded into thinking it is wisdom and humor.

The poorly planned/researched concept is that this idiot lists twelve things under the guise of supporting Mitt Romney, instead supposedly he tries to insult Romney and show that really Ron Paul is not the second coming of Christ, he is so much better than that.

Yes, why should I back a real conservative like Romney when I can back a friggin’ nutjob like Paul?

Problem is that in attempting wit the author shows himself to be utterly devoid of knowledge of anything other than talking points.  The author will of course claim it’s satire…but satire is using humor to bring facts to light…this article against Romney is an attempt at humor to make fun of people for being so stupid that they believe that 2+2=4 (when every Paulbot knows it’s 3).

Let’s take a look at the 12 points.

1. Consistency – Mitt Romney has been unwavering in his public devotion to the principles and issues that would help to advance the political career of Mitt Romney.

 

Oh, I get it Mitt Romney’s a flip flopper and Ron isn’t.  Except for the fact that Mitt Romney has changed his stance on one major issue abortion…and even that was more that he changed his priorities, he has always personally been opposed to abortion.  All other flip flops are talking points by the left, Santorum, and Paulbots taken out of context or just outright lies as I have shown here.

Meanwhile it is a fact that Ron “Dr. No” Paul puts in massive pork (Billions of dollars over his very long political career) all the while decrying that very use of pork spending and voting against it (knowing that his pork money is safe even if he votes against it).  That my friend is consistency.  That is character.

Let’s see how the two stack up on the next point.

2. Flexibility – Unlike Ron Paul who has been ridiculously rigid in his defense of the U.S. Constitution, personal liberty, a balanced budget and the sanctity of life (so much so that he earned the nickname “Dr. No” in Congress); Romney has shown that he is capable of rolling with the punches, going with the tide, changing with the times, and bending with the breeze.

 

Yes, Ron has been strict in his defense of the U.S. Constitution (except for the fact that he thinks we should tax the rich which while it may now be Constitutional is clearly against the intent of the Constitution), personal liberty (unless it’s personal liberty for people outside U.S. borders, if you’re outside the U.S. borders tyrants can be running a 2nd Holocaust and Ron couldn’t care less) , a balanced budget (despite his numerous instances of pork spending) and the sanctity of life (again except if it’s outside U.S. borders).   And in all of this time, 20 years in the House, unlike career politician Romney who has only served one term in one office, Ron has gotten exactly zero laws he proposed passed.

Meanwhile Romney who holds the record for vetoes (over 800) just goes with anything anyone said.  That’s right when the Massachusetts legislature wanted to nationalize healthcare and basically control the entire medical industry Romney let them…oh wait, no, he took the plan proposed by the hideously conservative Heritage Foundation and created Romneycare (which has nothing to do with ObamaCare) thus saving the private industry and the medical professional in his state.  And then he vetoed every liberal change to the law.  Did all of his vetoes get overturned?  Yes.  But he at least stopped them from killing healthcare in one fell swoop.

Like any politician in an executive position who has no power to legislate directly has he cut deals?  Yes.  Kind of what the Founders envisioned.  (Since you Paulbots love to praise Ron Paul the Constitutionalist…maybe you could actually read it sometime along with the owner’s manual “The Federalist Papers”…you might enjoy No. 10 where Madison goes into detail of how the system is designed to at times create compromise.   But, I know, reading is hard, and just chanting “RON PAUL REVOLUTION” is so easy…and really that chant does logically dismiss all argument against Ron.)

The fact is that Romney has always held true to his principles but realizes, unlike Ron, that getting half of what you want and making a deal is better than taking a stand and letting your opposition get everything and you get nothing.

 

3. Supporters – The top six donors to Romney’s campaign are banks (including Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan, Bank of America, etc.). Who knows what is best for the average American? Why, multi-billionaire bankers, of course. Obviously Romney’s supporters have the kind of deep pockets that can not only pay for his campaign, but also buy the kind of Congress that will make SURE that America will have another TARP bailout if we need it.  On the other hand, 97% of Ron Paul’s donations come from individuals. His top three donor groups are the active military in the US Army, US Navy and US Air Force.

 

I love Ron Paul supporters, who are supposed to be libertarians, always hate banks and business on principle.  Not because they’re currently corrupt and sucking off the government teat, but because banks are evil by nature.  (When you combine this with the rampant anti-Semitism in Ron Paul’s beliefs, you have to wonder what percentage of Paulbots sleep with a copy of Paul’s Liberty Defined and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion on their nightstands).

And it couldn’t be the very engines of a capitalist economy and the investors who know how to create a good economy might be backing the true capitalist?  Oh, no I forgot for people supporting a supposed follower of Austrian economics, Paulbots are often little more than socialist Occupy Wall Street whiners who want to engage in the class warfare of “Who knows what is best for the average American?”  I thought we were capitalists who believe that a good economy benefits all.  No, we should only care about the average American, only have laws to benefit the hoi polloi at the expense of the rich.  Damn rich people.  We’ll have none of those true capitalist laws that treat all equally.

Oh I like that 97% of Ron’s money comes from individuals. It’s true according to Open Secrets.org Ron has raised 37.7 Million from individual contributors (according to Open Secrets that’s 97% of his contributions.)

Meanwhile that evil evil Romney has only raised 97.1 Million from individual contributors or 99% of his cash. Wait…Romney is 2% higher on individual contributors.   Clearly the people are on the side of Ron and not Mitt.

Also I would like to mention that from what I know it’s considered poor form in the military to donate under you own name, usually it’s done under the name of spouses so as not to give the appearance of military support from active duty members.  But I’m sure it’s just cowards who are afraid of going to war.  Yeah, I said it.  If you’ re supporting a bigoted, anti-Semitic racist  who would let the world burn and are in the service, you are a complete disgrace to everyone who died in that uniform. Oh by the way, this is also an odd statement in the light of Romney’s overwhelming support by veterans and his endorsement by 50 Medal of Honor winners (only 81 winners are alive).    So please, don’t for a second spin facts to suggest that Paul is a man of the people and a darling of those who have served this nation (they deserve far better than to be associated with a little piece of shit like Paul) because he’s not.

4. Public image – With unrelenting national and international press coverage labeling him as the “frontrunner” (and now the “presumptive candidate”) Mitt Romney has tremendous credibility. He has pearly teeth, perfect hair, tailored suits and looks, well… “Presidential”. Ron Paul wears suits that could have come off the rack at J.C. Penney, has kind of a squeaky voice, talks for an hour without notes (let alone a teleprompter), and looks like your favorite uncle. You would never catch Mitt talking about things like “monetary policy”. Borrrrrrring!

 

Ever since the Nixon/Kennedy debates, right, wrong or indifferent looks have mattered.  It’s such a shame Romney lives in the real world…why would I want to support someone who is sane when I can back a person who doesn’t wish to demonstrate class, tact or self-respect when going in front of a national audience.  Here is Mitt talking about monetary policy and his plans for dealing with economic policy for 160 pages!   And yes I have heard Ron talk about monetary policy many times, however I don’t think I’ve ever caught him discussing monetary policy as if he actually understood it.  (Ron might be interested to know the gold standard only works if A.) there is enough gold for the size of the economy, which there isn’t anymore and B.) it only works if all the countries in the world are on the gold standard as well…but Ron would have to know something about foreign policy, which he doesn’t).

So public image Mitt:  Successful business man who is boring and knows what to do about the economy and has to have his handlers stop him from discussing his 59 point plan to solve the economy because they know it would bore most people to tears.  Reality is the same as the public image.

So public image Ron: A selfless public servant who knows what he’s talking about.  Reality: a lunatic who thinks the words “Gold standard” a magical spell that will solve everything.  Try it “Gold Standard.”  (No, don’t think that worked…?)

5. Freedom – Romney knows that the greatest threat to our freedoms are the “Islamo-fascists”. Not the Chinese, that manufacture everything that we consume and that we depend on to finance our national debt. Not the politicians, that treat the constitution like a blank piece of paper and the U.S. Treasury like their personal piggy bank.  [It’s drivel on about the Chinese and how you’re an idiot if you think terrorists are a threat]

 

Of course Islamo-facists aren’t a threat.  Ron Paul has said he wouldn’t have gone to war with the Nazi’s either.Ron doesn’t care about any form of evil overseas, not matter how horrific…and neither should you.  Like Ron you should

Show me anything that Ron Paul has said that even comes close to this understanding of what makes America great.

be a coward and you should show all the empathy of those “Good Germans” who sat by and did nothing.  And also remember Romney doesn’t care about the Chinese.  Even though one of the 5 things   he’s going to do on day one is impose sanctions for their illegal trade manipulations, and his grand standard for keeping budget items is “is it so important, so critical, that it is worth borrowing money from China to pay for it?” which to a normal human being who can read means he wants to stop borrowing from China. Yeah, Romney doesn’t recognize the threat of China…but Ron Paul is right to ignore the fascists who have promised to kill us all and who are trying to get a nuke.  And in all likelihood – they would use it to obliterate Israel first and America second.

 

6 &7. Foreign Policy [I can’t even stand to copy this stupid shit at this point.  Short version: Ron is right to end all foreign aid, where as Romney wants to just give bushel loads to everyone].

 

I’d love to see where these Paulbots think Romney has said he’s going to increase foreign aid.  In fact, given his statement about deficits, I’m pretty sure Romney will try to cut a lot of foreign aid.  Of course what this really all comes down to is aid to Israel.  Paul and his supporters think it’s wrong that we give money and weapons to Israel which only prevents Iran from completing the Final Solution (a plan I’m sure just warms the cockles of Paul’s anti-Semitic heart).  Sane people like Romney know you don’t let the one stable democracy in a region fall, good people like Romney know you have to draw a line in the sand on principle of what is right and what is wrong (hey wasn’t that point 1 of this idiot’s rant?), and people of character know you don’t betray your allies.  Ron Paul is none of these.

8.  National debt – Romney is against it. How do we know? Because he said so a whole lot of times in a very convincing tone of voice. And just as soon as he is elected president he will show us how we can eliminate the budget deficit without raising any taxes, eliminating any cabinet departments, reducing military spending, or cutting Social Security, Medicare, or any other popular program. How will he do this? Well he hasn’t explained his whole program but it has something to do with getting rid of all of those federal regulations that are smothering small businesses like Goldman Sachs.

 

Again, did you miss the 160 page plan?  The 59 points in that plan?  The statements that he will cut federal workforces through heavy attrition?  The fact that he endorses the Ryan plan to solve Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security?  The fact that he balanced the Massachusetts budget, with a hostile legislature, and without raising taxes with a liberal Massachusetts legislature (which I think, if he were Catholic, would qualify as miracles 1,2 and 3 if he was ever up for beatification)?  Exactly where are you lacking details on how he’s going to get this done?

May I ask what Ron’s plan is?  Oh I forgot he’s going fire everyone (yeah I’m sure he’s going to get Congressional support for that), audit the Fed, and of course …”Gold Standard” (Maybe it works better if you wave your hands like you’re performing a magic trick while you say it).  Yeah, I’m sure that will work real well.

 

9. Immigration – Romney is the only candidate who has had the guts NOT to come out with a firm stand on this thorny issue.

 

 I don’t even get this one.  Romney has been for tighter border control, against the Dream Act, against tax payer money to illegals, opposes amnesty, is for self-deportation (which is working even right now) and guest worker programs for as long as I can remember.

What’s wrong with that common sense plan?  This idiot is just making crap up at this point.

10. Charisma – Romney has tons of it. Almost as much as Obama. Why is this important? Because in 2016, when the national debt has soared to record heights and unemployment is still in double digits it will take a lot of “charisma” to convince the voters to put him (or any other Republican) back in office.

 

I’ve learned to distrust politicians in sweaters…(kudos if you get the joke).

I have no comment.  The stupidity of this speaks for itself.

11. Economy – Romney is a businessman. [Edited because I can only inflict so much idiocy on you, the link is at the top if you want to read it all]

 

Yeah, Romney is a businessman.  One of the most successful in modern American history.  And if you took even 30 minutes to actually do research instead of trade in propaganda platitudes and talking points you would know he has business and executive experience, that he knows how to surround himself with competent people who both give good advice and do their jobs well.  On paper this is everything you want in a leader.

Now if there are specific problems you have with the 160 page plan and it’s 59 points, fine, I am more than willing and eager to engage in real debate, but this socialist claptrap has no place in serious discussions.

The genius then goes on to explain how the entire economy is made up of the Fed and banks.  That’s it.  There are Special Ed. children in elementary school that have a deeper understanding of the economy than this twit.

And then of course TARP.  Evil evil TARP.  And because Romney said he supported it, clearly he can’t be president. Yes TARP was a horribly conceived and horribly executed program…but to do nothing as libertarians seem to

The darling of lunatics the nation over.

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 wave 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.

12.  Electability – Romney is electable.

This last one boils down to saying you can’t get Romney elected without Paul supporters.  Give into us now.  Sadly reality, which has little value to Paul supporters, tells a different story.  I go one of the most accurate polls in America on a likely voter poll.  Romney wins if Paul runs, Romney if Paul runs…the polls tend to show that Romney is going to win with or without Paulbot support….in fact Paul pulls more votes from Obama than he does from Romney.  Go for it Ron run!

Now, one may ask why I feel the need to insult Paul supporters so much.  Paul supporters think it’s because we think we need them for Romney to win.  We don’t.

I hit Paul supporters because they are the blind following idiots as this article has shown.  It lacks facts.  It lacks reason.  It lacks research.  It lacks wit.  And there is no way on God’s green Earth that I would ever be able to convince this lunatic, no facts, no reason, no words would ever convince him that he is backing a lunatic.  And I go back to my first point this is the devotion that got Obama in office…it won’t work for Paul, but the Democrats will try to pull from this business hating pacifist crowd next time…so every conservative needs to stop thinking Paulbots, especially the ones on the fence, not as funny little lunatics but as people who need to be challenged.  Because if those Paulbots who are on the fence are not shown facts and reason now, you can damn well expect them to follow whichever charlatan the Democrats run in 2016…to hell with the fact that the economy will have rebounded under Romney.

27 Comments

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Anti-Semitism, Budget, Capitalism, China, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Declaration, Economics, Education, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Fear, Foreign Policy, Founding, Free Will, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Illegal Immigration, Individualism, Israel, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Natural Rights, Obama, Patriotism, People Are Stupid, philosophy, politics, Problems with the GOP, Racism, Taxes, Tyranny, Unjust legislation

Highlights from the week

An oddly dull week for news…a good portion of it is more or less recapping a lot of things we already know, but it still had some interesting did bits..

Dirty Sex & Politics looking at Patriotism, just in time for Memorial Day. 

I love Paul Krugman. He shows just how dumb liberal ideas are. Like seriously saying that we should fake an alien invasion to justify even MORE stimulus (because the only reason the last 2 trillion didn’t work is that it just wasn’t enough). Sane people, however, realize that when you have to pull out the plot of Watchmen to justify your idiot schemes that is generally a clue that the idea is idiotic.

The Obama Administration has declared war on the very concept of religion, luckily religion isn’t taking this lying down.

Thankfully someone is willing to point out that experience at Bain is exactly the kind of thing that prepares you for the presidency

News to warm the cockles of the heart: Has Debbie Wasserman Schultz worn out her welcome with Obama?

And in case you needed proof that Obama claiming to have spent less than other presidents was a pile of horseshit.

Or maybe you should have a look at how everybody but Obama and his fellow lovers of tyranny the world over think that cutting the military is a truly insane idea.

Romney on Education

…right on the heels of a more than justified law suit is filed against the teacher’s union to break their unethical and illegal power.

Even the libertarians at Reason understand business making profit is good for everybody.

Leave a comment

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Economics, Education, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Obama, Patriotism, Paul Krugman is an idiot, Reading Suggestions, Taxes, Teacher's Union, Tyranny

Weekly Reading 5/18

There is simply too much information out there and not enough time to blog on it…so I’m going to try to get back into releasing a weekly list of the best articles you should take a look at

The truth about Romney, Bain Capital, and steel.
Vampire Capitalism? Please by Kimberley A. Strassel, WSJ

JPMorgan proves we don’t need more regulation by David Harsanyi

Is Too Much Familiarity Bad For Creativity? By Sam McNerney
Apparently being over educated is actually bad for your brain…you know what conservatives have known for years about the useless intelligentsia.
Dirty Sex & Politics on What a Jackass Chuck Schumer is. Facebook Status: Screwed By Schumer

SEIU UNION BOSSES MAY MAKE LAX THE MOST DANGEROUS AIRPORT IN AMERICA by Don Loos, Breitbart.com
I’m shocked. Shocked I tell you. To think that unions are a danger to American security. I’ve never heard of such a thing.

Keep your personal opinions out of my bedroom. By the Snark Who Hunts Back
The Snark’s take on Obama’s less than thrilling stand on gay marriage.

How much taxes are paid by the poor, middle class and rich 
A helpful way to look at how the rich aren’t paying their fair share. Did you know that that the top 10% only pay 55% of taxes (this counts all taxes at all levels) the cheap bastards.

Arthur Brooks makes the case for the morality of capitalism. 

You know that surplus last month that liberals are all giddy about? Complete fiction. 

The libertarians are getting dumber and dumber…it’s sad really…they’re apparently so far gone by this point they’re arguing for a Mitt Romney/Ron Paul ticket. My personal favorite is where they go over the downsides of Ron in the #2 spot…but somehow forget to list “he’s a mentally unstable, anti-Semitic, isolantionsist, psychopath.”

FoxNews came out with w a poll this week that shows Obama up by 7 points.  Fun little fact, and why registered voter polls are worthless, if you compare it to the last FoxNews poll  you would actually find that Romney has had no statistically significant change in most of the demographics except two. His number among those 65 and older are up by 11 points and his numbers among those younger than 35 are down by 20 points. In other words, he’s doing better among the people who always vote and doing worse among the people who never make it onto the list in a likely voter poll because they don’t vote in large numbers. I don’t think Romney has anything to fear.

And finally, I felt the need to share this picture (thanks to the Snark for showing it to me)

Leave a comment

Filed under Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Economics, Education, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Obama, People Are Stupid, philosophy, politics, Reading Suggestions, Taxes, Tea Party, Unions

I hate Obama Conspiracy Theories

Maybe it’s a reaction against my teen years where I was utterly infatuated with the X-files and all ideas that surrounded it, or maybe it’s because those plot lines made more sense than some of the crap I’m hearing now, but I find Obama conspiracy theories pointless and stupid.

Let’s run through some of them…

“Some men aren’t looking for anything logical, like money. They can’t be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.”…and some men are just blithering idiots…Obama is in this latter category.

He was born in Kenya…he could have been born on Mars; it is still not a worse point than the fact that this man has not done a single thing to help improve the economy.  Yes economies go up and down on their own and Congresses and Presidents don’t have absolute control over them, but that doesn’t change the fact that there are certain things that could have been done to reduce the severity of this recession, Obama did none of them.  And even if he wasn’t eligible to run for the presidency, this absolute failure of leadership is a far greater damning point than a mere technicality.

That Barrack Obama Sr. isn’t really is his father…he could be the son of Hitler and it would still not negate the fact that every action by this president has hurt the economy.  Every thing he has done with the economy has been to hurt it in the short run and hurt it in the long run.  Now he could have done even worse things, but I don’t think he is doing it because he wants to ruin the economy, he and his people are just that dumb.  And

If only Obama wanted to earn a million dollars.

incompetence of that level should never have been let in the White House, let alone re-elected, to hell with who is parents are.

That he’s really a Muslim…he could be a Satanist, it doesn’t change the fact that in reality the only thing he really does believe in is himself.  The man has an ego that makes Caligula, Napoleon and Mao put together look humble.  He puts portraits of himself all over the White House, he puts himself in every president’s biography, he acts like he is unbeatable and he never deigns to actually talk to people in Congress.  He has written 2 biographies and he is not yet 60 or accomplished anything of value.  I don’t care what religion he professes, the only god he believes in is himself.  And while I don’t trust people with low self-esteem, megalomaniacal narcissists are even more worrisome and definitely should not be allowed into positions of power.

Every person in this picture is an idiot. Only one of them isn’t bright enough to actually leave a mark on history for good or ill. Guess which one.

That and Rev. Jeremiah Wright planned a massive socialist take over…or maybe it was a take over by blacks…or maybe by zombies for all I care…or whoever was in his past that you want to critique…none of that compares to the insanity of his current associations.  A corrupt hack as Attorney General, a jackbooted fascist as Homeland Security Secretary, an incompetent twit in HHS, a tax evading moron in Treasury, and two of the worst Supreme Court Justices ever…need I go on?  This man has an inability to surround himself with qualified people.  No president has ever possessed the experience and intelligence to know everything about every part of the government, but some presidents do possess the ability to find qualified people who, in turn, have the qualifications to run their section of the government.  Obama has failed on every point (I mean the most qualified person he has is Hillary, how sad is that?)…and this is far more important than which church he went to for years.

As dumb as he is, and as much as I loathe him, I still don’t think he rises to this level of evil.

That Obama is seeking to make the US subservient to the UN  and is going to sign treaties that will eliminate the Constitution…uh-huh…the UN and what army?  I think Obama’s idiocy on foreign policy, his stupidity in declaring the war on terror over, his supporting every Islamic government he can (not because he’s a Muslim, but because he’s an idiot who wants to not appear as being anti-Muslim…please tell me how that’s working in America’s favor), his destroying the military readiness are all more important than whoever make believe conspiracies you can think of.

That he’s really the Manchurian Candidate, planted by George Soros years ago…ummm….if he was going to make a play for absolute control, wouldn’t he have done so by now?  I mean by the time the opposition has a leader to rally around any fascist type takeover becomes near impossible.  This is kind of why most dictators quickly kill all their opposition…right now the right could unite around Romney, Ryan, Christie or a few others.  If there was a plan to take over it’s the worst plan of all time…and more importantly I think Obama’s actual disregard and ignorance of the Constitution, as shown by his fiat rule by executive order, and his gross misunderstanding of state’s rights and limited government, are far more dangerous than any supposed communist plan.

That Obama has a gay lover…oh, like I care…there have been what four maybe five presidents in the last hundred  who haven’t had a mistress or two, and it has no bearing on whether they were a good president or not.  I’d worry more about his failure to uphold his Oath of Office more than whether or not he’s upholding his wedding vows.

He’s not bright enough to plot Armageddon.

That’s he planning a takeover of the government, ruin the economy, declare permanent marshal law, suspend elections, disband Congress, a coup d’état, yaddah yaddah yaddah…this one has to be my favorite.  So I am supposed to believe that a man of unspeakable arrogance and astounding stupidity is simultaneously a villainous mastermind of such caliber that he makes Lex Luthor and Ernst Stavro Blofeld look like amateurs, that he has planned a coup and kept all the major details secret within a government so bloated and useless it can’t keep any of its departments in line.  Yeah, no contradiction there.  Or that a military that is not doing much to hide it’s abject dislike for Obama is going to sit by and let him take over…and that there is a gun for almost every man, woman and child in this country which pretty much prevents government takeover.  You know, I’ll worry more about his absolute inability to balance a budget or even recognize that the growing debt is a problem.  Obama is not a villainous mastermind bent on world conquest, he’s a buffoon well in over his head and wouldn’t know where to begin if he wanted to take over (as evidenced by his laughable campaign).

The fact of this matter is that this man’s character, intelligence and actions as president are all you need to convict him of being unfit to serve one term, let alone two.

So why is a certain part of the right so obsessed with Obama conspiracy theories and scandals when we could crucify this jackass a dozen times over on real issues.  Well I think the answer is Palin Derangement Syndrome.  Palin Derangement Syndrome?  The habit of the media to obsess about Palin to the point where they will make crap up about her when just ignoring her would be better? Yes that.  PDS is caused in fact by two things. The first one is that Palin supporters are following a dimwitted unprincipled narcissist who is good at creating a cult of personality among morons who don’t care for facts but love meaningless platitudes from a cult leader.  The second is that Obama supporters are following a dimwitted unprincipled narcissist who is good at creating a cult of personality among morons who don’t care for facts but love meaningless platitudes from a cult leader.  Both sides aren’t quite competent enough to trade in facts (for instance, liberals could have ripped Palin apart with conservatives for her saying in the VP debate that the solution to education problems was to throw more money at it, but as facts elude them they’d rather trade in questionable personal attacks)…the same applies to those who trade in conspiracy theories against Obama, they’re not the brightest bulbs in the box.  Both parties have them.  (Although you’ll notice that while they were strong enough to catapult Obama over the more qualified Clinton, they were not powerful enough to elevate their beloved Santorum.)  If you put Obama and Palin in a room and they didn’t have their cults of personality backing them, the appropriate soundtrack to this moment would be “Dueling Banjoes”…but since they do have their respective cults mindlessly following them “O Fortuna” might be a more appropriate set piece.

So they attack our Cult leader with obsessive drivel, and our idiots attack their Cult leader with obsessive drivel.

Meanwhile if we don’t want to look like a bunch of buffoons, want to win the independents, and really want Obama out of office.  Let’s be honest here, Obama has only ever won two elections.  A Senate race against Alan Keyes and a Presidential race against John McCain.  Quite frankly you could have run sock puppets against Keyes and McCain and they would have won.  We’ve got a great candidate this time, let’s not ruin it by sounding like a bunch of dimwitted Democrats more concerned with rumor and conspiracies than with reality and facts.

Focus on the issues.  Focus on the failures of the last 4 years.  Focus on Romney’s superb record of intelligence and leadership.

Focus on those three things and we win.  Focus on birth certificates and ancient friendships and outdated statements and we lose.  I’d like to win this time as we can’t afford another 4 years of this dimwitted jackass.

4 Comments

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Atheism, Budget, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Corporate Welfare, Death, Debt, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Fear, Foreign Policy, Gay Rights, God, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Illegal Immigration, Individualism, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Obama, Obama Ceasar, People Are Stupid, politics, Rick Santorum, Taxes, Tyranny, Unions, War on Terrorism

Romney’s “Lack of Specific Plans” or Romney The Man with A Plan

Recently I’ve been hearing from all sides things like, “Romney isn’t specific enough about what he’s going to do” “I don’t know what he would do in office” “He needs to be more clear about his plans” “he’s doing well for someone who hasn’t articulated a plan yet.”  I’ve heard it from the right, from the left, from the far right, from the far left, on Beck, on O’Reilly, on Blitzer, Maddow, Matthews, CNN, MSNBC, FOX, RealClearPolitics, DrudgeReport.  From pundits I love, from pundits I have no feelings about one way or another, from pundits I loathe with a fiery passion.  You name a media outlet I will show you someone who said Romney doesn’t have any specifics just vague generalities.

Are you people living in a goddamn cave? A sensory deprivation chamber?  The darkness of space, where no one can hear Mitt Romney’s extensive plans?

Ignoring that his speech can get pretty detailed…spoken words are imperfect…let’s look at the written record,

This man has more specific plans the media knows what do with. So rather than critique him on points, they just say he’s lacking specifics.

namely MittRomney.com.  Have you been to MittRomney.com, because it’s not your typical campaign website.  Typical campaign websites, even Obama’s, are a half-dozen or so issues, most of them covered by a paragraph or two with a general statement of goals, and maybe one or two pages with two or three more pages of detail for the really important things.

And then there is Mitt Romney.   This is the CEO of Bain.  The Savior of the Salt Lake Olympics.  The guy who balanced the Massachusetts’s budget without raising taxes. This is not only a guy who gets things done, he gets them done because he plans out what he is going to do.

And this kind of shows you why of the hundred deals Bain did, Obama can only find a few that were failures.  This man plans for EVERYTHING.

26 Topics!  And he didn’t just put a paragraph in each…no, I think he hired a Russian Novelist to fill these pages up.

This man covers every issues you could have questions about…

Let’s for instance go to the Jobs and Economic Growth page…

Not only does he have a link to a 5 page pdf that explains the 5 bills he will send to Congress on his first day and the 5 executive orders he will sign literally seconds after finishing the inaugural address (hell he might actually sign them during)

Screw the first 100 days, the first 100 hours is going to be productive under Romney.

How many Presidents do you know who has 5 bills and 5 executive orders ready to go day one?

But that’s not all…on that same page you have a link to the 160 page plan of Romney’s for the Economy called “Believe in America.”  Let me say that again 160 pages of details of what caused our problems, what Obama did wrong and pages 31-153 of how Romney is going to fix the problem.  And if you read it, it becomes pretty clear that this is the combined work of CEO’s and economists that know what they’re doing.   “But I don’t have time to read 120 pages of plans” bitch the same people who claim that he’s not specific.  Well lucky for you there is an Appendix of the 59 specific things he’s going to do.  But you don’t know what he’s going to do to you…he only gave you 59 specifics.

Yeah, after these 59 major things, I have no idea what Romney will do…

But it gets better.

Want to know about foreign policy?…well, where Obama’s got one page of vague generalities Romney’s got pages on every section of the world…

plus a page that lists ALL of Romney’s advisors on foreign policy and their qualifications.  I’ll admit I don’t know the names of most of these people…but from the lists of credentials and experience this is a who’s who of foreign policy experience.   Do you know who’s advising Obama…probably not, as he devotes only a page to economics and a page to defense.  Ooooh…two whole pages for the most important issues facing the nation at this point.
Romney also has an impressive list of judicial advisors… as opposed to the crack team of Obama’s that gave us Sotomayor and Kagan, possibly the two most incompetent justices in the history of the Court, save Earl Warren.

There are over 670 blog posts by Romney supporters and advisors, 30 articles written by Romney himself, nearly 800 press releases, and 32 video .  Yeah, that’s a real lack of information from Romney.

As for most of the other pages, they follow a pretty specific format.  They list basic principles, describe what Obama is doing wrong, and give SPECIFICS on what Romney will do.  Don’t believe me, go read for yourself.

I mean how can that compare to Obama’s eight whole issues (one of them a made up issue) with pages full of nothing…oh and there’s pandering to a lot of different minority groups.  They spend more time telling you about Michelle’s life than they do on how they’re going to fix the economy.  But remember it’s Romney who is short on specifics.  Oh, and Obama has a massive button that says “Espanol” (let’s forget that speaking fluent English is a requirement for naturalization…so exactly which legal voters aren’t speaking English?)  Clearly Romney is the candidate who is just dealing in platitudes and vagaries, changing his talking points with the wind.  Clearly.

So when you get a moment, drop by MittRomney.com and actually read some of the stuff there.  I know that sounds boring, but you really should.  Because if you do you will realize that not only is the comment that he doesn’t have specifics is insane as saying 2+2=5 (yes there are some lack of specifics where it comes to things that will actually be the purview of Congress to work out the details, but that would mean that Romney actually understands how laws are made, unlike Obama who thinks he rules by fiat).

Now, you can tell me that you don’t think Romney is being honest in what he says, you can tell me that you think his plans won’t work, but please stop this bullshit about him not having specifics.

5 Comments

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