Cornel West thinks Obama isn't doing "enough" to "focus on poor and working people."
The problem with the Professor West and with Obama is that they define "focus on the poor" as using the government to take money from one group of people, e.g. "the rich," in order to give it to the poor after it has been laundered through a series of interest groups who guarantee re-election for Democrats.. They do not mean "give people and equal opportunity to succeed. They do not mean giving D.C. school children school vouchers so that kids who want to learn don't have to sit in union-dominated failing schools. They emphatically do NOT mean real substantive reform that puts power in the hands of the middle class to determine their own future. No. "Focus on the poor" is community-organizer-speak for the politics of class envy and victimhood.
They mean to use government to give people money they haven't done anything to earn. And that will eventually become problematic, because it is inherently unfair.
The American people are by and large a fair-minded bunch and will tolerate a certain amount of this kind of race-and-class based spoils system. But they also know it's something of a luxury to be dispensed with when times are tough.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Friday, July 15, 2011
Spot the Difference
What's the difference between Medicare, Medicaid, ObamaCare, HMOs, PPOs, and whatever else you call "health care" and this?
Answer: One is about true health care reform that respects the sanctity of the doctor patient relationship and treats both the patient AND the doctor as human beings the other has absolutely nothing to do with health care and everything to do with control.
Answer: One is about true health care reform that respects the sanctity of the doctor patient relationship and treats both the patient AND the doctor as human beings the other has absolutely nothing to do with health care and everything to do with control.
Luck
Luck is what you call it when your ideological blinders won't let you see the obvious, because to do so would be too damaging for your ego:
"[Here is a] living example of Heinlein in the WAPO story about the economy and Obama you linked to. The Post admits the economy is terrible and that is bad for Obama. But says that it is just bad luck.
“Behind the economic distress is a series of unexpected events, including the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, the European debt crisis and rising gasoline prices. As a result of the unemployment rate turning back up and the housing market reaching new lows since the slump began in 2006, numerous economists have reduced their expectations for economic growth this year.”
I can’t help but think of the famous Heinlein quote.
“Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded- here and there, now and then- are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.This is known as ‘bad luck.’.”
This entire economic mess was precipitated by having the government "exempt" itself from the inalterable rules of the market. America's success in the world - relative to other nations - is that we've lived our lives and conducted our affairs in closer concert with market realities than other nations.
It didn't take "luck" to predict the housing crash. It was the inevitable result of our arrogant belief that we could purposely disobey the market and get away with it. In this case, we allowed the government to force banks to loan money to people whom the market said were not good risks. And when that didn't work initially, we used the monopoly power of the government (through Fannie and Freddie) to inject trillions of dollars to float a market that was telling us it didn't want to exist in the first place. And that worked for a while to fuel the economy from 1996 to 2007-8, when the market corrected itself. Put it this way: If something is too good to be true, it isn't.
You simply cannot give untold trillions of dollars to people who can't repay it and expect to avoid disastrous consequences. You will eventually run out of other people's money. Either that, or responsible people will start to figure out there's something very wrong with paying $500K for a house that only 2 years ago was $200k, and they will pull back from that risk. LIkewise, you simply cannot print trillions of dollars out of thin air and expect that no one will notice your dollars are worth less today than they were before you printed trillions of new ones.
And avoiding the pain of the market correction with "stimulus" or "QE2" or "QE3" or whatever it's called this month is just more arrogance that we are (or can make ourselves) exempt from the market. We're not. The market is like gravity. You can avoid it for a while, you can even build tall buildings. But gravity, like the market, always wins.
"[Here is a] living example of Heinlein in the WAPO story about the economy and Obama you linked to. The Post admits the economy is terrible and that is bad for Obama. But says that it is just bad luck.
“Behind the economic distress is a series of unexpected events, including the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, the European debt crisis and rising gasoline prices. As a result of the unemployment rate turning back up and the housing market reaching new lows since the slump began in 2006, numerous economists have reduced their expectations for economic growth this year.”
I can’t help but think of the famous Heinlein quote.
“Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded- here and there, now and then- are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.This is known as ‘bad luck.’.”
This entire economic mess was precipitated by having the government "exempt" itself from the inalterable rules of the market. America's success in the world - relative to other nations - is that we've lived our lives and conducted our affairs in closer concert with market realities than other nations.
It didn't take "luck" to predict the housing crash. It was the inevitable result of our arrogant belief that we could purposely disobey the market and get away with it. In this case, we allowed the government to force banks to loan money to people whom the market said were not good risks. And when that didn't work initially, we used the monopoly power of the government (through Fannie and Freddie) to inject trillions of dollars to float a market that was telling us it didn't want to exist in the first place. And that worked for a while to fuel the economy from 1996 to 2007-8, when the market corrected itself. Put it this way: If something is too good to be true, it isn't.
You simply cannot give untold trillions of dollars to people who can't repay it and expect to avoid disastrous consequences. You will eventually run out of other people's money. Either that, or responsible people will start to figure out there's something very wrong with paying $500K for a house that only 2 years ago was $200k, and they will pull back from that risk. LIkewise, you simply cannot print trillions of dollars out of thin air and expect that no one will notice your dollars are worth less today than they were before you printed trillions of new ones.
And avoiding the pain of the market correction with "stimulus" or "QE2" or "QE3" or whatever it's called this month is just more arrogance that we are (or can make ourselves) exempt from the market. We're not. The market is like gravity. You can avoid it for a while, you can even build tall buildings. But gravity, like the market, always wins.
But Wait....
The President says he, "cannot guarantee Social Security checks will go out on August 3" . . . "[b]ecause there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it."
But I thought all of the Social Security money was in a "lockbox" that could never be touched by the politicians. That's what Al Gore told us, remember?
Sheesh, the more I look at Social Security the harder it is to distinguish it from your garden-variety Ponzi scheme.
UPDATE:
A couple of thoughts here:
Imagine what would happen if the CEO of a bank had threatened to withhold your paycheck because the bank had given away all your money and all that was left in your account was an IOU?! You'd instantly know that the bank was bankrupt. And that the bank CEO should be put in jail.
Please don't take this as anything more than a generic warning about giving money to bureaucracies in exchange for vague promises of later payment. It never works out, because there is NO accountability. At least with a corporation, if it goes bankrupt, or is caught defrauding you, the corporate executives can be put in jail. When was the last time - scratch that - when was the first time a Congressman or a President went to jail for running the Ponzi scheme that is Social Security and Medicare (and now Obamacare).
But I thought all of the Social Security money was in a "lockbox" that could never be touched by the politicians. That's what Al Gore told us, remember?
Sheesh, the more I look at Social Security the harder it is to distinguish it from your garden-variety Ponzi scheme.
UPDATE:
In trying to score political points against the GOP by warning that retirement checks were in jeopardy if the debt ceiling isn’t raised, President Obama exposed the fraud at the heart of Social Security. . . . Obama beat everyone, however, with his scaremongering claim that Social Security checks are at risk if he doesn’t get his way on the debt ceiling. “I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on Aug. 3 if we haven’t resolved this issue,” he told CBS News, “because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.”
Wait! What happened to Social Security’s “guarantee”? You know, the iron-clad assurance of Social Security benefits in exchange for paying into the program your whole working life? It’s something Democrats constantly talk about, particularly when attacking Republicans who propose privatizing the program.
A couple of thoughts here:
Imagine what would happen if the CEO of a bank had threatened to withhold your paycheck because the bank had given away all your money and all that was left in your account was an IOU?! You'd instantly know that the bank was bankrupt. And that the bank CEO should be put in jail.
And what about that Social Security "Trust Fund" the Democrats rhapsodize about? Isn't it supposed to guarantee benefit payments for another 30 or 40 years?
Truth is, the fund is nothing more than an accounting gimmick designed to make the program look healthier than it is. Obama exposed this scam as well by showing that retirees can't trust the "Trust Fund" for anything.
These are, by the way, all shortcomings that Social Security privatization advocates have tried to point out for years, only to be shouted down by Democrats.
Please don't take this as anything more than a generic warning about giving money to bureaucracies in exchange for vague promises of later payment. It never works out, because there is NO accountability. At least with a corporation, if it goes bankrupt, or is caught defrauding you, the corporate executives can be put in jail. When was the last time - scratch that - when was the first time a Congressman or a President went to jail for running the Ponzi scheme that is Social Security and Medicare (and now Obamacare).
Who Said This?
Which President-elect said these words:
And at a slightly later date, the following:
Give up yet? It was President Obama. He PROMISED to cut our deficit in half by the end of his first term in office. Instead - while taxes have remained steady - his budgets have more than quintupled the worst annual budget deficits of the Bush years and he has added $5 TRILLION to the overall deficit. When Bush left office the deficit was around $9 Trillion. Less than 3 years later Obama has made it $14 Trillion.
The Republicans are merely giving Barack Obama v.2011 a chance to agree with Barack Obama v.2009. And for daring to suggest that he should agree with Barack Obama v.2009, Barack Obama v.2011 storms out of the debt negotiations in a huff.
[The] President-elect pledged yesterday to shape a new Social Security and Medicare “bargain” with the American people, saying that the nation’s long-term economic recovery cannot be attained unless the government finally gets control over its most costly entitlement programs.
That discussion will begin next month, he said, when he convenes a “fiscal responsibility summit” before delivering his first budget to Congress. He said his administration will begin confronting the issues of entitlement reform and long-term budget deficits soon after it jump-starts job growth and the stock market.
“What we have done is kicked this can down the road. We are now at the end of the road and are not in a position to kick it any further,” he said. “We have to signal seriousness in this by making sure some of the hard decisions are made under my watch, not someone else’s.”
And at a slightly later date, the following:
We cannot and will not sustain deficits like these without end.
Contrary to the prevailing wisdom in Washington these past few years, we cannot simply spend as we please and defer the consequences to the next budget, the next administration or the next generation.
We are paying the price for these deficits right now. In 2008 alone, we paid $250 billion in interest on our debt: One in every 10 taxpayer dollars. That is more than three times what we spend on education that year; more than seven times what we spent on V.A. health care.
So if we confront this crisis without also confronting the deficits that helped cause it, we risk sinking into another crisis down the road. As our interest payments rise, our obligations come due, confidence in our economy erodes and our children and our grandchildren are unable to pursue their dreams because their saddled with our debts.
That’s why today, I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited by half by the end of my first term in office. Now, this will not be easy. It will require us to make difficult decisions and face challenges we’ve long neglected. But I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay, and that means taken responsibility right now, in this administration, for getting our spending under control.
Give up yet? It was President Obama. He PROMISED to cut our deficit in half by the end of his first term in office. Instead - while taxes have remained steady - his budgets have more than quintupled the worst annual budget deficits of the Bush years and he has added $5 TRILLION to the overall deficit. When Bush left office the deficit was around $9 Trillion. Less than 3 years later Obama has made it $14 Trillion.
The Republicans are merely giving Barack Obama v.2011 a chance to agree with Barack Obama v.2009. And for daring to suggest that he should agree with Barack Obama v.2009, Barack Obama v.2011 storms out of the debt negotiations in a huff.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
How Many Jobs Will Obama's Tax Increases Create?
None. Because that's not the purpose of Obama's tax increases. The purpose is spite and revenge and politics. Because Obama doesn't understand America. He despises capitalism (it's unfair) and liberty (it's raaaaacist), in favor of serfdom, domination and forcing you to kiss his ass.
Go to 3:12 in this video and watch a man who is more Presidential than our current President will ever be. And then answer the question: Mr. President, how many jobs will government create by taxing private jet owners?
Go to 3:12 in this video and watch a man who is more Presidential than our current President will ever be. And then answer the question: Mr. President, how many jobs will government create by taxing private jet owners?
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Civility? Now The Left Wants *US* To Be Civil?
Are you hearing the same thing I'm hearing? The calls from the Left to be "civil?" And the hushed tones of agreement from milquetoast Republicans about how we need to "tone it down" when discussing politics. Uhm, yeah. Because when I think of civil, respectful discourse, the Left is the FIRST thing that comes to mind.
You mean, civil, like this of course:
Or, no, wait, maybe they mean "civil" like this:
Or this:
Or maybe, this:
Oh, no, wait, this must be what they mean by civil:
Or could they mean, civil, like this:
Or, maybe, their definition of "civil" means burning the President of the United States in effigy?
Because, to me, nothing says "civil discourse" like burning your President in effigy.
Oh, and just in case you're a little lost at what the Left means by civil, here's their poster boy for renewed civility:
And his friend, Mr. Civility, Mr. Patriotic Civility, that is:
I don't know about you, but I am looking FORWARD to this new kind of civility!!
You mean, civil, like this of course:
Or, no, wait, maybe they mean "civil" like this:
Or this:
Or maybe, this:
Oh, no, wait, this must be what they mean by civil:
Or could they mean, civil, like this:
Or, maybe, their definition of "civil" means burning the President of the United States in effigy?
Because, to me, nothing says "civil discourse" like burning your President in effigy.
Oh, and just in case you're a little lost at what the Left means by civil, here's their poster boy for renewed civility:
And his friend, Mr. Civility, Mr. Patriotic Civility, that is:
I don't know about you, but I am looking FORWARD to this new kind of civility!!
Because, nothing says "treat your fellow citizens with civility, grace and respect" like calling for making war on them.
PHOTOS COURTESY OF ZOMBIETIME*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)