The Left's Vision

[philunderwood]

www.qando.net/?p=11676

Competing concepts–why the left’s concept of government is dangerous and immoral

Published September 30, 2011 | By Bruce McQuain

The left’s operating concept for government can be found in the words of Valarie Jarrett, President Obama’s senior advisor. In her words are the very reasons why the left mostly fails when it comes to very basic things like job creation and relieving unemployment. It is all to be found in the way they envision the role of government. They don’t see government as an enabler – a role it does and should play – but instead as a provider. And that was never a part of the vision of our founders.

This is what Jarrett said to a lay Episcopal group in Washington D.C. on September 21, 2011 about the Obama jobs bill and the role of government.


JARRETT: He has a vision for our country, and I think his America Jobs Act’s a very positive signal about what we could do instantly to create some jobs because we know that’s the backbone of our community. We have to give people a livelihood so that they can provide for their families.

JARRETT: And its a vision, I think his is a moral vision, it’s a deeply it’s a vision based based very deeply in values. And taking care of the least of these, and making sure that we are creating a country that is a country for everybody not just for the very very wealthy. We are working hard to lift people out of poverty and give them a better life, and a footing, and that’s what government is suppose to do.

JARRETT: What he has said is that he is not willing to balance our budget on backs of the least of these, those who are most vulnerable those who depend so steeply on the safety net programs that our country….that is like a rock and foundation of our country. He says I am not willing to [inaudible] Medicare [inaudible], I’m not willing to hurt Social Security, I am not willing to make those choices while the very wealthy and the corporations and the most profitable are not paying their fair share.

There are many things to talk about in those three paragraphs. The first, of course, is no government program will “instantly create some jobs”. At least not in the sense of permanent jobs. Oh it may be able to gin up some make work jobs – eventually. But those aren’t the productive permanent private economy jobs that we so desperately need. Government jobs are rarely productive economy building jobs. They’re also rarely permanent. Creating a few hundred thousand temporary construction jobs weather stripping schools is not going to pull us out of the economic crisis. And most likely those jobs will end up costing more than they’re worth and doing little to address the real fundamental problems the economy faces.

But the real problem here is one of philosophy. The line that bothers me most is the one which ends with “that’s what government is supposed to do”. No. It’s not what government is supposed to do. Or at least that wasn’t the design laid out in the Constitution of the United States. What was laid out there was a mechanism to enable private individuals to do those things necessary to improve their lives and productivity without using force or fraud to do it. What Jarret is pushing the left’s vision of government’s role.

Government, as created by the founders, is there to enable and protect. But it isn’t there to “do” what is claimed by Jarrett. Because the founders knew that in order to “do” what Jarrett claims it would need much broader and intrusive powers. And they knew that a government with broad and intrusive powers would continue to grant itself even more broad and intrusive powers while the citizens of the country were slowly bled of their power and rights. Look around you – that’s precisely what has happened.

As brutal is this may sound, the beginning of this decline in freedom began with the institution of public safety nets and the dependency on government they brought. Callus? No, truthful. Once a dependent class was created and justified (and could be relied upon to vote for the continuation of the welfare state), the current situation was assured – it wasn’t a matter of “if” we’d eventually find ourselves in the plight we find ourselves now, but “when”.

When is now. Government dependency, which has precipitated its continued growth, has put us in the position of ruin. Those who’ve whole heartedly helped us on the way and buy into this charade completely are now trying to sell the myth that our dire shape isn’t because of their well-intentioned but ruinous profligacy in the name of social justice, but the very wealthy and corporations – the very engine that has allowed them to keep this model alive for as long as they have – is the problem. They’re not paying their “fair share”. And the implication, of course, is if they would, all would be sunshine and roses. That it is, in fact, because of them, and not the unsustainable welfare state these people have built, that we’re on the edge of the cliff.

Of course any rational person who has taken the time to look into what our politicians have done over the years and how unsustainable it is knows better than to buy into this line of pure and unadulterated nonsense.

Yet the shills and snake oil salesmen still push the myth and try to shift the blame to keep the belief that this situation is viable if only those filthy rich and corporations would finally pay their “fair share”.

It is personally frustrating for me to see people like Jarrett talk about “moral visions” when what she is pushing is a deeply immoral concept.

Their model has failed the world over in many, many forms, caused true misery and yet there are true believers who simply refuse to accept that reality and feel the only reason that it hasn’t worked yet is because they weren’t in charge.

And when they finally do get their chance, this is the inevitable result.

Do we have a moral obligation to help others less fortunate than ourselves? That’s for each of us to decide, not some nameless, faceless bureaucrat or leviathan government. Should we provide for them? Again, that’s something we should decide and if we decide to do so, find a means of doing it. But should government be in the business of redistributing the income of some to others. I find nothing “moral” about that and, in fact, find it to be very immoral, because it eliminates my choice, overrides my priorities and essentially promises violence from the state if I don’t comply.

That is neither freedom or liberty. And last time I checked, those were the concepts this nation was founded upon.

~McQ

[philunderwood]

Vision of a ‘just society’ is just plain funny

By Marybeth Hicks

www.JewishWorldReview.com |

If you've been too busy holding down a job (or two), juggling the demands of a busy family, engaging in community service and occasionally taking the wife and children out for a pizza on a Saturday night, you may not have noticed that several thousand protesters have "occupied" Wall Street, the District and other locations across the United States for the past three weeks or so.

They're protesting - well - they're not entirely sure what they're protesting, but they feel strongly about it. Those involved in "the movement" consider themselves part of "the 99 percent" of people who don't have the financial resources or political connections of the so-called "1 percent," and thus they have taken to the streets.

They apparently aren't as bugged by the fact that the "1 percent" is paying the largest chunk of income tax, and of the "99 percent," only about 49 percent pays any tax at all. In fact, most of the folks protesting are young people - predominantly students - who wouldn't know how to address an envelope to the IRS, much less write a paper check to include with a tax return. But someday they'll have to repay their student loans, and they're already pretty steamed about that.

Loosely organized as it is, Occupy Wall Street does have a website, occupywallst.org, which includes a list of 13 "demands" that would fulfill "the movement's" vision of a just society. This is a socialist wish list so thorough and overarching, it lacks only a chicken in every pot and a unicorn in every four-car garage.

I'll summarize:

Demand 1: Restoration of the living wage, ending what they call "free trade" and raise the minimum wage to $20 an hour. (Note: People who have never paid taxes think $20 an hour is a lot of money.)

Demand 2: Institute a universal single-payer health care system. (Note: Hey now. That's original.)

Demand 3: Guaranteed living-wage income regardless of employment. (Note: Wait - what?)

Demand 4: Free college education. (Note: With straight A's for everyone, to keep it fair.)

Demand 5: Begin a fast-track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand. (Note: "Fast track." LOL.)

Demand 6: $1 trillion in infrastructure (water, sewer, rail, roads and bridges, and electrical grid) spending now. (Note: These must be the folks who want those high-speed trains!)

Demand 7: $ 1 trillion in ecological restoration and decommissioning of all of America's nuclear power plants. (Note: It's like the Austin Powers movies: "one trillllllllion dollars.")

Demand 8: Racial and gender equal rights amendment. (Note: But only if you're already born.)

Demand 9: Open-borders migration. Anyone can travel anywhere to work and live. (Note: And free unicorns to ride there!)

Demand 10: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper-ballot precinct, counted and recounted in front of an independent and party-observers system. (Note: Hanging chads.)

Demand 11: Immediate across-the-board debt forgiveness for all. All debt must be stricken from the "books." And they don't mean debt that is in default, they mean all debt on the entire planet. Period. (Note: In other news, Greece fails.)

Demand 12: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies. (Note: Because, of course, there'd be no credit to report.)

Demand 13: All unions, all the time.

Well, there you have it. This is what it looks like when thousands of young people take to the streets of America, spouting off all those great civics lessons and American political theory they learned in our public schools, not to mention displaying their terrific command of free market economics.

Personally, I can't comprehend this list. It's all Greek to me.

• Marybeth Hicks is the author of "Don't Let the Kids Drink the Kool-Aid: Confronting the Left's Assault on Our Families, Faith and Freedom."

[Ritty77]

I think we should start collecting some links, vids and pics of the Leftist protests.

Here's good one:




And this reminds me of the Tea Party gathering in Brandon Park:

[Ritty77]

Yikes.

[philunderwood]

www.qando.net/?tag=jesse-jackson-jr

The undemocratic left

Published October 13, 2011 | By Bruce McQuain

Recently, there has been a spate of people who fall ideologically on the left wishing out loud that President Obama would essentially ignore the Constitution and do what is necessary to fix this mess. Democratic Governor Perdue and Peter Orszag among a number of others on the left who’ve talked about extra-constitutional action (Perdue wants elections suspended so lawmakers can’t be held responsible for the actions they may have to take) in this situation.

Now we have another voice added to the chorus. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. spouts off with this bit of nonsense:


Illinois Democratic Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. told The Daily Caller on Wednesday that congressional opposition to the American Jobs Act is akin to the Confederate “states in rebellion.”

Jackson called for full government employment of the 15 million unemployed and said that Obama should “declare a national emergency” and take “extra-constitutional” action “administratively” — without the approval of Congress — to tackle unemployment.

“I hope the president continues to exercise extraordinary constitutional means, based on the history of Congresses that have been in rebellion in the past,” Jackson said. “He’s looking administratively for ways to advance the causes of the American people, because this Congress is completely dysfunctional.”

I.e, he should just “rule”, you know, like a king, because, well, democracy is messy and slow.

And of course there’s the veiled racial reference with the Confederate states nonsense. Can anyone guess at whom that is aimed?

Imagine the blowback if a national emergency was declared by a Democratic president when that was the supposed fear of leftists when they talked about George Bush in the waning days of his presidency. Here you have a Democrat calling for Obama to actually do that.

Of course economic ignorance is again given prominence of place by Rep. Jackson when he says the government just ought to employ those 15 million.

Here’s a clue Mr. Jackson – paying 15 million unemployment compensation has about the same effect as what you’re calling for. It is the usual underwear gnome solution we’ve become accustomed to hearing from economic scholars like Jackson. The jobs needed are in the private economy, not the public economy. And any suggestion that such a boondoggle wouldn’t cost us our other arm and leg (the first arm and leg presently tied up in the $14 trillion debt folks like Jackson have run up on your behalf) is simply smoking dope. This is tired old New Deal thinking which simply doesn’t work.

But rather than recognize that we overthrew the monarchy a few hundred years ago because we found it to be an unacceptable form of government, Jackson calls for the establishment of the modern equivalent.

Rule by one man based on what he deems to be the best for his kingdom country. No consultation. No check. And that pesky Constitution. Hey, ignore it. What the heck – it was written by a bunch of dead, slave-owning white men. We don’t need no stinkin’ Constitution.

Just the rule of a benevolent community organizer king president who knows what’s best for all his children citizens.

While Congress may indeed be ‘dysfunctional’, it is also Constitutional. And history says that despite the messiness of their deliberations and the political theater they constantly treat the public too, they’ll figure out a way to work out some sort of action. The problem, of course, is it most likely won’t be the solution the president presented or preferred.

And that’s the point here. You have a failed president who is about as ineffective as one has ever been and the only way his followers see him having any success is if he cuts out all the Constitutional stuff and just takes over.

I sit here and try to imagine Rep. Jackson ever making the same plea when George Bush was president and the Democrats routinely ignored his proposals and ran around calling him incompetent.

Would you have liked to have seen Mr. Bush take “extra-Constitutional action", Mr. Jackson?

Yeah, I didn’t think so.

~McQ

[philunderwood]

www.qando.net/?tag=income-inequality

The left’s new “global warming?” Income inequality

Published October 31, 2011 | By Dale Franks

Apparently income inequality is the new cult of the left. And they intend upon exploiting it to their advantage. Never mind the fact that It makes the same sort of erroneous assumptions as does global warming: A) that there’s a perfect temperature for the earth and B) man is screwing it up.

Income inequality makes two such assumptions: A) economics is a zero sum game so when the rich get more the poor get less, B) income classes are static.

Finally, in the case of both, the solution is government intervention. In the case of global warming the solution is to tax us back into the stone age to prevent the production of CO2 and maintain whatever temperature target they’re gunning for. In the case of income inequality, the solution is government taxing the “rich” and redistributing their income to ensure the rich don’t get more than their “fair share”. That’s sort of like that perfect temperature I was talking about .. who gets to decide what is a “fair share?”

Of course it plays into the left’s love of class warfare. Such warfare allows the left, which seems to have an ingrained guilt about succeeding and being richer or better off than others, to use these issues to a) assuage that guilt and b) use government as an instrument of utopian change (social engineering).

One of the most attractive aspects of this nation’s founding was the fact that government was formed to fulfill and entirely different role than it had traditionally to that point. It was chartered to be an institution that protected the rights of the people who were the sovereigns and in charge. Government was to be a sort of “night watchman” who protected us from force and fraud both internally and externally. And to discharge those duties the government was given certainly powers to do so.

But never envisioned or entertained was the idea that government would intrude to such an extent as it has today. That’s because those who wrote the founding document understood what freedom and liberty meant. And they also realized that any intrusion by government in areas other than that of protecting rights actually meant violating rights. Certainly not the rights of all, but it must violate rights, such as that to property, to take from one and give to another under such flimsy pretexts such as those presented by income inequality and global warming.

Government intrusion and cronyism (both economic and political) are rampant now (and not just on the left). The system is horribly corrupted, the government far too intrusive and the left continues to try to change government’s focus from night watchman to Candyman.

Unfortunately, they seem to have had far more success than they should have or we wouldn’t be discussing this right now or noting the seriousness which one has to take these issues.

The level of intrusion and cronyism (both economic and political) will end up destroying this country. It is well on its way now. And all of it being done in the name of fairness, equality and compassion.

There is no fairness involved in taking something someone earned and giving it to someone who hasn’t earned it. There’s no equality involved in shackling one person to the needs of another. And it certainly isn’t compassionate to make someone dependent on another.

But that’s where the left wants to take us.

~McQ

[philunderwood]

Alice in Liberal Land

By Thomas Sowell

www.JewishWorldReview.com |

"Alice in Wonderland" was written by a professor who also wrote a book on symbolic logic. So it is not surprising that Alice encountered not only strange behavior in Wonderland, but also strange and illogical reasoning — of a sort too often found in the real world, and which a logician would be very much aware of.

If Alice could visit the world of liberal rhetoric and assumptions today, she might find similarly illogical and bizarre thinking. But people suffering in the current economy might not find it nearly as entertaining as "Alice in Wonderland."

Perhaps the most remarkable feature of the world envisioned by today's liberals is that it is a world where other people just passively accept whatever "change" liberals impose. In the world of Liberal Land, you can just take for granted all the benefits of the existing society, and then simply tack on your new, wonderful ideas that will make things better.

For example, if the economy is going along well and you happen to take a notion that there ought to be more home ownership, especially among the poor and minorities, then you simply have the government decree that lenders have to lend to more low-income people and minorities who want mortgages, ending finicky mortgage standards about down payments, income and credit histories.

That sounds like a fine idea in the world of Liberal Land. Unfortunately, in the ugly world of reality, it turned out to be a financial disaster, from which the economy has still not yet recovered. Nor have the poor and minorities.

Apparently you cannot just tack on your pet notions to whatever already exists, without repercussions spreading throughout the whole economy. That's what happens in the ugly world of reality, as distinguished from the beautiful world of Liberal Land.

The strange and bizarre characters found in "Alice in Wonderland" have counterparts in the political vision of Liberal Land today. Among the most interesting of these characters are those elites who are convinced that they are so much smarter than the rest of us that they feel both a right and a duty to take all sorts of decisions out of our incompetent hands — for our own good.

In San Francisco, which is Liberal Land personified, there have been attempts to ban the circumcision of newborn baby boys. Fortunately, that was nipped in the bud. But it shows how widely the self-anointed saviors of Liberal Land feel entitled to take decisions out of the hands of mere ordinary citizens.

Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner says, "We're facing a very consequential debate about some fundamental choices as a country." People talk that way in Liberal Land. Moreover, such statements pass muster with those who simply take in the words, decide whether they sound nice to them, and then move on.

But, if you take words seriously, the more fundamental question is whether individuals are to remain free to make their own choices, as distinguished from having collectivized choices, "as a country" — which is to say, having choices made by government officials and imposed on the rest of us.

The history of the 20th century is a painful lesson on what happens when collective choices replace individual choices. Even leaving aside the chilling history of totalitarianism in the 20th century, the history of economic central planning shows it to have been such a widely recognized disaster that even communist and socialist governments were abandoning it as the century ended.

Making choices "as a country" cannot be avoided in some cases, such as elections or referenda. But that is very different from saying that decisions in general should be made "as a country" — which boils down to having people like Timothy Geithner taking more and more decisions out of our own hands and imposing their will on the rest of us. That way lies madness exceeding anything done by the Mad Hatter in "Alice in Wonderland."

That way lie unfunded mandates, nanny state interventions in people's lives, such as banning circumcision — and the ultimate nanny state monstrosity, ObamaCare.

The world of reality has its problems, so it is understandable that some people want to escape to a different world, where you can talk lofty talk and forget about ugly realities like costs and repercussions. The world of reality is not nearly as lovely as the world of Liberal Land. No wonder so many people want to go there.

[philunderwood]

cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/sex-crazed-co-eds-going-broke-buying-birth-control-student-tells-pelosi-hearing

[philunderwood]

Left is a victim of its own brainwash

By Dennis Prager

www.JewishWorldReview.com |

Apparently, many liberals were disappointed in the administration’s performance before the Supreme Court. They felt that the government’s lawyer, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, did not respond effectively to the challenges of some of the conservative justices.

The editor of Commentary, John Podhoretz, offered an explanation on his magazine’s blog. “American liberals,” he wrote, “know their own language, but they don’t know the language of their ideological and partisan opposite numbers. … Conservatives speak liberal, but for liberals in the United States, conservatism might as well be Esperanto.”

I have argued this point for many years. In my book to be published later this month (“Still the Best Hope: Why the World Needs American Values to Triumph”), I argue that the left is a victim of its own brainwash. How could they not be? All they hear, see and read from childhood on, from elementary school through graduate school, on TV and in the movies, are leftist ideas.

Yet this is not true for conservatives. One would have to grow up in a silent monastery not to be regularly exposed to liberal and leftist ideas.

For 30 years, I have had leading left-wing thinkers on my radio show, and I continue to be shocked at their lack of awareness of conservative arguments. About two years ago, for example, I asked one of the most powerful Democratic members of Congress - a major force behind every tax increase - what tax rate he thought might be too high. He replied that he had not given it thought. I asked a leading liberal writer who maintained that all American wars since World War II had been imperialist if he thought the Korean War was also imperialistic. He replied that he didn’t know enough about that war to respond.

After interviewing leftists, liberal listeners frequently ask me why I don’t invite the best liberals on to my show.

The answer is that I have had some of the best liberals on my show. They just don’t tend to do well when challenged by thoughtful conservatives.

That may be why the majority of influential liberals refuse to go on conservative talk radio or to debate conservatives.

I bumped into New York Times columnist Tom Friedman at Dulles Airport a few months ago and asked him if he would ever come on talk radio. He said he doesn’t do such shows. Yet shortly thereafter he went on NPR. What he meant to say was that he doesn’t go on conservative shows.

Why don’t liberals read us or listen to us or debate us?

Because the left has convinced itself that the right is unworthy of such attention.

They are certain that conservatives are sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic Islamophobic, racist and bigoted, not to mention anti-intellectual and anti-science.

The left has a mutually reinforcing dynamic at work here. Because liberals believe conservatives are all these terrible things, they do not bother acquainting themselves with conservative arguments. And because they do not acquaint themselves with conservative arguments, they are able to go on believing conservatives are all these terrible things.

Take race-based affirmative action. There is overwhelming evidence that it has hurt black college students. Nevertheless, liberals dismiss conservative opposition to affirmative action as racist. Therefore they do not read any of the empirically based studies and arguments against affirmative action. Why read racist hate?

I wonder what it would take to persuade Cornel West to debate Walter Williams or Thomas Sowell on the issue of race-based affirmative action.

One other example: Some of the most eminent climate scientists and physicists have questioned the manmade global warming computer models. Nevertheless, no liberal I am aware of has ever responded to what MIT meteorologist Richard Lindzen or Princeton physicist William Happer has written. After all, if every scientist who challenges global warming orthodoxy is anti-science, why read anti-scientific literature?

I wonder what it would take to persuade Al Gore to debate Richard Lindzen on whether manmade carbon dioxide emissions are leading to a worldwide environmental catastrophe.

So, it is rather rare for to see a liberal actually forced to debate conservative intellectuals. And after last week in the Supreme Court, it may become even rarer.

[philunderwood]

drsanity.blogspot.com/

Dr. Sanity
Shining a psychological spotlight on a few of the insanities of life

SUICIDE IS PAINLESS

In "The Put-off, Postpone, and Procrastinate Generation" Victor Davis Hanson says that the "therapeutic generation of Americans loves to talk and worry about problems and then assumes that either someone else will solve them or they will go away on their own...."

But the problem with our Federal debt is that it will not disappear over time; in fact, it can only get worse.

The United States needs some Harry Truman-like plain speaking, instead of each administration putting off a national reckoning onto the next. Don't drill for oil and grow food — and the price for both goes up. Spend what you don't have, and later you will have to pay even more back. The generation that ran up the debt and was largely responsible for the Social Security crisis has a responsibility to make things right on its watch.

Such blunt talk is considered political suicide for candidates; in fact, anything less for the rest of us is national suicide.


The dilemma described above is an insoluble one for a politician whose only goal is re-election. Doing what's right in that case runs second to doing what's necessary to keep his job.

And the reality is that the public often wants to have its cake and eat it too--which is why polls are often so contradictory (and meaningless). With a rare amount of consistency, it seems that Americans really really want the debt to be decreased; but they also want taxes to be cut AND they refuse to part with their entitlements and pet projects.

Inconsistent? Certainly. But very human.

The question is why should they behave any differently? For decades, politicians of both parties have promised them the Moon, never telling them the potential cost in the long run. They have been led to believe that they can get "something for nothing" if only they elect candidate X. And, if they can't ignore reality and get something for nothing, it is because of the evil, money-grubbing capitalists whose only goal is to suck them dry.

Who hasn't heard a politician these days, especially from the Democratic Party, insist that the only real fiscal problem is that all those millionaires and billionaires and the rest of those "rich" people need to pay more to society?

The solution is always to "Tax the Rich!" and all will be well again.

But as Kevin Williamson argues, the only problem with that is there just aren't enough rich people to go around:

There are lots of liberal definitions of “rich.” When Pres. Barack Obama talks about the rich, he’s talking about people living in households with income of more than $250,000 or more, the rarefied caviar-shoveling stratum occupied by the likes of second-tier public-broadcasting executives, Boston cops, nurses, and the city manager of Lubbock, Texas (assuming somebody in her household earns the last $25,000 to carry her over the line). Club 250K isn’t all that exclusive, and most of its members aren’t the yachts-and-expensive-mistresses types.

Nonetheless, there aren’t that many of them. In fact, in 2006, the Census Bureau found only 2.2 million households earning more than $250,000. And most of those are closer to the Lubbock city manager than to Carlos Slim, income-wise. To jump from the 50th to the 51st percentile isn’t that tough; jumping from the 96th to the 97th takes a lot of schmundo. It’s lonely at the top.

But say we wanted to balance the budget by jacking up taxes on Club 250K. That’s a problem: The 2012 deficit is forecast to hit $1.1 trillion under Obama’s budget. (Thanks, Mr. President!) Spread that deficit over all the households in Club 250K and you have to jack up their taxes by an average of $500,000. Which you simply can’t do, since a lot of them don’t have $500,000 in income to seize: Most of them are making $250,000 to $450,000 and paying about half in taxes already. You can squeeze that goose all day, but that’s not going to make it push out a golden egg.


But it's the "golden egg" mentality that is driving the liberal mantra. Since liberals don't really understand where wealth comes from, you can watch them getting angrier and angrier when they are presented with facts like the one above. The only economic policy they know is to squeeze that goose. They have never considered that at some point the goose will be completely empty of eggs--and if you keep squeezing, it will certainly expire.

Margaret Thatcher, who was talking about the economic problems in her country in 1976and attributing it to the Labour Party policies, said:

I think they've made the biggest financial mess that any government's made in this country for a very long time, and Socialist governments do traditionally make a financial mess. They always run out of other people's money.


Thatcher understood, too, that when Labour/Democrats/Liberals/Progressives/Marxists finally do run out of other people's money, they always fall back on the tried and true rationalization that it is simply MORE government spending; MORE taxing the rich; MORE central planning, and MORE control of people's everyday lives that's needed.

They NEVER imagine that the goose will stop laying the golden eggs for them to spen;, nor do they ever imagine that they will ever have to stop living life as a fairy tale and face reality.

Their primary concern is to maintain their power and control over others; and to that end, the political left have discovered that by ramping up the traditional Marxist "class warfare" rhetoric, they can deflect anger that might otherwise be directed towards their profligacy onto the usual convenient scapegoats.

We see the effectiveness of this tactic by merely perusing the posters carried by the Wisconsin union protesters; and also by listening to their leaders blame those who dare to be supportive of fiscal responsibility. The distortion and denial are incredible.

But, as they force, step by excruciating step, their states and finally the country off that fiscal cliff, they won't fully appreciate the suicidal path they are on until that final moment when their fall is broken by hitting the hard, unyielding surface of reality.

Plain speaking may indeed be political suicide; it's much easier to promise everyone what they want instead of showing real leadership and going against the polls; against the protests; and doing what is consistent with reality.

Saturday, June 02, 2012

Posted by Dr. Sanity