So the easiest “solution” to the problem is to throw public money at it. You know how it is when you’re at the mall and someone rattles a collection box under your nose and you’re not sure where it’s going but it’s probably for Darfur or Rwanda or Hoogivsastan. Whatever. You’re dropping a buck or two in the tin for the privilege of not having to think about it. For the more ideologically committed, there’s always the awareness-raising rock concert: it’s something to do with Bono and debt forgiveness, whatever that means, but let’s face it, going to the park for eight hours of celebrity caterwauling beats having to wrap your head around Afro-Marxist economics. The modern welfare state operates on the same principle: since the Second World War, the hard-working middle classes have transferred historically unprecedented amounts of money to the unproductive sector in order not to have to think about it. But so what? We were rich enough that we could afford to be stupid.
That works for a while.
. . .
By the way, where does the government get the money to fund all these immensely useful programs? According to a Fox News poll earlier this year, 65 per cent of Americans understand that the government gets its money from taxpayers, but 24 per cent think the government has “plenty of its own money without using taxpayer dollars.”
"Where did Obama get the funds?" "I have no idea!"
"I don't know where he's getting the money, but he's giving it to us!"
There's your problem, right there.
Comrade Hillary: “The Rich Are Not Paying Their Fair Share of Taxes in Any Nation” (Video) [*2] -- A finer, more succinct statement of Marxism/"progressivism" would be difficult to find . . . "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need." -- Karl Marx, co-author of The Communist Manifesto. There's only one problem: It Doesn't Work. Ever. Anywhere. Any time it's tried. It always devolves into dictatorship, because somebody has to decide what the rest needs. That's the dirty little secret of "progressivism", Marxism, communism, socialism, call it what you will. If you let any person decide for him or herself what he or she needs, that person will always say that they need MORE. This is, in the modern phraseology, "unsustainable." Therefore, you need the Mother of All "Death Panels" -- the Government -- to decide Who gets What and How Much.
And that's tyranny. Dictatorship. Command economy. Again, call it what you will. It means that YOU won't get to decide what you do with what you create, and YOU won't get to decide what you need and don't need. That will be decided for you.
What they got from President Obama was a glimpse of a White House in total disarray, where one hand doesn’t know what the other hand is doing and where there are more questions than answers. At 12:45 PM EDT yesterday, President Obama stood before the country and did his best to convey one clear message regarding the oil spill – the federal government is in control and that he will hold BP to account.
. . .
Unfortunately for the President, he couldn’t maintain that message for the duration of his 63-minute press conference. When it came time to questions, he admitted that the federal government just doesn’t have what it takes to keep the oil spill under control.
. . .
From total control, to lack of control, to personal responsibility – that’s heck of a mixed message. What will President Obama do with that responsibility? For one, he announced a halt to all new offshore drilling and called for the United States to move toward “investing in renewable source of energy” in order to “accelerate the competition with countries like China.” And he also warned that “easily accessible oil has already been sucked up out of the ground.”
The truth, though, is a different story. Unlike us, China is pursuing increased offshore drilling for oil, including deep-sea oil development. And for all the President’s talk about China’s alternative energy push, the reality is that China’s dependence on coal is actually growing.
Obama simply keeps spewing bullsh*t with his trademark confident voice and hypnotizing cadence, and hopes that the majority of the marks don't catch on to the fact that he has no idea what he's talking about. Do you actually listen to what he says, or do you let him and the Old Media mesmerize you?
Ultimately, Cuccinelli said his legal challenge to Obamacare is more than a fight over government-run health care. He said America’s first principles are at stake.
“I don’t think in my lifetime we’ve seen one statute that so erodes liberty than this health care bill,” he said. “Certainly, we view our lawsuit as being not merely about health care. That’s actually secondary to the real important aspect of the case, and that is to protect the Constitution as we essentially define the outer limits of federal power. If we lose, it’s very much the end of federalism as we’ve known it for over 220 years.”
Discriminating Between Discriminations -- There's a simple, handy, easy guide to understanding what discrimination is acceptable, and what isn't: if the discrimination is acceptable to a "progressive" (i.e. discrimination against whites--especially white males--or against devout Christians, or against people with property or wealth earned through free enterprise, or against people of any race, sex, religion, or carnal inclination who actually produce more than they consume, or indeed against people who simply want to be left alone to lead their lives the best that they can without "help" from those selfsame "concerned" "progressives") then the discrimination is not discrimination at all, but simply "making things more fair."
The Making of an Oil Spill [*15] -- A large share of the blame needs to be laid on those who forced BP to look for oil in mile-deep sea water, rather than in more easily worked coastal waters or indeed on the dry land of northern Alaska.
New Rand Paul “scandal”: We shouldn’t have birthright citizenship for illegals [*23] -- Actually, I believe that the United States is one of the very few countries in the world that does allow children born within its territory of criminal entrant parents to become citizens. So, by the test of Internationalism (i.e. What Would Europe Do?) then we should certainly scrap that relic of a past age, shouldn't we? Of course, "progressives" have never been particularly known for intellectual consistency--other than the consistent assertion of whatever policy will make them feel good about themselves at that particular time.
The Public Education Spending Binge Must Stop [*27] -- Actually, I think you can edit that to "The public spending binge must stop." We're driving at maximum speed off of a very high cliff, and about to see if our late model automobile called The Economy can fly.
The passage of ObamaCare dispelled the myth of the moderate Democrat. The illusion of the patriotic Democrat died in their thunderous applause for Felipe Calderon. The Democrats obviously find more in common with this shadowy foreign ally than the people of Arizona… or the wider American population, which supports Arizona’s immigration law by lopsided majorities. Any sense of unconditional loyalty to the United States is obviously not distributed evenly across all fifty of them.
Now where were we? Oh yes, Tina Fey. Now, just the other day Tina... umm... is everything all right? I mean, you have the strangest look in your subthalamus. Oh...! Oh, this. The bikini. Funniest thing. Turns out once I'm inside a liberal's head, It's like poof! Off with the clothes. I tell ya, it's gotten to the point that I really don't even notice it anymore. No, don't be embarrassed or ashamed, most of your friends don't even give me the bikini.
I guess that explains why Governor Palin finds it so easy to get and stay in their heads . . .
Medary.com - Evening Whip, May 29, 2010 http://www.medary.com/article.php/20100529151536202