There are three things in the video that deserve special emphasis. First, bureaucrats are vastly overpaid. The government data cited in the video show that total compensation for the federal civil service is twice as high, on average, as it is for workers in the productive sector of the economy.
The bureaucratic meritocracy was the single identifying trait of Imperial China. And that eventually resulted in Mao Tse Tung, who killed more people than perhaps anyone else in history. From Wikipedia: "Mao played a personal role in organizing the mass repressions and established a system of execution quotas, which were often exceeded. Nevertheless he defended these killings as necessary for the securing of power."
Bureaucracies are dangerous. Is this a reach? Well, consider that the same Wikipedia article refers to Mao as a "radical activist." How large a leap is it to that from "community organizer?"
Where the Old Flotilla Lay --This was a setup from "Day One." These "humanitarian activists" are not after any noble goal. They are after the genocide of the Jews. Period. If you support them, you are supporting the completion of the Final Solution. Period. For once, this is not some rhetorical exaggeration. This is precisely what the "flotilla" is intended to advance. Surely you understand that, right? You're not that stupid (or, to be charitable, that naive), are you? Are you?
Useful idiots on parade -- And idiots need to be called idiots. If you support the "flotilla" in any way, shape, or form, you are one of two things: an idiot, or a genocidal monster. Which are you?
When paintballs weren't enough -- Lesson: Do not bring paintball guns to a jihad. The "flotilla" was a war crime. NOT the Israeli interception of the "flotilla," but the "flotilla" itself. It was a military probing attack, hiding behind a false flag of "humanitarian aid." That makes it a war crime.
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) -- 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.
The desire to remake America along the lines of a European-style welfare state is running into the hardest of all possible obstacles: the lack of money. Obama’s new national security stance sends the message that all available resources are going to be shifted to saving his domestic agenda or at least keeping the domestic economic troubles from spinning out of control. That will be problematic because cutting costs must run counter to the concept that government is a solution to ‘problems’. Cap and trade, immigration reform, a vast expansion of health entitlements by definition now become national security issues. At the very least they become political job security issues. Any sufficiently effective effort to create a prosperous economy will require Obama to liquidate his ’solution’s. But they are the point of his presidency, the goal of his legion of spoils-seekers. The President is in the impossible position of standing in his own way.
Or, shorter: We Are Out Of Money. We can't afford all of the big shiny new government ideas and projects that Obama wants in order to remake America into a European-style social-democracy worker's paradise. Hell, Europe can't afford it. The only reason they've staggered along as long as they have is that they've hidden behind the shield of the American military from the various barbarians at the gates, from the Russians to the radical Islamists. The Europeans have partied hearty while we paid the bills in blood and treasure to try to keep the world somewhat civilized. But now, we look with naked envy at all the fun and frivolity the Europeans are having, and via Obama and the Democrats seem bound and determined to get a drink or two of what they're having.
When you forgive outright and double down with the refusal to be vindictive, even if it means paying for Social Security, knowing that you’re buying so much air, the Lefty can be helped through depression, into acceptance of the fact that the Progressive Era has been nothing but the most expensive failure in human history.
Emphasis mine. But this is the central message that needs to be hammered home by the liberty community to the American public, in 2010 and beyond: What the "progressives" have tried for the past century has not worked. It's time for something else. It's time to give another try to something we know works: liberty, individual freedom and personal responsibility.
But Hillary will always have at least one party to talk to whatever happens to Kim Jong Il: China. Behind Pyongyang is Beijing. Both in 1950 and 2010, China pulled North Korea’s strings. It provided and provides Pyongyang with Great Power protection. It uses Pyongyang to advance its agenda against Japan and South Korea. Hillary’s confident declaration that North Korea is a problem which will solve itself no longer looks so certain when one looks slightly beyond the Korean peninsula. In that context it is not terribly clear Hillary is right when she declares “that time is on our side”. Once the problem is defined in terms of America’s relationship with China then the timescales become comparable to those of Cold War with the Soviet Union. Suppose it is Beijing that is displaying strategic patience and not Hillary? Beijing is not likely to gloat publicly. After all Napoleon also counseled, “never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.”
I suspect that it is not wise to play the game on China's terms . . .
A thug too far, part 1 -- "Progressivism" is, at its black, evil heart simply thuggery--but thuggery with outstandingly good P.R. This kind of thing is what you're voting for when you vote for a Democrat--or for that matter, a "moderate" Republican