The Inexplicables
Such public affection for a host, rather than serial critiques and invective, would not just seem more logical, but more politically savvy still. Most illegal aliens desire the U.S. as proven by their presence and reluctance to leave; they need to replace the anger at being told to follow the law, with a sort of thanks for the country that took them in, coupled with a request of how to help out their adopted nation by following the law and applying for legal residency and/or citizenship — with the assumption that they too would be angry should 11 million Chinese or Nigerians or Germans simply have arrived in the U.S. without legality.
5) I can never quite understand the writ against our ancestors.
I came into this world in 1953 replete with electricity, and modern medicine at the dawn of the age of antibiotics and polio vaccines, and relative peace — no Japanese imperialism, or German Nazism, no death from tetanus. Who gave us all that and at what price? California had then a wonderful university system, impressive freeways, a lean and hard working public sector, and vibrant industry. We were given so much and yet appreciate so little of that inheritance, citing the sins of past generations, less commonly the gifts they bestowed. I said “gifts” because if they were not benefactions, we would have blown up Hetch-Hetchy dam, turned off the juice from the Morro Bay or Moss Landing power plants, or passed on driving on the 99. Has our generation improved test scores, or created safer streets? Is air travel so much better than forty years ago? When one walks into the DMV, or the county assessor’s office, are the employees so much more polite and competent than in the past?
So I am baffled by the paradox that our present generation is the most critical in our history of its predecessors, and yet in so many areas so clearly wanting. When I meet a contractor, go to a car dealer’s shop, or scan a government bureau, I instinctively look for the “old person,” that is, some man or woman over 60 (and preferably over 70) of any race or class or gender, whose quite different assumptions about life might permeate the work force, or whose greater expertise might rub off on others. When he is absent, chaos seems to reign. The tragedy of the entire university, postmodern race/class/gender writ against past Americans is the fact that our generation has little to show for its moral posturing. When Obama lists our sins from Hiroshima to supposed genocide, I wonder how he would have managed a wagon train, or what he would have done when facing the horrific choices of either sending the napalm-carrying B-29s over Japan or invading the island to trump an Okinawa ten times over. Would he have voted present?
Hike update:
Our annual hike will begin this Saturday at 7AM at the Badger Flat Camp Campground, on the right side of the road, 4.6 miles on Kaiser Pass Road after turning right off 168 at the entrance to Huntington Lake. We will hike about 2 hours to Twin Lakes, rest, and then two hours back — much less strenuous than last year’s Kaiser Peak (10,300 ft.) climb.
Trip:
Next year’s river cruise from Basel to Amsterdam, followed by a fast train to London, is filling fast. We will offer 9 formal lectures from Bruce Thornton, Ken Jowett, and myself, as well as a 10th in London to be announced — covering topics as diverse as the Rhine in Roman history, the Alsace-Lorraine in World War I and II, the 8th Air Force bombing of Germany, the battles at the Remagen bridge, and the Arnheim campaign, and larger political and strategic topics such as the allure of appeasement and the traditions of European statism, as well as local lectures on Rhineland castles, cathedrals, and museums. We will go back to past practice of disseminating columns to be published by the speakers, at morning breakfasts, where in the past we have had robust arguments about them. Information on the trip can be found at Works and Days.
Riposte.
I don’t know much about James Wolcott, have never mentioned him in print, and don’t know anything he has written — a book, column, essay — except from time to time readers send me a post in Vanity Fair in which he attacks me for some such reason. Usually his postings are crass, poorly written, and unimaginative, and they seem to have little value other than offering revelations of the psychodramas and angsts of a small insular class of admittedly irrelevant and talentless New York insiders.
This week he posted:
Meanwhile, also over at the Corner, Victor Davis Hanson–let me begin by saying that I haven’t read the Roman orator in awhile and if his writing gets any gassier, he’ll be able to blow Jonah’s farts for him, and you can quote me on that.
He then ignores that Corner post — that Obama’s regulations, talk of redistributive taxes, efforts to stymie Boeing or the Chrysler creditors, invectives against “millionaires and billionaires,” crony capitalism and preferences for some over others, etc. — had all combined to create a psychological climate that had scared or angered businesses into inaction that otherwise had the stored capital to start hiring again. Again, Wolcott ignored that argument and instead had this infantile observation (his quotes are in italics and mine are in bold that he reproduces):
Anyway, in a little primer called “How to Turn a Recovery into Another Recession,” one of the items is,
Be selective in targeting capitalist enemies of the people. The conservative Koch brothers and Rupert Murdoch are grasping and greedy; the speculators George Soros and Warren Buffett or the very richest Americans like Bill Gates, or non-income-tax paying companies like GE are public-minded and humane.
I don’t know about “humane,” but I don’t believe that Soros and company ever hacked the phone of an abducted teenager who was later discovered murdered or foisted rabid conspiracy nutters like Glenn Beck and Pamela Geller on the public airwaves, so perhaps there’s a case for select targeting and drawing distinctions.
I have no idea what Wolcott is trying to convey other than he seems ignorant of the fact that George Soros is a currency speculator who made over a billion by nearly ruining the Bank of England and its depositors — a tact he used even more lucratively elsewhere as well. He was convicted of felonious insider trading in France, and that conviction was upheld by an appellate court — and such hyper-capitalist speculation oddly goes almost unmentioned by the progressive community that is so quick to cite currency manipulation and speculation. The point was clearly one of consistency and hypocrisy — that had Soros been politically akin to the Kochs or Murdoch then he would now be facing the same level of furor. Nothing need be added to the conduct of Media Matters and Soros’s other efforts.
nice guy Soros was a Nazi collaberator who help send other jews off to the camps personally …
Soro’s collaboration with the Soviets is the problem. Leftism is a big-tent operation, open to all who wish to destroy Christian/Western civilization, all nations, traditional cultures/mores, and natural human societies. The fact that hard-Left regimes are either overthrown, or progress to mass murder, is no coincidence. Anti-religious, pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, pro-porn, anti-marriage/normal family — it’s all part of the Leftist program. The purest example of the Left-Right conflict so far is the Spanish Civil War. The Republicans massacred priests and nuns and destroyed historic churches and religious art. What did this have to do with socialism? If you believe socialist agit-prop, nothing. But the economic agenda is only cover for the Left’s true goal, which is the demolition of traditional human society, and eventually, all normal people.
Give poor Soros a break, man. He was only following orders.
you are kidding right? Soros said he enjoyed it.
No, he collected property as a teen-ager with an older person. I can believe Soros is now evil, but I would not fault him for that. I will not fault anyone caught in the Holocaust Kingdom for anything they did to survive, unless their hands actually held the pellets or they turned someone in.
Another analogy not used is that of an indulgences racket. Rich liberals and rich liberal politicians learned a long time ago that that they can pontificate all day in the public square about the need for government to tax them more (increases in their donations go not toward overpaying their existing tax liability but to their accounting firms to deal with the crunch of the moving their money and the new taxes they levy on those who can’t afford an army of tax accountants anyway). They can phone it all in, and then silently utter the incantation “Higher taxes for thee, but not for me…” to ward off any real bite to their “discretionary spending” lifestyles.
Meanwhile it is the middle class who must slouch under their yoke, for to question their faith in their rigid class system of privilege instead of merit is blasphemy indeed! And unforgivable! Sinners! An infrastructure of backs! Not metal!!
Indulgences? There is religion on both sides. Not Victor, but half of the PJ writers maybe, and all of the ones at National Review and similar, are greatly relieved for the Obamacan deficit scam because it relieves the threat to their religion that massive tax cuts not only pay for themselves, but bring returns! This was the leap of faith they had to make to accept George Bush’s very, very liberal fiscal policies as “conservative.” To think otherwise is to undermine the faith, built on a structure of lies and pseudo-intellectualism and phony stats worse than climate science. It is laughable when they attack Obama for following the spending policies of Bush, and exceeding them, with both deficits and stimuluses (remember Bush’s stimuluses?). By their logic Obama should be doing us better than Bush, with bigger deficits paying for themselves even better.
To add:
“What are we to make of the self-referential wealthy who demand higher taxes?”
They are fiscally sane? They didn’t buy into the religious eden complex that cutting “supply side” taxes will pay for themselves? They are for balanced budgets, and they are smart, because they are rich?
What are we to think of those who fetishize the “rich” when they are flummoxed their aristocratic thought-lords say something that jars the believers’ minds? Is apologizing for Bush-economics any less deranged than apologizing for Communism? Same mental defect.
come on now, mat damon is as about as ‘fiscally sane’ as the pope is jewish. You didnt answer the question tho. if he and others like him are all for high taxes why dont they pay them? again he can give as much as he wants to taxes if he wants. there is not a limit. but they do not. and again what about the 50% who do not pay taxes at all? shouldnt they do something to help themselves? people like him always want to bash capitalism but they are the ones who benefit from it and do the least. How can you take anyone seariously who demands high taxes but doesnt pay them, and at the same time makes 10′s of MILLIONS of dollars playing pretend or singing a little tune while at the same time complaining that the people who run busnisses and build that jet he flys solo in is ‘not paying their fair share’. its the hite of hypocracy. and again the people who want the most govt support are the the ones who do the least to support it and pay for it
Indeed. As an aside, does anyone here actually believe that the likes of Matt Damon and Bill Gates claim the standard deduction on their tax forms? They certainly have an army of accountants meticulously combing through every crumpled receipt. Hypocrites, all.
To add:
“Would the Obamites lead us to borrow and spend until we hit a Greek-like implosion, until the laws of physics stopped them?”
Yes. And the Bushites would do the same exact thing.
Bush paved the road for Obama. The situation is so bad, there are many delusional pundits who believe debt holders look at BushDebt as qualitatively different than ObamaDebt. Putin is right. America is a parasite.
However Bush is no longer President, nor are the Republicans a majority, and have not been. Bush was no conservative, most of us are well aware of that, the point is the current crop in the Congress as well as the man in the White House believe that if they double down on the not conservative policies of Bush they will be more successful, and they have been, at least successful at leading us over the edge. So if you believe that what Bush did was poor, logically you can only see Obama as worse. I find however that it is difficult if not impossible to get “liberals” and I use the word tongue in cheek, to use logic, instead as they always have, they use emotion and envy.
And as far as Putin is concerned, he is a failed man from a failed regime. Why anyone would give two farts what some old Marxist/Leninist thought about our country is beyond me. But then again logic does not appear to be a strong suit here.
JN you are amazing.
The United States has run this experiment dozens of times and it has always come out the same. Cut taxes and the country recovers.
As to your confusion the amount of non-damaging deficit which can be run is the tax receipts plus the growth in the GDP that year. In other words if the debt goes down as a percentage of GDP it is “sustainable.” Bush went over that once in the first seven year but only by 0.2%.
The 2008 spending with the Community Reinvestment bubble poping, Pelosi in the House and Reid in the Senate blew the top right off the deficit and Obama came in and tripled it each year since 2008.
Panics never lasted very long in American history before Woodrow Wilson put a central bank in charge of providing professional managemnet of the money supply. Even then the deep crash of 1920 was treated the same by the in coming Warren Harding/Calvin Coolidge administration as were the nineteenth century panics with deep cuts in federal spending and taxes. Coolidge continued to cut taxes during his own administration creating the roaring twenties.
It was only when Herbert Hoover tried to treat the panic of 1929 with stimulitive spending and tax hikes that the country got into trouble. The spending got Hoover dam built but did nothing for the economy. FDR then came into office and the total weight of goods shipped in the United States went down every year through 1938. Since FDR’s people were cooking all of the books this is the only way to test the true state of the economy before WWII.
Here’s a little bit of history for you: no nation ever taxed itself into prosperity. Ever.
Have a pleasant day in what remains of your illusions.
umm, actually while taxes in excess of about 1/3 on a community stifle progress, and while marginal rates on individuals in excess of that amount stifle progress…
many civilizations have been built on slavery: taxing 50-100% of everything a portion of the populace has.
While this can be distinguished (e.g. Rome was built with little slavery and collapsed on a welfare state based on enslaving others.) from the type of progress “evil” hobbits desire, this is exactly the progress Progressives desire.
Ultimately the left wants to re-establish the Peculiar Institution, albeit in P.C. way.
“Ultimately the left wants to re-establish the Peculiar Institution, albeit in P.C. way.”
Here I thought (feared) I was the only one who noticed that.
Well, I suppose that it all comes down to how you define prosperity, doesn’t it? For the will-to-power driven madmen behind 0bama and his wrecking crew, they’re not too fussy about reducing Western civilization to a pile of rubble and corpses as long as they think that they’ll be the ones running the show from the high castle. A world lit only by fire would suit them just fine. Some of them have said as much.
Socialism and slavery work. For the ones in charge. For a while.
That’s a mis-statement. It’s called the Laffer Curve, a.k.a. the Law of Diminishing Returns, a.k.a. common sense. Not all tax cuts cause more revenue; but some do, and others “cost” less revenue than the amount of the cut. I apply this in my own life; I pay 47% (Israeli) at the margin, so I don’t necessarily mind working a little less each month.
What is clear, it that PERMANENT tax custs will stimulate the economy, and rises with kill it.
At the end of 2006, the debt incurred by D.C government was 266 billion. In two years, with a democrat party majority in congress, that congress had tripled the budget deficit from that original 266 billion deficit (Well on their way to their first trillion), and have spent it up to 14 times that amount since January 2009. Yours is the old fallacy of logic, the tu quoque, and on the cheap I might add, because the numbers do not add up to the same total for the respective amounts spent by the two partys during the times when they each held their respective majorities.
Why don’t you go back to the hackneyed two-punch race baiting and class warfare tactic that worked so well for you in the past. Let’s see how far that gets you this time.
We are Reconquering the Southwest…and you gringos can’t stop us. Our population is rapidly growing, and the gringo population is aging and declining. We are over 50 million and united. You are down to 63.7% and extremely divided…and will be a minority by 2041. We are already a majority of the population under 18 in California, Texas, New Mexico and Arizona… and are rapidly taking over Nevada, Colorado, and Florida.
We are young and vigorous. You gringos are old and tired. We are the future. Your time has passed. We have defeated you without firing a shot. It is too late for you gringos to stop us from taking over the country. Gringos are down to only 53.5% of the population under 18…and a minority of births since 2010. You will soon be a minority, and lose control of your own destiny. We will control who gets elected President. We will DOMINATE California, Texas, New Mexico and Arizona…and will be the swing voters in the swing states — Nevada, Colorado, and Florida. Whoever doesn’t do La Raza’s bidding will be thrown out of office.
We have Reconquered the Southwest from you gringos without firing a shot. Don’t you see that we have defeated you? You have no leaders, no hope, no future. You gringos will soon pay the price for you sins against us. The 21st century will undo and reverse the 19th century. La Reconquista is almost complete. It is only a matter of time. We are nearly there. In a few years it will all be over for you gringos.
Do you understand that we are CONQUERING this country right now right in front of your eyes, in broad daylight, without a shot being fired? Do you understand that we are CONQUERING America right now…and that your leaders are like the American Indian chiefs who sold their tribes out for bottles of Kickapoo Joy Juice and some repeating rifles… For The Race everything. Outside The Race nothing.
This is the way the Gringo’s world ends.
This is the way the Gringo’s world ends.
This is the way the Gringo’s world ends.
Not with a bang but a whimper.
T.S Eliot – The Hollow Gringo Men
Do go gentle into that good night.
Don’t Rage, don’t rage against the dying of the Gringo’s light.
Dylan Thomas – Gringo Go Gentle Into that Good Night
This is a silly comment, unworthy of Hanson’s well-written piece. The intent is obviously satiric, the author isn’t a Latino looking to insult Gabachos, as a militant Mexican is unlikely to paraphrase Anglo-American T. S. Eliot, or Welsh poet Dylan Thomas…
And let’s not confuse Mexicans, and Mexican-Americans, with angry European Muslims. Mexico is a corrupt, poorly-run country, but it isn’t North Africa. Mexico is in North America, Mexicans are members in good standing of Western Civilization and Spanish is, after all, a Romance language.
Hanson’s objections to unchecked immigration are CULTURAL, not ethnic. He’s concerned with attitude (and gratitude), not DNA.
Yes, and Pancho Villa here quotes two among the last great poets in English BPC. (Before Political Correctness had turned poetry into formless diversity propaganda.) As such he sort of demonstrates his geezerhood along with his ancient English degree.
“…For The Race everything. Outside The Race nothing.”
How do you say “MEIN KAMPF” in Spanish?
Thats easy.
La Raza…
Wherever you go, there you are.
Suppose ‘la raza’ and gang do manage to reconquer North America. Within one generation it will be indistinguishable from Chihuahua. Where will they go then? Will they migrate to Canada? Europe? Suppose they conquer the entire world, where will they go for a better life then?
This is a Cargo cult mentality, imagining that one can have the reward of success without the methods of success.
I am posting here separately in case the joke is considered inappropriate and warrants removal.
I remember the endless jokes about President Echeverria the Mexicans used to tell that were evidence that many Mexicans recognized the folly of la raza style thinking. Here is my favorite example. I am sure many of you have heard it already, but for the benefit of those who havent here is an abbreviated version.
Barry Goldwater invited Echeverria to visit Arizona. President Echeverria had never been to Arizona and was curious to see it, so he accepted. Goldwater received him with much fanfare and lent him a limo and driver with instructions to the driver to take Echeverria wherever he wanted to go. For a week he travelled all over the state and saw everything Arizona had to offer.
When his visit was over, Goldwater escorted Echeverria back to the airport.
During the ride he asked ” Well Mr. Presidente, what did you think of Arizona?”
Echeverria was quiet for a moment then answered ” I dont understand.”
Goldwater inquired ” What dont you understand Mr. Presidente?”
Echeverria, still looking puzzled answered ” I just cant understand why Mexico gave Arizona to the United States. It has all the best roads, homes, schools and hospitals. Look at all these powerlines and the nice shiny airport. Look how rich the people here are. What were we thinking? “
Where will they go then? Will they migrate to Canada?
I’m a Canadian and I can tell you from my own experience that they’re already here. Twenty years ago, it was very uncommon to meet a hispanic in this country. In the last five or ten years, it has become increasingly common to encounter people with hispanic names and accents indicating that English is not their first language.
I don’t think we’re at the point of having the kinds of problems Americans have with hispanic gangs and open anti-white racism – yet. Mind you, it’s hard to tell given the political correctness that dominates our MSM. But, based on a lifetime of living next door to the United States, I think I can safely say that anything bad that happens on your side of the border happens here too, eventually. For instance, we were having problems with crack and “grow ops” (private houses dedicated to growing marijuana hydroponically) within a very few years of their becoming a problem in the US.
I sincererly hope that our hispanics assimilate smoothly into our society but I’m not holding my breath given the example of the US.
They speak English?
Yes, the ones I’ve met speak good English.
Make them learn French!
In over 225 years you haven’t assimilated the French, who clung to their language and culture. What makes you think you’ll do better with the Mexicans?
It’s like I used to say about socialized medicine. The whole socialized world comes to the U.S. for medical care. Where will they go now?
You again?
eon
Sieg Heil to you too, douchebag.
This almost exact same comment appeared here in May. It was bad once, it is bad twice. The writer is probably in show business, as Roger Simon might be able to attest, wherein there is an old joke about the reason for doing remakes, sequels, and re-runs: “They liked it once, they’ll love it twice.”
This seems to be what eon means when above he says “again”.
“2. La Raza
We are Reconquering the Southwest…and you gringos can’t stop us. Our population is rapidly growing, and the gringo population is aging and declining. We are over 50 million and united. You are down to 63.7% and extremely divided…and will be a minority by 2041. We are already a majority of the population under 18 in California, Texas, New Mexico and Arizona… and are rapidly taking over Nevada, Colorado, and Florida.
We are young and vigorous. You gringos are old and tired. We are the future. Your time has passed. We have defeated you without firing a shot. It is too late for you gringos to stop us from taking over the country. Gringos are down to only 53.5% of the population under 18…and a minority of births since 2010. You will soon be a minority, and lose control of your own destiny. We will control who gets elected President. We will dominate California, Texas, New Mexico and Arizona…and will be the swing voters in Nevada, Colorado, and Florida. Whoever doesn’t do La Raza’s bidding will be thrown out of office.
We have Reconquered the Southwest from you gringos without firing a shot. Don’t you see that we have defeated you? You have no leaders, no hope, no future. You gringo will soon pay the price for you sins against us. The 21st century will undo and reverse the 19th century. It is only a matter of time. We are nearly there. In a few years it will all be over for you gringos. For The Race everything. Outside The Race nothing.
May 30, 2011 – 3:12 am Link to this Comment | Reply
Una cosa me derisa
Pancho Villa sin camisa.
Actually, Fred, I was quoting my favorite modern philosopher, Daria Morgandorfer.
The …gentleman… in question deserved no better answer, and no more attention.
cheers
eon
since when is living in ones own excrement culture ?
This is a cut & paste. Seen it before. Why not be productive instead of destructive?
No, you’re not a culture or a society, really. You’re simply a vast, “ethnic” swarm of Locusts, eating themselves out of existence.
Someone already mentioned this, but once you’ve turned this nation into another third-world craphole, where ya gonna go?
Locusts? Cockroaches – whatever – thats what I think of when I see this invasion of hispanics into my area of the country. I have friends from other areas that tell me I’m exaggerating the problem – until I take them to the local Wal-Mart and show them the hispanic couples at the checkout stands. Two and three kids – more often than not the woman is pregnant again – and she uses the food stamp card to buy the food items – and the guy steps up with a wad of cash from working in one of the local orchards all week – money that didn’t get taxes extracted from it. Neither speak English very well and usually not at all. Invariably the woman and kids are on welfare – food stamps – medical and dental courtesy of the taxpaying citizens of the State of Washington – AKA California North. This isn’t an isolated example – this plays out every day all day long.
So – “La Raza” – think what you will – you won’t be ‘taking over’ this country as you seem inclined to think – you’ll be transforming it into another Mexico if you have your way. Your not exactly exporting the brain-trust of Mexico into the USA. Oh – you think you’ll be getting ‘something’ for nothing – but nothing could be further from the truth. Since you and your’s can’t seem to operate the country of your birth how do you expect to ‘take over’ this country without running into the ground? Nothing personal but I think it’s genetic – and that you cannot overcome. When your ilk are in the majority in the USA you’re going to look around and ask “what happened”? The ‘prize’ will slip through your fingers like fine beach sand simply because you don’t have the mind-set to know what it takes to make a great country – much less maintain it.
OMG, K.T.! We have a local Winco here in WA and it is frequented by 70% Mexicans, all with more than 3 children on average, barely speak English and have yet to see one NOT use a food-stamp card.
UGH.
If my husband and I shop there, we go at 7 am on Sunday before the ‘invasion’ hits during ‘after church’ hours. lol
The Raza is a second rate group of welfare slugs. California seems to have rolled over to this scum. The Gringos in Texas however should not be taken lightly, and the illegal scum alien La Raza idiots should consider this fair warning.
You are DELUDED. We have already CONQUERED Texas. If you don’t believe me, just take a look at the ethnic makeup of the public schools in Texas.
We are superior to the gringo. We are RECONQUERING the territory that you racist gringos stole from us in the 19th century. You gringos are so eager to commit suicide…we are taking advantage of it. The gringo is going the way of the dodo bird. Adios gringo.
Texas demographer: ‘It’s basically over for Anglos’
http://blog.chron.com/texaspolitics/2011/02/texas-demographer-its-basically-over-for-anglos/
Most of you thug cockroaches have low intelligence and are only fit for manual labor at best. Your future is the same sludge hell you always create for yourselves. What will become of you parasites once you’ve consumed your hosts?
Good luck, estúpido!
You’re right about one thing: The West (I mean the whole western world, not just the American West) is indeed trying to commit suicide. Witness Obama’s election and the Euro delusion. The sad thing for you is that if it succeeds things will be worse, not better, for you and yours.
Unless you change your peonage culture, La Raza, you will live in grinding poverty here in what was the richest land in the world, and watch your children die.
I give you joy of your triumph.
La Raza. You are delusional. Mexican Nationals come to the USA in the millions to escape rampant corruption, drug cartels murdering their own, devastating poverty, illiteracy, and myriad other endemic problems. Then, you turn around and want to turn America into Mexico. What happens to people who invade the southern Mexican border. Mexico takes draconian action against people who illegally cross into their southern border. What do You say to that comrade la raza. You are just a marxist troll. Begone.
La Raza;
You have many here feeling very sorry for you. You need to tell us your location so we can rescue you from that dark, damp basement.
Let us help you!
You gringos can’t even help yourselves. We are RECONQUERING the Southwest right in front of your eyes, in broad daylight…and you are unable to stop us. You gringos are pathetic. We are your future masters. You will wind up in the dustbin of history.
We can help you with your paranoia, depression, thoughts of suicide, and helplessness, if you let us.
I’ve said this to you before, Razzy: name me one Latin American nation that has not been, for it’s entire existence, a dysfunctional craphole. No? Can’t do it?
Man, if something as you say happened, I would give you one generation, before you’d be (once again) a bunch of nasty-minded peasants scrabbling over the garbage-strewn wasteland. Know why? You, as a group, are incapable of actually building things and creating things…except for dysfunction.
At one point in it’s history, Argentina had the fastest growing economy in the Western hemisphere, till the socialist types took over. Other, more recent economic miracles include Chile and Brazil. In every case the economic growth was accomplished by rejecting socialism and the growth ended if socialism was re-established.
The stupidity of “The Race” is that Hispanics, Mexicans, Latinos etc. are not a “race.” They are ethnic and national classifications. Latin American countries contain many races, including lots and lots of Caucasians, Spanish ones even, just like other countries in our hemisphere. I have relatives in South America of Croatian/Slavic decent, for instance. So the whole reconquest thing is a mission of the ignorant, for the ignorant. The reconciliations can’t do much worse than Democrats, however.
“reconquistas” not “reconciliations.” Stupid spell check.
troll I am reponding for the benefit of others who frequent the site ..not so much for your benefit.
what is it you mean by reconquista? are you referring to the invading spanish colonialism or are you a native mexican aboriginal?
why do mexicans leave mexico if things are so great there and why will turning USA into mexico help you or your race what ever that is. are you a spanish colonialist? are you a half and half? or just an idiot? (all rhetorical questions) but please do try to answer them …for yourself. I have no delusions about your motives even though you have no idea that you run on hate envy and greed.
good luck with that. the african americans will f@#@ you up in time.
Seriously – If you don’t stop blogging nonsense and finish cleaning my toilets your fired. As you state there’s plenty of you around so you are easily replaced.
Seriously – If you don’t stop blogging nonsense and finish cleaning my toilets your fired. As you state there’s plenty of you around so you are easily replaced.
Don’t attack me! I like Mexicans, cheap labor, cheap hookers, no education. Are you planning on making the Southwest just as good as north Mexico? Now there is a good long term plan for you.
As long as you keep supplying the Sonoran hot dogs, you can continue your silly little festivities, but screw those up, and we’re going nuclear on you.
As it seems like Mexico’s already thrown itself into the dustbin of history, what are you talking about?
Shut up, La Raza.
Oh, we’re stopping you. Yu’ve been leaving faster than you’ve been coming for more than a year now. Seems there’s less unemployment in Mexico, more hassles here.
Oh, yeah, you’re taking over. But we’re shutting down the theme park. time to go home, rides all closed, no more sno-cones or cotton candy…
Go easy on the peyote juice La Raza or you’ll be hallucinating other fictions like there’s no reason for Mexicans to be crossing the border for a better life here in the evil USA.
Stop blogging nonsense and get back to cleaning my bathroom.
And you haven’t seen it all, yet – below is a headline & link to an LA Times piece which describes the Mexican encroachment on LA county:
“Bid for more Latinos on L.A. County board sets up fight – Gloria Molina seeks an alternative to a district plan that hews to the status quo.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-county-redistrict-battle-20110806,0,7967931.story
Bye-bye -
Gotta love a bunch of not to bright mexicans. You are simply creating another cess pit much as you have created south of the border, do you think that because their is wealth and success in the US, that if you steal it all it will continue on in that manner, nope, not going to happen, just another two bit slum filled with mexicans
We are destroying your currency and economy. We are setting the stages for a New World Order and One World Government. The nation-state no longer exists. Patriotism and nationalism is dead. There will some pain for some people. Adjustments will have to be made. It will require a whole new mindset. Don’t think of yourself as an American citizen. Think of yourself as a global citizen, a citizen of the world. We are entering a new era in the history of mankind. Those who refuse to join us will cause themselves unnecessary pain and suffering. A New World Order and One World Government is inevitable, just a matter of time. Those who resist will end up in the dustbin of history. I hope none of you are foolish enough to attempt to resist. Resistance is futile.
Under the guise of free trade we are destroying your manufacturing base, your economy, your currency, and ultimately your sovereignty. Under the guise of all these free trade deals we are erasing your borders, your national identity, your loyalty, we are outsourcing all your manufacturing jobs and destroying the middle class. Your economy is based on nothing. You produce no real wealth. Your economy is a deck of cards which we will collapse when the time is right. We control both political parties. You are peons. You have no power. We control the media, the financial institutions, Wall Street, the corporations, the entertainment industry etc. You are so Balkanized and divided, you will never be able to stand up to us.
The world is changing. Very soon an independent “America” will cease to exist. Get it through your heads. The nation-state is dead. Borders are obsolete. Nationalism is dead. You are not am American citizen. You are a global citizen, a citizen of the world. There is no American economy. There is a global economy. Your system of government is obsolete, irrelevant and inefficient. It will be replaced. Initially, there will be some pain for some people/countries. They will have to adjust to the new way things are done. But long-term things will be much better, much smoother, much more efficient. The world faces many problems, and the only solution is a New World Order and One World Government. We are entering a new period of human history. Those who are stubborn and refuse to join us will cause themselves unnecessary pain and suffering. A New World Order and One World Government is inevitable, just a matter of time. Those who resist will end up in the dustbin of history. I hope none of you are foolish enough to attempt to resist. Resistance is futile.
Check the IP address for this sock and I’d bet you a book of food stamps that it’s the same as for #3 “La Raza.” The infantile messages are both much better appreciated in the original crayon on construction paper.
Wow, assimilation by the Borg. I’m scared, Picard.
LOL
Same ‘ole s—. You’ve posted that before too.
goaway is on the ball today–
both la raza’s and globalists’s posts are cut and paste block spams– same thing reposted weeks on end
GLOBALIST;
You have many here feeling very sorry for you. You need to tell us your location so we can rescue you from that dark, damp basement.
Let us help you!
Please! Tell me you are just playing devils advocate!
I wish I could be more optimistic about America’s future, but here’s some reality for you. Americans of European ancestry, or Caucasians (or whatever you wanna call them) will soon be minority (2041) in their own country. What’s wrong with that? I don’t know, you tell me. Look around you. The nation is over. It’s all over. America is dying. In 50 years it won’t even be here. America will cease to exist. America will be overrun by “immigrants” from Mexico and Central America in the next generation or two.
Your country is desolate; your cities are burned with fire; as for your land — strangers consume its [yield] in your presence; it is desolate as if overturned by foreigners.-ISAIAH 1:7
Since 2010 the majority of births in the U.S. were to “minorities”… part of a historic trend in which “minorities” are expected to become the U.S. majority over the next 30 years… Thank you Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and George W Bush for destroying America. It will soon be impossible for a Conservative to ever get elected as President in America. When New Mexico, Texas, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, Florida, Georgia etc. switch over to the Dems (due to their changing demographics) then what are you going to do? In fact once Texas switches over to the Dems, it’s all over … You can kiss your country goodbye. We are going to have Socialism in America way before 2050, it will happen as soon as the states that I mentioned above switch over (permanently) to the Dems. America is well on it’s way to becoming a Third World Banana Republic. The truth of the matter is… both parties (for their own reasons) are in favor of mass immigration from Third World Nations (the immigrants are mostly illiterate and semi-literate peasants who come here to live off the fat of the land i.e. the American taxpayer) so it’s pretty obvious that the fix is in.
We are living in the last great days of the Great Republic of the United States of America…
Every minority voted Democratic early in our history. Including Irish-Americans and Italian-Americans. But then those groups switched to Nixon and then Reagan–the original “Reagan Democrats.”
Minority groups vote Democratic when they perceive themselves being kept second-class citizens by WASP privilege. But that changes as their children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren go to college, start their own businesses, get elected to public office. Then their interests become more conservative: Appalled by the antics of the cultural Left; worried about high taxes and poor schools.
The only exception to this is blacks, who were never able to make it on their own in this country due to a widespread perception among most white people (even those opposed to slavery) that blacks were biologically inferior. No other minority group–not even Jews–labored under such a widespread and unfair perception.
I believe that Mexican-Americans will turn out to be more like Italian-Americans: Culturally conservative; strong work ethic–and their grandchildren will vote conservative.
You fail to understand the culture of people when making these statements. As the WASPS die off, they are being replaced by immigrants who have a much harder time making it in our country then our WASP ancestors did back in 1900 or whenever. These folks will stay with the liberal voting block until they make it and even if they do, they are just replacing the dead WASPS.
Say what you want about all those other posts from LA RAZA etc, they are exactly spot on. Our country will cease to exist as the white people die off. If these hispanics are so hardworking and culturally conservative, how come all the hispanic countries are essentially socialist cesspools. Honduras, El Salvador, Venezuela, Cuba et al are either poor or socialist or both. If you think you can have all the white people die and America will still be strong economically, you are blind. Liberals like Clinton and Gore etc dont care how poor a countrys people are as long as they stay elite and can keep their offspring elite. Those of us who work and produce are dying and being replaced by immigrants who for the most part want entitlements.
Our country is dying a slow death and being destroyed by the enemy and our laziness and unwillingness to reproduce.
Right on, Jeremy.
Factor in, also, the loss of our Judeo-Christian faith which put the emphasis on family (and that meant procreation), hard work, responsibility, accountability, generosity towards oneself and one’s neighbour, and creating educational, judicial, and health facilities for the benefit of all, not just Christians.
Losing our will to defend our culture and our way of life is directly related to our loss of faith, the faith of our forebears, who knew the ethos and practice of hard work, loving one’s neighbour as oneself, and doing unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Most of this meritorious altruism — also known as grace — is gone. We rarely see noblesse oblige practised by the elites: They’ve got wealth and influence, and as long as their children benefit, that’s all that matters. It’s every man, woman, and child for himself. “Without a vision, the people perish” (Proverbs 29:18), something our ancestors knew was true. Without God in our lives, we’re thrown back on our own, unredeemed, selfishness and greed.
Look where it’s brought us.
Are you aware of the life cycle of parasites?
I don’t understand all this drunken racism suddenly appearing in the Comments.
“Our country will cease to exist as the white people die off.” What kind of craziness is that? As other commenters have pointed out, a generation ago, Italians weren’t “considered white.” Poles and Lithuanians weren’t “considered white.” Jews weren’t “considered white.”
The ancient Greeks and Romans Doctor Hanson writes of, the very Fathers of Western Civilization, were not “white.” These Commenters need to reevaluate how they evaluate people and their contributions.
Let’s see if I understand. Greece and Rome(Italy) are both in Europe. What would you call Europeans? Indian? Black? Asian? Discrimination against Italians and Irish was religious and not racial. LA RAZA as an organization is in fact a nationalist organization based on some delusional belief that failed people from a failed country are owed respect. Most members of LA RAZA are a mix of Spanish and Indian ancestors so a more apt name might be LA MONGREL or LA MUT.
I disagree about the blacks. They are still just one generation behind up in climbing up the economic latter (if they are out of the cities). Black people are the healthcare providers (nurses) and bus drivers that whites were a generation ago. They would be the cab drivers too, except the muslims stole that from them.
But we are finished as a country and it’s purely because liberals own the education system. They are dedicated to churning out socialists who will vote in socialists. We are Rome and Nero is fiddling.
Actually very few blacks are nurses, as a nurse I know this. The largest amount of blacks in health care are as aides or ancillary departments. In other words college educated blacks in health care are not the norm. Low wage hispanics displace the under educated, look to see Hispanics in health care as aides, later in ancillary service depts first-displacing blacks, particularly in certain areas of the country. But until there is a major change in priorities don’t expect to see them, or blacks, in jobs that require a college degree, particularly in a field in which it takes great drive and dedication to get through the college. Sound racist? *shrug* The black and hispanic culture are what they are. Change can only come from within.
“The only exception to this is blacks, who were never able to make it on their own in this country due to a widespread perception among most white people (even those opposed to slavery) that blacks were biologically inferior. No other minority group–not even Jews–labored under such a widespread and unfair perception.”
And this is why they vote Democratic? You must smoke the same stuff they do then. Democrats have done a better job of keeping them enslaved than the old southern planters ever did.
Thing is, American has never been an ethnicity. Americans are not White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, or even Whites at all. America is an idea, and Americans are those who embrace the idea. The idea of America is liberty, human rights and equal justice under the law. The immigrant who embraces that is more American than the native son who rejects it. We don’t reject the Mexicans as invaders because they’re brown; we reject them because they don’t share our beliefs- not religious differences, but differences in beliefs about individual freedom and responsibility. The fact that most of the people who believe in the American ideal have historically been of European descent is completely irrelevant.
Still, for those who find it abhorrent that Whites may soon be a minority in America, I highly suggest you start having bigger families. Screw the leftists, let’s have more kids. Oh, and to all you Reconquistadors out there- I warn you not to lord your position over us, lest you anger us gringos to the point that you recall how we conquered the southwest in the first place. The American is simply the best warrior on the planet, and there’s a lot of things we’ll let you get away with that are merely annoying, but if you think you can persecute us, you’ll find that your fellow Reconquistadors will be piled into mass graves as a result of a war you started. Just a friendly fair warning.
“you’ll find that your fellow Reconquistadors will be piled into mass graves as a result of a war you started. Just a friendly fair warning.”
Damn straight bucky..BaaddaBing. I’m ready just as I think 200,000,000 million others are ready too. Lets get it going.
You and what drug cartel Savage?
@JeffC; Soros, or Gyirgy Schwartz, at the age of 14 collaborated with the Nazi sympathizers in selling Jewish property and send their owners to the death camps. He was 14 at the time, and the excuse given by his defenders/sycophants is that “he was only a boy.” My understanding is, under the tenets of the Jewish religion, he became a man at the age of thirteen. So sorry. There were no 30 pieces of silver readily available, so he had to steal it himself, over and over again.
He is a citizen by application, not native-born, Again hopefully, someone will right the wrong of giving him citizenship by revoking his.
Exactly. Surely they must be checking into his operations for any illegality (well maybe not this administration but someone somewhere has to have him on their radar). He needs to have his citizenship revoked.
I’ve been reading some articles from the late 19th century on Socialism. Ones written before what seems like the great trick of confusing the perniciousness of Socialism with the “Communism” label the socialists in the USSR and China used to hide their true nature.
I found this excerpt illuminating as to why the Progressives are so obsessed with wealth and mingling with the right wealthy
On the other hand, the socialist proposes to overturn industrial competition and the institution of private property in the hope – vaguely outlined and not economically analyzed – of transferring the use of wealth from those who have to those who have not.
The “socialists” of the Soviet Union and China certainly succeeded in that regard. They expropriated the wealth of the “oppressive capitalists” (or “running dogs of imperialism” if you prefer) and transferred it to those that did not have wealth – themselves.
Simon Sebag Montefiore’s The Court of the Red Tsar contains picures of some of the many estates that Stalin acquired during his reign of terror. I believe all of them were expropriated from the successful merchants and/or nobles who the Communists had driven out of their homes, properties, country, and sometimes their lives.
And Jung Chang’s Mao: The Unknown Story makes it clear that Mao and his inner circle enjoyed a life of great comfort while oppressing their people in ways that were unprecedented in 5000 years of Chinese civilization. Mao himself apparently didn’t even have a bath for the last 19 years of his life: nubile young women gave him sponge baths with exotic perfumes.
The supporters of Obama are not Socialists but corporatist liberals. That term is probably unfamiliar to PJM readers unless they have already read this historically sound and accurate blog: http://clarespark.com/2009/08/09/what-is-a-corporatist-liberal-and-why-should-they-frighten-us/. As for Obama’s own ideology, it is unclear to me what that might be outside of sheer opportunism and the difficulty of playing to a diverse base with very different objectives. He may be a stealth Leninist or a garden-variety New Leftist/anti-imperialist. I cannot tell. Or he may simply want to be a great man who will save an evil and misguided Amerika.
Yes, that would be a fascist, dear. They are all shades of the same oppresive color. Tryanny. A return to the good ole days of serf and lords.
Fascists in Europe.
Progressives in America. Those that called themselves liberals frequently opposed progressives as conservatives as liberals hewed closer to a Marxist/Leninist line, then the 60s happened and the New Left emerged. Liberals have always wanted to take credit for things that Progressives did that they approved of, and those they didn’t they labeled conservative. None of the groups, progressive, liberals, socialists, communists etc… are in fact related to the original liberals that founded this country. But like so much of their history why let reality get in the way of a good story?
I contrasted the authors of the Federalist Papers with the current crop of social justice advocates here: http://clarespark.com/2011/08/03/jobs-program-for-education-reformers-or-the-new-prometheus/. For the Founders, social justice signified the protection of property and a rational government. For the progressives (who copied the name of the classical liberals), social justice meant plundering property. This blog lays out their crazy anti-science faux classical agenda.
– months ago that Obama would drop down to 40%.
– Wolcott on the hike.
A better rebuke would involve Hanson running his picture next to Walcott’s.
Unfortunate Walcott looks like something Hanson would chase out of his vineyard with a shovel.
But Walcott takes a serious risk even mentioning Hanson’s writing. If even a few people read that item, we might have some converts. As David Mamet writes, “here was a whole branch of knowledge I didn’t know existed…”
Mr Hanson always has an amusing approach to puncturing these criminals, but I suppose he would lose his positions as columnist emeritus if he just came out and said the truth.
They aren’t hypocrites and buffoons, they are criminals and occasionally marxists who masquerade in the clothing of well-meaning liberals to advance their own cause, which is always to enhance their own positions as the new aristocracy and make it impossible for the peasants to challenge them ever again.
Their primary goal is to destroy the United States, which is really the only entiry with any power currently standing in the way of the thugs’ ascent to their thrones, and the proletariats descent back into abject poverty.
For 9700 years, the status quo was rulers and ruled. They mean to re-establish it. Everything, including every single “progressive” idea and marxism itself is simply a tool to reach that goal. And the extremely rare true believers will be the first to feel the prick of the sword when the deed is done.
“Their primary goal is to destroy the United States …”
And, just how stupid and evil is that?
They’d better be careful what they wish for, as the United States’ funeral will most likely be their own. A successful America has guaranteed them their affluent lifestyles, benefits, and privileges, unparalleled in human history. If the once-mighty U.S.A. is brought down to the level of the other world kleptocracies — for that’s surely what Obama’s plan for America is — the pickings will become fewer and fewer. Biting the hand that feeds you isn’t a very intelligent plan.
You really have to wonder what kind of extraterrestrials now inhabit the ruling class in Washington. I’m reminded of the alien invasion and takeover of the White House in the hilarious movie “Mars Attacks.” Only, this isn’t remotely funny. It’s unspeakably frightening and malevolent.
It’s not the United States, per se, that the socialists (Democrats, Liberals, Progressives and their useful idiots) are trying to destroy, it’s Liberty and Freedom (which crosses all racial boundaries and explains the illegal immigration) that is being attacked.
And we all know who wins in THE “good” vs “evil” scenario. Do not be afraid or fearful, for “In God We Trust”.
I agree with you that the destruction of liberty and freedom is the underlying goal, but it’s also clear that the US itself is the current pitched battle. The US is what stands in their way.
Re kjh’s observation of “how stupid is that”, what you don’t realize is that they don’t care if the wealth of the planet is reduced by 99%. THEIR wealth won’t be reduced. Indeed, they will be even more wealthy and powerful compared to the serfs than before. That’s the model of tyrants from the beginning of time. You won’t have cell phones but they will; you will be eating rice, but they will be eating better than they ever have; you might not be able to afford to have children, but they will have harems. I know people think that is fanciful, but I suggest that they study history. The way we live this very moment in the US and other western countries is the extreme outlier of history. NOBODY except “royalty” has ever lived like ordinary people in this country live. We are the extreme outlier, and they hate us for it. They hate us because we have power, and every iota of power we have challenges them in their demand to be absolute rulers.
It’s the absolute truth and the absolute reason that we are engaged in a death struggle with them.
Our battle cry needs to be “Americans Don’t Serf”
“How does one pay back $16 trillion…?”
We sell back what we bought or acquired by treaties:
To France: Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, nearly all of South Dakota, most of North Dakota, and parts of New Mexico, Texas, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and Louisiana
To Russia: Alaska
To Denmark: US Virgin Islands
To Spain: Florida, most of Texas, Puerto Rico, and Guam
To Mexico: California, Nevada, Utah, most of Arizona, and part of New Mexico
To Samoa: American Samoa
The sales would have the added benefit of greatly reducing the number of people dependent on federal government benefits and entitlements.
Careful. Commenter #3 is watchung…
‘Only problem with selling stuff back is that most of the countries you mention are broke.
Too late!
“When Obama lists our sins from Hiroshima to supposed genocide, I wonder how he would have managed a wagon train, or what he would have done when facing the horrific choices of either sending the napalm-carrying B-29s over Japan or invading the island to trump an Okinawa ten times over. Would he have voted present?”
Truman faced these challenges and made decisions because he could understand what they were all about. He was an artillery commander in WWI. He strove at business and failed, but he bounced back. He was a man who actually DID things, who looked failure and death in the eye and lived to tell the tale. Obama entered office having done nothing. So even though many conservatives did not like McCain, impugning him as “Maverick” and “RINO”, I am convinced he would’ve been at least 100 times better than Obama, simply because he had faced tougher trials and tests than most of us dare imagine and survived. Obama still doesn’t understand car insurance.
Maybe we could sell a ‘time-share’ for those states to China [who we owe]. I’ll take an influx of hard-working, intelligent Asian people over ignorant, thug Latinos any day.
Whoops! This reply was meant for 11. Dr. T
Your musing over Obama’s toughness (or lack thereof) struck a chord with me:
“…I wonder how he would have managed a wagon train…”
I was deeply moved 2 weeks ago when I had a bit of extra time returning home from a doctor’s appointment. Here in the Snake River Plain/Great Basin areas, there is a confluence of many of the great pioneer trails–Oregon, California, Mormon.
It was a humbling experience for me, as I walked the 1,200 or so paces under the east & west lanes of the Interstate and stood, at last, to see the wagon ruts of the Oregon Trail. I read of the 10% of pioneer who died along the way during those years (roughly 1830 to 1869). As the modern, climate controlled vehicles rocketed by, I thought of the rigors of making merely a few miles a day. I thought of their toughness, and it made me wonder how my generation (baby boomer), and younger generations, would handle a national catastrophe which might bring down modern technology for a time. I walked back to my climate controlled vehicle, as modern vehicles whizzed by, with those sober reflections weighing upon me. God forbid that said catastrophe would occur. Yet, if it does, may God grant us many “70 and 80 somethings” to help carry us through!
…it rains on the righteous and unrighteous alike.
I’ve always read that as though it would give the righteous people a gentle needful rain – and torrential rains on the unrighteous.
Whatever befalls us it will be people of a right mind that will come through the calamity the least scathed.
For the “wealthy” advocates of more tax from the wealthy, they might consider a progressively rated tax on accumulated wealth above a certain threshhold, where the rate of tax increases with the level of wealth held (and however held beneficially).
Thus significant parts of the wealth now in their discretion to apply as beneficially as they determine would be regularly eroded and transferred to the political processes of allocation they so ardently prefer.
Matt Damon et. al.,
As for the wealthy Americans that feel they are not taxed enough, I hope that they will take note; I do not want them to send their money into the black hole of government. I want them to create jobs and useful products and services.
Quit whining and do something useful, even if it is just investing in the stock market. You may lose money, but if you invest wisely you will help create jobs, useful products and services. If you are really concerned about peoples welfare, do something about poverty, create wealth. The government cannot only spend wealth created by its people it cannot create wealth.
Then you will see, it is people like you that are in the way. Stop whining and pick up a shovel.
I often wonder why they don’t open a hospital? Like Hunstman did!.
Notice the Huntsmans of the world aren’t out blabbering. So pay no attention to those celebrity hounds that have done didly squat for anyone, except pose with hungry infants in Africa.
Huntsman is widely recognized for his humanitarian giving which, including contributions to the homeless, the ill and the under-privileged, exceeds $1.2 billion and has assisted thousands, both domestically and internationally[citation needed]. The Chronicle of Philanthropy placed Mr. Huntsman second on their 2007 list of largest donors
Huntsman Cancer Institute was founded with a pledge of $100 million of personal wealth from Jon Huntsman, Sr., a philanthropist and businessman. To date, Mr. Huntsman has donated more than $250 million dollars of his own money since Huntsman Cancer Institute was established.[citation needed] Mary Beckerle, PhD, is HCI’s executive director.
“We will place into society assistance for those who suffer, hope for those who may need inspiration, and education for those who may feel the challenge but do not have the means.” – Jon M. Huntsman, chairman of Huntsman Cancer Foundation [1]
These same liberal/progressive ‘useful-idiots’ that advocate more taxes on themselves in front of a camera sit around at dinner parties later that night and brag about how much their accountant/lawyer save them from the tax-man each year.
Hypocrites all…
Or play high stakes poker, why are Damon and his ilk playing for “money” if they have so much of it???
Professor, as usual, spot on and excellent. So, what’s next for America? Are we destined to fail as a country and as a society, a beacon of hope for all mankind?
My goodness, I hope not! Yet, if Obama is re-elected in 2012, America is through, done for. Even if a Sarah Palin or Rick Perry is elected, recovering will be the hardest slog we’ve ever undertaken. If one of the lesser GOPers is nominated and elected, then the slog might be hopeless. Also, the makeup of Congress is key to how successful a conservative president could be in righting this ship, USS Good USA.
It’s not really for my older generation to say how this country should turn out except that I would hope my grandchildren would have a chance to be live their lives as Americans as I had my chance. Still, I believe that even the younger generations still have a care for this country and want it to strive and thrive, as it can given its freedom.
Cheers and especially for the Red, White, and Blue.
“I don’t know much about James Wolcott…”
Lucky you.
All I know about James Wolcott I learned back in 2004. I posted the following comment on Tim Blair’s site on September 7:
I am writing this from Brandon, Florida. We have been under assault by a hurricane since yesterday. A house two doors down was utterly destroyed by an enormous fallen oak. A similar oak tree fell and clipped the corner of this house. The damage is minor, but I came within ten feet of being killed. I was sitting at this keyboard as it fell. These are huge trees I’m talking about. The eye passed through yesterday afternoon, and I thought that the worst was over. Now, over 14 hours later, the local TV tells us that we are under a tornado alert.
And I turn on my computer to read that this SON OF A BITCH tells us that he roots for hurricanes.
“Trying to fathom the liberal way of thinking.”
Well, there goes 30 seconds of your life that you’ll never get back.
Years ago, I read a quote attributed to J. Edgar Hoover: “Don’t try to think like a psychopath because then we’ll have to worry about you.”
Liberalism is based on an ignorance of reality and a desire to live in a utopia. However, the word “utopia” means “no place.” It’s a fantasy that can never come true.
One of my coworkers simply says that liberals are intellectually and morally inferior to conservatives. I think he is right.
Dr T.;
If the assets you mentioned were indeed sold off to pay off our federal government’s debt, they would end up in the hands of corporations. If you want to continue to live there and enjoy the benefits of their protection and services, you’d better buy in and/or hire on.
Northern California: Brought to you by Microsoft.
Southern California: Brought to you by Wal Mart.
Why stop with territory? How about huge chunks of military assets? Blackwater with trillions of dollars in military hardware?
Dr. T. assumes in such a situation that only governments will be able to muster the will and capital to start carving into our country. I think he is quite mistaken. If the collapse comes, it will not look anything like how the socialists, communists, or even anarchists, envision it.
“…at what point would Obama stop borrowing on his own?”
Obama would never stop borrowing on his own. He would be quite happy to raise tax rates to 150% of income, taking all the income and requiring the rest to be paid out of savings. Metastatic government only knows one thing – grow more. Like other metastatic malignancies, it doesn’t know how to stop itself before the host dies.
Sounds like hell.
Excellent piece, as always, Doctor. taking your very legitimate questions in order, my best guesses are;
1) Is there a theoretical limit to our national borrowing?
According to President Obama, and progressives in general, no. They believe that the more money they can imagine, the more they create. This is what happens when people constantly conflate their own fantasies with reality.
Conversely, when they reach an actual limit, and there simply is no more money to be had (real or otherwise), they will triumphantly proclaim, “You see? There is a finite amount of money! We were right all along! We will now seize it all, and redistribute it fairly, and you greedy reactionaries cannot stop us!”
Progressives habitually maintain that no matter what happens, it is according to their pet theories- all of which are intended to give them more power over everyone else. This is why you can never have a legitimate debate with a progressive; the goalposts are not only always being moved, there really are no goalposts at all. Just a club that you will be beaten over the head with.
2) What are we to make of the self-referential wealthy who demand higher taxes?
Mainly that they “feel” that those below them on the food chain should stay there. Taking 40% of a billion dollars leaves 600 million. 40% off of $100,000 leaves $60,000. Most wealthy people in the “politically correct” crowd have cars costing more than that.
You can extend the model as absurdum, but it boils down to “whatever they get from me, taking the same percentage from someone less well-off will hurt them worse, and keep them from challenging my position at the top of the totem pole”. In essence, they want government to keep them in the “elite” class- by sticking it to the rest of us. How… noble… of them.
3) Is contemporary American aristocracy compatible with, antithetical to, or the logical complement to modern liberalism?
See (2) above. They consider themselves the equivalent of feudal nobility, and are determined to see that they remain the only ones with the appropriate level of perks, privileges, etc.
4) Fairly or not, the entire illegal immigration debate is couched in terms of anger at the U.S.
Compare and contrast, the La Raza “Reconquista” mentality with the “Palestinian movement”. They want to conquer by any means necessary, not out of a desire for a better life, but to avoid admitting that their culture is a failure. And unfortunately, the governments in question are eager to facilitate such movements, as they redirect their peoples’ anger outward, rather than at themselves, where it should be directed. After all, they’re the ones who actually screwed things up to begin with.
5) I can never quite understand the writ against our ancestors.
The “post-modernists” resent the fact that our ancestors created something that they cannot understand, in a way which denies them the absolute power they lust after. and which, if they had it, they could not wield effectively except to cause destruction- builders they are not. (Some even relish the idea of destruction, just for its own sake.)
They dream of hegemony- but can’t quite get there. It’s easier to blame Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, etc., than it is to admit their own incompetence.
I don’t insist that these are the only possible explanations. But based on the facts, they seem to be high-weighted probabilities.
cheers
eon
Too many people are guilty of “presentism”: Judging our ancestors by today’s standards.
The Left is notorious for doing this.
Today we live in a country in which blacks are truly equal, women are truly equal, and even homosexuals are gradually being accepted as equal, the Left dismisses all previous eras in which that wasn’t the case as moral cesspools, unworthy of any praise. That our Founding Fathers didn’t create a country in which blacks were fully equal citizens and women had the right to vote from 1789 onward is “proof” to leftists that our country was flawed from the outset.
Marxists, believing in “iron laws of history,” are particularly good at shoehorning history into a socialist morality play, in which the forces of socialist sweetness and light have been waging a long and successful struggle to overturn the forces of capitalist evil and oppression With the eventual inevitable outcome being pure socialism.
Howard Zinn’s pseudo-history book “A People’s History of the United States” is written just that way. Socialist activists are named, their achievements against racists and capitalists are described in detail. Anything else that happened is described in the passive voice: “Railroads were built”; “The electric light was invented”; etc.
But even leftists who are non-Marxists refuse to accept that their ancestors weren’t cruel irrational barbarians, and that times change.
Beautifully said. I always wonder how those jackass leftist environmental whackos can muster the courage to turn on the air conditioner during heat spell like the ones we had this summer. Are they wracked with guilt? Do they EVER wonder how air conditioning came to be? What forces led to it’s invention?
That and the bus, car truck boat ,mri machine ,plane etc..
The freedom loving hard working American, like VDH and his ancestors are a thing of the past , we get glimpses of them on those history channel shows where they log, haul trucks on ice, fish in nasty seas etc..
True. Leftist history is very old-fashioned in that it imagines history as an intentional process with a definite goal. It’s a narrative in which mankind struggles from utter barbarism to reach the inevitable Utopia. For a leftist, the “forces of progress” have always existed, slowly pushing us toward the golden future while the “forces of reaction” do their best to impede. Anyone who ever did anything to improve humanity’s material or social condition must have been a progressive, just like them. Anyone who didn’t – evil reactionary just like George Bush. Good guys & bad guys. And the leftist flatters himself that he’s always on the right side of history.
To a liberal, everything is relative. Except when they don’t want it to be.
2) What are we to make of the self-referential wealthy who demand higher taxes?
Mainly that they “feel” that those below them on the food chain should stay there. Taking 40% of a billion dollars leaves 600 million. 40% off of $100,000 leaves $60,000. Most wealthy people in the “politically correct” crowd have cars costing more than that.
You can extend the model as absurdum, but it boils down to “whatever they get from me, taking the same percentage from someone less well-off will hurt them worse, and keep them from challenging my position at the top of the totem pole”. In essence, they want government to keep them in the “elite” class- by sticking it to the rest of us. How… noble… of them.
REAL progressives would enact tax rates that increase dramatically for higher rates of income. Think back to the Beatles song Taxman. As I understand it, that song was a response to the tax rates actually in effect at the time for people in their tax bracket: 95%!
A quick Google search turns up these lyrics:
Let me tell you how it will be;
There’s one for you, nineteen for me.
‘Cause I’m the taxman,
Yeah, I’m the taxman.
Should five per cent appear too small,
Be thankful I don’t take it all.
‘Cause I’m the taxman,
Yeah, I’m the taxman.
(if you drive a car, car;) – I’ll tax the street;
(if you try to sit, sit;) – I’ll tax your seat;
(if you get too cold, cold;) – I’ll tax the heat;
(if you take a walk, walk;) – I’ll tax your feet.
Taxman!
‘Cause I’m the taxman,
Yeah, I’m the taxman.
Don’t ask me what I want it for, (ah-ah, mister Wilson)
If you don’t want to pay some more. (ah-ah, mister heath)
‘Cause I’m the taxman,
Yeah, I’m the taxman.
Now my advice for those who die, (taxman)
Declare the pennies on your eyes. (taxman)
‘Cause I’m the taxman,
Yeah, I’m the taxman.
And you’re working for no one but me.
Taxman!
Note that the key line “there’s one for you, nineteen for me” is the one that indicates the 95% tax rate; a ratio of 19:1 is 95%. “Wilson” and “Heath” refer to Harold Wilson, the leader of the Labour Party at the time, and Edward Heath, the leader of the Conservative Party at the time. Both men were Prime Minister for at one point or another.
The “one for you nineteen for me” actually refers to the pre-decimalization British Pound which consisited of 20 shillings. I believe at that time in England it was possible above a certain threshhold to pay 105% of those earnings. It created what was known as the “brain drain” as smart folks fled in droves.
Well said, eon. Here are a few ideas Dr. Hanson and you bring to mind:
Perhaps the La Raza crowd could team up with their cousins in the Zetas and wreck havoc across the continent.
The leadership of the Zetas were trained by the best the U.S. had to offer at Fort Benning, GA. La Raza (Las Razistas…Las Racistas – the etymology is just not that complicated) also were given, for free, the best the U.S. has to offer, which is plenty.
Our magnanimity and generosity will only work when we have basic libertarian principles and moral fiber. The Left has none. They are sheep or characters in Animal Farm. We follow at our peril. Our country will no longer be the land of plenty or liberty. Silence equals death.
Re: point #3:
Modern liberalism (the children of Marx, whether fascist, socialist or communist) are nothing more than anti-Enlightenment feudalists. The elites are the nobility, and while they look down upon the peasants, who they really hate, just as in medieval times, are the merchant class. Merchants thought they were the equal of knights and lords, which was the greatest offense. At least serfs knew their place.
Hanson: “Is contemporary American aristocracy compatible with, antithetical to, or the logical complement to modern liberalism?”
The progressive belief that the masses are too dumb to run their own lives and need progressive experts to make life easier for them, goes back a long way.
A columnist at the Hoover Institution pointed out just this past week how far back this goes. Herbert Croly, a pioneer of modern progressivism, wrote this justification of Big Government way back in 1914:
“To be sure, any increase in centralized power and responsibility, expedient or inexpedient, is injurious to certain aspects of traditional American democracy. But the fault in that case lies with the democratic tradition; and the erroneous and misleading tradition must yield before the march of a constructive national democracy. The national advance will always be impeded by these misleading and erroneous ideas, and, what is more, it always should be impeded by them, because at bottom ideas of this kind are merely an expression of the fact that the average American individual is morally and intellectually inadequate to a serious and consistent conception of his responsibilities as a democrat. An American national democracy must always prove its right to a further advance, not only by the development of a policy and method adequate for the particular occasion, but by its ability to overcome the inevitable opposition of selfish interests and erroneous ideas.”
— “The Promise of American Life,” Herbert Croly, 1914
“…the average American individual is morally and intellectually inadequate to a serious and consistent conception of his responsibilities as a democrat.”
That really is how the Left has always seen ordinary Americans. Their own concerns the Left dismisses as “false consciousness” in the Marxist sense. The Left “really” knows what ordinary Americans need, not what they say they want–and they will lead ordinary Americans around for their own good. That’s what folks now recognize as the “elitism” of the Left.
Now these experts, all being armed with Ph.D.’s, will probably earn more money than any factory worker. That’s OK to them. It’s compensation for having to deal with the savages that make up the American population.
“…the average American individual is morally and intellectually inadequate to a serious and consistent conception of his responsibilities as a democrat.”
As a believer in democracy and someone who thinks everyone should be treated with equal respect and dignity, it pains me greatly to say this but there is something to the remarks cited by sinz54. I loathe elitism and paternalism with all my heart but my brain sometimes insists on saying “not so fast….”.
Perhaps the quickest way to make my point is to cite a scene from the film “Remains of the Day” in which Anthony Hopkins plays a long-time butler in the house of an important British lord. In the critical scene, His Lordship and some of his cronies, who are apparently all big movers and shakers in the British government of the day – the film is set in the 1930s – are sitting around drinking and smoking cigars and discussing the big issues of the day, particularly economic affairs. They are clearly the top elites of their day. One of the cronies makes a remark to the effect that perhaps ordinary people should be consulted on these issues. His Lordship decides to nip this heresy in the bud and calls on his butler for his opinion on whether Britain should do X or Y, two options involving high finance, during the current crisis. Hopkins, the butler, just looks pole-axed. He replies something to the effect that it really isn’t his place to make such choices. His Lordship insists on having the butler’s opinion. Hopkins reiterates very politely that he really has nothing to say, while looking desperate for his boss to please stop asking him such things. Finally, His Lordship relents and indicates to his cronies that this is proof that the ordinary people themselves aren’t capable to making this sort of decision and wouldn’t want to even if they could because they don’t understand these issues and know they don’t understand them.
Or at least, that’s how I remember the scene. It’s been a few years since I saw the film so I may have filled in some of the gaps with my own thoughts.
Let’s consider the point from the film in light of the debt ceiling debate. Despite the apparent failure of even the most highly-touted “geniuses” of finance to right the American economy – or perhaps because of that – would you really want the average American having a deciding say in exactly how to run the economy of the United States? Would you really want the average working person or welfare collector or minor bureaucrat having the deciding vote on whether to implement QEx, or go back to the Gold Standard, or raise or lower interest rates or what have you?
I doubt that even a tiny percentage of Americans has even a superficial understanding of the American economy let alone sufficient knowledge to make fiscal/monetary policy. I don’t say that to disparage Americans! I think I could safely say that about the same about the populace of ANY country in the world.
The fact is that some areas are just so abstract and complex that few of us understand them. And if you don’t understand how something works, you can’t reasonably be entrusted with control over it. We’re in a world of ever-increasing complexity and we apparently need ever-increasing degrees of specialized skills to manage it. A truck driver, barrista, or elementary school teacher just doesn’t have the skills to manage a complex computer system or an economy by themselves.
It really bothers me to say such things but I think what I’m saying is right in some sense. I’m really struggling with how to reconcile that with a strong belief that everyone SHOULD have a say in how our countries and governments work.
I hear a great deal of down-to-earth wisdom at sites like this one. For instance, I agree that we can’t live beyond our means and can’t just keep accumulating debts that will be passed on to our descendents. Eventually, we will hit a wall and the whole house of cards will fall in on itself. That kind of wisdom must drive the management of our economies. And I think democracy, specifically the election of parties that favour free enterprise over statist systems, would be a very positive step.
But can we really expect “democracy” to have a role much beyond that fundamental one? I’m trying to picture what a referendum on, say, monetary policy might look like and particularly what arguments each side would use to mobilize the Pro- and Anti- sides of whatever proposition was on a ballot. Can anyone really imagine that any significant number of voters would ever really understand the issues well enough to vote sensibly on the matter? If we can’t picture the vast majority of people understanding those issues satisfactorily, would you really want such decisions made democratically? Or would you want those who actually KNOW the implications to make those decisions?
Forgive me but I think I’ve just talked my way around to a defence of elitism, at least in some cases.,,,
Elitism and the practicalities of running complex systems – different issues, I think. To run a complex system, you need an expert. An elitist is an expert who’s forgotten who he works for. A politician, ideally, works for the people who voted for him. When he decides that his constituents are ignorant hayseeds who don’t know anything about politics or economics; that he’s the expert so he knows what’s best for them; and that therefore, he shouldn’t have to answer to anyone – then he’s become an elitist.
I have trouble figuring out which politicians are experts and which are elitists. When somebody tells me an issue is too complicated for me to understand and I should just let the experts in Congress (or Wile E. Obama, Super Genius) handle it, it’s hard not to think they’re just cynically using the appeal to authority to stop me from asking questions.
I read something in a computer programming book a long time ago, and it made sense. If a computer programmer can’t explain what his program does, in plain language, so that a layperson could understand, then he probably doesn’t understand it very well himself. I tend to feel the same way about political and economic issues that are “too complex for me to understand.” If an expert can’t explain what’s going on, how do I know he really knows himself? One sign of an elitist is a reluctance to explain what he’s doing. He knows he’s right. Why should he waste time justifying his actions to mere citizens? They wouldn’t understand, anyway.
You are dead wrong because you have bought into the liberal way of thinking.
You assume that the economic affairs of the country must be managed, but that is 100% incorrect. Management is the problem, not the solution.
The reason the United States rose from nothing to be the country that revolutionized the economy of the world was free markets. Nothing else.
300,000,000 people, reacting to the give and take of an economy are essentially infinitely wiser than any number of bureaucrats, no matter how educated or distinguished.
Another way to look at it is that 300M people have 30 trillion IQ point. 1,000 government geniuses might have 150 thousand IQ points.
It shouldn’t be about QE 3 or Keynian economic theory. If we don’t let 300 million of us make the decisions, then failure is inevitable.
You are dead wrong because you have bought into the liberal way of thinking.
You assume that the economic affairs of the country must be managed, but that is 100% incorrect. Management is the problem, not the solution.
You’re exactly right. I wandered off into the weeds there because, despite my inclinations and beliefs, I have lived under the liberal way of thinking and I still haven’t completely overcome my original brainwashing. That brainwashing is strong because I rewatched both of Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose series this year and still fell into liberal thinking mode on this point.
Mind you, I still have to admit to a certain fuzziness with regards to how governments would work in a Friedmanesque world if we could ever get to one. Obviously, governments would do a lot less than they do today and the private sector would take over most of the things that we do with governments today. But the government would still have an important role in such things as national defence and courts.
So how would something like defence policy be determined? Would we really use democratic means to decide specific questions like where our foreign or domestic bases should be? Or who should be our allies and who should be our enemies? It seems to me that matters like these, particularly the latter, are not going to be subject to direct democratic decisions expressed via referendums.
This seems a particularly serious concern with respect to proactive policies. If a foreign nation attacks, I would expect a reactive policy to be concocted to respond to that attack relatively automatically. But how would we make a decision to do something like edge away from an old relationship and form a new one? For instance, if we found free trade within the Americas to be singularly unrewarding and decided to explore new trade relationships, possibly with people that are at least nominally our enemies now, how would that be done in a democratic way?
It seems to me that foreign policy is inevitably set by elites in a country: the people at the top of the leadership in a country decide who they want their friends and enemies to be and have no interest in the sentiments of those below them in their own country. I see little sign of democratic processes in the formation of foreign policy, even in strong democracies like America and Britain….
Isn’t that just because we’re not a democracy but a republic? The highest-level elites are chosen by us to work on our behalf. We choose them, not just because they’re good (mostly we don’t know whether they’re good until they’ve been on the job for a while) but because they agree with us, in a general way, politically.
True, we can’t tell them, via referendum, that we need to close Base X in Country Y by 2015 because it will save us X dollars and allow us to redeploy to Country Z, thereby balancing the military presence of Country Q. But when they’re campaigning, we can ask them “What do you think about foreign base closures in light of the situation in Country Z?” If they agree with us, or if they disagree but make a good case for NOT closing bases, then we elect them. If they disagree but can’t give us a convincing reason why, then we don’t elect them.
Of course, once they’re elected they can do whatever they want for 4 years. But if they want to have long, successful careers, they better hold policies and enact laws that reflect the desires of their constituents. Or they better be able to convince us that what we want isn’t necessarily good for us. If they just blow us off, they will be out of their jobs come election time.
Wow. Rare to hear somebody on any forum reconsider an opinion, including myself. Kudos to you for being flexible and thoughtful. You’re a better man than myself.
Your point about foreign affairs is interesting. I don’t equate foreign affairs to the economy, although it seems to me that national interactions with other governments ought generally to reflect public opinion, and there is at least a chance that the public, in toto, is wiser about such matters than a group of elites. But it certainly isn’t like the economy where every purchase is an economic decision, and the aggregate of the decisions passes judgement about which economic ideas and entities survive. There doesn’t appear to be a direct equivalent to buying a big mac or a whopper when it comes to foreign affairs. Polls help, but are hardly as democratic.
Even so, I’m of the opinion after seeing decades now of elite malfeasance, that, like Mr. Buckley, I prefer to be led by random selection from the first few pages of a phone book to any set of elites. If nothing else, people selected from the first few pages of the phone book are going to be more humble than our arrogant elites, and willing to consider alternatives to unsuccessful approaches, both domestically and foreign. For things to work well, however, it also makes sensethat we have specialists who spend their lives understanding other cultures and how to negotiate with them, and that the elected leaders have such experts to advise them.
To further the analogy proposed by proreason, perhaps you can think of our population as a massive distributed system. Each discrete processor in the system is working on its own set of problems, unique to it. The results of that processor’s work go on to indirectly influence what all the other processors are, in turn, working on. When you consider it a given that each of these 300 million processors is working towards its own betterment, then the system as a whole approaches optimization, and it does all this without constant tinkering and interference.
For what it’s worth, I’ve found the exact scene I had in mind on YouTube. I see that I’ve misremembered it slightly; it was one of His Lordship’s cronies that asked the butler the questions of high finance and politics. But the point is the same: the butler has no clue about the matters being discussed and makes no attempt to offer opinions because he knows he has no clue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Tm3AT543YE
If you want people out of poverty, make them uncomfortable in their poverty. – Ben Franklin
You are correct that in many important aspects the average american is ignorant. They are ignorant because they have been largely shielded from the consequences of that ignorance by mostly leftist policies. Given the incentive (direct consequences for doing stupid things) they would learn quickly. Free people, responsible for their own well-being, are the most sensible people you will ever meet. Even the under educated ones.
Elitism is the evil you sense it to be.
Strange. I was just reading something about Oscar Wilde’s “The Soul of Man Under Socialism.” According to my source, he made exactly the same point: that public charity and government largesse merely keep the poor alive but do nothing to solve the problem of poverty. Unlike us, however, he identified capitalism as the cause of the problem and socialism (and eventually anarchy) as the solution.
I’m wondering when and how arose the idea that poverty was a systemic defect that could be solved by changing the system.
“Would not then the illegal immigration movement be located in hyper-pro-Americanism?”
And for LEGAL immigration it indeed used to be. I worked with a man who had been in the a Polish Army and was a POW for almost all of in WWII. He immigrated to the US after marrying the US Army nurse who he met after his jeep ran over a land mine as he was acting as a guide and interpreter for the Americans. He was fiercely patriotic for his adopted country, but then again the Nazis had shot him and imprisoned him and the Soviets shipped his parents to a slave labor camp where they died. He had a good comparison, being from Eastern Europe and not a U.S. supported Mexico where people from even further south flee to in search of better lives.
If you look at Obama’s tax return it appears he only paid at a 24% rate. He used all the deductions he could. I guess he didn’t have enough money that year. Plus he gets to use a large corp. jet anytime he wishes.
Trying to fathom the liberal way of thinking.
Using the words “liberal” and “thinking” in the same sentence is a stretch, given that every move, every objective, & policy decision, is made as a function of a preset, unchanged and unchanging ideology, no thinking necessary.
As a semi well-known religious leader once said…”We’ve done the thinking for you !”
As a general rule, the more I hear of such carping, the more I assume the whiner covets what he so childishly is obsessed with ending.
People who whine about “the rich” of course want to be those rich. Absent the ability to make that happen, they’ll settle for bringing everybody down to their level, what Winston Churchill called “the equal sharing of the misery” as the goal of socialism.
Meanwhile, La Pee, John Kerry et al. and etc. have personal license to indulge themselves to the hilt and even cheat as long as they continuously bleat about those “less fortunate”. It’s kind of a moral release valve; Ted Kennedy did it for decades. Clearly delusional Pelosi even goes so far as to bleat about “saving the planet”. (well, Nance, I suggest you take fewer taxpayer-paid cross country flights and stop indulging in those godawful pantsuits and strings of beads and maybe have your head examined)
Movie stars pontificating (time to boycott Matt Damon) is especially egregious, ASIF their acting ability is somehow related to a superior thinking brain.
way ahead of you …I don’t watch anything with matt damon in it.
cheers
1) Is there a theoretical limit to our national borrowing?
Not when you have a bunch of economic pedophiles running government. They’re raping our children’s economic future because they refuse to govern within our means today. Those children will curse our names for all time if we don’t put a stop to it.
But that said, if life were still felt to be preferable to what is found in Mexico, then would not the entire immigration movement be awash in pro-American chauvinism, of affection for the antithesis of a Mexico that drove them out: American flags waving at parades, a grass-roots movement to speak and master English, something like the National Council of Mexican-Americans rather than La Raza?
As was explained to me by a very nice 70-ish Latina in Los Angeles a few months ago…”We’re taking over.”
Birth rates are such in southern California that it’s hard not to see a parallel with the Muslim agenda for Europe, domination through procreation.
So, recently flying the Mexican flag at the LA area soccer game was just…normal.
That is the plan of La Raza and all those groups and organizations relentlessly applying pressure to provide perks and services for illegal immigrants in this country.
Barack and friends appear to be up for it because they like the voting bloc. As he mentioned on Spanish language radio just prior to the November 2010 election, Hispanics need to use their voting power to “punish their enemies”.
Here is my solution to improve the Economy:
Double or triple the Social Security income.
Seniors would buy ALL kind of things by the billions (new cars, trips, electronics, furniture, clothes, better food, etc.). Right now they are deprived of any expense with their meager income.
Make someone happy today!
LOL! You’re sweet, vivo. ;p
vivo;
Look up “Technocracy movement” and “Townsend Plan”.
clear ether
eon
Obama as wagonmaster. I love that image!
I think he would have gotten lost someplace around Cleveland.
You’re giving him far too much credit. He’d have never made Cleveland. He’d be going in circles around DC- he keeps doing the same thing despite failing at it.
That’s because “The Great One(TM)” is the perfect example of the fool who pees into the wind and whines about his shoes being wet as he’s turning back into the wind. It doesn’t matter how many people suggest turning the other direction, or that his feet get so wet that he ends up with trenchfoot. He knows best, and it’s going to be done his way come hell or high water. No matter how hard futility smacks him in the face, or how often for that matter, he believes that five pound bag will hold fifty pounds of crap. And we the people, aka the ignorant masses, who would dare think otherwise, only serve to reinforce his belief that we cannot survive without him and his merry band of hypocrites. Oh sorry, I meant saviors…
Yeah, a couple of blocks from where he picked it up from the dealer.
“Is there a theoretical limit to our national borrowing?”
That’s an easy question. If the President we Republican then the liberals would all be shouting from the top of their lungs that we’ve reached the limit.
We mustn’t forget that Liberals look at EVERYTHING through the prism of how it can be used against Republicans and Conservatives.
I think the Liberal way of thinking is simple. And simplistic. It operates within a few basic axioms:
1) Utopian premise: Society can be perfect.
2) The way to reach perfection is via a set of Wise Rulers who will ‘engineer’ or ‘guide’ the non-wise non-rulers.
That’s it. Now, one must unpack those two basic axioms.
1) Is there such a thing as perfection, as The Final Mode of Life? We are finite material beings; how can something finite act as infinite? Is there such a state of life operating within ‘no further change’?
1a) What is this utopian perfection? Describe it. And now…we argue. The liberals describe it as ‘everyone behaving the same, no questions, no debate, no dissension’. Submission to..what?
Who and What is the Ultimate Ruler and Authority about Utopia?
And it takes a lot of repression to enforce these Ultimate Rules.
2) Who are our Rulers? What makes them have the Wisdom to Rule over us..and who decides that we have no wisdom and can’t even rule over ourselves?
The ‘progressives’ in our modern society operate within this mindset of a utopian perfect society (no poverty, no disease, no problems, no questions, no dissent, no anger, no..nothing..). Is this mindset rational and objective or is the notion of utopia purely fictional and imaginary?
Oh – and once you’ve reached it (how do you know?)..then, does all progress stop?
And, to reach this perfection, the progressives set themselves up as The Rulers and the majority of the population as The Ruled. As Obama has said – the rednecks out back..with their bible and guns. And, the GOP must ‘sit in the back of the bus’ and Cantor must leave the room to allow ‘the adults to make decisions’.
And remember, how Obama insisted that Congress (the people) pass his bills without debate, question, reading them? That’s his being a Ruler over the Ruled.
The Tea Party is rejected by these Rulers because, heck, they are upstarts, daring to consider that they..peasants all of them..have the wisdom and whatever..to make decisions about their own lives and about government. Whew. The nerve of the peasantry, the hoi polloi, the merchant-class..yuck.
2a) And something else; to enforce this division between authoritative Rulers and powerless Ruled – this mindset will reduce the freedoms of the Ruled, take more and more of their money, make them more and more dependent on government funding, introduce more regulations, more ‘Big Brother’ watchdogs..and also, create dissension and divisions in the population to make them fight each other (rather than rebel against the Rulers).
2b) This type of two-class society, with its repression of freedom, also moves into an intellectual paralysis. Since dissent and questions aren’t allowed, innovation dies out; the society’s technological progress grinds to a halt.
That’s the Liberal Mindset.
Many of history’s Utopians have been closet (or not so closet) Eugenicists. It’s part and parcel of the disdain self-anointed élites have for the hoi polloi.
George Bernard Shaw could be the poster child.
Today, we have eugenicists like John Holdren, Zeke Emanuel and even Kathleen Sebelius, who might be too dumb to even know she is an eugenicist but is doing everything in her too-extensive regulatory power to make sure “healthcare” in America pays for abortions.
The “perfect” society envisioned by all these creepy people is Hell on Earth.
I fundamentally disagree with you on this one ETAB, although I do agree that there might be a few magically thinkers as you describe.
Liberals, or progressives, or marxists, or whatever they want to be called today fall into 3 broad categories: The Rulers, The Thieves, and the True Believers.
The Rulers are people like Harry Reid, George Soros, and even John Boehner. They hardly have a philosophy, and if you have to assign one to them, it’s “what’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is mine”. They are in a direct line from the Rulers of the past who accumualated and abused 99% of the wealth of the world for themselves. Saying they are amoral is complimenting them. Their morality is to rule by any means that they can get away with. All of them, ALL OF THEM, will do what Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and every other thug throughout history was willing to do to acquire and exercise total power. The Rulers are a fraction of 1% of the liberal population.
The Thieves are their followers, because the Rulers buy them. Period. The Thieves also have no philosphy other than getting what they can. And they are all over the spectrum of human behaviour. Some examples are: modern unions, trial lawyers, welfare cheats, many bureaucrats, movie stars, crony capitalists, basement jackoffs, common criminals, university professors, Al Sharpton, congressional aids, many teachers. However, most of them are pretty good at rationalizing and can give you dozens of reasons why stealing from others is perfectly justified. Thieves constitute somewhere between 90% and 99% of the liberal population.
The True Believers are what you dedicated your post too. I just don’t believe that there are significant numbers of them. In fact, I’m not sure they exist at all. The Thieves are so skilled at either self delusion or outright cons that it is really impossible to tell if a True Believer actually believes his bullshit or not.
Hmm – well, I’m going to disagree with you, proreason, though I usually agree with all your posts. But I was only referring to the liberal or progressive ideology.And this ideology refers only to ‘what is a good society’/
Thieves come in as Rulers. I’d include Reid, Soros, Barney Frank, Pelosi..and Obama, Stalin, Mao. It’s all a matter of degree. But, they don’t have ideologies; they don’t think of ‘what’s the best kind of society’. They have only one agenda: Power and Wealth for Themselves. So, I don’t consider them liberals, progressives, anything..other than thieves.
The ideology of the progressive/democrat/liberal is an idea about ‘what’s a good society’. And, the way I described it, with that belief that there IS such a thing as ‘the perfect society’; that there IS utopia; and that the strategy to achieve it is by universal laws proposed by Authoritarian Rulers…well, that’s the ideology.
My point was to show that utopia doesn’t exist, and that the strategy to achieve this fiction is and always ends up, as totalitarianism. This is valid whether it’s Plato’s Republic, or Hitler or Stalin or Mao…or the twits who vote for Obama and talk about ‘ending poverty’ and ‘the greedy rich’.
But this notion that utopia can exist is real, very real, among all populations. What was ‘Hope and Change’ about other than utopia, with Obama actually daring to say that in his regime..’the oceans would cease to rise and peace would exist on earth’. The arrogance, the arrogance…And people want to believe that IF they only do such and such, THEN…everything will be great.
Then, we found out that Obama didn’t have any ideology. He was and is, only a corrupt, malevolent, malicious, manipulative thief.
It sounds like we aren’t far apart after all.
I would say that the ideology you describe is just part of the con, with the exception of the few True Believers who slavishly buy into it the meme du jour.
And I agree with you that Obama has for the most part severed himself from any philosopy other than his own narcissistic cravings. Yes, he does have a love for his roots, but would easily abandon them if he thought it would work. The real reason he remains steadfastly marxist is that he simply has no choice. There is no way he could pretend to become conservative and remain in office for very long; but even if he could he would be confronted with new supporters who actually believe in principles and who are geometrically more difficult to manipulate. It’s a risk he can’t take. He can’t even take the risk of seeming centrist, although it’s quite clear that he would like to do so.
I agree that Obama has an attachment to his roots – the socialist totalitarian, anti-capitalist, anti-west, anti-white ideologies of his parents and grandparents and their associates. This is, as far as Obama can have an emotional attachment beyond his own narcissism, – an attachment.
As you note, he’ll abandon anything and anyone to support his pathological self-aggrendizement. As I’ve said before, leave someone that psychologically pathological in a local domain, such as a community organizer, and he would be relatively harmless.
Elevate that person to a position of great power – and his need to control how others interact with him, his need to ensure that their interactions are those of slaves and sycophants – increases exponentially. That’s the case with Obama. He needs to Rule and reduce everyone else to enslavement and/or adulation.
That includes enabling, enlarging the poverty population, increasing the size of the population who are trapped in governmental dependence, decreasing individual freedoms, reducing private business capacities, reducing freedom of speech, controlling communication – that’s Obama.
Since he lives in a virtual world-of-words, words that are totally unrelated to objective reality…and only mean what he says they mean for that minute..Obama cannot comprehend, nor does he wish to, the real world. He only wants to control that real world…within his Words. So, according to him, the stimulus worked, employment is rising, any and all problems are due to: Bush and now, the Tea Party..and..whoever.
Now, he’s got his debt ceiling, and now, he’s going to buy his election. He’s already started, offering tax-savings to companies that hire veterans. And he’ll continue to use taxpayer money to bribe the electorate, continue to misinform and manipulate everyone, continue to maliciously malign any who critique him.
Get.Rid.Of.Him. He’s destroying America.
Now, he’s got his debt ceiling, and now, he’s going to buy his election.
God help us.
Reportedly, the campaigner in chief is using taxpayer money to fund the extensive mid-western bus tour he is about to embark on.
How can that happen ?
Interesting dialog. So in conclusion, the Self-appointed Elite through the Utopian Myth, help the Thieves deceive themselves about everyone’s motivations, but in fact all operate principally for their own benefit, just at different levels of rent-seeking.
This paradigm can also explain social behavior at levels well below the nation state. I was a faculty member for 25 years in an academic department that, mid-way through my career there, was taken over by a dictatorial, narcissistic department head (with the approval of a dictatorially-inclined university administration). The department head’s rationale for his dictatorial approach was that it was the efficient way to improve the department. Yet he never got involved in, nor supported, any of the work “in the trenches” to improve the department; he spent all his time on projects that would raise his salary. The Thieves (=self-serving faculty who emulated the department head) were not at all unhappy with the dictatorship and were unconcerned about whether undergraduates learned anything. I’m sure this is a common story in academic departments that rose from low levels during the past fifty years.
“Trying to fathom the liberal way of thinking.”
Reminds me of a joke – a man wandering on the beach comes across a bottle – just happens to be a genie bottle. He uncorks it and is instantly granted three wishes:
#1 is to be restored to perfect health body and mind – viola! he feels fine!
#2 is to have ownership of a bank account with a billion dollars in it – viola! he is instantly a billionaire.
#3 for lack of anything else to wish for he asks for a bridge from San Fransisco to Hawaii – the genie tells the man that this is a tall order even for a genie and requests that the man come up with something more reasonable. The man says – well – I’ve never understood the idiots that voted for Obama – help me to understand the mind of a liberal/progressive…
To which the genie asks the man “would you like that bridge in 2 lanes or 4?”
Fareed Zakaria:
“The exception is defense, a cradle-to-grave system of housing, subsidies, cost-plus procurement, early retirement and lifetime pension and health-care guarantees. There is so much overlap among the military services, so much duplication and so much waste that no one bothers to defend it anymore. Today, the U.S. defense establishment is the world’s largest socialist economy.”
Doc Hanson:
“These apologies insult our intelligence, since the boaster either makes so much money that he would not notice whether he paid 35% or 39% on his income; or he is in government where the state picks up much of the tab for his health care and transportation, and subsidizes his housing and meals. The subtext is Gore-like aristocratic disdain, as in ‘Why don’t those accountants and dentists pass on their jet skis and Yukons and fork over more to the more noble needy?’”
The dilemma is that large numbers of folks, many from lower income backgrounds, owe their livelihood to government programs like the military and the DMV. And, after 24 years USAF (retired), I’ve seen the nasty ones and the good ones at both the personnel office and the DMV. That kind of balances the pH factor.
I’m not trying to be a troll; just pointing it out to maybe stir up some thought and discussion.
Narcissistic Personality Disorder:
A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:
1. Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
2. Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
3. Believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other
special or high-status people (or institutions)
4. Requires excessive admiration
5. Has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
6. Is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
7. Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
8. Is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her
9. Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes
Our own Narcissist in Chief has succeeded in stopping the rise of the oceans !
He has even slowed down anthropogenic global warming, given that NASA data have recently revealed that all that nasty trapped hot air really is being radiated off into space and that cloud cover changes as a function of the planet needing to throw off excess heat.
Nature really has been in concert with our N in C during his brief 2 1/2 year reign !
(over and out)
Finally, a test that Little Lenin can excel on without having it handed to him.
Me thinks La Raza and Globalist are one in the same tortured soul who probably took weeks, if not months, to perfect his antagonistic screeching. Just as the mind is amply stimulated by serious thinkers who also happen to be pretty damned good writers how disappointing to find this same retort time and again.
If no one fed a troll, would he still exist?
Sometimes I think some of those ‘trolls’ are actually sneaky Conservatives just giving us an outlet via a ‘realistic’ sock-version of how some of those Lefties actually think. lol
“Liberal thinking” is an induced psychosis that anyone can experience with crystal meth, which seems to be what’s for dinner in D.C. these days. Poster boy – Jay Carney.
The simple answers to VDH’s initial questions are – Yes.
Many of the present generation have improved on their test scores because there are many, many more potential test scorees available. I suspect that a Higher proportion of “test scorees” are doing better today than they were 50 years ago. Growth in population means proportionate growth in both the good and the bad. And, thus far, admittedly probably hanging on by its fingernails, the Good still outweighs the Bad in America.
The ONLY reason air travel is not “so much better” than 40 years ago is that our “hippie culture” in the US favors Our Mother the Earth and Preserving Her Juices and Kishkes over inexpensive and easily developed energy and natural resources!
Otherwise, yes, air travel would be more comfortable and less expensive (barring the problems we face from the Islamists who feel empowered to carry out their “holy missions” of mass slaughter and thus the world spends trillions of dollars in time and expense to preserve and sanctify the lives and governments of a few thousands of perverse lunatics).
And, most of the public servant folk in Minnesota, including those I have to deal with as a General Contractor whom I would rather detest – the ubiquitous Inspections Department, all try to be competent and polite – unlike the private sector – the corporate Nepalese Phone Help Centers, which are trips into the demented Hell of the worst of Big Business.
VDH is brilliant. However, these particular comparisons are off the mark.
Regarding a theoretical limit to our ability to borrow “forever”—
Of course, you, VDH, are writing in a politically correct way, as I’m sure in your core you already know that this is bunk.
I just recently revisited the Tulip Mania, the most outrageous example of a deluded bubble around, and our betters in DC seem to closely resemble the fools who bid up the price of useless tulips, till one bulb was worth the same as a house, etc.
Given the speed of Internet era communications, I dare say that when—not if—a tipping point is reached, and it becomes obvious that bankruptcy is ALREADY the case, there’s going to be a whole lot of revaluing of assets.
Buy gold. Which means, sell “dollars”, because the time-honored manner of repudiating all the ALREADY accumulated government debt is to socialize the losses, aka debauch the medium of currency.
All your consistent criticisms of the American scene, over the years, Mr. Hanson, will eventually be realized to have been true, and good, and beautiful!
Rave on!
Reveal!
Also—when shopping, especially in the popular mega-food stores, the packed parking lot and the “packed” people (fat or ugly fat) busily filling shopping carts definitely make me wonder, though. Are we witnessing the final Tulip Mania-like blowout, or can the factories keep on spitting out enough products to ameliorate the coming debt-driven adjustment?
As a longtime realistic pessimist, it DOES seem like we’re in the middle of the “momentum” surge in the stock market, circa 2000, in particular when the NASDAQ went to 5000. In those heady days, the crowd seemed to be in control, but eventually valuations got so out of whack, that the crash had to come.
I think that as more and more still uninformed people get the connection between their, personally, to borrow beyond their means to pay back even the interest on their loans, and what the governments are doing, the crash will be swift and wrenching.
Obama will make Hoover look like a genius! History will rate Obama as the vastly worst president we’ve ever had!
Enjoy the depression—by the way, despite all the worldly troubles guaranteed by all the disgusting choices of the American electorate over the last fifty years, or more (Just ponder the disastrous presidents we’ve chosen—JFK, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and now Obama!), this country still will be the best place to weather the coming economic slowdown and political turmoil, and even war.
How many people starved to death in the Great Depression, in the USA? There’s certainly not a dearth of food, YET!
Here’s my own personal prediction, at least what I HOPE will happen—
Factory farming will eventually “wear out”, like an old jalopy kept going way beyond its tolerances, and people will turn “spare” land like lawns into mini-farms, and grow as much REAL FOOD as they can, for THEMSELVES.
Personal responsibility is empowering! Literally physically, as the body you truly are.
Actually, the rich couldn’t just give to a designated government program, well they could write a check saying, “For HeadStart”. But that check would just go to the Treasury and be deposited to the General Fund. Federal Appropriations law prohibits augmenting budgets. If Headstart had a working capital fund, or another instrumentality, that allowed it to collect donations and use them in lieu of its appropriated money then it would be allowed. That all depends on the way the agency or program is set up. However, Mr. Damon, and anyone else for that matter, can donate more money to not for profit organizations that provide many services to needy folks.
Either way, I agree with your point 100%, put up or shut up. Start cutting those checks to the USG and then shame the rest of your buddies for not doing the same.
Okay, let’s fathom how a Republican thinks: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/chris-christie-lashes-out-at-crazies-after-appointing-muslim-judge-the-sharia-law-business-is-just-crap/
What say ye conservatives?
I say it will hurt him if he decides to run for President.
But I consider myself a Tea Partier who, like all of us, gets off the reservation now and again.
Muslims are citizens just like the rest of us. I’m assuming Christie had him vetted and that the Muslim judge intends to operate within the law, which means American law, not sharia law. If all Muslims are excluded, why not all people of Russian descent? Unless a Russian was declaring he was going to judge by Russian law, I wouldn’t have a problem with him either.
I also assume the Christie was being harassed by a fringe of Tea Partiers. Every group has people the mainstream doesn’t agree with.
Is that what you expected to hear?
Really? A pro Hamas judge? That would require him to recuse himself from various cases. That is the problem, not that he is a Muslim judge.
Sure, Christie nominated a pro-Hamas judge and then tripled-down on it.
Dream on, fool.
Where do these idiots come from? They have no attachment to reality whatsoever.
Elitism and the practicalities of running complex systems – different issues, I think. To run a complex system, you need an expert. An elitist is an expert who’s forgotten who he works for. A politician, ideally, works for the people who voted for him. When he decides that his constituents are ignorant hayseeds who don’t know anything about politics or economics; that he’s the expert so he knows what’s best for them; and that therefore, he shouldn’t have to answer to anyone – then he’s become an elitist.
Yes, of course! Thank you! I got lost in the intellectual weeds for a moment there and didn’t take my reasoning far enough.
There is always going to be a need for experts, people who know a great deal about some narrow area of science or technology or agriculture or whatever. These experts will have a demonstrated in-depth knowledge of some field that the average man will typically be largely (if not entirely) unfamiliar. No one can have expertise in every area of life. That probably hasn’t been possible since the days of Ugh the Caveman, who probably knew everything that was known about the few things that cavemen knew about.
Our world is far too specialized – and our lifespans too short – for anyone to hope to have detailed knowledge of more than a few areas and superficial knowledge of a few others. We inevitably need to train and employ experts to get advice on advanced technical matters. It is very unlikely that you or I could design a nuclear power plant or design a practical irrigation plan for a specific crop in a given locale. Instead, we hire experts to give us the benefit of their knowledge.
But these experts are – or at least should be – employees of companies or government organizations that are working on their own goals, and the leadership of those organizations may be run very democratically. For example, a government organization may hire experts to figure out the best design for the track and rolling stock of a high-speed rail line but the organizaton, not the expert, should be making the decision about where to build the rail line – what areas to serve – and how to finance it. No one should be getting out a checkbook and handing it to a committee of experts to make ALL of the decisions.
I have trouble figuring out which politicians are experts and which are elitists. When somebody tells me an issue is too complicated for me to understand and I should just let the experts in Congress (or Wile E. Obama, Super Genius) handle it, it’s hard not to think they’re just cynically using the appeal to authority to stop me from asking questions.
Agreed!!
I’m not sure there are any experts among the politicians. Perhaps it’s just my cynicism speaking but aren’t the vast majority of politicians lawyers? I don’t know the backgrounds of many politicians – particularly American politicians since I’m Canadian – but virtually every politican I know about is a lawyer. There are precious few engineers or scientists among them. Now it might be argued that lawyers are experts in their own way in matters of law but I don’t see that as a terribly useful expertise. As I understand it, most lawyers are quite specialized and only tend to work in their own areas of expertise. For example, a divorce attorney rarely has great knowledge of real estate law or patent and copyright issues. Therefore, a lawyer’s expertise is not very useful most of the time.
I read something in a computer programming book a long time ago, and it made sense. If a computer programmer can’t explain what his program does, in plain language, so that a layperson could understand, then he probably doesn’t understand it very well himself. I tend to feel the same way about political and economic issues that are “too complex for me to understand.” If an expert can’t explain what’s going on, how do I know he really knows himself? One sign of an elitist is a reluctance to explain what he’s doing. He knows he’s right. Why should he waste time justifying his actions to mere citizens? They wouldn’t understand, anyway.
I’m a computer programmer at heart and I share your point of view. I am highly suspicious of anyone who says something is too complex for me to understand. Such a person may indeed simply be trotting out the old “that’s too complex for me to explain” because they don’t understand it well enough themselves. But, in fairness, it may be that they know they aren’t articulate enough to explain it clearly, especially to someone with no technical background at all. I think it is cowardly of them not to try anyway though.
Thanks again for your remarks! They helped me get back on track.
Lighten up! Did you think my comment was serious? It was made partly in reaction to the La Raza nonsense about the Mexicans taking back what had belonged to them. My response showed that most of the USA had belonged to other nations.
A serious response would be that the federal government, to pay down the national debt, could sell some of the land it owns in the western states and Alaska; could put a third-party firm in charge of leasing grazing, lumbering, and mining rights; and could have private agencies run federal parks, monuments, and museums at a profit.
Comment 43 is in response to #18. Somehow, my reply link got broken.
I stopped reading after point 2.
I remember when I used to read VDH about the war on terror and had a lot of respect for him. I feel very disappointed.
Look, the marginal tax rate is the lowest it’s been in modern history, the last time it was this low was 1916
There is a point where the system of taxes isn’t progressive enough to cover having a modern, first world country, and we’ve passed that point. That’s a simple fact.
The Reagan tax cut left the top marginal rate at 50% not our current 35%
under Clinton it was 39%
Our government programs are not arbitrary. The big ones, the ones that take the lion’s share of the money are quite essential and if you poll the public about each of those big programs the majority of people like them and want them left alone. All the polls that ask people about “entitlements” is misleading because it’s so general that people don’t know which precise programs are meant, and which ones take the most money. Policy is made in specifics not in making decisions about fictional massive wastes of money that turn out to not exist.
If you think that there is no limit to how far we can get away from a progressive tax system and still have a country with 1st world services, infrastructure, and sufficient social programs then you prefer fantasy to reality. There is a limit somewhere, and our made-up crisis is that we passed that limit under President Bush. We go back or our society becomes a brutal analog of a Mexican slum.
There is no choice where God pays our bills for us. Nor is there a choice where we take responsibility for nothing and God does the work for us.
I hear you Josh. When the GDP moves up we can take care of many things we can’t now, but the American people aren’t keen to dissolving the EPA, Medicare, SS, the DOD, the FDA, FEMA or the Department of Education. No doubt these organizations operate like crap. That’s the problem. One half of the equation is cleaning house, the other half is that these things do provide an essential function the majority want…The States will get slammed in any vacuum.
I suggest the rates stays down for provable job creators. There is plenty of room for a compromise that actually works…
I wouldn’t say our DOD operates like crap, but at the moment all 5th generation air craft are grounded, our new LCS are rusting, and significant waste and fraud plague acquisition process. We’ll have to do much better here given 400 billion in cuts.
One way to reformulate government is to see what is more or less increases revenue. Tougher enforcement could generate revenue. Over regulation can diminish growth. Crappier schools ends up producing crappier economic and manufacturing solutions.
To compare with Canada, which is keeping its triple A rating, the highest tax rate is 29%, and that rate is for anything over 129,000. This means that investors in Canada get to keep – and invest – their money.
In the US, this investment money is taken by the govt and redistributed, not for investment purposes, but for consumption. That’s a major problem. A robust economy has three phases: investment–>production–>consumption. A govt must enable all three phases – and that first phase, investment, is the root, the base, for the next two phases.
That’s the problem in the US. The socialist agenda sees the first phase, the source of wealth, as some kind of Magic Cauldron, where money simply bubbles up endlessly…to be snatched up by the government…which then distributes it to the non-productive sector of the economy, the consumers. Social security, special grants, medicare, unionized civil service.
But wealth doesn’t emerge in a Magic Cauldron. It develops within the private sector production, where profits must be made, which then become the Investment for hiring new workers, building new factories, starting new businesses. There is no Magic Cauldron, no fictional Rich Uncle sitting in a pot, doling out gold coins.
The US has disabled the ability of the private sector to produce investment wealth and to invest. The socialist agenda is focused only on Consumption. So, it will increase the borrowing/debt…to borrow money to give to non-producers for consumption purposes. It will increase regulations to smother private businesses – and Obama wants to tax these small businesses as well (he considers 200,000 income to be a ‘millionaire’). This means – no investment money. This means..no production of wealth. And this means..borrow, borrow, borrow.
That’s the Obama economy.
I don’t know if things have changed in canada for instance:
“The highest marginal tax rate in Canada for 2003 is 48.64%”
In any case provincial income tax rates can be much higher than american states.
Nova scotia for instance: 21% on the amount over $150,000
add that to 29% and you get a 40% tax rate
capital gains are taxed at 1/2 the regular tax rate.
I don’t know if that means 20% in this case or if it’s federal only.
I suspect many things are different about Canada, and their conservative government may have done like the american one and gone too far.
In canada, for instance, there is more taxation on the poor, but also a much much much better safety net.
Think about this. If you’re out on the street in the southern US you’ll get a little sun burned.
If you’re out on the street in the dead of winter in Regina Saskatchewan Canada, you will be dead in a few hours. And that’s the SOUTHERN part of Canada.
Also they have no wars to pay for and almost no army.
No, Josh, the taxation is not double-dipping. The estimation of provincial taxes (and many states have state taxes as well) is less the amount you are paying in federal tax.
As for your tale of dying in winter in Regina – well, you can die in the heat of the desert in the southern USA, or equally, die in the winter in the northern states. That’s a red herring argument.
And the Canadian army and navy are not insignificant but were key partners in Afghanistan (never mind in the world wars). Again, that’s not relevant.
What is relevant is that the US taxation rate is extremely high and is preventing private business from keeping income for investment purposes. That’s what has to be addressed.
As for your tale of dying in winter in Regina – well, you can die in the heat of the desert in the southern USA, or equally, die in the winter in the northern states. That’s a red herring argument.
You utterly missed the thread of what I was saying.
I was saying that there is a very very good reason that Canadians demand a social safety net that is comprehensive and not obscure and hard to use utterly unlike the American one hodge podge.
Canadians get a lot more services than Americans do.
I know, I grew up in Canada, and my step mother was a doctor there (now working in the US).
What is relevant is that the US taxation rate is extremely high and is preventing private business from keeping income for investment purposes. That’s what has to be addressed.
The business tax rate may be a bit high, but the personal one isn’t ..
The problem with Greece is that individual Greeks avoid paying taxes…
The problem with the American system is Large American BUSINESSES don’t pay taxes. I think last year Google paid 2%. The loop holes are beyond all belief..
So we have a high business tax rate that no one pays..
I guess that means that it strangles small businesses who can’t afford to repatriate their earnings to Scotland. And the mass of money made in the US is untaxed.
The estimation of provincial taxes (and many states have state taxes as well) is less the amount you are paying in federal tax.
The highest marginal tax rate in AZ is 4.5%
The highest marginal tax rate in CO is 4.6%
OHIO 6%
PA 3%
Wist. 7.7%
The highest in Nova Scotia is 21%
Sask 15%
BC 14.7%
PEI 16.7%
etc
2011 federal spending – 3.8T
2011 SS spending – .75T
2011 Medicare spending – .5T
2011 military spending – .95T
2011 all other fed spending – 1.6T
2011 GDP – about 15T
increase in federal spending since FY2008 – .9T
Now you have the facts.
For argument sake, assume all state and local spending is necessary (police, fire, roads, etc.). Also assume SS, Medicare, military is necessary (they aren’t)…you still have an 11% burden on society (1.6 / 15), most of which is for junk, and much of which is toxic to the health of the country.
The new libwit 200-decibel meme is that our taxes are the lowest of the last 50 years. It’s a lie. Current tax receipts are historically low because we are in a depression and Obama has thrown 10% of the country out of work. But rest assured, those taxes are still accrueing, we will simply have to pay them in the future.
Forget the garblygook of tax rates or Canada this, corporate that, Lichestein this, deductions that….the federal SPENDING burden in 2011 is 3.8 / 15 = 25% across the board (and even that doestn’t include future debt service). Now, since somewhere between 43% and 52% of potential taxpayers do not pay income taxes or get CREDITS back, obviously the amount payed by everybody else for federal taxes alone is greater than 25%.
It is well known that federal spending has been very close to 19% for DECADES.
This criminal administration has increased federal spending burden by more than 30% (25% / 19% = 1.32), and at some point, that has to translate directly into taxes.
They are suffocating the country. Deliberately.
Exactly right, proreason.
This ‘josh scholar’s’ comments are shallow. The fact that it’s cold in Regina in the winter (as it is in all the US northern states)..isn’t any reason why Canadians ‘demand a social security net’. And, there’s absolutely no evidence that they ever demanded such a governmental style.
Canadians get more services? Such as?
And if they get more services, josh, then why are US taxes so much higher? Why is the US debt, per capital and in ratio to the GDP, so much higher? Explain that.
I agree; Obama is suffocating the country deliberately. He is pathological and, as Cantor and others have noted, Obama ‘gets visibly agitated if you disagree with him’. That’s because Obama’s pathological need is to control others and reduce the freedom and power of others. Take away their money, smother their business enterprises, remove their freedoms…that’s Obama.
I found a precise table of the top marginal tax rate.
Since it was in bitmap form I’ve transcribed it, and rounded to the last digit.
I also made a spreadsheet from it, and calculated that the average marginal tax rate since the introduction of income tax to today is 60%
I marked all years with taxes as low as now with an asterix, and a note of how many years.
I had missed a dip in 1929, so it’s correct to say our taxes haven’t been this low since 1929 except for a very short 2 year dip in 1988-1989.
1913-1915 7% *first 2 years of the tax
1916 15% *
1917 67%
1918 77%
1919-1921 73%
1922-1923 56%
1924 46%
1925-1928 25% *3 years
1929 24% *
1930 25% *
1932-1935 63%
1936-1939 79%
1940-1941 81%
1942-1943 88%
1944-1945 94%
1946-1947 86%
1448-1949 82%
1950-1951 91%
1952-1953 92%
1954-1963 91%
1964 77%
1965-1967 70%
1968 75%
1969 77%
1970 72%
1971-1980 70%
1981 69%
1982-1986 50%
1987 39%
1988-1989 28% *2 year
1990-1992 31%
1993-2000 40%
2003-NOW 35%
Average (properly calculated so each span of n years is counted n times in the numerator and denominator):
60%
The top marginal rate and tax receipts do not correlate. Tax receipts have been very close to 19% of GDP for decades. The last 3 years are the major exception, because we are in the Obama Depression.
People who would pay in the top tiers have many ways to avoid taxes when too much is taken from them, and they do so…i.e., postpone taking capital gains, shift income offshore, do not take income at all, buy more bonds, bunch business expenses, invest in tax shelters, cheat with impunity, etc., etc. This isn’t an opinion, it’s a fact. It will always be that way.
But, when the top rates are lowered, they come out of the woodworks and begin paying taxes, because they know it is better to do so when the top rates are low, since they will go up next year or the year after.
So the only real impact of high brackets is to 1)cause wealthy people to withdraw from participating in the US economy, and 2) punish high earners (i.e., entrepreneurs and small business owners) who do not have the resources to do the hotfoot offshore routine. That translates into fewer jobs for normal people.
It isn’t hard to understand, for people who don’t have ideological blinders on.
Unfortunately these marginal tax rates mean very little by themselves and the point of the table is to say “look, our top marginal tax rates aren’t the worse in our history”. This is true enough but who cares about that debate.The question is when the marginal tax rates were applied what happened next?
For example, GDP growth during the years 1952 to 1960 was among the highest we have had since WWII, up to and including today.
The reason was simple enough. The first $400,000 dollars was taxes at 20%, and income above was taxed at 96%. Capital gains were lower than the 20%. The point you miss is no one paid the 96% and, of course, when the tax was created it was intended by the people creating it that no one would pay it.
And no one did. What happened was that high salaried people took their salary up to $400,000 and took the rest in investments in their companies and paid capital gains taxes on that portion. As a result capital formation soared and the economy soared with GDP growth often hitting 12%.
Conservatives have missed this point, and it is a shame. The Conservative thrust, except for their excellent work on marginal tax rate incentives on income earners not among the rich, is to find a comfortable tax rate for high earners. So while Reagan’s policies helped our economy enormously, saved it in fact, capital formation was still low.
The reason is easy to show. If you earn 2 million dollars, and a bank will give you 3%, but all your money is safe, and, you paid a comfortable income tax rate, how much will you risk putting it into an investment that gives you 12% and is taxed at only 15%? Well the answer is, yes, some. But enough?
Investments should be deductible from taxable income, earnings taxed at capital gains rates, and when principal is withdrawn either it to should be taxed at capital gains rates or you should be allowed to deduct a portion of the company’s expenses proportional to your investment to deduct from the now taxable principal amount of your investment. Of course, we should eliminate corporate taxation, or permit such an arrangement for start up companies.
I found a precise table of the top marginal tax rate.
Since it was in bitmap form I’ve transcribed it, and rounded to the last digit.
I also made a spreadsheet from it, and calculated that the average marginal tax rate since the introduction of income tax to today is 60%
I marked all years with taxes as low as now with an asterix, and a note of how many years.
I had missed a dip in 1929, so it’s correct to say our taxes haven’t been this low since 1929 except for a very short 2 year dip in 1988-1989.
1913-1915 7% *first 2 years of the tax
1916 15% *
1917 67%
1918 77%
1919-1921 73%
1922-1923 56%
1924 46%
1925-1928 25% *3 years
1929 24% *
1930 25% *
1932-1935 63%
1936-1939 79%
1940-1941 81%
1942-1943 88%
1944-1945 94%
1946-1947 86%
1448-1949 82%
1950-1951 91%
1952-1953 92%
1954-1963 91%
1964 77%
1965-1967 70%
1968 75%
1969 77%
1970 72%
1971-1980 70%
1981 69%
1982-1986 50%
1987 39%
1988-1989 28% *2 year
1990-1992 31%
1993-2000 40%
2003-NOW 35%
Average (properly calculated so each span of n years is counted n times in the numerator and denominator):
60%
Oops, sorry I didn’t mean to enter it with and without my name
Also, I didn’t realize that this comment box deletes tabs.
Here is the original table nicely tabulated http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213
So yes, I’ve shown that taxes on the very rich have been this low for 9 years
there was a two year stretch in 1988-1989 where they were this low on the very rich
after that it’s not till 1930 till they’re this low
Also from 1917-1924 taxes on the rich were high.
“So yes, I’ve shown that taxes on the very rich have been this low for 9 years”
Nope. you published a table of tax rates. High earners pay a higher % of US taxes taxes now than they ever have.
What has happened as 10 million people have fallen out of the work force is that former taxpayers now pay nothing or get credits. Others have had income hits that result in them paying less taxes. On the upper end of things, the truly riche (i.e., John Kerry, and anybody with enough assets to be able to afford full-time tax lawyers) have quit participating in the economy becuase there is no reward for the risk. What remains is people who are still making money but can’t escape the tax burden because they can’t afford tax lawyers. They don’t really pay more dollars than in 2008, but they are paying a higher % of the overall collections. But they also aren’t investing excess income in new businesses or the stock market because it is too dangerous. Therefore, captital gains are low and business formation is low.
You have a profound misunderstanding of capitalism, taxation, and the way the United States works. But at least you try to understand.
The Marxist in Chief doesn’t misunderstand. His actions are deliberately designed to prick the American bubble, just like him minions pricked the financial bubble in 2008.
I can’t reply directly to the misnamed “proreason” because his own reply is at the maximum indent the blog allows.
“So yes, I’ve shown that taxes on the very rich have been this low for 9 years”
Nope. you published a table of tax rates. High earners pay a higher % of US taxes taxes now than they ever have.
I’m sorry you can’t read.
I never ever ever referenced the % of the budget paid by high earners. I referenced % of their own income they pay.
I understand that the GOP has come up with your talking point in order to confuse people.
What a shame.
What a damn shame that I can’t have an honest discussion with you, but that’s because of who you. In the final judgement why would I want to have a discussion with a dishonest propagandist like you?
That I debunk what you say is the best I can do.
Your table is pure bullshit.
What happens is that rich people have the ability to declare or not declare income, and they don’t declare income when the rates are high.
There are many examples, but here are a few:
- Sell stocks or not. When you sell that’s when the income is declare. If the tax rate is high, they hold stocks.
- Same for selling a business (or income from a business)
- If they want to take income, they can sell an unappreciated asset. No income
- They can sell assets offshore.
- They can pay themselves or their relatives salaries or not
- They can participate in tax deferred investments or not
- They can take income out of a business in the form of an expense. i.e., a company makes the New York penthouse available to the owner. It’s an epense (i.e., reduces the company’s tax).
- etc. There are literally thousands of things like these, most of which we will never hear about
The numbers are bogus anyway. It’s laughable to think any rich person has EVER paid 70% of their “income”, no matter the even more laughable %’s in your table. They might have paid 70% of the “declared income” which would be 5% of their income.
The only thing your table demonstrates is your gullability.
You are very very naive, if not outright stupid. Or in other words, you are liberal and live in the liberal fairy-tale world of invented truths.
The numbers are bogus anyway. It’s laughable to think any rich person has EVER paid 70% of their “income”, no matter the even more laughable %’s in your table. They might have paid 70% of the “declared income” which would be 5% of their income.
So, when your first deliberately confusing fallacy is debunked you resort to this confusing fallacy which can be summarized as:
The tax rate doesn’t matter at all because rich people have found loopholes and don’t pay any significant amount taxes on their income – therefore the rich are overtaxed and we should keep their rates at 1/2 the traditional rate.
The mind boggles.
What a fool
The pitiful fool doesn’t understand the difference between the top marginal rate and the taxes paid.
I thought everyone who ever paid any taxes understood that.
Oh wait….that may be the problem…this fool has probably never paid any taxes. After all, he’s a liberal.
Re: “Is there a theoretical limit to our national borrowing?”
Recently, Comrade Putin and others amplified their claims, or accusations, that the U.S. draws a parasitic existence at the expense of the rest of the world, not only because of the size of its debts, but especially because of the privileged position of the U.S dollar.
I have a feeling that this tune is about to become the new paradigm of popular anti-Americanism, unifying again the leaderships of Russia and China, and other joiners, under easy to understand slogans, as the old anti-capitalism and anti-imperialism themes of the “progressives” ceased to apply easily.
Thanks to La Raza; Savage; Globalist—all the same commenter for trying to wake up the suicidal whites of America. Doesn’t look like it worked though.
Most are still in denial as to what is happening to our country.
Still, I for one appreciate your efforts.
Here’s an interesting immigrant anecdote but true. I am handling an immigrant’s divorce in New York, see. He drives a limousine on radio call in Manhattan for a company, paid on a 1099, and hustles his own rides for cash, not to mention tips. He did better before the Obama Economy but he still does alright, driving six days a week, though he needs and cannot afford a new limo which he owns himself. His Tax return says he makes $29,000 a year but he confides that with the cash he certainly makes more, maybe $50,000. His immigrant accountant prepares and files his tax return. In 2010 his 1099′s show he had not taxes withheld. He paid no taxes. He kept his whole paycheck. And the cash was all his too. He was credited with paying $9000 in taxes though called “Make Work Pay Credit,” “Child Care Credit” and another credit he got which I never saw on any white tax return. Because of his credits he claimed and received a $9000 “refund” after paying nothing in taxes, kicking up his income, with one child but two apartments with his divorce, to $60,000 not counting what his wife made. This is wealth distribution in action, though who is paying the taxes? When I inquired of my client how he could justify this, he just said “Well, that’s the system,” parroting what his accountant told him. Try to figure out where this “system” ends.
I don’t believe his 9K credit claim but he probably got something back.
The even more interesting point is the description of his personal underground economy.
Have you ever wondered why tax “reform” (i.e., making honest Americans pay more taxes), NEVER deals with the underground economy. WSJ guessed that it was about $1 trillion in 2005. With the Obama Depression, it could be 10% or more of the economy today. Since all of that money is incremental income, if the IRS chased that instead of people who already pay taxes, the return could be astronomical.
But it’s a rhetorical question of course. It’s all income for Obama voters.
We are not talking about reducing the debt, because we CAN’T reduce the debt! To reduce the debt would be to contract the money supply. It’s that simple. We have a fiat money system that is not backed by ANYTHING real AT ALL, but it’s even more than that: Our money is derived FROM DEBT. That’s right. EVERY dollar, whether in your wallet or in your checking account, is originated against a loan somewhere–a loan that is counted as an asset, because of someone’s promise to pay. To pay back the debt eliminates money from the money supply. If we paid back all debts, there would LITERALLY be NO MONEY left in circulation.
This is only PARTLY why our fiat money system is wrong and going to crash some day. The longer we put that off and the more we raise our “debt ceiling” to put it off, the harder that crash will be. The ONLY fair money system is one that is backed 100% by a precious metal standard.
My comment is a question and an exercise in argument: What if Liberals, even the controllers as it were, are only driven by a vision (that we typically call in the end communism), and earnestly do not want the power of the state (as is typically accused) to be concentrated among an elite few? What if they are genuine and earnest about this vision? What then?
It seems to me that when it comes to ideology it is necessary to accept the tenets of the ideology at its word, because we expect that for our own ideology. Also, note that it is not air-tight logic to simply resort to saying that communism always fails for the reason that people are inherently corrupt, for in this do we not implicate ourselves and our own ideology? What I’m saying is that that friendly meritorious communistic utopic vision is something, it seems, the world has always been trying to cozy up to – trying to make it work, and the people who strive towards it (liberals, nwo’s, environmentalists, etc) simply believe in that vision.
As for myself, I am a values voter. I get behind conservatives on moral grounds – primarily on abortion, protection of the nuclear family, traditional marriage, patriotism, etc. I say, if liberals were to adhere to actual Christian morality I would be hardpressed to find a reason to challenge their “vision”, or at least the tenet of collective property.
Furthermore, it seems to me, that the number of people in the world is a unfixed variable, and it certainly changes the role of Government as it increases. I’m not saying that the New World Order is a good thing, but simply that that is the way it is going.
What then? We defeat them, regardless of their motives.
Why? Because the conditions of communism cannot possibly even begin to exist without continuous coercion of human behavior. A centrally planned and managed economy means, quite simply, a centrally planned and managed population. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need? Who gets to decide what the definitions of ability and need are, respectively? Already coercion is introduced in exploring the first tenet of communism. So, no, I am not willing to forgive its advocates as starry-eyed idealists because communism, and more generally all utopianist ideologies, results in subjugation of the individual — ostensibly as a necessity in pursuit of the utopia. There is ample evidence of that just from recent modern history, so anyone who claims only noble intent in their advocacy of it must be either stupid or intellectually dishonest.
Conversely, capitalism works because there is a certain unexpressed “noble cynicism” to it. Rather than postulating Man as a perfectible being as do the utopianists, it accepts as a given that among some men such things as crass greed and gluttony will exist. But for the majority, there is only a desire to improve ones own lot. In either case the natural adversarial proposition between buyer and seller, in an environment of still other buyers and sellers, means each party will attempt to improve his own lot to the greatest extent possible. There is a predictability to it, and it requires a minimum of state intervention. Capitalism is not perfect, but that is its beauty in a way, to the extent that it converts human foibles and shortcomings into manageable, satiable, and predictable things, things that can be accounted for and accommodated. Its lack of pretense toward some forever just-within-reach utopian perfection is a major check against tendencies to control the lives of other people.
Of course the New World Order is a terrible thing, and of course that’s where we’re headed. Anyone who thinks the New World Order (or whatever they want to call it) is a good thing is either evil and complicit or doesn’t know what they’re talking about.
Let me tell you what the New World Order is: It’s a conspiracy to consolidate all three major power bases into one global organization: political, economic and religious. What they seek, and will for a brief time attain, is the absolute power of death over the entire world, such that not only will they be able to execute dissenters, but they will also be able to cut them off from the economy completely, such that no one will be able to buy or sell without positively assenting to the regime. On the religious front, the head of this world government will be worshiped as a god, and part and parcel with assenting to the regime will be worshiping the leader as a god. They will use counterfeit miracles to deceive the masses and encourage the worship of the leader. Stalin and Mao would envy such control. The regime will only last a few short years, but they will be the most terrible years in world history, making WWII seem like a playground skirmish in comparison. Ultimately, the New World Order is openly at war with God, and God Himself will destroy it.
tru dat
Four years ago, I wrote words by the thousands, trying to explain that Obama, if elected, would be out to destroy America; that every seemingly idiotic, incompetent mistake he would make wouldn’t be a mistake at all, but the carrying out of a detailed plan to kill this country. Not even Rush has caught on.
Obama is like a football coach who roots for the other team; who runs plays that insure his team loses. Guys like Hannity and O’Reilly still say they’re frustrated by O’s incompetence and inexperience; his community organizer mentality. Are they that naive?
Every move Obama makes is calculated to kill this country. How much longer do I have to keep saying it before it makes a dent in thick conservative skulls? There’s a mole in the White House who’s trying to tear down the United States from within. Is that really so hard to understand?
Victor Hanson, when will you and otherwise perceptive conservative writers grasp what you all have done to polarize America and create a perfect political environment for the far left to flourish? If you would stop trying to impose religion based dogmas, such as on abortion and gays, stop imposing social issues litmus tests on Republican candidates, and become responsibly conservative rather than socially conservative there would be a techtonic shift in American politics that would curb most of the lefto craziness. Church and state are separate under our constitution. Given the great variety of religions and the likelihood that around half of all Americans are essentially secular, interjecting religion based dogmas into politics can only alienate and polarize. Let’s focus on this country’s real problems, they are huge and threaten to destroy us, and stop inflating distracting pseudo problems which being based in religious differences can never be solved anyway. As to why the left does all these crazy things, it’s simple they want to grab power at any cost just like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro and Chavez—no mystery there. The mystery is why do you make it easy for them by making it difficult for secular moderates and conservatives when you offer only candidates who have passed your “social issues” litmus tests. Time for you to wake up and grow up.
Because a house divided against itself cannot stand. The issue of human life is so fundamental to liberty and morality that no neutrality is permissible, and anyone delusional enough to think that the right to life is unimportant is unfit for office. This nation can no more survive persisting in tolerating the massacre of millions of innocents than it could persist as half slave and half free.
What do you mean not even Rush has caught on? Rush has been calling out the deliberateness of this manchild President’s destruction for over 2 years now.
The real issue with the wealthy and taxes is that the code should be fair, simple, free from political manipulation and social engineering. VDH being the hard ass that he is should realize his objective forthrightness makes him a lightening rod for the entrenched therapeutic societies worst fears. Would have loved to join in the hike but instead took a solitary walk in California’s magnificent mountains in spirit with the the rest of you.
Missanthropy, I stand corrected. My apologies to Rush.
I love to hear John Kerry haranguing about higher taxes for the wealthy. He forgets that we got to see one of Mrs. Heinz’s tax returns during the 2004 campaign. As I recall, she paid something in the neighborhood of $350,000 on an income of over $5,000,000. Why? Because she was primarily and heavily invested in tax-free bonds. Nothing wrong with that, but it illustrates the kinds of things the wealthy do to preserve their wealth and keep it from the taxman’s hands.
My retort to well-heeled pontificators of higher taxes is to put their money where their mouth’s are. Taxing the income of the super wealthy, even at astronomical rates, will never garner the kind of tax revenue they imply and they know it. Shouldn’t we instead institute a tax on wealth or net worth? If they started paying a percentage of their wealth each year to the IRS, it would add up to some serious scratch. And just think of all the places it could be redistributed! Funny, but I never hear any of them propose a wealth tax. Wonder why.
Good points. Makes me wonder if they want to wipe out the upper middle-class for those are the ones who will hit the hardest and don’t have enough money to put into tax shelters.
This is off topic, but I would like to point out that the Barbarians are inside our gates and some of us are discouraged. I have never seen such insane chaos in every direction I look. It’s as though when Obama took the presidency and installed his brutes, the earth began to move under our feet and we have gone back to the times of the Visogoths or Gengis Khan and the mayhem they wrecked upon men.