Alec Baldwin apologizes for his Gay Slur tweeted in the Heat of the Moment

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 30th, 2013

Week in Review

Bill Clinton cheated on his wife.  With a few women.  Even with (at least) one in the White House.  But he is still loved by the left.  Especially the ladies.  Because Bill Clinton says he is a feminist.  Someone who doesn’t objectify or sexualize women.  Even though a string of infidelities would suggest otherwise.  But that doesn’t matter.  For if you act like a feminist most of the time you can get away with some very bad behavior some of the time.  That’s a big perk about being a liberal.  You can get away with a lot.  All you have to do is say you’re sorry (see Alec Baldwin apologizes to NY gay group for tweets by Associated Press posted 6/28/2013 on Yahoo! News).

Alec Baldwin has apologized to a New York City-based lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights group for a series of tweets that could be interpreted as homophobic.

Baldwin’s messages were directed at a newspaper reporter who accused his wife of tweeting during the funeral for the former star of “The Sopranos” James Gandolfini (gan-dahl-FEE’-nee). Baldwin says in a letter to GLAAD posted on its website Friday his tweets didn’t have anything to do with “issues of anyone’s sexual orientation.”

According to CBS News he called the reporter a “queen.”  In order to insult him.  For many men will insult another man by calling him a homosexual.  Because of all that testosterone coursing through their bodies.  Making some of these men wear their shirts open to show all that crispy chest hair.  And date women young enough to be their daughters.  Or even their granddaughters.  Because these manly men have so much heterosexual charms that they can get these young women.  While other men who aren’t as sexy as them walking on a European beach with their bellies hanging over their Speedo swimsuits might as well give it up and be a “queen.”  The ultimate insult a manly man with a young wife can hurl at another man.  For they are so hetero that they can get the young hottie as these ladies just can’t resist that crispy chest hair.  Or that glorious belly.  While these beautiful young women stay away from these other men as if they were “queens,” seeing them as so sexually unappealing that they can’t even imagine them pleasuring a woman.

So men hurl gay slurs at their friends.  For this is how men joke around with other men.  They insult each other.  And being called a “queen” impugns that they cannot satisfy a lady.  The greatest insult of all.  Throw in a few drinks and these can become fighting words.  For men are very sensitive about their bedroom skills.  And know that other men are, too.  So the gay slur is often the go to insult.

The men who use the gay slur may not be homophobic.  But they don’t want anything to do with that lifestyle.  As they are all about rocking their woman’s world in the bedroom.  And making sure that others know just how much of a swaggering stud they are.  Especially when their woman is much younger than they are.

Most times these gay slurs are harmless.  Because they aren’t directed at gay people.  And are not meant to attack gay people.  They’re used most times among friends.  And soon to be ex-friends.  But if someone on the right uses one they are accused of a hate crime.  While those on the left just have to say, “Sorry.”  And all is forgiven.

The left will attack anyone on the right for a momentary slip of the tongue.  Saying it is a sign of deeply held bigoted hateful views.  Even if it was something they said 20 years earlier.  But if a liberal has a momentary slip of the tongue it is NOT a sign of deeply held bigoted hateful views.  But it does make one wonder what a person really thinks when they go to a gay slur in the heat of the moment.  Not jokingly hurling the gay slur at a friend.  But at someone that fills them with a deep seething hatred.  Is he just going through the motions of being a good liberal?  Just so he can avoid being attacked for very bad behavior some of the time?  Who knows?  But one thing for sure if you don’t want to be held to a high standard every time you stick your foot in your mouth it is better to be a liberal.

It’s a pity that the left can’t be so forgiving to those on the right suffering from foot-in-mouth disease.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

FT149: “Poor people don’t hate rich people; they envy them and buy lotto tickets to become one of them.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 21st, 2012

Fundamental Truth

People don’t hate the Lifestyles of the Rich they just hate the Rich because they’re Living it Instead of Them

Overweight and less beautiful women hate beautiful women with toned, firm bodies.  Overweight and less handsome men hate more handsome and muscular men who get all the beautiful women with toned, firm bodies.  They may hate those who are more physically attractive than they are.  Until they start dieting and going to the gym to become one of them.  Once they are one of the beautiful people they no longer hate the people they once did.  In fact, they now enjoy being part of their world.  A world where their physical appearance gets them the attention they didn’t know when they were less attractive.  But for some dieting and working out is hard work.  Especially if they have to work harder than others who can eat and drink anything they want without putting on a pound.  So if they falter from their new healthy lifestyle and put that weight back on those old feelings of hatred will return.

People fear cancer.  They hate cancer.  And may adopt a healthier life style to avoid cancer.  By eating healthier.  And exercising.  They may quit smoking and cut buck on drinking.  And they may add certain foods to their diet they understand will help prevent cancer.  Even if some of these foods aren’t delicious.  After adopting a healthier lifestyle they don’t change their position on cancer.  They still hate it.  But staying on a healthy diet and making time to exercise is hard.  Because the delicious, less healthy foods are hard to give up.  And going to the movies is a lot more enjoyable than going to the gym.  Once their healthier lifestyle lapses their position on cancer does not change.  They still hate it.  As they always hated it.

There is a difference between hate and envy.  You may hate people you envy.  Because they are, or have, everything you want.  And you covet what they have.  But what you hate is that they are living the good life instead of you.  They don’t hate the good life.  Whereas you don’t envy what you truly hate.  No one has ever complained that someone else got cancer instead of them.  No one has ever complained about the unfairness of cancer that way.  Usually the complaint is more along the lines of ‘why me and not someone else’.  For the hate of cancer is a pure hate.  It is not relative.  It is absolute.  Whereas someone’s hate of the rich is relative.  It will disappear the moment a person comes into money.

People in the Public Sector exploit the Taxpayers to pay for their very Generous Pay and Benefit Packages

Kids may go on to college and take courses in the social sciences.  Where they learn about the unfairness of capitalism.  The evil of corporations.  How businesses exploit their employees.  How they put profits before people.  By the time they leave college the word ‘profit’ is a four-letter word to them.  And they believe we should shun anyone pursuing profits like those exploitive business owners.  Raising taxes on them is a good thing.  For by doing so we can help redistribute the wealth from those hoarding it to those who don’t have enough.  To produce a fair and egalitarian society.

They also learned how socialism is better.  That the Soviet Union only failed because of the Americans undermining a superior economic system.  They believe so strongly that they vote Democrat to try and do something about making America a fairer place to live.  They go on to get jobs in the public sector to do their part in making America fairer.  By redistributing wealth.  To help those who have little.  And they exploit the taxpayers.  Forcing them to pay for their very generous pay and benefit packages.  While those same taxpayers never live a life as fair or as equal as the public sector workers they support.

These public sector workers envy the life of the rich.  They don’t hate that life.  They just hate the people who are smarter and more talented than they are who were able to achieve that life.  It’s not fair that these people had talent.  And worked hard for success.  So it’s only fair to take their money away from them to make society fair.  And so they can enjoy a lifestyle that neither their talent nor their ability could ever provide.

Poor People voted overwhelmingly for President Obama to Punish the Rich for Winning Life’s Lottery

President Obama won reelection with a campaign of class war.  Getting the people to believe that the rich weren’t paying their fair share in federal income taxes.  Despite the top 10% of income earners paying 70% of all federal income taxes.  Early on Occupy Wall Street agitated the people against the 1%.  Which grew into a bitter character assassination of Mitt Romney.  Because he was rich.  People hated him for that.  Not for having money per se.  For the people wanted everything he had.  They just hated him because he had the talent to earn what they couldn’t.  For they lacked the talent to achieve the success of Mitt Romney.

President Obama enjoyed the support of rich Hollywood stars and musicians.  And the president enjoyed hobnobbing with them.  Even the suffering masses enjoyed seeing the president hobnob with their idols.  Even though they had wealth just like Mitt Romney.  But for some reason their inequality was okay.  And these superstars, incidentally, all went into their chosen field to become rich.  To live in mansions.  And to have more money than they could ever spend.  While the people castigated Mitt Romney for having money the people looked on in awe and reverence at the lifestyle of the rich and famous they so admired.  And all the rich and famous had to do to get this pass on having obscene wealth is to attack other people with wealth.  And publically support Democrats.  You do that and they will leave you alone.  No matter how much money you shelter in the Cayman Islands.

No one hates rich people.  They just envy their lifestyles.  And covet what they have.  They hate the fact that they weren’t born with the passion, drive, ability or talent to become rich.  And hate these people for being able to do what they cannot.  Become rich.  Though it doesn’t stop them from trying.  Especially poor people.  Who voted overwhelmingly for President Obama.  To punish the rich for winning life’s lottery.  While they themselves spend every last dollar they can buying lotto tickets.  For they may have voted for President Obama to punish the rich.   But that’s only because they envy the rich.  And want to become one of them.  Should they win the lotto their position on hating the rich will quickly change.  Perhaps going so far as to start voting Republican.  To save as much of their winnings from the taxman as possible.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FT148: “You only know what someone taught you.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 14th, 2012

Fundamental Truth

If we Grew up on a Deserted Island isolated from Hate we’d Probably Grow up Better Adjusted to live with One Another

No one is born a racist.  It’s something you have to learn.  Someone has to teach it to you.  If a parent is a racist chances are the child will be bombarded with racial slurs growing up.  And become a racist.  Just like his or her parent.  But if you raised a bunch of babies of different races together on a deserted island in isolation would any of them grow up to be a racist?   No.  For they wouldn’t even know what racism is.  Because the life they knew would be normal.  It would be normal for black, white, brown, red and yellow to live together.

Catholics and Protestants have spent a few centuries killing each other.  Ever since the Protestant Reformation in 1517.  People have been persecuting Jews since forever.  The Palestinians, Hezbollah and Hamas have been killing Israelis for decades.  Shiite and Sunni have also been killing each other for a very long time.  These people have hated each other so much that they just want to see the other dead.  Yet if you took a Catholic, a Protestant, a Jew, a Palestinian, a Shiite and a Sunni baby from their parents and raised them on a deserted island in isolation they wouldn’t grow up wanting to kill each other.  They wouldn’t even know they were supposed to hate each other.

Europe was just itching to go to war.  Nationalistic fervor was just bursting at the seams.  Germans, Austrians, Hungarians, French, Russians and British were ready and waiting.  Filled with nationalist pride.  Just jonesing to open a can of whup-ass on anyone that wasn’t from their own great nation.  Having learned nothing from the Crimean War.  Or the American Civil War.  Thinking they would march their magnificent armies onto the field of battle, fight a glorious battle and watch the enemy throw down their arms and run away.  Even though tactics hadn’t changed much from the Crimean War and the American Civil War.  Though the weapons were far more lethal.  Making World War I one of the bloodiest wars of all time.  But had you taken a German, an Austrian, a Hungarian, a French, a Russian and a British baby from their parents at the turn of the century and raised them on a deserted island in isolation they wouldn’t have grown up wanting to go to war with each other.  As they wouldn’t know that they were supposed to hate each other.

Of all the Things the State did Poorly perhaps the Worst was being Husband and Father

When our parents grew up they often went to bed without locking the doors to their houses.  Even during the days of Prohibition when armed gangs shot each other in the street with automatic weapons.  Today we have deadbolts and alarm systems.  And metal detectors at our schools.  For kids today are taking guns to school.  And they’re shooting people.  This didn’t happen during the days of Prohibition when gangs were armed with Thompson 45-caliber submachine guns.  Why?  Because during Prohibition there weren’t violent video games, graphic violence in movies & television and rap & hip-hop songs glorifying gun violence.  So even though we have less lethal weapons on the streets today we have more gun violence than before.  Because kids have been so desensitized to violence that killing people just isn’t a big deal to them.  Raise these kids on a deserted island away from this violence in our pop culture, though, and they’re not going to kill indiscriminately.  Instead they’ll stay innocent kids longer.

Add to this violence in our pop culture our secular progressive culture.  The Left’s quest to remove religion and God from as much of our lives as possible.  And their attacks on Christianity.  For imposing their moral code on people.  And opposing free love and abortion.  They have gone so far as to call for the removal of the Ten Commandments from our government buildings.  And our schools.  Because teaching kids things like ‘Thou shall not kill” is a bad thing.  Or any other morality lesson.  For who’s to say what is right and wrong?  Of course when we teach our kids growing up that there are no moral absolutes it sure weakens the argument for them not to do bad things.  It detaches them from society.  And makes them lack empathy for their fellow citizens.  Making it easier to hurt them.  If you pulled these kids out of our public schools and put them and their parents on a deserted island away from this secular progressive culture and filled them with the fear of God for misbehaving they probably could sleep at night with their doors unlocked.  For hurting one another would be the last thing on their minds.

When LBJ passed his Great Society legislation it included Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).  An unmitigated disaster for poor people.  For it let men father and abandon their children.  Leaving women to turn to the state to act as husband and father.  And of all the things the state did poorly perhaps the worst was being husband and father.  It just decimated poor families.  Single mothers filled housing projects.  Their children, with no male role model, turned to the street.  Got into a lot of trouble.  And into drugs.  Even taking that behavior into their schools.  Which is part of the reason why metal detectors are needed today at our schools.  Forcing organizations like Big Brothers Big Sisters of America to pick up the parenting slack.  Had these deadbeat dads lived on a deserted island untouched by AFDC there would have been less fathering and abandoning of children.  Like there was before AFDC.

Keynesian Policies have Historically Resulted in High Unemployment and Painful Recessions

After World War II the world went Keynesian.  Classical economics (that favored savings over consumption, low taxes, the gold standard, little government intrusion into the private sector and responsible fiscal policy as in DON’T spend so much) that made America a superpower went out the window.  In came the disaster we call Keynesian economics (that favored consumption over savings, deficit spending, printing lots of money, high taxes and a lot of government intervention into the private sector.  Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge in the Twenties were the last of the classical economists.  Their policies gave us great prosperity.  JFK adopted policies of the classical economics variety to pull America out of a recession in the Sixties.  Nixon, Ford and Carter were big Keynesians whose policies destroyed America.  Ronald Reagan rebuilt America in the Eighties by returning to policies of the classical economics variety.  As George W. Bush did to pull us out of the bad recession caused by Bill Clinton’s dot-com bubble bursting.

So the record shows the success of classical economics.  And the failure of Keynesian economics.  Yet about half the population voted for the Keynesian policies of President Obama in 2012.  Why?  Why did they vote for more of the failed policies of the past?  Because most Americans learn only of Keynesian economics in their economic courses.  While politicians, economists and the mainstream media endorse Keynesian policies as if they have a record of success.  They do this because Keynesian economics does something that classical economics doesn’t.  Empowers big government.  Sanctions class warfare.  Giving them the moral high ground when raising taxes.  And printing money.  Despite these actions causing the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression.

President Obama won reelection for one of two reasons.  Either people want more free stuff.  Or they don’t understand economics.  Or the consequences of handing out all that free stuff.  For if they understood economics they would not have voted for a Keynesian.  For Keynesian policies have historically resulted in high unemployment and painful recessions.  So even if you’re voting for the free stuff you’d vote for the classical economics candidate.  For without people working there is no income to tax to pay for all of that free stuff.  But few people understand economics.  Which is lucky for President Obama.  In fact, few people understand the disaster that has been the liberal agenda as the liberals control the public schools, our colleges, the mainstream media and the entertainment establishment.  So few are learning the long record of liberal failures.  Which helps liberals win elections.  For you only know what someone taught you.  And if the liars are in charge of teaching us the only things we will learn are their lies.  Unless, of course, we can find some deserted island to grow up on where their policies can’t reach us.  Then when we come back we can make the world a better place.  A place with sound economic policies.  With no racism, no religious intolerance, no blind nationalist fervor, no culture of gun violence and no epidemic of deadbeat dads.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FT143: “When liberals say ‘unite and work together’ they really mean ‘divide and conquer’.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 9th, 2012

Fundamental Truth

President Obama didn’t Moderate any of his Positions after the Punishing Losses of the 2010 Midterm Elections

During President Obama’s victory speech following the 2012 election he said there are no red states and no blue states.  Just the United States of America.  Which was a common theme during all his campaign stops.  He kept saying that together we can do these great things.  If we unite we can overcome any obstacles.  Yet he did anything but unite people during his campaign.  Instead he was a great wedge driver.  To drive people away from each other.  And into opposing camps.  To foment anger between these disparate groups.  And to peel these groups away from the Republicans.

We heard compromise talk like this following the 2008 election.  And what happened then?  There was no uniting or working together.  When it came to the stimulus bill the President and Nancy Pelosi shut the Republicans out.  When the Republicans offered suggestions President Obama brushed them aside.  Saying elections have consequences.  And that the Republicans could make all the suggestions they’d like but it wouldn’t matter.  Because he wasn’t listening.  Nancy Pelosi acknowledged that the Democrats wrote the stimulus bill in its entirety without any Republican input.  Why?  Because they won she smirked.  The Democrats weren’t interested in any bipartisan compromise then.  So it isn’t likely they are now.  Unless it’s the kind of bipartisan compromise they like.  The kind where the Democrats get what they want.  And the Republicans surrender unconditionally.

So there’s ancient history (2008-2010) and the words from the recent campaign that tell us not to hold our breath for all of that uniting and working together to materialize.  It just won’t happen.  For the president didn’t moderate any of his positions after the punishing Democrat losses of the 2010 midterm elections.  So why would he after a triumphant victory of the status quo in 2012?

Democrats warned America that if Mitt Romney became President he would take the Country back to the 1950s

The Democrats have no interest in bipartisan compromise.  Because to compromise you have to give up stuff you want.  And let others have a little of what they want.  But when you look at the negative campaign ads of the past election there can be no compromise.  For the Democrats did not battle the Republicans in the arena of ideas.  They demonized their opponents for thinking differently than they did.  Looking for issues of opportunity to seize.  Such as the war on women.

Catholicism does not permit birth control or abortion.  Extreme positions to some, perhaps.  But not to Catholics.  Who choose to be Catholics.  When Obamacare forced Catholics to provide free birth control and the abortion pill in their health care benefits they took offense.  As did the Republicans.  For the First Amendment states in part, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  And forcing Catholics to provide birth control and the abortion pill clearly prohibited the free exercise thereof.  So the Catholics, and the Republicans, protested this violation of a First Amendment right.  And the Democrats responded to this protest by calling it a war on women.  Where Republicans wanted to take birth control and access to abortion away from women.  As well as wanting women to die from cancer.

The Democrats helped organize the Occupy Wall Street movement to stoke up hatred for rich people.  In anticipation for the Republican nominee they were already planning to campaign against.  Mitt Romney.  A rich person.  But not just any rich person.  But an old rich white man.  Who worked in high finance.  Which, of course, tied him to Wall Street.  A man disconnected from the common people.  And from contemporary times.  The Democrats warned America that if Mitt Romney became president he would take the country back to the 1950s.  Take away women’s birth control and access to abortion.  As well as happily letting them die from cancer.  In addition to cutting taxes for rich people.  While raising taxes on the poor and middle class.  When he wasn’t busy closing down factories and shipping jobs overseas.  And, of course, stacking the deck against blacks, Hispanics and anyone else that wasn’t as white as he.

Liberals must Divide and Conquer as their Records don’t allow them to run any other Campaign

You see, the Republicans are hateful people.  For example, they’re bigots and homophobes because they oppose gay marriage.  So it’s okay to hate Republicans.  Because they hate gay people.  While at the same time they hate women because they want all women to be barefoot and pregnant.  In a marriage.  So on the one hand Republicans are hateful people for trying to prevent gay people from marrying.  While on the other hand they’re hateful people for trying to encourage women to get married.  Making marriage a fascinating issue.  For if gay people want it marriage is a beautiful thing.  An expression of love between two people.  But for single women who want a career it’s nothing less than slavery.  Pure male subjugation of women.

Odd, isn’t it?  How Democrats can be on both sides of the same issue.  For they can both love and hate marriage.  And they can hate Republicans for both opposing and promoting marriage.  How can that be you ask?  Easy.  For marriage is not what’s important to Democrats.  What’s important to them is using marriage to demonize Republicans.  It’s about the hate.  And the opportunity to drive a wedge between people.  To drive people into opposing camps.  That have a common enemy.  Republicans.

Democrats don’t have a great success record for their policies.  They can’t hold up the Carter years as a success.  For they were horrible.  They like to point to the Clinton years as vindication for their policies.  But his economy was helped by Japan’s Lost Decade.  And an inflationary binge that caused the dot-com bubble.  As well as the run up to the subprime housing bubble.  Neither of which burst during his presidency.  Though he was largely responsible for them.  And the Democrats couldn’t point to anything in the Obama years as a success.  So they didn’t run on their record.  But attacked their opponent.  By demonizing Mitt Romney.  Getting one group after another to hate Mitt Romney and the Republicans.  And to vote against them.  Not for the Democrats’ successful policies.  For they had none.  So when liberals say ‘unite and work together’ they really mean ‘divide and conquer’ as they have always done.  As they always must do.  For their records don’t allow them to run any other campaign.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Left Hate Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan because they Restored their Countries to Greatness

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 16th, 2012

Week in Review

The British Left hates Margaret Thatcher.  So much that they are already selling t-shirts celebrating her death.  Though she is still alive.  For she is the Ronald Reagan of Great Britain.  A singularly remarkable person who came along just in time to save a nation in decline.  And restore it to greatness (see The Left hates Margaret Thatcher because she reminds them they are wrong about everything by Daniel Hannan posted 9/12/2012 on the Daily Mail).

Now and again, we are reminded of the sheer nastiness of a certain kind of Leftie. Not, let me stress, all Lefties: I have Labour friends who are motivated by a more or less uncomplicated desire to help the disadvantaged.

But they march alongside some committed haters who define their politics not by what they like, but by what they loathe. They also define opponents not as human beings with whom they disagree, but as legitimate targets.

A lack of empathy, bordering almost on sociopathy sits behind their talk of caring and sharing.

Not much different from the American Left.  Who hate their political opponents.  And attack them personally.  With no understanding of the underlying policy in question.  For they never say they prefer tax, borrow and print (money) Keynesian economics over a more Austrian approach of sound money and low taxation.  The kind of policies that have made great economies great.  Instead they say their opponents hate women, hate poor people, hate children, hate seniors, etc.  And yet they are the tolerant people.  Who tolerate everyone that agrees with them.  And hates all those who disagree with them.  Making these tolerant some of the most intolerant of people.  Which is why they hate Ronald Reagan in America.  And they hate Margaret Thatcher in Britain.  Even though they both returned their countries to prosperity after a decade of decline and despair.

I am just old enough to remember the end of the Seventies: power cuts, three-day weeks, constant strikes, price and income controls, inflation.

Worst of all, I remember the sense of despair, the conviction that Britain was finished.

I don’t believe you can grasp Margaret Thatcher’s achievement without the context of what she displaced.

Throughout the Sixties and Seventies, this country had been outperformed by every European economy. ‘Britain is a tragedy — it has sunk to borrowing, begging, stealing until North Sea oil comes in,’ said Henry Kissinger.

The Wall Street Journal in 1975 was blunter: ‘Goodbye, Great Britain: it was nice knowing you.’

Margaret Thatcher’s victory in 1979 was like a thaw after the cruellest of winters. Inflation fell, strikes stopped, the latent enterprise of a free people was awakened.

Having lagged behind for a generation, we outgrew every European country in the Eighties except Spain (which was bouncing back from an even lower place). As revenues flowed in, taxes were cut and debt was repaid, while public spending — contrary to almost universal belief — rose.

In America we were mired in stagflation and a record high misery index of the Carter Seventies.  Much of which he inherited from LBJ’s Great Society and Richard Milhous Nixon’s abandoning of the quasi gold standard.  The Nixon Shock.  Because he refused to cut Great Society spending.  As did Gerald Ford.  As did Jimmy Carter.  No one wanted to cut back spending and continued to print money to pay for the Great Society spending causing the record high inflation during the Seventies.  Which added to the high unemployment that gave Jimmy Carter that horrible misery index.  And malaise.  Like Daniel Hannan I’m just old enough to remember how bad it was in the Seventies.  And how great Ronald Reagan’s Morning in America was.  We were better off after 4 years of Ronald Reagan than we were after 4 years of Jimmy Carter.  And the numbers proved it.  Lower tax rates increased tax revenue.  Allowing even greater government spending.  Which was the source of the Reagan deficits.  Not the tax cuts.

In the Falklands, Margaret Thatcher showed the world that a great country doesn’t retreat forever.

And by ending the wretched policy of one-sided detente that had allowed the Soviets to march into Europe, Korea and Afghanistan, she set in train the events that would free hundreds of millions of people from what, in crude mathematical terms, must be reckoned the most murderous ideology humanity has known.

Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan stood together against communism.  While Jimmy Carter eroded America’s military power so much that the Soviets actually put together a nuclear first-strike doctrine.  For unlike the policy of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) of previous administrations the Soviets believed they could launch and win a nuclear war against Jimmy Carter.  Reagan and Thatcher rebuilt and deployed nuclear and regular military forces to reduce the threat of a Soviet first-strike.  And made the enemies of Great Britain and the United States fear and respect our military might.  It was peace through strength.  For all free and democratic countries.  Not the detente of Jimmy Carter that encouraged the Soviets to add a nuclear first-strike doctrine.  The beginning of the end of the Cold War began under Thatcher’s and Reagan’s watch.

Why, then, do Lefties loathe her so much..?

No, what Lefties (with honourable exceptions) find hard to forgive is the lady’s very success: the fact that she rescued a country that they had dishonoured and impoverished; that she inherited a Britain that was sclerotic, indebted and declining and left it proud, wealthy and free; that she never lost an election to them.

Their rage, in truth, can never be assuaged, for she reminds them of their own failure.

The same reasons the American Left hates Ronald Reagan.  Because he, too, returned his country to greatness.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FT112: “You can have liberty or equality but you can’t have both.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 6th, 2012

Fundamental Truth

Higher Taxes were Okay when it was Someone Else’s Money but they’re Just Plain Unfair when it’s your Money

People throw around the word ‘equality’ a lot.  Especially politicians.  To make life fair.  More egalitarian.  Where they make the rich pay their fair share.  For they won’t just voluntarily pay their fair share, will they?  Sounds fair, yes?  And just.  For no one should be ‘too rich’ when others have ‘so little’.  Of course the only people who agree with this are the ones who have ‘so little’.  Those who are ‘too rich’ are not all that supportive of using their wealth to help others be more equal.  Especially when the scale that measures what is ‘too rich’ is a sliding scale.  For someone believes a person is ‘too rich’ when they have more than he or she does.  And that holds true even if they win the lotto.

It’s open season on rich people.  Everyone attacks them.  For they are easy prey.  There are few of them.  So angering them won’t have a huge impact at the polls.  Which is why politicians whip up a fury of hate against them.  Which the people who have ‘so little’ are eager to join them in that hate.  Because they hate rich people.  They hate them a lot.  And there just isn’t anything good they can say about them.  They hate them so much that they buy lotto tickets in hopes of becoming rich people themselves.  Because that’s the only thing that can assuage their hate of rich people.  Becoming rich people.

People who have ‘so little’ will define anyone as having ‘too much’ if they have more than they do.  But if they win the lotto it’s a different story.  For rich people like them don’t have ‘too much’ then.  In fact they become downright greedy.  And become everything they once hated.  They don’t want to share their winnings.  (Even some in lotto groups who bought a winning ticket will try to keep that ticket for themselves, saying they bought THAT ticket with his or her own money and not the group’s money and therefore they don’t have to share THOSE winnings.)  And they sure don’t want to pay half of their winnings in taxes.  Higher taxes were okay when it was someone else’s money.  But they’re just plain unfair when it’s your money.  It’s just a fact of life.  People are greedy.  Even those with ‘so little’.

If there is No Incentive to Choose the Hard Jobs then Someone will have to Coerce People to ‘Choose’ Them

Consider this.  How hard would you work if you had to deposit your entire paycheck into a general fund?  Let’s call the fund the Equality Fund.  All workers everywhere on payday take their checks to the bank and deposit them into the Equality Fund.  And then they get their ‘equal share’ from that fund to live on.  So doctors and janitors earn different incomes.  But their distributions from the Equality Fund are the same.  NFL franchise players and workers in fast food earn different incomes.  But their distributions from the Equality Fund are the same.  Ditto for movie stars, rock stars, pop stars and lotto winners.  They all deposit their income into the General Fund.  And live on the same money as do hair stylists, Wal-Mart greeters, busboys and gardeners.  Even the people who don’t work.  Who love the Equality Fund.  Because with equality they don’t have to work.  Pretty sweet.  Don’t work.  And get paid the same as those who do work.  So they have no incentive ever to go to work.  And some of those who do work start asking themselves, “Why am I still working?” 

If there was an Equality Fund how hard would you work at your job?  Would you even work?  Would you choose a difficult career field that took a lot of costly education?  Would you work that hard to earn more money only to deposit those high earnings into the Equality Fund?  Instead of using those high earnings to buy a nice house?  In a nice neighborhood?  With nice schools for your kids?  Probably not.  Let’s say everyone is paid $50,000 from the Equality Fund.  Regardless of what you paid into it.  Either nothing.  Or millions of dollars.  Everyone lives on $50,000 per year.  Not too shabby.  Especially for low-income people or the unemployed.  They’re going to love the Equality Fund.  But those paying in millions will not be living in million dollar mansions.  Buying expensive cars.  Big boats.  Fly in their private jets.  Or even fly first-class.  No one will wear a Rolex watch.  Or other expensive jewelry.  Or high fashion.  No one will have these things.  Not when you’re raising a family on $50,000 per year.  Even if your work skills bring in the kind of high earnings that could afford them.  Because all of your pay will go into the Equality Fund.  Is that fair?  It’s equality.  But is it fair?

Let’s take this a little further.  Say everyone wises up and quits working.  Because they get the same amount to live on whether they work or not.  So why work?  Those who would like to tell the boss off and quit working are no doubt saying, “Sounds good to me.”  But this would cause a problem.  For what would you buy with your $50,000 annual allotment if no one worked?  For you need people to work if you want to buy a house.  A car.  A boat.  Fly.  Wear a watch.  Jewelry.  Clothing.  Sure, some will say we can just buy old homes.  And buy imported cars, boats, planes, watches, jewelry and clothing.   Sure, you could.  But you can’t import everything.  You can’t import road maintenance.  You can’t import port facilities and railroad infrastructure.  Or the people to operate them.  You can’t import restaurants complete with chefs, servers and busboys.  You can’t import emergency trauma care.  Maternity care.  Cardiac care.  A college education.  You just can’t import everything.  Someone has to work these jobs.  Even though they won’t get paid any more for working than they would for sitting at home collecting their allotment from the Equality Fund.  And when no one chooses to work at the jobs we can’t replace with imports someone will have to ‘help’ them change their mind.  To make them choose to work.  Even if it’s against their will. 

This is the problem with equality.  If we pay everyone equally no one will choose the hard jobs.  They’ll choose the easy jobs.  Worse, if we pay them equally whether they work or not they’ll simply choose not to work.  And if there is no incentive to choose the hard jobs then someone will have to coerce people to ‘choose’ them.

You can have Liberty or Equality but You can’t have Both

To choose your career you need liberty.  To choose to go to school to learn a high-paying skill you need liberty.  To work in a high-paying job you need liberty.  To keep your high-pay earnings you need liberty.  To work hard and to advance yourself to reach your personal goals you need liberty.  To play in the NFL you need liberty.  To be a movie star or rock star or pop star you need liberty.  To play the lotto and keep your winnings you need liberty.  To do all of these things you need liberty.  And one other thing that makes all of these things possible.  Inequality.

People working in fast food can’t earn the same as neurosurgeons.  Because if they paid their workers that much the cost of fast food would be prohibitive.  And no one would be neurosurgeons because it’s a lot less stressful working in fast food.  It doesn’t take years of training.  Or expensive malpractice insurance.  You don’t have to live with accidents that permanently disable or kill people.  Or deal with their aggrieved family members.  So that’s why we pay neurosurgeons so much.  It’s a very difficult profession that few choose.  Because so few choose this profession those that do are very valuable resources.  Demanding high pay.  And because they demand such high salaries it attracts the few who are willing to deal with all the things that come with being a neurosurgeon.  The high pay helps people choose this valued career despite the high personal costs.  So inequality is a good thing.  It provides incentive to choose the hard jobs.  Which is a good thing.  For who wants a low-paid person forced to be a neurosurgeon operating on his or her brain?

Everyone who has ever bought a lotto ticket agrees that inequality is a good thing.  They wouldn’t buy a ticket otherwise.  Because they buy those tickets to become rich.  To have more than other people.  That is, to be unequal.  Because everyone is greedy.  Just like football players, movie stars, rock stars, pop stars and, of course, lotto winners.  And not a one of them is going to work hard to develop their unique earning potential just to put the fruits of their labor into the Equality Fund.  They may talk the talk.  Support Democrats.  But they do that just so the people who have ‘so little’ leave them alone.  For they all still live in their million dollar mansions.  Because they like being unequal.  The more unequal the better.  They adore their pampered lives.  And when it comes to choosing liberty or equality they choose liberty.  As their comfortable lives clearly show.  For you can have liberty.  Or you can have equality.  But you can’t have both.  And that’s okay with them.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Occupy Wall Street Protesters don’t want Fairness, They want Privilege

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 9th, 2011

People who hate Capitalism hate America

Those on the Left keep trying to paint these Wall Street protesters as the Left’s version of the Tea Party.  Only better because they are standing up to corporate greed.  But when you step back and look at the broader picture you see some interesting things.  For one, our enemies abroad hate the Tea Party.  And love these Wall Street protestors (see Iran calls Wall Street protests ‘American Spring’ posted 10/9/2011 on The Associated Press).

An Iranian military commander said Sunday that the protests spreading from New York’s Wall Street to other U.S. cities are the beginning of an “American Spring,” likening them to the uprisings that toppled Arab autocrats in the Middle East.

Gen. Masoud Jazayeri of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard said the protests against corporate greed and the gap between rich and poor are a revolution in the making that will topple what he called the Western capitalist system.

So the Occupy Wall Street people have the support of Nancy Pelosi, Hugo Chavez and this guy.  This Iranian general.  Who hates America.  And would love nothing better than to see its collapse.  There’s a lesson here.  People who hate capitalism hate America.

What strange bedfellows.  Pelosi.  Chavez.  And this Iranian general.

Class Warfare Works because Gullible People are Fed with Misinformation to Produce a Withering, Festering Hate

But they don’t see that.  These Occupy Wall Street people.  All they keep hearing is how the rich are screwing them.  And business owners are getting rich by underpaying them.  Because many of them think gross sales are also net profits.  They’re not.  And have no idea of what it costs to run a business (see Small Business, Occupy Wall Street Is Aimed at You! by T. Scott Gross posted 10/9/2011 on Forbes).

Small business owners, this protest is about money—yours. And if you want to bring a semblance of sanity to the discussion, you had better start showing the money…

So I say you had better show them the money. Gather your employees. Take a handful of coins that add up to a dollar. Swipe away your cost of goods. Take out payroll and then payroll taxes. Follow with utilities, cost of capital, training, advertising, maintenance, insurance, and the rest until you have accounted for all the overhead, leaving those few lonesome pennies of profit that you have risked everything to make.

Been there.  Done that.  The problem is they won’t believe you.  Because they’ve been so brainwashed to believe you are lying when it comes to the money.  Say all you want but someone is telling them, “Sure, they say that, but look at the car your boss drives.  The house your boss lives in.  Are they better than yours?  You bet they are.  And you know why?  Because they’re screwing you.  That’s why.”

This is why class warfare works so well.  You have people who don’t know any better.  Being fed with misinformation to produce a withering, festering hate.  Which is how people like Nancy Pelosi, Hugo Chavez and this Iranian general rise to power.  By exploiting the gullible masses.

The Obama Administration wants us to Hate People Making $250,000 or More

This kind of hate makes it easy to tax the rich.  Which is a very popular sentiment these days.  Because everyone hates the rich.  Especially those who don’t make the rich cut (see Democrats aim to tax the rich — but who are they? by Kathleen Hennessey posted 10/8/2011 on the Los Angeles Times).

President Obama and Democrats in Congress have aligned on a populist, “tax the rich” strategy for the 2012 campaign. Now they have to figure out exactly who that is…

Obama and his fellow Democrats for years have described the wealthy as couples making more than $250,000 and individuals making more than $200,000 — 3% of U.S. households. By shifting away from that number in hopes of benefiting from the sound-bite punch of a millionaires tax, the administration may find it difficult to return to casting the broader net…

Obama’s threshold was based on broad principles, including the desire to leave the middle class untouched by higher taxes while collecting “enough” tax revenue, Bernstein said, although even he quibbles with the president’s cutoff and suggests that a broader tax increase may be needed in the future.

Going in the other direction — aiming for incomes of $1-million-plus — would yield far too little revenue to fund “a recognizable government,” Bernstein said. While the Democrats’ surtax proposal may make sense to pay for a jobs bill, “it’s actually quite important that $1 million does not become the new $250,000 when it comes to the permanent tax base,” he added.

Well, that complicates things.  Who’s rich?  People earning $1 million or more?  Or people making more $250,000 or more?  Who exactly are we to hate?

The Obama administration wants us to hate people making $250,000 or more.  Because there are a lot more of them than millionaires.  So that’s a lot more money they can spend.  But it’s also a lot of people to piss off by raising their taxes.  And with an election year coming up that’s the last thing those up for reelection in Congress want to do.

But if they only settle for $1 million now will that mean it will be harder to hate those making between $250,000 and $1 million later?  Oh me oh my.  Just who to hate?  As you can see this is quite the quandary for the hate monger.

Stimulus is Temporary whereas Tax Cuts and Deregulation are Forever

But there is a bigger issue at play.  You see, the problem with hating those earning between $250,000 and $1 million is that this income range includes our small business owners.  The job creators.  Who tend to not create jobs when things bother them.  Such as people waving their pitchforks at them crying, “Tax!  Tax!  Tax!” (see Poor Sales by Russ Roberts posted 10/9/2011 on Cafe Hayek).

Finally, I would note that while the survey that Invictus cites does indeed list “Poor Sales” as the single most important problem (25% in the September survey (scroll down to “Single Most Important Problem), taxes are listed as the single most important problem by 18% and government regulations and red tape is listed by 19%. So the two combine to 37%. They also happen to be two factors that government can actually control.

The Keynesians look at this and say we need more stimulus.   But if they’re saying this after that $800 billion stimulus in 2009 you can have but one conclusion.  Stimulus doesn’t work.  A big reason for this is that stimulus is temporary.  Like pain.  Whereas tax cuts and deregulation are like pride.  They’re forever.

Sales are complicated.  A lot of things influence people before they depart with their hard-earned money.  And there’s not a lot government can do about that.  But there’s a lot they can do about taxes and regulations.  And they do.  Unfortunately, they always choose to do the wrong thing.

The Occupy Wall Street People are Angry at Capitalism because they weren’t Born into Privilege

There are a few kinds of people in the world.  The informed.  Such as Tea Party People.  Who cite law and tradition in at their Tea Party events.  And the uninformed.  Such as the Occupy Wall Street People.  Who are an angry mob.  Angry at capitalism because they weren’t born into privilege.

And then you have people who love America.  And those who hate America.  Such as Iran.  And Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.  Enemies of freedom.  And democracy.  Who have come out to support the Wall Street protestors.  There’s another lesson here.   Actually, it’s the same lesson as before.  People who hate capitalism hate America.

Here’s a solution to solve their unhappiness.  Let’s ask these protesters which country is better than America.  Whatever nation that is we’ll generously pay for their one way airfare there.  Problem solved.  Everyone happy.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,