FT134: “There will always be poor and oppressed people because someone has to vote for liberal Democrats.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 7th, 2012

Fundamental Truth

Liberal Democrats would Not Like an America without Poor and Oppressed People

In the anti-nuclear power movie The China Syndrome Jack Lemmon’s character wanted to warn everyone about his dangerous nuclear power plant.  He was a control room operator at the plant.  During one event there was a vibration.  The reactor shut down (SCRAM) safely.  But Lemmon’s character did some investigating and found that some safety reports had been falsified.  And in his quest to publicize this fact people died.  So he did the only thing he could.  He locked himself inside the control room at the nuclear power plant.  Requested that the characters played by Michael Douglas and Jane Fonda come down to put him on the air live.  And threatened to create a nuclear catastrophe himself if that didn’t happen.  That’s right, as dangerous as that reactor was he did NOT shut it down.

Odd, really.  He threatened to cause what he was trying to prevent.  Why?  Well, consider what would have happened if he did everything he did with one change.  Instead of threatening his own nuclear catastrophe he shut down that reactor.  So it was safe and could not harm anyone.  If he did that what do you think would have happened?  No one would have brought that news crew (Douglas and Fonda) to the plant.  And plant security would have just broken into the control room and subdued Lemmon.  But because he left the reactor hot and dangerous they didn’t break in and subdue him.  And they brought in that news crew.  Because his threat of causing a nuclear catastrophe gave him power.  While a safe and shutdown reactor gave him no power.

So what do we learn from this?  Sometimes the thing you’re fighting against is the very thing that gives you power.  A purpose.  A reason for getting out of bed in the morning.  Something that gives you a job.  Something that pays the bills.  And it’s just not disgruntled nuclear power plant operators.  Imagine a world with no crime.  If there was no crime we wouldn’t need any police officers.  Something police officers wouldn’t like.  Just as firefighters wouldn’t like a world without fires or accidents.  Just as cardiologists would not like a world without heart disease.  Just as environmentalists would not like a world without global warming.  Just as advocates of affirmative action would not like a world without discrimination.  Just as liberal Democrats would not like an America without poor and oppressed people.

The Poor and Oppressed are a Favorite Constituency of the Federal Government

The more horrible the things people are fighting against the greater are the need for these people.  The Left makes use of this strategy all of the time.  Falling test scores means we need to spend more on education.  As in hiring more teachers.  And paying them more.  This works the other way, too.  When municipalities are running budget deficits because of costly public sector contracts calling for high pay and generous benefits they place a new millage on the ballot.  And warn the people that if they don’t vote ‘yes’ for these higher taxes they will have no choice but to increase the number of rapes, murders and assaults.  As well as increase the number of deaths from fires, heart attacks in the home and car accidents.  Because if the people vote ‘no’ they will lay off police officers and firefighters.  Instead of renegotiating those contracts that are causing their financial problems.  No.  It’s never cutting back on the things that are bankrupting their cities.  It’s always putting the fear of God into their electorate.  So the public sector workers can maintain their generous pay and benefits.

Of course some will say that our teachers, police officers and firefighters don’t get paid that much.  If that’s true then they belong to some real crappy unions.  Because you join a union to get better pay and better benefits.  And you pay union dues for the union’s help in getting better pay and better benefits.  Also, if we didn’t already pay them very well you would know what their pay and benefits were during these millage requests.  For it sure would help their argument for higher pay if most people made more than they did.  Because, let’s face it, we need good teachers, police officers and firefighters.  If we paid them less than most other people everyone would feel guilty and vote ‘yes’ without hesitation.  But during these millage requests they don’t make public their current pay and benefit schedule.  And it’s hard to find this information online.  Because that’s ‘personal’.  Even though we pay them with public money.  Which should tell you something.  They’re paid better than most people.  Because they’re asking for more without telling us how much they currently make.  For it is hard to get sympathy for your pay level when you make more than most other people.

It’s no secret that government workers get better pay and benefit packages than people in the private sector.  Especially in the federal government.  Where federal employment grows by leaps and bounds every year.  And they create ever new programs to fight against something.  So they can keep hiring more people into the federal bureaucracy.  To reward friends and cronies.  And to endear a growing federal government to ever more people.  So they will continuously help to support and promote that sprawling bureaucracy.  Through their votes.  And by making as many people as possible dependent on the government.  Making the poor and oppressed a favorite constituency of the federal government.  As it has been for a very long time.  Despite the numerous battles to end poverty and oppression.

The Liberal Democrat Answer to Poverty is Not a Job but a Government Entitlement

JFK was a tax-cutter.  Just like Ronald Reagan.  They both believed that you had to create a business-friendly environment to create jobs.  Because if a business did well it grew and hired more people.  That’s why both JFK and Ronald Reagan had strong economic growth and low unemployment during their presidencies.  And they each brought in a lot of tax revenue into Washington.  Even with their low tax rates.  So low tax rates are good.  They help businesses grow.  They help people get jobs.  They lower the price of consumer goods so people can buy more for less.  And they bring in more revenue to the government to help those who need help.  Of course liberal Democrats hate this.  Because if everyone is doing well there is no need for all their agencies and programs.  Or them.

Shortly after the assassination of JFK things changed.  LBJ became president.  Who was a big liberal Democrat.  Who declared unconditional war on poverty.  This was in 1964.  The plan was to explode the size of the federal government.  Which is what he did when he gave us the Great Society.  The war on poverty would become one of America’s longest war.  Longer than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Longer than the Vietnam War.  Even longer than the Cold War.  The war on poverty continues to this day.  Requiring ever more government agencies.  And programs.  Yet they’ve all failed to end poverty.  Proven by the fact that every generation of liberal Democrats running for office is an advocate for the poor and oppressed who have no voice but theirs.

The liberal Democrat answer to poverty is not a job but a government entitlement.  Because jobs lead to lower unemployment.  And less purpose for a liberal Democrat.  Liberals don’t want jobs and low unemployment.  They want high taxes and high unemployment.  So they can matter.  And make a difference.  So they can have a cushy job with high pay and generous benefits.  So they attack tax cuts.  They attack any lowering of regulatory costs.  And anything else that would help businesses create jobs.  Which would take the poor and oppressed away from them.  They don’t want people to be rugged and independent.  They want them needy and dependent.  And they want as many people as possible to be needy and dependent.  Even if it leads to a little rioting.  Especially if it leads to a little rioting.  For a little level of danger can be useful.  As it can be in a nuclear power plant in an anti-nuclear power movie.  Because it’s very hard to get taxpayers to vote for people that want to increase your taxes and make your lives more costly.  While some liberals genuinely care about making people’s lives better many more are like Jack Lemmon in The China Syndrome.  Who understand that they must maintain a certain level of poverty and oppression in the nation.  Or they will have no power.  As no one will vote for them.  Because if you’re in the business of ending poverty and oppression you need a certain level of poverty and oppression to fight against.  Always.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Tax and Spend and Raise Your Taxes: The Ultra-Left Liberal Agenda

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 7th, 2010

Fiscal Extortion Responsibility:  Approve Our Millage to Raise Your Taxes or Else

Whenever the government wants to raise your taxes, they use fear.  What does the typical family in suburbia hear?  “If the city doesn’t get this millage approved, the city will have no choice but to lay off police officers and fire fighters.”  It’s never, “If we don’t get this millage approved, the city will have to cut pay and benefits of our bloated and overpaid city bureaucracy.  Or lay off some of the deadwood.”  No.  It’s always the cops and the fire fighters.  Because it’s more scary.  Mothers worry about the safety of their children.  And will do anything for them.  Even pay more taxes.  If it was anyone else talking like this, we’d call it extortion.  But when our government shakes us down for protection money, they call it fiscal responsibility.

The federal government works much in the same way.  Of course, there are no federal police officers or fire fighters protecting our communities day in and day out.  So they go for the jugular.  That third rail.  Social Security.  When the White House and Capitol Hill were staring each other off into a government shutdown in the 1990s, what did Bill Clinton do?  He threatened Social Security (see GOP to Use Debt Cap to Push Spending Cuts by Damian Paletta posted on The Wall Street Journal).

Eventually, the debt ceiling was raised, but only after a brief government shutdown and warnings from the Clinton administration that the government might temporarily stop mailing Social Security checks.

One thing not on the table was lawmaker pay and benefits.  Little old ladies would lose their Social Security checks before they would ever let that happen.  Fast forward to today.  Federal deficits and the debt have never been higher.  In the discussion of spending cuts, that discussion included the other third rail of politics.  Lawmaker pay and benefits.  There’s talk now about cutting their pay.  Of course, that will never happen.  Even though they could afford it (see Boehner under fire: First cut should be lawmakers’ salaries by Jordy Yager posted on The Hill).

Boehner is slated to receive a $30,100 pay increase next year when he becomes Speaker of the House. His annual salary will be $223,500. The base pay for House and Senate lawmakers is $174,000, while majority and minority leaders each make $193,400 per year.

And this doesn’t include any of their benefits or graft.  How does this make you feel?  These are the people that are bankrupting our country.  Destroying our jobs with their anti-business policies.  And forcing us to get by on less.  While they live the good life.  Yes, let’s cut their pay.  If we slash it by $100,000, they’d still be making more than the majority of their constituents.  Something just wrong with that.  Our servants living better than us.

President Obama:  Typical Tax and Spend Liberal Who Hates Tax Cuts

With the loss of the House in the 2010 midterm elections, President Obama’s FDR/LBJ spending has hit a snag.  Nancy Pelosi is not there to rubberstamp his ultra-left liberal agenda.  In fact, the new House leadership is talking about repealing some of that ultra-left liberal legislation to reduce that projected annual deficit of $4,125 billion (see Barack Obama Outspends George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan Combined from this same website). 

Front and center in this debate are the George W. Bush tax cuts scheduled to expire at the end of this year.  And all of a sudden, President Obama is concerned about deficit spending (see Obama calls for compromise, won’t budge on tax cuts by Kevin Cullum posted on The Hill).

“At a time when we are going to ask folks across the board to make such difficult sacrifices, I don’t see how we can afford to borrow an additional $700 billion from other countries to make all the Bush tax cuts permanent, even for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans,” the president said. “We’d be digging ourselves into an even deeper fiscal hole and passing the burden on to our children.”

Oh, he’s concerned now.  He wasn’t with his bailouts to help fund union pensions.  Or the biggest explosion in federal spending ever.  The trillion dollar+ per annum Obamacare.  But he’s being a little devious here.  Earlier, he said that $700 billion cost of the Bush tax cuts was over ten years (see the above link to this same website).  That comes to $70 billion annually.  Compared that to his projected $4,125 billion annual deficit and he loses all credibility.  He doesn’t care about $4,125 billion in deficit spending but will put his foot down about a paltry annual $70 billion in tax savings.  Why?  He’s a tax and spend liberal.  Any spending (other than defense) is okay.  But any tax cut is simply irresponsible.

We Rejected Obama’s Ultra-Left Liberal Agenda on Tuesday

The message on Tuesday was that the people have rejected Obama’s ultra-left liberal agenda.  America is a center-right country.  That center-right is made up of conservatives, moderates and independents.  Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, et al, belong to that far left minority called liberal.  The clear message is that the 80% rejected the 20%.  Of course, Obama sees it differently. 

The president said that the “message was clear” from voters on Election Day, and that he was also “frustrated” by the sluggish pace of economic recovery. “You’re fed up with partisan politics and want results,” Obama said. “I do too.”

No, we’re not upset that Democrats and Republicans weren’t working together.  We were upset that the liberal Democrats used their majority in Congress to govern against the will of the people.  That is the true message.  It wasn’t the partisanship that bothered us.  It was the lack of it to stop the far-left liberal agenda that did.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

LESSONS LEARNED #26: “If we need Big Government to protect us from ourselves, then our public schools can’t be the best place to learn.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 12th, 2010

WE ARE WHAT they teach us.  And here is a little of what our teachers taught us.  And a little of what we learned by observation.

WHEN I WAS in grade school, our teachers went on strike.  It was great.  Another week or so of summer vacation.  But I saw a curious thing.  Some of my classmates were carrying picket signs.  And there they were, walking with the teachers.  I could not understand why anyone would want to help to end an extended summer vacation.  That’s all I knew about a teacher’s strike.  I had no idea why they didn’t want to go back to work.  I just knew it meant I didn’t have to go back to school yet.

The signs my fellow students carried said something about making our schools better.  As kids typically don’t like being in school, I couldn’t imagine they thought much about improving the educational system.  Other than greatly shortening the school day.  And school year.  But giving a pay raise to our teachers?  Giving them more benefits?  How, exactly, was that going to make school better?  I mean, if they got more pay and benefits, our education would get worse, not better.  They would just transfer money from the classroom to the teachers.  Unless the city raised property taxes to replace the classroom money that was given to the teachers.  And that would only increase the household costs of these kids’ parents.  Meaning less presents at Christmas.  Couldn’t these kids see the folly of their ways?

Of course they couldn’t.  They were just useful pawns.  They hadn’t the foggiest idea why teachers go on strike.  The teachers told them what to say.  What to think.  And they lied to these kids.  They weren’t striking because they wanted more money and better benefits.  Which they were.  No.  They told these innocent children that they were striking so they could have a better art department.  A better music department.  Better field trips.  That’s why these teachers were on the picket lines.  For the children.  And that every time there were cuts in the classroom, it was because of the greed of their parents who didn’t approve a millage.  Or who bitched about rising property taxes.  It was never their OWN greed.  Never that.

WE HAD A mock election when I was in 7th grade.  It was an ‘exercise in democracy’.  I remember voting for the Democrat candidate.  I don’t know why.  I knew nothing about politics.  I had only recently quit playing with my toy cars.  I was still reading The Hardy Boys mystery novels.  And thinking about the pretty girls in class.  What I don’t remember was spending much time thinking about the presidential election.  But there I was, voting for the Democrat candidate.  Who won in our little mock election.  But how did I, as well as my fellow students, know enough about politics to vote for the Democrat candidate?

Obviously, they taught us what to think.  That the Democrat candidate was the better candidate.  Because he was for the working man.  And cared about the little people.  That the Democrats cared about education.  Not profits.  All these touchy feely things.  Which was about all a kid could understand.  A kid can’t understand monetary or fiscal policy.  The intricacies of foreign policy.  They don’t have a clue about those things.  But kids do know that they should play nice.  And that’s what the Democrats are all about.  Playing nice.  And providing political muscle for the teachers’ unions in exchange for votes.  And obedient little minds of mush that will one day become voters.

I HAD A speech/debate class in high school.  Our teacher used the latest in progressive teaching methods.  A lot of touchy feely stuff.  Feel more than think.  We often did these exercises where the class as a whole debated the pros and cons of a particular position.  One day we went through a list of five or so.  I found the last one interesting.  It was about a ‘death ray’.

I had recently watched a program about nuclear weapons.  I learned that the size of their warheads was a function of the accuracy of the weapons.  They needed a big radius of destruction to guarantee the destruction of the target.  This is true for all weapon systems, conventional or nuclear.  The less accurate they are, the bigger the destructive force required.  (Whereas smart weapons today can have smaller warheads because they can be steered onto target.)  The more accurate the weapon, the less destructive it can be.  The less collateral damage there would be.  Less civilian dead.  The lesson described the ‘death ray’ as a weapon of pinpoint accuracy.  Based on what I just recently learned, I thought that it would be very interesting to discuss the pros of such a weapon.

When we finished discussing the position before the ‘death ray’, he said something like it was obvious that no one would argue for such a weapon system.  So there was no point in discussing it.  And then, as an afterthought, he said “unless someone does” with a condescending smirk.  I raised my hand.  I began to make some positive points.  He cut me off.  There was to be no discussion in favor of any weapon system in his class.  Turns out he was anti-war.  Free speech was one thing but not when you disagree with the program.

TWO BOOKS THAT that stand out from high school that were required reading are The Grapes of Wrath and Johnny Got His Gun.  You couldn’t find a couple of more depressing books if you tried.  The Grapes of Wrath was about the plight of a family who lost the farm during the dust bowl of the Great Depression.  In it you learned that bankers were evil.  Rich people were evil.  That Big Business was evil and exploited the poor.  Whereas poor people were virtuous.  And only poor people helped other poor people.  That Big Government was good and helped the poor people.  That FDR’s New Deal was good and helped the poor people.  That unions are good and protect those who Big Business exploits.  You get the picture?  Democrats good.  Republicans bad.  Because the Democrats take care of the little guy.  And evil bankers and fat cats are all Republicans.  Or so we were taught.

Johnny Got His Gun is an anti-war book.  It’s about a U.S. veteran of World War I.  Joe Bonham.  He lost about every part of the human body you could.  And yet they kept him alive.  I read it in the 10th grade.  Young and impressionable, I saw the folly of war.  War hurt good, young men like poor Joe Bonham.  (Incidentally, the name ‘Bonham’?  It’s from the French ‘bon homme’, good man.)  A pity only the anti-war crowd read it.  Apparently no one read it in Germany or Italy or the Soviet Union.  Maybe if their citizens did read it World War II would not have broken out.  Thankfully for the free world, though, men did serve in the armed forces despite what happened to poor Joe Bonham.  And they saved liberty.  And the burning of books did not spread further.  And books like this, because of men who did pick up a gun, remain in the public school curriculum.

Of course, you know why they (the public school teachers) are anti-war, don’t you?  It’s simple.  Any money spent on the military is money not spent on them.

I HAD AN electronics teacher in high school who was really cool.  He let us drink coffee in class (or, should I say, cream and sugar with some coffee).  He’d send a student across the street to buy donuts to eat with our coffee.  And he taught us how to build little black boxes that could unscramble scrambled television.  He was also a pretty good teacher.  A PNP transistor symbol?  The arrow was P-N (peein’) on the base.  (An NPN transistor symbol pointed away from the base.)  The resistor color code?  Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.  The whore.  (Hey, this stuff was funny when you’re only 16 years old.)  He even set up an interview for me at an electronic repair shop.  He liked being a teacher.  But he enjoyed doing concrete flatwork, too.  One of those things he did to pay the bills while in college.  And kept doing after college.  And that’s what he did during the summer, the peak of the construction season.  And made good money doing it.

MY MOM WORKED as a volunteer at my grade school.  She got to know the teachers pretty well.  She even went to their homes.  One lived not too far away from us.  I went with her once or twice.  Talk about surreal.  Seeing your teacher outside the school.  Acting so un-teacher-like.  Wearing something she doesn’t wear to school.  Having fun.  Laughing and joking.  And seeing her being a mom to her own kids.  That was weird.  We treated her politely and with respect in school.  Her kids whined “maaaa” at home just like I did when I was at home.  My teacher was just a normal person.  Human, almost.

But what really struck me then was that though they lived in the same general area as we did, they had more.  Bigger house.  With nicer stuff.  A newer car in the driveway.  More presents under their Christmas tree.  And in bigger boxes.  It was a ‘blue-collar’ neighborhood.  Her husband was a ‘blue-collar’ worker.  Just like my dad.  But my mom volunteered.  My teacher was, well, a teacher.  The ultimate second income in a two income family.  Good pay and benefits.  And no child care to worry about.  Teachers are off when their kids are off.  Holidays.  Breaks.  Snow days.  And, of course, summer vacation.  It just didn’t get better for a working mom.

IT IS INTERESTING that people become more conservative with age.  They may start out Democrat.  But after working awhile or raising a family, they often become Republican.  Not all of them.  But a lot.  The net number of people changing from Democrat to Republican far exceeds those changing from Republican to Democrat.  If there are any.  Other than for political reasons (in a desperate attempt to get reelected by switching parties).  That’s why the Democrats depend on the youth vote.  Because the youth vote is an uninformed voted.  They haven’t been deprogrammed yet.  They still toe the party line.  Because they don’t know any better.  Yet.

As we work and live in the real world, though, away from the insulated life of home or the college campus, things change.  We get older.  And wiser.  Less naive.  Less idealistic.  Less ignorant.  That’s why there is a net change from Democrat to Republican.  We grow up.  And start thinking for ourselves.  And try as they might during our public school indoctrination, we stop being sheep.  Eventually.  We strop bleating their mantra.  ‘Big Government good.  Private sector bad’.  Why?  Because we see that public school teachers and government workers live a lot better than we do.  This privileged few, this ruling elite, continue to take from us and respond with condescending arrogance when we complain.  Angry that we don’t mind our place in the lower strata of society.  Where we belong.

And they are nervous.  They can only maintain their elite status as long as we pay for it.  The more we learn, though, the less we are willing to support this aristocracy.  And they know it.  So they try to keep us dumbed down.  For an educated constituency is the greatest threat to Big Government.  And the public school system.  This self-proclaimed aristocracy.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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