Abortion and White Supremacy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 27th, 2014

Politics 101

Slavery made the South more like an Old World Aristocracy than a New World Meritocracy

Democrats don’t like people of color.  Never have.  The Democrat Party’s lineage goes back to Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican Party.  Thomas Jefferson was one of our Founding Fathers who, as the Democrats love to remind us, owned slaves.  In fact, the Democratic-Republican Party was the party of the planter elite.  And of slavery.  While the opposition party, the Federalists, whose members included George Washington, John Adams and Alexander Hamilton, preferred manufacturing and commerce for the future of the United States.  Not just plantations and slavery.

It was these southern planters who made the Three-Fifths Compromise necessary.  Slaves couldn’t vote.  So the North didn’t want to count them in determining the number of representatives a state had in the House of Representatives.  The planter elite did not like this.  As the anti-slave North had more free people and would end up controlling the government.  Possibly passing anti-slave legislation.  Well, without the southern states there would be no United States.  So they compromised and counted some of their slaves.  Giving the planter elite greater power in the new federal government than their population would otherwise have allowed.  And to seal the deal they agreed not to discuss the issue of slavery again for 20 years.

The minority power in the South, the planter elite, who were Democratic-Republicans, brought a lot of slaves to the United States during that 20 year moratorium on the slavery issue.  Swelling the slave population in the South.  But once the 20 years were up Congress banned the slave trade.  So from that point forward all slaves would have to be born on U.S. soil.  But the minority power in the South had built their little fiefdoms by then.  Owning large estates.  With their lands worked by their large slaveholdings.  Making the South more like an Old World aristocracy than a New World meritocracy.  And the planter elite liked having so much power vested in so few of their hands.  From having their few numbers control the federal government.  To their absolute control of so many human lives on their plantations.  They were an elite few.  A superior people.  And they liked it.

The South used the Power of the Federal Government to Suppress States’ Rights in the North with the Fugitive Slave Act

Over time as the north pursued the dreams of Washington, Adams and Hamilton immigration began to swell the population in the industrial North.  Leading to the South losing their control over the House of Representatives.  And threatening their elitism.  By then the Democratic-Republican Party had become the Democrat Party.  Which pushed to protect the institution of slavery.  To protect their southern aristocracy.  And their elevated status as a superior people.  They used the power of the federal government where they could.  Such as passing the Fugitive Slave Act to force free states against their will to return free blacks in their states to slavery.  Then they argued that their states’ rights were at risk with all of the North’s abolition talk.  Where the North might one day do what the South did to them.  Use the federal government to force a state to do something against their will.  Such as they did with the Fugitive Slave Act.

Their fight for the Senate led to further compromises to keep the union together while accommodating the planter elite.  The Missouri Compromise (1820) had prohibited slavery in the new territory in the Louisiana Territory above approximately the southern border of Missouri (but permitted it within the borders of Missouri).  Each state gets two senators.  So with the House lost the Democrats needed more of the new states from the Louisiana Territory entered into the Union as slave states.  Even those above the southern border of Missouri. Which they did with the Kansas–Nebraska Act.  Which repealed the Missouri Compromise and replaced it with popular sovereignty.  Where the people would chose whether they wanted to be a slave state or a free state.  Setting off a mad rush by both sides to get to these territories so they could vote the slave status of these new states their way.  Leading to a bloody civil war in Kansas.

Then another blow fell to the southern aristocracy.  Abraham Lincoln.  With the election of Republican Abraham Lincoln the southern aristocracy lost not only the House of Representatives but the presidency as well.  Worse, the Republicans were an anti-slavery party.  So even if they were somehow able to hold onto the Senate the Republicans in power would challenge the planter elite’s supremacy.  Break up their fiefdoms.  And challenge their power.  Something this elite few were willing to fight to prevent.  Well, they were willing to have others fight for them.  To maintain the social order in the South.  Leading to cries about states’ rights.  And an over-powerful federal government.  Despite their having used the power of the federal government to suppress states’ rights in the North with the Fugitive Slave Act.

Democrats see Benefits for Blacks as a Necessary Evil to keep them in Power

Most southerners were poor farmers.  Who owned no slaves.  Yet they rose to fight for states’ rights.  And to protect the South from northern aggression.  At least, that was what the planter elite had them believe.  Who sent many of these poor farmers to their deaths in the American Civil War.  When it was over approximately 8.6% of the South’s population was dead.  By comparison World War II killed approximately 405,399 Americans.  However, if we had suffered the same death rate as the South did in the American Civil War our World War II dead would have totaled over 12 million.  This is what the southern aristocracy was willing to—and did—sacrifice to maintain their power and privilege.  Their supremacy over other people.  Especially over their black slaves.

Such a feeling of superiority allows you to do some pretty horrible things.  Just review the history of Nazi Germany to see some of the atrocities a ‘master race’ can do.  In the post-war South the Democrats did not lose with grace.  They resented the martial law in the South after the war.  And they hated Republican rule.  Protecting their former slaves.  Even allowing them to run for government office.  It was all too much for the fallen southern aristocracy.  To remind people of the proper order of southern society they formed the KKK.  And unleashed a terror across the South.  Killing their former slaves.  And Republicans.  To codify their white supremacy the Democrats turned to the legislature.  And passed laws to segregate the ‘inferior blacks’ from their superior selves.  Jim Crowe Laws.  Separate but equal.  With the emphasis on ‘separate’.  In time pressure grew against the southern Democrats.  But they held strong in Congress.  Fighting against any civil rights legislation.  Including the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Where Democrat Senator Robert Byrd (and former Exalted Cyclops of the KKK) filibustered against the Civil Rights Act for 14 hours and 13 minutes.  To keep the blacks segregated from their superior selves.

Things are a lot better these days.  But Democrat feelings of superiority die hard.  Even though they would have us believe they like blacks today.  Despite their past hatred of blacks.  And their seething anger of having lost them from their plantations.  But they found a way to ‘get them back on the plantation’.  By making them dependent on government.  In exchange for their vote.  Which keeps them in power.  Back where they believe they belong.  And are entitled to be.  Because they are a superior people.  So benefits for blacks are a necessary evil to Democrats.  For they still don’t like them.  As evidenced by where they live.  Where some of the richest Democrats (such as Nancy Pelosi) live in the whitest of neighborhoods.  And their apparent racial purification of society.  Through the guise of women’s rights.  The most important thing to women, according to Democrats, is abortion.  And they do their best to make abortion readily available.  Especially to women of color.  Like in New York City.  And Mississippi.  Where black women are having far more abortions than white women.  Making America whiter.  More like the neighborhood where Nancy Pelosi lives.  And more like the color Democrats have fought to keep America since the Three-Fifths Compromise.  The Fugitive Slave Act.  Popular Sovereignty.  The KKK.  And Jim Crowe Laws.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Invoking the Nuclear Option to Legislate more Easily from the Bench

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 21st, 2013

Politics 101

Liberals pack the Judiciary with Liberal Judges to Write Law they can’t Write in Congress

Harry Reid and the Democrats went nuclear today.  Changing the Senate rules for the first time since the Founding.  To increase the power of those in the majority.  So they can run roughshod over those in the minority.  Thanks to the poor launch of Obamacare.  And the sinking realization that because the Democrats have so angered the people in the process of implementing the Affordable Care Act (the president and Democrats lied and people are losing their health insurance and doctors) that Democrats up for election in 2014 are going to be thrown out with extreme prejudice.  Turning the Senate over to the Republicans.  Hence the need to go nuclear now.

It’s no secret the left legislates from the bench.  Using judges to write legislation that Congress won’t.  Such as making abortion legal via Roe v. Wade.  That was a law made not by the law-makers.  The legislature.  Congress.  But by liberal judges on the bench.  Who are to interpret law.  Not write it.  But in Roe v. Wade, as in so many other laws that came to be that Congress refused to write, judges wrote law in their legal rulings.  Allowing the liberal minority to make their will the law of the land.

America is a center-right country.  Which means there are more conservatives than liberals.  In fact, only about 21% of the people identify themselves as liberal while about 40% of the people identify themselves as conservative (see Conservatives Remain the Largest Ideological Group in U.S. by Lydia Saad posted 1/12/2012 on Gallup).  Yet this 21% has implemented a lot of their liberal agenda.  How?  Liberal judges.  The key to changing the country against the will of the people.  When you can’t get the people’s representatives to write your laws you turn to the judiciary.  Which is why Harry Reid went nuclear today.  So they can pack the judiciary with liberal judges.  Before they lose the Senate.  So they will be able to write law from the bench that they won’t be able to do after they lose the Senate.

The Filibuster is the Last Line of Defense for the Minority

The filibuster is a stalling tactic.  A tool the minority can use to prevent the majority from running roughshod over them.  To protect minority rights.  For majority rule can be dangerous.  The majority could write law that restricts the rights of the minority.  Don’t like the internal combustion engine?  Well, the majority could write legislation for a costly carbon tax.  Of course, the Democrats don’t have a majority in the House.  But they do have one in the Senate.  Which confirms the president’s judicial appointments.  So if the president stacks the courts with liberal judges the left can get their carbon tax.  By writing regulations for a carbon tax instead of legislation.  And having the courts make that regulation law.  With the left saying that they had that right under their environmental regulatory powers.  And if you don’t like that sue us.

This is why the left wants to stack the courts with liberals.  Who may or may not be actual judges.  For they don’t want judges to interpret law.  They want them to write law that Congress won’t.  If the right sues the government for exceeding their constitutional authority and the case ends up in a court packed with liberal judges the right will lose.  And the unconstitutional regulation will become law.  Despite the Republican-controlled House.

The right has been holding up some exceptionally liberal Obama appointees to the bench.  Frustrating the left.  Because they can’t move their liberal agenda through the Republican held House of Representatives.  While their plan B—stacking the courts—was being blocked by the Republicans because the Democrats did not have 60 Senators in the Senate.  For if they did they could invoke cloture.  End debate.  And force a vote.  Which they would, of course, win.  Making the filibuster the last line of defense for the minority.  For if the judicial appointment only appeals to the 21% of the population the minority can filibuster until they withdraw the appointment.  And appoint someone that doesn’t appeal ONLY to 21% of the population.

When the Democrats were in the Minority they said Opposition to the Republicans was Patriotic

Back when the Republicans held the Senate during the George W. Bush administration the Democrats were holding up Bush appointees.  The Republicans broached the subject of the nuclear option.  And the left attacked Republicans.  Calling it a power grab.  An affront to the Founding Fathers.  The worst thing that could happen to our republic.  Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and other Democrats spoke on the record opposing the nuclear option.  But that was then.  This is now.  After the rollout of Obamacare.  And the very likely possibility that the Democrats will lose control of the Senate in 2014.  Now Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, et al are all for the nuclear option.

Because the Republicans are so partisan the left had no choice.  They simply wouldn’t rubber-stamp the liberal agenda.  So they had no choice but to grab power.  To run roughshod over those in the minority in Congress.  So the minority in the nation can impose their rule on the majority.  When the Democrats were in the minority in Congress they said opposition to the Republicans was patriotic.  That it made the republic healthier.  Locking the Congress into gridlock because they couldn’t get their way was fulfilling the vision of the Founding Fathers.  By preventing one-party rule.

But all that changes when they are in the majority.  And those in the 21% are fine with it.  Those in the mainstream media.  Hollywood.  Late-night television.  Even the audiences of the late-night television shows.  Who are all for debate when they are out of power.  But are fine with one-party rule when they are in power.  Because they believe that their side is the only side that matters.  Which is decidedly NOT what the Founding Fathers envisioned.  The left believes everyone should think like they think.  And if they don’t there should be laws to compel people to act like they (the left) think they should act.  Even if it requires violating the Constitution.  Like Obamacare forces people to buy something against their will for the first time in the history of the republic.  But expecting people to pay for their own birth control instead of forcing others to pay for it?  Why, that’s an affront to the Founding Fathers.  Making any law-violating power grab acceptable.  As long as it’s the left doing the law-violating and the power-grabbing.  For the left believe the end justifies the means.  Just like the Nazis did.  The communists.  And other tyrannical regimes have throughout time.

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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Nancy Pelosi Hates Nonunion Workers because She Can’t Collect Tribute from Them Like She Can from Union Workers

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 6th, 2011

Week in Review

Nancy Pelosi believes there is such a thing as a bad job.  And I’m not talking about flipping burgers.  I’m talking about building jet planes.  Normally good.  As jet planes dominate U.S. exports.  But these jobs are only good jobs when they are in Seattle.  Not in nonunion South Carolina (see Pelosi Vs. Boeing — And Jobs posted 11/1/2011 on Investors.com).

“Do you think it’s right that Boeing has to close down that plant in South Carolina because it’s nonunion?” asked host Maria Bartiromo.

Pelosi’s quick answer was “yes.”

Pelosi said she preferred the plant in the right-to-work state would unionize; failing that, the National Labor Relations Board is right to shut down the plant where Boeing hopes to build its Dreamliner passenger aircraft.

So instead of adding jobs to the economy Ms. Pelosi would prefer these people collect unemployment checks.  Why?

Union representation must be forced on them so they can be forced to pay union dues, a big chunk of which is funneled into Democratic campaign coffers. Over the past two years, the [International Association of Machinists] donated $1.98 million to Democratic candidates and $34,000 to Republicans.

Similarly, the trillion dollars in wasted stimulus and other legislation have gone mostly to projects using union workers, in particular teacher and construction unions. Stimulus money has also gone to failing but politically connected firms like Solyndra, whose major investors are big Democratic donors.

Nancy and her Democrat colleagues are greedy.  And pine for the days when people like them ruled over others.  Simply by being born into the nobility.  With democracy putting the kibosh on aristocracy they have come up with this clever ruse to put taxpayer dollars into their pockets.

They still steal it.  But not directly.  They give it to someone else.  Who then gives some of it back to them.  If this sounds familiar you may have seen this in the movies.  We call it ‘money laundering’.  She calls it tribute.  The proper respect paid to her privileged class.

This is what it’s all about in the Democrat party.  The money.  So when you hear them talk about creating jobs and stimulating the economy it’s what we call in politics ‘lying’.

They just want the money.  And could care less whether or not they create a job.  If you disagree answer me this.  After 5 years of Pelosi/Obama and all of that stimulus, where are the jobs?

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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Iraqis Support Capitalism while Hugo Chavez and Nancy Pelosi Support the Occupy Wall Street Protesters

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 8th, 2011

Iraq wants American Technology because neither Cuba nor Venezuela gave the World the iPhone

Some say we invade other countries militarily so we can conquer them with corporate imperialism.  Such as the Iraq War.  It was about getting Iraqi oil.  And letting Halliburton lose to rape and pillage at will.  Well, oil prices shot to their highest during the U.S. ‘occupation’.  And Iraq isn’t covered with McDonalds, KFCs and Wal-Marts yet.  In fact, their ain’t much American corporate imperialism going on in the least.  Much to the chagrin of many Iraqis (see If U.S. Leaves Vacuum in Iraq, Iran’s Deep Influence May Not Fill It by Tim Arango posted 10/8/2011 on The New York Times).

Mr. Sharba continued: “We wish that American companies would come here. I wish the American relationship was that, instead of troops, it would be companies.” Mr. Sharba is a cleric, and he spent 14 years in Iran in exile during Mr. Hussein’s government…

But the troublemaking does not extend to the more important arena of commerce, officials say. “Because of the political sensitivities of Iran, many people say Iran is controlling the economy of Iraq,” said Sami al-Askari, a member of Parliament and a close confidant to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. “No, the Turks are…”

Iran has also been trying to make inroads culturally, but it is bumping up against the same uneasiness that Iraqis have toward Iran’s business efforts. This year Iran negotiated a deal to refurbish several movie theaters in Baghdad that have been dark for years. Yet the renovations have yet to get under way, and officials say they wish it were the Americans — and their technology — involved in the project. “If a person asks me, who do I want to come help me? I wish that the Americans, by occupying Iraq, would support the culture and theater,” said Fuad Thanon, the head of Iraq’s national theater.

So it’s not the Americans reaping the spoils of war.  It’s the Turks.  And Turkey is doing this because America has chosen not to, apparently.  And the Iranians just plain suck at business.  Which one would expect in a theocracy.

The Occupy Wall Street protestors may hate corporate America and their remarkable technology.  But the Iraqis don’t.  They want it.  Because it’s the best.  I mean, they’re not clamoring for that good Cuban technology.  Or that good Venezuelan technology.  You know why?  Well, suffice it to say that neither Cuba nor Venezuela gave the world the iPhone.

There are more Blacks in the Tea Party than in Nancy Pelosi’s Neighborhood

They say you can judge a lot about a person by the company he or she keeps.  So let’s apply that to the Occupy Wall Street protestors.  Who is the latest to throw her support behind this anti-capitalism mob?  None other than Nancy Pelosi.  One of the most liberal members in the House of Representatives (see Nancy Pelosi Backs Occupy Wall Street Message, Tells Eric Cantor To Shove It by Zeke Miller posted 10/8/2011 on Business Insider).

In an interview with ABC News’ Christiane Amanpour, House Minority Leader Nancy said she supports the message of the Occupy Wall Street protesters that “change has to happen.”

So it’s clear.  Nancy Pelosi is against capitalism.  This comes as no shock.  For she has been against capitalism for years.  She prefers the doling out of privilege.  Where liberal wealth can be confined to her and her liberal friends.  In one of the richest and most exclusive congressional districts in America.  And one of the whitest.  It’s rather ironic, isn’t it?  She calls the Tea Party racist.  Yet there are more blacks in the Tea Party than in her own neighborhood.

“I didn’t hear him say anything when the Tea Party was out demonstrating, actually spitting on members of Congress right here in the Capitol. And he and his colleagues were putting signs in the windows encouraging them. But let’s not get down to that.”

There have been a lot of Tea Party rallies.  A lot of film covering these rallies.  And yet they never captured this spitting incident.  Or any racial hate speech.  You know why?  Because there was no spitting.  And the percentage of racists in the Tea Party is probably less than the national average.  Why, I bet Pelosi’s neighborhood has a higher percentage of racists than the Tea Party has.  And it’s probably higher than the national average.  Because it’s sooo white.  At least that’s what Nancy Pelosi would be saying if it were a Republican district.

If both Pelosi and Chavez support these Wall Street Protestors they can’t be Good for America

Nancy Pelosi is no friend of laissez faire capitalism.  So it’s no surprise that she supports the anti-capitalist protest on Wall Street.  And it’s no surprise that this guy supports it, too (see Hugo Chavez condemns ‘horrible repression’ of Wall Street protests by Enrique Andres Pretel, Reuters, posted 10/8/2011 on The Globe and Mail).

Not surprisingly, Mr. Chavez expressed solidarity with American activists who have been staging rallies and marches against what they view as corporate greed by Wall Street…

Mr. Chavez, who runs for re-election in a year’s time and traditionally ramps up his anti-capitalist rhetoric to try and rally supporters before a vote, also let rip at Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, who referred to the “malign socialism” of Cuba and Venezuela in a speech on Friday.

That’s why the Iraqis aren’t asking for Venezuelan technology.  They want the best.  And the best comes where capitalism is freest.  Not constrained and maligned.  As in Venezuela.

So Nancy Pelosi and Hugo Chavez see eye to eye on the anti-capitalism protests on Wall Street.  They are simpatico.  They hate capitalism.  They both support the Occupy Wall Street people.  And Chavez hates America.  I’m not saying anything.  But people do judge you by the company you keep.

Since coming to power in 1999, Mr. Chavez has sought to project himself as a leader of a global “anti-imperialist” movement.

He and allies in the ruling Socialist Party have been gloating over economic and social problems in the United States and Europe as evidence of capitalism’s impending downfall.

“Poverty’s growing, the misery is getting worse,” he said, referring to the causes of the U.S. protests. “But that empire is still there, still a threat … (President Barack) Obama is on his way down, for lots of reasons. He was a big fraud.”

Hugo Chavez is no friend of the United States.  Even the Soviets didn’t take such glee in American economic unrest.  Sure, they wanted to win the Cold War.  But not if it imperiled their U.S. food imports.  Which they were dependent on to keep famine at bay.  And this in the country with some of the most fertile soil in the world.  What we call the breadbasket of Europe.  The Ukraine.  But communism just didn’t work.  So they had to import that capitalistic grain.  Despite that great soil.  And a great people.

You know, it just doesn’t look good when you are on the same side of an issue with someone who wants to destroy America.  And if both Pelosi and Chavez support these Wall Street protestors, these protestors can’t be good for America.

These Anti-American People either know Capitalism is the Best Economic System or are just Too Stupid to Know Better

So we didn’t invade Iraq to spread corporate imperialism.  Such as Hugo Chavez would believe.  Even though the Iraqis wouldn’t mind a little bit of it.  Just enough to give them some of the best technology in the world.  To help them back on their feet.  And help them get away from that Iranian crap.

Nancy Pelosi supports the Occupy Wall Street protesters.  As does Hugo Chavez.  Who hates everything American.  He is anti-American.  And anti-capitalist.  But he likes the Occupy Wall Street protesters.  So they can’t be either.  If Chavez likes them.  American.  Or capitalist.  Either that or Chavez is a closet capitalist.  And/or an American lover.

Truth be told these anti-American people are slinging their anti-capitalism BS just for personal gain.  They either know capitalism is the best economic system in the world.  Or they’re just too stupid to know better.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Budget Compromise Averts Government Shutdown, but Worse is yet to Come

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 9th, 2011

Shutdown Averted, now we can Create Jobs

So there’s no government shutdown.  The nation will experience one less crisis.  A bunch of people will be able to keep their phony baloney jobs.  All is right with the world once more.  We have pleased some of the people.  Some of the others, though, are pretty pissed (see Some Democrats Complain About Budget Compromise by Michael D. Shear posted 4/9/2011 The New York Times).

Robert Reich, the former labor secretary under President Bill Clinton, wrote on Twitter: “The right held the U.S. govt hostage, and O paid most of the ransom — inviting more hostage-taking. Next is raising debt ceiling.”

Held the government hostage?  Inviting more hostage taking?  Oh, come on.  Does Reich believe there is no end to the dollars the government can print?  Then again he was the Secretary of Labor.  A good friend of Big Union.  So he has some socialist leanings.  So, yeah, he’ll approve the printing of more money before cutting any spending.  Because that’s what socialists do.  Print, baby.  Print.

Ms. Pelosi also weighed in.  Her words were more reserved.  And then she unloaded some B.S.

Some Democrats appeared willing to reserve judgment. In a less-than-effusive statement after the agreement, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi commended Mr. Obama and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, for their “leadership and perseverance to keep the government open.”

But she added: “House Democrats look forward to reviewing the components of the final funding measure. The American people’s top priority is creating jobs, and we will continue to measure every proposal by whether it creates jobs, strengthens the middle class and responsibly reduces the deficit.”

Nancy Pelosi and her Democrats had the House for 4 years.  Her pal Harry Reid and his Democrats had the Senate those same 4 years.  Plus he’s still there.  When have they ever created jobs?  Strengthen the middle class?  Reduced the deficit?  Sure, they like to blame George W. Bush, but Bush just didn’t have the votes in the last two years of his presidency.  He had to play ball with the Democrats.  Nancy and Harry called the shots.  And wrote the legislation.  Nothing they did created jobs, strengthen the middle class or reduced the deficit.  And let’s not forget that the greatest financial crisis to ever hit this nation, the subprime mortgage crisis, happened on their watch.  They were responsible for the oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Those GSEs at the center of that financial crisis.

EPA, PBS and NPR win; Defense, Obamacare and Abortion Lose

All right, just what did they agree to?  Who won?  Who lost?  And who got taken to the cleaners (see Who Won the Shutdown Showdown? It Wasn’t Even Close by Carl Cameron posted 4/9/2011 on FOX NEWS)?

The deal mandates a host of studies and audits of Obama administration policies. It also blocks additional funds for the IRS sought by the Obama administration and bans federal funding of abortion in Washington, D.C.

The history of offers on this bill goes something like this. Democrats first offered no cuts, then $4 billion, then $6.5 billion, then $33 billion, then settled at $38.5 billion.

Boehner made numerous adjustments to his offer in recent days too, but started at $32 billion, then with a Tea Party push went to $62 billion, then dropped to $40 billion, then $38.5 billion.

Now that’s some interesting negotiating.  The Republicans settled for a larger cut than they were originally asking for.  And the Democrats accepted a tax cut that was greater than the Republicans opening offer.  Throw in the studies and the audits.  And the defunding of the IRS and abortion.  No wonder some of the Democrats are pissed.  It looks like the Republicans negotiated like Democrats.  Like they had a pair.

House Speaker John Boehner won more cuts than he originally sought and got the Senate to agree to votes to defund the health care reform law and groups like the nation’s largest abortion provider Planned Parenthood…

It was not a totally lopsided bargain. Dems have some silver linings. There were no votes on defunding the EPA or PBS and NPR. Democrats fought for and won a $2 billion cut from the Department of Defense, knocking the military appropriation for the rest of the year down to $513 billion.

Sure, cut the military after starting a third war.  That makes a lot of sense.  The country would have been better keeping that $2 billion and cutting the EPA, PBS and NPR.  But if you’re getting the Democrats to vote to defund Obamacare and abortion, I guess you had to throw them a bone.

Still, what is $38.5 billion in spending cuts when you have trillion dollar deficits?  I’ll tell you.  Not enough.  Like it or not bigger spending cuts are coming our way.  Or higher taxes.  And by higher taxes I mean confiscatory high taxes.  The kind that makes socialism look like capitalism by comparison.  Or bankruptcy.  Those are the choices.  Like it or not.

Federal Workers get a Taste of Reality…and don’t Like It

Raise your hand if you’ve ever been laid off.  Ever just escaped being laid off.  Or kept your job only to do the work of those laid off for the same amount of pay.  If your hand isn’t up you’ve been very lucky.  Think it’s silly to raise your hand while reading on line.  Or you work for the government.  Because most everyone in the private sector has gone through these anxious moments.  And a lot of us had to start all over doing something completely different.  It’s not easy.  But we move on.  Because that’s life.  And it ain’t easy. 

For some life has been easy.  They work in a magical place.  Where layoffs are unknown.  Pay is generous.  And benefits fat.  Where is this magical place?  In the government.  So how does one more privileged than others take a potential momentary paycheck interruption?  Not good.  Here are some of their comments after the government passed a budget deal (see D.C. was prepared for the worst by Ed O’Keefe, Carol Morello and Michael E. Ruane posted 4/8/2011 on The Washington Post).

“It brings relief,” [a Department of Homeland Security worker] said, adding he couldn’t afford to be out of work for more than two weeks…

Younger federal employees and contractors seemed jubilant…

… a 22-year veteran of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, compared this week’s impasse to the drama of asking a girl to the high school prom who also gets asked by another guy…

Yeah.  It can be like that.  When the pretty girl already has a date.  That hurts.  Almost as much as being out of work for two weeks.  I can’t imagine what those people in Michigan are going through.  Some of them have been out of work for 2 years.  That must be like having the pretty girl say “yes.”  And she tells you that she’ll pick you up for prom.  And you wait and wait and wait but she never shows up.  And when you finally walk through the rain to the prom you see her dancing with the quarterback of the football team.  And they’re laughing at you.  That’s Michigan.  In Washington DC you’d probably still end up at the prom.  You’d just be with a different girl.

“It’s frustrating not to be able to get our work done,” she said, adding that now she fears the potential of a “post-crisis period.”

“I won’t be able to just come in on Monday or Tuesday morning and hit the ground running,” she said.

A “post-crisis period.”  You see, that’s what happens to you when you live sheltered from the real world.  You get soft.  Spoiled.  And whiny. 

Around midday Friday, hundreds of angry State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development employees spent their lunch hour protesting the prospect of a shutdown…

“Why must we, who work around the Hill, suffer the adverse consequences of those who work on top of the Hill?” a representative with the American Federation of Government Employees…

Protesting?  Adverse consequences?  I guess someone didn’t get the memo.  These people are entitled to their jobs.

…a social worker with the Attorney General’s office, said the last few days have been stressful as she and co-workers shared their concerns about how they would pay their mortgages and other bills.

All the talk about who was essential and who wasn’t essential weighed on people’s minds, making it hard to focus on their work, she said.

As the weekend approached, she was angry.

“Who wants to start a nice, cherry blossom weekend wondering what do we do — do we go to work on Monday?” she said.

When news of the possibility of a breakthrough came, [she] said it wasn’t going to be to switch off her anger at the politicians who she felt toyed with her livelihood and well-being.

“I’ve still got a little bitter taste in my mouth.”

Anger?  Bitter taste?  Toyed with her livelihood and well-being?  My God.  What have we done?  We spoiled her nice, cherry blossom weekend.  For shame.  I mean, Michiganders are one thing.  But federal workers in Washington DC?  They deserve better.

Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse

So what have we learned?  Well, first of all, this country is truly screwed.  With all the drama surrounding the recent budget debate that cut a paltry $38.5 billion from a $3+ trillion budget, cuts that actually mean something will probably bring out the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.  Anyone who thinks there will be entitlement reform before the United States follows Greece and Ireland into bankruptcy is like the proverbial ostrich with its head in the sand.  And nothing will get them to open their eyes.  Except, perhaps, four horsemen bearing down on them.  Of course, by then, it will be too late.

Oh, and federal workers are a bunch of whiny cry babies.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Obamacare and H.R. 2 – The Perfect Match

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 19th, 2011

When Healthcare Insurance becomes Welfare

Well, the Republican controlled House passed H.R. 2 (Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act).  But the Democrat controlled Senate is vowing to defy public opinion.  Harry Reid won’t even bring it up to a vote.  Probably because he’s afraid some of his Democrat colleagues worried about reelection in 2012 may vote to repeal it. 

So they’re rolling out the usual sob stories.  Repealing the bill will kill kids.  Plunge the country into a depression worse than FDR’s Great Depression.  You know, the usual stuff (see House votes on repeal of healthcare law by Michael A. Memoli, Washington Bureau, posted 1/19/2010 on the LA Times).

The move by House Republicans has spurred a vigorous defense of the law by many Democrats and the Obama administration, even as they were reluctant to do so in the fall campaign. They cited emotional stories of constituents who are benefitting from the law — particularly children who can no longer be denied insurance coverage for preexisting conditions.

Repeal, Democrats said, could cause more than 5 million Americans with preexisting conditions to be denied coverage, and add $230 billion to the deficit in the next 10 years.

Think for a minute why insurance companies exclude preexisting conditions.  Better yet, let’s say you own an insurance company.  You make money by collecting insurance premiums.  You pay claims out of those paid premiums.  Now, the key for this to work is that more people have to pay premiums than collect claims.  If not, you will run out of money and go out of business.  See?  It’s business.  Your income (paid premiums) has to be greater than your costs (claims).  Ergo the exemption of preexisting conditions.  If you didn’t exclude them, people would only buy insurance when they’re sick and need benefits.  Costs (claims) would be greater than your income (premiums).  And your insurance company would go out of business.

Allowing preexisting conditions.  It sounds nice.  In a touchy feely caring kind of a way.  But it will kill the insurance industry.  Then the government will have to step in and make healthcare insurance welfare.  Supported by an ever growing tax burden.  Like in every other nation with nationalized health care.  So they’re being a bit disingenuous by pulling on the old heartstrings.  Then they just flat out lie.

“Democrats have made a firm commitment that we would judge every proposal that comes to the floor by whether it creates jobs, strengthens the middle class, and reduces the deficit. The repeal of patients’ rights fails on all three counts,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) said before the vote.

The Economically Challenged:  Nancy Pelosi and her Constituents

What they call deficit reduction is a huge tax increase and a gutting of Medicare.  But raising taxes doesn’t create jobs.  If it did we would never cut them during bad economic times.  We cut them because lowering taxes creates jobs.  Even Obama admitted this in the big compromise to extend the Bush tax cuts.

When you kill jobs you crate unemployment.  With fewer people working there are fewer people paying taxes.  This is one of the reasons why we have record deficits now.  We have record unemployment rates that just go on and on and on with no end in sight.  (The other is the explosive government spending corresponding with this fall in tax revenue).  Making this problem worse will add to the deficit, not reduce it.

Higher taxes and unemployment and a reduction of Medicare benefits is not going to help anyone in the middle class.  It’s going to make their lives that much harder.  So Pelosi is wrong on all three counts.  Of course, it’s hard to blame her.  It must be the water in her district.  Makes people economically challenged.  For her constituents all think like she does.  At least the 80% or so that keeps voting for her.  No, passing H.R. 2 will be the best thing to happen to the middle class since the 2010 midterm elections.

Obamacare is so Good that it Insured the Uninsured – Even before it was Passed

And the lies keep coming.  This from Karen G. Mills, administrator of the Small Business Administration, on January 18, 2011.

Every day America’s entrepreneurs and small-business owners are finding more ways to access affordable health care insurance because of the Affordable Care Act. We have some very important data recently, which is that after years of dropping coverage, the number of small businesses offering health insurance to their workers is actually going up. This is according to the Kaiser Family Foundation: nine percent more small businesses with less than 200 employees provided coverage in 2010 compared with 2009, and for those with less than 10 employees, the expansion in coverage was even bigger. It was 13 percent.

Funny.  Because small business (and unions) have been asking for Mini-Med plan waivers.  Because the cost to comply with Obamacare would otherwise force some 1.5 million people off of their current health care plans.  So how does Ms. Mills reconcile this fact with the rosy statement above?  Why, you lie about polling results (see Small business and the health care repeal by Glenn Kessler posted 1/19/2011 on The Washington Post).

Mills, to her credit, cited her source, the Kaiser Family Foundation 2010 annual survey of Employer Health Benefits. And her statistics are correct. It’s just that they have nothing to do with the new health care law.

First, the survey was taken between January and May of last year, so much of the data was collected before the law even passed… Second, the Kaiser report specifically says the analysts were puzzled by the shift in small business figures, but were pretty sure it did not mean more firms were signing up to provide health insurance to their employees… “A possible explanation is that non-offering firms were more likely to fail during the past year, and the attrition of non-offering firms led to a higher offer rate among surviving firms.”… A third problem is that the data set for small firms is too small to be significant.

So the administrator of the Small Business Administration, Karen G. Mills, is making less than honest statements.  She’s saying that polling data shows Obamacare is already having a positive impact on small business.  With the poll numbers taken before the passage of Obamacare, this is just impossible.  It would appear that Ms. Mills, the Small Business Administration, is not a friend of small business.  Because she lied about the poll results.  Put the two together and one must conclude that Obamacare is not good for small business.  If not, why would she lie?

Yes, Nancy, Let’s Pass H.R. 2 to Find out what’s in It

Remember how they passed Obamacare.  Quickly.  With backroom deals (the Louisiana Purchase, the Corn Husker kickback, etc.).  And, of course, without reading it.  Nancy Pelosi said they’d have to pass it to learn what was in it.  Why?  Because they were afraid that if people knew what was in it the people would pressure their representatives and senators to not pass it.  What other reason could there be?

But in the new spirit of civility, let’s extend an olive branch to Nancy Pelosi.  Let’s follow her advice.  Let’s pass H.R. 2.  Then let’s see what will happen.  If the recession turns into depression, if the deficit continues to grow, then we’ll concede that she was right.  Then we can reinstate Obamacare.  Increase taxes.  Gut Medicare.  Ration health care.  And make this nation the liberal paradise they so long for.  But first let us pass H.R. 2 to see what’s in it.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Obama Calls for Dems and GOP to Cooperate, Wants to Keep Governing against the Will of the People

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 1st, 2011

Liberals Always Call for Bipartisanship when they Lose Elections

When Nancy Pelosi and her Democrats won in the 2006 midterm elections, it was the end of conservatism.  They said so.  When Obama won in 2008, he advised those across the aisle that elections have consequences (see The roots of Obama’s demise by Marc A. Thiessen posted 10/25/2010 on The Washington Post). 

The decline of the Obama presidency can be traced to a meeting at the White House just three days after the inauguration, when the new president gathered congressional leaders of both parties to discuss his proposed economic stimulus. House Republican Whip Eric Cantor gave President Obama a list of modest proposals for the bill. Obama said he would consider the GOP ideas, but told the assembled Republicans that “elections have consequences” and “I won.” Backed by the largest congressional majorities in decades, the president was not terribly interested in giving ground to his vanquished adversaries.

When the far left lies and tricks voters to elect them, they confuse that for a mandate.  When the truth of their policies comes out, though, they lose subsequent elections.  Then demand that Republicans work with them.  For the best interests of the American people.  Unlike Nancy Pelosi.  Or President Obama.

When liberal Democrats have the majority in Congress, bipartisanship means that Republicans should accept being the Democrats’ bitch.  When they’re out of power, it means something completely different.  That Republicans shouldn’t govern like Democrats.  Governing roughshod all over the opposition party.  Why?  “Because,” they say.  Pouting.  (They really don’t have anything better.  They just HATE not having power.)

It was Always about Growing Government, not Improving the Economy

And as the new year begins, President Obama is giving us a Bill Clinton wag of the finger (figuratively), telling us to play nice.  Which is what bullies typically do when they lost their power to bully (see Obama: Dems, GOP must cooperate in new year by Julie Pace, Associated Press, posted 1/1/2011 on Yahoo! News).

In his weekly radio and Internet address, Obama said Saturday that lawmakers must return to Washington next week prepared to make serious decisions about how to grow the economy in the short run and stay competitive in the future.

“I’m willing to work with anyone of either party who’s got a good idea and the commitment to see it through,” Obama said. “And we should all expect you to hold us accountable for our progress or our failure to deliver.”

Not quite the ‘thanks but no thanks’ he told the Republicans 3 days after his inauguration.  And all that talk about jobs being job one?  And that laser like focus on jobs?  It was all bull [deleted expletive].  Unemployment went up after his stimulus plan to keep unemployment under 8%.  It’s still flirting with 10% some 2 years later.  But the size of government spending exploded.  Which is what the Left wants.  It’s what they always want.  So they got what they wanted.  The only problem is that some of their supporters believed they were trying to improve the economy.

The Public Sector’s Message to the Taxpayers:  Let Them Eat Cake

The liberal left comprises approximately 20% of the population.  That’s why it’s hard for them to win elections.  Especially after they’ve exploded government spending following an election win.  And that spending is bankrupting the country.  Our states.  And our cities.

A big chunk of that spending goes to support the public sector.  Public sector unions have made public sector jobs very cushy.  No one in the private sector comes close to their wage and benefit packages.  And no one in the private sector enjoys job security like they have in the public sector.  Until now.  In Wisconsin, the Republicans are in power.  And the public sector is getting nervous (see Wisconsin State Workers Fret, as G.O.P. Takes Over by Monica Davey posted 1/1/2011 on The New York Times)

But it’s just not in Wisconsin.  Public sector unions are nervous wherever Republicans have ascended to power.  Because they worry that the good times may come to an end.  And they may have to live like the rest of us.  Some are even predicting that we may see a little European rioting here in the United States (see Topic A: What will be 2011’s biggest political surprise? by Ed Rogers posted 1/2/2011 on The Washington Post).

The biggest political surprise in 2011 may come in the form of the shock produced by public-sector labor strikes and demonstrations that could stray into civil disorder as state and local governments cut budgets. Government workers could be laid off by the thousands, and millions of the beneficiaries of government-supplied salaries, pensions and benefits could see reductions in pay and program allowances they have been told to expect.

The same kind of protests that have rocked Paris, London and Rome could erupt in California, New York and Illinois.

When European Socialism cuts back on pensions, college tuition assistance, health care, etc., the beneficiaries of European Socialism burn cities.  And this anarchy may be coming to a city near you.

The schism between the governed and those governing could become greater than ever as the government tries to protect itself for its own sake and not for the public good. The millions of Americans who have lost jobs or face increasing economic uncertainty resent the relative posterity and security that government now provides for itself. President Obama will say he is for more “stimulus,” but even the money-making printing presses in Washington are at their limits.

It’s a master-slave mentality.  The masters are the public sector.  The slaves are the taxpayers.  And the masters have lost touch with reality.  They laugh at the poor suffering masses struggling to pay their taxes.  When advised of the taxpayer’s plight what do they say?  “Let them eat cake.”  (A reference to what Marie Antoinette reportedly said during the French Revolution.  While the upper classes had food, the lower classes were to be satisfied with oven scrapings.)

Pennsylvania Liquor Stores a Microcosm of Public Sectors Everywhere

Of course, the poor, suffering taxpayers would probably not be in such a foul mood if it wasn’t for the value they were getting for those high taxes.  That public sector sucks.  As any enterprise without competition does.  Why give a damn about what you’re doing if you’re the only caterer in town?

In Pennsylvania, you can only buy wine and liquor in a government store.  And the service stinks to high heaven.  The good people of Pennsylvania want to privatize their booze.  But the public sector union oppose privatization (see A Push to Privatize Pennsylvania Liquor Stores by Julie Pace, Associated Press, posted 12/31/2010 on The New York Times).

Like prisoners in the gulag, consumers here can only fantasize about buying their wine and liquor in a competitive free market. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has run the liquor stores for eight decades, a relic of the post-Prohibition era, when government thought controlling the sale of alcohol would limit consumption.

The legislature has consistently dismissed talk of privatizing the system, mainly because of opposition from the union representing the store workers and from groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving and conservative teetotalers, all influential in the state.

And what’s the recourse for an angry people?

“This is insane!” said Bill Conrad, 68, a retired electrical engineer. “People are going to New York and Jersey” to buy alcohol.

And there it is.  Competition makes everything better.  Should you be lucky enough to live close to the state border.  Where I live, I can go to most any party store, some drugstores, even some supermarkets.  And you know what?  I can go to anyone and buy whatever I want whenever I want.  Private stores have competition so they have an incentive to keep their shelves stocked.  And their doors open for customers.

If you want to get an idea about how Obamacare will be, you can look at the liquor stores in Pennsylvania.  That’s what happens when the governments tries to run anything.

The Taxpayers Message to the Public Sector Employees:  Get a Job

The Democrats took a shellacking at the 2010 midterm elections.  The people have rejected their Big Government liberal agenda.  And they know it.  So they’re now trying to shame the Republicans into working with them to keep their Big Government dreams alive.  It’s either that or they have to figure out a way to get rid of those pesky elections.

But the public sector is bankrupting the country.  And the people paying the taxes to support that public sector are saying enough is enough.  They don’t like making sacrifices in their own life so others in government can live a better life.  Especially when they have to settle for such rotten service from the public sector they’re paying more and more to fund.

Their message to these pampered public sector employees?  The same parents have been telling their kids for ages.  Get a job.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Republicans and Obama Compromise to Extend the Bush Tax Cuts

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 8th, 2010

It’s not that the American People Disagree with Obama.  They’re just not Smart enough to know what’s Best for Them.

Well, problem solved.  Sort of.  For a year or so.  Then they’ll have to do it all over again.

Obama will extend the Bush tax cuts.  And it will only cost another year of unemployment benefits.  That’s good because we have all grown weary of this recession (see Obama defends tax deal, says he’s kept promises by Ben Feller, AP White House Correspondent, posted 12/7/2010 on Yahoo! News).

With fellow Democrats balking, President Barack Obama declared Tuesday that a compromise with Republicans on tax cuts was necessary to help the economy and protect recession-weary Americans. He passionately defended his record against Democrats who complain he’s breaking campaign promises.

What’s this?  Some of that bipartisanship he was talking about when Obama ran as a moderate during the 2008 presidential campaign?  Can you feel the love?  You better pinch me because I must be dreaming.

Obama cast his decision to accede to the GOP position on extending the tax cuts in stark terms.

“It’s tempting not to negotiate with hostage takers — unless the hostage gets harmed. Then, people will question the wisdom of that strategy. In this case, the hostage was the American people, and I was not willing to see them get harmed.”

He said the American people agree with his position, but “I haven’t persuaded the Republican Party.” Reflecting the newly increased Republican clout in Congress, he said: “I haven’t persuaded (Senate Republican leader) Mitch McConnell and I haven’t persuaded (House GOP leader) John Boehner.”

Now there’s the Obama we all know and…., well, know.  Who else could suffer such a categorical rejection of his polices and still think the American people agree with him?  Talk about illusions of grandeur. 

It reminds me of that line in the movie Tootsie where some aging soap opera star was lamenting about being an old has-been.  Dorothy (Dustin Hoffman) soothed his feelings by saying he wasn’t an old has-been.  He couldn’t be.  Because you had to be famous first to be a has-been.

Or that scene in that classic movie This is Spinal Tap, the fake documentary about a fake, aging rock band.  The interviewer noted they were playing smaller venues instead of arenas like in their heyday and asked if that was a reflection on their popularity.  They said ‘no’.  Their audiences weren’t getting smaller.  They were just becoming more selective.

And you can forget about pinching me.

Americans Lose Faith in the Unmanly Obama

Unhappy with this compromise, the Left is questioning Obama’s manliness (see Left sees tax surrender, says Obama reelection bid now crippled by Sam Youngman posted 12/7/2010 on The Hill).

“President Obama has shown a complete refusal to fight Republicans throughout his presidency even when the public is on his side — and millions of his former supporters are now growing disappointed and infuriated by this refusal to fight,” said Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee.

The public is with Obama?  Talk about a struggle with reality.  Or a very, very short memory.  If the midterm elections weren’t a rejection of Obama’s liberal agenda I don’t know what rejection is.  So, no, the public is not with Obama on this.  Only the far Left is with Obama.  That 20% of the population that the other 80% can’t stand.

“This is only a tough fight [now] because Americans have lost faith that President Obama is fighting for their economic futures,” said Jamal Simmons, a Democratic strategist and former official with the Clinton administration.

Do you think?  Things have gotten worse under Obama.  Even after he spent billions of dollars to make things better.  So, yeah, most Americans have lost faith in Obama.  If they even had any in him in the first place.

Compromise is a Four-Letter Word on the Left

Bipartisanship is all well and good.  As long as you can make the other guy be bipartisan, that is.  The Democrats aren’t happy.  Especially the leadership, who usually march in lockstep with Obama (see Obama defends tax deal while Reid seeks changes by Charles Babington, Associated Press, posted 12/7/2010 on Yahoo! News).

“It’s something that’s not done yet,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. “We’re going to have to do some more work,” Reid said after a closed-door meeting with Vice President Joe Biden and members of the Democratic rank-and-file.

Reid isn’t happy.  Neither is Pelosi.

Across the Capitol, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, normally one of Obama’s staunchest allies, made plain her unhappiness, issuing a statement that contained no commitment to help pass the plan. “We will continue discussions with the president and our caucus in the days ahead.”

Yes, Reid and Pelosi are all for compromise.  As long it’s not them doing the compromising.  Typical liberals.  Never happy.  Even with the most liberal president ever to inhabit the White House.  He just isn’t liberal enough for them.

The Really Sad thing is that Pelosi got Reelected with 80% of the Vote

Furious, Pelosi vented on Twitter (see Pelosi attacks Obama-GOP tax plan as House Democrats signal fight by Russell Berman posted 12/7/2010 on The Hill).

In a post on Twitter, Pelosi said the GOP provisions in the tax proposal would add to the deficit and help the rich without creating jobs. The GOP provisions “help only wealthiest 3%, don’t create jobs & add tens of billions to deficit,” the Pelosi tweet said.

Then issued a statement.

“We will continue discussions with the president and our caucus in the days ahead,” Pelosi said. “Democratic priorities remain clear: to provide a tax cut for working families, to promote policies that produce jobs and economic growth, and to assist millions of our fellow Americans who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.”

Nevadans barely reelected Reid.  Pelosi, on the other hand, got something like 80% of the vote.  Scary.  So that means about 80% of the people in her district agree with the political philosophy of about 20% of the country.  That screwball far Left.  The same people that supported Joseph Stalin.  And Fidel Castro.  Is it any wonder that Pelosi doesn’t have the foggiest idea about creating jobs?

Pelosi and the Democrats have been in power since 2006, 2 years before Obama’s election.  That’s 4 years of legislative control.  And things have declined during those 4 years.  So why in the world would anyone believe that she and her Democrats know anything about jobs and economic growth?  I’m sure she believes they do.  They just need more time.  Because that fifth year is always the charm.  Stalin, Mao, Castro – they all had 5 year plans.  And all the magic happens in that fifth year.  Apparently. 

Elections Have Consequences

The 2010 midterm elections were a mandate to shrink the power and scope of government.  Yet you wouldn’t know that listening to Obama, Pelosi and Reid.  Even some Republicans seem a little too eager to reach across the aisle. 

The Republicans need to acknowledge that Obama was right.  Elections have consequences.  And they won this time.  Not the Democrats.  And they need to legislate like they got a pair. 

Many feel the extension of the Bush tax cuts came at a high price.  No doubt they’re wondering what they will pay to repeal Obamacare.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

« Previous Entries