Decriminalize Marijuana and the Kids will Smoke more and Eventually Vote Democrat

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 28th, 2013

Week in Review

Teenagers typically vote Democrat.  In part because of the liberal bias in our public schools.  And in our colleges.  As well as in the mainstream media.  In Hollywood.  In television.  And the music industry.  These things do a lot to shape the way our kids think.  But there is another reason why our kids become Democrat voters.  Because it is the left that is handing out free birth control.  While their parents say ‘no’ the left says ‘go ahead.  Have fun.’  And then there is the push by the left to decriminalize marijuana.  Something else these kids’ parents say ‘no’ to.  While the left says ‘go ahead.  Have fun.’  Even if it may be harmful to them.  For what’s a few burnt brain cells in exchange for the youth vote (see Pot’s march toward mainstream by Alicia A. Caldwell And Nancy Benac, The Associated Press, posted 7/27/2013 on The Vancouver Sun)?

It is a moment in the U.S. that is rife with contradictions: People are looking more kindly on marijuana even as science reveals more about the drug’s potential dangers, particularly for young people…

Exploration of the potential medical benefit is limited by high U.S. government hurdles to research. Washington policy-makers seem reluctant to deal with any of it.

So we know it’s bad for the children.  But we really don’t know how bad.  For it is the only medicine (medical marijuana) ever allowed without proving the drug through clinical trials.  To make sure the drug works.  And it doesn’t cause irrevocable harm.  No pharmaceutical is allowed this luxury when bringing a new drug to market.  And we know how dangerous cigarettes and alcohol are.  But not marijuana.  No.  That drug we just accept on faith that it will cure us.  Besides just giving us a great high.

Opponents of pot are particularly worried that legalization will result in increased use by young people.

“There’s no real win on this from a political perspective,” says Sabet. “Do you want to be the president that stops a popular cause, especially a cause that’s popular within your own party? Or do you want to be the president that enables youth drug use that will have ramifications down the road?”

If anyone legalizes it will be the left.  Who are always attacking the right for hating children whenever they say we can’t afford to spend any more money.  But smoking pot harms kids.  And the left is okay with that.

“Having a regulated system is the only way to ensure that we’re not ceding control of this popular substance to the criminal market and to black marketeers,” says Aaron Smith, executive director of the National Cannabis Industry Association, a trade group for legal pot businesses in the U.S. See Change Research, which analyzes the marijuana business, has estimated the national U.S. market for medical marijuana alone at $1.7 billion for 2011 and has projected it could reach $8.9 billion in five years. Overall, marijuana users spend tens of billions of dollars a year on pot, experts believe…

In Washington state, the Liquor Control Board is drawing up rules covering everything from how plants will be grown to how many stores will be allowed. It expects to issue licences for growers and processors in December, and impose 25 per cent taxes three times over – when pot is grown, processed and sold to consumers…

Marijuana advocates in Washington state…have projected the legal pot market could bring the state a half-billion a year in revenue…

Decriminalizing marijuana will make it easier for kids to smoke it.  Because it’s easier to get things that are only illegal for people under a legal age.  As opposed to being completely illegal.  Kids aren’t legally allowed to smoke cigarettes but they do.  In fact, it is fair to say kids smoke more cigarettes than marijuana.  Because cigarettes aren’t completely illegal.  They’re only illegal for kids.

So cities suffering under the crushing costs of their public sectors are looking at a windfall of tax revenue by decriminalizing marijuana.  And don’t seem to have a problem of people spending more of their money on getting high instead of saving for their retirement.  Paying for their kids’ education.  Or putting food on the table.  It was the same thing when cities scrambled to legalize gambling.  Because they wanted the tax revenue.  Despite people gambling away money that they should have spent on their family.  No doubt these cities would be disappointed if more kids didn’t start smoking marijuana.  So that when they grew into adults they would already have a healthy drug habit the city could tax.  To help pay for the crushing costs of their public sectors.

Of course, the states and cities will never see those rosy projections of tax revenue.  Because when they “impose 25 per cent taxes three times over” they will raise the price of legal marijuana so much that it will benefit, not hurt, the black market for marijuana.  Even if the black market price is below the official taxed price.  Why?  Because people smuggling cigarettes from a low-tax state to a high-tax state don’t do the time drug dealers do when caught.  Encouraging more people to sell a legal substance illegally.  To cheat the state out of that tax revenue.  And pot smokers, especially the kids, will turn to the black market for their pot.  Where it will be even more readily available when the growing, transporting and selling of marijuana is no longer illegal.  Like cigarettes.  Which kids have no problem buying.

California steps back California’s experience with medical marijuana offers a window into pitfalls that can come with wider availability of pot.

Dispensaries for medical marijuana have proliferated in the state, and regulation has been lax, prompting a number of cities in the state to ban dispensaries…

In May, the California Supreme Court ruled that cities and counties can ban medical marijuana dispensaries.

A few weeks later, Los Angeles voters approved a ballot measure that limits the number of pot shops in the city to 135, down from an estimated high of about 1,000. By contrast, whitepages. com lists 112 Starbucks in the city…

In 2010, California voters opted against legalizing marijuana for recreational use, drawing the line at medical use.

But Jeffrey Dunn, a Southern California lawyer who has represented cities in pot cases, says that in reality the state’s dispensaries have been operating so loosely that already “it’s really all-access.”

“What we’ve learned is, it is very difficult if not impossible to regulate these facilities,” he said.

The people may have voted for marijuana in California.  But the people didn’t like living in a Cheech and Chong movie surrounded by stoners.  And seeing a pot shop every time they turned around.  Which is the last thing a parent wants.  To have it so much easier for their kids to smoke pot.  Or eat it.

A Denver-area hospital, for example, saw children getting sick after eating treats and other foods made with marijuana in the two years after a 2009 federal policy change led to a surge in medical marijuana use, according to a study in JAMA Pediatrics in May. In the preceding four years, the hospital had no such cases.

The Colorado Education Department reported a sharp rise in drugrelated suspensions and expulsions after medical marijuana took off.

“What we’re doing is not working,” says Dr. Christian Thurstone, a psychiatrist whose Denver youth substance abuse treatment centre has seen referrals for marijuana double since September. In addition, he sees young people becoming increasingly reluctant to be treated, arguing that it can’t be bad for them if it’s legal.

You decriminalize marijuana and, of course, kids will see that as an admission from the state that smoking pot can’t be bad for you.  So more kids use the drug.  Ending up in the hospital.  Getting suspended or expelled from school.  Or in drug rehab for a pot addiction.  But the left is okay with this.  Because, after all, it is the right that hates kids.  Whereas the left is the cool uncle that will let their niece and/or nephew smoke a joint.  Which is why the kids love the left.  They are always helping them do things their parents won’t let them do.

Legalization foes Opponents counter with a 2012 study finding that regular use of marijuana during teen years can lead to a long-term drop in IQ, and another study indicating marijuana use can induce and exacerbate psychotic illness in susceptible people. They question the notion that regulating pot will bring in big money, saying revenue estimates are grossly exaggerated…

They warn that baby boomers who draw on their own innocuous experiences with pot are overlooking the much higher potency of today’s marijuana.

In 2009, concentrations of THC, the psychoactive ingredient in pot, averaged close to 10 per cent in marijuana, compared with about four per cent in the 1980s, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

So the left will sacrifice our children for money.  So they can pay for those costly public sectors breaking their budgets.  They won’t take on the public sector unions.  But they will sacrifice our kids.  Because kids don’t pay taxes.  Or vote.  Yet.  But when they do they hope they will remember their cool uncle when in the voting booth.

The baby boomers, who filled the theaters watching Cheech and Chong movies, look back to their days of pot smoking with nostalgia.  Thinking they turned out all right.  And so will the younger generation.  As they anxiously wait for the decriminalization of marijuana so they can buy more.  And smoke more.  Loving the high potency of the new stuff.  Not at all like the stuff they grew up smoking.  Which still fried their brains.  Providing a head start to what dementia will do to them as they reach their golden years.

Kids will on average start smoking at an earlier age.  More of them will smoke because if it’s legal it can’t be bad for you.  And they will be smoking a more potent marijuana than their parents smoked.  Accelerating the damage pot smoking will do to them compared to what it did to their parents.  But the left is okay with that.  Because it is the right that hates the children.  Not the cool uncle.  At least that’s how the youth vote will see it.  Which is all that matters to the left.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Nazi Party, Adolf Hitler, Liberal Democrats and Totalitarian Rule

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 23rd, 2013

Politics 101

Before WWII there were many who Admired the Great Things Authoritative and Charismatic Dictators were Doing

The Nazi Party is one of the most documented rises of totalitarianism.   A system of government where everything and everyone is subordinated to the state.  Where the state comes first.  And the people are expendable.  Ruled by a single person.  A charismatic leader.  Who the people pledge their allegiance to.    And follow obediently to the ends of the earth.  We can learn a lot by studying what happened in Nazi Germany about the quest for absolute power.  For though party ideology may differ the path to that party is eerily similar wherever, and whenever, you look.

Of course, some are infatuated by an all-powerful state.  Not for the crimes against their people.  But what an all-powerful state can do.  Where enlightened individuals can do what’s best for the people without having to deal with a political opposition.  Just read what one beloved world leader wrote about Adolf Hitler prior to the outbreak of hostilities that embroiled the world in World War II:

Other musings concern how great the autobahns were – ‘the best roads in the world’ – and how, having visited Hitler’s Bavarian holiday home in Berchtesgaden and the tea house built on top of the mountain for him.

He declared; ‘Who has visited these two places can easily imagine how Hitler will emerge from the hatred currently surrounding him to emerge in a few years as one of the most important personalities that ever lived.’

This was written just a few years before Hitler invaded Poland.  Up until the war broke out there were many who admired the great things authoritative and charismatic leaders were doing.  Mussolini made the trains run on time.  And FDR was so smitten with Joseph Stalin and the great things he was doing in the Soviet Union that it broke his heart when the Soviets signed a non-aggression pact with the Nazis.  Allowing the invasion of Poland.  And starting World War II.  While splitting up Poland between the Nazis and the communists.  Basically removing Poland from the map.

The Left has used the Expanding Size of the Federal Government to Harass and Silence their Political Enemies

This is why Nazi Germany is so interesting as a study in politics.  For the Nazis rose to power within the political process.  They won elections.  And then used their legitimate powers to expand their power.  Often helped by the clever use of propaganda.  Misinformation.  And brutal criminal acts.  Which becomes easier to do as your powers grow.  And you place yourself above the law.  And become a nation of a charismatic ruler.  Instead of a nation of laws.

With the recent scandals of the Obama administration (Benghazi, the obstruction of free speech, the persecution of conservatives, etc.) some are making comparisons to Watergate.  While some even go so far as to compare it to Nazi Germany.  Of course, President Obama and the Democrats are NOT Nazis.  In fact, they are diametrically opposed to much Nazi ideology.  Just to give one example take immigration.  The Nazis believed in a pure Germanic race and opposed immigration of non-Germans.  While Democrats want to throw open the borders.  So the left are not Nazis.  But if you read the 25 points of the Nazi Party platform of 1920 you will see that the left employs many of the same tools to rise to power as the Nazis—and all totalitarian regimes—used in their rise to power.  Here are some of the 25 points.

9. All citizens must have equal rights and obligations.

12. In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

13. We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

16. We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.

18. We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, Schieber and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.

20. The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.

23. We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. In order to enable the provision of a German press, we demand, that:

a. All writers and employees of the newspapers appearing in the German language be members of the race:

b. Non-German newspapers be required to have the express permission of the State to be published. They may not be printed in the German language:

c. Non-Germans are forbidden by law any financial interest in German publications, or any influence on them, and as punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-German concerned. Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life, and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands.

25. For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central power in the Reich. Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Reich and its organizations in general. The forming of state and profession chambers for the execution of the laws made by the Reich within the various states of the confederation. The leaders of the Party promise, if necessary by sacrificing their own lives, to support by the execution of the points set forth above without consideration.

Both the Nazis and the left call for an egalitarian society.  For example, everyone should have access to health care.  While everyone is obligated to pay their fair share (i.e., the health care mandate forcing people to buy health insurance).  Both call war a crime against the people and want to confiscate war profits.  Among other profits.  The left wants to get rid of the profit incentive and capitalism while the Nazis wanted to just nationalize private sector industries.  The Nazis wanted to get the elderly dependent on the state by expanding old age welfare.  Just as the left does with Social Security and Medicare (and now Obamacare).  The Nazis wanted to implement price controls to help the middle class.  The left’s solution to the high cost of health care (in part) is price controls.  Forcing doctors and hospitals to work for less.  The Nazis wanted to severely punish those who are injurious to the state agenda.  The left used the IRS and other agencies of the federal government to make life uncomfortable for those who actively oppose their agenda (case in point the recent scandals plaguing the Obama administration).  The Nazis controlled education as “early as the beginning of understanding.”  The left had the government take over the student loan program to get more kids into college where they can further indoctrinate them.  The left controls public education.  That gets out the vote to help Democrats win elections.  And the left is always trying to create/expand state-run childcare.  To start indoctrinating children as “early as the beginning of understanding.”  The Nazis wanted to ban any free speech that did not help the general good.  As the state determined what that general good was.  The left marginalizes the one network (Fox) that doesn’t endorse the left’s agenda.  They’ve tried to muzzle free speech on the one media outlet they did not dominate (talk radio) by trying to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.  And they’ve talked about extending that to the Internet to shut down any opposition there.  The Nazis called for a strong central authority with unlimited powers to protect the general interest.  The left has expanded the size of the federal government under the guise to protect the general interest.  And the recent scandals show the use of that growing central authority to harass and silence their political enemies.  Conservatives.  Who are today’s scapegoat.

JFK was more Champion of the People than Seeker of Dictatorial Power unlike Today’s Democrat Party

The Nazi party did not do well until the Great Depression.  When the masses were unemployed and suffering under the war reparations of the Versailles Treaty.  The people were angry.  Frustrated.  And felt they were suffering for the crimes of others.  Then along came Adolf Hitler.  And the Nazi Party.  They did not let this crisis go to waste.  The Nazis identified a scapegoat for all of their woes.  The Jews.  With a great crisis and a scapegoat the Nazis started winning elections.  In 1928 the Nazis had 12 seats in the Reichstag.  By September of 1930, after the pain of the Great Depression was being felt, they had 107 seats.  Making them the second largest party.  At the same time the Hitler Youth junior branches started indoctrinating boys and girls as young as 10.  By July 1932 the Nazis were the largest party in the Reichstag.  The Nazis co-ruled the country as part of a coalition government.  In 1933 the Reichstag burnt down.  Another crisis too good to waste.  The Nazis (who probably started that fire) blamed the Communist Party (KPD).  The second largest party in the Reichstag.  The Nazis got the KPD banned.  Giving the Nazis majority rule.  They then suspended basic civil rights.  Because enemies of the people were everywhere.  And the government needed to protect them.  Making Germany a police state.  The Civil Service law of 1933 began the removal of Jews from every office.  The Nazis then abolished trade unions.  Forcing everyone to join the German Labor Front.  Then in March 1933 the government passed the Enabling Law.  Transferring legislative power to Hitler’s cabinet.  Creating Hitler’s dictatorship.  As the future of Germany could no longer be left to the chaos of an elected body.  It needed the strong will of a charismatic leader who knew what was best for the German people.  And the German people followed his will obediently.  Because there were enemies all around.  And they needed someone unhindered by an elected body or law to protect them.

Liberal Democrats are NOT Nazis.  They have more ideological difference than they share.  But they do have one thing in common with the Nazis.  Their quest for power.  And in that quest for power they have used some of the same techniques the Nazis used.  Because all power-hungry people use these techniques.  They identify an enemy (Jews/conservatives).  They champion the people.  And then lie through their teeth.  Using their growing powers to consolidate even more power.  All the while the people enthusiastically support them.  Supporting the oppression of their common enemy.  Until that consolidated power begins to include them in their oppression.  Where all but the most devout Nazis regretted their earlier support of the Nazi Party.  As it was all but the most devout Nazis that suffered from the state’s oppression.

So who was that beloved world leader that wrote so admiringly of Adolf Hitler before the outbreak of World War II?  He was an American.  A Democrat.  Who actually went on to fight in World War II.  Against the Japanese.  Who went on to become president of the United States.  Fierce Cold War warrior.  And, surprisingly, endorsed economic policies that Ronald Reagan would one day endorse.  John Fitzgerald Kennedy (see How JFK secretly ADMIRED Hitler: Explosive book reveals former President’s praise for the Nazis as he travelled through Germany before Second World War posted 5/23/2013 on the Daily Mail).  Who may have had some faults.  But being a Nazi wasn’t one of them.  JFK may have wanted to use the power of government to make America better.  But he was an old school Democrat.  Who was more champion of the people than seeker of dictatorial power.  Unlike today.  Where it appears the Democrats in power use the IRS and other agencies of the federal government to oppress their political enemies.  Conservatives.  Kind of the way the Nazis oppressed their political enemies in Germany.  And like the communists oppressed their political enemies in East Germany.  Where our fierce Cold War warrior spat in the face of that communist oppression by proclaiming, “Ich bin ein Berline.”  I am a Berliner.  But today it is the Democrats that are the oppressors.  Not the ones fighting against oppression.

We’ve come a long way from JFK’s Democrat Party.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

The American Left and Islamic Extremism

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 25th, 2013

Politics 101

Osama bin Laden may be Dead but Islamic Extremism is on the Rise

It didn’t take long to blame America for the Boston Marathon bombings.  Before we knew who the bombers were those on the left were hoping and praying that the bombers were radical conservatives.  A rightwing militia nut.  Or a member of the Tea party.  Anyone but a Muslim.  And when we learned that the bombers were Muslim the Left found new ways to blame America.  For the left hates conservatives.  And for some reason has a soft spot for radical Islamists.  Radical Islam is not to blame for the bombings.  The War in Afghanistan is.  The Iraq War.  And all of those drone strikes.  In general it’s this imperial aggression of America that is to blame.  Not this poor 19-year old kid and his brother.  And until we learn this we are going to keep radicalizing innocent 19-year old kids.  Making them place bombs next to 8-year old boys.

The Americans helped liberate Libya from Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.  Who had become an American ally in the War on Terror after the U.S. invasion of Iraq.  Despite this we helped the rebels based in Benghazi overthrow Gaddafi.  Who they eventually caught.  And killed without a trial.  Since then Benghazi grew into a hotbed of anti-Western Islamic radicalism.  Despite the West having helped them overthrow Gaddafi.  It got so bad that after an attempt on the life of the British ambassador the British pulled out of Benghazi.  While the American ambassador asked his superiors for additional security.  Which his superiors denied.  Because President Obama had won the War on Terror.  Osama bin Laden is dead.  And General Motors is alive.  This was their campaign slogan.  We should reelect the president because he won the War on Terror.  By killing bin Laden.  It was just like President George W. Bush on that aircraft carrier.  This was President Obama’s ‘mission accomplished’ banner.  And he just couldn’t jeopardize his reelection chances by increasing security to protect the American diplomatic mission against a vanquished enemy.

So this is one reason why the left has a soft spot for radical Islamists.  To say we have a problem with radical Islamism would bring this horrible policy record to light.  Which they really didn’t want to do for it finally made the left look tough on national security.  For they have appeared weak on national defense since LBJ.  And they didn’t like LBJ being tough on national defense.  Which is why they emasculated the Defense Department afterwards.  Which was all well and fine with those on the left until our enemies started attacking us.  Giving the Republicans the advantage in elections during times when there were threats to national security.  But killing Osama bin Laden changed that.  Finally it was the left that demonstrated strength in national security.  For they won the War on Terror by killing Osama bin Laden.  Or so they believed.  Thus negating one of the Republican’s campaign advantages.  Which not only helped George W. Bush win reelection.  But it helped President Obama win reelection.  Despite one of the worst economic recoveries in U.S. history.  And a pretty poor foreign policy record.  He may have killed America’s number one enemy, Osama bin Laden, but he did nothing to help the Iranians overthrow their oppressive dictatorship.  America’s new number one enemy.  But he did help overthrow longtime American ally Hosni Mubarak.  And now Egypt is under control of the Muslim Brotherhood.  Who is closely allied with Iran.  And our thanks for helping the Libyans overthrow their oppressor?  We’re seeing al Qaeda gaining strength in Libya.  Who killed our ambassador.  And three other Americans.  So the president’s foreign policy is making the Middle East a less safe place.  And more anti-American.  But Osama bin Laden is dead.  And General Motors is alive.

The American Left fears American Conservatism more than Islamic Extremism

With the capture of 19-year-old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev President Obama was anxious to downplay the bombers’ religion.  That we shouldn’t rush to judgment just because the bombers were Muslim.  He didn’t even use words like ‘Islamist’ or ‘Islamist terrorist’.  For he has worked hard to convince the American people that there is no militant Islamist element still trying to kill Americans because of their religion.  And when two radical Islamists killed and maimed Americans because of their religion he lectured Americans sternly not to make anything of this fact.

“In this age of instant reporting, tweets, and blogs, there’s a temptation to latch on to any bit of information sometimes to jump to conclusions. When a tragedy like this happens, with public safety at risk and the stakes so high, it’s important that we do this right. That’s why we have investigations. That’s why we relentlessly gather the facts, that’s why we have courts. That’s why we take care not to rush to judgment, not about the motivations of these individuals and certainly not about entire groups of people,” he said.

And this despite Islamic extremism in the United States increasing during his presidency.  According to Wikipedia during the 8 years of George W. bush there were 5 Islamist terrorist attacks and 10 failed plots.

Islamist Attack or Foiled Plot 2001-2008

While during about 4 years of the Obama presidency things got worse.

Islamist Attack or Foiled Plot 2009-2013

*Not included on original source cited.  See Benghazi attack.

During the approximate 4 years of the Obama administration there have been 4 Islamist terrorist attacks and 18 failed plots.  So clearly Islamist extremism is getting worse.  Not better.  And yet all we hear from this administration and their allies in the mainstream media is that Islam is a religion of peace.  While the real enemy to fear is American conservatism.  Despite the record clearly showing that the thing to fear is Islamic extremism.  For it is Muslim terrorists killing Americans every chance they get.  Not American conservatives.  So why is it that the American left has such a soft spot for radical Islamists?

The Adage ‘the Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend’ has brought Radical Islamists and the American Left Together

During the 2012 presidential election the most important things to women were free birth control and abortion.  According to the Democrats.  Who advanced the idea about a Republican war on women.  When George Stephanopoulos asked Mitt Romney if he wanted to take birth control away from women.  The next thing you knew birth control and abortion were women’s health issues.  And if women didn’t vote Democrat they would die from an epidemic of cancer and never have sex again unless they were in some loveless marriage making babies instead of enjoying a career.  The ultimate goal of this strategy?  If the left can turn people away from Christianity they can turn people away from the Republican party.  For while a lot of people identify themselves as fiscally conservative a lot of these same people still identify themselves as socially liberal.  And the more they can drive a wedge between these two groups within the Republican Party the more socially liberal Republicans they can push into the Democrat Party.  Hence the relentless assault on Christianity.  Who they identify as controlling the Republican Party.  This Religious Right.  Who they paint as wanting to return women back to a time when they were obedient wives serving their masters.  Like they were in the Fifties.  This is what piety and morality was all about.  Controlling women.  And the only way to prevent this from happening was to allow women to have sex outside of marriage.  For if they can do that and have a career they would have no need for a husband.  This was real freedom.  And this was what the Republican Party and the Religious Right were against.  All the left had to do was to get these socially liberals to see this simple fact.  And they found a very simple way of doing that.  Sex.

The Left likes having their sex.  It’s what defined them in the Sixties when they kicked off the sexual revolution.  These baby boomers were so into personal gratification that they earned the moniker the Me generation.  During the Seventies they enjoyed their swinging life style.  Drugs.  And casual sex.  A lot of it.  With a lot of different partners.  Even married couples were getting into the action with open marriages and wife swapping.  It was a time of anything goes.  Whatever felt good they did.  No matter how much Christianity disapproved of it.  And were vocal about it.  Which fueled the left’s hatred of Christianity.  Who are always trying to judge them.  Telling them how they should live their lives.  Which just frosts their shorts on the left.  So they flaunted their lifestyles in front of Christians.  Mocked Christians.  Belittled them in television and the movies.  Insulting them with blasphemous images they call art.  Attacked their traditions.  And tried to remove any signs of Christianity from public life.  They removed it from our schools.  And banned Christ from Christmas displays.  When they weren’t trying to attack Christianity they were trying to change it.  By making Catholics hand out free birth control in their institutions.  Including the abortion pill.  And demanding that they changed church doctrine to recognize same-sex marriage.

So the left is no friend of Christianity.  Which brings us to why they have such a soft spot for radical Islamists.  For they hate Christianity as much as they do.  And you know what they say.  The enemy of my enemy is my friend.  So they relish radical Islam’s hatred of Christianity.  Despite radical Islam hating the lifestyle of the Godless left more than Christians.  And having a real war on women.  A brutal one at that.  Even condoning the honor killing of women.  But the left overlooks all of this and tells us we mustn’t rush to judgment whenever radical Islam kills Americans.  But we should be scared of conservative Republicans.  Because they may make us pay for own birth control.  Or may actually put the abortion issue up to a vote of the people.  Instead of leaving it to the whims of liberal Supreme Court justices.  A fate too horrible even to consider on the left.  So they attack Republicans.  And Christianity.  As well as make Faustian bargains with radical Islam.  But in radical Islam’s seething hatred of America it is the left’s lifestyle they hate most.  And while the radical Islamists are enjoying the free pass they’re getting from the American left it doesn’t mean they like them.  They may tolerate them.  Because the enemy of my enemy is my friend.  But that tolerance will be short-lived.  For radical Islam is about as tolerant as the American left.

 www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FT117: “If a gay gene is identified an abortion of a gay fetus will be labeled a hate crime.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 11th, 2012

Fundamental Truth

The Left opposes Traditional Marriage but supports Same-Sex Marriage for the Money

According to the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law there are approximately 9 million lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people in the United States.  Based on a population of 311,591,917 that comes to approximately 3% of the population.  Which is a small number.  Which explains why same-sex marriage ballot initiatives are so often defeated.  Some people are opposed to same-sex marriage.  Some are opposed to making changes to existing laws to accommodate 3% of the population.  Whatever their reason voting majorities are against it.  Despite this same-sex marriage is a big issue.  Especially for some politicians.  In particular those on the Left.  As evidenced by President Obama’s recent evolution from being opposed to same-sex marriage to being in favor of it.  Which is puzzling when you consider the Left’s position on marriage in general.

They don’t like it.  Especially if it leads to a woman giving up a chance for a career to instead stay at home and raise a family.  For these women are not feminists.  These are enemies to feminism.  The Left has given women everything they could possible ask for.  So they don’t have to get married and become some man’s chattel.  Birth control.  Abortion.  Child support.  Public housing.  Etc.  Everything to help a woman avoid the tyranny of marriage.  Because marriage is nothing more than bondage.  A desire to keep women barefoot and pregnant.  To keep them cooks in the kitchen and whores in the bedroom.  While men go out and live life.  While coming home to a surrogate mother to attend to all of their needs.  Which is why the Left so opposes the repugnant institution of marriage.  Unless it’s for a same-sex couple.  Then it’s the greatest thing since sliced bread.

So why is the Left so opposed to traditional marriage but all for same-sex marriage?  Money.  There is a lot of money in the LGBT community.  Because there is a lot of talent in the LGBT community.  People who go on to great stardom.  And become rich.  Who want it all.  Including marriage and a family.  So though small in numbers they are large in money.  So by supporting same-sex marriage the Left is trading votes for money.  Votes that for the most part they’ve already lost.  Traditional conservatives and Christians.  But they run a risk with this policy.  With the Independents and moderates.  The political center.  For there are a lot of traditional marriage advocates in the political center.  As there are in the black and Hispanic communities.  Who have some strong religious values.  And support the traditional family.

As we Practice Selective Breeding we’ll Breed the Different Gradually out of Existence

These are very complex and polarizing issues.  For no one wants to be labeled a bigot.  Well, some don’t mind.  Sadly.  But the majority do not want that label.  So on the one hand they want everyone to be able to have and enjoy what they can.  Which makes it difficult for them to see severely injured veterans.  And people stricken early in life with a debilitating disease.  Who will never be able to have and enjoy what they have.  But on the other hand they are devout in their religious beliefs.  And it’s a matter of conscious that they can’t ignore.  For the same reason that they oppose abortion.  For they see it as the destruction of a human life.  Even if doctors determine their child will be born with a severe birth defect they oppose abortion.  And they will carry that baby to term.  While some on the Left say the kinder more humane thing to do would be to abort that pregnancy.  For what kind of quality of life can that child expect?

Scientists have been unlocking the mysteries of DNA.  And have identified a lot of the genes that make us who we are.  Now here’s an interesting thought exercise.  Let’s suppose they identify a lesbian or gay gene.  As well as a bisexual and transgender gene.  And a doctor tells a heterosexual couple that they are going to have an LGBT child.  A couple that votes for politicians on the left side of the aisle.  Who have no moral problem with abortion.  For they are staunch defenders of women’s health and reproductive rights.  This couple is aware of how hard it is for an LGBT child to grow up and come to terms with their sexual identity.  Especially in this cruel and bigoted world.  Some of these children suffer horrible.  And carry scars into adulthood.  What if this couple chooses to do the kinder and more humane thing?  And choose not to bring this child to term?  Would that be a hate crime?

People are aborting pregnancies when a doctor tells them their child will be born with a birth defect.  And there are lot of people aborting pregnancies when the sex isn’t ‘right’.  As some cultures favor a male son.  So when a sonogram shows a female in the womb many choose abortion.  So would they abort an LGBT pregnancy?  Perhaps.  For we do live in a cruel and bigoted world.  Let’s hope it doesn’t come to this.  Though we are beginning to practice selective breeding.  As people are buying eggs and sperm to create the ‘perfect’ child.  It’s sad to consider what we may lose as this technology advances.  For we will be leaving behind a better world.  To enter the surreal.  Where people begin to look like everyone else.  An Orwellian existence where conformity is the rule.  And they breed the different gradually out of existence.

The Same-Sex Marriage and the Traditional Marriage Groups will Join Together in Opposing LGBT Abortion

Whether an LGBT abortion would be a hate crime or not it would still be criminal.  For can you imagine aborting a pregnancy that would become another Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky?  Had his parents not brought him to term because he was going to be gay we would not have Swan LakeThe NutcrackerRomeo and JulietThe Seasons (Les saisons).  And the list goes on.  Then there is West Side Story.  One of the greatest musicals of all time.  Music by Leonard Bernstein.  Lyrics by Stephen Sondheim.  Choreography by Jerome Robbins.  All gay.  Bernstein also turned the classic Candide into an opera.  Sondheim is perhaps the greatest composer of American musical theatre.  CompanyA Little Night Music (with the classic Send in the Clowns).  Sweeney ToddSunday in the Park with George.  And Into the Woods.  Just to name a few. 

Then there’s Elton John.  Who made the piano a bona fide rock instrument.  Some of the best music in the Seventies was his.  If you lived then you owned some or all of these albums.  Madman Across the WaterHonky ChâteauDon’t Shoot Me I’m Only the Piano Player.  Goodbye Yellow Brick RoadCaribouCaptain Fantastic and the Brown Dirt Cowboy.  And how about Freddie Mercury?  Perhaps the greatest rock front-man of all time.  The talent in Queen was deep but it was Freddie that packed those stadiums.  Can anyone imagine Monty Python without Graham Chapman?  Or a Lord of the Rings without Sir Ian McKellen playing Gandalf?  We loved Lily Tomlin in Nine to Five and All of Me.  And who doesn’t love Jane Lynch in pretty much anything she’s in?  Ellen DeGeneres’ standup made you laugh.  And Liberace just made you smile.  What a sad, gray world it would be without these people in our lives.

The point is not that the LGBT community is here to entertain us.  Or to fund our politics.  It’s that they are here.  And our lives are better because of it.  We’ve grown to love some of these people.  Some before ever knowing their sexual orientation.  But when we learned that Graham Chapman was gay it didn’t stop anyone from loving Monty Python.  Or Graham Chapman.  So when the day comes when they can identify a gay gene in your unborn baby this is what we could lose.  This rich tapestry from our lives.  And that would be a shame.  Interestingly, though, it would bring the same-sex marriage and the traditional marriage groups together on one issue.  Abortion.  Or their opposition to abortion.  At least in opposition to abortions of LGBT pregnancies. 

Like I said, these are very complex and polarizing issues. 

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

LESSONS LEARNED #52: “The political right is usually right.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 10th, 2011

The Right Knows Business.  The Left Doesn’t.

Creating jobs is important.  Without jobs no one has any money.  No one can buy anything.  And the government can’t tax what we don’t have.  So jobs are important.  To those on the right.  As well as on the left.

Now critics of the Right claim that those on the right only care about profits.  Not people.  Whereas those on the left claim they care about people.  Not profits.  In some sense this is true.  Those on the right tend to understand business.  They know a business can only survive by making a profit.  And only a business that stays in business can create jobs.  The Right understands this.

Those on the left, on the other hand, don’t really understand business.  They don’t understand incentive.  Only duty.  And sacrifice.  For others, that is.  Not them.  They don’t think a business should make a profit.  That they should give any excess revenue to their workers.  Or to the government.  In other words, business owners, they feel, should serve others.  They should work and sacrifice so others may live better.  Workers shouldn’t have to work hard or sacrifice.  But owners should.

Protecting an Industry only Delays the Inevitable

Some great entrepreneurs created some great businesses.  Made life better for all of us.  Provided good, inexpensive clothing.  Made high quality steel cheaper and more plentiful than any other nation.  Built cars than the average working man could afford.  These titans of industry built this nation.  Because of them we surpassed all other nations and became the most powerful economic engine of the world.  Life was good.  There were lots of jobs.  Lots of stuff.  And lots of homes filled with the most modern stuff available.  America was the place to be.  People waited in line to immigrate to our shores.

Unfortunately, big piles of money attract a lot of people.  And not just workers begging to get a job in these new industries.  No.  It was people looking out for the workers.  Labor unions organized workers.  To get a ‘decent’ wage.  And better working conditions.  Cost of labor went up.  Which made the price of what they sold go up.  Imports started to look more attractive.  So government stepped in and slapped tariffs on those.  To force Americans to pay the higher price for our domestic goods.  Then they legislated ways to further ‘protect’ these American industries.  And how did that all work?

Well, take a look at the American textile, steel and automobile industries.  The Left overreached.  And killed these industries.  They’re no longer the dominate industries they once were.  We have no textile industry to speak of anymore.  The once big steel towns look more like ghost towns.  And the government had to bail out 2 of the Big Three auto makers.  Those generous union contracts added thousands to the price of a car.  Allowing Toyota to take over the top auto manufacturer spot from GM.  By providing the same or better quality for less.

Bad Jobs Today may have been Good Jobs Yesterday

That’s what happens when you protect an industry.  That industry has no incentive to innovate.  To be better.  To be more efficient.  To be more productive.  To give the consumer what they want.  Because when the consumer doesn’t have a choice, where else is the consumer going to go?  So protected industries rest on their laurels.  While others innovate.  And became better.

Combine that with union wages and benefits that keep getting higher and higher and what do you get?  Inferior products that cost more than the higher quality imports.  The Big Three sold crap during the Seventies.  Opened the door to the Japanese.  And a few decades later they took over the top spot from GM.  No matter how much we tried to protect our domestic automotive industry.

Say what you want about life before labor unions but the fact remains that we had more jobs.  And as dangerous or as dirty as those jobs were, people still came to this country by the thousands to get those jobs.  People were falling off the Golden Gate Bridge during construction.  Did that dissuade people from wanting to work on that bridge?  No.  There was a shanty town with people waiting for others to fall and die so they could get their job.  Sure, by today’s standards, these were some pretty nasty jobs.  But not then.  In fact, they were pretty damn good jobs.  Compared to what else was out there.  How can we say this?  Because they chose those jobs over the other jobs out there.

The Greed of the Left Killed the Golden Goose. 

Henry Ford had a bold idea.  He was going to mass produce a car so he could sell it at a price that the working man could afford.  To get the best people in his plants he offered $5 per day.  Twice what other manufacturing jobs were offering.  No union made him do this.  The market did.  He got the best mechanics and the lowest turnover rates.  Other businesses had to follow suit to retain their best people.  And working conditions improved.  Because of the greed of these business owners.

Contrast that to today where union contracts force high wage and benefit packages onto a manufacturer.  And contractual obligations that make it near impossible to get rid of excess workers during times of weak demand.  Using the Ford model, Detroit became the Motor City.  An economic dynamo.  Under the union model, GM and Chrysler went bankrupt.  And Detroit is considering bulldozing sparsely populated neighborhoods into farmland.

When profit wasn’t a dirty word businesses prospered and provided jobs.  When the left came in to protect the little guy from those greedy business owners they made it difficult to make a profit.  Business struggled to compete with their competition.  And when they couldn’t, they shuttered operations.  Jobs disappeared.  The greed of the left to protect against the greed of the right killed the golden goose.  And all those good manufacturing jobs grew legs and left the country.  Where they’re now providing a better life for other workers.  Like they once did here.

Greed is a Hell of an Incentive

The Right understands business.  The Left doesn’t.  But it has never stopped them from trying to tell businesses how they should conduct business.  And the more they get involved, the more business suffers.  The more jobs we lose.  And the less competitive we get as a nation.

FDR tried for a decade to end the Great Depression.  Nothing he did worked.  When World War II came along, something had to change.  There was a crisis.  We needed to provide war material to our allies.  So the FDR administration told American industry to do what they do best.  They let them make profits.  Restored incentive.  And the government said they would interfere no more.  Well, that unleashed the floodgates.  Workers were hired and factories worked round the clock.  Businesses made profits that let them innovate.  Improve productivity.  Trucks, planes, boats, weapons, etc., poured out of American factories.  The Allies armies were mechanized.  Jeeps and trucks moved our armies.  While the Nazis used horses to pull their artillery and supplies.  The Arsenal of Democracy, the Detroit dynamo of industry, won World War II.  And men like Henry Ford made it all possible.  Because they were greedy.

The post-war era was one of the most prosperous times in our nation.  There were jobs for everyone.  And a better life was there for the taking.  Times would stay good until the Left ushered in their Big Government programs beginning in the Sixties.  To protect the little guy.  And it’s been downhill ever since (with a brief respite during the Reagan Eighties).

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #52: “The political right is usually right.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 8th, 2011

Sitting in the French Legislative Assembly and Defining Future Politics

In politics we hear a lot about the Left and the Right.  What does that mean?  Where did these terms come from?  Probably the French Revolution.  So we need a small primer on the French Revolution.  So here goes. 

In late 18th century France, in the Ancien Régime (before the French Revolution), there were three main groups of people.  They called these the estates of the realm.  The First Estate was the clergy of the Catholic Church.  The Second Estate was the nobility (less the king).  And the Third Estate was everyone else (approximately 98% of the population).  The first two estates were exempt from most taxation and lived well and had full bellies.  The Third Estate paid the bulk of taxes, lived horribly and suffered a famine or two.

Well, this caused tensions.  The poor were deplorably poor and hungry.  Compounding this problem was the near constant state of war between France and Great Britain.  That and financing the American Revolution was bankrupting the Ancien Régime.  The régime had nothing to give to the poor and hungry.  So the poor and hungry revolted.  They met in the French Legislative Assembly of 1791 to debate the future of France.  Those in favor of the monarchy and the old order sat on the right.  The radicals who wanted to overthrow the old order sat on the left.

Right and Left become Conservative and Liberal

So that’s a brief lesson on the origins of the political labels ‘Left’ and ‘Right’.  They weren’t political parties.  They were just seating arrangements.  In those days, the Left were liberals.  Similar to our Founding Fathers.  In the classical sense of liberalism (it meant something completely different then than it does today).  Basically, the Left said the old ways just ain’t working anymore and it’s time to try something new.  The Right, on the other hand, was worried about losing their privileges.  As well as the potential chaos that could result from trying something new.  And for good reason.  The French Revolution got a little chaotic.  And a little bloody.

Since then the labels kind of morphed into new meanings.  Right and Left have become synonymous with conservatism and liberalism (or Progressivism, Socialism, Communism, Marxism, etc.).  Conservatives (the Right) believe in individual liberty, limited government, laissez-faire capitalism, low taxes, free trade, little business regulation, etc.  Liberals (the Left) believe in Big Government to redistribute the wealth, high taxes, strict controls on capitalism and business, oppose free trade and believes business operates best (and most fair) when ‘partnered’ with government.

So, to simplify, on the right you will find capitalists.  On the left you will find anti-capitalists.  On the right, people decide what’s best.  On the left, government decides what’s best.  On the right you keep more of your paycheck and buy what you want.  On the left you keep less of your paycheck so others can buy what they want.  And so on.

Free Markets and Planned Markets

The Right believes in free markets.  That if left alone, free markets will maximize employment and living standards.  The Right doesn’t believe that any one person is smarter than the collective of millions of individual decision makers in the free market.  The free market is always win-win.  When two people agree on an economic decision, they both prosper.  The seller gets what they value more (money).  And the buyer gets what they value more (what they bought).  When everyone is choosing what they value most in the free market, economic activity explodes.  This creates jobs.  Workers earn money to buy goods and services.  And taxes at low tax rates paid by the multitude of businesses and individuals swell the public treasury.

The Left, on the other hand, believe a free market economy is inefficient.  They prefer a planned economy.  They want to mettle.  To tinker.  To help people make economic decisions by regulating markets.  Enacting targeting taxing and targeting tax cuts.  To make us buy what they think we should buy (electric cars, for example).  And they think free markets are woefully unfair.  Because poor people can’t buy as much as rich people.  So they want to tax the rich to redistribute their wealth to the poor.  They call this stimulative.  Giving away other people’s money.  So other people can spend that money.  (So if you’re keeping score, net spending doesn’t change.  Just who is spending the money changes).

There’s a lot more to these political labels Left and Right.  But this will suffice for our purposes.  You will see more mature and elderly people on the right.  And more younger people on the left.  Remember the expression from the hippy counter-culture in the Sixties?  Never trust anyone over thirty?   You know who was saying this?  Inexperienced and ignorant young people.  Young college students who learned a thing or two from a radical professor.  You didn’t see many family breadwinners in the counter-culture movement.  Just a lot of people who hadn’t grown up yet or worked a job or raised a family.

Age, Experience and Family tend to make you Conservative

And so it is today.  The Left depends on the young.  That’s why they lowered the voting age to 18.  To get these people who haven’t experienced the real world yet to support things that sound good.  Yes, we should pay more taxes for a better education.  Of course, what the young don’t know is that they’ve been saying this for the last 50 years or so.  And the quality of our education has gotten worse.  Not better.  That’s why the older and more experienced voter tends to vote against these tax increases.  Not because they hate kids.  But because they’ve seen throughout their life that throwing money at education hasn’t helped any student.  Only the public school bureaucracy.

When you’re young and stupid you tend to think about today.  Your emotions easily sway you.  And your passions.  Your thoughts focus on having fun in the sun.  Going to a club.  Dating.  It’s a little different when you have a family.  You think about other things then.  Your kids’ school.  Paying a mortgage.  Putting money aside for your kids’ college education.  Putting money aside for your retirement.  Those kinds of things.  And, incidentally, those things require a good-paying job.  And tax rates that aren’t so onerous that you can’t afford those things you want for your family.

That’s why we call these people on the right conservative.  They’re not too keen on change.  Because they have a lot of responsibilities.  And they’ve made commitments to meet those responsibilities.  It’s one thing to be footloose and fancy free and have radical thoughts.  I mean, what have you to lose?  But it’s quite another thing when you do have something to lose.  Any by that time in your life, when you’re making a pretty good living, you’re paying quite a bit in taxes.  Unlike those young radicals.  You have skin in the game.  They don’t.  They are, in fact, gambling with your money.  Those radical changes (health care for everyone, taxing the ‘rich’, carbon taxes to end global warming, etc.) they’re fighting for won’t impact their lives much.  They’re not paying the taxes.  Yet.  You are.  But those things will impact your life.  So much so that they may alter your life.  You may have to make a choice between a college education for your kids.  Or a comfortable retirement.

Radicals tend to Live in the Heat of the Moment while Conservatives look beyond the Moment

Part of the reason those on the right stood with their king in France was that they saw the danger in radical change.  The breakdown of institutions.   Of tradition.  Things that they knew worked.  Things that made France a great empire.  There may have been problems.  Some inequities.  But the collapse of the old regime may unleash chaos and violence.  Back then, that’s how power changed.  Through chaos and violence.  And sometimes an imperfect system is better than chaos and violence.

Over in America, a group of liberal radicals led their revolution.  But once they won their independence from Great Britain they got very conservative indeed.  In fact, they called some of the Founding Fathers ‘too British’.  Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Jay, to name a few, where attacked for letting down the spirit of ’76.  There were still a lot of passions in the states.  Still a bit of a civil war going on in the south between Patriot and Loyalist.  But it was time for the grownups to step in to win the peace.  Even if they were perceived as being too British.

Radicals are quick to point out your failings.  But they don’t often have the wisdom or experience to see the big picture.  They live in the heat of the moment.  And often act bold and impertinently.  Whereas wisdom and experience tend to make you act with restraint.  To be conservative.  To see beyond the moment.  Because some of the established institutions and traditions have worked.  And even have defined a people.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Mass Murder and a Fallen Democrat Provide an Opportunity to Reenact the Fairness Doctrine

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 10th, 2011

The Left wants a Fairness Doctrine to Stifle Political Dissent

And here it is.  The big one.  What the Left really wants.  The ability to censor the opposing viewpoint so they can easily advance their agenda without political dissent.  You know what it is.  It’s called the Fairness Doctrine.  To stifle that vitriol we call free speech.  Our First Amendment right.  Which some are saying caused the Arizona Shooting rampage (see Clyburn: Words can be danger by Yvonne Wenger posted 1/10/2011 on The Post and Courier).

U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn, the third-ranking Democrat in Congress, said Sunday the deadly shooting in Arizona should get the country thinking about what’s acceptable to say publicly and when people should keep their mouths shut.

Clyburn said he thinks vitriol in public discourse led to a 22-year-old suspect opening fire Saturday at an event Democratic U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords held for her constituents in Tucson, Ariz. Six people were killed and 14 others were injured, including Giffords.

Clyburn thinks wrong.  From what we’re learning, it sounds like the shooter wasn’t even aware of reality let alone the public discourse.  Of course, you wouldn’t know this if you rush to some kind of judgment.  Or are just using the tragedy to advance a stalled agenda.

The shooting is cause for the country to rethink parameters on free speech, Clyburn said from his office, just blocks from the South Carolina Statehouse. He wants standards put in place to guarantee balanced media coverage with a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, in addition to calling on elected officials and media pundits to use ‘better judgment.’

The Fairness Doctrine.  Statutory censorship.  You see, back then there were only three networks and PBS.  And the Fairness Doctrine was to keep them fair and balanced.  If they aired a story favoring one viewpoint, they then had to give time for the opposing viewpoint.  Or face a fine.  Sounds fair, doesn’t it?  But it’s just a fancy way to enact state censorship.

Here’s how.  Who’s to determine what programming meets the balancing requirement of the Fairness Doctrine?  The FCC.  Which is part of the executive branch of the government.  So the president had the power to determine what was appropriate speech.  And what wasn’t.  That’s a lot of power.  And JFK and LBJ put that power to good uses.  They used it to harass their political enemies.  Made it so costly to air a point of view opposing theirs that stations would refuse to air them.  It really stifled political dissent.  And made it a lot easier to pass the Great Society legislation.

Ah, yes, those were the good old days.  When you didn’t have all that messiness we call free speech.  The 1960s and 1970s were Big Government decades.  Times were good for the liberal left.  That is until Ronald Reagan came along to spoil everything.  For it was Reagan who repealed the Fairness Doctrine.  And ever since the Left has wanted it back.

The Left wants a Fairness Doctrine to Hush Rush

The party really ended in the 1980s.  Not only did they lose their beloved doctrine, but there was a new kid on the block.  Talk radio.  It was bad enough not to have ‘fairness’ as they saw fairness, but now there was more than three networks and PBS.  There was content all over the place that they couldn’t control.  And it really pissed them off.  Especially a guy by the name of Rush Limbaugh.  He was such a thorn in Bill Clinton’s side that some called the Fairness Doctrine the ‘Hush Rush’ bill. 

You have to remember how Bill Clinton won the election.  He won with one of the lowest percentages of the popular vote.  Ross Perot was a third-party candidate that drained votes away from both candidates.  But, more importantly, he turned the election into a media circus.  Everyone was following what wacky thing he would say or do next that few paid attention to Clinton’s less than spotless past.  And people were spitting mad about George H.W. Bush‘s broken pledge not to raise taxes.  You take these two things away and Bush the elder would have been a two-term president.  So Clinton wasn’t very popular with the people to begin with. 

During the Nineties, some 20 million people a week were tuning in to listen to Rush.  Why was he so popular?  For the simple reason that he held the same views as some 20 million people in the country.  And these people were tired of the media bias.  For them Rush was a breath of fresh air.  His radio show was the only place this huge mass of people could go and not hear the Democrat spin on everything.  And this was a real threat to the Left.  They blamed him for their failure to nationalize health care.  And the Left blamed Rush for Whitewater, Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, the blue dress, etc.  Hillary Clinton called the Lewinsky affair a vast right-wing conspiracy.  And if it wasn’t for Rush and talk radio, those things would have remained hidden. So you can see why they hated him.

The Shooting of a Democrat Allows the Left to Attack Conservatives

It was bad for Bill Clinton.  But President Obama has it even worse.  The FOX News channel has blown away the cable competition.  The Internet has come of age.  There’s more content out there than ever before.  And the old guard (the three networks, PBS and the liberal newspapers) are losing more and more of their influence.  In other words, they need the Fairness Doctrine like never before.  Because there is way too much free speech for their liking.  It’s just not a good time if you’re trying to be devious.

So when a mass murder comes along and a Democrat is shot in the head, they pounce.  Representative Clyburn uses this tragedy to advance the Fairness Doctrine.  Even though he knew little at the time.  But that didn’t stop him.  They have no evidence, but the Left has blamed the Tea Party, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, FOX News, and anyone else who has ever held a contrary viewpoint.

So, what, then, motivated this killer in Arizona? 

Who is Jared Loughner

Well, let’s hear what a close friend of the shooter, Jared Loughner, says.  Bryce Tierney knew him since high school.  Even went to college with him.  And from what he says, Loughner doesn’t sound like he was influenced by anyone on the right (see Exclusive: Loughner Friend Explains Alleged Gunman’s Grudge Against Giffords by Nick Baumann posted 1/10/2011 on Mother Jones).

Tierney tells Mother Jones in an exclusive interview that Loughner held a years-long grudge against Giffords and had repeatedly derided her as a “fake.” Loughner’s animus toward Giffords intensified after he attended one of her campaign events and she did not, in his view, sufficiently answer a question he had posed, Tierney says. He also describes Loughner as being obsessed with “lucid dreaming”—that is, the idea that conscious dreams are an alternative reality that a person can inhabit and control—and says Loughner became “more interested in this world than our reality.” Tierney adds, “I saw his dream journal once. That’s the golden piece of evidence. You want to know what goes on in Jared Loughner’s mind, there’s a dream journal that will tell you everything…”

But the thing I remember most is just that question. I don’t remember him stalking her or anything.” Tierney notes that Loughner did not display any specific political or ideological bent: “It wasn’t like he was in a certain party or went to rallies…It’s not like he’d go on political rants.”  But Loughner did, according to Tierney, believe that government is “fucking us over.” He never heard Loughner vent about the perils of “currency,” as Loughner did on one YouTube video he created… 

Once, Tierney recalls, Loughner told him, “I’m pretty sure I’ve come to the conclusion that words mean nothing.” Loughner would also tell Tierney and his friends that life “means nothing…”

Tierney believes that Loughner was very interested in pushing people’s buttons—and that may have been why he listed Hitler’s Mein Kampf as one of his favorite books on his YouTube page. (Loughner’s mom is Jewish, according to Tierney.) Loughner sometimes approached strangers and would say “weird” things, Tierney recalls. “He would do it because he thought people were below him and he knew they wouldn’t know what he was talking about.”

In college, Loughner became increasingly intrigued with “lucid dreaming,” and he grew convinced that he could control his dreams, according to Tierney. In a series of rambling videos posted to his YouTube page, dreams are a frequent topic. In a video posted on December 15, Loughner writes, “My favorite activity is conscience dreaming: the greatest inspiration for my political business information. Some of you don’t dream—sadly.” In another video, he writes, “The population of dreamers in the United States of America is less than 5%!” Later in the same video he says,  “I’m a sleepwalker—who turns off the alarm clock.”

Loughner believed that dreams could be a sort of alternative, Matrix-style reality, and “that when you realize you’re dreaming, you can do anything, you can create anything,” Tierney says. Loughner started his “dream journal” in an attempt to take more control of his dreams, his friend notes, and he kept this journal for over a year…

After Loughner apparently gave up drugs and booze, “his theories got worse,” Tierney says. “After he quit, he was just off the wall.” And Loughner started to drift away from his group of friends about a year ago. By early 2010, dreaming had become Loughner’s “waking life, his reality,” Tierney says. “He sort of drifted off, didn’t really care about hanging out with friends. He’d be sleeping a lot.” Loughner’s alternate reality was attractive, Tierney says. “He figured out he could fly.” Loughner, according to Tierney, told his friends, “I’m so into it because I can create things and fly. I’m everything I’m not in this world.”

But in this world, Loughner seemed ticked off by what he believed to be a pervasive authoritarianism. “The government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar,” he wrote in one YouTube video. In another, Loughner complains that when he tried to join the military, he was handed a “mini-Bible.” That upset him: “I didn’t write a belief on my Army application and the recruiter wrote on the application: None,” he wrote on YouTube. In messages on MySpace last month, Loughner declared, “I’ll see you on National T.v.! This is foreshadow.” He also noted on the website, “I don’t feel good: I’m ready to kill a police officer! I can say it…”

Since hearing of the rampage, Tierney has been trying to figure out why Loughner did what he allegedly did. “More chaos, maybe,” he says. “I think the reason he did it was mainly to just promote chaos. He wanted the media to freak out about this whole thing. He wanted exactly what’s happening. He wants all of that.” Tierney thinks that Loughner’s mindset was like the Joker in the most recent Batman movie: “He fucks things up to fuck shit up, there’s no rhyme or reason, he wants to watch the world burn. He probably wanted to take everyone out of their monotonous lives: ‘Another Saturday, going to go get groceries’—to take people out of these norms that he thought society had trapped us in.”

It wasn’t Vitriol, it was Insanity

Well, he doesn’t sound like a Tea Party guy.  Or a fan of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman or FOX News.  He doesn’t sound like a religious guy.  He may have been anti-Semitic.  He felt superior to those around him.  He liked to dream and spend a lot of time in his imagination.  He may have liked the movie The Matrix.  Maybe even thought he was in a ‘Matrix‘ fantasyland.  He did drugs and drank at one time.  When he went sober, though, he seemed to go deeper into his imagination.  He was pretty certain that the government was controlling people with an insidious form of grammar.  And he wasn’t a fan of authority figures and thought killing a cop would cheer him up.

I don’t know, maybe it’s me, but I wouldn’t call this guy a conservative.  And I don’t think there was any vitriol egging him on.  I doubt any vitriol could compete with what was going on in his imagination.  This guy had serious mental issues.  He was unstable.  And dangerous.  And the only reason why he shot Representative Giffords is because she had the misfortune of being his representative.

So Representative Clyburn, and the far left, are wrong.  No one on the right is responsible for this tragedy in Arizona.  The shooter was just a nutcase.  Little solace for the victims’ families.  But it does say that we don’t need a Fairness Doctrine.  For it would NOT have altered what happened in Tucson, Arizona, this past Saturday.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Will Arizona Shooting Rampage, Giffords near Mortal Wound Save the Left’s Liberal Agenda?

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 9th, 2011

The Left is Giddy with the Possibilities of the Arizona Shooting Rampage

We haven’t buried any of the victims yet.  Giffords is still fighting for her life in the hospital.  The government hasn’t put a case together yet against the shooter, Jared Loughner.  But the Left has pointed the finger of blame.  J’accuse!  Tea Party.  J’accuse!  Second Amendment.  J’accuse!  Talk radio.  J’accuse!  Sarah Palin.  J’accuse!  Republicans.  J’accuse!  First Amendment.

All I can say is what a load of merde.

Will the actions of one lone nutcase change the political landscape?  Will it nullify the 2010 midterm election results?  The mandate for limited government?  And lower spending?  Perhaps.  And the Left is just giddy with the possibilities of the Arizona shooting rampage.

Did the Arizona Shooter Advance the Liberal Agenda?

Remember that other nutcase?  Timothy McVeigh?  Who blew up the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City?  He was a guy that went a little cuckoo after Ruby Ridge.  And the Branch Davidian Compound in Waco, Texas (where he watched the buildings burn in person).  Yeah, he was nuts.  Probably wore aluminum foil in his hat (to shield himself from the government brainwashing waves) and feared those unmarked black helicopters.  He was another one of those consummate losers.  No girlfriend.  Bullied as a kid.  Suicidal.  And pissed off at the government.  Who was just another bully.  Nay, the biggest bully of them all.  Who was out to get him.  So he had two burning ambitions.  To get even with bullies.  And to die.

He was not a rank and file member of the Republican Party.  He was, what’s the word?  Yes.  Insane.

But the Left said he blew up the Murrah Building because of the vitriol on talk radio.  In particular, Rush Limbaugh.  Of course, Rush, being born some 17 years before McVeigh, there was no way that he could have bullied McVeigh in school and sent him down that road to the Murrah building.  But that didn’t matter.  The Left didn’t like Rush.  And they needed something.  And this was better than anything they could have ever hoped for.  So they politicized it.

And here we are.  With another lone nutcase who wasn’t loved enough in his childhood.  And now here they are.  Again.  The Left.  Ginning up fear of our fellow citizens (those in the Tea Party, that is).  And trying their best to make us ask them for more government.  It has even delayed the vote to repeal Obamacare.

What the hell?  Is the shooter a liberal Democrat?  Did he want the liberal agenda to advance?  Because that’s exactly what his actions have done.  Giving that failed agenda new traction.  If I was a conspiracy nutcase I’d say something.  But I’m not.  So I won’t.

The Left Parades out the Usual Suspects

It doesn’t come as any surprise.  It’s probably standard operating procedure whenever a nutcase does something stupid.  Whenever they can make a connection between a nutcase and conservatives.  No matter how tenuous the connection is.  And here are some of the usual suspects:  Tea Party, Talk radio, Religious Right, Guns, Sarah Palin, Republicans.

The Tea Party?  Those people upset with the government because they are constantly overstepping their constitutional authority?  Come on.  These are Rule of Law people.  They don’t break the law.  They obey the law.  With extreme prejudice.  And they just want everyone else to, too.

Talk radio?  Rush Limbaugh has some 20 million listeners tune in each week.  And have you ever listened to those who call in?  A lot of small business owners and heads of households.  They’re law abiding citizens concerned about their business and/or family’s future.  They, too, just want everyone to live within the Rule of Law.  Including their elected representatives.

The Religious Right?  Those people who want the Ten Commandments posted in our public buildings?  Come on.  These people don’t kill.  It’s one of their Commandments.  Thou shall not kill.  Their religion is a religion of peace.  Really.  Unlike that one that guy followed who went on a shooting spree on Fort Hood shouting “Allahu Akhbar!”  But he’s just a sick man.  While those in the Religious Right are people to be afraid of.

Gun control?  You know, you didn’t have these problems in the Wild West.  If some nutcase started shooting women and children, he wouldn’t have gotten too far.  Because other people with guns would have shot his ass.  To protect the women and children.  See?  People can use guns in two ways.  It all depends on the people with the guns.  Are they good people?  Or bad?  If you make them illegal, only the bad people will have them.  Which explains why the bad people are all for gun control.  Because it makes easier victims.

Sarah Palin?  Because she used words like ‘lock and load’ and put crosshairs on maps of districts to target for campaign challenges?  That’s bad?  But movies about how to assassinate George W. Bush are just art.  And protected by our First Amendment.  Go figure.  Come on.  Palin is a Tea Party gal.  And Tea Party people are all about the Rule of Law.

Republicans?  Those people who have for years cowered as the Left’s bitch?  Who for decades have asked the Left meekly to let them participate in Congress?  Please?  Which the Left replied, “Sure, we’ll listen to you.  Humor you.  But don’t get your hopes up.  Because elections have consequences.”  The people who capitulate so fast after gaining power because they don’t want to offend and be removed from the ‘invite’ list for all those Washington parties?  Give me a break.  Self neutering people just aren’t a threat.

Another Oklahoma City Bombing?

Yada, yada, yada, the Left hates conservatives.  And will use any crisis or incident to further their hate against conservatives.  Especially when the people have rejected them and their liberal agenda at the polls.

There are some who said what Obama needed was another Oklahoma City bombing to reinvigorate his liberal agenda.  And he got it.  Thanks to this pathetic loser nutcase who feared the government’s manipulation of grammar.  And the Left is running with it.  Shame on them for doing so.  Then again, it is hard for anyone to feel shame when they have no shame.  It’s like trying to punish a lion for killing a zebra.  It’s just who a lion is.

Let us just pray that the victims’ families can escape the politicizing of this terrible tragedy in their lives.  Let them mourn their losses with their families.  Alone.  And in peace.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Democrats Seek to Increase the Debt Ceiling, Republicans Prefer Spending Cuts

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 2nd, 2011

Obamacare Push the Deficit Higher than Reagan’s and Bush’s Combined

Ronald Reagan had deficits of $200 billion.  The Left said that was reckless and irresponsible.  George W. Bush averaged $800 billion deficits.  The Left said that was reckless and irresponsible.  Now Obama’s deficits approach $1,500 billion.  And the Left says, “Let’s raise the debt ceiling.”

It’s a reckless and irresponsible game Obama, Pelosi and Reid have been playing.  During the worst recession since the Great Depression they have gone on a spending orgy.  Hoping to pass as much as possible in as short of time as possible.  The goal being simple.  Get as many people as possible addicted to this new government spending.  Make it political suicide for the opposition to repeal.  Thereby giving the Democrats yet more things to frighten voters about should Republicans win elections.  That those rascally Republicans will take away those benefits they fought so hard to give them.

But they have increased spending to levels impossible to sustain.  Medicaid is bankrupting the states.  Medicare and Social Security are bankrupting the nation.  Despite this, Obama, Pelosi and Reid passed Obamacare.  This on top of stimulus spending that stimulated nothing but unions and Democratic loyalists.  They’re selling bonds and printing money to feed this orgy of spending.  In the process mortgaging our future.  And making the United States credit worthiness on par with a subprime mortgage.

The Best Way to Stop a Spending Crisis is to Stop Spending

The Left is now concerned.  They see spending is unsustainable.  With the current debt ceiling.  So they want to raise the debt ceiling (see Obama aide: Debt limit fight could be “catastrophic” by Caren Bohan posted 1/2/2011 on Reuters).

White House economic adviser Austan Goolsbee accused Republicans of “playing chicken” with the nation’s financial credibility.

“This is not a game. You know, the debt ceiling … is not something to toy with,” Goolsbee told the ABC News program “This Week.” “If we hit the debt ceiling, that’s … essentially defaulting on our obligations, which is totally unprecedented in American history.”

“The impact on the economy would be catastrophic. I mean, that would be a worse financial economic crisis than anything we saw in 2008,” he said.

Interesting.  When we get ourselves in trouble by maxing out our credit cards, what do debt counselors tell us?  To solve our problem by getting another credit card so we can keep spending?  Or do they tell us to cut all of our credit cards and sell everything we own to pay our bills?

When spending gets you in trouble you stop spending.  You don’t keep spending.  It’s what we the people do.  And it’s what our government should do.  Because the nation, the states and even our cities are all having spending and debt problems.

Big Government Spending Destroys Some of our Biggest Cities

Big Government at every level is failing.  Destroying great cities in its wake (see American Cities That Are Running Out Of People by Michael B. Sauter posted 1/1/2011 on Yahoo! Finance).

New Orleans has lost more than a quarter of its population in the past 10 years as the result of Hurricane Katrina. The rest of the cities that have lost major parts of their population have seen their flagship industries, which include coal, steel, oil, and auto-related manufacturing, fall off or completely collapse.

The big losers?  Flint, Michigan.  Cleveland, Ohio.  Buffalo, N.Y.  Dayton, Ohio.  Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.  Rochester, N.Y.  Big, blue cities.   Big labor unions.  And big public sectors.  Is there any surprise that these cities are dying?

Targeted Tax Cuts and Incentives Don’t Stimulate

The evidence is all around us.  Government spending may get you votes in November, but it is bankrupting the nation, the states and the cities.  And you don’t fix that problem with more taxing.  And more spending.  Even liberal Democrats know this (see Goolsbee: Obama to Make ‘Tough Choices’ on Budget by Mary Lu Carnevale posted 1/2/2011 on The Wall Street Journal).

Mr. Goolsbee, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, said on ABC’s “This Week” that the administration is focusing on spurring investment and improving U.S. exports and innovation to boost economic growth. And he said that steps already taken, such as cutting payroll taxes by two percentage points and giving small businesses new tax incentives, should soon provide some economic fuel.

They know that cutting taxes stimulates the economy.  They admit as much by cutting payroll taxes.  And by offering tax incentives.  But they target everything.  It’s never across the board.  Because across the board tax cuts don’t offer tit for tat.  And what good is a tax cut to a politician if it doesn’t get you something in return?

Repeal Obamacare, Forget about Raising the Debt Ceiling

Cutting taxes will stimulate the economy.  It worked for Harding.  For Kennedy.  For Reagan.  And for Bush.  Reagan doubled tax receipts with his cuts.  But he still had $200 billion deficits.  Why?  Because the Democratic Congress spent the money faster than it came in.  And they reneged on their promised spending cuts.  Lesson learned?  You have to cut spending.

There’s hope.  Thanks to the Republican ascendancy at the 2010 midterm elections.  The Republicans have the power of the purse.  And a lot of Democrats lost their seats for voting for Obamacare.  You add this up, and you can take tough words about repealing Obamacare seriously (see House to vote early on health care repeal by Jake Sherman posted 1/2/2011 on Politico Live).

Incoming House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) says the new Republican-controlled House will look to repeal Democratic health care overhaul legislation before President Barack Obama delivers his State of the Union address later this month.

“We have 242 Republicans,” Upton said on “Fox News Sunday.” “There will be a significant number of Democrats, I think, that will join us.”

Upton, whose committee will key in the GOP’s effort to roll back the law, said that he believes the House may be near the two-thirds majority required to override a presidential veto. Short of repeal, Upton said the House will “go after this bill piece by piece.”

Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are political third rails.  Too many people are dependent on them for significant reform.  But Obamacare is a no brainer.  No one is dependent on it now.  Repealing that will be pain free.   Other than a bruised ego.  But Obama can get over that.  When he retires in 2012.

You repeal Obamacare and our debt crisis all of a sudden gets a whole lot easier to manage.  So let’s cut that credit card.  Before we build up a balance that we’ll never be able to pay off.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

« Previous Entries