~ by Cato
I was thinking about the government’s increasing encroachment on my economic choices and wondering how to protect my property from the government. Suddenly, I woke up and smelled the coffee as my brain was animated to think "Wait a minute! Wasn’t our government set up to protect property rights? Indeed, can not freedom, and life, and indeed many of the other "rights" that we had to embody in a Bill of Rights be considered "property" - in the abstract at least.
At any rate, when I feel that I must protect my property, my life, my liberty, my freedom, against the government that is supposed to protect it, then something is very wrong. Indeed, I realized that the more I fear the government’s threat to my property, the farther along we are on the path from safety to danger, from republic to statism, from freedom to tyranny.
Then I read this from Barney Frank at the National Press Club today:
"I've had people come to us and complain, "Well, if you do that, I can't make any money." The answer is that's not my job. We're not here to help you make money. We are here to help have a system in which you will make money as an incident of your providing funds to those who will use it productively."
Huh? I am supposed to make money for someone else? And double Huh? You get to dictate that I use MY property in a manner YOU consider productive?
So you say. Sorry, but no. Your job is to safeguard my property rights, not decide who gets my property.
___**___
Seneca's Addendum:
#1 This then causes the bumper sticker I saw the other day to come into clear focus, for it said, "Fear the Government that Fears Your Guns" .... And all the little kiddies think (or are taught) that the 2d amendment was/is about hunting and target practice.
#2 There is a difference between the government belonging to the people, and the people belonging to the government. I think we know which of these philosophies the Revolutionary War was fought over. Shame on Mr Frank and shame on anybody that says "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country".
The real thing that needs to be said is, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for YOURSELF."
Showing posts with label Statism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Statism. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Friday, May 15, 2009
How Did It Get Like This?
5/15/09
Rush Limbaugh just finished asking the radio audience something along the lines of "How can it be that it has gotten to this point. " (The government involvement in health care and everything else.)
The short answer: Rush, it has gotten this way because the vast bulk of the people want it this way.
And when I say "the people", I do not mean commie-pinko-Russian flag-waving nut jobs. I mean the bulk of the American people. This includes Democrats and Republicans of almost all stripes.
You heard it here first folks: Obama will have a 2d term. So, then, go ahead and sip your sissy-man triple super latte as you watch the next 25 years of destruction of the country. And go ahead and vote for that "other guy' because you think he is different that those evil "other guys".
Folks, Statism is Statism - whether it comes from a Democrat, or whether it comes from somebody calling themselves a Republican, for both are for big government, just big government for different purposes.
To prove the point, try this test. Tell a Republican that we need to do away with the income tax, they will say "But what about...."; Ask a Republican how they would feel if the Chinese Navy decided to run naval war games in the Gulf of Mexico and point out the parallel to US ships in the Indian Ocean or the Gulf of Arabia and they will say "But what about...." ; Tell a Republican that the American citizen should not be taxed to send money to Africa or elsewhere and they will say "But what about...."; Tell a Republican that people should pay for their own health care and not expect the governement to chip in one dime, and they will protest "But what about...." ; Tell a Republican that when their parents get old and they have to put them in a nursing home at $40k/year, that they should themselves be responsible for the cost, and they will say "But what about...." and proceed to tell you that it is just "too expensive" for them to pay, and that THE STATE should "help them out".
Go ahead. Just try it and you will find out exactly why we are in the situation that we are in.
Rush Limbaugh just finished asking the radio audience something along the lines of "How can it be that it has gotten to this point. " (The government involvement in health care and everything else.)
The short answer: Rush, it has gotten this way because the vast bulk of the people want it this way.
And when I say "the people", I do not mean commie-pinko-Russian flag-waving nut jobs. I mean the bulk of the American people. This includes Democrats and Republicans of almost all stripes.
You heard it here first folks: Obama will have a 2d term. So, then, go ahead and sip your sissy-man triple super latte as you watch the next 25 years of destruction of the country. And go ahead and vote for that "other guy' because you think he is different that those evil "other guys".
Folks, Statism is Statism - whether it comes from a Democrat, or whether it comes from somebody calling themselves a Republican, for both are for big government, just big government for different purposes.
To prove the point, try this test. Tell a Republican that we need to do away with the income tax, they will say "But what about...."; Ask a Republican how they would feel if the Chinese Navy decided to run naval war games in the Gulf of Mexico and point out the parallel to US ships in the Indian Ocean or the Gulf of Arabia and they will say "But what about...." ; Tell a Republican that the American citizen should not be taxed to send money to Africa or elsewhere and they will say "But what about...."; Tell a Republican that people should pay for their own health care and not expect the governement to chip in one dime, and they will protest "But what about...." ; Tell a Republican that when their parents get old and they have to put them in a nursing home at $40k/year, that they should themselves be responsible for the cost, and they will say "But what about...." and proceed to tell you that it is just "too expensive" for them to pay, and that THE STATE should "help them out".
Go ahead. Just try it and you will find out exactly why we are in the situation that we are in.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Republicans Just Don't Get It - Part 1
April 17, 2009
Starbucks - Bulverde Texas
I saw a fellow reading "The 5,000 Year Leap" and since we had just come off the TeaRally, I stuck up a conversation by asking if he liked the book. He said the he did and told me that it was amazing how far off the tracks the country has moved from the ideals that made the country in the first place.
Now, here is where it becomes distressing, for these preliminaries lead to a discussion of Statism and Big Government, and in that vein, I mentioned how the "Big-Government Problem" is not confined to the Democrats, but that the Republicans are helping hand-in-hand to expand the power of the Federal Government over our lives. Essentially, it being that the Democrats come from one direction while the Republicans come from the other - with the pocket book of the citizen in the middle.
To try and drive the point home that "our" party is power hungry just as are the Democrats, I mentioned that the thing that was the straw that broke my back was when our Republican Senators Hutchison & Cornyn, and my District 21 Representative Lamar Smith, ALL voted for the first TARP bailout - over the objections of their constituents.
Now, think of it. I had just told him that the Republicans were ½ the problem. Was there any light that went off in his head? Was there any nod of agreement? ABSOLUTELY NOT. Even though that I was telling him that his Republican Senators and his Republican Congressman sold him out, he was going to avoid that ugly fact and continue to think that it is all Obama and those evil Democrats.
I am so saddened that even the people that go to the tea parties, when led by a celebrity to "boo" the Republicans and the Democrats, do so with gusto; yet in their heart of hearts, when you get them "one-on-one" to look inside, you can see that they feel that it is all the Democrat's fault, and think that if the Republicans can boot them out then things will be all good and fine. They completely ignore that it was BUSH that came to Congress and wanted a $700 billion appropriation in 3 days.
Wake up people. It will not be all good and fine if the Republicans with their current brand of Corporatism and Statism come to power, because a boot is a boot and feels the same on my neck whether it is worn by a Democrat or a Republican.
In sum, I think that it is appropriate to remember - It's Not Left vs Right - It's the STATE vs YOU.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
A Letter to a Tea Party Oganizer
Name Redacted,
Thank you for your work (and everybody else's) on the event (Tea Party) and for your speedy reply to my letter about prohibited signage. Welcome to the world of herding cats.
OK here goes -
I understand that some feel that "the cause" should attempt to end run the Catie Couric's of the world, but running away from the liberal's propaganda machine is equivalent to trying to negotiate with them. THEY will not negotiate with us, and until we learn that we should not negotiate with them, we are stalled. We should speak our mind and should stop being afraid of how others in opposition want to paint us.
Fear of confrontation, I think, is the problem with "conservatives" and the reason why they are at a disadvantage whenever they engage the left. The left is NOT afraid of confrontation, nor are they interested in debate or civility. Indeed, confrontation and Orwell Speak is THE tool in their very effective arsenal, and confrontation has ALWAYS been their tool of change. Is Carvill, or Obama thru his minions, afraid of confrontation??? Not hardly.
Concerning "debate", the left's idea of debate is where the other side stays quiet and listens to whatever venom the left wants to spew. Indeed, part of the left's agenda is keeping the other side "pacific" and nice, and your attempts to de-Obamanize the Tea Party event plays nicely into their hands.
So then, regardless of how many "Obamanuism" signs are kept out of the event, it WILL be painted however Couric et. al. has to paint it so as to get
an anti-obama "juice" onto the story. I reiterate, an anti-Obama slant of the event WILL be made by the media and in a broad sense of things, until the media gets the message that we, the majority of Americans, indeed have the stones to voice it to the rooftops that We DO Want Obama To Fail, then we are going to have a hard road to walk.
BTW - Obama (the personification of his ideology) IS the problem and to "walk across the aisle" or be non-partisan is fatal. Obama (individually and thru his group of counselors) sets the agenda and is a radical Communist/Socialist/Collectivist. He is the figurehead for the "spend your
money so as to reshape society into his image" ideology. He is Wilson and Roosevelt and Bush all rolled into one. He is the one that proposes the budget and he is the one that signs the appropriations bill. It was not Pelosi, Reed, or Congress that told Joe the Plumber that he intended to '.... spread it around". Don't get me wrong, it is not just Obama, as the congress and millions of others are lockstep with the Obamunism ideology, and it is they that constitute the vast left wing base that is pushing all this stuff though, but, back to the signage, that does not mean that Obamunism should be off limits.
In this regard on the signage, I find it odd, if you do not want "negative play", for it to be OK for the logo for the event to be the Alamo wrapped with a snake
threatening to strike. Gee - if that image is not filled with emotional overtones of "... let's make sure the government knows that We the People are ready, and will strike in rebellion if they push us too far", I do not know what is. Frankly, I am surprised it made muster, for it is much more threatening to the government eyes that will be at the rally than any "Obama Lied - The Economy Died" signage, and I venture to guess that the group is now, because of the connotations of the event being near the Alamo, and because of this "militia-ish" logo, on some government watch list - and that I am going to be photographed into some database along with you and all the other attendees.
Returning to the spending - You say congress actually spends the money .... Actually, Congress does NOT spend the money. Essentially, all they can do is to appropriate it. Yes, it is appropriated for various broad based initiatives but after that it is spent essentially as the president and his executive branch wishes, mostly because the appropriation is made pretty much according to what the president proposes.
That (the imperial presidency) is one of the things that WE the People are fed up with. THAT - resistance to Obamanomics and Obamunism - is what is embodied in the "prohibited" signage and THAT is what We the People are Resisting - Obamanomics, Obamunism, Statist, Collectivism, etc. We are not hacked off about the spending (spending is just a proxy), we are hacked off about the underlying philosophy that gives rise to the spending (and we are hacked off that this philosophy is found in the Rebublicans and the Democrats.) Making it about "spending" is deflection from the real issue.
I do agree that the Congress Republicans & Democrats are the problem and I go further in saying that many of them need to be changed out. For example, when we have the likes of Lamar Smith, John Cornyn, and KB Hutchison voting for the first $700 billion bailout then we have a problem. That one practically put me in my grave.
As to the last part of your reply - the "Please go somewhere else ...". That is not in comportment with the American spirit and reeks of the same problem that we all have with the left - they use every attempt to silence and shutdown and do not want to listen to, or allow, the expression of any divergent view. How do they do that?? - by exclusion and by claiming ownership and thus control of the idea. Not to put too fine a point on things, if it does not get partisan (via signage like what you "prohibit", good vs evil, then the collectivist juggernaut will not be stopped. Our American system is all about partisan and the sooner we start knowing that fact, then the sooner we will be able to stop the infection. Do we really think that the collectivists and statist, when they say bi-partisan, mean it. NO, bi-partisan to them means that you have agreed with them, and your eschewing of expression of views not your own seems a bit in the same vein that is practiced by the leftists.
As to the second of the last part of you reply ".... that we all agree on the spending problem." Agreement on the spending problem covers up that the problem is not a spending problem. The problem is an infective, cancerous ideology.
Focusing on spending also covers up the fact that until we address the real issue we will never be able to change things. For example, if we all agree on the spending problem, will we be OK with the administration running GM as long as they do not do it using too much money??
THIS is what Beck is trying to say - that the overarching problem and cancer is corruption of thought as to what the American system is supposed to be. It is not spending, it is collectivism and Statism. - Beck calls it Fascism - Statism is a better term in my view. Spending is but a symptom of the disease.
Anyway, rest assured, I am not out to rain on the event, I am not an agitator for the other side, and I laud what is being done. It needs to be done. You are making a good difference.
Thank you for your work (and everybody else's) on the event (Tea Party) and for your speedy reply to my letter about prohibited signage. Welcome to the world of herding cats.
OK here goes -
I understand that some feel that "the cause" should attempt to end run the Catie Couric's of the world, but running away from the liberal's propaganda machine is equivalent to trying to negotiate with them. THEY will not negotiate with us, and until we learn that we should not negotiate with them, we are stalled. We should speak our mind and should stop being afraid of how others in opposition want to paint us.
Fear of confrontation, I think, is the problem with "conservatives" and the reason why they are at a disadvantage whenever they engage the left. The left is NOT afraid of confrontation, nor are they interested in debate or civility. Indeed, confrontation and Orwell Speak is THE tool in their very effective arsenal, and confrontation has ALWAYS been their tool of change. Is Carvill, or Obama thru his minions, afraid of confrontation??? Not hardly.
Concerning "debate", the left's idea of debate is where the other side stays quiet and listens to whatever venom the left wants to spew. Indeed, part of the left's agenda is keeping the other side "pacific" and nice, and your attempts to de-Obamanize the Tea Party event plays nicely into their hands.
So then, regardless of how many "Obamanuism" signs are kept out of the event, it WILL be painted however Couric et. al. has to paint it so as to get
an anti-obama "juice" onto the story. I reiterate, an anti-Obama slant of the event WILL be made by the media and in a broad sense of things, until the media gets the message that we, the majority of Americans, indeed have the stones to voice it to the rooftops that We DO Want Obama To Fail, then we are going to have a hard road to walk.BTW - Obama (the personification of his ideology) IS the problem and to "walk across the aisle" or be non-partisan is fatal. Obama (individually and thru his group of counselors) sets the agenda and is a radical Communist/Socialist/Collectivist. He is the figurehead for the "spend your
money so as to reshape society into his image" ideology. He is Wilson and Roosevelt and Bush all rolled into one. He is the one that proposes the budget and he is the one that signs the appropriations bill. It was not Pelosi, Reed, or Congress that told Joe the Plumber that he intended to '.... spread it around". Don't get me wrong, it is not just Obama, as the congress and millions of others are lockstep with the Obamunism ideology, and it is they that constitute the vast left wing base that is pushing all this stuff though, but, back to the signage, that does not mean that Obamunism should be off limits.In this regard on the signage, I find it odd, if you do not want "negative play", for it to be OK for the logo for the event to be the Alamo wrapped with a snake
threatening to strike. Gee - if that image is not filled with emotional overtones of "... let's make sure the government knows that We the People are ready, and will strike in rebellion if they push us too far", I do not know what is. Frankly, I am surprised it made muster, for it is much more threatening to the government eyes that will be at the rally than any "Obama Lied - The Economy Died" signage, and I venture to guess that the group is now, because of the connotations of the event being near the Alamo, and because of this "militia-ish" logo, on some government watch list - and that I am going to be photographed into some database along with you and all the other attendees.Returning to the spending - You say congress actually spends the money .... Actually, Congress does NOT spend the money. Essentially, all they can do is to appropriate it. Yes, it is appropriated for various broad based initiatives but after that it is spent essentially as the president and his executive branch wishes, mostly because the appropriation is made pretty much according to what the president proposes.
That (the imperial presidency) is one of the things that WE the People are fed up with. THAT - resistance to Obamanomics and Obamunism - is what is embodied in the "prohibited" signage and THAT is what We the People are Resisting - Obamanomics, Obamunism, Statist, Collectivism, etc. We are not hacked off about the spending (spending is just a proxy), we are hacked off about the underlying philosophy that gives rise to the spending (and we are hacked off that this philosophy is found in the Rebublicans and the Democrats.) Making it about "spending" is deflection from the real issue.
I do agree that the Congress Republicans & Democrats are the problem and I go further in saying that many of them need to be changed out. For example, when we have the likes of Lamar Smith, John Cornyn, and KB Hutchison voting for the first $700 billion bailout then we have a problem. That one practically put me in my grave.
As to the last part of your reply - the "Please go somewhere else ...". That is not in comportment with the American spirit and reeks of the same problem that we all have with the left - they use every attempt to silence and shutdown and do not want to listen to, or allow, the expression of any divergent view. How do they do that?? - by exclusion and by claiming ownership and thus control of the idea. Not to put too fine a point on things, if it does not get partisan (via signage like what you "prohibit", good vs evil, then the collectivist juggernaut will not be stopped. Our American system is all about partisan and the sooner we start knowing that fact, then the sooner we will be able to stop the infection. Do we really think that the collectivists and statist, when they say bi-partisan, mean it. NO, bi-partisan to them means that you have agreed with them, and your eschewing of expression of views not your own seems a bit in the same vein that is practiced by the leftists.
As to the second of the last part of you reply ".... that we all agree on the spending problem." Agreement on the spending problem covers up that the problem is not a spending problem. The problem is an infective, cancerous ideology.
Focusing on spending also covers up the fact that until we address the real issue we will never be able to change things. For example, if we all agree on the spending problem, will we be OK with the administration running GM as long as they do not do it using too much money??
THIS is what Beck is trying to say - that the overarching problem and cancer is corruption of thought as to what the American system is supposed to be. It is not spending, it is collectivism and Statism. - Beck calls it Fascism - Statism is a better term in my view. Spending is but a symptom of the disease.
Anyway, rest assured, I am not out to rain on the event, I am not an agitator for the other side, and I laud what is being done. It needs to be done. You are making a good difference.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
A Letter to a Senator
October 1, 2008
Senator Cornyn,
Subject: Bailout/Help/Assistance
Hell No - Vote No
I am a businessman in San Antonio and the time is NOW for the chickens to come home to roost from their feeding frenzy in the pasture of 15 years of credit expansion.
I, too, have money in stocks and if they crater, big deal. And, if it is a big deal - big deal. I took the risk, and it was speculation on my part, but my loss is not a reason for me to want, or be allowed to, pass that to you or others. America is supposed to be about earning your own keep and not about expecting others to earn theirs - and yours too.
So then, I urge you to quit listening to the talking heads whether they be on FOX or CNN. It is not about jobs. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the Federal Government is provide me a job, or a cheap house, or "manage the economy". Only in Statist countries is this part of the government ... it is called Fascism or Socialism, or some other 'ism, ..... but certainly not capitalism.
It is not about saving the economy - the economy is trying to save itself by destroying that which should be destroyed. Get out of the way.
It is not about saving mortgages and mortgage bankers- they took a risk. Get out of the way.
It is not about saving the working man - they too took the risk when they put everything under the sun on their credit card, and bought a $150,000 house when they should have stayed renting. Get out of the way.
It is not about ME - or saving me. Get out of the way.
Summary - Time now to pay. Credit contraction will be a benefit in the long run, for it weeds out the weak, and acts to point out bad decisions that do not comport with the reality of things. Get out of the way.
____________________________
Want to know how he voted and how my representative voted and how the other Texas Senator voted??? Hummmm.....take a wild guess.
And "they" (the RNC) wonder why McCain did not get elected.
Senator Cornyn,
Subject: Bailout/Help/Assistance
Hell No - Vote No
I am a businessman in San Antonio and the time is NOW for the chickens to come home to roost from their feeding frenzy in the pasture of 15 years of credit expansion.
I, too, have money in stocks and if they crater, big deal. And, if it is a big deal - big deal. I took the risk, and it was speculation on my part, but my loss is not a reason for me to want, or be allowed to, pass that to you or others. America is supposed to be about earning your own keep and not about expecting others to earn theirs - and yours too.
So then, I urge you to quit listening to the talking heads whether they be on FOX or CNN. It is not about jobs. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the Federal Government is provide me a job, or a cheap house, or "manage the economy". Only in Statist countries is this part of the government ... it is called Fascism or Socialism, or some other 'ism, ..... but certainly not capitalism.
It is not about saving the economy - the economy is trying to save itself by destroying that which should be destroyed. Get out of the way.
It is not about saving mortgages and mortgage bankers- they took a risk. Get out of the way.
It is not about saving the working man - they too took the risk when they put everything under the sun on their credit card, and bought a $150,000 house when they should have stayed renting. Get out of the way.
It is not about ME - or saving me. Get out of the way.
Summary - Time now to pay. Credit contraction will be a benefit in the long run, for it weeds out the weak, and acts to point out bad decisions that do not comport with the reality of things. Get out of the way.
____________________________
Want to know how he voted and how my representative voted and how the other Texas Senator voted??? Hummmm.....take a wild guess.
And "they" (the RNC) wonder why McCain did not get elected.
Monday, March 23, 2009
They are at it again
March 23, 2009
Headline from USA Today
As bankruptcy filings mount, attention turns again to reform
The article contains this statement: " ...Congress is focused on efforts to stem home foreclosures by altering the law so that bankruptcy court judges will be allowed to modify certain mortgages to help people keep their homes."
Just great. Another deplorable step on the road to serfdom and the collectivist state and just what we need - to allow judges to modify this specie of contract. Yes, that is really going to be the ticket now isn't it?
I mean, it is not like the banks are now going to have to price into the equation the reality of the risk that some bleeding heart judge will later step in and change the terms of the contract to "help out" those that made a wrong choice and now need to pay the price consisting of the consequences.
Just another example of why the Constitution reads the way it does - to prevent Federal meddling in the economic engine and meddling in social policy. And please do not send any comments about the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. That was to prevent the individual States from setting up a set of protectionist taxes or bounties on trade coming in or going to another state. It was never thought that it would be used to stop a farmer in Ohio from selling corn to his neighbor because in doing so, his neighbor would not buy corn from Illinois, and thus there would be an effect on interstate commerce thus giving rise to an authorization for Federal intervention/control.
Try a little reductio ad absurdum to see that if this view of intervention is allowed, then everything falls under (and beneath the grinding wheels of ) the commerce clause. Indeed, even my posting this to my blog, typed on a black colored keyboard, because it may be read by a person in Ohio and induce him to not invest in any home because I convinced him that the government could come in an change his contract, can be deemed as having an effect on interstate commerce, and thus fall under control of the government and be used as an excuse to place restrictions on keyboard colors.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Message from Seat 29e
Hello all you boys and girls,
Today's story is about how being asleep at the wheel generally leads to nasty results.
And remember, when it comes to government meddling, those that do the meddling never have to sit in a Seat 29E of their own making.
http://www.xgeltesting.com/messagefromseat29e.php
Today's story is about how being asleep at the wheel generally leads to nasty results.
And remember, when it comes to government meddling, those that do the meddling never have to sit in a Seat 29E of their own making.
http://www.xgeltesting.com/messagefromseat29e.php
Friday, February 13, 2009
Obamanomics 2
2/13/09
From a news story ~
House approves stimulus plan; Senate vote next
"....... No House Republicans backed the stimulus measure,
arguing it had too much spending and not enough tax breaks. ......".
Note here, denizens of the demes, that the Republicans did not argue that it was a stupid idea in the first place to rob one neighbor to pay another. Nor did they argue that as a philosophical proposition, the entire thing should have been killed. No - They want their own version of Statism. Make no mistake, the State is the State, and it is coming for you and your pocket book - whether you are rich, or poor, or in the middle.
Do not be fooled. The Republicans stand for Corporatism (welfare for business) and the Democrats stand for Re-Distribution of earned wealth to the people that did not create the wealth or earn it.
And please, do not post any comments about how that $8/hr guy is the one that created the wealth. The only reason he has that job is because finance capital wanted to exploit itself and exploit him.
exploit - ex [ik-sploit]
–verb (used with object)
To put to productive use
This, my fellow Athenians, is the meaning of the word, regardless of what the Sophists would have you believe.
So then, when you see a bunch of illegal aliens building the highway interchange, and you remark to your fellow passenger "Look at all those poor immigrants. It is THEY that are building America." Consider that NO, it is NOT they that are building America. It is finance capital that is building America, and were it not for being able to have a pool of money "just sitting around" always looking for a way to exploit itself, so that it could exploit workers, there would be no freaking job for those oh so poor and exploited illegal aliens to have in the first place.
So then, the correct way to think about what is building America is that it is MONEY that is building America.
Returning now to the Obamananigans, I have a sister in law that at a dinner party told everybody to " .... shut up because our side won." Refering to the Savior from on high.
Sounds good to me, and accordingly, because her house is nicer and bigger than mine, I will stand back as the government comes to take it after "those on her side" decide that she is one of those that has too much money.
You know, that is the problem with the Obamaites - anybody that has more money than they do, has too much and, you know, we just need to confiscate it so that we, the anointed, the followers, the true knowers of all that is good can "....... spread it around".
Makes me and about 65,000,000 others want to puke.
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” Thomas Jefferson April 6, 1816
From a news story ~
House approves stimulus plan; Senate vote next
"....... No House Republicans backed the stimulus measure,
arguing it had too much spending and not enough tax breaks. ......".
Note here, denizens of the demes, that the Republicans did not argue that it was a stupid idea in the first place to rob one neighbor to pay another. Nor did they argue that as a philosophical proposition, the entire thing should have been killed. No - They want their own version of Statism. Make no mistake, the State is the State, and it is coming for you and your pocket book - whether you are rich, or poor, or in the middle.
Do not be fooled. The Republicans stand for Corporatism (welfare for business) and the Democrats stand for Re-Distribution of earned wealth to the people that did not create the wealth or earn it.
And please, do not post any comments about how that $8/hr guy is the one that created the wealth. The only reason he has that job is because finance capital wanted to exploit itself and exploit him.
exploit - ex [ik-sploit]
–verb (used with object)
To put to productive use
This, my fellow Athenians, is the meaning of the word, regardless of what the Sophists would have you believe.
So then, when you see a bunch of illegal aliens building the highway interchange, and you remark to your fellow passenger "Look at all those poor immigrants. It is THEY that are building America." Consider that NO, it is NOT they that are building America. It is finance capital that is building America, and were it not for being able to have a pool of money "just sitting around" always looking for a way to exploit itself, so that it could exploit workers, there would be no freaking job for those oh so poor and exploited illegal aliens to have in the first place.
So then, the correct way to think about what is building America is that it is MONEY that is building America.
Returning now to the Obamananigans, I have a sister in law that at a dinner party told everybody to " .... shut up because our side won." Refering to the Savior from on high.
Sounds good to me, and accordingly, because her house is nicer and bigger than mine, I will stand back as the government comes to take it after "those on her side" decide that she is one of those that has too much money.
You know, that is the problem with the Obamaites - anybody that has more money than they do, has too much and, you know, we just need to confiscate it so that we, the anointed, the followers, the true knowers of all that is good can "....... spread it around".
Makes me and about 65,000,000 others want to puke.
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” Thomas Jefferson April 6, 1816
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)