From Joe Turner’s Political Buzz, here’s a nice list of the tax increases that the Washington State Legislature is considering.
Posts Tagged ‘Socialism’
Posted by Liberty on March 7, 2009
Posted in Arrogant politicians, Liberalism, Redistribution of wealth, Social engineering, Socialist economics, Stupid legislation, Taxes, Washington State | Tagged: Budget, Government spending, Liberalism, Redistribution of wealth, Socialism, Taxes, Washington State, Washington State Legislature | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Liberty on February 28, 2009
Yesterday was a day of tea parties. While I wasn’t able to attend one in person, believe me, I was there in spirit. And, I was delighted to find these pictures on Byron Dazey’s blog this morning. You’ll see that Conservatives are great at protesting, despite the fact that most Conservatives don’t smoke dope, have never been arrested for “the cause” and are gainfully employed. The photos are awesome and the signs are so clever! Here’s just one teaser–you’ll have to check out www.myownside.com for the rest!
Posted in Conservatism, Constitutional Rights, Freedom of Speech, Future of the GOP, Liberalism, Obama, Positive News, Redistribution of wealth, Socialist economics, Sticking to their guns, Stupid legislation, Washington State | Tagged: Conservatives, Conservatives standing up!, Obama, Protest, Seattle Tea Party, Socialism, Tea Party, Washington State | 2 Comments »
Posted by Liberty on February 22, 2009
So many things to write about within this article but so little patience for all things Obama! He knows a lot of people are outraged about the deficit spending stimulus plan. By unveiling this latest plan to reduce the deficit, he’ll at least fool some of the huddled masses into thinking he’s not a big spender. Of course, it doesn’t hurt that the useful idiots in the MSM are continuing their laudatory, incurious coverage of Obama.
I especially like how he’s made a couple of financial policy announcements this weekend–when the markets are closed. Could it be that Obama has realized that the markets don’t seem to have much confidence in his abilities? How much has the Dow tanked since America’s first true socialist president took office?
Obama’s budget calls for higher taxes on businesses and the wealthy [a smart recession move, eh?] and spending cuts. Of course, Obama has not targeted wasteful spending, layers of bureaucracy and redistributive programs–those things will only grow throughout his administration. Obama’s spending cuts will be from our ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. More for food stamps, more to keep uncreditworthy buyers in homes they can’t afford, more for health care [but only if the government deems it cost-effective] and less for defending America against Islamic terrorism. The bright side of all of this nonsense is that at least Obama is making it easier for Conservatives to make the distinction between their policies and those of the socialist liberals currently in charge.
The real kicker for me in this article was this quote:
“Obama also proposes “a fairly aggressive effort on tax enforcement” that would target corporate loopholes…”
Now why is it that he cares whether or not corporations pay their fair share of taxes while nominating a bunch of tax cheats for positions in his administration? Geithner, Daschle, Killefer, Solis…those are just the ones we know about so far. Hypocrisy, any one?
Posted in Arrogant politicians, Conservatism, Future of the GOP, Innate hypocrisy, Just plain dishonest, Liberalism, Main Stream Media, National Security, Obama, Redistribution of wealth, Slavish media bias, Social engineering, Socialist economics, Stupid legislation, Taxes | Tagged: Daschle, Deficit, Geithner, Government spending, Killefer, Liberal hypocrisy, Market, MSM, Obama, Socialism, Solis, Stimulus, Tax cheats, Tax increase, Useful idiots | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Liberty on February 17, 2009
From Carpe Diem today:
Here’s a bit of an antidote for my last post about the plummeting stock markets. It’s important to remember that, while our economy is bad, it certainly has been worse. Some of us haven’t been around long enough to remember the last severe recession firsthand, so these statistics bear repeating. In the early 80’s, America was still recovering from the failed presidency of Jimmy Carter. How about 18.5% interest on your 30 year fixed mortgage? It really was that bad in 1981. 14.8% inflation in 1980? And 10.8% unemployment in 1982? I’m not saying that we’re not headed there under Obama’s socialist policies but for the time being at least, it could be worse.
Posted by Liberty on February 17, 2009
If you ask me, Peggy Noonan has really pin-pointed something important in this editorial. It’s something I’ve been thinking about a lot lately, given the downturn in the economy and America’s sad lurch towards socialism. Noonan compares and contrasts two people who’ve been in the media lately: Chesley B. Sullenberger III–“Sully” and Nadya Suleman. [Noonan calls her “Suley” but she’s also known as “The Octomom.” It almost sounds like a comic book villain, doesn’t it? Rightly so, in my opinion.]
Sully represents something distinctly American to us–a modest man who views saving the lives of his passengers as just part of his job. Sully didn’t seek the spotlight and when its glare came his way, he was quick to credit his co-workers for what happened that day on the Hudson River. Steady, responsible, humble and brave–Sully. Noonan expresses gratitude that America is still making people like him.
And then, there’s Nadya Suleman–The Octomom. A glorified welfare queen who has created 14 father-less children, she’s a leech on society who apparently has no compunction about living off the largesse of the taxpayers on a fairly grand scale. It would be bad enough if she had a couple of kids with no dad in the picture and ended up on social services because she couldn’t make it on her own. But this was all of her own selfish design. In-vitro fertilization takes more effort than your average food stamp mama is willing to undertake and/or can afford. Now the Octomom is out whoring herself for every media outlet that will roll tape. Selfish, self-aggrandizing, irresponsible and quite possibly mentally ill–Suley.
The concept that Noonan has clarified for me turns out to be more of a question. In this new era of hope for government handouts and the change to socialism, does America consist more of “Sully’s” or “Suley’s?” Do more of us still believe in pulling the wagon or does a majority just want a ride? For our own sake, I hope that strength of character and self-reliance still matter.
Posted by Liberty on February 10, 2009
The Senate is poised to pass Obama’s massive “socialize America” stimulus plan. Thanks to human jellyfish pseudo Republicans like Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, news blips everywhere will praise the bill’s passing as “bipartisan.” The unfortunate thing is that there is policy buried in this stimulus that will change the course of our society as we know it.
Most people don’t even have a clue–they’ve bought the Obama bill of goods that the stimulus will build roads and schools. Obama has done this country a major disservice by doing his best to shut down discussion on this bill. If there had been a more honest, open debate, perhaps more people would know about the back-door transition to socialized medicine that’s been included under the guise of improving our economy. Here I reference a piece that was published yesterday on Bloomberg.com. Betsy McCaughey has done the work that the celebutard pre-occupied main stream media has refused to do. Debate rages about Jessica Simpson’s weight gain, Alex Rodriguez’s steriod use and whether or not some R&B artist beat up his girlfriend when it should be focused on the fraud being perpetrated upon us all. The numbers included in the quotes I’ve pulled from Ms. McCaughey’s article are the page numbers in the H.R. 1 EH, pdf version.
“The bill’s health rules will affect ‘every individual in the United States’ (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.
But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and ‘guide’ your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what [Tom] Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and ‘learn to operate less like solo practitioners.’”
I don’t know about you but I trust my doctor. That’s why I go to her instead of down to the DMV when I need medical care. If you’re wondering what exactly it means to have the federal government “guide” your doctor’s decisions, read on.
“Hospitals and doctors that are not ‘meaningful users’ of the new system will face penalties. ‘Meaningful user’ isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose ‘more stringent measures of meaningful use over time’ (511, 518, 540-541).
What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the ‘tough’ decisions elected politicians won’t make.
The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept ‘hopeless diagnoses’ and ‘forgo experimental treatments,’ and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.”
Is this what you want? To accept a “hopeless diagnosis” like a European? To just give up? What about hope? Isn’t hope the very thing we’re supposed to have now that Obama has been elected?
“Daschle says health-care reform ‘will not be pain free.’ Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.
Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).
The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.”
Quick, can somebody tell me who the AARP endorsed in the 2008 Presidential election?
The hypocrisy here is simply appalling. These same “compassionate” liberals that don’t believe in killing terrorists and think that every child should start the day with taxpayer-funded Lucky Charms are implementing policy that will deny medical treatments for the elderly. How long is it going to be before the doctor approaches the family gathered around dear old aunt Mary’s bedside and says, “The Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research says there’s nothing more we can do. I think it’s time to put her down.”
“If the Obama administration’s economic stimulus bill passes the Senate in its current form, seniors in the U.S. will face similar rationing. Defenders of the system say that individuals benefit in younger years and sacrifice later.
The stimulus bill will affect every part of health care, from medical and nursing education, to how patients are treated and how much hospitals get paid. The bill allocates more funding for this bureaucracy than for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force combined (90-92, 174-177, 181).
Hiding health legislation in a stimulus bill is intentional. Daschle supported the Clinton administration’s health-care overhaul in 1994, and attributed its failure to debate and delay. A year ago, Daschle wrote that the next president should act quickly before critics mount an opposition. ‘If that means attaching a health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it,’ he said. ‘The issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol.'”
Arrogance! Unbelievable arrogance! Not only does Daschle think that he is above paying taxes, he believes you should not have a say on the implementation of socialized medicine. Don’t comfort yourself for a second by thinking that at least Daschle has withdrawn his nomination. That isn’t going to slow this plan down in the least. The Senate is scheduled to vote today. You can still call them.
Update, 11:22 am
The bill passed. Our only hope for stopping this is in the conference committee now. I thought of two things since I originally posted this morning. Liberals whipped themselves into a hysteria over the Bush administration’s wire taps on suspected terrorists. Civil libertarians were absolutely crazed over it. Do you think they’ll have a problem with a federal bureaucracy over-seeing our health care?
Also, what about the “my body, my choicer’s?” They want choice when it comes to killing babies and under Obama’s plan, that’s one option that will probably always be there. But what will your choices be when the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research dictates your treatment for diabetes, arthritis, kidney stones or any other condition to your doctor? Why is it important for you to have the choice to kill babies but not to choose what course of treatment is best for cancer, MS or neo-natal care?
Posted in Arrogant politicians, Bureaucratic ineptitude, Celebutards, Constitutional Rights, Health care, Innate hypocrisy, Just plain dishonest, Liberalism, Main Stream Media, Obama, Slavish media bias, Social engineering, Socialist economics, Socialized medicine, Stupid legislation | Tagged: Alex Rodriguez, Arrogance, Celebutard, Collins, Economy, Human jellyfish pseudo Republicans, Jessica Simpson, Liberal hypocrisy, Obama, Snowe, Socialism, Socialized medicine, Specter, Stimulus | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Liberty on February 7, 2009
Nancy Pelosi, quoted in an October 28, 2008 KGO-TV article:
“Elect us, hold us accountable, and make a judgment and then go from there. But I do tell you that if the Democrats win, and have substantial majorities, Congress of the United States will be more bipartisan.”
From a November 6, 2008 Boston Globe article:
“House Speaker Nancy Pelosi yesterday pledged that the Democratic-controlled Congress would take a bipartisan approach in working with the incoming Obama administration, saying Democrats need to ‘govern from the middle’to accomplish an ambitious agenda on the economy, energy independence, and healthcare.”
Speaking of the immigration bill in an interview with Al Hunt, re-printed on Real Clear Politics June 15, 2007:
“…we’ll work together in a bipartisan way. This bill affects too many people over a long period of time. We want it to be bipartisan and comprehensive.”
“In a statement sure to rile Republicans, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Friday dismissed calls for bipartisanship as ‘process’ arguments extraneous to passing a stimulus bill — and warned Senate Democrats against slashing proposed increases to education spending.
Pelosi — speaking to reporters on the second day of her retreat with House Democrats at a swank Williamsburg, Va., golf resort — was clearly annoyed with Senate attempts to slash up to $100 billion in spending from the $819 billion package the House passed last week.
At the same time, she urged the need for speed in passing the package — and stopped short of saying that she’d insist on her demands during upcoming conference negotiations with the Senate.
‘Washington seems consumed in the process argument of bipartisanship, when the rest of the country says they need this bill,’ the California Democrat said, seeming to sweep aside the Obama administration initial desire to have broad GOP support for the plan.”
Democrats only like bipartisanship when Republicans cross the lines and vote like Democrats! They like to pretend that they’re just naturally more open-minded and cooperative [ie. bipartisan] than Republicans but it’s a myth. The word “bipartisan” has become misconstrued to mean “Democrats getting their own way.”
I say, it’s time to chuck the concept of bipartisanship. Our elected Republicans [with the notable exceptions of Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and Arlen Specter] should be reveling in their new-found strength and mentally deleting the word “bipartisan” from their vocabularies.
I appreciate how the majority of Republicans in the Senate have hung together in opposing this shameful pork-packed “stimulus” bill. If the stimulus is such a great and necessary piece of legislation as the Democrats claim, why don’t they just pass it themselves and get it over with? They have the votes, especially with human jellyfish pseudo-Republicans like Snowe, Collins and Specter on their side. Better yet, why don’t they write it up as an Executive Order and Obama can just sign it all into law with a stroke of his mighty pen? [Picture this…Obama signs the Executive Order to socialize…I mean, “stimulate” the economy and then he turns to Greg Craig to ask what exactly is in the bill.]
The answer is, of course, that the Democrats don’t want to own the consequences of this massive spending plan. They don’t want the American people to blame them when the economy gets worse instead of better. They don’t want the electoral consequences when the voters figure out that the stimulus has less to do with fixing the economy and more to do with paying off Democrat supporters like unions, bureaucrats, community organizers and abortionists.
Republicans have probably had about as much influence as they will get over what goes into this bill and how much is spent. The only thing to do now is to take a principled stand against the stimulus. We’re going to lose this argument but at least we can go down fighting.
Posted in Arrogant politicians, Conservatism, Future of the GOP, Innate hypocrisy, Liberalism, Obama, Redistribution of wealth, Social engineering, Socialist economics, Sticking to their guns, Stupid legislation, Taxes | Tagged: Bipartisanship, Collins, Conservatism, Democrat, Government spending, Human jellyfish pseudo Republicans, Hypocrisy, Nancy Pelosi, Obama, Payback, Republicans, Snowe, Socialism, Specter, Stimulus | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Liberty on February 5, 2009
“By limiting annual pay to $500,000 and dishing out additional pay in restricted stock that can’t be cashed in until the government bailout money is paid back, a host of unintended consequences may result, ranging from a brain drain of top talent to a potentially less-generous approach to paying employees at other financial firms.”
“The plan, which represents the most aggressive assault on executive pay by federal officials, includes salary caps of $500,000 for top executives at firms that accept ‘extraordinary assistance’ from the government.
It also restricts severance packages, known as ‘golden parachutes,’ for dismissed executives and requires the disclosure of policies on so-called luxury spending on things such as holiday parties, corporate jets and office renovations.”
The President has spoken. He has waved his magic wand and limited how much money an executive can earn. I would say, this is a good example why businesses should not accept government money. [Although, some of those banks were strong-armed into accepting bail-out money just as strong-armed into making loans to uncreditworthy borrowers.] A government with the power to give also has the power to take away.
So, here’s what I think. What’s good for Wall Street ought to be good for all of those bureaucrats in D.C. and beyond. How about some salary and benefit caps for people working for the government?
Oh, and by the way:
“America’s CEOs are coming under fire these days not just for their hefty salaries but also for their use of private jets, limos with drivers and free trips to posh resorts.
But they aren’t alone in living this lavish lifestyle — the president of United States gets all these perks and more.
And unlike some of his Cabinet appointments, he doesn’t have to pay taxes on these benefits.
It might be a bit of a stretch to compare today’s corporate titans with the commander in chief, but some Wall Street bloggers clearly upset with President Obama’s attempts to rein in executive pay are doing just that.”
Interesting perspective coming from ABC news!
Posted in Arrogant politicians, Bureaucratic ineptitude, Innate hypocrisy, Liberalism, Main Stream Media, Obama, Social engineering, Socialist economics | Tagged: Bail-out, Executive pay, MSM, Obama, Pay cap, Socialism, Unintended consequences | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Liberty on January 29, 2009
The House of Representatives voted on the pork-laden stimulus plan yesterday evening. The final tally showed the bill passing with 244 votes in favor and 188 against. Not one single Republican voted to support the stimulus plan.
I want to take this opportunity to recognize the Republicans in the House of Representatives. Thanks guys! Thank you for standing firm against this awful bill! I know it still passed and socialism is on the march but at least House Republicans bear no responsibility on this one!
Posted in Conservatism, Future of the GOP, Liberalism, Obama, Redistribution of wealth, Social engineering, Socialist economics, Sticking to their guns, Stupid legislation | Tagged: House Republicans, Socialism, Stimulus | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Liberty on January 24, 2009
I know if you read my last post, you’ve probably had it with negativity but I wanted to make sure to link to two editorials that Dick Morris put out this week. The first one was published on TheHill.com on January 20.
“2009-2010 will rank with 1913-14, 1933-36, 1964-65 and 1981-82 as years that will permanently change our government, politics and lives. Just as the stars were aligned for Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson and Reagan, they are aligned for Obama. Simply put, we enter his administration as free-enterprise, market-dominated, laissez-faire America. We will shortly become like Germany, France, the United Kingdom, or Sweden — a socialist democracy in which the government dominates the economy, determines private-sector priorities and offers a vastly expanded range of services to many more people at much higher taxes.
Obama will accomplish his agenda of ‘reform’ under the rubric of ‘recovery.’ Using the electoral mandate bestowed on a Democratic Congress by restless voters and the economic power given his administration by terrified Americans, he will change our country fundamentally in the name of lifting the depression. His stimulus packages won’t do much to shorten the downturn — although they will make it less painful — but they will do a great deal to change our nation.”
Morris goes on to forecast how Obama’s reckless fiscal policies will create a permanent dependent class.
“But it is not his spending that will transform our political system, it is his tax and welfare policies. In the name of short-term stimulus, he will give every American family (who makes less than $200,000) a welfare check of $1,000 euphemistically called a refundable tax credit. And he will so sharply cut taxes on the middle class and the poor that the number of Americans who pay no federal income tax will rise from the current one-third of all households to more than half. In the process, he will create a permanent electoral majority that does not pay taxes, but counts on ever-expanding welfare checks from the government. The dependency on the dole, formerly limited in pre-Clinton days to 14 million women and children on Aid to Families with Dependent Children, will now grow to a clear majority of the American population.”
The second editorial has pretty similar content. It came from www.dickmorris.com and was published on January 22.
“He will call this radical change a stimulus package. He will dress up a generation of liberal priorities as necessary steps to fight the economic crisis. His programs and policies won’t do much to end the depression. It will end only after the massive burden of debt is lifted from the shoulders of American and foreign households and companies, a process which will take years. At most, his stimulus will act as methadone while we withdraw from our debt addiction, mitigating the pain, smoothing over the trauma, and soothing our system.
But Obama’s strategy is to hide inside the Trojan Horse of stimulus an army of radical measures to change America permanently.”
Posted in Liberalism, Obama, Redistribution of wealth, Social engineering, Socialist economics, Stupid legislation | Tagged: Depression, Dick Morris, Economy, Liberalism, Obama, Socialism, Stimulus | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Liberty on January 24, 2009
In the days since Obama was elected, I’ve been trying to find reasons for Conservatives to stay positive. That has not been easy. Conservatives know what the GOP needs to do to win elections but they haven’t been listening. The GOP has been ignoring their largest voting bloc in favor of chasing elusive groups like Independents, Hispanics, Walmart voters, etc. Maybe somewhere in the US today, there are Republicans starting to do the right thing. Maybe somewhere there is a groundswell of Conservatism growing. Unfortunately, living in the deep blue state of Washington–behind the Iron Curtain, so to speak,–I’m not seeing it. I hope it really is happening and that we have strong Conservatives candidates ready to take on the libs with guns blazing in time for the midterm elections.
A conversation that I had last night further pushed me into a state of worry. It’s hard to know how bad the economic picture under the bad policies of Obama and the radical liberal Democrats in Congress. But, it will be bad. We are headed for some hard times–probably harder than anything my generation has ever seen. I got some good advice last night and I’d like to pass it along. Get rid of debt. Don’t take on new debt. Watch for the stock market to rise briefly in an “Obama rally” and try to salvage some of the principle that you have in the market. And then, hoard some cash, just in case.
I don’t like the thought that the economy is going to head even further south. This kind of negativity is just the opposite of the thought process I’ve been trying to cultivate. But, we have to be honest. I have it on good authority that the banking crisis is not over yet, not by a long shot. And I also firmly believe that Obama’s Socialist policies will push us further into trouble. So tighten up the budget, kill your debt, put some cold hard cash in a safe spot and take care. It’s going to get worse before it gets better but we’ll survive just fine.
Posted in American society, Arrogant politicians, Conservatism, Future of the GOP, Liberalism, Obama, Socialist economics, Washington State | Tagged: Crisis, Economy, Future of the GOP, Obama, Socialism | 1 Comment »
Posted by Liberty on January 12, 2009
Socialism or capitalism? The choice America is facing at this time is just that existential. I fear that the average citizen in this country today doesn’t even clearly understand the differences between the two economic systems. We’ve been in similar economic situations before, chosen wrongly and suffered the consequences. All I ask is that we examine the past…say the era of the Great Depression, since that’s what our current economy is constantly being compared to. Pat Buchanan has some important Depression economic stats in the article linked below. For instance:
“By 1933, 89 percent of stock value had been wiped out, the economy had shrunk by one-third, thousands of banks had closed, a third of the money supply had vanished, and unemployment had reached 25 percent — among heads of households.”
Compare that to what’s happening today:
“…the financial collapse and economic crisis of 2008, inherited by Obama, with 40 percent of all stock values wiped out in a year, foreclosures pandemic, and unemployment near 7 percent and surging.”
So what did we do to combat the Depression?
“FDR’s answer: vast federal spending, tough new regulations on business and higher taxes — like Herbert Hoover before him, only more so.
The Depression lasted until war orders from the Allies brought U.S. industry back to life. Before 1940, not once did unemployment fall below 14 percent. In May 1939, Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau testified:
‘We are spending more money than we have ever spent before, and it does not work. … I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started … and an enormous debt, to boot.'”
Obama’s economic stimulus plan consists of spending. Plain and simple. Government spending didn’t work in the 1930’s and it won’t work now. Period. But the New Deal programs got Roosevelt 3 terms as President and solidified Democrat power.
Posted in American history, Liberalism, Obama, Public education, Redistribution of wealth, Socialist economics, Taxes | Tagged: American history, Capitalism, Economy, FDR, Obama, Reagan, Socialism, The Great Depression | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Liberty on January 8, 2009
“President-elect Barack Obama warned of dire and long-lasting consequences if Congress doesn’t pump unprecedented dollars into the national economy, making an urgent pitch Thursday for his mammoth spending proposal in his first speech since the election.”
I thought we only had one president at a time…why doesn’t his foreign policy cop-out apply to the economy?
“The president-elect cast blame on ‘an era of profound irresponsibility that stretched from corporate boardrooms to the halls of power in Washington.’ But he added, ‘The very fact that this crisis is largely of our own making means that it is not beyond our ability to solve.'”
Obama went on to call for more alternative energy production, “green” upgrades to federal buildings, electronic medical records, expansion of broadband internet and upgrades to schools and universities. If someone who actually has a clue about economics could explain to me how this ridiculous spending will revive our economy, feel free. Obama spoke the other day about eliminating earmarks and pork spending. From what I’ve seen, his entire “economic recovery” plan is pork.
Posted by Liberty on December 20, 2008
I’ve linked Professor Mark Perry’s blog, Carpe Diem before…hmmm, trying to link and WordPress’ hyperlink function is not working right now. [Normally, WordPress works great. If you want to start a blog, I highly recommend WordPress. And e-mail me the link. I promise I’ll read, even if you’re a lib or a Husky fan].
Anyhow, go to http://mjperry.blogspot.com/ because his blog today is incisive as usual. He’s excerpted an article from the Wall Street Journal by Andrew B. Wilson on how the Conservative principles espoused by Margaret Thatcher helped to pull Great Britain out of economic difficulties in the 1980’s. [Wow, isn’t that about the time that Ronald Reagan was helping America recover from our Jimmy Carter-induced economic difficulties through free-market capitalism?] Here’s a brief quote from Mr. Wilson’s article:
“By sticking to her policies of lightened regulation, reduced trade barriers, privatization of a raft of publicly owned companies, reduced taxation, and the adoption of laws to prevent abuses of union power, Mrs. Thatcher achieved something few if any of today’s economists have begun to consider. She achieved a genuine, productivity-led recovery that transformed Britain from perennial basket case into the Europe’s most improved and vibrant economy.”
Naturally, I’m a little sad to think that this economic recovery will not be ours, at least not during the next four years. The socialist blueprint has been drawn, and time and time again, the house has fallen. Obama’s going to build his policies on the failed philosophy of socialism, a system counter to all that America was founded on. It will fail us, too. So, I guess I love Carpe Diem today for the information that Professor Perry disseminates, not for helping me feel optimistic.
He also has a post entitled “Ford’s State-of-the-Art Factory in Brazil: A Model for the Big 3’s Survival. But The UAW Hates It.” In it, there are details about an innovative Ford factory in South America. According to Professor Perry,
“It’s not just above-market UAW wages and benefits, along with overly generous lifetime pensions and health care coverage that have all contributed to pushing the Big Three to the brink of bankruptcy. It’s also the outdated work rules, multiple job classifications, and union inflexibility and resistance to greater efficiency that have crippled the Big Three (see the 22 pound, 2,215 page UAW-Ford contract here).Isn’t it sad that U.S. automakers like Ford have to go 5,000 miles away to “the global sandbox” Brazil to try out new production methods, instead of introducing cutting-edge, state-of-the-art technology here in the U.S.? Even if GM and Chrysler reduce wages and benefits to competitive levels as part of the $17.4 billion bailout, they still might not survive in the long run if they are prevented by the UAW from introducing lean, flexible, state-of-the-art technology inside the U.S., like Ford has been able to introduce outside of the U.S.”
Posted in Conservatism, Future of the GOP, Liberalism, Obama, Redistribution of wealth, Ronald Reagan, Union Thuggery | Tagged: Bailout, Margaret Thatcher, Obama, Redistribution of wealth, Ronald Reagan, Socialism, The Big Three | 3 Comments »
Posted by Liberty on November 28, 2008
“Partygoers who’ve lost their shoes or can’t make their way home safely in stilettos or platforms will receive the government-funded footwear as part of a program intended to reduce the impact of drunken behavior on the area’s police and emergency services, Inspector Adrian Leisk said.
Torbay, a seaside resort on England’s southwest coast, is popular with British vacationers and the waterfront can attract as many as 10,000 people on weekend nights over the summer, Leisk said. He added that the area gets ‘very, very vibrant.’
He said special policing teams already had been deployed to cut down on violent crime in the area, and that authorities were now focusing on mitigating the health impact of heavy drinking.
That includes deploying volunteers to stalk the streets handing out water bottles, advice and information on sexual health and alcohol use. It also includes giving flip-flops emblazoned with educational messages to partygoers who might be a little unsteady on their feet.”
Dare I say that for some people, waking up in the morning with a sprained ankle or glass shards embedded in the heel might serve as an important lesson? The benevolent nanny state of Great Britain is not doing its subjects any favors by mitigating the consequences of stupidity. America needs to pay attention to the example that Great Britain is setting for us. Great Britain has traveled much further down the road of socialism that we have thus far and it is not working!
Posted by Liberty on November 24, 2008
“The emphasis on the economy began Saturday when Obama outlined the framework of a plan to save or create 2.5 million jobs by the end of 2010. The scope of the recovery package is far more ambitious than what Obama had spelled out during his presidential campaign, when he proposed $175 billion of spending and tax-cutting stimulus. The new one will be significantly larger and would incorporate his campaign ideas for new jobs in environmentally friendly technologies – the ‘green economy.’ It also would include his proposals for tax relief for middle- and lower-income workers.”
“President-elect Barack Obama unveiled key elements of his blueprint for turning around the economy — and the team tasked with making it work — including a massive stimulus package and tax cuts for a ‘vast majority’ of Americans paid for by the nation’s ‘wealthiest.'”
Obama’s socialist “job creation” plan will include thousands of make-work, FDR-style government jobs on road and infrastructure projects. Instead of reviving the economy, his plan will only serve to empower and enrich entrenched bureaucrats and unions. The only way to successfully fight this recession will be to empower and enrich private industry, not expand the least productive sector of modern society–government.