posted February 09, 2009 10:23 AM            

Just before the election, Barack Obama made fifteen references to "pie" in 100 seconds of a speech -- all about dividing up that yummy pie of the American economy. His audience laughed and chanted, "Pie! Pie!" to show how hungry they were. In one fell swoop Obama gave away the rapacity of socialism. In his first weeks of his presidency the world has seen how hungry he really is.

Mr. Obama doesn't look like he has an eating problem, but he is hungry, voraciously hungry. Or as Michelle O explained,

"The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more."

Socialism is rapaciously greedy -- that's what endless envy warfare comes down to. The Left likes to preen itself with the word ‘progressive,' when it is actually the most regressive political strategy in history. The key political move is to seek out the most rapacious people -- not hungry for food but power -- and use them to mobilize an attack on the productive sector, the milk cows of society. It is the most primitive political strategy ever. It goes back to the Romans and long before. Karl Marx merely reinvented a very old and decrepit wheel.

That is why everything is grist for the mill of Obama Marxism. Old-time Marxism just pitted the poor against the rich -- a compelling sympathy play in the 19th century, with grinding poverty, industrial workers living in little better than slavery, and peasant farmers in Europe who were all but slaves, as in Czarist Russia. Then decades of capitalist vitality provided the goods and services for an unprecedented spread of wealth, so that today Joe the Plumber is an instinctive conservative. Industrial workers became prosperous.

So the Left needed a new underclass. That is why the Boomer Left had to find new victim groups -- women who could be made to envy men, blacks to envy whites, homosexuals to envy heterosexuals, the young against their parents, each ethnic group against the other. The New Marxism plays off any victim group against any perceived winner. In this presidential election, the Democrats pitched it perfectly, setting every manipulable group against its favorite scapegoats, symbolized by President Bush and Veep Dick Cheney.

That is why today, in his first month in office, President Obama needs to go after executives who earn more than 500 thousand dollars per year. Marxism has become the politics of universal envy and rapacity, as long as there is a victim group hungry enough to be led into battle against the ever-shifting enemy. That is why racial politics has not been left behind by the Democrats; on the contrary. The United States is more racially sliced and diced than it has been since the Dixiecrats lost their power.

Socialism is rapacious because it has an endless appetite for power. If you doubt it, look at Britain today, where average people -- the productive ones -- are taxed, constantly bullied by the government-owned BBC, and bribed into voting socialist. Prime Minister Gordon Brown has gone to the logical extreme of demanding that British citizens donate their body parts to the National Health Service when they die -- mandatory organ donation, or socialist cannibalism. He calls it ‘presumed consent," which means that if you're dead, the government gets to decide who will re-use your mortal remains.

That is also why the socialist parties in Britain have suicidally imported hundreds of thousands of Pakistani Muslims, and are constantly telling them how welcome they are to import 7th Century Shariah law into the former home of parliaments. Those votes are easy to buy, and jihadi terrorism be damned. Antisemitism is now rife in Britain, whipped up by the radical Left, the BBC, and the Guardian, in alliance with Islamic fascists. It is a shameful loss of decency, no different than any other race baiting politics in human history.

Odacity is voracious because there's never enough free pie. It's the pie supply that grinds to a halt if the bakery is coerced into working without compensation -- a condition that used to be called "slavery." Without suitable incentives, producers can only be forced to work by the threat of punishment. And with full media control, our socialists make sure the baker gets the blame for any sudden pie shortage. We've watched it happen with Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Coal, and on and on -- but never with Big Media or Big Government. It's easy to tell who the demagogues are -- their names are never on the hit list. As the bitter old Soviet joke went, "Capitalism is the exploitation of man by man. Socialism is the opposite." Only the apparatchiks, the new ruling class, wins.

Our universities have gone that way already. That is why Harvard University dumped President Larry Summers for telling a well-known truth about precocious mathematical talent among boys. Nobody knows exactly why, but the typical genius mathematician is a pimply teenage boy with girl problems. That's been true for centuries, and most of the time it has been a source of pity or ridicule for those socially isolated boys. Today talented mathematical geniuses of the Wrong Sex are the objects of feminist envy. Almost every Harvard faculty member knows all that, but they kept their heads down when the campus Left went after Larry's scalp for telling the truth. That's Politically Correct socialism, and the firing of Larry Summers was designed to chill free speech on all the campuses. It was a power-play, and everybody understood who won. Harvard now has a new set of Feminist Commissars, to make sure that forbidden thoughts are never again spoken in public.

Our media are going bankrupt because their audiences are going away. Why are they committing suicide? Because they have become one with our Leftist political elites. Media mavens may lose their jobs, but they will become PR people in the Obama administration. The universities are happy to hire them, just as California State University hired Leon Panetta to run its "Institute for Public Policy" on its new campus in the spectacular coastal community of Monterey, California. Today he is our new CIA director, with no visible qualifications in the craft of intelligence.

Europe is the model for the Left. But one reason that Europe's elites hate America is that they can no longer keep up their own military defenses. All their taxes go to political payoffs to victim groups and their ruling classes. They have become dependent and hostile, like a drug-addicted teenager. Look at their pitiful answer to Putin's tank invasion of the little country of Georgia. European socialism has been subsidized by our defense dollars for the last six decades. It's because they have eaten their seed corn, sacrificed it to the endless voracity of vote buying politics. They can no longer afford a working military; and they do not have the guts to use what they have even to save the lives of people facing genocide in Africa and Europe itself.

Socialism is rapacious even to the extent of sinking its own ship. Because there's never enough free pie. The Sick Man of Europe is the result of years of deliberate policy. Its pathetic weaknesses reflects purposeful choices by socialist elites in each country, forcing the military and police to hemorrhage until they became helpless and demoralized.

So -- should the United States be more like Sweden? Sweden played coy even in World War Two -- the moral difference between Hitler and Churchill being just too hard for them to figure out. Sweden has profited very nicely from Pax Americana in the last sixty years, but not enough to actually make any contribution to keeping the peace. Sweden is a freeloader -- like all of Europe. Without America's free market and its willingness to be the decent world cop, pacifist Europe would be enslaved by Russia, by Germany, or by any passing mob of throwbacks to the early Middle Ages.

Which leaves the United States with a voracious Barack Obama and millions of power-hungry followers at the helm for the next four to eight years.

posted February 09, 2009 10:32 AM            

Over the ages of human existence, wage and price controls have ended the reign of Egyptian pharaohs, brought down the Babylonian Empire, and further weakened the Nixon administration. But that didn't stop Senator Claire McCaskill from proposing wage controls again. McCaskill (D-MO) introduced a bill that would make it illegal for any employee of a company bailed out with taxpayer money to get more compensation than the president gets.

Even though virtually all big company execs have vastly more experience than Obama, most would have been elated to get his generous total compensation package, had the bill passed. In her transparent attempt to stir up more class envy, Senator McCaskill must have overlooked the fact that the annual taxpayer cost of the president's compensation could feed about eight starving African nations.

The total pay package

Besides his $400,000 annual base salary, Obama gets a $100,000 nontaxable travel account, a $50,000 expense account, and $19,000 per year for entertainment. He also is given tax-free use of a 132-room mansion with a staff of cooks, waiters, servants, doctors, and a top-notch security force. The mansion, set on 18 acres, includes 35 bathrooms, a movie theater, bowling alley, billiard room, tennis court, jogging track, putting greens, and a home office. When that becomes too confining, the president and his family can fly on any of his fleet of helicopters to Camp David, a taxpayer-funded 125-acre retreat that also is fully staffed.

Speaking of private aircraft, the president can choose from two custom taxpayer-funded Boeing 747s, or smaller craft in case he needs to visit a location with a shorter runway. Perhaps someday he'll take one of them to Detroit to see how cars are made. Depending on where he fills up, it could cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars just to fuel it. (Must not be a hybrid.)

And like Tom Daschle, the President is provided with limousines and drivers. Former presidents also can rake in windfall profits for speeches, just as Daschle has been doing as a former senator. For instance, that helped Bill Clinton somehow manage to collect $109M in just eight years.

Manhattan and Wichita the same

But alas, President Obama supplanted McCaskill's generous proposed pay plan with a $500,000 cap on annual executive compensation. Obama's cap presumably would apply arbitrarily to executives working in Manhattan or Wichita, regardless of the company's size or the scarcity of skills needed to do the job.

Democrat Congressman Barney Frank went even further, audaciously suggesting that he and his fellow lawmakers should determine the executive pay for all US companies. Libertarians and conservatives are ridiculed as alarmists for warning that any wage controls become a slippery slope, but Congressman Frank already has proven them right. And since many liberal entertainment elites declare themselves to be a corporation in order to reduce their tax bills, will Barney slash Oprah's pay too?

In most companies, a subset of the board of directors serves on an executive compensation committee. To determine a fair package for their own execs, they review the pay packages of other executives that have comparable experience in their industry and geographical area. Since they can't always predict accurately the future performance of their executives, they sometimes overpay or underpay.

Large shareholders, such as mutual fund managers, typically are quite vocal in criticizing boards for their mistakes in setting compensation. Occasionally, a professional turnaround expert will add bite to the fund managers' barks by waging a proxy battle to take control of an unresponsive board and replace the firm's executives with better ones, thereby benefiting all shareholders and customers. That's what should have happened at Fannie Mae, had Barney Frank and Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) not been negligent in overseeing its operation.

Business publications list comparisons of CEO compensation and their company's performance. For instance, here is the most recent Forbes comparison. Note that the average annual compensation of the top 25 CEOs ranged from $700K to $111M. Those historically have been America's best-performing CEOs -- the kind of executives we taxpayers, as new shareholders of the bailed out companies, want to hire. But President Obama apparently doesn't want the best, judging by his proposed $500K cap.

Sauce for the goose, sauce for the Apple?

Especially ironic is the suggestion by liberal journalist and Obama sycophant Thomas Friedman that Apple CEO Steve Jobs would be perfect for running a bailed out auto company. Mr. Jobs has been averaging the highest compensation of the top 25 CEOs: $111M per year.

Adding to the irony is the fact that über liberal Al Gore has been on the Apple board since 2003, and serves as one of three members on the company's compensation committee. Although Mr. Jobs has taken a nominal annual salary of $1 since he rejoined Apple in 1997, he has accumulated enormous paper profits by exercising stock options -- some illegally backdated, according to SEC charges. He also has the use of a $90M Gulfstream V jet. Would Friedman let him keep that if he were to join General Motors?

Even Gore himself was compensated $554,245 for attending a few meetings in fiscal 2008, according to Apple's most recent proxy statement. Meanwhile, his fellow Democrats, including the President of the United States, vilify more experienced executives that are compensated at that level for full-time work.

With more bailouts, American taxpayers involuntarily become shareholders in private companies. In a free economy, investors can sell their shares at any time, but in this case, taxpayers will be locked in.

Furthermore, in a free market, investors can rely on the laws of economics to bring down poorly run companies. If they notice that a board is overpaying its executives, smart investors can profit simply by shorting that company's shares or investing in one of its direct competitors.

In a free market, poorly run companies eventually run out of funding options: they can't find investors foolish enough to purchase their stock or bonds. That also strengthens their better-run competitors, which then can provide good jobs for refugees from the dying company. However, a poorly run nationalized company can return to Congress for endless funding, even when it's clear that the failing company should be financially euthanized. One inefficient, taxpayer-funded player can poison its entire industry by overpaying its suppliers or undercharging for its products.

As economist Walter Williams brilliantly points out, bailouts or any government spending on a stimulus package is equivalent to "taking buckets of water from the deep end of a swimming pool and dumping them into the shallow end in an attempt to make it deeper." Jim DeMint appears to be one of the few senators that understand economics, as he proposed a since-defeated bill that included no new spending.

posted February 16, 2009 10:27 PM            

I saw this one today and thought it was absolutely BRILLIANT:

How Democracies Become Tyrannies
By Ed Kaitz

Back in 1959 the philosopher Eric Hoffer had this to say about Americans and America:

For those who want to be left alone to realize their capacities and talents this is an ideal country.

That was then. This is now. Flash forward fifty years to the election of Barack Obama and a hard left leaning Democrat Congress. What Americans want today, apparently, is a government that has no intention of leaving any of us alone.

How could Hoffer have been so wrong about America? Why did America change so quickly? Can a free people willingly choose servitude? Is it possible for democracies to become tyrannies? How?

The answers to these questions were famously addressed in a few pages tucked within the greatest masterpiece of the classical world: Plato's Republic. On the surface, and to most reviewers of Plato's writings, the Republic is a dialogue on justice and on what constitutes the just society. But to careful readers the deeper theme of the Republic is the nature of education and the relationship between education and the survival of the state. In fact, the Republic is essentially the story of how a man (Socrates) condemned to death for "corrupting" the youth of Athens gives to posterity the most precious gift of all: the love of wisdom.

In the Republic, two young men, Glaucon and Adeimantus, accompany the much older Socrates on a journey of discovery into the nature of the individual soul and its connection to the harmony of the state. During the course of their adventure, as the two disciples demonstrate greater maturity and self-control, they are gradually exposed to deeper and more complex teachings regarding the relationship between virtue, self-sufficiency, and happiness. In short, the boys begin to realize that justice and happiness in a community rests upon the moral condition of its citizens. This is what Socrates meant when he said: "The state is man writ large."

Near the end of the Republic Socrates decides to drive this point home by showing Adeimantus what happens to a regime when its parents and educators neglect the proper moral education of its children. In the course of this chilling illustration Adeimantus comes to discover a dark and ominous secret: without proper moral conditioning a regime's "defining principle" will be the source of its ultimate destruction. For democracy, that defining principle is freedom. According to Socrates, freedom makes a democracy but freedom also eventually breaks a democracy.

For Socrates, democracy's "insatiable desire for freedom and neglect of other things" end up putting it "in need of a dictatorship." The short version of his theory is that the combination of freedom and poor education in a democracy render the citizens incapable of mastering their impulses and deferring gratification. The reckless pursuit of freedom leads the citizens to raze moral barriers, deny traditional authority, and abandon established methods of education. Eventually, this uninhibited quest for personal freedom forces the public to welcome the tyrant. Says Socrates: "Extreme freedom can't be expected to lead to anything but a change to extreme slavery, whether for a private individual or for a city."

Adeimantus wants Socrates to explain what kind of man resembles the democratic city. In other words, he wants to know how "democratic man" comes to be and what happens to make this freedom loving man eventually beg for a tyrant. Socrates clarifies that the democratic man starts out as the son of an "oligarchic" father -- a father who is thrifty and self-disciplined. The father's generation is more concerned with wealth than freedom. This first generation saves, invests, and rarely goes in for conspicuous consumption.[i]

The father's pursuit of wealth leaves him unwilling and unable to give attention to his son's moral development. The father focuses on business and finance and ignores the business of family. The son then begins to associate with "wild and dangerous creatures who can provide every variety of multicolored pleasure in every sort of way." These Athenian precursors of the hippies begin to transform the son's oligarchic nature into a democratic one. Because the young man has had no moral guidance, his excessive desire for "unnecessary pleasures" undermines "the citadel" of his soul. Because the "guardians" of the son's inner citadel -- truth, restraint, wisdom -- are absent, there is nothing within him to defend against the "false and boastful words and beliefs that rush up and occupy this part of him."

A 1960s revolution in the son's soul purges the last remaining guardians of moderation and supplants new meanings to old virtues: "anarchy" replaces freedom, "extravagance" replaces magnificence, and "shamelessness" replaces courage. The young man surrenders rule over himself "to whichever desire comes along, as if it were chosen by lot." Here Socrates notes the essential problem when a free society becomes detached from any notions of moral virtue or truth: desires are chosen by "lot" instead of by "merit" or "priority."

For the son the democratic revolution in his soul is complete. In this stage "there is neither order nor necessity in his life, but he calls it pleasant, free, blessedly happy, and he follows it for as long as he lives." Socrates gives a brief illustration of the young man's new democratic life:

Sometimes he drinks heavily while listening to the flute; at other times he drinks only water and is on a diet; sometimes he goes in for physical training; at other times, he's idle and neglects everything; and sometimes he even occupies himself with what he takes to be philosophy. He often engages in politics, leaping up from his seat and saying and doing whatever comes into his mind. If he happens to admire soldiers, he's carried in that direction, if money-makers, in that one.

In short, the young man has no anchor, no set of guiding principles or convictions other than his thirst for freedom. His life is aimless, superficial, and gratuitous. The spoiled lotus-eaters of his generation have defined themselves simply by mocking all forms of propriety and prudence. What's worse, as these Athenian baby-boomers exercise their right to vote, they elect "bad cupbearers" as their leaders. The new cupbearers want to stay in office so they give the voters whatever they desire. The public, according to Socrates, "gets drunk by drinking more than it should of the unmixed wine of freedom." Conservative politicians who attempt to mix the wine of freedom with calls for self-restraint "are punished by the city and accused of being accursed oligarchs."

As conservative politicians court suspicion so do conservative teachers and academics who stubbornly hold on to objective measurements of performance: "A teacher in such a community is afraid of his students and flatters them, while the students despise their teachers or tutors." Conservatism becomes unpopular just about everywhere, to a point at which even the elderly "stoop to the level of the young and are full of play and pleasantry, imitating the young for fear of appearing disagreeable and authoritarian."

The explosion of boundaries and limits extends even to national identity itself, so that resident aliens and foreigners "are made equal to a citizen."

The citizens' souls become so infected with freedom that they become excessively paranoid about any hint of slavery. But slavery comes to mean being under any kind of master or limit including the law itself. Says Socrates: "They take no notice of the laws, whether written or unwritten, in order to avoid having any master at all." That is, any kind of "hierarchy" in a democracy is rejected as "authoritarian." But this extreme freedom, according to Socrates, eventually enslaves democracy.

As the progressive politicians and intellectuals come to dominate the democratic city, its "fiercest members do all the talking and acting, while the rest settle near the speakers platform and buzz and refuse to tolerate the opposition of another speaker." There are "impeachments, judgments and trials on both sides." The politicians heat up the crowds by vilifying business and wealth and by promising to spread the wealth around. The people then "set up one man as their special champion" and begin "nurturing him and making him great."

The people's "special champion" however transforms from leader to tyrant. He "drops hints about the cancellation of debts and the redistribution of land" and continues to "stir up civil wars against the rich." All who have reached this stage, says Socrates, "soon discover the famous request of a tyrant, namely, that the people give him a bodyguard to keep their defender safe for them." The people give him this new security force, "because they are afraid for his safety but aren't worried at all about their own."

Socrates describes the early weeks of the new leader's reign:

"Won't he smile in welcome at anyone he meets, saying that he's no tyrant, making all sorts of promises both in public and in private, freeing the people from debt, redistributing land to them, and to his followers, and pretending to be gracious and gentle to all?"

After a series of unpopular actions, including stirring up a war in order to generate popular support, the leader begins to alienate some of his closest and most ardent advisers who begin to voice their misgivings in private. Following a purge of these advisors the tyrant attracts some of the worst elements of the city to help him rule. As the citizens grow weary of his tenure the tyrant chooses to attract foreigners to resupply his dwindling national bodyguard. The citizens finally decide they've had enough and begin to discuss rebellion.

At this point in the dialogue Adeimantus asks Socrates incredulously: "What do you mean? Will the tyrant dare to use violence against [the people] or to hit [them] if [they] don't obey? Socrates answers:

"Yes - once he's taken away [the people's] weapons."

Thus ends Book VIII of Plato's Republic. I won't spoil the marvelous ending (Books IX and X) but I would like to spend a few moments drawing some conclusions about the overall message of this fascinating text and its relevance for 21st century Americans.

First, those of us who are incapable of self-mastery will always shamefully prostrate ourselves before messianic political leaders. The progressive left in America has spent countless generations destroying the guardians of our inner citadel: religion, family, parents, and tradition - in short, conservatism and limits. When we exhaust the financial and moral capital of previous generations (and future ones, as with the current stimulus bill) we will dutifully line up at the public trough, on our knees. Citizens capable of self-mastery will always choose to be left alone. In other words, they'll always choose limited government.

Second, freedom without limits paves the way to tyranny by undermining respect for the law. When politicians play fast and loose with the law it becomes easier for them and for the people to see special champions as alternative sources of rule. Today in America the objective basis for law is being attacked on campuses and even in law schools as too authoritarian and too insensitive to the subjective experiences and personal narratives of criminals. The SAT exam has also been under assault for the same reasons. As Socrates warned: extreme freedom will instill a paranoia about any kind of "master" including objective measurements of right and wrong, and of merit based forms of achievement. But when the citizens become enslaved to their vices they'll dutifully cry out for another kind of master.

Third, is the crucial role of education, which is the underlying theme of Plato's Republic. The ethos of American education has been for many decades saturated with a simple mantra: choice. What's worse, those few remaining educators who chant the old, Socratic mantra of "judgment" are vilified and harassed by the modern day lotus-eaters as hateful conservatives. Socrates predicted that all of this would happen in a democracy. But it is judgment not choice that enables a young person to erect a citadel in the soul. This eliminates the need for tyrants, and for bailouts too.

Finally, there is a question on the minds of many conservatives today: How does one convince the younger generations of Americans to distrust the growth of the State? Is it possible for Americans to recover the desire to be left alone in order "to realize our capacities and talents" as Eric Hoffer says?

I've read that in Iran, many young people chafe at the pervasive despotism there, but when the burning desire for freedom threatens to boil over, the government in Tehran eases its restrictions on the use of personal satellite dishes. Electronic Soma for the digital age.

posted February 17, 2009 02:56 AM            

I feel uncertain to a lot of the claims there, and it's my observation that majority of all politics is based on claims of victimhood, but I was made aware of this experiment that I think goes a long way to proving that there really is a ridiculous Leftist bias in universities (see also the Similar Affairs there):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

Which reminds me of Academic writings, as explained brilliantly by the guy who did the comic Calvin & Hobbes:

Calvin: I used to hate writing assignments, but now I enjoy them. I realized that the purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning and inhibit clarity. With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog! Want to see my book report?

Hobbes: "The Dynamics of Interbeing and Monological Imperatives in Dick and Jane: A Study in Psychic Transrelational Gender Modes."

Calvin: Academia, here I come!

Which also reminds me of Marx. Dang, his thinking was weak, disguised by "the purpose of writing" as explained by Calvin. Even as a teenager I marveled at his "logic" that monopolies are bad as they create oppression by controlling the resources, so that one should create one HUGE monopoly to control ALL the resources and this would lead to liberation instead of oppression. That, and his going back and forth between "centralization" and talking as if everything was decided by everyone rather than a centralized power structure that confiscated what it wanted from everyone (especially immigrants, rebels, etc, by Marx's own assertion). That's just 2 examples of why I'm baffled he wasn't slapped down immediately for his lack of coherent thought & clarity (that was as obvious as a slap in the face to me as a teen despite his fog of rhetoric). Add in that Marx was wrong on just about everything and I'm really at a loss to understand his appeal (for example, Marx claimed that capitalism naturally followed feudalism, which created factories and the like which then led to capitalist monopoly which would then lead to communist or socialist revolution, and yet Communism came to Asia and backwards Czarist Russia instead of the USA and Europe instead).

Seriously, if I think about how admired Marx is today, and the socialistic goals he espoused with the same lack of discernment, it makes me want to bang my head. Why was I, as a teenager, able to see the inconsistencies and flaws that even respected academics can't? (But then academics like to use writing to hide weak ideas and poor reasoning skills, too, so maybe they just see Marx as a kindred spirit...)

posted February 17, 2009 03:32 AM            

I was particularly bothered by some parts, because the USA is hardly a land of license. Or maybe I should say about everything has to be licensed. Kids get sent to prison for drawing a pic of a gun or writing a fic of zombies attacking a school. Schools themselves are, at least in some places, prisons without razorwire & armed guards for all practical purposes (and there are a few schools that even have the razorwire and armed guards). Acedemia is infamous for persecuting heretics.

Socially speaking, people are sent to prison for having glo bracelets (as "drug paraphernalia" when it's not) as well as being expected to pee in a cup on demand. Countless rules, regulations, and laws--many that even many who enforce them agree make little or no sense--are a burden to about everyone everywhere. I'm currently in California, supposedly one of the most liberal states in the country, and it's filled with control freaks & busybodies that sometimes make me want to go back to Texas.

Smoking bans, seat belt laws, and the crusades against video games & fast food is hardly rebellion against authority as painted in that article.

But I haven't seen much in the way of "freedom with self-constraint" from Republicans in any case. As just one example that comes quickly to mind, who can argue that this was either "liberal" or "in the name of freedom"? (2 minutes):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRIDNQNsUss

It wasn't Obama who did away with the Posse Comitatus Act or set up FEMA to go after the law abiding and violating the Constitution instead of going after criminals, it was Bush and his chosen ones, and they used the Bible to help. (And another example of how the USA is hardly an "anarchistic" society that values freedom above all else.)

As for the progression of decay, I think this explains it better (The Road to Serfdom summed up short & sweet and with pix):
http://mises.org/books/TRTS/

And as for this:

quote:

---

Finally, there is a question on the minds of many conservatives today: How does one convince the younger generations of Americans to distrust the growth of the State? Is it possible for Americans to recover the desire to be left alone in order "to realize our capacities and talents" as Eric Hoffer says?

---

Offhand, I hadn't noticed that Obama had anymore than support from the youth than any other demographic. Some were pretty conservative. And a great many are extremely cynical of the state and its growth, though also of CEOs. I'd say if they truly wanted to recover a desire to be left alone, then provide that as an option. But so far it comes down to Republican and Democrat, and neither seems viable to too many people, especially among the young who are more likely than not to look at both parties with extreme cynicism (and a desire to be left alone, something neither the authoritarians among the Left or the Right have any interest in doing). This generally leads to apathy as opposed to enthusiasm over demagogues like Obama.

But I did sympathize with the bit about how freedom without self-control and deferred gratification can't co-exist, and is destroying the USA today (though I believe this is in large part because people are so controlled that they never learn to develop self-discipline/maturity). It seems to me that too many want freedom from consequences more than freedom from busybody interference/Big Brother. And on that note, I read this in a novel recently that (despite it being part of a fantasy fic) applies, IMO:
http://ideas-unbound.blogspot.com/2008/07/somethings-i-have-read-recently.html

quote:

---

I have heard of many queens and kings, matron mothers and clerics, who justify rulership and absolve themselves of any ills by claiming that the commoners who serve them are in need of guidance. This might be true in many long standing societies, but if it is, that is only because so many generations of conditioning have stolen something essential from the heart and soul of the subjects, because many generations of subordination have robbed the common folk of confidence in determining their own way. All of the governing systems share the trait of stealing freedom from the individual of forcing certain conditions upon the lives of each citizen in the name of "community."

That concept, "community," is one that I hold dear, and surely, the individuals within any such grouping must sacrifice and accept certain displeasure in the name of the common good to make any community thrive. How much stronger might that community be if those sacrifices came from the heart of each citizen and not from the edicts of the elders, matron mothers, kings, or queens?

Freedom is the key to it all. The freedom to stay or to leave, to work in harmony with others or to choose a more individual course. The Freedom to help in the larger issues or to abstain. The freedom to build a good life or to live in squalor. The freedom to try anything or merely to do nothing.

Few would dispute that desire for freedom. Everyone I have ever met desires free will, or thinks he does. How curious then, that so many refuse to accept the inverse cost of freedom: responsibility.

An ideal community would work well because the individual members would accept their responsibility toward the welfare of each other and to the community as a whole, not because they are commanded to do so, but because they understand and accept the benefits to such choices. For there are, indeed, consequences to every choice we make, to everything we do or choose not to do. Those consequences are not so obvious, I fear. The selfish man might think himself gaining, but in times when that person most needs his friends, they likely will not be there, and in the end, in the legacy the selfish person leaves behind, he will not be remembered fondly, if at all. The selfish person's greed might bring material luxuries, but cannot bring the true joys, the intangible pleasures of love.

So it is with the hateful person, the slothful person, the envious person, the thief and the thug, the drunkard and the gossip. Freedom allows each the right to choose the life before him, but freedom demands that the person accept the responsibility for those choices, good and bad

---

posted February 17, 2009 08:28 AM            

quote:

---

The people's "special champion" however transforms from leader to tyrant. He "drops hints about the cancellation of debts and the redistribution of land" and continues to "stir up civil wars against the rich." All who have reached this stage, says Socrates, "soon discover the famous request of a tyrant, namely, that the people give him a bodyguard to keep their defender safe for them." The people give him this new security force, "because they are afraid for his safety but aren't worried at all about their own."

---

------------------
~
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted February 18, 2009 11:38 AM            

however obama is our president, not the CHOSEN ONE, the only person i hear calling him that is jwhop (and other conservative smear-wishers).

sean hannity thought he would make the president look bad (just like he said "we're going to have to go underground if he wins") by daring him to meet over a beer. now sean is going to have to follow through. oops..

there are always reasons for skepticsm but jumping down someone's throat because he's a democrat isn't one i've heard of before. it's all the team politics i hate...

posted March 03, 2009 04:18 PM            

In his campaign and inaugural address, Barack Obama cast himself as a moderate man seeking common ground with conservatives.

Yet, his budget calls for the radical restructuring of the U.S. economy, a sweeping redistribution of power and wealth to government and Democratic constituencies. It is a declaration of war on the right.

The real Obama has stood up, and lived up to his ranking as the most leftwing member of the United States Senate.

Barack has no mandate for this. He was even behind McCain when the decisive event that gave him the presidency occurred – the September collapse of Lehman Brothers and the market crash.

Republicans are under no obligation to render bipartisan support to this statist coup d'état. For what is going down is a leftist power grab that is anathema to their principles and philosophy.

Where the U.S. government usually consumes 21 percent of gross domestic product, this Obama budget spends 28 percent in 2009 and runs a deficit of $1.75 trillion, or 12.7 percent of GDP. That is four times the largest deficit of George W. Bush and twice as large a share of the economy as any deficit run since World War II.

Add that 28 percent of GDP spent by the U.S. government to the 12 percent spent by states, counties and cities, and government will consume 40 percent of the economy in 2009.

We are not "headed down the road to socialism." We are there.

Since the budget was released, word has come that the U.S. economy did not shrink by 3.8 percent in the fourth quarter, but 6.2 percent. All the assumptions in Obama's budget about growth in 2009 and 2010 need to be revised downward, and the deficits revised upward.

Look for the deficit for 2009 to cross $2 trillion.

Who abroad is going to lend us the trillions to finance our deficits without demanding higher interest rates on the U.S. bonds they are being asked to hold? And if we must revert to the printing press to create the money, what happens to the dollar?

As Americans save only a pittance and have lost – in the value of homes, stocks, bonds and other assets – $15 trillion to $20 trillion since 2007, how can the people provide the Feds with the needed money?

In his speech to Congress, Obama promised new investments in energy, education and health care. Every kid is going to get a college degree. We're going to find a cure for cancer.

Who is going to pay for all this?

The top 2 percent, the filthy rich who got all those Bush tax breaks, say Democrats. But the top 5 percent of income earners already pay 60 percent of U.S. income taxes, while the bottom 40 percent pays nothing.

Those paying a federal tax rate of 35 percent will see it rise to near 40 percent and will lose one-fifth of the value of their deductions for taxes, mortgage interest and charitable contributions.

Yet, two-thirds of small businesses are taxed at the same rate as individuals. Consider what this means to the owner of a restaurant and bar in Los Angeles open from noon to midnight, where a husband and wife each put in 80 hours a week.

At year's end, the couple finds they have actually made a profit of $500,000 that they can take home in salary.

What is the Obama-Schwarzenegger tax take on that salary?

Their U.S. tax rate will have hit 39.6 percent.

Their California income tax will have hit 9.55 percent.

Medicare payroll taxes on the proprietor as both employer and salaried employee will be $14,500. Social Security payroll taxes for the proprietor as both employer and employee will be $13,243.

In short, U.S. and state income and payroll taxes will consume half of all the pair earned for some 8,000 hours of work.

From that ravaged salary they must pay a state sales tax of 8.25 percent, gas taxes for the 50-mile commute, and tens of thousands in property taxes on both their restaurant and home. And, after being pilloried by politicians for having feasted in the Bush era, they are now told the tax deduction they get for contributing to the church is to be cut 20 percent, while millions of Obama voters, who paid no U.S. income tax at all, will be getting a tax cut – i.e., a fat little check – in April.

Any wonder native-born Californians are fleeing the Golden Land?

Markets are not infallible. But the stock market has long been a "lead indicator" of where the economy will be six months from now. What are the markets, the collective decisions of millions of investors, saying?

Having fallen every month since Obama's election, with January and February the worst two months in history, they are telling us the stimulus package will not work, that Tim Geithner is clueless about how to save the banks, that the Obama budget portends disaster for the republic.

The president says he is gearing up for a fight on his budget.

Good. Let's give him one.
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90582

posted March 03, 2009 04:26 PM            

GIBBS: You know — get him a six-pack of Budweiser, and we'll meet Hannity wherever he wants to go.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HANNITY: All right, Mr. President, I went to the store today and I bought something. It is a six-pack of Great American Beer and I'll bring Bud as well. Here it is. For yourself. All you have to do is bring yourself. Anybody else you like. As a matter fact, you said anywhere. I think maybe the oval office would be the perfect encounter, we can bring our cameras, let the world see that it really happened.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,490938,00.html

posted March 03, 2009 05:09 PM            

The stock market is down about 3000 points since O'Bomber was elected....and it's going lower. It's going lower because there's not an ounce of confidence O'Bomber knows what he's doing.

Here's a markets guy listened to by millions of investors saying O'Bomber's budget is the..."Greatest Wealth Destruction By a President"....and, Kramer is right.

What's even funnier is seeing Gibbs talking about something he knows nothing whatsoever about...the private sector and "markets".

Tuesday, Mar 03
White House Knocks Jim Cramer For Calling Obama Budget "Greatest Wealth Destruction By a President"

NBC's Tom Costello, on duty at the White House today, asked press secretary Robert Gibbs about some comments made by his CNBC colleague Jim Cramer. On the Today show this morning, Cramer called Pres. Obama's budget a "radical agenda," adding, "This is the greatest wealth destruction I've seen by a President."

"I'm not entirely sure what he's pointing to to make some of the statements," said Gibbs. "And you can go back and look at any number of statements he's made in the past about the economy and wonder where some of the back-up for those are too."

When pressed further by Costello, Gibbs said, "If you turn on a certain program it's geared to a very small audience. No offense to my good friends, or friend at CNBC. But the President has to look out for the broader economy and the broader population."

Last month Gibbs had some choice words for Cramer's colleague, Rick Santelli and his criticism of the Obama mortgage plan.

posted March 04, 2009 07:20 PM            

But, after you said this:

quote:

---

sean hannity thought he would make the president look bad (just like he said "we're going to have to go underground if he wins") by daring him to meet over a beer. now sean is going to have to follow through. oops..

---

As though it was Hannity who initiated the beer challenge; I entered the words..Sean Hannity and Obama to have a beer. The very first hit on the very first page of results was the story I posted. You can enter the very same words and get the identical results.

But, that story wasn't the only hit. There were other stories, one of which says that back on Feb 9, 2009 O'Bomber reacted to a question at a town hall meeting as to why he didn't sit down with Hannity and have a beer. This is what O'Bomber said then: Obama said that he didn't know Hannity wanted to have a beer with him but he "would take it under advisement."

"Generally his opinion of me does not seem to be very high," Obama paused.

"But I'm always good for a beer,"

And before that, O'Bomber said this..way back in October 2008...."There's a certain segment of hardcore Sean Hannity fans that probably wouldn't want to go have a beer with me."

posted March 04, 2009 09:28 PM            

quote:

---

The top 2 percent, the filthy rich who got all those Bush tax breaks, say Democrats. But the top 5 percent of income earners already pay 60 percent of U.S. income taxes, while the bottom 40 percent pays nothing.

Those paying a federal tax rate of 35 percent will see it rise to near 40 percent and will lose one-fifth of the value of their deductions for taxes, mortgage interest and charitable contributions.

---

I don't know how people can defend outrageous taxation. Work and earn, you get punished with having your money taken away without choice on your part. The more you earn, the more money is taken away. But if you don't work, then people want to give you housing, education, healthcare, food, etc. at no cost to you but at the cost of those who do work. How is that logical?

Less logical is the fact that those wealthy people who are going to get taxed more and more are the ones we're also depending on to bring back the market. Alas, I don't know too many minimum wage workers who invest in the stock market and who actually consume (buy) the $$ stuff that keeps people in business.

I don't watch Hannity, either. I did however come across a broadcast from Hannity and Colmes a little while back ... I don't know how old it was as our programming here is a bit delayed but it was fairly recent, imo, because of the topic. They had a guest on who was making precisely this point about income taxes being so high for the wealthy while ~40% of the population pay no income taxes. To which Colmes replied something along the lines of ... "those people do pay taxes; they pay state taxes and sales taxes and property taxes, etc."

Well I'm sorry, Mr. Colmes, but when my husband and I went to file our tax return this year, I happened to ask, out of curiousity, if all those other taxes "count" as INCOME taxes and if, thus, we could "get out" of paying our federal income tax for the past year. The answer? A resounding no. Seems like we all have to pay those "other" taxes but only some of us have to pay income taxes. Doesn't quite seem like any kind of "equality" to me.

posted March 05, 2009 10:46 AM            

In 1959, under eisenhower, the top tax bracket was 91%. that was reduced not by the "fiscal conservative" kennedy but by the "socialist"(jwhop's tags) johnson to 70%. reagan pulled it back way farther it's true, but if it goes UP under obama to 39% it is still less than half of what it was in good old 1959...so just HOW do lower taxes = a stronger economy? has it not been getting worse as taxes came down and down again?

posted March 05, 2009 12:21 PM            

For O'Bomber and leftists in Congress to spew Socialist tax nonsense shows that at their core, they're liars of the first order. Socialist tax policy seems to postulate that a 100% tax rate on income would result in the highest tax revenues to the federal government.

Wrong katatonic.

First, Eisenhower did not "raise" the top tax rate to 91%. Eisenhower left the marginal tax rates alone neither raising or lowering the top marginal income tax rates. You need to look at Roosevelt..who raised the top rates to 79% and Harry Truman who raised them further.

Any casual look would tell you that Kennedy lowered the top marginal tax rate to 70%...not Lyndon Johnson. Any casual look would tell you that Reagan lowered them again..from 70% to 28%...and those income tax cuts touched off long booms in the US economy, in the 60's and 80's. They also resulted in MORE tax revenues being paid into the Federal treasury..from income taxes, a lot more revenue.

You're totally forgetting all about tax bracket creep. A situation which occurs due to inflation and resultant wage inflation to keep up..which puts people in ever higher tax brackets but their salaries and wages don't buy them more of anything...except the income taxes they pay.

posted March 05, 2009 12:50 PM            

secondly yes kennedy may have ENGINEERED the first reduction from 91% to 77% but he was dead before it happened and johnson brought it down a good deal more (to 70%)...

and if a higher top tax rate is what screwed the current market (even before its happened) then why did the market crash in 87 just as reagan brought the tax down to 38.5 (from 50% where it was during most of his tenure AND WHICH IS A LOT MORE THAN 39+%)??

posted March 05, 2009 07:51 PM            

quote:

---

once MORE you guys seem to be so blinded

---

Katatonic, I hope you weren't referencing me. It's unclear as you said "you guys" so I don't know who precisely you are referring to. Until you brought it up in your last post, I didn't give a thought to whether or not you in particular (or any other member of LL) pay income taxes or how much.

I have nothing against minimum wage workers. I've worked for minimum wage in the past myself. So has most everyone I know. My point was not that those people are somehow evil or less worthy (as your defensive post seems to suggest is the impression of some "guys" around here) but that they, regardless of how many TAX CREDITS they are given, cannot bring our economy out of a recession. They simply don't make enough money. It's nothing personal, it's just a fact. People who have more money spend and invest more, that's all. We need people to spend and invest more right now. Alot more. If you are RAISING taxes on the people who you are depending on to spend and invest, ie wealthier individuals, then you are DECREASING their spending and investment power and thus DECREASING our chances for a quicker recovery.

Btw, don't forget that those wealthier individuals run the businesses that pay minimum wage workers. Even though I personally think minimum wage should be raised to a living wage, the fact remains that if you tax the hell out of those businesses they then cut salaries, cut positions or create more part-time and less full-time positions, they cut benefits, etc. No way is any minimum wage worker going to benefit in the long run because the wealthier citizens are being overtaxed. $800 in your pocket from a tax credit isn't going to do you much good when your company downsizes, cuts salaries or shifts and screws with your benefits including healthcare options.

Self-employed persons and small businesses are also going to be feeling the nasty brunt of tax increases and new legislation in the works that risks putting them out of business. One example is the CPSIA.

Also true in times of higher taxes is that wealthier individuals donate less money to charity. That's no small potatoes. If they aren't getting tax breaks regardless of how much they donate then what's the point when your income is already close to being cut in half? People begin to hoard their money. Do you really think, say, celebrities NEED interest and dividends from investments, etc? They have millions. If they put those funds into low yield accounts instead of investing, spending or donating that money, their wealth is more secure in times like this. People have already seen their retirement funds take a nasty hit. That is not going to encourage them to do anything more than try to save as much as they can when they can't trust Wall Street on the one hand and the government on the other. We really, really don't need wealthy people to start doing that right now.

If anything, even Linda (in Star Signs), of all people, understood that green (money) energy creates more green energy ... as long as it's flowing freely, that is to say, by choice, and circulating responsibly whether through sales, investments or donations.

posted March 06, 2009 11:12 AM            

believe it or not i am not in favour of higher taxes FOR ANYONE. my point is that 1) the highest rate proposed by obama is actually not much more than at present, and is FAR LESS than it was throughout most of this century when the US was the envied economy of the world...and we were all happy little pigs in a blanket feeling safe and secure.

2) that though those people don't spend much they have to spend something to live and WITHOUT THEM THEIR IS NO PRODUCTION, no matter how much capital or ideas are put into motion until we have a full robot workforce, the workers have to have enough to live on.

3)personally i think proportional tax is a bogus solution. but it is a known fact that though the higher incomes pay most of our taxes they are still getting away with paying a lot less than the supposed rate... and that though the top 60% pay the bulk of the tax the top 20% hold most of the income and assets...so it is not the peons we should be resenting.

4) but mostly i am tired of hearing people reflecting back dogma that comes from someone else and spouting truths which to me are obviously off base. i don't mean in theory. i mean in personal experience. we are not talking about returning to the days of 50,70 or 90% top tax rates! we are talking a HALF percent or so and everyone is acting as though this is now russia.

i realize people are scared and you all have a right to your opinions, as do i. but i think negativity can only be damaging to the situation...this is not an american problem. it is a global problem. and much as government creating jobs is poo-pooed, and FDR called a socialist, the new deal put MILLIONS back to work long before the war. government jobs are jobs too. i think that no matter what the government does we are going to go through it for awhile.

posted March 06, 2009 05:18 PM            

In 1959, gas was 9 cents a gallon, new cars were $2500-$3500, houses were $4000-$6000, food was not a real factor in most people's budgets, there were deductions for charitable donations and, it was a different world, vastly different from today. It was difficult to not do well in America. Those who weren't doing well had to work hard to step over or walk around their opportunities.

Kennedy engineered all the reductions in the top marginal tax rates. What you may not know is that budgets are devised in the present for the coming year and also outlying years. For instance, O'Bomber's absurd budget also covers 2010 and 2011 and is projected out to 2013..at least. He says his tax increases won't hit until then. But, that's an outright lie. Not only is O'Bomber going to tax the so called rich but he's also going to tax small businesses...out of business. O'Bomber is an idiot who has no experience in business, doesn't understand the tax code and what it's supposed to do and further, doesn't understand that up to 3 in 4 small businesses file tax returns as individuals. It's called a Sub Chapter S filing. Their incomes include the entire gross business receipts for the business....and, it's a damned small/minuscule business which doesn't do over $250,000 per year in receipts.

I don't recall ever saying it is high taxes which screwed up the economy...in the present. In fact, it was tax reductions for individuals, adjusting the marginal tax rates, reductions in business taxes, lowering the capital gains taxes, elimination of the marriage penalty, faster
write-offs/depreciation for purchases of capital goods and capital improvements and some other details which Bush used to make the economy boom and pull the US out of the Clinton recession.

What's screwing up the works now is O'Bomber blather about raising taxes on businesses, elimination of the Bush tax cuts, raising the capital gains tax, eliminating the cap on social security payments, restricting deductions for charitable giving, carbon tax cap and trade baloney, interfering in contracts...and the business community isn't buying O'Bomber blather and Kool-Aid. The stock market...THE leading economic indicator is down about 3000 points since O'Bomber was elected. Up to 4 Trillion dollars of wealth have been lost due to O'Bomber blather and uncertainty. That wealth was tied up in mutual funds, pension funds, IRA accounts of individuals and stock portfolios held by private individuals. Gone up in smoke because O'Bomber is a blathering fool who knows nothing about the US economy..or any other free market economy. Talking down the economy and threats to the business community in a business downturn to raise their taxes are exactly the wrong actions to take.

posted March 06, 2009 08:01 PM            

of course i know that tax structures are laid out in advance. what i said was that kennedy ENGINEERED the reduction to 77 from 91, but he was dead before it happened. i do not know whether he set out the reductions johnson instated, but if johnson had chosen to he could have altered that so to all intents and purposes, those were lbj's cuts to 70%.

i have to admit i have not always been a low earner. i give away a lot of work and i babysit my grandson FOR FREE rather than see him in a public institution longer than the 6 hrs of school. so don't imply that i am a freeloader of any kind. i have worked since i was 16 AND went to college and the state did not pay for that either.

and now you know a good deal more about me than i you. it amazes me that the wealthiest people in this country scream bloody murder at the thought of having to give up a tiny percent of their profits - because we all know that it is not just democratic cabinet members who enjoy the use of loopholes and deductions. it is profits we are taxing. how much more do they need?

it also irks me that people, having realized that the rich people are creating jobs for the lower ranks, still do not get that without the lower ranks the creators really can do very little. this country has been built on low-cost immigrant wage-earners musclepower. just because we have entered the information age does not really change that much. .

and yes, eventually the workers tend to think they should have more of the "pie" they see being enjoyed by the people who pay them a tiny hourly wage, and i am not saying that we are in a GOOD situation, i have been saying all along that we are in a certain point of a cycle, just as socrates predicted. everything that has been tried so far has only made things worse, which is also fairly typical.

i guess the big problem between us jwhop, is that i do not consider money as important as you do. we actually agree on quite a few individual points. but if you really understand the tax code and what it is meant to do you are certainly a better man than i - even though my grandfather worked for the irs when the tax code was NOT unreadably long and intricate.