Category: Politics

People can be stupid…

…and politicians particularly so.

Tlaib wants to hand out debit cards during coronavirus, mint trillion-dollar coins to cover cost

OK, so when I was a child I was with my mother at a local store where she was buying supplies for a project. I asked her to buy me a toy. I saw that she was writing a check, and I assumed she could just write another check; that checks were the equivalent of money. She took a moment to explain to me that checks weren’t money, and that she had to have money to use checks. Now, I won’t pretend that at 9 years old I understood the economics of money, but I did understand at that point that it could not simply be printed. Apparently, this concept escapes Representative Tlaib.

Will wonders never cease…?

From the mouths of babes (and idiots)

According to Andrew Yang (and others), the government should be paying people for not being sufficiently intelligent to manage their finances:

“What exactly is the political downside of putting money into people’s hands? Get your sh– together Congress and do the right thing,” Yang tweeted Monday morning.

Sadly, Andrew has a point: there is no political downside to having voters dependent on politicians for their daily bread. In fact, there is a substantial upside for politicians like Yang. However, it’s stupid to accept  – and immoral to offer – such payments. But it’s politics; intelligence and morality be damned!

Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Or saving for a rainy day? Does anyone remember when we were taught basic math and economics sufficient to realize that nothing is free (and that socialism doesn’t work)? When America was the land of opportunity, rather than dependence?

When we allow ourselves to become dependent on politicians it does not mean that we are any less oppressed than when we are dependents by force; it just means we are too stupid to know the difference.

Political double-standard

I’m so tired of the double-standard applied to politicians. If any of us had been found in a hotel room with narcotics, we’d have been arrested. But a popular democratic candidate and CNN commentator? No problem. Such events (like this earlier example) are getting far too common:

CNN’s Andrew Gillum found ‘inebriated’ in Miami Beach hotel room; cops recover meth

Before you vote for “your” party in the next election, please keep in mind that all of their new laws, rules and regulations – ostensibly to better your life – will not apply to them. Such rules are only for the idiots dumb enough to believe that the rules apply to all.

What did you think…

…would happen when we became reliant on a communist country (and political opponent) for most of our daily needs?

China hints at denying Americans life-saving coronavirus drugs

Have you been to Wal-Mart lately? Do you have any idea of how much of what we consume is manufactured in China?

Now is the time to divest ourselves from China. While their capitalist growth model has made them an economic powerhouse (but we continue to badmouth capitalism… strange…), their communist political system is still our enemy.

Hypocrisy

California’s left-leaning leaders want to take guns away from law-abiding citizens, but are fine when one of their own points a gun at protesters who dare to ring a doorbell. If this was anyone else, they’d be in jail charged with a felony and would have had their guns seized under California’s “red flag” laws. Fortunately for the gun-wielding man, his wife is Los Angeles County District Attorney Jackie Lacey.

D.A. Jackie Lacey’s husband pulls gun on Black Lives Matter protesters at his home

There are videos of the event all over the Internet, so I won’t link to a specific one here. The videos are disturbing; the protesters appear quite calm and polite, while Lacey’s husband is heard threatening to shoot them.

Enough said. You read between the lines; I’m too tired to explain it to you again.

OMG! RUKM??

I watched the democratic debate in South Carolina tonight. What a fiasco! Each candidate was trying to “out-left” the other:

“Free health care!”
“Free housing!”
“Free college!”
“Reparations!”

The debate moderators had no control, making the whole mess even worse. Candidates spoke over each other and the moderators, essentially ignoring any time limits for speaking to which they had agreed (except Biden, who graciously followed the rules – albeit while complaining about how no one else did…). I think the military designation for such a mess is a “clusterf**k”. You figure it out.

What is really amazing to me is the applause each of these proposed socialist giveaways garnered. Do people really think these can be provided for “free”? Do they really think that the “rich” can and will pay for these programs indefinitely? That the funding for such programs will actually come from the “rich” instead of from the people’s own pockets, albeit in a roundabout way?

As a side note, I am not opposed to socialized or government-sponsored health care or education, assuming that the government can provide these services efficiently and at the lowest cost to the taxpayer. However, we need to be honest and pay for such government programs ourselves at a cost associated with our share of the benefit. Only then will we be sufficiently concerned about the cost to ensure that the government is truly providing these services in a manner consistent with high levels of efficiency. Otherwise we risk becoming complacent in our oversight.

Such oversight, unfortunately, is of no concern to the far-left socialists in our midst. The reason these people are so excited about Bernie Sander’s and Elizabeth Warren’s plans for “free” stuff is not that they feel the government can provide these at an optimal cost to taxpayers; they are excited because they believe that they will obtain a benefit at the expense of others. This is a dishonest position, and is un-American at its core – just as it is un-American to solicit the vote of the majority to take the property of the remaining minority, which is the effect of offering “free” stuff at the expense of others.

Interestingly, the founders of this country might have considered the potential for such abuse of taxation power when they contemplated our constitution. The Constitution originally required that direct taxes be apportioned by population (everyone would pay the same in direct taxes); in this way everyone would be concerned about the cost of government. The ratification of the 16th amendment, however,  allowed for the levy of a progressive income tax. This progressive tax system is what has enabled politicians to offer voters other people’s money for their support, and has given rise to the political fiasco we witnessed today. The Constitution’s limits on direct taxes may have been the framer’s attempt to limit the tyranny of the majority (and the purchase of their vote) via unequal taxation of citizens.

Maybe it’s time we consider repealing the 16th amendment.

Bloomberg’s plan

Bloomberg’s plan for America (beware!):

  • $15 minimum wage
    Well, that’s one way to shift jobs to China. I hope they remember how nice we were in giving up our manufacturing base, once they rule the world. The reality is that you can’t make labor worth more than it actually is in a global labor marketplace. All you’ll end up accomplishing is the decimation of American jobs.
  • 12 weeks of family leave for all workers
    I’m sorry, but what ever happened to personal responsibility? If you want to have children, then plan for them – including the financial burden they bring. I’m more than happy to give you unpaid family leave time, but why should I pay to raise your children? Note that I have no problem with a family leave plan – but it should be paid for by the workers (as it will be in the end, anyway). Have a deduction made from the earnings of employees who wish to participate in the plan, like a self-funded insurance policy. But I object strenuously to a plan where those who benefit expect someone else to pay.
  • Prohibiting “right to work” laws
    If the people, via their representatives or by direct vote, decide that they do not want to be forced to pay what amounts to extortion to a union for the “privilege” of having a job, then why should the federal government decide otherwise? Yes, such unions claim to represent your best interests in negotiations with the employer, but how can you know when you are forced to accept only their representation? Also, what if you disagree with their political stance? What if you are anti-union? Does that mean you can’t work at your preferred employer simply because the union controls the shop? Such an arrangement smacks of organized crime and pay-to-play, and is about as anti-American as it gets. America is about liberty – including the liberty to work at an employer with whom you’ve freely negotiated your terms of employment. If people want to join a union that’s fine; but it should not be forced upon them.

The sad truth is that many people will vote for policies such as these promulgated by Mr. Bloomberg, not because that they believe the policies are good, moral or fair, but because they believe that they will benefit at the expense of others.

Be careful what you wish for; you might get exactly what you deserve.

Media censorship?

The New York Times has alleged that Michael Bloomberg’s media organization will not perform investigative reporting on Mr. Bloomberg’s presidential run, or on any other democratic candidate, as reported in a memo from Bloomberg Editorial and Research editor-in-chief John Micklethwait:

…Bloomberg’s outlets, which also include Bloomberg Businessweek and several industry-specific sites, will not do in-depth investigations of Mr. Bloomberg — or any of his Democratic rivals.

Interestingly, the NYT article also noted the “…Bloomberg would not change its coverage of President Trump so long as he is not a direct rival of Mr. Bloomberg’s.”

Really? Are you kidding me? And no one else is perturbed by this disclosure??

I consider this is a dangerous sign of what is to come if Michael Bloomberg becomes President.