Below is an analysis, WITH SPECIFIC, CITED EXCERPTS FROM THE BILL, of provisions in the original House health care bill REQUIRING preferences for minorities (almost surely unconstitutional) for medical schools (and other health care schools?). I don't vouch for all of this, because it was forwarded to me off of the internet. However, I know that it is mostly correct, because I have seen multiple sources for this basic info. More importantly is the FACT that Democrats, AND THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA, do not want you to know what is in the health care bill, or what will be in the final bill. That final bill will be prepared in the dead of night, based on some "compormise", as was true of the "stimulus" bill and of the "cap and trade" "energy" bill. Democrats, and the mainstream media, do not WANT the people to know what is in this bill, or what will be in the final version of the bill. the bill is being sold with DECIET, with Obama even trying to deny that he ultimately wants a "sintle payer", government health care system, despite his many previous statements to that effect. Further, how can you ATTACK the private health insurance industry as your manin TACTIC to try to get this bill passed and still say that you are not ultimately aiming for a Federal Government takeover of our health insurance system and health care system. These people (leftist Democrts, mainstream media, Obama, and Democrats in Congress) are LIARS. Thus, what is important about what appears below is to alert you to the kind of thing that WILL appear in the final health care bill. This bill needs to be DEFEATED, and not "mended" in some kind of sham "compromise" (perhaps signed onto by both Democrat and Republican WIMPS denying the reality of what is happening). NO bill is going to be better than whatever bill results from the DECEIT that is now going on to trly to get this bill through by hook or by crook.
Proof with actual excerpts of the law regarding preferences for minorities
July 21, 2009...9:33 amWhites Need Not Apply to Become Nurses or Docs in Obama’s Healthcare PlanJump to Comments
Underrepresented minorities to get preferences for grants, contracts and enrollment to become doctors, nurses or dentists. Skin color will determine careers in Obama’s Marxist world.
While the legislation is clever enough not to actually state “No Whites” or ”Whitey Take A Hike” – we’re not stupid. We know the intent in the Marxist Healthcare Bill that Obama is pushing like a crack dealer on America is clear: minorities get the jobs, the grants, the education in healthcare. Merit, skill, aptitude and achievement are no longer the criteria in America; skin color is. Class status is.Color blind America? Nope, not with the Marxist Democrats and Obama. Al they see is color and class – and they are about the task of institutionalizing their brand of racism on America, a “revenge” for the sins of the patriarchs. ”Change” America was stupid enough to vote for.Racial Preferences in the Democrats’ Health Care BillBy Allan J. FavishAll 1,018 pages of the Democrats’ health care bill can be inspected here. The bill includes racial preferences. Under the Democrats’ health care bill, if a medical school wants to increase its chances of receiving many different kinds of grants and contracts from the federal government, it should have a demonstrated record of training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups. This is because the Democrats’ health care bill requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to give preference to the entities that have demonstrated such a record in the awarding of these contracts to medical schools and other institutions.The bill does not state what would qualify as a “demonstrated record”, so we can expect medical schools and the other entities to do whatever they think they can get away with to train as many “individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups” as they think they might need to have a better “demonstrated record” in this regard then other entities competing for the grants and contracts. The Democrats’ health care bill creates a very significant financial incentive for medical schools and other entities to lower admission standards for “individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups” if that is what it takes to have the winning “demonstrated record”.On page 879-880, the bill states that the Secretary of Health and Human Services“shall make grants to, or enter into contracts with, eligible entities . . . to operate a professional training program in the field of family medicine, general internal medicine, general pediatrics, or geriatrics, to provide financial assistance and traineeships and fellowships to those students, interns, residents or physicians who plan to work in or teach in the field of family medicine, general internal medicine, general pediatrics, or geriatrics.”On page 881-882 the bill states:“In awarding grants or contracts under this section, the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of the following: . . . Training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds.”On page 883 the bill states:“The Secretary shall make grants to, or enter into contracts with, eligible entities . . . to operate or participate in an established primary care residency training program, which may include-(A) planning and developing curricula; (B) recruitment and training of residents; and (C) retention of faculty.”On page 884-885 the bill states:“In awarding grants and contracts . . . the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of training . . . individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds . . . .”On page 887-889 the bill states that the“Secretary shall make grants to, or enter into contracts with, eligible entities . . . to operate a professional training program for oral health professionals, to provide financial assistance and traineeships and fellowships to those professionals who plan to work in or teach general, pediatric, or public health dentistry, or dental hygiene, to establish, maintain, or improve academic administrative units (including departments, divisions, or other appropriate units) in the specialties of general, pediatric, or public health dentistry, to operate a loan repayment program for full-time faculty in a program of general, pediatric, or public health dentistry.”On page 889-890 the bill states:“In awarding grants or contracts under this section, the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of the following: . . . Training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds.”On page 908-909 the bill states: “The Secretary shall award grants and contracts to eligible entities” to do the same things for the field of public health as the Secretary can do for dentistry.On page 909 the bill states:“In awarding grants or contracts under this section, the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of the following: . . . Training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds.”Apart from the legality of such preferences under the U.S. Constitution and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the unfairness to those who are not “individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups”, the Democrats’ policy will foster the racial preference climate that continues to stigmatize and demean those individuals who receive the preferences. For example, if you know nothing else about two university students, except that one was probably admitted under a program where intellectual standards were reduced and the student received a preference for being the child of an alumnus, and the other was admitted under more rigorous intellectual standards without receiving any nonmerit-based preference, what are you going to think about these two students? Is the answer any different when the preference is based on race rather than an alumni relationship?A nonmerit-based preference program based on an individual’s physical appearance or surname is no less a “badge of inferiority” than the one condemned in Brown v. Board of Education. Thanks to the Democrats’ racial preference program, all of the “individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups” at these medical schools and other entities, including those who deserved admission without the racial preference, will wear that badge.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Leftist Democrats, and President Obama, Do NOT Believe in Free Speech
Spoof poster of Obama's face painted as The Joker branded 'dangerous and mean-spirited'
"A poster depicting Barack Obama as Batman villain The Joker has been called 'mean-spirited and dangerous' by the U.S. President's supporters."
Did lyou doubt me about leftist lhypocrites not believing in free speech (see previous entry). Well, you should never doubt me. Above is the headline, and first paragraph, of the story now linked on Drudge (apparently a BRITISH story). Yes, it is really not different aboutt he mainstream media H:YPOCRITES who supposedly would not publilish those Danish cartoons of Muhammad, as "offensive" to Mulslims, but who routinely publish depcitons of anti-Christian art. We nned a stronger word than HYPIOCRITES for leftists of the mainstream media type, and Obama type.
P.S. I am not really sure this "poster" originated in the San Francisco area. I saw one story to that effect, but the poster has--of course--surefaced on the internet. It really does not mater where it started. "Performance art" is "performance art", and onlly the HYPOCRITES of the left think it si something reserved for leftists like the "artist" in Boston who had that exhibition in that Boston museum.
"A poster depicting Barack Obama as Batman villain The Joker has been called 'mean-spirited and dangerous' by the U.S. President's supporters."
Did lyou doubt me about leftist lhypocrites not believing in free speech (see previous entry). Well, you should never doubt me. Above is the headline, and first paragraph, of the story now linked on Drudge (apparently a BRITISH story). Yes, it is really not different aboutt he mainstream media H:YPOCRITES who supposedly would not publilish those Danish cartoons of Muhammad, as "offensive" to Mulslims, but who routinely publish depcitons of anti-Christian art. We nned a stronger word than HYPIOCRITES for leftists of the mainstream media type, and Obama type.
P.S. I am not really sure this "poster" originated in the San Francisco area. I saw one story to that effect, but the poster has--of course--surefaced on the internet. It really does not mater where it started. "Performance art" is "performance art", and onlly the HYPOCRITES of the left think it si something reserved for leftists like the "artist" in Boston who had that exhibition in that Boston museum.
President Obama as The Joker: Heath Ledger (Posthumously) Gets Competition From a Live President; Democrats as Hypocrites on Steroids
Yes, the rest of the country is again catching up with this blog. This blog has, for some time, referred to President Obama as an evil (implied) comic geinius. Now a perfromance artist in the San Francisco area (see story and poster on Drudge) has produced a poster of President Obama as the Joker. It could well be a whole new career for Obama, replacing the deceased Heath Ledger, after Obama is ejected from teh White House (surely no later than 2012).
Now it is this performance artist who is putting Obama in competition with Heath Ledger as to whom is the better Joker. It is leftist Democrats (all references in this blog to "Democrats" are references to leftist Democrats, rather than rank and file Dem,ocrats, unless explicitly stated otherwise) who are putting thmeselves in direct competiton with Alex Rodriguez. Yes, I bet you did not know that there are steroids which facilitate HYPOCRISY. Well, there are, and leftists long ago discoered them, and lpioneered the abuse of those steroids (even as leftists plotted to destroy people like Alex Rodriguez as one of the "rich" who does not "deserve" the money he is making).
Yep. Unless you have read this blog, and understand that leftists do not really believe in free speech--except fro leftists--you will find this hard to believe. But leftists have attacked this performance art as "over the line".
Uh-huh. HLYPOCRITES ON STEROIDS--the worst hyocrites who have ever walked the Earth on two legs (including, as usual, Neanderthal Man in the comparison sample to make it complete). Yes, I can provie it. I went to the Museum of Contemporary Art in Boston, when I visited by older daughter a little more than a week ago. We specifically went to see the exhibit (approving exhibit by and for leftists) of the "art" of the "performance artist" who became famous for that poster of Obama with "HOPE" oin it. You know what? There was another poster in this exhibit of President Bush AS A VAMPIRE. "Over the line"? Not to leftists. THE HYPOCRITES.
Let me be clear here. I don't have any real problem with the "perfromance artist" in Boston, although he has been arrested for grafitti in the past (how different from gang grafitti, such as is prevalent in El Paso?). It doesn't bother me that an artist has depicted Bush as a vampire. Unlike many leftists, I do believe in free slpeech. I even found a lot of this artist's work was interesting (mainly of women oppressed by Islam, and not the hackneyed stuff with flowers in rifles and that sort of stupid stuffl). No, I was not interested enough to remember the name of the artist, but I invite my daughter to comment and tell lyou (or you can look it up on the internet).
Nope. Thre is nothing wrong with depicting Obama as the Joker. Those on the left who see this as an evil thing are industrial grade hypocrites. Now is AnY "perfromance art" really that significant? I don't think so. Tjis. the poster of Obama is not nearly as interesting to me as the leftist reaction to it (mainstream media type leftist reaction). Ti neme, the "Joker" poster itself was merely mildly amusing.
Now it is this performance artist who is putting Obama in competition with Heath Ledger as to whom is the better Joker. It is leftist Democrats (all references in this blog to "Democrats" are references to leftist Democrats, rather than rank and file Dem,ocrats, unless explicitly stated otherwise) who are putting thmeselves in direct competiton with Alex Rodriguez. Yes, I bet you did not know that there are steroids which facilitate HYPOCRISY. Well, there are, and leftists long ago discoered them, and lpioneered the abuse of those steroids (even as leftists plotted to destroy people like Alex Rodriguez as one of the "rich" who does not "deserve" the money he is making).
Yep. Unless you have read this blog, and understand that leftists do not really believe in free speech--except fro leftists--you will find this hard to believe. But leftists have attacked this performance art as "over the line".
Uh-huh. HLYPOCRITES ON STEROIDS--the worst hyocrites who have ever walked the Earth on two legs (including, as usual, Neanderthal Man in the comparison sample to make it complete). Yes, I can provie it. I went to the Museum of Contemporary Art in Boston, when I visited by older daughter a little more than a week ago. We specifically went to see the exhibit (approving exhibit by and for leftists) of the "art" of the "performance artist" who became famous for that poster of Obama with "HOPE" oin it. You know what? There was another poster in this exhibit of President Bush AS A VAMPIRE. "Over the line"? Not to leftists. THE HYPOCRITES.
Let me be clear here. I don't have any real problem with the "perfromance artist" in Boston, although he has been arrested for grafitti in the past (how different from gang grafitti, such as is prevalent in El Paso?). It doesn't bother me that an artist has depicted Bush as a vampire. Unlike many leftists, I do believe in free slpeech. I even found a lot of this artist's work was interesting (mainly of women oppressed by Islam, and not the hackneyed stuff with flowers in rifles and that sort of stupid stuffl). No, I was not interested enough to remember the name of the artist, but I invite my daughter to comment and tell lyou (or you can look it up on the internet).
Nope. Thre is nothing wrong with depicting Obama as the Joker. Those on the left who see this as an evil thing are industrial grade hypocrites. Now is AnY "perfromance art" really that significant? I don't think so. Tjis. the poster of Obama is not nearly as interesting to me as the leftist reaction to it (mainstream media type leftist reaction). Ti neme, the "Joker" poster itself was merely mildly amusing.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Taxes and Ayn Rand: Placing Burden on the Few
Read the previous entry Then consider an item of news at the end of last week.
The top 1% (that is 1out of every hundred wage earners) now has an outrageous portion of the total tax burden thrust upon them. That top 1% is now (as of the end of 2007, I think, which means it may be worse now) 40.4% of the total personal income taxes in the United States. That is more than the lower 95% (which pay 39% or so, COMBINED). That means that the top 5% is now paying 60% of the total tax burden--a substatntial MAJORITY of total income taxes. Of course, some 40 plus percent of all wage earners pay NO income taxes at all.
Is this fair? Obviously not. It is wildly unfair. Okay. Life is not "fair", even though the hypocrites on the left keep blathering on about "fair" prices and "fair" wages. What am I talking about. That POMPOUS ASS, Bill O'Reily (see upcoming entry: "Bill O'Reilly, Pinhead") keeps talking about REQUIRING "fair" prices for health care, health insurance, drugs, oil gasoline, and who knows what else. The number of people in this country, including our President, who do not believe in the free enterprise system is astounding. I digress (not really). "Fairness" is not the total satandard, but this magnitude of unfairness, CREATED by government action, is astounding. Let us look at it another way--bringing in Ayn Rand's prescient works now at least FIFTY YEARS old.
What did Ayn Rand say, more than 50 years ago? Well, she pretty much prfedicted the present tax situation, where the many are trying to ride on the backs of the few. Her primary point is that there are only a few turly exceptional people, and that the many are constantly trying to bring those people down--trying to make those people "compromise", conform, AND use their talents for the "good" of the many. Of course, Any Rand's philosopphy is more complex than I can describe in a sentence or two. The movie, "The Fountainhead" (rating 85--starring Gary Cooper) is a good, easy introduction to Ayn Rand. Her major works--philosophy in the form of fiction--are "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged". Any Rand was accused of raising selfishness to almost a fetish. But look at how right she was about how the many will try to bring down the few!!!!!!!--wll try to make th efew do everything for them. One of Ayn Rand's positions was that an exceptional person makes a bad mistake if he lets himself be conned into taking responsibility for the many not so exceptional people trying to drag him down.
You may find this hard to believe, but Any Rand is/was somewhat too extreme for me, although she is so effective in arguing her case that few of her opponents/critics were in her league. Did Ayn Rand really oppose charity? Well, she certainly opposed FORCED charity, and that is what we now have.
It is ridiculous for higher income people to be parying FORTY TIMES their "fair" share of the tax buden. Yes, it is milsleading to say that the "richest" 1% should only pay 1% of the total tax burden, because they earn more than 1% of the total income of the country (although not nearly 40% of the total income). Yes, hypocritical leftists cite the converse statistic, WITHOUT MENTIONING THIS UNFAIR TAX BURDEN, about how the "rich" earn more than their "fair" share of the icome in this country. What this ignores is that this country was founded upon OPPORUNTIY (Ayn Rand type opportunity), and NOT upon the false idea that everyone was "entitled" to equal income, or to ANY certain percentage of the income of the "rich". As this blog has previously said, Alex Rodriguez had better watch out!!!! He is earning more than a "fair" income!!!! This country was founded much more on the idea that the "rich" should NOT have what they earn taken away from them involuntarily, to be distributed among the many.
Problem: This situation is intolerable, for the long term. Leftist Democrats, in the Age of Obama, now push the idea that the "rich" can pay for EVERYTHING (Ayn Rand is turning over in her grave). The idea is that the few can pay for the many. Worse, leftists may not really CARE if this means that the few revolt (as it will). For leftiists, it is NOT about the best way to raise more government revenue, or really about "fairness", but about EQUALIZING people (even if it means equlalizing them in misery).
There was that story a month or so ago that high wage earners in New York City were about to pay 60% of their total income in taxes. Over the long term, that will simply not happen. People will NOT work 80 hours a week, or more (as my lawyer daughter has been doing in New York city, to the detriment of her personal life)--only to see what they earn taken away from them to give to someone else to buy a CAR, or illusory "health care", or a HOUSE, or whatever else. People like my daughter will look at the situation and realize that they are getting the short end of the stick.
In short, we have reached the point where increases in taxes on the "rich" will definitely NOT increase government revenue (beyond the VERY short term). That is beyond the economic consequences of continued higher and higher taxes on success.
That is the problem here. If society adopts the idea that the few exceptional and "rich" can pay for EVERYBODY else, then too few people have a stake in the tax system. The "rich" suddently become a supposedly inexhaustible supply of money to take care of the rest of us. Most of the American people instinctively realize that this goes beyond being "unfair". It is simply impossible. In the long term that attitude is a rcipe for absolute disaster. It leads to an Any Rand HELL, where NO ONE has opportunity for excellence, but everyone is condemned to Commmunistic misery (except the likes of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama, who become the "more equal" of this forced "equalization".
The few do not have enough money to take care of the many. Even if they did, it is insane to believe they will sweat blood and tears to take care of YOU and ME. I am not sure my own daughters will take care of me, but that is another subject. I did, after all, survive my trip to NYC and Boston, and they HAVE promised to put me in a cheap nursing home!!!!!!
Nope. That is why I question the sanity of lefitsts. I have long ago given up on their "intelligence". You cannnot, in the end, oraginize a society around the idea that the "rich" will pay for EVERyTHING for EVERYONE else. What I think of Repubicans and conservatives who have bought into this idea of BRIBING the "middle class" is unprintable. What I think of Bill O'Reilly is beyond unprintable. I have not watched him in three months until a few days ago, and I could stand only 10 miniutes.
Yes, I am ashamed to say I thought Ayn Rand too extreme, and I still find her a little 'harsh" in her apparnent views on absolutely no compromise, and absolutely no sense of "responsibility" to other people. I amy h ave to undertake a pilgrimage to her gravesite to apologize. She is looking better and better to me. She was definitely prescient about the trends of our present society--trends that WILL destory us.
What should we do? Easy. Go back to the simple Reagan tax system--which INCREASED government revenues as the "rich" no longer had the same incentive to avoid taxes. Top personal and corporate rate: 28%. Second tier of 15% for "middle class" incomes and for long term capital gains. Third tier of 0%, but without continually expanding second and third tiers except in terms of keeping up with inflation. In 1987, the "rich" (under Reagan rates) paid 29% (top 1% paind that) of total personal income taxes. From an Ayn Rand perspective, that may still be excessive, but I think it was close to right. The idea here is to have a SIMPLE tax system (no Christmas tree of REPUBLICAN TAX CREIDTS, and no Christmas tree of DEMOCRAT TAX BREAKS and spending) with low enough rates to encourage both economic growth AND growth of Federal revenues (but NOT enough to finance an explosively expanding Federal Government, wheere the dirty little secret is that NO set of tax rates will ever do that in the real world).
Oh, by the way, that Reagan tax system pulled us out of the Carter recession of 1981-1982, which was about as bad as the current recession, and did so without mortgaging our future.
The top 1% (that is 1out of every hundred wage earners) now has an outrageous portion of the total tax burden thrust upon them. That top 1% is now (as of the end of 2007, I think, which means it may be worse now) 40.4% of the total personal income taxes in the United States. That is more than the lower 95% (which pay 39% or so, COMBINED). That means that the top 5% is now paying 60% of the total tax burden--a substatntial MAJORITY of total income taxes. Of course, some 40 plus percent of all wage earners pay NO income taxes at all.
Is this fair? Obviously not. It is wildly unfair. Okay. Life is not "fair", even though the hypocrites on the left keep blathering on about "fair" prices and "fair" wages. What am I talking about. That POMPOUS ASS, Bill O'Reily (see upcoming entry: "Bill O'Reilly, Pinhead") keeps talking about REQUIRING "fair" prices for health care, health insurance, drugs, oil gasoline, and who knows what else. The number of people in this country, including our President, who do not believe in the free enterprise system is astounding. I digress (not really). "Fairness" is not the total satandard, but this magnitude of unfairness, CREATED by government action, is astounding. Let us look at it another way--bringing in Ayn Rand's prescient works now at least FIFTY YEARS old.
What did Ayn Rand say, more than 50 years ago? Well, she pretty much prfedicted the present tax situation, where the many are trying to ride on the backs of the few. Her primary point is that there are only a few turly exceptional people, and that the many are constantly trying to bring those people down--trying to make those people "compromise", conform, AND use their talents for the "good" of the many. Of course, Any Rand's philosopphy is more complex than I can describe in a sentence or two. The movie, "The Fountainhead" (rating 85--starring Gary Cooper) is a good, easy introduction to Ayn Rand. Her major works--philosophy in the form of fiction--are "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged". Any Rand was accused of raising selfishness to almost a fetish. But look at how right she was about how the many will try to bring down the few!!!!!!!--wll try to make th efew do everything for them. One of Ayn Rand's positions was that an exceptional person makes a bad mistake if he lets himself be conned into taking responsibility for the many not so exceptional people trying to drag him down.
You may find this hard to believe, but Any Rand is/was somewhat too extreme for me, although she is so effective in arguing her case that few of her opponents/critics were in her league. Did Ayn Rand really oppose charity? Well, she certainly opposed FORCED charity, and that is what we now have.
It is ridiculous for higher income people to be parying FORTY TIMES their "fair" share of the tax buden. Yes, it is milsleading to say that the "richest" 1% should only pay 1% of the total tax burden, because they earn more than 1% of the total income of the country (although not nearly 40% of the total income). Yes, hypocritical leftists cite the converse statistic, WITHOUT MENTIONING THIS UNFAIR TAX BURDEN, about how the "rich" earn more than their "fair" share of the icome in this country. What this ignores is that this country was founded upon OPPORUNTIY (Ayn Rand type opportunity), and NOT upon the false idea that everyone was "entitled" to equal income, or to ANY certain percentage of the income of the "rich". As this blog has previously said, Alex Rodriguez had better watch out!!!! He is earning more than a "fair" income!!!! This country was founded much more on the idea that the "rich" should NOT have what they earn taken away from them involuntarily, to be distributed among the many.
Problem: This situation is intolerable, for the long term. Leftist Democrats, in the Age of Obama, now push the idea that the "rich" can pay for EVERYTHING (Ayn Rand is turning over in her grave). The idea is that the few can pay for the many. Worse, leftists may not really CARE if this means that the few revolt (as it will). For leftiists, it is NOT about the best way to raise more government revenue, or really about "fairness", but about EQUALIZING people (even if it means equlalizing them in misery).
There was that story a month or so ago that high wage earners in New York City were about to pay 60% of their total income in taxes. Over the long term, that will simply not happen. People will NOT work 80 hours a week, or more (as my lawyer daughter has been doing in New York city, to the detriment of her personal life)--only to see what they earn taken away from them to give to someone else to buy a CAR, or illusory "health care", or a HOUSE, or whatever else. People like my daughter will look at the situation and realize that they are getting the short end of the stick.
In short, we have reached the point where increases in taxes on the "rich" will definitely NOT increase government revenue (beyond the VERY short term). That is beyond the economic consequences of continued higher and higher taxes on success.
That is the problem here. If society adopts the idea that the few exceptional and "rich" can pay for EVERYBODY else, then too few people have a stake in the tax system. The "rich" suddently become a supposedly inexhaustible supply of money to take care of the rest of us. Most of the American people instinctively realize that this goes beyond being "unfair". It is simply impossible. In the long term that attitude is a rcipe for absolute disaster. It leads to an Any Rand HELL, where NO ONE has opportunity for excellence, but everyone is condemned to Commmunistic misery (except the likes of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama, who become the "more equal" of this forced "equalization".
The few do not have enough money to take care of the many. Even if they did, it is insane to believe they will sweat blood and tears to take care of YOU and ME. I am not sure my own daughters will take care of me, but that is another subject. I did, after all, survive my trip to NYC and Boston, and they HAVE promised to put me in a cheap nursing home!!!!!!
Nope. That is why I question the sanity of lefitsts. I have long ago given up on their "intelligence". You cannnot, in the end, oraginize a society around the idea that the "rich" will pay for EVERyTHING for EVERYONE else. What I think of Repubicans and conservatives who have bought into this idea of BRIBING the "middle class" is unprintable. What I think of Bill O'Reilly is beyond unprintable. I have not watched him in three months until a few days ago, and I could stand only 10 miniutes.
Yes, I am ashamed to say I thought Ayn Rand too extreme, and I still find her a little 'harsh" in her apparnent views on absolutely no compromise, and absolutely no sense of "responsibility" to other people. I amy h ave to undertake a pilgrimage to her gravesite to apologize. She is looking better and better to me. She was definitely prescient about the trends of our present society--trends that WILL destory us.
What should we do? Easy. Go back to the simple Reagan tax system--which INCREASED government revenues as the "rich" no longer had the same incentive to avoid taxes. Top personal and corporate rate: 28%. Second tier of 15% for "middle class" incomes and for long term capital gains. Third tier of 0%, but without continually expanding second and third tiers except in terms of keeping up with inflation. In 1987, the "rich" (under Reagan rates) paid 29% (top 1% paind that) of total personal income taxes. From an Ayn Rand perspective, that may still be excessive, but I think it was close to right. The idea here is to have a SIMPLE tax system (no Christmas tree of REPUBLICAN TAX CREIDTS, and no Christmas tree of DEMOCRAT TAX BREAKS and spending) with low enough rates to encourage both economic growth AND growth of Federal revenues (but NOT enough to finance an explosively expanding Federal Government, wheere the dirty little secret is that NO set of tax rates will ever do that in the real world).
Oh, by the way, that Reagan tax system pulled us out of the Carter recession of 1981-1982, which was about as bad as the current recession, and did so without mortgaging our future.
American Taxpayer Deceived: A Birthright?--The Mouse on the Moon
Dialogue from the 1960's movie, "The Mouse on the Moon":
Associate to cut-rate Michaevelli of the duchy of Grand Fenwick, on the morality of getting plumbing in the castle by foreign aid from America--lying about its use, but with the American government fully aware of the lie:
"But isn't that deceiving the American taxpayer?"
Michaevelli tlype:
"The American taxpayer is ALWAYS being deceived. It is his brithright."
Yes, there is nothing new under the sun--especially for leftists. Look at just how much deception there is in thie Obama attempt to force a Federal takeover of health care down our throat! Yesterday, Treasury Secretary Geitner admitted that ultimately there might have to be more taxes on the "middle class" to avoid unaccptable deficits and finance costs of helath care bill.
But the deception has already been rampant. A week or two ago, Drudge reported that the Democrats were planning to tax PLASTIC SURGERY. Drudge (you gotta love Drudge, desptie the occasional stupid headline, like one today) reported this with pictures of two Democrats who really NEED plastic surgery, including (I think) Nancy Pelosi. Drudge's headline: "Don't Go There!"
There have been those phony "deals" between government and industry (as we head toward economic fascism--that unholy idea of a "partnership between Big Business and Big Government).
There has been a proposal to TAX FAT. That, of course, could be done in many ways. The most obvioius way is to tax "fatty foods", including fast food places like McDonald's. However, the idea of people being WEIGHED, and having to pay a TAX on their fat, tickels me. There is no better image to give you some inkling of what it means to live in the Age of Obama, Pelosi and Reid.
This is all DECEPTION. The idea is to somehow squeeze a Federal takeover of health care into law, and then to worry about paying for it (witht he final option of continuing to print money, as we are already doing). Thus, you get "creative" taxes, with inflated revenue estimates, desinged to convince people that SOMEONE ELSE will pay for their health care--health care just as good as everyone is getting now. The people, of course, are not buying it. For good reason, since it is all DECEPTION and lies. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Fundamentally, people understand this. I do NOT count mainstream media "journalists", and similarly thinking hypocrites of the left, in the definition of "people". Leftists have given up the human brithright of a brain in order to DECEIVE the real people into accepting that other "birthright" of an American taxpayer: ALWAYS beind deceived.
"The Mouse That Rorared" was an hilarious book (rating 97) by Leonard Wibberly, about a VERY small European "country" that decleared war on the United States in an effort to LOSE (thereby getting the money we always pay to reconstruct the economy of nations we defeat in a war). The problem, of course, is that Grand Fenwick WINS the war. This was made into a funny film with Peter Sellers also titled "The Mouse that Roared" (rating 81).
"The Mouse on the Moon" is the Wibberly sequel to (rating 95) to "The Mouse that Roared". The sequel was also made into a movie (rating 73), with the lower rating being mainly due to the absence of Sellers (a comic genius, of course, although perhaps not int he class of Obama in that category). Still, "The Mouse on the Moon" has some very funny moments, including its satire on NASA and the above type of political satire. For example, President Obama is willing to apologize for the United States around the world, in a seeming effort to be LOVED. This is not new, although the President making it about HIM may be somewhat new. For example, the Michaevelli type in Grand Fenwick describes (paraphrase rather than exact quote) why the American taxpayer would give money to Grand Fenwick in order to demonstrate the American resolve for "INTERNATIONAL" cooperation in space:
"Americans want to be LOVED. It is their one great weakness."
If we let Obama take over health care, it will prove that being deceived truly is our birthright as Americans. Oh Hell. The Obama Administration has already proved that. It is now a question of survival. I am not optimistic, as you know.
Associate to cut-rate Michaevelli of the duchy of Grand Fenwick, on the morality of getting plumbing in the castle by foreign aid from America--lying about its use, but with the American government fully aware of the lie:
"But isn't that deceiving the American taxpayer?"
Michaevelli tlype:
"The American taxpayer is ALWAYS being deceived. It is his brithright."
Yes, there is nothing new under the sun--especially for leftists. Look at just how much deception there is in thie Obama attempt to force a Federal takeover of health care down our throat! Yesterday, Treasury Secretary Geitner admitted that ultimately there might have to be more taxes on the "middle class" to avoid unaccptable deficits and finance costs of helath care bill.
But the deception has already been rampant. A week or two ago, Drudge reported that the Democrats were planning to tax PLASTIC SURGERY. Drudge (you gotta love Drudge, desptie the occasional stupid headline, like one today) reported this with pictures of two Democrats who really NEED plastic surgery, including (I think) Nancy Pelosi. Drudge's headline: "Don't Go There!"
There have been those phony "deals" between government and industry (as we head toward economic fascism--that unholy idea of a "partnership between Big Business and Big Government).
There has been a proposal to TAX FAT. That, of course, could be done in many ways. The most obvioius way is to tax "fatty foods", including fast food places like McDonald's. However, the idea of people being WEIGHED, and having to pay a TAX on their fat, tickels me. There is no better image to give you some inkling of what it means to live in the Age of Obama, Pelosi and Reid.
This is all DECEPTION. The idea is to somehow squeeze a Federal takeover of health care into law, and then to worry about paying for it (witht he final option of continuing to print money, as we are already doing). Thus, you get "creative" taxes, with inflated revenue estimates, desinged to convince people that SOMEONE ELSE will pay for their health care--health care just as good as everyone is getting now. The people, of course, are not buying it. For good reason, since it is all DECEPTION and lies. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Fundamentally, people understand this. I do NOT count mainstream media "journalists", and similarly thinking hypocrites of the left, in the definition of "people". Leftists have given up the human brithright of a brain in order to DECEIVE the real people into accepting that other "birthright" of an American taxpayer: ALWAYS beind deceived.
"The Mouse That Rorared" was an hilarious book (rating 97) by Leonard Wibberly, about a VERY small European "country" that decleared war on the United States in an effort to LOSE (thereby getting the money we always pay to reconstruct the economy of nations we defeat in a war). The problem, of course, is that Grand Fenwick WINS the war. This was made into a funny film with Peter Sellers also titled "The Mouse that Roared" (rating 81).
"The Mouse on the Moon" is the Wibberly sequel to (rating 95) to "The Mouse that Roared". The sequel was also made into a movie (rating 73), with the lower rating being mainly due to the absence of Sellers (a comic genius, of course, although perhaps not int he class of Obama in that category). Still, "The Mouse on the Moon" has some very funny moments, including its satire on NASA and the above type of political satire. For example, President Obama is willing to apologize for the United States around the world, in a seeming effort to be LOVED. This is not new, although the President making it about HIM may be somewhat new. For example, the Michaevelli type in Grand Fenwick describes (paraphrase rather than exact quote) why the American taxpayer would give money to Grand Fenwick in order to demonstrate the American resolve for "INTERNATIONAL" cooperation in space:
"Americans want to be LOVED. It is their one great weakness."
If we let Obama take over health care, it will prove that being deceived truly is our birthright as Americans. Oh Hell. The Obama Administration has already proved that. It is now a question of survival. I am not optimistic, as you know.
Bridges: Leftist/Mainstream Media Hypocrisy at Work
Do you remember all of that leftist hoopla about BRIDGES during the Buish Administration, and about similar "infrastructure"? Especially after that DEFECTIVELY DESIGNED bridge in Minneapolis/St. Paul fell? Remember how we needed up to one TRILLION dollars to inspect and repair/replace about every bridge in America. Well, forget it. The HYPOCRITES of the mainstream media (the worst ever to walk the Earth on two legs), and the rest of the left, did not really mean it. For them, it was always all about increasing Federal power (their power, as they see it) and spending (another way of saying you are increasing power). They have now found other ways to expand the Federal Government, and bridges are no longer useful to these hypocrites.
What am I talking about? Well, it turns out that very little of that "stimulus" money is being spent on bridges, and similar "infrastructure". Rather, the money is being spent on paving roads, and otherwise to replace state and local routine spending. Well, there ARE a few items that do not fit this category. For example, there war the millions being spent on an airport in New York used by 20 people a day. But one of those people is an "influential" Congressman. Bridges are out in the cold. Air traffic control is out in the cold (if my recent trip is any indication, where there was a two hour delay of ari traffic into DFW b ecause of unspecified problems with air traffic control). What is "in" is political boondoggle spending, and subsidizing the ordinary budget of state and local entities (leaving open the question of what they do to fund their budget NEXT YEAR).
Dirty little secret, besides the fact that most leftists never really cared about bridges except as a political issue: There was ALWAYS "enough" money for bridges, IF people wanted to spend money on bridges. They didn't, and don't. Yes, the "crisis" of bridges was overblown, for political reasons, but bridges have never been "sexy"--especailly repairing/replacing OLD bridges. Now, a shiny new "bridge to nowhere" is another matter. Politicians like that sort of thing. But the dirty work of kieeping bridges in good shape is NOT sexy--does not give politicians the kind of "bang for the buck" (politically) that politicians crave. Ted knnedy craved the boondoggle of the Big Dig in Boston--NOT repairing bridges throughout Massachusetts. Yes, if money were SPECIFICALLY appropriated for bridges, state politicians would spend it. But when they are given a CHOICE, bridges remain a low priority--aside from the fact there never was a "crisis".
1.E.D. The mainstream media, and other leftists, are the worst, most dishonest HYPOCRITES to ever walk the Earth on two legs.
By the way, does this present disinterest in bridges mean that leftists have abandoned THE ISSUE (as distinguished from the bridges, which have definitely been abandoned). Not on your life. As soon as leftists go as far as they can on health care, "cap and trade", alternative energy, and the rest, THEY WILL COME BACK TO BRIDGES. Yes, it will again be a "crisis" requiring a Federal "solution" (more money and Federal power). Forgotten will be the fact that when the money was available, it was NOT spent on bridges.
What am I talking about? Well, it turns out that very little of that "stimulus" money is being spent on bridges, and similar "infrastructure". Rather, the money is being spent on paving roads, and otherwise to replace state and local routine spending. Well, there ARE a few items that do not fit this category. For example, there war the millions being spent on an airport in New York used by 20 people a day. But one of those people is an "influential" Congressman. Bridges are out in the cold. Air traffic control is out in the cold (if my recent trip is any indication, where there was a two hour delay of ari traffic into DFW b ecause of unspecified problems with air traffic control). What is "in" is political boondoggle spending, and subsidizing the ordinary budget of state and local entities (leaving open the question of what they do to fund their budget NEXT YEAR).
Dirty little secret, besides the fact that most leftists never really cared about bridges except as a political issue: There was ALWAYS "enough" money for bridges, IF people wanted to spend money on bridges. They didn't, and don't. Yes, the "crisis" of bridges was overblown, for political reasons, but bridges have never been "sexy"--especailly repairing/replacing OLD bridges. Now, a shiny new "bridge to nowhere" is another matter. Politicians like that sort of thing. But the dirty work of kieeping bridges in good shape is NOT sexy--does not give politicians the kind of "bang for the buck" (politically) that politicians crave. Ted knnedy craved the boondoggle of the Big Dig in Boston--NOT repairing bridges throughout Massachusetts. Yes, if money were SPECIFICALLY appropriated for bridges, state politicians would spend it. But when they are given a CHOICE, bridges remain a low priority--aside from the fact there never was a "crisis".
1.E.D. The mainstream media, and other leftists, are the worst, most dishonest HYPOCRITES to ever walk the Earth on two legs.
By the way, does this present disinterest in bridges mean that leftists have abandoned THE ISSUE (as distinguished from the bridges, which have definitely been abandoned). Not on your life. As soon as leftists go as far as they can on health care, "cap and trade", alternative energy, and the rest, THEY WILL COME BACK TO BRIDGES. Yes, it will again be a "crisis" requiring a Federal "solution" (more money and Federal power). Forgotten will be the fact that when the money was available, it was NOT spent on bridges.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Democrats vs. the Poor: No Clunkers Left for Poor (or Thrifty)
This blog has already established that leftist Democrats are the worst enemy "the poor" have ever hdad. Consider the following, as only a sample:
1. The attempt to shut off water to farms in California, destroyig the jobs of poor farm workers (all in the name of "teh environment"). As Paul Rodriguez said, when his liberal friends asked him why he was stupporting "rich" farmers: "Without farms, there are no jobs for farm workerrs, and I have spent a significant part of my life supporting farm workers."
2. Biofuels taking food out of the mouths of the poor, worldwide. One U.N. person called this a "crime against humanity". This, of course, is in addition to leftists INCRFEASING the cost of fuel by restrictions against drilling and oil development--not to mention nuclear power.
3. Illegal immigration DECREASES the wages of poor Americans, as President Obama has said (while still supportig "open border" legislation, and refusing to enforce our immigration laws--simply saying opposite things, in an attempt to deceive, as usual). Yes, illegal immigration helps the MEXICAN poor, but I have a message for you lefists out there: It is IMPOSSIBLE for the United States to take care of the poor of the entire world, or even Mexico alone--especailly by leftist means-and you merely label yourself a total thinking vegetable if you assert otherwise.
4. The left has forced Africa to rely on MOSQUITO NETTING to fight malaria, instead of DDT and other reasonably priced pesticides. The left has BLLOOD (poor blood) on its hands for this one.
5. The "global warming" nuts are trying to destroy the ability of the poor, around the world, to better themselves by destroying/limiting our industrial civilization in the name of the fraud of "global warming". Yes, the Democratic "energy" bill ("cap and trade") is an example of the left trying to destroy the poor in this country by increasing the cost of energy, including electricity. The leftist response to this attack THEY, themselves, are making on the poor: reimburse them with "vovernment" funds, thereby further destroying jobs. Yes, increasing the cost of energy also destroys jobs, in addition to directly impacting the ppor.
6. A relatively small thing, but cumulatively a BIG problem for the poor from leftistst policies: The cost of LIGHT BULBS is going to increase as incandescent bulbs are outlawed/phased out. This increase in cost is true of so many products that you might suspect the left of deliberately waiging a clandestine war on the poor just so the poor will look to the leftfor "salvation" (a good trick, if you can pull it off, and the left so far has). What have all of those envrionmental restrictions and regulations already done to the cost of cars? Increased it thousands of dollars. My brother, the former truck company owner, can tell you how the leftists have put regulatioins on truck engires that will soon require the engirnes to return exhaust to the air CLEANER than it goes into the engine, at a cost, PER TRUCK, of some $15,0000-$20,000 (including regulations put in effect within the past few years, and regulations scheduled to go into effect in about 2010). This not only affects the cost of trucking, but the cost of FOOD (and all other products shipped by truck).
7. Yes, the constant increase in taxes on the "rich", and business, destroys jobs for the poor (in case you did not get the point in the above).
8. Did I mention the increase in "sin" taxes on cigarettes, liquor, fatty foods, etc? Yep. Disproportionately hurt the poor, and only incidentally may "help" the poor by discouraging this conduct (tax on SEX would probably help them more). I say this because it is clear that leftists are not really passing these taxes to HELP the poor, but to at least pretend to "increase" revenue for leftist programs like health care. IF these taxes really prevent conduct, they will raise NO additonal money (in fact, probably less money), and thus the left is LYING to you by suggesting they are raising revenue. That is true, by the way, with even income taxes, where an increase in taxes usually does NOT increase revenue (beyond the VERY short run).
9. By leftist policies which have destroyed the famiily (expecially the African-American family), leftists have almost conducted genocide against "the poor". What can you say about policies that have led to some 72% of African-American births being illegitimate, and 40% of all births. Those figures are almost inconceivable, and yet leftists pretty much ignore them (except to promote the Planned Parenthood attitude that was a major factor in this genocide of the poor--a genocide that Planned Parenthood sort of promotes directly, in addition to indirectly). Yes, our welfare programs encouraged this (leftist welfare programs). And our virtual (again leftist encouraged) endorsement of sexual promiscuity has accelreated the problem. This has been compounded by a Reverend Wright style encouragement of blacks to "blame" whites, instead of taking responisbility for their own lives. This has made their lives WORSE than they were when there was more discrimination, but also more FAMILY VALUES of the kind that helps children grow up with better lives. In fact, this blog has long been correct in saying that we are conducting a massive social experiment with our children, and that our children are not likely to survie it (without serous damage, and often literally).
10. "The poor" now get health care (Medicaid)--albeit it is going broke, and is really in deep troulble. Is not this entrie, nanufactured, health care "crisis" an attack on the poor in the cause of BRIBING the "middle class"? Of course it is. Can an attempt at total government control of all health carfe possibly help "the poor" (at least the real poor)? Of course not. The ppor need us to SAVE MEDICAID, and improve it. I know. I would return Medicaid completely to the states, who are better able to see where the money is going (and have to "apy as you go"). neverthe less, my preference is NOT a direct attack on "the poor" (merely a change of where medical care for the poor is administered). This proposed health care overhaul IS a direct attack on health care for the poor, as they suddenly face mcuh more strain on the health care system. How can they help but lose? Right now, the government is concentrating (badly) solely on the poor and elderly. As the government expands to try to centrally plan care for EVERYONE, the poor and elderly are going to fall through the cracks (along with everyone else, EXCEPT the "rich").
I could go on, almost forever, but you get the idea. Now we have the "cash for clunkers" program: yeat another direct attack upon the POOR!!!
Yes, I liststed 7 defects of this grogram. But I left out, at least directly, this major problem. I did mention Dave Ramsey's standard advice for getting out of debt: "Selll your expensive car/vehicle and BUY A CLUNKER. Note how the government is trying to destroy the ability of people to follow Ramsey's advice. The government is using taxpayer money to ELIMINATE CLUNKERS--the very thing that the poor rely on (often) for transportation (cheap transportatioin). Do you really dobut that leftists are out to DESTROY THE POOR--not by getting them out of poverty but by affirmatively destroying them. Yes, this entire, benighted "cah for clunkers" program is a perfect example of the defects of central planning. It has DISTORTED the care market out of all recognition, as taxpayers are asked to help pay for CARS for other people (unless the taxpayer can find a "clunker" to trade in, and needs a new car). The used car market is suggenly going to become materially more expensive. Dave Ramsey, eat your heart out!!! The Fedeeral Government has enacted a program to SABOTAGE your advice!!!! And, of course, it is also a program to help DESTROY the poor. Nope. It is NOT a "good ida" for the poor to GO INTO DEBT to buy a NEW CAR with this program, good a deal as it is for people who can afford it. It is, of course, too good a deal, because it completely distorts the market--not only as I have described, but probably in many ways I have not even thought of. That is apart from adding to the deficit. I would remind you that Treasury Secretary Geitner continues to say that failure to reduce the deficit will RUIN any "recovery" (ruin the country). That has led Geitner to refuse to "rule out" "middle class" taqx hikes. The simple fact is that the Federal Government, and the whole economy, is now ADDICTED to the deficit (as badly as any heroin addict who ever lived), as indicated by this "cash for clunkers" program, with its cost quickly out of control. We are NOT going to be able to "reduce the deficit", without MAJOR PAIN. Yet Geitner is right. Failure to do so will DESTROY US (the ppor quicker than the rest).
And some people wonder why I am a pessimist!!!!!! You might remember that Republicans, and even many conservatives (e.g. Rich Lowry of National Review and so many on tax credits for health care) want to BRIBE the middle class just as much as Democrtats, just in different ways (usually slightly better ways, but just as disastrous in the end).
1. The attempt to shut off water to farms in California, destroyig the jobs of poor farm workers (all in the name of "teh environment"). As Paul Rodriguez said, when his liberal friends asked him why he was stupporting "rich" farmers: "Without farms, there are no jobs for farm workerrs, and I have spent a significant part of my life supporting farm workers."
2. Biofuels taking food out of the mouths of the poor, worldwide. One U.N. person called this a "crime against humanity". This, of course, is in addition to leftists INCRFEASING the cost of fuel by restrictions against drilling and oil development--not to mention nuclear power.
3. Illegal immigration DECREASES the wages of poor Americans, as President Obama has said (while still supportig "open border" legislation, and refusing to enforce our immigration laws--simply saying opposite things, in an attempt to deceive, as usual). Yes, illegal immigration helps the MEXICAN poor, but I have a message for you lefists out there: It is IMPOSSIBLE for the United States to take care of the poor of the entire world, or even Mexico alone--especailly by leftist means-and you merely label yourself a total thinking vegetable if you assert otherwise.
4. The left has forced Africa to rely on MOSQUITO NETTING to fight malaria, instead of DDT and other reasonably priced pesticides. The left has BLLOOD (poor blood) on its hands for this one.
5. The "global warming" nuts are trying to destroy the ability of the poor, around the world, to better themselves by destroying/limiting our industrial civilization in the name of the fraud of "global warming". Yes, the Democratic "energy" bill ("cap and trade") is an example of the left trying to destroy the poor in this country by increasing the cost of energy, including electricity. The leftist response to this attack THEY, themselves, are making on the poor: reimburse them with "vovernment" funds, thereby further destroying jobs. Yes, increasing the cost of energy also destroys jobs, in addition to directly impacting the ppor.
6. A relatively small thing, but cumulatively a BIG problem for the poor from leftistst policies: The cost of LIGHT BULBS is going to increase as incandescent bulbs are outlawed/phased out. This increase in cost is true of so many products that you might suspect the left of deliberately waiging a clandestine war on the poor just so the poor will look to the leftfor "salvation" (a good trick, if you can pull it off, and the left so far has). What have all of those envrionmental restrictions and regulations already done to the cost of cars? Increased it thousands of dollars. My brother, the former truck company owner, can tell you how the leftists have put regulatioins on truck engires that will soon require the engirnes to return exhaust to the air CLEANER than it goes into the engine, at a cost, PER TRUCK, of some $15,0000-$20,000 (including regulations put in effect within the past few years, and regulations scheduled to go into effect in about 2010). This not only affects the cost of trucking, but the cost of FOOD (and all other products shipped by truck).
7. Yes, the constant increase in taxes on the "rich", and business, destroys jobs for the poor (in case you did not get the point in the above).
8. Did I mention the increase in "sin" taxes on cigarettes, liquor, fatty foods, etc? Yep. Disproportionately hurt the poor, and only incidentally may "help" the poor by discouraging this conduct (tax on SEX would probably help them more). I say this because it is clear that leftists are not really passing these taxes to HELP the poor, but to at least pretend to "increase" revenue for leftist programs like health care. IF these taxes really prevent conduct, they will raise NO additonal money (in fact, probably less money), and thus the left is LYING to you by suggesting they are raising revenue. That is true, by the way, with even income taxes, where an increase in taxes usually does NOT increase revenue (beyond the VERY short run).
9. By leftist policies which have destroyed the famiily (expecially the African-American family), leftists have almost conducted genocide against "the poor". What can you say about policies that have led to some 72% of African-American births being illegitimate, and 40% of all births. Those figures are almost inconceivable, and yet leftists pretty much ignore them (except to promote the Planned Parenthood attitude that was a major factor in this genocide of the poor--a genocide that Planned Parenthood sort of promotes directly, in addition to indirectly). Yes, our welfare programs encouraged this (leftist welfare programs). And our virtual (again leftist encouraged) endorsement of sexual promiscuity has accelreated the problem. This has been compounded by a Reverend Wright style encouragement of blacks to "blame" whites, instead of taking responisbility for their own lives. This has made their lives WORSE than they were when there was more discrimination, but also more FAMILY VALUES of the kind that helps children grow up with better lives. In fact, this blog has long been correct in saying that we are conducting a massive social experiment with our children, and that our children are not likely to survie it (without serous damage, and often literally).
10. "The poor" now get health care (Medicaid)--albeit it is going broke, and is really in deep troulble. Is not this entrie, nanufactured, health care "crisis" an attack on the poor in the cause of BRIBING the "middle class"? Of course it is. Can an attempt at total government control of all health carfe possibly help "the poor" (at least the real poor)? Of course not. The ppor need us to SAVE MEDICAID, and improve it. I know. I would return Medicaid completely to the states, who are better able to see where the money is going (and have to "apy as you go"). neverthe less, my preference is NOT a direct attack on "the poor" (merely a change of where medical care for the poor is administered). This proposed health care overhaul IS a direct attack on health care for the poor, as they suddenly face mcuh more strain on the health care system. How can they help but lose? Right now, the government is concentrating (badly) solely on the poor and elderly. As the government expands to try to centrally plan care for EVERYONE, the poor and elderly are going to fall through the cracks (along with everyone else, EXCEPT the "rich").
I could go on, almost forever, but you get the idea. Now we have the "cash for clunkers" program: yeat another direct attack upon the POOR!!!
Yes, I liststed 7 defects of this grogram. But I left out, at least directly, this major problem. I did mention Dave Ramsey's standard advice for getting out of debt: "Selll your expensive car/vehicle and BUY A CLUNKER. Note how the government is trying to destroy the ability of people to follow Ramsey's advice. The government is using taxpayer money to ELIMINATE CLUNKERS--the very thing that the poor rely on (often) for transportation (cheap transportatioin). Do you really dobut that leftists are out to DESTROY THE POOR--not by getting them out of poverty but by affirmatively destroying them. Yes, this entire, benighted "cah for clunkers" program is a perfect example of the defects of central planning. It has DISTORTED the care market out of all recognition, as taxpayers are asked to help pay for CARS for other people (unless the taxpayer can find a "clunker" to trade in, and needs a new car). The used car market is suggenly going to become materially more expensive. Dave Ramsey, eat your heart out!!! The Fedeeral Government has enacted a program to SABOTAGE your advice!!!! And, of course, it is also a program to help DESTROY the poor. Nope. It is NOT a "good ida" for the poor to GO INTO DEBT to buy a NEW CAR with this program, good a deal as it is for people who can afford it. It is, of course, too good a deal, because it completely distorts the market--not only as I have described, but probably in many ways I have not even thought of. That is apart from adding to the deficit. I would remind you that Treasury Secretary Geitner continues to say that failure to reduce the deficit will RUIN any "recovery" (ruin the country). That has led Geitner to refuse to "rule out" "middle class" taqx hikes. The simple fact is that the Federal Government, and the whole economy, is now ADDICTED to the deficit (as badly as any heroin addict who ever lived), as indicated by this "cash for clunkers" program, with its cost quickly out of control. We are NOT going to be able to "reduce the deficit", without MAJOR PAIN. Yet Geitner is right. Failure to do so will DESTROY US (the ppor quicker than the rest).
And some people wonder why I am a pessimist!!!!!! You might remember that Republicans, and even many conservatives (e.g. Rich Lowry of National Review and so many on tax credits for health care) want to BRIBE the middle class just as much as Democrtats, just in different ways (usually slightly better ways, but just as disastrous in the end).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)