We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Tuesday, July 14. 2009
In The Consequences of Big Government, Samuelson begins:
Conservatives fear the monopolistic power of the State and view expanding businesses as a blessing; Libs fear the power of private enterprise and big industries, and view expanding government as a blessing. I view the former as more in the American vein. We too often forget that it was the Brit Parliament that we warred with in 1776 - not the King. And all they wanted to do was to collect more taxes...
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
morning, all -
Just a few points
First, the interpretation about libs and industry... how can libs fear big industry if the uber-lib d'jour has recently anointed himself CEO of GM?
Answer, part one: because he's not a lib; he's a fascist. Answer, part two: as is most of the democrat apparatchik into whom's lap our distracted and dyslectic American voting population has dumped the reins of power.
The premise of libs fearing big industry is therefore incorrect; these are not libs. Loro Sono Fascisti.
Second, when questioning chosen1 and his actions to date, the core assumptions underlying the questioning are that what he is doing is out of the ordinary, that big government is implied to be harmful and therefore we - or at least, most pundits - presume that he'll slew towards the center at some point.
What if the norms that we have lived with are in fact anathema to chosen1? What if his actions are intended to do away with small government/free market/individual rights in such a way that it would be very difficult to re-establish these things in the near future?
Samuelson at least gets part of this right wherein he expresses alarm at the potential damage, but he still gives chosen1 the benefit of the doubt in temporizing chosen1 & the dhimmi Congress' seeming "lack of foresight" in not adequately "...contemplating the adverse consequences..." of these actions. Samuelson believes - as do a vast majority of punditry, indeed of the nation - that Obama and the dhimmis must somehow come to their senses soon on this.
To this I can only say, No Sir, they will not. The dhimmis have very good foresight, thank you very much; and chosen1, even more so. Oh, they do see the same effects as we, but we're not looking at the same thing, because we do not want the same results.
We Conservatives are making a grievous error to the harm of the Nation in assuming that the left wants what we want. What Samuelson defines as adverse consequences in the eye of a Conservative is in fact, Ambrosia to the leftist... and to Obama.
Given chosen1's record so far, and that he has told us the truth (as he sees it...) inasmuch as he views the Constitution to be too limiting, has promised to fundamentally change America, etc.; I strongly believe that our punditry needs to wake up, identify this man for M/C he is, and show what a danger he and his fellow dhimmi-crats now pose to our way of life.
It is ironic, at least imho, that when Dubya (bless him) was in the White House, he was maligned, vilified and abused, these negative assaults were based on screeching and frothing insanities and had no basis in fact.
Contrast this to the current occupant of 1600; we know nothing about him - and that's perfectly ok with the half of the electorate that voted for him like lemmings going over the cliff. All records of school, all school grades and writings, even his birth certificate are wrapped up tighter than a Gordian Knot. We know that he campaigned on being a centrist, yet has completely punked a republican minority that is only too willing to bend over and accomodate his probings.
The point of the irony in this regard; Conservatives have ample - and I mean TONS - of ammunition with which to attack Obama and the dhimmis... and ALL of it is based on fact or verifiable actions already taken by these fascists. Yet we do not see these political assaults; instead we get this trope from Samuelson et al, that usually sounds like "...when is Obama going to come to his senses..." - and it looks and sounds awful stupid from where I'm standing.
But I may be wrong:
Lets say for examples sake (or some twisted attempt to be fair in my comments, take your pick...) that all the above are just my opinions about chosen1. Well then, let's look at what he has done and hasn't done in his "body of work" of these past 6-odd months. His actions are not those of someone who defends America, but rather blames us. His spending policies are not those of a man who believes in free markets and American exceptionalism, but instead condemns the former, ridicules and undermines the latter, and sees himself (if the very high frequency of usage of the personal pronoun in his decrees are any indication...) as "fixing" all this - all for our own good. He negotiates treaties affecting our strategic defense, and floats the suggestion via his constabulary that "...senate ratification may be temporarily bypassed..." for this act.
The act that most clearly "tells" us who chosen1 really is? His response to two international crises (sp?) where freedom was under assault.
IN IRAN, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DID NOT SUPPORT FREEDOM, AND ACTUALLY STRENGTHENED THE IRANIAN TYRANNY BY HIS VACILLATION. He vacillated for days as Iranian citizens stood up to the brutal mullahs and their thugs with their blood, finally stating something that sounds like, "you're on your own, fellas; we'll respect your sovereignty"... which basically means he supports the murderers of that totalitarian regime.
BY CONTRAST IN HONDURAS, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IMMEDIATELY THREW HIS LOT IN WITH THE LEFTIST THUG WHO DEFIED HIS COUNTRY'S CONSTITUTION AND CALLED THE SUBSEQUENT AND LEGAL ACTIONS BY HONDURAN GOVERNMENT AND MILITARY A "COUP", DEMANDING THE THUG BE REINSTATED. Nor will I go into details about what happened in Honduras here; because it is so recent that any thinking person reading my remarks here should know what happened in Honduras.
In closing, I think question posed by Samuelson:
"how big a government do we want?" is the wrong question.
Chosen1 wants a bigger government, something where gov controls main economic decisions.
Something like Nazi Germany.
In other words, it's all about the Power. Obama wants it, and he's well on the way to getting and consolidating it (shades of Odinga...).
Howdy, Jacksonian Grouch
I fear you are only too right. Those who claim the name "progressives" seem to actively want to stop progress: the progress of those living in squalor to live decently, the progress of technology to make lives more pleasant, richer, or just survivable sometimes, the progress of individual liberty not merely to do (as in sexual license or the use of drugs) but to achieve (as in establishing a useful business or developing useful services). Or perhaps they want people to achieve but not to be rewarded for it in any material way.
His Hopeful Changeness seems to be instinctively anti-American and anti-Western-values. His default response is that the leftist in any situation, being the anti-American, must be in the right and must be HHC's ally at some level. How he squares this with Islam is beyond me. Some Islamic societies are perhaps collectivist, but nearly all have far greater gaps between the lives of the wealthy and the lives of nearly all their citizens. I have concluded that HHC sides with the Muslim because the Muslim is anti-American; in a choice between two Muslims, he chooses the one even more anti-American.
Many circumstances have come together to enable HHC to do such ruinous things. Like other daft leaders, he would be only a shrill voice except he has allies and helpers either as daft as he, or planning to profit by his actions.
If governments stuck to their proper roles, corruption would remain a private practice for the most part. But as government becomes the arbiter of winners and losers, inevitably some act to stack the deck, to corrupt the process. In Obama's case, they may do this more with poisoned honey than with actual graft. The effect is the same.
I have thought long for a method for trimming the size of the federal government. My answer is to create a government efficiency bureau, even a cabinet level post, to monitor other government agencies for efficiency and fidelity to purpose. Staffed with the most god-awful apparatchiks to be found, the agency will not be funded. Funding only comes from defunding other programs that have become useless bureaucracies. I would submit the old Interstate Commerce Commission, the dreaded ICC. They no longer do anything. Ostensibly they are collecting data but one no longer requires a whole government bureau for this. C'ya. Eventually, the ifficiency bureau will run out other agencies to feed upon. Done right, it will feed on itself. Thoughts anyone?
I like it. But to be truly effective they would have to be independent of the three branches. Otherwise they'd be snuffed out same as the independent IG's are now being fired due to partisanship maneuvers. And, if outside the three branches, imagine what havoc they could cause. You'd need the "Three Hundred" for them to remain focused on the cause, I'm afraid.
to Jerry's suggestion:
So, the solution to curing the snake pit is to add another snake?
"...If governments stuck to their proper roles..." sounds about as achievable as "...properly and correctly implemented, communism is the most perfect form of government..."
For my part, I yield to another gentleman's take on how to keep government in check:
"...what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants."
Thomas Jefferson, 1787