This is going to get ugly. Very ugly. This isn’t just about our society eating itself any more. This is about the takers sucking the marrow from the bones of the makers.
I Hear The Fat Lady Singing…
April 1, 2011 by Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere
Posted in accountability, Barack Hussein Obama, Consent of the Governed, entitlement culture, Federal Bailouts, Institutional Stupidity, Politics, The Politics of Lowered Expectations™, What Really Matters, Why the Internet Is Fun and Informative, WordPress Political Blogs | 18 Comments
18 Responses
Leave a reply to Car in Cancel reply
- "I want these “…and I’m a communist” dumbshits to have a Coming to Jesus moment that they will NEVER forget. I want them staring in to the eyes of every American who knows that government has very specifically designated roles, and are fed-up to their eyeballs with the overeaching, paternalistic, oppressive monster that the Left (with help from the establishment Right) set loose on us. I want those greedy, lazy, control-freaky bastards quaking with fear when they are met with an electorate determined to wrest their liberties, including the right to fail, back from a government that would enslave us all to the service of a soul-killing mediocrity. I want their asses so horrifiyingly and memorably whipped that the mere memory will cow a century’s worth of socialist/communist/marxist acoyltes into an ashamed silence." ________________________________ "When a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we no longer have a Constitution, we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is according to their own views of what it ought to mean."--Justice Curtis, Dissent, Dred Scott v. Sanford
- "The very idea of power, and the right of the people to establish government, presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established Government. All obstructions to the execution of its laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberations and actions of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency."- George Washington
-
The punishment which the wise suffer who refuse to take part in the government, is to live under the government of worse men.
-PlatoOne of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.
-PlatoOpinion is the medium between knowledge and ignorance.
-Plato Meta
-
Recent Posts
Your Host, Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere, a/k/a Blackiswhite, Imperial Agent Provocateur.- Comments? Questions? Hate Mail? Blackiswhite1@yahoo.com
Recent Comments
- The Vanity of #Caring – Dispatches From Cascadia on The Fatigue of Empty Gestures
- Jihawg Ammo: Pork-Infused Bullets to Deter Terrorists and Weekend Links! - Victory Girls Blog on The Questions I’m Not Hearing
- Ft. Hood Shooter Nidal Hasan's Statement and Weekend Links - Victory Girls Blog on Federal Follies, Part 3
- What Really Happened to Seal Team 6 and Weekend Links! - Victory Girls Blog on It’s Time For Something Different
- Dav Woo on I Will Not Comply
Top Clicks
- None
Top Posts
Pages
Archives
- February 2018
- August 2017
- July 2017
- March 2017
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- July 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
Blogroll
- Absolute Moral Authority
- Andrew Breitbart's Big Government
- Brutal Honesty In A Sea Of Lies
- Car In's Voice of the Resistance Blog
- DPUD
- Eternity Road
- H2
- Head Muscle
- In A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World
- In2thefray
- Innocent Bystanders
- Liberty's Torch
- maine now and then
- Nice Deb
- Politichicks
- The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
- The Camp of The Saints
- The G
- The Old Place…My Blog Cradle
- The Other McCain
- The Rutherford Lawson Blog
- The Sunlight Room
- Uncivil Peasants
- Victory Girls
The Reading List
On Deck:
Slander, by Ann Coulter
A Ship Possessed, by Alton Gansky
The Revolutionary Paul Revere, by Joel J. Miller
The Weight of Glory, by C.S. Lewis
Winning The New Civil War, by Robert P. Dugan, Jr.
Persecution, by David Limbaugh
American Sphinx, by Joseph J. Ellis
Founders on the Founders, edited by John P. Kaminski
American Lion, by Jon Meacham
Jefferson-Writings, by Thomas Jefferson
the Bible, Various Translations
Recently Finished:
Men In Black, by Mark R. Levin
A Conservative Manifesto, by Mark R. Levin
Blacklisted By History, by M. Stanton Evans
Liberal Fascism, by Jonah Goldberg
Separate and Unequal, by Harvey Fireside
How Should We Then Live? by Francis Shaffer
The 5,000 Year Leap, by W. Cleon Skousen
The Making of America, by W. Cleon Skousen
Out of Time, by Alton Gansky
Vanished, by Alton Gansky
A Grief Observed, by C.S. Lewis
The Screwtape Letters, by C.S. Lewis
The Problem of Pain, by C.S. Lewis
Mere Christianity, by C.S. Lewis
The Truth War, by John MacArthur
Who Needs A Superhero, by H. Michael Brewer
Faith of Our Founding Fathers, by Tim LaHaye
Invaluable Reference
The Federalist Papers,by John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison
Websters Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, Abridged
The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States, by Benjamin Franklin Morris
Nelson's Compact Bible Commentary, by Earl Radmacher, Ron Allen & H. Wayne House
John Courson's Application Commentary-New Testament
Twitter Updates
Tweets by BlackiswhiteIC
Reading Moore’s article, I have to wonder why the conservative answer is always destructive instead of productive. OK, public jobs are all over the place and unions have interfered with keeping public costs down. I’ll buy that.
But why is the only prescription that Moore (and by extension you) focuses on one of cutting down the public sector? Why hasn’t he written an article on pumping up the private sector? Where is his article on some private firm moving ahead with a high speed rail solution? Where are his other manufacturing ideas that would put America back to work in the private sector?
It’s the typical griping about the problem and prescribing take-away instead of positive solutions.
It’s worse that that BIC. The government is desperately fudging numbers to make it look like the private sector is improving, when it is not – unemployment is much worse than advertised.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/146900/Gallup-Finds-Unemployment-Rate-March.aspx
But why is the only prescription that Moore (and by extension you) focuses on one of cutting down the public sector?
Because the growing public sector does nothing to build wealth or add value. Nothing.
It does, however, excell at making the building of wealth or the addition of value that much harder to achieve for those willing to take the risk, and at some point, this growing public sector discourages that risk taking.
You can’t drive to work in a regulation. You can’t eat a federal search warrant, and you cannot live in the findings of a Congressional subcommittee. But all of these things make providing housing, durable goods, and food that much harder to accomplish.
And while I cannot speak for Moore’s philosophy, mine is very simple. For too long, the federal government has done too much that extends beyond the duties specifically left to it by the people, and at an outrageous cost that we no longer have the luxury of pretending that we can afford.
Period.
Yes. I know what I’m saying, and I shout it at the radio and TV whenever I hear people supposedly on “my side” proposing the slow boat to ruin rather than the fast track to destruction approach.
Repeal and replace Obamacare?
HELL NO! REPEAL AND BE DONE WITH IT!!!
Reform Social Security by raising the retirement age?
HELL NO! IF YOU ARE UNDER 55, YOU WON”T GET IT. PERIOD.
Reform Medicare so it is paid for by result and not by volume?
HELL NO! NOT ONLY IS THE IDEA STUPID, BUT IT IS NOT THE BUSINESS OF THE GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE HEALTH CARE TO ANYONE OTHER THAN SOLDIERS AND OTHER EMPLOYEES DELIBERATELY PUT IN HARM’S WAY ON OUR BEHALF!!! AND IT DEFINATELY SHOULDN’T BE FUNDING IT THROUGH MEDICAID TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO THE STATES!
Why hasn’t he written an article on pumping up the private sector?
With what money? If the government requires more and more of the GDP to pay for itself and service its debt, less capital is available to invest in new construction, new technologies, research, etc.
Where is his article on some private firm moving ahead with a high speed rail solution?
Why do lefties have a love affair with high speed rail? Seriously. In order to get it, we would have to lay all new track. The land has to come from somewhere, and it doesn’t come cheap. If the owner doesn’t want to sell, then you’re stuck, unless you can convince the government to steal it for you, and that still costs money (that we don’t have), and then there is that little fact that outside of Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor, people aren’t overly fond of trains. They prefer the independence that autos provide. And I suspect that if Amtrak was not subsidized to the degree that it is, it would be far less popular than it is any way.
Where are his other manufacturing ideas that would put America back to work in the private sector?
First of all, where was he required to come up with these ideas? Secondly, no amount of ideas matter when your labor force is rife with the kind of “The company owes me” attitude that has made auto and aircraft manufacture the increasingly expensive proposition that it is in this country, especially when the legacy costs make a significant impact on the bottom line before pricing for the finished goods is determined. Add in a bevy of foreign competitors without either of these factors making competitive pricing in the market that much more difficult, and you have a recipe for more problems than answers (and no, the answer is not government intervention, bailouts, partnerships, or regulation).
It’s the typical griping about the problem and prescribing take-away instead of positive solutions.
Rutherford. When government has to borrow to continue to offer services that it shouldn’t be in the business of providing in the first place, and the economy cannot take finagling the tax rates for people who are in the $60k to $200k a year bracket (small businesses) without doing grevious harm, then yes, the answer is CUT.
Start with everything the government shouldn’t be doing in the first place. AMTRAK subsidies? Gone. Entitlements? Gone. Funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting? Gone. Funding for midnight basketball? Gone. Funding for the Department of Education? Gone. Funding for the Department of Energy? Gone. Funding for the National Endowment for the Arts? Gone.
You get the picture.
Rutherford, stop acting like a fucking idiot.
You know what has to be done. Fuck these leaches.
Hey, Dick, how’s it hangin’? I’ve missed you. The new avatar looks downright friendly compared to the old one. Are you mellowing on me?
BiW, I look at your suggested cuts and with the exception of the social security cut (I’m assuming you’re under 55), I don’t see you sacrificing much. Is the government currently subsidizing anything you hold near and dear that you’d be willing to do without? We know you have no vested interest in CPB, DOE (neither of the E’s), NEA. Anything you’d want cut that YOU would actually miss?
Anything you’d want cut that YOU would actually miss?
Like what? I’m trying, but I can’t really think of an entitlement that I benefit from. However, I can think of a BUNCH that I pay for.
However, being familiar with your rhetoric, I assume that you are talking about defense spending. Once again, I’ll direct you to Art. I, Sect. 8, and remind you that defense is actually within Congress’ specific perview, so while it might be necessary to make cuts when we are not at war in order to restore fiscal sanity, everything that is not part of the federal government’s enumerated powers goes FIRST.
” Is the government currently subsidizing anything you hold near and dear that you’d be willing to do without?”
No, and dont bring up roads, that should be pay-as-you-go, but as so many government outlays, it has far exceeded it’s mandate.
Rutherford, an intelligent man who can read the writing on the wall — it hasn’t been at all blurry for some years now — doesn’t include government payments of any kind in his budgeting or his projections thereof. Rather:
1. He lives within his means, as far within his margin as possible;
2. He saves real money — gold, silver, copper — rather than dollars or dollar-denominated instruments;
3. He supplies himself with weapons, necessities, and as many skills as he can acquire;
4. He teaches his children to do the same;
5. He cultivates the good will of his neighbors.
My next birthday will be #60. And I support the abolition of Social Security, Medicare, and any and every other government transfer program now, this instant, without compensation to anyone, no matter how loudly he screams about having “paid into it for decades” and therefore having a “right” to it. (You only have those rights you can defend, and you certainly can’t defend a “right” to a payment from a bankrupt government, that Congress can ratchet up or down my majority vote.)
Why? Because we’ve been conned. Social Security, Medicare, et alii began as cons and have always been cons. Ponzi schemes. Pyramid swindles. You cannot get restitution from a con artist; all you can do is punish him. When the con artist is the government, the very idea of restitution is contradictory, for governments have never, ever given refunds. And if we insist on waiting for a refund before we put an end to the government’s cons, they’ll go on forever.
Unlearn your redistributionist fantasies. Learn to support yourself, rather than demanding things to which you’ve never had an enforceable right. Then pick up your jaw and learn to meet your responsibilities to your children and your elderly parents out of your own pocket. That would make Americans what they once were: men of independent mind, totally intolerant of interference into their proper affairs. It would also keep you busy enough not to fret over the loss of “your” Social Security rake-off. Among other things, you’d cease to be an object of ridicule. You might even learn some respect for others.
Ha ha ha … Yea, I wouldn’t be giving anything up either if we cut out these programs because I don’t take anything from my fellow taxpayers.
First, the public sector has been pumped-up artificially. Totally unrelated to any economic realities. Pay the employees more? Sure, since we’re not examining any bottom line here. Bigger offices, longer vacations, more generous sick leave … just keep giving, because there never is any accountability with what can be afforded. What these services are worth.
The private sector has to live in the real world. Employees get raises when a company does better. Grows. Has more demand. You can’t just “pump” them up by political dictate.
Unless, of course, you get the government to subsidize them. Which is a huge major fucking FAIL.
I’m a little less stringent than Frances up there ( I say phase it all out, but aggressively). Also, I’m fine with welfare for a certain segment of society, but you need to have incentives that make it less desirable.
Mostly, I am saddened by the lack of responsibility people have for their own. Grandma needs to go into a nursing home (funded by medicare) instead of being cared for by her family.
These care costs are enormous. Not necessarily the medical side – the caring side. How much does it cost to house folks in those homes? A fortune.
How come no one addresses THAT cost to elderly care?
Actually, no. The defense of our country matters to all of us at a certain level, and on a day-to-day basis is something none of us really think too much about (let’s be honest). So no, I wasn’t thinking about defense spending.
On the contrary, your answer was just as I expected. Since you don’t benefit from the “largess” of the government, isn’t it awfully easy for you to demand cuts?
It’s a judgment call. When the country’s going broke, sure, stopping the NEA seems like real easy low hanging fruit. I wouldn’t join protest marches about it. But cutting subsidies to early education (HeadStart) … is that really going to help more than it hurts?
Should the man whose welfare does not depend on these government programs be the one calling the shots on which ones to kill?
On the contrary, your answer was just as I expected. Since you don’t benefit from the “largess” of the government, isn’t it awfully easy for you to demand cuts?
Since I pay the bills … yes. That’s the way it should be. I’m looking at my ROI, and it’s looking awfully dim.
It’s a judgment call. When the country’s going broke, sure, stopping the NEA seems like real easy low hanging fruit. I wouldn’t join protest marches about it. But cutting subsidies to early education (HeadStart) … is that really going to help more than it hurts?
Headstart is an EXCELLENT place to start. You know that it’s value is next to null, right? That all advancement made, in head start, are lost by second grade? That it’s costs per pupil are phenomenal – I’m thinking it’s around $20,000 per student, but that was a few months ago that I looked that statistic up.
I’ve got a great idea. These parents could … I dunno READ to their kids? I know, I know. I’m asking too much. Two of my daughter’s team mates were BOTH in headstart, and I’m perfectly aware that both sets of parents 1) know how to read and 2) are very involved parents. But, they both “qualified.”
Should the man whose welfare does not depend on these government programs be the one calling the shots on which ones to kill?
The man PAYING for those programs? Yes.
I’ve got another question for you: should the man who has no skin in the game call the shots? For them, it’s all free money. Tax “the rich” at 100%. What’s the difference, right?
On the contrary, your answer was just as I expected. Since you don’t benefit from the “largess” of the government, isn’t it awfully easy for you to demand cuts?
Rutherford, NO ONE should ‘benefit’ from the largess of government. It isn’t the government’s purpose to be in the largesse business.
Defend the nation. Secure the borders. Deliver the mail. Punish piracy. Declare war. Secure the rights to intellectual property. Promulgate the rules and regulations for federal reservations and districts. Establish inferior federal courts. THAT’S it’s job. Not handing out mohair subsidies or grants to major in native American basketweaving techniques.
It’s a judgment call. When the country’s going broke, sure, stopping the NEA seems like real easy low hanging fruit. I wouldn’t join protest marches about it.
Which is no different than stopping subsidies to NPR, but you certainly got your nose out of joint about that, and you clung to stupid logic to advocate for your position to boot.
But cutting subsidies to early education (HeadStart) … is that really going to help more than it hurts?
Rutherford. Please. Show me where in the Constitution that funding education on ANY level is part and parcel of the duties of the federal government. It isn’t. And if it is an issue that the local community doesn’t want to take seriously enough to address on its own, then it suffers the consequences of not doing so. To say that taxpayers should shoulder the burden of pre-K schooling of children of illegal immigrants in California is not proper, nor does it meet the aims of advancing society as a whole.
Should the man whose welfare does not depend on these government programs be the one calling the shots on which ones to kill?
Rutherford. If there is a government that should be involved in dispensing “welfare”, it is state and local government, not the federal government. Welfare is not part of the federal government’s mandate, and to dispense it through the auspices of the federal government makes it inefficient, and tends to remove both the stigma and the accountability that discourages all but the most needy from going on it to begin with, and incentivising people to either get off of it as soon as possible or to seek assistance from private entities which are frequently avoided under the current scheme precisely because it requires the recipient to be far more accountable than the current federal wealth redistribution scheme.
Since I pay the bills … yes. That’s the way it should be. I’m looking at my ROI, and it’s looking awfully dim.
Yeah, that “War on Poverty” has been a dismal failure…unless the goal was to empower Democrats, in which case…”Mission Accomplished!”
I’m another one of those guys who pays the bills – even though I have not been active in the work force for the past couple of years. Yep, so many of us “retired” folks still pay taxes – and whatever benefits we receive from the government have been either reduced or held at the same level for the past couple of years (I have no complaints about that, other than it appears that some current public service employees are adamant that they should not should not have to suffer any reductions in their generous pay and benefits).
The current political scene abounds with suggestions on how to rein in “entitlements” and reduce the deficit. Sometimes a criticism is simply pointing out a problem – there is no requirement to provide solutions – and anyway, certain segments of our government have failed to pay any attention to suggestions that are not in line with their ruling philosophy.
So far the Left has nothing to offer but to spend more money on policies that are already far into deficit spending with no improvement to show for the staggering costs.
Francis, sorry to get to this so late but could you elaborate on this statement a bit? Even a link will do. I honestly want to understand better why you think these programs fall to the level of Ponzi scheme, which is a pretty dramatic charge.