The School Boy, "Progressives," the "Ungovernable," the Party of "No!" & Left-Wing Wackos
The School-Boy, “Progressive,” the “Ungovernable” & Party of “No!”
When Mr. Obama was interviewed by Bill O’Reilly and asked whether he was socialistic, for wealth redistribution & raising taxes, he replied that “Well, Teddy Roosevelt started the progressive (graduated) income tax.” This is the same kind of excuse he gives for his record deficit spending – “well, Bush started it.” It’s really the basic grade-school boy’s response to a parent or teacher after being caught escalating something – “well, HE started it.”
But we all need to grow out of grade school -- especially the president of the United States, and especially when dealing with weighty matters like taxes & spending that affect hundreds of millions of us and our children, and which will ripple through the global economy. It’s not a valid excuse to do even more of what someone else did – more is not necessarily better – and especially when it comes to debt, and throttling back of the employing businesses through higher taxes. We’re just now hearing of Greece’s and the U.K.’s financial abysses that may well bring about European financial collapse. And we want to go the same route? Can’t we also learn from California’s & Los Angeles’ financial disasters? As a wise mother would say, "If Billy jumped off a bridge, would you, too?"
I agree with Glenn Beck, that both parties have taken on an alcoholic-like addiction to big spending, and need to sober-up before we’re driven to ruin. The Democrats just seem to have a bigger problem. An intervention is what’s needed – someone needs to say “No!” And if that’s the Republican Party, and the Tea-Party Movement, so be it. Just as war sometimes IS the answer, so “no” sometimes is as well. At the appropriate time, the party of “No” (or anyone regardless of party who says it) is the right party. And the majority of Americans, necessarily including many Democrats, apparently are awakening from their slumber and are against the accelerating tax and spend juggernaut.
But the all-wise liberal-left know better than the unwashed masses, and now find them “ungovernable.” Just more excuses -- blaming others, which they’re very good at. Of course when they were the obstructionists during Republican administrations, they were fighting the “tyranny of the majority,” doing their democratic duty. Reagan, Bush and others nonetheless got things done without accusing the electorate of being ungovernable. Maybe that’s because they knew how to govern, unlike this inexperienced president (who gives lip service to bipartisanship), and incompetent House & Senate majority leaders, drunken with the illusory absolute majority.
But Obama’s reference to the “progressive” income tax seems to give the term “progressive” (which they prefer to “liberal” or “socialistic” or “wealth redistribution”) a different nuance than many probably understand by it (economic vs social). And of course making the tax rates even more progressive (less or none for low incomes, higher for upper incomes) results in even more wealth redistribution, or socialism.
Of course “socialism” also includes the element of government control over the means of production, but we’re already seeing more of that after the bailouts, control over health care, increased energy/environmental penalty taxes & regulations, etc.
Left-Wing Wackos
Now there’s a term you don’t hear in the media. Unlike the well-worn term “right-wing wacko.”
Speaking of blaming others, left-wing bloggers’ knee-jerk reaction to the pilot who crashed into the IRS building, was that he was a product of the right-wing anti-government, tea-party movement. Typical of their depth of knowledge and facts. It turns out that he was anti-big-business and anti-religion – doesn’t sound like most conservatives or tea-partiers to me. And he had not shown any political leanings to the Tea Party or Republicans. He did feel wronged (by the IRS), and justified in taking extreme measures – killing and destroying property. Sounds a bit like the clearly left-wing (strong Obama supporter) woman professor who felt wronged from an entitlement (tenure), and justified in killing colleagues. Or the Unabomber who felt environmentally wronged and justified in serial murder. Or the Las Vegas man who recently killed at a courthouse because he was wronged from his entitlement welfare payments.
I’d postulate that although there are wackos on the Right and Left, the more rational on the Left more often express and act out their emotional rage than the rational Right. I base that in part on personal experience. And comparing right-wing (e.g. Tea Party) demonstrations with those of the Left (including Acorn & union thugs). And some generalizations, observed by others as well, that the Left are much more dogmatic and emotion-based (logic-starved?), and less likely to have restraining religious values. They can rationally reconcile radical expressions with their secular values -- the ends justifies the means. And they have a strong sense of entitlement, rather than personal responsibility. It’s a much more potentially dangerous combination, as has been proven in history – take the 20th century for example. It was the Communists & National Socialists who were the biggest all-time mass murderers, and who otherwise wreaked havoc on their own countries (and those around them) in every aspect of life.
For all their talk of right-wing wackos (another example of projection), the much bigger danger is the left-wing wackos, and those who lead us down the left-wing path as a nation.
When Mr. Obama was interviewed by Bill O’Reilly and asked whether he was socialistic, for wealth redistribution & raising taxes, he replied that “Well, Teddy Roosevelt started the progressive (graduated) income tax.” This is the same kind of excuse he gives for his record deficit spending – “well, Bush started it.” It’s really the basic grade-school boy’s response to a parent or teacher after being caught escalating something – “well, HE started it.”
But we all need to grow out of grade school -- especially the president of the United States, and especially when dealing with weighty matters like taxes & spending that affect hundreds of millions of us and our children, and which will ripple through the global economy. It’s not a valid excuse to do even more of what someone else did – more is not necessarily better – and especially when it comes to debt, and throttling back of the employing businesses through higher taxes. We’re just now hearing of Greece’s and the U.K.’s financial abysses that may well bring about European financial collapse. And we want to go the same route? Can’t we also learn from California’s & Los Angeles’ financial disasters? As a wise mother would say, "If Billy jumped off a bridge, would you, too?"
I agree with Glenn Beck, that both parties have taken on an alcoholic-like addiction to big spending, and need to sober-up before we’re driven to ruin. The Democrats just seem to have a bigger problem. An intervention is what’s needed – someone needs to say “No!” And if that’s the Republican Party, and the Tea-Party Movement, so be it. Just as war sometimes IS the answer, so “no” sometimes is as well. At the appropriate time, the party of “No” (or anyone regardless of party who says it) is the right party. And the majority of Americans, necessarily including many Democrats, apparently are awakening from their slumber and are against the accelerating tax and spend juggernaut.
But the all-wise liberal-left know better than the unwashed masses, and now find them “ungovernable.” Just more excuses -- blaming others, which they’re very good at. Of course when they were the obstructionists during Republican administrations, they were fighting the “tyranny of the majority,” doing their democratic duty. Reagan, Bush and others nonetheless got things done without accusing the electorate of being ungovernable. Maybe that’s because they knew how to govern, unlike this inexperienced president (who gives lip service to bipartisanship), and incompetent House & Senate majority leaders, drunken with the illusory absolute majority.
But Obama’s reference to the “progressive” income tax seems to give the term “progressive” (which they prefer to “liberal” or “socialistic” or “wealth redistribution”) a different nuance than many probably understand by it (economic vs social). And of course making the tax rates even more progressive (less or none for low incomes, higher for upper incomes) results in even more wealth redistribution, or socialism.
Of course “socialism” also includes the element of government control over the means of production, but we’re already seeing more of that after the bailouts, control over health care, increased energy/environmental penalty taxes & regulations, etc.
Left-Wing Wackos
Now there’s a term you don’t hear in the media. Unlike the well-worn term “right-wing wacko.”
Speaking of blaming others, left-wing bloggers’ knee-jerk reaction to the pilot who crashed into the IRS building, was that he was a product of the right-wing anti-government, tea-party movement. Typical of their depth of knowledge and facts. It turns out that he was anti-big-business and anti-religion – doesn’t sound like most conservatives or tea-partiers to me. And he had not shown any political leanings to the Tea Party or Republicans. He did feel wronged (by the IRS), and justified in taking extreme measures – killing and destroying property. Sounds a bit like the clearly left-wing (strong Obama supporter) woman professor who felt wronged from an entitlement (tenure), and justified in killing colleagues. Or the Unabomber who felt environmentally wronged and justified in serial murder. Or the Las Vegas man who recently killed at a courthouse because he was wronged from his entitlement welfare payments.
I’d postulate that although there are wackos on the Right and Left, the more rational on the Left more often express and act out their emotional rage than the rational Right. I base that in part on personal experience. And comparing right-wing (e.g. Tea Party) demonstrations with those of the Left (including Acorn & union thugs). And some generalizations, observed by others as well, that the Left are much more dogmatic and emotion-based (logic-starved?), and less likely to have restraining religious values. They can rationally reconcile radical expressions with their secular values -- the ends justifies the means. And they have a strong sense of entitlement, rather than personal responsibility. It’s a much more potentially dangerous combination, as has been proven in history – take the 20th century for example. It was the Communists & National Socialists who were the biggest all-time mass murderers, and who otherwise wreaked havoc on their own countries (and those around them) in every aspect of life.
For all their talk of right-wing wackos (another example of projection), the much bigger danger is the left-wing wackos, and those who lead us down the left-wing path as a nation.
Comments
Post a Comment