Haven’t had a true open thread for a while. So what’s on your mind? As for me, I am amazed at how Obama continues to escape responsibility for the anemic economy, persistent high unemployment, continued high gas prices, and a foreign policy that resulted in the death of an Ambassador.
Tell us what’s on your mind and please keep it civil.
On his radio show this morning Glenn Beck played a clip of Iowa Senator Tom Harkin talking about wealth allocation.
“First of all, I want to disagree with those who say we have a spending problem. Everyone keeps saying we have a spending problem,” he said during a discussion on the Budget Control Act of 2011 (which includes the across-the-board spending cuts known as “sequestration”) .
“And when they talk about that, it’s like there’s an assumption that somehow we as a nation are broke,” he added.
Sen. Harkin, who sits on the Appropriations Committee, continued:
Well look at it this way, we’re the richest nation in the history of the world. We are now the richest nation in the world.
We have the highest per capita income of any major nation. That kind of begs the question, doesn’t it? If we’re so rich, why are we so broke? Is it a spending problem?
No, it’s because we have a misallocation of capital, a misallocation of wealth.
It sounded like a great topic for a thread, because, IMO, an understanding of how wealth is allocated represents one of the fundamental differences between Conservatives and Liberals.
So, just exactly how should wealth be allocated? Should it be the responsibility of government to allocate wealth, as President Obama has maintained? In a society where the government is the final arbiter of wealth allocation, who is better off, the average citizen or those in charge of allocating the wealth? Is there, or has there ever been, a society where government allocation of wealth has resulted in a high level of freedom and prosperity? Are there ANY SOCIALISTS SUCCESS STORIES?
Since the advent of LBJ’s Great Society and the War on Poverty, trillions of dollars of wealth have been re-allocated, and yet the poverty rate is the same as it was 3 decades ago, and only a couple percentage points lower than it was a half century ago. It reminds me of one of my favorite Winston Churchill quotes:
“The vice of capitalism is that there is an unequal share of the blessings; the virtue of socialism is that there is an equal share of the misery.”
The other day Watson mentioned that capitalism has been very good to him, and yet he supports a system and a president whose ultimate goal is to destroy capitalism. That seems to me to be a major disconnect. Perhaps Watson can explain the rationale behind his position.
I suspect almost all of us have a line beyond which we don’t want to see government “progress”. Clearly we haven’t reached that line for virtually anyone except an occasional fringe kook. Otherwise we’d be in the midst of a civil war or, at the very least, see the rise of violent, radical groups like the Weather Underground or the Symbionese Liberation Army reminiscent of the 60’s and 70’s. And while the number of organized militias has increased 7-fold since Obama was first elected, only a couple have engaged in any activity that’s made the news. More mainstream groups like Oath Keepers are pretty low key, and, unless you’re a member, you’ve probably not seen them mentioned on the news.
So clearly the vast majority of people, while we may complain in letters to the editor, calls to talk radio, and comments on blogs, are apparently not really all that upset with the status quo in the country right now. And yet I believe everyone has a breaking point, a point beyond which they say “no mas” (A little Spanish lingo for those of you in Rio Linda).
So, some questions for our readers: where is your line in the sand? If you have a progression of lines, what is your response at each point? If the line is an action by your state, do you move to another state? Do you try to go “off the grid”? Do you simply move from a city to a rural area? At what point do you openly resist, either as an individual or as part of a group? Is there any principle that is so important to you that you’d risk your life to defend it? Does anyone think it’s possible that the Progressives’ incremental and gradual approach will continue to succeed until we devolve into totalitarianism? If you’re a Progressive, what is it that you’re “progressing” toward? I’m guessing that even Progressives have a point beyond which they don’t want to see government go. If history shows us anything, it’s that a progression of power into the hands of a central government always ends the same way. Are you one of those “this time it will be different” people, or have you not thought that far ahead?
And finally, looking back at the last century of Progressivism, does anyone think it’s possible to reverse some of the lines we’ve already crossed, or is simply not possible to put that toothpaste back in the tube?
I’d like to see some comments from Progressives on this thread, even those who have been banned or routinely have their posts deleted. You have my word that, as long as you stay on topic and stay civil, your posts will not be deleted.
Its not really so much a question of whether or not a SEAL can be elected to the Senate from Massachusetts but, rather, whether anyone with any sense at all can. We’ll see.
Ever since the election of Barack Obama in 2008, the world has become a much safer and peaceful place. The Arab Spring brought democracy to a region badly in need of Obama’s vision and greatness, and in 2009 when the students in Iran revolted against the Mullahs, Obama stood silent and indirectly supported the ruling regime in Iran, why? Well because, Obama knows everything, and that was the right thing to do to secure Iran’s respect in the future. Unfortunately a pretty student by the name of Neda was fatally shot in cold blood in the street, but what’s a few sacrifices, right? And today, Iran is as you expect with a great leader like Obama in charge – a country that respects us and is at peace with us:
Hundreds of thousands of people marched on Sunday in Tehran and other cities chanting “Death to America” as Iran marked the 34th anniversary of the Islamic revolution that ousted the U.S.-backed shah.
In addition to Iran, after deposing their leader and bringing about democracy, Libya welcomed us by assassinating our Ambassador along with three others. This must have come as a big surprise to Obama and his very capable SecState Hillary Clinton, because they were so confident that Libya was on the road to peace that they didn’t even fortify the Embassy and ignored cables from the Ambassador asking for protection. It was all a big surprise, but the regime has imprisoned a California film maker, so at least we have addressed the problem. I mean “what difference does it make”, right? Other countries that have embraced the forward thinking vision of Obama include Mali, Sudan, Yemen, and of course Egypt where it all began with Obama’s unifying speech in Cairo. Women everywhere must have been delighted to hear the leader of the free world extend an olive branch to those men who oppress, beat and stone them to death.
Domestically, after endearing the nation by telling conservatives that they would have to “ride in the back of the bus”, by telling the Hispanic caucus to “punish their enemies”, and by calling his grandmother a “typical white person”, Obama has proceeded to bring us all even more together by increasing poverty, expanding the food stamp rolls, and increasing taxes on everyone. And speaking of women, I am sure that all American women are ecstatic to know that their leader thinks so highly of them that he doesn’t want them over burdened with a pregnancy, including his daughters, so killing that fetus really is the only option even if it does make it outside the womb. After all, I can’t think of any other choice a woman could make, can you? Obama certainly has unified us all, hasn’t he? We are all in this decline together. Isn’t it great!
No, I haven’t read his “manifesto” and I’m not inclined to ever do so. You want me to read your revolutionary manifesto? Then engage in a full scale attack on a police station or military base – don’t bushwhack unarmed people, especially if one of them is merely the daughter of the person you’re mad at. Real revolutionaries are manly and do the right thing. But what Dorner has done and is doing is of less interest to me than some of the reactions I’ve seen.
Twitchy has been diligent in gathering reactions, and Robert Wargas went over to Huffington Post and got a large sample, as well. What is happening is that a lot of our liberal friends out there are finding much to cheer about in the actions of Dorner. Dorner is described as a hero – which does make a little bit of sense once you place yourself in a liberal mindset: liberals have a long history of applauding cowards who attack the unarmed in the name of “justice”. The Los Angeles Police Department is described as a pack of racist pigs who are getting what they deserve, and t his is after decades of the LAPD making every possible effort – often to the detriment of actual law enforcement activities – to implement “diversity” at the command of our liberals.
This is all very bizarre. Liberals are essentially applauding violent, insane attacks upon the sources of their own power – and describing someone as a hero who, had he been of the right, they would have condemned as a lunatic. Ultimately, this whole case is just another bit of proof that we are living in the Age of Lies…so much moral confusion that way too many people here – starting with Dorner – are disconnected from reality
Pretty much…
This is a idea I’ve been kicking around for a while. Has anyone here ever asked his or her Congressman or Senators what criteria they rely on when they write a bill, co-sponsor a bill or vote on a bill? If you’ve ever read a House or Senate bill, particularly one of the uber-long and complicated ones like The Affordable Care Act or Dodd-Frank, you’ve probably wondered if there are any criteria at all, other than to make it so long and complicated that no one will or can read it. I’ll bet, without a great deal of effort, we here at B4V can come up with a comprehensive list of criteria that we could forward to Congress in the form of an open letter.
Number one, IMO, would be, what is the goal of the legislation, and is the means to achieve that goal allowed by the Constitution?
Second: do the projected benefits outweigh the projected costs? (ie. can we afford it?)
Third: Has the issue been addressed before, and, if so, what was faulty about previous legislation that prevented it from solving the problem? IOW, is it a new idea, or has it been tried before?
Fourth: will the proposed legislation duplicate any existing program/s (think the dozens of federal jobs and job training programs currently in existence)?
Fifth: is there a sunset provision in the bill in the event that (a) it doesn’t achieve the stated goal, or (b) it does achieve the stated goal?
Well, I think you get the idea. Everyone feel free to chip in. I have a feeling we can come up with a very long list, most of which will come as a complete and utter surprise to our lawmakers.
Well here we are going into year 5 of the Obama oligarchy and I can’t help but be amazed at how liberals, who were once so principled in human rights, minority rights, fiscal restraint, advancement for the poor, and smart foreign policy have abandoned those positions possibly in light of their failures, but whom have also redirected their energies at demonizing any and all opposition, led by none other than their Leader.
It wasn’t long ago that their then future Leader was excoriating the current President for “taking out a credit card from China” and spending their grandchildren’s money for political expediency, and claiming that to be morally wrong and unpatriotic. Well that same Leader has now doubled the credit line on that credit card, wants even more credit, and claims it to be “investing” now in our future, with nary a peep from his loyal and devoted base. It wasn’t long ago that the Democrats who were in the minority claimed it to be their patriotic duty to oppose the majority and “fight” for what they believe in, claiming in to be the “heart of a democracy”. In fact their beloved pant suit politician once aggressively proclaimed:
It wasn’t long ago that 6% unemployment was considered too high, that 3% GDP growth was considered anemic and the beginning of a recession, and that “enhanced interrogations” were a violation of civil rights, but now we learn that they consider 8% unemployment to be an improvement, that 2% GDP growth is a sign of good things to come and that fatal drone strikes are the messy results of war.
In fact, we are learning quite a bit about our American leftists as this Obama oligarchy embarks upon its second term, none of which is very pleasant. One of our leftists here claimed that enhanced interrogations were a primary motivating factor to switch allegiance to a party that was more strident about protecting human rights, only to mildly disapprove of fatal drone strikes on 16 year old boys. We have also learned that other leftists who were once sticklers for the “rule of law” now have no problem with executive orders on issues like immigration that bypass Congress and create policy by fiat. We also learn that those same liberals who were against “wars of choice” and deposing world leaders, suddenly had a change of heart when those same actions were taken against Libya. And in respects to Libya, our liberals are curiously uninterested in learning the facts of the events that surround the death of our Ambassador. In fact when their favorite pant suit politician was asked about it, she claimed “what difference does it make”, and proceeded to enter into retirement amid fanfare of glowing accolades.
I am sure I missed quite a bit, so I welcome all of my conservative colleagues to chime in on how duplicitous, hypocritical, demagogic and shameless our liberals, and their ruling elite, have become.
Blogs For Victory 
You must be logged in to post a comment.