Archive for the ‘Bureaucracy’ Category
Ramirez is right on target. It’s getting to be the norm for him:
happens, it will be in spite of Obama’s best efforts to derail it. There’s no question about it.
And this certainly should be a Romney talking point for the upcoming general election. And the word, “Solyndra” should be said many times.
This guy (Obama) is so beholden to the left that he can’t spit straight. Probably it’s what he actually believes. But it is also his base and he doesn’t dare alienate them.
would rather live in poverty than to take advantage of the huge oil reserves found in their state.
These guys are NOT the sharpest tools in the shed, so to speak. It’s probably not gross IQ that is the main issue, but an adherence to leftism. That’s OK, Mexico will soon take over, and you can just bet that they won’t have any qualms about selling that oil! And I doubt that they will be environmentally responsible… This is called, “Cutting off your nose to spite your face.”
We hear that term bandied about fairly often. But what does it mean?
The hard left will say (contra the right) that Obama is not socialist and they will use a dictionary definition to “prove” that they are correct. The dictionary tells us that Socialism is gov’t control of the means of production.
And indeed this seizing of private property by the gov’t is crucial to this definition. If you own a shoe factory, be prepared to have the gov’t take your shoes and give them to someone else. And it is not a bad definition in many ways.
But that is often not what conservatives are saying. Yes, there are some egregious examples such as Gov’t Motors, but in the U.S. it is usually more of a “Fabian” socialism. In reality, we can call it “Nanny-statism.” We see it plainly in a harshly graduated income tax, where person A has to pay a different rate than person B. And this, when taken to the logical extreme, is socialism by any traditional definition.
But when something like 25% of the population depends on the gov’t for basic needs and something like 47% pay no income taxes at all, the temptation is to label this extreme Nanny-statism “Socialism.” Basically, it is seizing someone’s property and giving it to someone else, someone that the ruling class deems more worthy. There’s still a ruling class, let there be no doubt about it. The apparatchiks will have a retreat at one of their dachas in order to divide up the spoils of their plunder.
And force is a HUGE part of leftism (and always has been). In fact, it is in many ways a defining characteristic–if you see force in economics you can bet your bottom dollar that some form of liberalism is in play. If you resist giving up your goods, you will be put in jail. If you try and leave, you will be shot. Let’s be honest in saying that this system relies on violence. It does. There may be a “smiley face” (superficially) on it, but it is quite deadly to individuals.
So when a President openly (though inadvertently ) tells us that he is going to “spread the wealth” and spends incontinently in order to re-distribute money and when Hillary Clinton slips and tells us that she is going to take from us in order to give to someone else, the word, “Socialism” springs to mind.
No, really. Well, not really shocking. More like par for the course. Lefties just can’t resist meddling in crap they don’t understand. To quote one professional friend of mine (a colleague), if we could just keep people from trying to help we would sure be a lot better off!
That’s a lesson the left has never learned. It also seems like a lesson that the can’t or won’t learn.
promised change and we certainly got it! <sigh>
THIS should be the major theme of the 2012 elections.