If you’re a successful bureaucrat, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I lied better than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of lying politicians out there.
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was an innovative entrepreneur somewhere whose tax payments funded your position. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody’s money was taken at the threat of imprisonment and handed over to you and your cronies to pay for roads and bridges, regardless of whether they agreed to if, how, where, by whom, and at what price.
If you’ve got a high ranking position and a pretty office with a federal, state, or city flag in it — you didn’t build that. Some homeowner’s property tax, some businessman’s corporate/payroll tax, or some wage earner’s income tax money was used to fund it, somebody else made that happen.
The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Businesses and voluntary open source communities made the Internet useful, only to have bureaucrats utilize those services to enhance the efficiency of their spying, looting and propaganda, and to support the entire edifice of an ever more growing, bloated, and intrusive police state.
The point is, is that when we bureaucrats succeed, we succeed on the backs of hard working individuals, entrepreneurs, and future generations who weren’t even given the illusion of a choice in this matter.
Pit maverick Republican Congressman Ron Paul against President Obama in a hypothetical 2012 election match-up, and the race is – virtually dead even.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of likely voters finds Obama with 42% support and Paul with 41% of the vote. Eleven percent (11%) prefer some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided.
Ask the Political Class, though, and it’s a blowout. While 58% of Mainstream voters favor Paul, 95% of the Political Class vote for Obama.
But Republican voters also have decidedly mixed feelings about Paul, who has been an outspoken critic of the party establishment.
Obama earns 79% support from Democrats, but Paul gets just 66% of GOP votes. Voters not affiliated with either major party give Paul a 47% to 28% edge over the president.
Paul, an anti-big government libertarian who engenders unusually strong feelings among his supporters, was an unsuccessful candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. But he continues to have a solid following, especially in the growing Tea Party movement.
Twenty-four percent (24%) of voters now consider themselves a part of the Tea Party movement, an eight-point increase from a month ago. Another 10% say they are not a part of the movement but have close friends or family members who are.
Thirty-nine percent (39%) of all voters have a favorable opinion of Paul, while 30% view him unfavorably. This includes 10% with a very favorable opinion and 12% with a very unfavorable one. But nearly one-out-of-three voters (32%) are not sure what they think of Paul.
Perhaps tellingly, just 42% of Republican voters have a favorable view of him, including eight percent (8%) with a very favorable opinion. By comparison, 42% of unaffiliated voters regard him favorably, with 15% very favorable toward him.
Twenty-six percent (26%) of GOP voters think Paul shares the values of most Republican voters throughout the nation, but 25% disagree. Forty-nine percent (49%) are not sure.
Similarly, 27% of Republicans see Paul as a divisive force in the party, while 30% view him as a new direction for the GOP. Forty-two percent (42%) aren’t sure.
Among all voters, 19% say Paul shares the values of most Republican voters, and 27% disagree. Fifty-four percent (54%) are undecided.
Twenty-one percent (21%) of voters nationwide regard Paul as a divisive force in the GOP. Thirty-four percent (34%) say he is representative of a new direction for the party. Forty-five percent (45%) are not sure.
But it’s important to note than 75% of Republicans voters believe Republicans in Congress have lost touch with GOP voters throughout the nation over the past several years.
Sarah Palin, the former governor of Alaska and the GOP’s vice presidential nominee in 2008, is another Republican who has been bucking the party’s traditional leadership and was the keynote speaker at the recent Tea Party convention in Nashville. Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Republican voters say Palin shares the values of most GOP voters throughout the nation. Just 18% of Republicans see Palin as a divisive force within the GOP.
Rasmussen Reports released survey findings yesterday that take a closer look at the political views of those who say they’re part of the Tea Party movement. Among other things, 96% of those in the movement think America is overtaxed, and 94% trust the judgment of the American people more than that of America’s political leaders.
When it comes to major issues confronting the nation, 48% of voters now say the average Tea Party member is closer to their views than Obama is. Forty-four percent (44%) hold the opposite view and believe the president’s views are closer to their own.
Fifty-two percent (52%) believe the average member of the Tea Party movement has a better understanding of the issues facing America today than the average member of Congress. Thirty-five percent (35%) of voters now think Republicans and Democrats are so much alike that an entirely new political party is needed to represent the American people. Nearly half (47%) of voters disagree and say a new party is not needed
Ron Paul: We can do better with peace than with war!
This is Ron Paul at a recent Southern Republican Leadership Conference:
People one Step Closer to Waking Up
The reason why I am showing all this is not that I have any particular hopes in Ron Paul in his potential function as a president or anything like that. Anybody who wants to see how much of a chance a fiscal conservative who supports limited government has once elected, just look to California.
But it is undeniable that he has inspired millions of people through the ideas of freedom and peace. And these ideas are really all that matters in the long run.
We can’t expect people to understand right away that we need to eliminate the government at some point. Nor should we be so demanding. The process of economic and moral education and enlightenment is gradual, not abrupt.
Nor, on the other hand, should we be complacent. The coming Congressional elections will be a landslide victory for the Republicans, in that I stand by my prediction from over a year ago, simply for the reason that most people will think that they suck less than the Democrats.
This is of course all nonsense. But for a few true (but inconsequential) believers, such as Rand Paul (KY), Peter Schiff (CT), and John Dennis (San Francisco), most of what we’ll see is business as usual, even with a largely Republican Congress.
The political machinery is vicious. No matter how good your intentions, it will either swallow you up and corrupt you or spit you our right away. There is nothing good whatsoever that can come out of violence. This is at the root of all political problems and it will never go away until we abdicate from this mad fantasy that is the government.
Obama also has proposed a three-year freeze on most domestic spending, beginning in the budget year that starts Oct. 1. Spending related to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and national security would be exempt.
OK, so Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and spending on war, killing people, dropping bombs, etc. will be exempt from this “spending freeze”. I wonder why?
Maybe a quick look at your average annual federal budget will help clear this up, I am here using the federal government’s budget for 2010:
The only category above that is not surely exempt from the “spending freeze” is “Other Discretionary Spending”, 20% of the total budget. Note that nobody talks about cutting any of that. It’s merely going to stay where it already is.
Meanwhile, on the remaining 80% we are being blatantly assured by the President, by virtue of the fact that he is exempting them from the outset, that they will in fact continue to grow moving forward.
On top of that, even out of those 20% of other discretionary spending there is certainly some of it that falls under one or the other holy cow categories, namely Military, Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security. Thus the total subject to the freeze is rather around 12.5%
The $154 billion jobs plan pending before Congress
The $787 billion economic stimulus plan already being implemented
Department of Defense
One eighth of the total annual budget
This is so ridiculous I don’t know how the administration is not embarrassed to death to present it. Moreover “The freeze would be measured overall and would not be applied across the board.” The freeze is only for three years.
How can anyone in the Administration expect to be taken seriously about budget deficits after presenting this ridiculous plan?
What the administration is serious about is a strategy of extend and pretend. The sheeple are upset about budget deficits, so what do they get? The president announcing a spending freeze (that is none), endorsing a “deficit reduction task force” and talking day in day out about the importance of “tacking the deficit”, while simultaneously spending $787 billion on a stimulus, pushing through another $150 billion for a “jobs plan”, and spending more than any previous administration on wars.
By the way, the deficit task force got rejected in Congress … it is pretty amazing that they can’t even agree on at least talking about deficits, so please don’t even dare to think that they will actually do anything about it, other than of course raising your taxes as they always have.
Underlying Obamanomics are some basic economic facts and political realities. These are the Four Laws of Obamanomics, paired below with some of the lobbying strategies that exploit these laws.
1) During a legislative debate, whichever business has the best lobbyists is most likely to win the most favorable small print. Similarly, once a bill has passed, the business with the best lawyers and lobbyists will best be able to craft the regulations and learn how to game them. A big business, counting on this fact while lobbying for more government spending or control, is employing The Inside Game.
2) Regulation adds to overhead, and higher overhead crowds out smaller competitors and prevents startups from entering the industry. When corporations, knowing this, lobby for more regulation of their industry, I call this the Overhead Smash.
3) Bigger companies are often saddled by inertia, meaning robust competition is a threat. Adopting regulations that stultify the economy is the equivalent of raising the basketball hoop to twenty feet at half-time: it protects the lead of whichever team is ahead. When Big Business seeks to stultify the economy to hold back smaller competitors, I call it Gumming the Works.
4) Government regulation grants an air of legitimacy to businesses, boosting consumer confidence, often beyond what is warranted. This is The Confidence Game.
While I agree that all these laws do accurately describe the current US economic policy under the current president, I ask: How did those laws differ under Bush, or under Clinton for that matter, or under Bush Sr., or under Reagan??
People have to realize: What is outlined above does not outline some new phenomenon. These are, simply put, the laws of interventionism, the system that has dominated the entire past century. All the problems we are facing today can be traced back to it, all the cures prescribed to fix our problems are just more of very things that caused our problems.
It is a system under which, during all the bogus back and forth, all the talk in the media from left or from right, all the discussions about tax hikes by 4% or by 5%, about whether or not we should send 30,000 or 40,000 hitmen into a foreign country, about whether we should spend $5 billion or $7 billion in yet another foreign aid bill, about whether this or that government institution should oversee banks, or whether centrally decreed interest rates should be .25 or .5 percent, one thing has remained consistent and uncontested by the blind public for decades: the growth of government.
President Obama was awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday.
The first African-American to win the White House, Obama was praised by the Norweigan Nobel Committee for “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.”
“Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future,” the committee said. “His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population.”
The committee also said Obama has “created a new climate in international politics.”
In his short time in office, Obama has acted on a wide range of issues from the economy to terrorism and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Obama is the fourth U.S. president to receive the award, joining presidents Jimmy Carter, Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt.
This year’s peace prize nominees included 172 people and 33 organizations. The committee does not release the names of the nominees.
You can talk about peace all you want, at some point you have to live up to it. So bring the troops back home. End the senseless war in Afghanistan, bring troops back home from Iraq. Bring them home from Germany, Japan, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia.
Maybe then Mr. Obama would be worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize.
But until and unless all that happens idle talk and superficial prizes have no meaning to me.