« Mr. Sensitivity | Main | Liberalism: A Bottomless Pit Of Lies And Liars »

The Liberal Leap Of Faith

Yesterday, my colleague Rick posted a little satire piece on Democrats that provoked a lot of discussion. And by "a lot," I mean almost 100 comments. (No, I'm not jealous. Really. Honest. Promise. Lousy rat bastard...)

Anyway, in the comments, the partisan bickering started flying fast and furious. Some of it in jest, a lot more with a bit of mean-spiritedness, but still remarkably enlightening. I found myself looking at the counter-list put forward by "JeremyP" and giving it a hell of a lot of thought.

The link gives JeremyP's full list, but I'm going to take out the ones that I found had a common theme:

I voted Republican because I think my taxes should make wealthy people wealthier than than being used to make my community a better place.

I voted Republican because I'd much rather my tax money go toward making bombs than bread.

I voted Republican because I hate socialist institutions like public parks, schools, roads, the police, fire department and EMTs, food safety standards, NASA, the FDA, etc.

I voted Republican because I think that corporations are much better at everything, like making safe cars that don't need to be recalled every year, spinach that's free of deadly bacteria, and insulation that won't cause cancer in thousands.

I voted Republican because I was so angry and I didn't know why - so it must be the Democrats' fault. The free market would never screw us all over in favor of a higher profit.

I voted Republican because I see nothing wrong with dropping $30,000 on a new car that wastes energy so I can drive past that homeless shelter and food bank and laugh at the losers who can't hold down a job.

I voted Republican because I was born in to a position of privilege and desperately want to hold onto my social advantages. Those damn Mexicans need to be deported ... they're starting to act way too much like we white people.

Again, I edited JeremyP's list. He had four others that didn't fit as well into my thesis here. Feel free to follow the link to see the ones that didn't make the cut.

The common element here is that they all have a break in their chain of logic, a single presumption that has not been borne out by experience, a demand for a leap of faith that is just not supportable by history.

And that is the unshakeable faith in the government to keep its promises and bring about the ideal results.

That is a very tenuous chain of logic, one that is almost never borne out by practice.

Start with the observation that there are inequalities in life. Some people are more successful, wealthier, healthier, than others. That is indisputable.

From there, make the leap that the inequalities are unfair. That there is something about them that is unjust. That in order for some to have come out better, that it must have been at the expense of those who came out worse. That's the first flawed assumption.

If there is an injustice, then it should be addressed. That's inherent in our social contract. But should it be the place of the federal govenment to address every single injustice?

That is the second flawed assumption. Some injustices simply aren't part of the federal government's responsibility. Some of them are better resolved at the state or local level of government, or by some other body. The community, acting collectively. A private board. A religious institution. For example, if my neighbor is being a rude, obnoxious jerk to the neighborhood, then we -- as a neighborhood -- can exert social pressure on him to mend his ways. We might get the guy's minister in on it. As a last resort, we'll call the cops. But we don't need the state or the federal government to pass a law telling this guy to stop being a jerk.

But suppose that the issue is such that the federal government (rightly or wrongly) sees it as worth addressing. Will they throw their considerable weight behind the "right" side?

That's the third flawed assumption. For example, let's look at the current argument about "reforming" the financial markets. The liberals say that for too long the government has enabled Big Money to get away with murder, with enabling them to commit rampant fraud and abuses, to line their pockets at the expense of everyone else. In other words, the federal government was backing Big Money and enabling them. And for some time, that's been the case. Will getting the government to simply change sides really make a fundamental difference? Or will it just last as long as the government stays on the "right" side?

OK, so we get the government to intervene in the matter, on the "right" side of the issue. What will the government do? What kinds of laws will it pass, and what kinds of penalties will it enact? Will that actually resolve the injustice?

That's the fourth -- and worst -- flawed assumption.

The federal government is a very, very blunt instrument. It has, essentially, two tools in its toolbox to compel obedience: jail and fines. If you cross the federal government, it can take away your possessions and your freedom -- or, in some cases, your life.

Money is the most frequent tool. If you do what it wants you to do, it gives you tax breaks and exemptions -- which translates into "lets you keep more of your own money." If you don't, then it imposes taxes and fees and penalties and duties and fines and whatnot to discourage your behavior.

My favorite example is the "luxury tax" from the Clinton era. In order to raise more money, Clinton and the Democratic congress passed a hefty tax on high-end luxury goods, in particular yachts valued above a certain level. The reasoning was that anyone who could afford such fancy toys could certainly afford a tax on top of the price, in order to get them to pay their "fair share" of the tax burden.

Funny thing how that worked out. Instead of simply shrugging and adding on to the check, the rich stopped buying their yachts in America. They started buying and registering them in the Caribbean and other places outside the United States.

And with the market for American-made luxury yachts suddenly drying up, American boat builders suddenly found themselves without much of a market for their highest-profit products. So they started cutting back, laying off workers and the like. Those workers were highly-skilled craftsmen in a highly specialized field, so their skills didn't exactly transfer into other jobs.

So, in the interest of "social justice" and "getting the rich to pay their fair share," the federal government damn near destroyed an entire sector of industry, ended the jobs of hundreds of non-millionaire skilled workers, shipped a whole business out of the country. Those were the UNINTENDED consequences of their action.

As far as the INTENDED consequences? The "luxury tax" was a complete and utter bust, never once generating anywhere near the projected revenue. And the rich? They learned that they could get along just fine without "buying American."

Read over Jeremy's list again. And see how they are all based on the presumption that the federal government's primary duty is to enforce Jeremy's idea of social justice. His penultimate point says it so well:

I voted Republican becase I see nothing wrong with dropping $30,000 on a new car that wastes energy so I can drive past that homeless shelter and food bank and laugh at the losers who can't hold down a job.

To Jeremy, it is absolutely onconscionable to buy a car with your own money, that meets what needs and desires you have, and then appreciate that you have achieved a measure of success in life that is better than some others. No, to Jeremy, it seems, if anyone is miserable, then all should be miserable. And being a jerk definitely has to be a federal offense.

It's reminiscent of the old definition of socialism: "the equal distribution of misery."

Re-reading Jeremy's comments, it's clear that he's young, and probably in college. He's probably never had to file his own taxes, never gotten a check from a full-time job and seen just how big a bite the government takes before he even sees it (according to one of my own recent pay stubs, I work the first ten minutes out of every hour for Uncle Sam). So he's young and idealistic, all full of great ideas and notions of Justice and Fairness and Equality, and convinced that if only he could get the government to enforce his ideas, everything would be all sunshine and roses.

I don't think I was ever that young.

The world would be a better place if it worked like Jeremy thinks it does, and how he thinks it should. Pity we're stuck with this far more imperfect world.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/38822.

Comments (90)

It appears that most of his... (Below threshold)
retired military:

It appears that most of his list could be consoldiated into

"I voted republican because I think I better know how to spend my money better than the govt can"

and

"I voted republican because I believe the free market will produce better products (because crappy products dont last due to people stop buying them).

I voted Republican... (Below threshold)
Stan:
I voted Republican because I see nothing wrong with dropping $30,000 on a new car that wastes energy so I can drive past that homeless shelter and food bank and laugh at the losers who can't hold down a job.

If it wasn't for the unions driving up the prices on that $30,000 car, with the high priced medical plans and getting a 90% of salary retirement check added in, it would not cost as much. Sure the price would be higher than what a new car would cost, say 10 years ago, but the inflation rate of the price would be a lot less. Time to tell the unions to get the hell out of the workers lives.

As for the homeless, most of them are people who are mostly nut jobs that belong in an institution so they can get the care they really need. Thanks to the sob sisters that the mentally ill were being mistreated (admittedly some were) we are overrun with people that need medical help instead of handouts

I believe it was Milton Fri... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

I believe it was Milton Friedman in "Money Mischief" that laid out the following scenario.

Imagine that one day that the Government mandated that everything now belonged to it and then set about the task of insuring everyone had an equal amount of 'stuff'. For example, let's say $100 is the total stuff that each and every person has. The next day the Rolling Stones put on a concert charging $10 per person and everyone (1000 people in our example) attends. At the end of the day, the Stones are much wealthier ($10 x 1000 = $10,000) and everyone else only has $90.

Clearly we're already returning to a state of imbalance where some people (the Stones) have more 'stuff' than everyone else. The point being that wealth will not stay 'balanced' just because the Leftist think it should.

Jeremy hasn't learned that ... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

Jeremy hasn't learned that it's impossible to parody Republican "logic."

As Ron White has obsevered ... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

As Ron White has obsevered on more than one occasion "you can't fix stupid". Oh, JeremyP will eventually come around, providing he doesn't get a job in government. It will be on the day he looks at all the 'deductions' on his paycheck and begins wondering what the government buys with HIS money. HINT: It's been 46 years since the launch of LBJ's "Great Society". How many TRILLIONS have been spent? Economic 'inequality' still exists. How can that be? Maybe we need to throw MORE money at the problem. Yeah, that'll work.

I became a teabagger, becau... (Below threshold)
Roy:

I became a teabagger, because political satire has become so lame these days.

Jay Tea,Off Topic, b... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Jay Tea,
Off Topic, but have you taken a Hayride lately? The is a picture of one of the protestors that perfectly matches the description in the police report.

Look at this picture and compare it to the description given to the police.

White Male, Late Twenties
6'01" thin build, thin face
Beard, dark brown/dark red pony tail
light colored t-shirt, dark pants
Mr. Brown also stated the subject appeared to be "dirty" but not homeless.

While certainly not conclusive, this guy should be considered a person of interest by the police.

"While certainly not con... (Below threshold)
914:

"While certainly not conclusive, this guy should be considered a person of interest by the police."

Got that Steve G? Better stay in Granny's basement til things simmer down...

JeremyP is a bigot.<p... (Below threshold)
Gmac:

JeremyP is a bigot.

Funny how no one mentioned that little nugget, but then again I suppose it is assumed because he's a leftist.

JeremyP forgot the most imp... (Below threshold)
John Hansen:

JeremyP forgot the most important part of satire. Satire must point out and in some cases slighty exaggerate a truth, not attack a straw man. We can contrast two entries,

From Rick:

I voted Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't.

From Jeremy,

I voted Republican because I think my taxes should make wealthy people wealthier than than being used to make my community a better place.


I don't know a Democrat who does not want to tax the oil companies. Rick just clearly states what that means in terms of real dollars. This is good satire. The basis of Rick's satire is true.

I don't know a single Republican who has a goal of making wealthy people wealthier instead of creating a better community. The Republican just does not care if someone gets wealthy, if he offers good services at fair prices. No Republican cheers when someone gets wealthy by cheating the public. Thus Jeremy's attempt at satire has a basis in an invented straw man, not in a basic truth. Epic fail.

And Republicans don't drive... (Below threshold)
renee6:

And Republicans don't drive by the homeless and laugh. It's been well documented that Republicans give more of their money to charity than do Democrats.

The problem with Jeremy and... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

The problem with Jeremy and those like him (which unfortunately today is most younglings thanks to our public indoctrination system, masquerading as a "school" system), is that they assign most of the faults of humanity to corporations, capitalists, and/or Republicans and see the government, Democrats, and labor unions as pure, altruistic institutions that are not subject to basic human naure. Of course, nothing is further from the truth.

Corporations can be evil but they can be good and so can the government. The free market (i.e. competition) keeps the corporations honest and elections plus a free press keeps the government honest. Of course we no longer have a free press and with our school systems turning out mindless communists like Jeremy (even though they themselves don't realize that they are communists) there is little to keep the government honest anymore ('cept maybe the 2nd Amendment, at least until the courts nullify it).

Problem is, Jay Tea, there ... (Below threshold)
James H:

Problem is, Jay Tea, there are times when private solutions are best, and there are times when government action is a good solution.

To take the example of a neighborhood, imagine that one person in a tightly packed residential neighborhood decides to turn his home into a bar. People come to visit his bar, filling up available neighborhood parking. Drunk people are outside his house making noise. And so forth.

In other words, his decisions about how to use his private property have deleterious effects on the rest of the neighborhood.

You do have a few solutions here.

In one solution, you can use social sanctions to try to get him in line. But if he's making money hand over fist from his bar, he's not going to care about your social sanctions.

You could bring some lawsuit against the guy, probably for nuisance and/or trespass. While I'm all in favor of solutions that enrich lawyers, this wouldn't go well for anybody as the lawsuit winds its way through the courts.

In another solution, deeds in the neighborhood could be writen in the first place with covenants running with the land stipulating that the land shall always be used as a private residence and that no alcohol shall be served commercially on the premises. This could work, but it's also a pain in the ass to keep track of covenants.

Similar to covenants running with the land, the neighborhood residents could set up a neighborhood board and agree to abide by that board's rules. But this privatization of government, at the end of the day, is no better than actual government.

Another solution -- the libertarian solution -- involves negotiating with Mr. Bar Owning Man. You and the rest of the neighborhood negotiate with him and sell him the right to operate a bar and affect your respective properties thereby. The chief objection to this is that not everybody may want to have a bar in the neighborhood ... and the right to affect other people's property is really a collective matter. That is, his bar would affect 420 Baker Street just as much as 422 Baker Street, and 422 Baker may not wish to deal at all.

Finally, you have the solution of zoning laws. Laws in place at the outset restrict the use of property in the neighborhood to residential use. Everybody knows this when moving in, and there can be a process in place to change zoning or appeal rulings by the zoning boards.

I'm not saying zoning is perfect, but it strikes me as the most preferable of the above scenarios.

the younglings should remem... (Below threshold)
Jeff:

the younglings should remember just what Darth Vader did to them in the name of peace and stability ...

James, you reinforce my poi... (Below threshold)

James, you reinforce my point. There are many possible solutions to problems. My objection to young Jeremy's ideology is that it is a one-size-fits-all solution, and that involves the federal government. Not one of yours does.

That's the difference between Jeremy, a callow youth, and you, a callow not-quite-as-youthful...

Sorry, couldn't resist.

J.

Jeremy, How do you... (Below threshold)
914:

Jeremy,

How do you know they are republicans? Dont say bumper sticker, its a new car?

"new car that wastes energy so I can drive past that homeless shelter and food bank and laugh at the losers who can't hold down a job"

Wastes energy? The universe is infinite. There is no running out of energy. Why do you assume people at a food bank or homeless shelter are losers and that they cant hold down a job? Cant you see how tough it is out here in Barry's utopia?

Grow up and get a clue. by the way, if your homeless or struggling leave a locale and I will try to help.

I voted Republica... (Below threshold)
Oyster:
I voted Republican because I see nothing wrong with dropping $30,000 on a new car that wastes energy so I can drive past that homeless shelter and food bank and laugh at the losers who can't hold down a job.

Jeremy criticizes that someone would spend $30K of their own money in a fashion he disapproves of. Why, there oughta be a law!

Jeremy criticizes that someone would buy a car that, in his opinion, "wastes energy". Democrats would do something about that!

And last, I have NEVER been in the company of a conservative (or anyone else for that matter) who bought a $30K car to drive past a homeless shelter to "laugh at the losers" blah, blah, blah.

I HAVE, however, been in the company of a liberal who exclaimed that if enough taxes were extracted from the "rich" there would be no need for such shelters or food banks.

What goes even beyond Jay's point - that Jeremy seems to be implying that government can fix all these things better than individuals of their own accord (or with a little incentive) is that...

...we will ALWAYS have "the poor". ALWAYS.

No matter what you do. They will always be among us.

What it boils down to, and ... (Below threshold)
Modo:

What it boils down to, and you see a lot of it in this list, is the difference between liberals (little "L") and Conservatives idea of who is responsible for benevolence.

Conservatives donate to charities and churches to make a difference AND pay taxes. Liberals just want to pay taxes and believe that is benevolence.

Equal Opportunity does NOT ... (Below threshold)
itismedavid:

Equal Opportunity does NOT mean Equal Outcome.

"And Republicans don't driv... (Below threshold)
retired military:

"And Republicans don't drive by the homeless and laugh. It's been well documented that Republicans give more of their money to charity than do Democrats."

Here let me fix that for you

"And Republicans don't drive by the homeless and laugh. It's been well documented that democrats give more of Republicans money to other democrats than do Democrats."

Liberals just w... (Below threshold)
Liberals just want to pay taxes and believe that is benevolence.
More to the point, they think that raising everybody's taxes takes care of their obligation to help the poor.
This seems to sum up Jeremy... (Below threshold)
Eric:

This seems to sum up JeremyP pretty well.

"Tax the rich, feed the poor, til there are no rich no more." - Alvin Lee

JeremyP is a fool, or a dem... (Below threshold)
Matt:

JeremyP is a fool, or a democrat, but I repeat myself.

I voted Republican because I see nothing wrong with dropping $30,000 on a new car that wastes energy so I can drive past that homeless shelter and food bank and laugh at the losers who can't hold down a job.

I vote Republican because after taxes I can only afford a $3,000 dollar pick-up to drive to the food bank and help feed the unemployed and homeless that have been abandoned by government programs.

Liberals like JeremyP's bel... (Below threshold)
Geoffrey Britain:

Liberals like JeremyP's beliefs:

Republicans = wealthy, privileged, selfish, angry (threatened) and racist.
Democrats = caring, willing to share and thus good

JeremyP wants to be one of the good guys.

And, with the best of intentions, he's contributing to exactly the opposite of what he wishes to accomplish.

He's an example of what Stalin referred to as "a useful idiot".

Uneducated (I'm sure he has a liberal degree) while thoroughly inculcated in the nihilism of post-modernism and thus completely lacking in critical thinking skills. Arrogantly convinced he knows the 'truth' (because his college professors told him what to think). Appallingly ignorant of the most basic facts concerning economics, coupled to a truly breathtaking naivete about human nature.

He hasn't, so much as a clue, as to why and how the world really works.

Euripedes observation is as true today as it was 2400 yrs. ago...
"Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish!"

Sorry jumped the gun on the... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Sorry jumped the gun on the submit...

This seems to sum up JeremyP pretty well.

"Tax the rich, feed the poor, til there are no rich no more." - Alvin Lee

But, as Margaret Thatcher said, "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money to spend."

I am a Republican who drive... (Below threshold)

I am a Republican who drives past the homeless shelter every week in my $30,000 car. Then I turn in and drop off food items that I pick up from CostCo when we do our weekly grocery shopping. We take one child along each trip and they get to pick out the charity item of the week. Last week my daughter chose a twelve-pack of toothpaste so the homeless people could brush their teeth.

But when my money is taken at the point of a government gun to give to social programs that never quite manage to help the people in need, well, that makes me even MORE Republican. Democrats want to feel good about themselves. Republicans actually want to do something useful.

I voted Republican... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:
I voted Republican because I was born in to a position of privilege and desperately want to hold onto my social advantages. Those damn Mexicans need to be deported ... they're starting to act way too much like we white people.
funny

Marx wanted a return to the good old days. When landed gentry control everything. He hated that the common man could could through the fruits of his labor advance in society. They preferred having the privileged class take care of everything.

What was the reason for the Minimum Wage to keep blacks and women out of labor market. Democrats created that.

Jim Crow - Democrats
Interment of Japanese during WWII Democrats
Segregation of Federal Work Force. Democrats
Appointing KLAN Members to Supreme Court Democrats

"Liberals just want to p... (Below threshold)
914:

"Liberals just want to pay taxes and believe that is benevolence."

Not in Barry's administration! There, no one pays taxes and their smarter touchy feelier than thou intellect's see the "big picture", thus, their malevolent benevolence shall suffice for all.

I voted republican because Sarah Palin was on the ticket to contradict the Barry, John and Joe pony liberal illegal amnesty reach 1/3 of the way across the aisle sideshow!


I think Jay gives jeremyp w... (Below threshold)
Hank:

I think Jay gives jeremyp way too much credit.

His list is merely a recitation of incorrect liberal beliefs about conservatives, i.e. they're greedy, dumb and angry.

The first entry is so remarkably stupid it's impressive.

As for "I voted Republican because I see nothing wrong with dropping $30,000 on a new car that wastes energy so I can drive past that homeless shelter and food bank and laugh at the losers who can't hold down a job."

The only ones I've ever heard call poor folks losers are liberals, usually when referring to poor rural white people. You know, the "clingers" Obama referred to.

Personally, I live in one of the few conservative towns on Ma. Jeremyp might be surprised to see how many people give their time, money, and donated goods to the food pantry I work at. Most of it comes from the various churches, you know, those dangerous religious types. The free "Clothes Closet" we run serves people from 26 different surrounding towns.

If these people without jobs are so-called "losers", I'll take their company any day over the sanctimonious liberals who sound concerned but in reality, could care less.

Hank, forgive me, but somet... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Hank, forgive me, but something you said is a pet peeve of mine because it is so frequently said incorrectly.

the saying "could care less" is incorrect. That means that the person is in fact capable of caring less. The correct way of saying it is "could not care less"

So I take it, Jay Tea, you'... (Below threshold)
James H:

So I take it, Jay Tea, you're not quite so free-market-oriented that you're going to smash every good thing that a little regulation accomplishes?

Liberals like jeremy are id... (Below threshold)
howcome:

Liberals like jeremy are ideologues. I know liberals like that and they really do believe every problem has a government solution. There are plenty of things conservatives believe have government solutions, but not everything. I especially like his cartoon caricature of conservatives, very childish.

As for the home... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

As for the homeless, most of them are people who are mostly nut jobs that belong in an institution so they can get the care they really need. Thanks to the sob sisters that the mentally ill were being mistreated (admittedly some were) we are overrun with people that need medical help instead of handouts

Liberals like to paint the mentally ill homeless as victims of heartless conservatives who closed mental institutions and put the inmates out on the street to save money. We need to counter this common liberal canard whenever it raises its pustulent head. In actuality, the mentally ill were released because of a Supreme Court ruling (following a California liberal-backed law - remember "treatment in the community?") in the mid-70s that made involuntary institutionalization very difficult (the state had to show that the person was an imminent threat to himself or others, IIRC).

Somehow liberals come away ... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Somehow liberals come away with the impression that Republicans are wealthy. In fact, most Republicans are small businessmen. The truly wealthy - Soros, Buffett, Gates, Peter Lewis, Herb Sandler, the Pritzkers, the Kennedys, Kerry, David Geffen, virtually all Hollywood producers, directors, and actors - are almost uniformly liberals.

Yet somehow we get that "wealthy Republican" thing hung around our necks. Who can name wealthy Republicans?

Eric,I'll try to r... (Below threshold)
Hank:

Eric,

I'll try to remember that. Thanks.

Sorry, one more then I'll s... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Sorry, one more then I'll shut up. (Maybe.)

...we will ALWAYS have "the poor".

We don't have any poor people now - not really. By any absolute historical standard, everyone in the US today is pretty wealthy. Monarchs a century or two ago would probably trade places in a heartbeat with anyone in contemporary America. Indoor plumbing? Hot and cold running water? Central heating? Air conditioning? Autos? Cell phones? Radio? TV? Movies? Modern medicine? Jet travel? Woohoo!

Note that in 1900 the mean longevity was ...45 years. That's right. Most of us would be long gone, or on our last legs.

Jay Guevara,There ... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Jay Guevara,

There are no doubt, very wealthy Republicans, but you are correct in that the stereotype is very wrong. In these modern times I've noticed that the weathy Republicans are those who had to work, and work hard for what they have. Even if they were born wealthy, they still had to work all their lives.

Those who were born rich and never really had to work tend to be Democrats (take the Kennedys for example).

Then there is the case of celebrities. Those who became rich simply because they were pleasant on the eye, really good at repeating things others told them to say, and could pretend they were experiencing emotions that they were not (in other words, phonies), those types tend to be Democrats. The celebrities who had to work very hard to become famous, athletes, tend to be Republicans.

The worse kind of Democrat is the type who was born a poor black boy, abandoned by his Kenyan father, and had to strugle growing up. Then he went into politics and became fabulously wealthy. One of his first acts upon being elected to national office (such as, say, a senator from Illinois) might be to earmark $1 million of our tax dollars to himself, laundered through his wife's employer (for example, the Univeristy of Chicago.) After being a national political figure for only a few short years he might take in an annual income of over $5,000,000. That type of man is totally corrupt and truly evil--more evil than the most evil capitalist/industrialist ever. And Jeremy supports, votes for, and even loves that type of man.

P. Bunyan-"(suc... (Below threshold)
914:

P. Bunyan-

"(such as, say, a senator from Illinois) might be to earmark $1 million of our tax dollars to himself, laundered through his wife's employer (for example, the Univeristy of Chicago.)"
Aw shucks! You noticed! Yes America...A place where Kenyans, Asians, Alaskans even Austrians can become affluent virtually overnight in some cases by having nothing more then nice teeth, a puppet master, self bravado and big ears..

And you wonder why they bitch and complain about this Country so much? What it boils down to is they are a bunch of INGRATES of the phoniest kind.

late for work! Where'd the ... (Below threshold)
914:

late for work! Where'd the damn time go? See ya!

If the purpose here is to h... (Below threshold)
Jim Addison:

If the purpose here is to humiliate JeremyP, it's a wasted effort. Today's leftist has no sense of shame - or of humor or irony, for that matter. Their concept of deep satirical meaning is "Chimpy McHitler."

JeremyP's "intellectual purpose" for being here is the same as leftist demonstrators at a Sarah Palin speech - to disrupt as much as possible, and have fun tossing out old leftist slogans liberally laced with vulgarity in the process.

The most frightening phrase... (Below threshold)

The most frightening phrase in the English Language, to those familiar with the history of the 19th and 20th Centuries, is "I'm from the Government, I'm here to help."

Interesting to see one item... (Below threshold)
Kenny:

Interesting to see one item on Drudge is that the UN's Haiti budget is 2/3 for it's own staff, and 1/3 for helping Haiti.

And, no surprise to anyone with a working brain, the various lefties see nothing wrong with that.

Yep, they're sure doing a better job than the private sector would in helping those poor Haitians!!!

Guys, guys, don't be too ha... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Guys, guys, don't be too hard on JeremyP. He's going to make a fine adult. Everybody believes that agitprop crap when they're kids.

On instapundit<blockq... (Below threshold)
Kenny:

On instapundit

ARE SCHOOL LUNCHES A NATIONAL SECURITY THREAT? "The retired officers are saying that school lunches have helped make the nation's young people so fat that fewer of them can meet the military's physical fitness standards, and recruitment is in jeopardy." So the one meal where teenagers are fed directly by the government is a major source of obesity, but we keep being told that the solution to widespread obesity is . . . more government? Uh huh.

Worth repeating:

So the one meal where teenagers are fed directly by the government is a major source of obesity, but we keep being told that the solution to widespread obesity is . . . more government?

I only have a few minutes, ... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

I only have a few minutes, (on my break from work), but in scanning the post and comments, I think conservatives here are being a little disingenous, concentrating on the libertarian economic issues of limited government in policy or tax issues; in matters, of law n order or defence, or enforcing say 'hetrosexuality' in the armed services, conservatives without dissent, want a strong (and expensive) presence of the federal government.

Rodney Graves -comment 41-<... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Rodney Graves -comment 41-

The most frightening phrase in the English Language, to those familiar with the history of the 19th and 20th Centuries, is "I'm from the Government, I'm here to help."

Are you familar with the USDA, the United Sates Dept. of Agriculture, and 'the reluctant farmer' (probably not).

For industrializing nations in the first half of the twentieth century, food was the fundamental problem. The desire for a once-and-for-all fix led Communist governments to take over and run vast "scientific" farms and collectives. We know what that led to: widespread famines and tens of millions of deaths.

The United States did not seek a grand solution. Private farms remained, along with the considerable advantages of individual initiative. Still, government was enlisted to help millions of farmers change the way they worked. The approach succeeded almost shockingly well. The resulting abundance of goods in our grocery stores and the leaps in our standard of living became the greatest argument for America around the world. And, as the agricultural historian Roy V. Scott recounted, four decades ago, in his remarkable study "The Reluctant Farmer," it all started with a (government) pilot program (in the East Texas town of Terrell).

Read

Jay Guevara, you're right i... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

Jay Guevara, you're right in that, relative to the standards in some other areas of the world, we have no "poor" in the US. Of course I was only speaking relatively. I'm sure you understand that though and your point is well taken.

Crickmore, it's been said o... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

Crickmore, it's been said often here that the government has important roles and two of them ARE domestic law and order and defense. Citing other various and sundry roles that should be played by the individual or voluntary collectives but are forever being usurped by government does not constitute disingenuousness (is that a word?)

I'll pretend you didn't toss in your little snipe about enforcing heterosexuality in the military and only answer the part of your post worthy of a response.

Oyster, we're in complete a... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Oyster, we're in complete agreement.

Liberals bleating about the "poor" need to be reminded that poor means "lacking the means of existence:" food, clothing, and shelter, not "can't afford a Lexus, or designer clothes," which appears to be their standard. Any country with an obesity problem is, by definition, not poor.

What liberals do not unders... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

What liberals do not understand that government is needed from time to time of help society with either regulations or other acts but on an "as needed" basis. When there is a need, instead of addressing the need and moving on, they create a program/department that forever more is in the lives of people. A few quick examples are farming, education and labor. All needed at a time but now more of a hinderance then a help. ww

I've run seven businesses s... (Below threshold)
Paul Hooson:

I've run seven businesses since the age of 23, and my personal experience has always been that business is much better during most Democratic administrations. My experience is that the "R" behind many Republican presidents usually stands for recession. The only exceptions for me have been the terrible business environment during the Carter years, and some good years in the TV business during the latter part of the Reagan years.

Last weekend, we had the biggest weekend ever in the grocery business with record sales the best in the 96 year history of the grocery store. I have to credit the Obama Administration with at least part of this success for starting to improve the economy from the serious slump of the past administration. Even the extra money put into the "Food Stamp" program(now renamed SNAP by the administration) is a major boost to many grocery retailers and works to their benefit.

But, where I'm not happy with this administration is that it's record on civil liberty issues is hardly any better than the Bush Administration. I expected more social liberalization than this.

Umm Jay... the post is at 1... (Below threshold)
Rick:

Umm Jay... the post is at 110 comments now... and still coming in...

Thought I'd pass that on...

My experience is t... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:
My experience is that the "R" behind many Republican presidents usually stands for recession.

Paul, first, historically recessions occur on average every seven years, and play a necessary role in unwinding over-leveraged businesses and eliminating poor allocations of resources.

Second, one might expect a higher proportion of recessions to be associated with Republican Administrations, because cutting spending slows the velocity of money. Anyone who follows a profligate spender is going to be associated with the pain of cutting unsustainable budgets.

For example, everything appeared fine in Greece until recently, but now whoever comes in will have to impose an austerity budget - or default on Greece's obligations - and will thereby make himself unpopular.

I voted Republican... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:
I voted Republican because I think that corporations are much better at everything, like making safe cars that don't need to be recalled every year, spinach that's free of deadly bacteria, and insulation that won't cause cancer in thousands.

One of the several main differences between liberals and conservatives is the liberals' misunderstanding of how wealth is created. Or, as the above quote shows, a basic misunderstanding of the business world.

Corporations are, in fact, wonderful structures which allow pooling of investment funds and which encourage venture capital enterprises with limited risk to investors. Corporations (and other business structures) have led to creation of industry and an improved standard of living for our entire society.

Take away these business structures, and there will be very little new investment in anything. You won't have to worry about unsafe cars, because there won't be any cars at all. There won't be any spinach except what you can grow or buy from the local truck farm. And you won't have to worry about insulation because there won't be any new buildings to insulate.

Rick, this just might be a ... (Below threshold)

Rick, this just might be a good time for you to take the opportunity to shut up...

J.

(grumble grumble grumble...)

Paul,In what directi... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Paul,
In what direction did you run those 7 businesses?
I can't help but notice I haven't seen any links to your Chinese knick-knack assortment for a while.

Jeremy said"I voted... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Jeremy said
"I voted Republican because I see nothing wrong with dropping $30,000 on a new car that wastes energy so I can drive past that homeless shelter and food bank and laugh at the losers who can't hold down a job."


here let me fix that for you.

I voted Democrat because I see nothing wrong with dropping $45,000 on a prius Hybrid which has a higher carbon footprint that regular cars so I can drive a 16 year old to an abortion clinic (without parental knoweldge) and kill her unborn child because she didnt want it but hey it is better than driving past homeless poeple right.

James H wrote:<blockq... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:

James H wrote:

I'm not saying zoning is perfect, but it strikes me as the most preferable of the above scenarios.

This is certainly not my experience.

Zoning--ever hear of variances and special use permits? Are they hard to get? Not if you know somebody or know who to bribe.

Redistricting? No problem. As long as your cousin is on the zoning board or your secretary's uncle is the chairman.

Subdivision Approval? Hmmmm . . . can you help out some of the members in the upcoming election? Can you give them a job?

Have you ever tried to get a Zoning Enforcement Officer to take action? I have. Usually, they'll get to it at the first available date--the second Tuesday after the 12th of Never.

On the other hand, private covenants are strictly enforced by the courts. They are much clearer and much better written than zoning ordinances because [ta da!!] they are written by private practicing lawyers. And, despite your claim, it's no pain to keep track of the covenants. For about $ 50, your local Title Insurance Company will run you an Ownership and Encumbrance Report and email you page after page of the recorded covenants. For lawyers and real estate agents, they'll do it for free.

Judges love private covenants. Most Homeowners' Associations have a law firm on retainer, and with a phone call before 3:00 p.m., they can have a Temporary Restraining Order in place by morning.

I voted republican because ... (Below threshold)
retired military:

I voted republican because I believe that actually doing something about a problem is so much more better than talking about what should be done as long as someone else pays for it and regardless of whether it makes things worse or not.

....we had the biggest w... (Below threshold)

....we had the biggest weekend ever in the grocery business ...

People need to eat, Hooson. Grocery stores, unless they're gourmet or local (aka: high-priced), are largely immune to recessions.

Also, considering your store has been around "96 years" speaks volumes about the store's business model--especially when you consider that it survived the Great Depression. Given that fact, why you would give ANY credit to Obama for the store's surviving the last 20 months, then claim that it's based on an increase in food stamp spending is baffling.

I vote Republican because I... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

I vote Republican because I take of myself and my family, and generally expect others to do the same unless they're mentally or physically disabled.

I vote Republican because insofar as possible I don't want to be a burden on others, nor others to be a burden on me.

I vote Republican because I realize that making provision for a problem guarantees its existence.

I vote Republican because I realize that no matter how strenuous our efforts could ever be, some people are determined to make themselves an example of what not to do.

How about "The Liberal Leap... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:

How about "The Liberal Leap of Fascism?" As JP attests, leftists look at people as objects from which they can take whatever they want or move around like chess pieces to fit their little conceptualized fantasies "for their own good." They are blind to the inherent evil both in their intentions and in the lessons of history. Their grandiose plans require harsh taskmasters by definition. Their ignorance is shameful, inexcusable, and - I will always believe - willful. Moreover, they are forever destined to fail. Leftists can never point to examples where this crap has actually worked.

I vote Republican because I... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:

I vote Republican because I believe that individual liberty is paramount and the Democrats don't.

I voted Republican because ... (Below threshold)
Kenny:

I voted Republican because I believe in equal opportunity, while Democrats believe in equal outcomes.

I voted republican because ... (Below threshold)
retired military:

I voted republican because I understand that when the bible states you will be judged on how you treat the poor it means how much you voluntarily give the poor rather being forced to through taxation.

I vote Republican because I... (Below threshold)

I vote Republican because I have this quaint notion that grown-ups ought to be in charge.

I voted republican because ... (Below threshold)
retired military:

I voted republican because I believe everyone should be held to the same standards and not be given special treatemtn based on skin color.

I voted republican because I believe children in schools should be taught facts and not generic hodgepodge designed more to not offend someone than to tell the truth.

I voted republican because I believe that the first admendment means that the state cannot compel someone to go to a govt controlled church and not that the word GOD should be removed from anything have to do with the govt.

I voted republican because I believe that terrorists should be treated like they are terrorists and not like they were petty thieves or carjackers.

I voted republican because I believe that illegal immigrants should be made to wait in line like everyone else if they want to get into this country and they should have to be able to speak English intelligently in order to enter the country.

I voted Republican because ... (Below threshold)
Baron Von Ottomatic:

I voted Republican because they nurture my fear and violent hatred of dark-skinned people. And let me fish with dynamite.

I voted Republican because ... (Below threshold)
Baron Von Ottomatic:

I voted Republican because Mother Nature is a filthy whore who tarted herself up and deserves the despoiling America's mining and oil companies are ready to give her. And they serve great finger sandwiches at the local party strategy meetings.

I voted Republican... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:
I voted Republican because they nurture my fear and violent hatred of dark-skinned people...

...by freeing them from being slaves to their Democrat owners, so now you can't avoid them.

FIFY.

The difference between libe... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

The difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals view everyone else as a character in their game of Sim City, whereas Republicans just want to be left the hell alone. Especially by nitwits.

I voted Republican... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:
I voted Republican because they nurture my fear and violent hatred of dark-skinned people.

I vote Republican because the liberals' use of the race card is as boring as hell.

I voted Republican because ... (Below threshold)
Baron Von Ottomatic:

I voted Republican because the thought of a back alley abortion makes me giggle so hard tears run down off face into my snifter of cognac. And they accept me for who I am even though I'm white, wealthy, and come from a politically powerful family.

I'm just trying to help wit... (Below threshold)
Baron Von Ottomatic:

I'm just trying to help with the comment count...

I vote Republican because R... (Below threshold)

I vote Republican because Republicans can take a joke. If I voted Democrat the Democrats would just look at me and snarl, "What the @#$!! is that supposed to mean?"

I could do a whole silly po... (Below threshold)
Baron Von Ottomatic:

I could do a whole silly post of them, I suppose, but that would be out of character...

I should have voted Democra... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

I should have voted Democrat because they encourage abortion, and if abortion had been legal in 1960 we wouldn't have Dear Reader now.

I voted Republican because ... (Below threshold)
Baron Von Ottomatic:

I voted Republican because jobs are outsourced thanks to environmental and labor regulations standing in the way of American sweat shops. And their steadfast support of Israel.

Jeremy- "I voted Democrat b... (Below threshold)
j.l.:

Jeremy- "I voted Democrat because i think taxes should make wealthy people wealthier than being used to make my community a better place." Ok. I voted Republican because unlike stupid liberals, i grasp the difficult concept (for libs), that the "wealthy" pay most of the taxes in this country. You know, the taxes that make our community better. And i grasp that our progressive tax system can`t get any more progressive without falling apart. When the top 1% of wage earners pay 40% of the total income tax bill, and the bottom 50% of wage earners pay only 3% of the total tax bill, i know the "wealthy" pay more than their fair share of the tax bill. I vote Republican because most Republicans can understand this extremely difficult economics 101 lesson.

I vote Republican because D... (Below threshold)
j.l.:

I vote Republican because Dems say things like "their steadfast support for Israel", like it's a bad thing, but offer no reason why. It must be because support for terrorists is a better thing.

I voted Democrat to enforce... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

I voted Democrat to enforce environmental and labor regulations standing in the way of American sweat shops, so that jobs would be outsourced, laying off workers and giving them lots more free time.

They don't need to thank me. Their smiling faces is thanks enough.

I'm not adding to the discu... (Below threshold)

I'm not adding to the discussion. I'm just trying to get your comment number up.

I vote Republican because i... (Below threshold)

I vote Republican because it pisses off Chris Matthews.

I vote republican because t... (Below threshold)
John:

I vote republican because the only argument democrates seem to have anymore is Republicans are racists. Since I know it's not true I assume everything they propose is crap otherwise they would tell me why 47% of american households not paying any income tax at all is tax cuts for the rich. Or they would tell me why it's a good idea for 13 year olds to get abortions without partenal consent or notice to the authorities of child abuse. Maybe they could explain how gazzilion dollar deficits will make America a better place to live. Or how magically SS is in trouble now but wasn't when a republican president wanted to reform it. Or how Medicare drug benefit is bad but a federal take over of health care is good. The list just goes on and on and on.

I vote Republican because I... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:

I vote Republican because I am a Classic Liberal.
In that I believe in limited government and the freedom of individuals.
I believe in the power of the individual to make the decisions him and her self and live with the consequences of those actions. I believe that people should be held accountable for their actions.

I vote republican because I only see Americans. Americans who can work hard and achieve. I vote Republican because each man should keep the fruits of their labor and that true compassion comes from within.

I vote as far right Republi... (Below threshold)
914:

I vote as far right Republican ( I prefer conservative/independent ) as available because the slide of both parties to the left inevitably ends up with the destruction of this great country.

re: "I vote republican beca... (Below threshold)
Hank:

re: "I vote republican because I only see Americans."

I could not agree more.
Great comments, hcddbz

Another heap on the post co... (Below threshold)
914:

Another heap on the post count!! Right Stevey GREEEEEN?

He must be incarcerated.</p... (Below threshold)
914:

He must be incarcerated.

One... (Below threshold)
914:

One




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy