Another Posted: America's got debt fever and the only prescription is more socialism. Democratic administrations since FDR, particularly the Clinton Administration, pushed government involvement in home lending. They did it backed by the same kind of cheery "Every American Deserves to Own a Home" rhetoric, we're already hearing from the Office of the Imaginary President in his speeches. But of course while every American might deserve to own a home, not every American can realistically afford to own a home. Ignoring that reality requires making a lot of bad loans, that were made with the best of politically correct intentions. over their profits to fund and found ultra-liberal groups that would promote liberal candidates, including a certain friend of Chicago slumlords, Barry Hussein. Wall Street firms had a ball with them until the bottom dropped out, and off they went to D.C. with their hands out. "Give us a bailout," they cried. And as corrupt and greedy as they were, they had a point. They were going back to the source of the problem. It was government intervention that birthed the monster in the first place. From the old days of the old Democratic party where FDR used his control over banks to enforce racially segregated home loans, and created Fannie Mae, to the modern days of the Clinton and Obama Administrations, whose top officials, including Rahm Emanuel, had their dirty little hands all over it, used home mortgages to troll for votes. Now that that monster had collapsed, instead of letting it die, the prescription for a problem caused at its root by government intervention, was of course more government intervention. Because you can just never have too much of a bad thing. Amid all that talk about warning signs, no one had the guts to place the blame on inappropriate government involvement as the root cause, combined with the stupidity of people who took out mortgages they couldn't afford, and instead of taking responsibility, went to the voting booth to vote themselves some more Pie in the Sky, from Obama's Endless Wagon of Giveaways. But that's the point of socialism. Why be responsible when you can just go deeper in debt and rob the taxpayer blind. It works for individuals, and for governments too. Now the auto industry wants a bailout too. And why shouldn't they. Good old Uncle FDR rammed through the National Labor Relations Act and intimidated the Supreme Court into dropping any objections to its blatant unconstitutionality. The NLRB put unions in the driver's seat, creating a huge well funded base for the emocratic party, while strangling entire industries to death. This of course didn't matter to FDR or any of his successors, so long as the money and the votes kept coming in to the Democratic party. America began losing industry after industry, which moved overseas to China or across the border to Mexico, or anywhere they could operate freely. Democrats responded by imposing even more regulations on industries, only accelerating the whole process. As a result the biggest growth area for union jobs is in workplaces directly funded or controlled by the government. The automotive industry can survive one of two ways, it can jettison the UAW monkey on its back, not likely considering that the party who rakes in the union dues just won big, or it can become a subsidiary of the government, which looks increasingly likely. And that is the beauty of socialism, everything it touches fails, but never actually collapses or dies, until the whole socialist beast itself perishes. Which means you can safely expect more bailouts and a lot more regulations, keeping the environmentalist and the 75 dollar an hour union worker happy, while ripping off the taxpayer with both hands, and killing what's left of the American auto industry by a slow death.  Socialism means never having to make the tough decisions, except when you have 3 beds and 4 patients, and as patients in the UK and Canada know, no amount of noble speeches will fix that. Failure is the free market's warning system. If you're going the wrong way, you'll find out when you see all the cars swerving the other way and see the guard rail coming up ahead. It may hurt, but if you use your head, you've got a good chance of surviving it. Socialism by contrast has no warning system. The windows are hung over with black cloth and the only time you figure out anything is wrong, is when you're already plummeting over the cliff. Instead of a crash, life becomes grim, shortages become constant, finding what you need, whether it's medical care, transportation or food, becomes first a struggle and then requires living outside the law. And yet the television chirpily keeps telling you that things couldn't be any better. Yes we can folks, yes we can! Socialism is the answer to a very simple equation. If you refuse to take responsibility for yourself, someone else will take it for you. If millions of people grow used to the government taking responsibility for them, we call it socialism. But who becomes responsible for the government? The answer is no one. In totalitarian socialism, blame is passed down the line to the weak. In bureaucratic socialism, the blame is buried in the paperwork. And on the rare occasions that failure is admitted, what follows is a call for more of the same. But the debt still piles up and things still get worse. And you can only bail out so much water, before you have to admit there's a hole in the boat. You can only bail out so much money, before you admit that there's a hole in the system, and the money can only have value, so long as everyone keeps ignoring the giant hole. Guess how long that works for? Try and guess, if you get it right, there may be a Nobel Prize in Economics in it for you. There are two solutions to the current crisis, either the the government restores responsibility to its citizens and the free market, or the government will devour the citizens and the free market to create a vast financial and regulatory shell game that will end with the collapse of the entire system. There are no shortcuts around responsibility, only different ways of getting to the same place. And the longer the trip, the more painful the final destination. |
Posted: There is a basic difference between a cult and a political movement. A political movement is geared around issues, a cult is built around a belief that attaching yourself to a particular guru can teach you how to be a better person and "redeem" you and the rest of the world. You can demonstrate that a political movement is wrong, but demonstrating that a cult is wrong does no good whatsoever. A cult leader functions by convincing his followers to become emotionally and physically invested in the idea that only by following them can they be saved. Cult membership has to be broken, like any emotionally based addiction.  For our purposes, we can classify Obama cultists into several categories. 1. Far left - Many members of the far left got on board with Obama, but often as a means to an end without actually believing his hype. Paradoxically they actually represent a small share of hard core Obama cult believers. Even when they do need deprogramming, there really is no point to it. Regardless of whether they support Obama or not, their core beliefs are hostile to America and supportive of terrorism. Deprogramming them is the equivalent of switching an alcoholic from Dewar's to Jim Bean. It's a difference but not one that makes a difference in the nature of the basic problem. The far left in any case will be deprogrammed by more radical members of their own kind, a process that began even before Obama's victory march, and has been gathering speed with Rahm's selection as Chief of Staff. Obama's policies will never move fast enough or be destructive enough to suit them, but that is normal for their kind which cannot be satisfied except by squabbling to death over which of them is radical enough. When in power the argument is usually settled with a round of revolutionary purges followed by a bloody dictatorship. 2. Early Obama Supporters - Generally liberal, sometimes to the left and often young, they found themselves swept up in a popular movement with plenty of coolness cachet attached to it. Except they expected things to actually change. The media frenzy that is overwhelming ordinary Americans is leaving them curiously untouched. The election's conclusion and even the inauguration was anticlimactic, and they're noticing that things don't really seem to be changing the way they expected them to. Like the McGovern voters of another generation, they invested their time and energy in a candidate who was supposed to solve everything, only to be told that it's a lot more complicated than that. But they were never much for complications in the first place. When they hear the word "complicated", they change the channel. Growing layoffs, expected to hit younger workers hardest, as well as the collapse of much of their economic boom fueled tech centered lifestyle, should add to their frustration and irritation, and leave them needing someone to blame. Remember this will take time. Deprogramming them, especially when there is a generation gap, will be difficult. To the more progressive minded, pointing out that the economy is still bad, that we're still at war and that the government still exercises a great deal of police powers... and asking what exactly has changed, is a core attack. In general, emphasizing Obama's failure to deliver is key. Don't unintentionally create defenses for them by harping on Obama's lack of experience. And don't play the "I Told You So" game. Once they realize how misguided supporting Obama was, they'll be able to play it themselves. Particularly with young supporters, Obama's abuse of trust and shallowness will become key points. Young people regularly experience abuse of trust, and will look back on past emotional experiences as shallow. Once both can be established, a great deal of progress will have been made. 3. Black Obama Supporters - Black Obama supporters rank as having the most ridiculously inflated expectations for Obama, from widescale payouts to an end to racism and radical changes for their own status. Those expectations of course won't be met. Obama has been good at exploiting the expectations of African-Americans, but at the same time has often disdained them on the campaign trail, focusing on using his own supposed African identity to trigger white guilt, while promising some sort of post-racial nirvana. The worst disillusionment for them will be business as usual. While the usual liberal taps will be turned on, in many cases they were turned on under Bush already, and the change just won't be that dramatic. Not that anything could be. Racism won't go away either. And the disappointment will set in. Here it can be useful to emphasize how many black leaders were outright opposed to Obama or suspicious of him. Burris' treatment, can also serve as a handy footnote. As is Obama sending his children to a private school. But the general lack of any real progress and deflated expectations are the key points here. This is not a demographic that will be voting Republican in large numbers any time soon, but their frustration can help send a note of disharmony through the picture that Obama would like to present. 4. Ordinary Americans - Millions of ordinary Americans, including those who did not support Obama in the election, are being swept up in the constant torrent of media hype that centers on promoting Obama and everything having to do with him.  The best response to this was already made by McCain's celebrity commercial during the election backed by the question, "Are you actually better off under Obama?" When people stop to think about it, what they're really seeing is celebrity coverage without any content. And in a recession, "Where's the beef" is ultimately going to carry more weight, than footage of Obama's kids or the curtain Obama's wife is wearing. The power of that kind of non-stop propaganda coverage can't be underestimated, but the bottom line will have to be answered sooner or later. A year from now, most people will be deadened against the hype and will care a lot more about unemployment and out of control government spending. And they will be ready to listen. 5. Hispanic-Americans - See 3 and 4, combined with Richardson, who had switched to Obama, getting the boot. Loss of jobs and lack of real economic We'll never know what the true figure is, but Obama did poorly with Jewish voters compared to Kerry or Gore. His policies on the War on Terror and Israel will leave plenty of material for those Jews who care about either one, but still voted for Obama. The major caveat here is that most Jews who did vote for Obama, could give less of a damn about Israel or the War on Terror. They generally have no meaningful Jewish identity and belong in a generic upper middle class liberal category. Some were genuinely fooled by the propaganda barrage leading up to the election, and may be more reachable by facts. 7. Republicans - Yes there are unfortunately no shortage of Republicans caught up in the hype. They may not have voted for Obama, but some have been swept up in the whirlwind. Some more prominent figures are obviously taking part for personal gain or out of political timidity. Many are simply willing to give Obama a chance and hopeful he will succeed. That however will quickly fade, especially when they see some of the facts on Obama's record and the records of his appointees, and his rapidly inflating spending plans. Those who meanwhile throw in with Obama for cynical political or politically correct reasons will be the first to jump ship, when they realize that the S.S. Barack is taking on water. There is no point in bothering with them until then. 8. Idiots - There is no real point in trying to convince idiots of anything. They're idiots. They can't help it. They voted for Obama in 2008. They'll vote for him in 2012. They'll vote for him in 2016 too, even if he (hopefully) isn't on the ballot. Please note, idiots may belong to Categories 1-7. If you do encounter an idiot, leave it alone or follow the traditional custom of throwing rotten fruit in his direction. 9. The Media - Sooo how are those pre-arranged press conferences going? You guys really enjoy being completely shut out of the process, huh? How's the bankruptcy coming along at the paper? Tough times. Too bad the White House can't seem to help you, or even take your questions. 10. General Guidelines - Avoid dumping your frustration with Obama, pick specific areas and flaws to point to by way of conversation. Be reasonable and don't press your point. People can figure out things on their own better, when they aren't being shoved toward a particular conclusion. A well made point can nag away far better, than actual nagging. While it can be tempting for those of us who are in the loop to dump a lot of knowledge at once, this kind of information dump approach can confuse people who will then naturally shut down the conversation. You want to pick specific points, and avoid areas that many people associate with conspiracy theories. While Obama's citizenship is a valid point, it is not one that will matter much to most people, particularly after the inauguration. Bread and butter issues will be much more relevant for most people. For those who voted for Obama despite their beliefs being at odds with his in key areas, e.g. Catholics, Jews, Anti-War, Libertarians, it can help to emphasize his positions on Abortion, Hamas, Wars abroad or government spending. This will however be strictly fringe. Most people voted in order to make things better, and Reagan's old question will still play well, "Are you better off?" Protests that Obama needs to be given more time or more of a chance, should be met with firm, "We've given him a chance. If he can't do the job, he should make way for someone who can" and "We can do better." And we can. That above all is the key point. Obama is not the best America has to offer. There's always a better choice out there. |
Monday, January 26, 2009
from NY to Israel Sultan Reveals The Stories Behind the News
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment