Was 2012 the year when the democratic world lost its grip on reality? Must we assume now that no party that speaks the truth about the economic future has a chance of winning power in a national election? With the results of presidential contests in the United States and France as evidence, this would seem to be the only possible conclusion. Any political leader prepared to deceive the electorate into believing that government spending, and the vast system of services that it provides, can go on as before â or that they will be able to resume as soon as this momentary emergency is over â was propelled into office virtually by acclamation. So universal has this rule turned out to be that parties and leaders who know better â whose economic literacy is beyond question â are now afraid even to hint at the fact which must eventually be faced. The promises that governments are making to their electorates are not just misleading: they are unforgivably dishonest. It will not be possible to go on as we are, or to return to the expectations that we once had. The immediate emergency created by the crash of 2008 was not some temporary blip in the infinitely expanding growth of the beneficent state. It was, in fact, almost irrelevant to the larger truth which it happened, by coincidence, to bring into view. Government on the scale established in most modern western countries is simply unaffordable. In Britain, the disagreement between Labour and the Conservatives over how to reduce the deficit (cut spending or increase borrowing?) is ridiculously insignificant and out of touch with the actual proportions of the problem. In the UK, the US, and (above all) the countries of the EU, democratic politics is being conducted on false premises. Just remember that class warfare, and not patriotism, is now the last refuge of the political scoundrel: How do you propose to go on providing the entitlements that you have sworn never to end, without any money? The victorious political parties of the Left have a ready answer to that one. They will raise taxes on the ârichâ. In France and the United States, this is the formula that is being presented not only as an economic solution but also as a just social settlement, since the ârichâ are inherently wicked and must have acquired their wealth by confiscating it from the poor. Of course, the moral logic of this principle is absurd. The amount of wealth in an economy is not fixed so that one person having more means that somebody else must have less. But, for the purposes of our problem, it is the fault in the economic logic that is more important. The amount of money that is required to fund government entitlement programmes is now so enormous that it could not be procured by even very large increases in taxation on the ârichâ. Assuming that you could get all of the rich members of your population to stand still and be fleeced (rather than leaving the country, as Gérard Depardieu and a vast army of his French brethren are doing), there are simply not enough of them to provide the revenue that a universal, comprehensive benefits system requires. And if all the French rich did stay put, and submit to President Hollandeâs quixotic 75 per cent income tax, they would soon be too impoverished to invest in the supply side of the economy, which would undermine any possibility of growth. We have clucked our tongues at Greece for the last couple of years, but how bad is it here? Dale Franks lays it out at QandO: Right now, mandatory entitlement spending alone is 62% of the Federal budget, and it will rise continuously under present law. At the same time, federal revenues donât even cover the cost of those entitlements, plus interest payment on the national debt. Think about that. We could eliminate the entire Federal Government except for entitlement spending and interest on the national debt, and we would still have to borrow money to pay for it. The presidentâs proposal for increasing taxes on âthe richâ would bring in an extra $40 billion dollars next year. So, instead of borrowing $1.1 Trillion next year, weâll only have to borrow $1.06 Trillion. Somehow, we are told, this will be massively helpful. ⦠But, really, anyone who isnât as dumb as a bag of hammers already knows that the amount of government we have is unaffordable, simply by noting that weâve increased the national debt from $1 trillion to $16.3 trillion since 1980. It took us 190 years to accumulate $1 trillion in debt. And 32 years to multiply it more than 15 times. We donât have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem, but thatâs not the worst of the problems we face now. We have a delusion that this situation will go on forever without needing a solution that brings spending into balance and working off our debt. Greece should have taught all of the Western nations the folly of that delusion. http://hotair.com/archives/2012/12/24/2012-lie-of-the-year-government-is-affordable/
You know you live in a country Run By Idiots... - When smoking Pot is legal and widely accepted but smoking tobacco is treated like a criminal offense. - You can get arrested for expired tags on your car but not for being in the country illegally. - Your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more of our money. - A seven year old boy can be thrown out of school for calling his teacher "cute" but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable. - Working class Americans pay for their own healthcare and the healthcare of everyone else while unmarried women are free to have child after child on the "State's" dime while never being held responsible for their own choices. - Hard work and success are rewarded with higher taxes and government intrusion, while slothful, lazy behavior is rewarded with EBT cards, WIC checks, Medicaid and subsidized housing, and free cell phones. - The government's plan for getting people back to work is to provide 99 weeks of unemployment checks (to not work). - Being self-sufficient is considered a threat to the government. - Politicians think that stripping away the amendments to the constitution is really protecting the rights of the people. - The rights of the Government come before the rights of the individual. - Parents believe the State is responsible for providing for their children. - Being stripped of the ability to defend yourself makes you "safe".
Obama got his health care. If Obama gets his tax increase does this mean we put him out of business? What's he going to do for the next four years? Al Qaida is out, Islam is in for the new year. Obama is not interested in war (ie Afghan or Iraq). Israel is out, the UN is in. Our black president is gay (according to Time mag cover) So Obama has knocked off these two problems. Race and Gayness. Barry's wife "Bootylicious" has conquered childhood obesity. Ta da. Honestly, there's nothing left for him to do.
There is plenty still on the plate: - Turn illegal aliens into liberal voters - Put big business and the rich out of business and redistribute all their wealth - Nationalize those businesses since the private sector obviously can't run them the right way - Stop fracking and all oil and gas exploration and make all energy green. - Get carbon cap and trade passed to make the polluters pay - Get the military positioned to put down any peaceful or armed rebellion to forced liberal policies - etc.
Let me guess you got this from an email. For a guy who used to think clearly, you've gone off the deep end man.
Yes, I did get it in an e-mail, although I edited out the crazy stuff.:eek: Frankly, there's not much I could argue with in what I posted.
"When smoking Pot is legal and widely accepted but smoking tobacco is treated like a criminal offense." this one is just stupid, come to texas and we'll go to a bar, I'll buy the beer, you light up a joint and I'll light up a cig and lets see what happens. "You can get arrested for expired tags on your car but not for being in the country illegally. " again stupid, I've been stopped before for expired tags and no arrest, don't know anyone who's been arrested for that either. I know several guys who've been picked up for being here illegally, spent some time in jail and then off to Mexico. and on and on mr used to be obvious