printHere’s an excerpt from my WorldNetDaily column, which WND has titled “Axis Of Economic Idiocy.” It leads the Commentary Section:
“Obama is an ass with ears when it comes to the economy. The same goes for Clinton. So Sen. McCain did not help himself (or us) by being charmingly self-deprecating about his understanding of the economy. He has allowed Obama and Clinton, infinitely more asinine than he, to assert their superiority…”
“Where Kemp-McCain economics meet Obama-Clinton ‘freakonomics’ is in the unnatural and un-American idea that the government is entitled to a portion of your income; that it has a lien on your life and on what you acquire in the course of sustaining that life…”
Be it Hillary, Hussein or McCain—they all agree that it is up to the all-knowing central planner to determine how much of your life ought to be theirs…
“While McCain will, at least, put in place an economic incentive structure more conducive to prosperity, the other two intend to penalize prudent, productive economic activity. … As another killer collectivist put it, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need…”
Discuss.
Update 1 (March 29): Topic: B. Hussein Obama.
The propriety police has been patrolling our humble blog, and have found me wanting for having fun with Obama’s second name.
So why did I originate—and use now on two occasions—the “Hillary, Hussein McCain Axis of Evil” appellation?
For one, because it sounds good (humor alert for the grim reader). This writer is a sucker for the sound of words. The rhyme is irresistible. Writing is a bit of a craft. I know I’m a throwback in this respect.
More material: I’ve made a substantial case against the man in “Obama’s Racial Ramrodding” for WND and in “The Ethnic Particularism of Barack Obama” for Jewcy (that last sentence has good cadence too, wouldn’t you say?). Once I rested my case against BHO, it was time to play. Let a girl have some fun. I would hope my readers would be bored silly if I did not give them occasion to laugh.
I’m afraid this is not the place for anemic, prissy writing.
Obama is the media’s messiah; Hillary their punching bag; McCain their pet “maverick.” Me you can trust to pick apart this unholy trinity. They’ve all been subject to forceful comment here and here. In “Mitt’s Gone, Bill’s Back,” I exposed McCain as an extension of the neoconservatives. I wrote:
Thanks to the malign McCain, it looked as though the neoconservative whey was finally separating from the conservative curd. What was to remain was not the best concoction, but it promised to be a far cry from the previous accursed ideological amalgam. I had hoped that, in the dust-up between conservatives and neocon-dominated establishment Republicans, McCain would serve as the curdling bacteria. I was wrong.
No doubt, I do find it highly significant and symbolic that a man with the name Hussein may well ascend to the highest office in the US. More disturbing to me is that man’s radical worldview, embraced by virtue of affiliating with a highly political, Afrocentric church for two decades; Obama is not coming clean about his Black-Liberation theology leanings.
Am I someone who believes America has very distinct roots and that those are on the wane? Indeed. Is Obama an antithesis to the authentic America I occasionally catch a glimpse of? I believe so.
Finally, lighten up. Or please take the inquisition elsewhere.
Now what was I saying about B. Hussein Obama?
Update 2 (March 31): I must agree with Patrick about McCain’s language, at least: McCain knows and uses valid terms such as the “unintended consequences of government intervention,” etc. As I said in my column, he is infinitely more familiar with economics than the other two asses with ears.
Incidentally, planned economies are not a branch of economics, as far as I’m concerned, but a branch of statecraft.
There is only one kind of economics, and that is the kind that comports with the laws of nature: the free market.
The free market includes and subsumes the right to enter into voluntary, communistic arrangements!
I wonder how McCain will pay for this new “Hundred Years War”?
Oh, our marvelous election process…
Are you man enough?
Are you woman enough?
Are you smart enough?
Are you ignorant enough?
Are you white enough?
Are you black enough?
Are you honest enough?
Are you evasive enough?
In the advance sale of stolen goods, a balance must be maintained, except when it comes to the most important of all …
Are you Communist enough?
This trio of statists are treating us like children. McCain is the more lenient Daddy, as he allows us a bigger allowance and looks the other way when we stay out past our bedtime.
Obama and Clinton are sterner parents. They are threatening to reduce our allowance and will put us on permanent probation.
Regardless of who becomes the new parent, the attitude will be condescending and ultimately destructive of our economic liberties.
These people are intolerable.
Don’t get caught up in Democratic talking points. McCain didn’t say we would be at war for 100 years. He was talking about having a non-combative presence in Iraq such as we have in
Europe, Japan and South Korea. Although, I don’t agree with that policy either, I sure don’t want Obama and Clinton to gain advantage from their misrepresentations of what was actually said.
At the Worldnetdaily, they headlined your column “Axis of Economic Idiocy: Hillary, Hussein, McCain.” Was it your idea or theirs to call Obama by his middle name and not the other two?
No argument that McCain is the best of the “bad” when it comes to economic policy. What has he been doing lately? He’s been out campaigning in Utah with Mitt Romney. Might McCain choose Romney, who really does have economic experience, as his VP? That still wouldn’t be enough to convince me to vote for the Warmonger.
In many respects, Hillary is the “best” of the three, _because her negatives are so strong._ Strong negatives might mean that she will have more difficulty than others getting her proposals passed in Washington. In other words, she might be the candidate who brings “gridlock” to Washington. If “gridlock” means that nothing can get done, that might be a good thing.
1. Warmonger McCain is probably better on economic theory than Socialistic Messiah Obama and Power-hungry Hillary Milhous Nixon.
2. However, there are some reasons to somewhat prefer a Democratic win in the fall over a Republican one, even if I personally wind up voting Constitution or Libertarian or writing-in Donald Duck:
3. The Democrats learn NOTHING from Bush’s statism. The Republicans may have a SLIGHT chance of denouncing a statist economy led by Obama-Clinton.
The GOP makes a better opposition party than a (mis)ruling party.
4. Money wasted on “midnight basketball”, infrastructure repair, housing bailouts to marginal homeowners, etc. – while BAD – is more productive than handing bribes to Sunni warlords for the next 100 years. The Democrats are likely to waste less than the Republicans, especially with pressure coming from the large half-trillion dollar defecits looming ahead.
SOME of the domestic waste gets rechannelled – the warmongering waste results in post-traumatic stress disorders like that of my Marine comrade.
5. A choice between socialism with “capitalist rhetoric” and a more honest socialism is one where I can happily sit on the sidelines and hope that a Gary Johnson (R-NM) or sensible Ron Paul type will rise in 2016 after 8 years of Obama-nomics.
Becoming a Tax Benefit Recipient Queen-The Obama Way
Sen. Obama’s proposal offers certain taxpayers to become a childcare credit/earned income tax credit tax queen. Here is how they could do it. A Mother has two unmarried daughters. Each of the two daughters gets pregnant and has two children each. Then each of the daughters goes out and gets a job that pays $15,000 per year. Then they pay Mom $6,000 for watching the 2 children. Since Mom is not a dependent, they can claim a child care credit. This is what each of the 2 daughters and the Mom pay in taxes and receive in tax benefits under the Obama plan which provides for a refundable childcare credit and a fully refundable child tax credit.
Both daughters will receive:
(1) An earned income credit of $4,716
(2) A child tax credit (under Obama fully refundable) of $2,000
(3) A fully refundable child care credit of $3,000
(4) A social security credit of $500
(5) This is a total of $10,216 in tax credits.
Both daughters will pay only $286 in federal income tax and $1,148 in social security taxes. Thus, there net from the government is $8,782 after tax dollars.
Mom will receive a social security refundable tax credit of $500 and if she owns a home, she will receive a refundable tax credit of an additional
$500. Mom will pay $645 in tax on her earnings and $1,696 in self-employment taxes.
Net, the family receives $16,223 from the government.
What an incentive for unmarried teenage girls to get pregnant. Look at the tax benefits.
Before I get to my comment on the article, I would like to address Mr.Brayton’s comment on why ILana called Obama by his middle name and not the other candidates. First, it is her article and it is her business how she wants to address them. I personally like the fact the she brings to the attention of the readers that Obama, a possible future president of the US, has a Muslim name.
By his affliation with Jeremiah Wright, Obama certainly doen’t sound like a Christian.
Well now back to the article. I will bet that if ILana was asked if she wishes she was wrong about her article she just wrote here on the “Axis Of Economic Idiocy”, she would be the first to say, YES, I wish I was wrong. But she is not wrong about this. McCain would like us yo believe he is not into Government control….Wrong, he has sneaky liberal way’s disguised by a republican party label. Now I will make my prediction for McCains running mate… Mitt Romney.
With that said, no sane person could vote any other way but McCain. I truly wish I could punch the ticket for Ron Paul, but this is where we are at. Martin Berrow
Barrack was just plain Barry for many years. Those who think you’re being to hard on the man had better ask themselves why he suddenly wanted Barrack to be his public name? He deserves to be mocked at every turn. He’s a typical self-important politician and Hussein has been cut far too much slack as it is.
Ilana, if propriety were to ever become your name, I’m gone. If poor Ed ever went over to VD’s place he’d get a bad case of the vapors. Over there mockery of the State, statists and atheists is a high art form. You prefer the vicious jab filled with substance. What Ed didn’t comment on speaks volumes.
[Yeah, VD’s my libertarian bud. Btw, I’m not religious as is Vox Day, but I’m a defender of the West, and that cannot be done without an understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition.–IM]
I doubt BHO would ever confuse or conflate Shia militants with Al Qaida like McCain did several times recently. For a guy who’s supposed to be heavy on foreign policy, I found JohnnyMac’s ignorance and/or deception disturbing.
The trio of boobs in the race present a choice between starvation, nuclear obliteration, and marxist distopia.
BHO seems the least hawkish.
The “100 years war” comment is widely misinterpreted. He doesn’t want the war to last a hundred years. He wants the war finished. He was referring to possible troop presence in the region akin to the troop presence in present-day Germany and Japan.
With Ron Paul out of the picture, it is important to understand that McCain is the lesser of three evils.
Forgive me if I’m repeating myself here, but McCain is a worse speaker then Jorge. He makes tremendous gaffs that the press covers up and never mentions. He will be eaten alive in the general election.
“He was referring to possible troop presence in the region akin to the troop presence in present-day Germany and Japan.”
Anyone who believes we can have troops in Iraq without war is clueless.
Ron Paul has nothing to do with my feelings on McCain. The man who was lusting after the Kerry’s VP nomination 3 1/3 years ago and wanted to switch parties in 2000 tells me all I need to know. The good Senator trotted out his Republican principles about mid January. When the cliff is 100 meters to your front going over at 55MPH (McCain) versus 58MPH (Hillary/Obama)is not a difference.
McCain’s been doing this for years and no one seems to mind… but they will.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edUuhfcJPzg
This is a cheap shot. The bottom line is that, if you consider all of his policy positions – from feticide to the freedom to bear arms – they are better than those of his opponents.
It’s not a cheap shot at all Patrick. In fact, I went easy on this man who only articulates these positions because to do otherwise in Arizona would be the end of him. I have no faith in anything he says once he grabs the prize he’s always wanted. Look out Republicans from then on. And so we’re clear, were you one of those who told me the same kinds of thing about Jorge, Destroyer of Economies? I’ll go by what he’s done, not what he’s presently saying. Do you believe he wanted to be Kerry’s VP so he could moderate his strong anti-gun stance? Not likely.
I have never supported George. You have me mixed up with someone else. The thing about George is that he’s an idiot. Thus, he is easily manipulated by his handlers. McCain is not an idiot. Therefore, I have more faith in what he says and does. I don’t doubt that the man is a politician, and I don’t doubt that he is confused. But, without a doubt, he is the lesser of three evils.
The lesser of three evils is a ridiculous concept at this point. There’s a strong case for Hillary Clinton being much more conservative then McCain and she’s never been involved in anything so anti first amendment as McCain-Feingold. Quickly moving on to the 2nd Amendment we come to McCain-Lieberman. McCain is every bit as evil as the other two. There are no shades of the “lesser” that you speak of.
EN, look at McCain’s website. He wants to legalize assault rifles.
He is a politician, and politicians must compromise to succeed. Listen to him speak on 60 Minutes. Listen to his bit on health care. He says that he has a different “philosophy of the role of government” than that of Clinton. How can you be so mistaken as to propose that he is less conservative than socialist Clinton?
Patrick, he has a history of going back on things he says in the campaign. His bi-partisan (which means he votes Dhimocrtic) credentials are impeccable. Why you believe him is your own business. I won’t. I’m too old to be fooled that easily.
Will any member of the “Axis” scream loud and long about the current plan to give the Fed yet _more_ power? I believe it was Bernanke who said recently that the Fed caused the Great Depression. Most of us alive today did not go through it; many of us remember stories from our elders. It was a truly horrible time. So why give these creatures even more power, and where do the candidates stand on this?
[Right you are. The best book on the topic is “America’s Great Depression” by Murray Rothbard.–IM]