Category Archives: Welfare

UPDATED: The 2 Parties’ Question: How Much To Steal

Debt, Democrats, Economy, Federal Reserve Bank, Political Economy, Republicans, Taxation, The State, War, Welfare

The following is from my new, WND column, “The 2 Parties’ Question: How Much To Steal”:

“… If I understand the Republican line for the coming midterms, it is that, thankfully, there is a smart, economically stimulating way for the State to spend money it had lifted from the private economy (and, in the process, crowded out private, productive economic activity).

Time and again, Republicans will explain to us of the booboisie that the stimuli consisted of misguided spending so typical of Democrats, instead of precision-guided make-work projects, the hallmark of Republikeynesian economic ‘thought.'”

With few exceptions, Republican politicians, and their matching Tweedledim and Tweedledimmer cable personalities, seem incapable of countering the fiction that vests central planners with the ability to create viable jobs by appropriating private property, and redistributing it, based on bureaucratic and political considerations.

The unsparing critique the likes of dodo Perino, Newt, Dick, Karl, et. al, will invariably voice is that the Dems did not apply the stolen funds the way one ought to have; as the GOPers would have.” ….

The complete column is “The 2 Parties’ Question: How Much To Steal.”

Read my libertarian manifesto, Broad Sides: One Woman’s Clash With A Corrupt Society.

The Second Edition features bonus material and reviews. Get your copy (or copies) now!

UPDATE (Aug. 27): Wiley hereunder, in the Comments Section, clearly misunderstands an ad hominem argument. My column has some fun with Fox’s affirmative females, after which their “arguments”—“things go in cycles“/Republicans would ‘stimulate‘ better than the Dems”—were showcased for their profound folly. This is not ad hominem. Had I presented Dana dunderhead’s “case” for economic recovery without the spice, no one would read this column.

UPDATED: The 2 Parties' Question: How Much To Steal

Debt, Democrats, Federal Reserve Bank, Political Economy, Republicans, Taxation, The State, War, Welfare

The following is from my new, WND column, “The 2 Parties’ Question: How Much To Steal”:

“… If I understand the Republican line for the coming midterms, it is that, thankfully, there is a smart, economically stimulating way for the State to spend money it had lifted from the private economy (and, in the process, crowded out private, productive economic activity).

Time and again, Republicans will explain to us of the booboisie that the stimuli consisted of misguided spending so typical of Democrats, instead of precision-guided make-work projects, the hallmark of Republikeynesian economic ‘thought.'”

With few exceptions, Republican politicians, and their matching Tweedledim and Tweedledimmer cable personalities, seem incapable of countering the fiction that vests central planners with the ability to create viable jobs by appropriating private property, and redistributing it, based on bureaucratic and political considerations.

The unsparing critique the likes of dodo Perino, Newt, Dick, Karl, et. al, will invariably voice is that the Dems did not apply the stolen funds the way one ought to have; as the GOPers would have.” ….

The complete column is “The 2 Parties’ Question: How Much To Steal.”

Read my libertarian manifesto, Broad Sides: One Woman’s Clash With A Corrupt Society.

The Second Edition features bonus material and reviews. Get your copy (or copies) now!

UPDATE (Aug. 27): Wiley hereunder, in the Comments Section, clearly misunderstands an ad hominem argument. My column has some fun with Fox’s affirmative females, after which their “arguments”—“things go in cycles“/Republicans would ‘stimulate‘ better than the Dems”—were showcased for their profound folly. This is not ad hominem. Had I presented Dana dunderhead’s “case” for economic recovery without the spice, no one would read this column.

UPDATED: Statism Starts With YOU! (Chuckie Misses Bush)

Debt, Economy, Healthcare, Individual Rights, libertarianism, Liberty, Morality, Political Economy, Political Philosophy, Republicans, The State, Welfare

The following is from “Statism Starts With YOU!”, now on WND.Com:

“Why did federal regulators not intervene sooner? A tragedy could have been averted. That was the first demand made following the accidental death of 8 spectators, and the injury of 12, at the California 200 off-road race. The derby was held in the Mojave Desert, in the Lucerne Valley. The driver of one of the racing trucks lost control of his vehicle, flipped and landed on bystanders, who are in the habit of getting as close as they possibly can to the tracks.”

“Evidently, what draws fans of desert racing to the sport, attest Phil Willon and David Zahniser of the Los Angeles Times, is the ‘the danger, dust and noise of watching 3,500-pound trucks roaring past — close enough almost to touch — and then rocketing into the air over treacherous jumps with nicknames like ‘the rock pile.'”

It’s all great fun until something goes terribly wrong. Then it’s someone else’s fault.” …

This tragedy, off-the-beaten-track, well illustrates the dynamics of state encroachment. Statism always and everywhere begins with The People.”

The complete column is “Statism Starts With YOU!”

Read my libertarian manifesto, Broad Sides: One Woman’s Clash With A Corrupt Society.

The Second Edition features bonus material and reviews. Get your copy (or copies) now!

UPDATE (Aug. 20): “I miss Bush intensely,” said one of the main Republican ideologues, Charles Krauthammer. “Iraq ended this week fairly successfully. And the economy, Obama purchased with the stimulus; it’s his economy.”

That’s the depth of the thinking of your above-average Republican.

UPDATE II: Bill Getting Brave

Barack Obama, Conservatism, Government, Healthcare, Intelligence, Private Property, Race, Racism, The State, Welfare

Black and white Americans are divided over President Obama, says Bill O’Reilly, pointing to a Gallop poll according to which 88% of Black Americans support Obama; but only 38% of whites.

“A fifty point differential.”

Whites, of course, are barred from expressing racial affinities; but not blacks. Although O’Reilly neglects the black-racism element (he knows that very many blacks are racists), he nevertheless zeroes in on another important reason blacks go with Obama. White Americans fear the expansion of government and the bankrupting of the nation. [I’m not so sure of the first.] This attitude was on display, says O’Reilly, in Missouri, where 71% of the voters rejected the individual mandate to purchase insurance that ObamaCare would have imposed on them.

O’Reilly goes on to clearly state that black America has a different view of politics, in particular, blacks want a bigger federal government for the purpose of imposing social justice and carrying out distributive policies.

Blacks want a central authority “to redistribute income from the white establishment to their precincts” is how O’Reilly, rather directly, describes what black support for “what BHO is doing” is all about.

Fifty four percent of Hispanics support Obama, down 9 points since April. Here too the social justice issue is in operation, says O’Reilly.

O’Reilly recognizes that there are two Americas. It’s hard to decipher his solution—not when he says he support “strict oversight and fair rules,” but not the imposition of entitlements. Oversight over what? To whom a private property owner rents, sells; and who he hires and fires?

And whose property is it anyway to dispense with?

And what about “Thou Shall Not Covet”?

“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that [is] thy neighbor’s.” (THE 10th COMMANDMENT, Exodus 20:17)

UPDATE I (Aug. 6): We doffed a hat to Bill’s first show of whatever it was that rolled off Sarah’s word-salad producing tongue, HERE.

UPDATE II: With Bill it’s one step forward, two steps back. Why do African-Americans lag so far behind, asked one of O’Reilly’s viewers in a letter to The Factor today. Because of 100 years of slavery, replied The Sage. Pray tell, Bill, what is the reason Africa is centuries behind the West, China, Singapore, etc?