Why is it that liberals cannot understand, no matter how clear the evidence, that you can't spend your way to prosperity?
Why is it that liberals cannot understand, no matter how clear the evidence, that there's no such thing as free?
Why is it that liberals cannot understand, no matter how clear the evidence, that the laws of economics are immutable?
Why is it that liberals cannot understand, no matter how clear the evidence, that government can never "work better"?
Why is it that liberals cannot understand, no matter how clear the evidence, that government cannot solve your problems?
Why is it that liberals cannot understand, no matter how clear the evidence, that government cannot guarantee success?
Why is it that liberals cannot understand, no matter how clear the evidence, that government cannot provide equal results but only equal opportunity?
Why is it that liberals cannot understand, no matter how clear the evidence, that the only way to real prosperity is through the individual and that unshackling human innovation and creativity is the greatest engine for freedom, liberty and economic prosperity?
Why is it that liberals cannot understand, no matter how clear the evidence, whether it be from reading The Constitution, The Declaration of Independence or The Federalist Papers, that their view and vision of America is the complete antithesis to the views and vision of our founding fathers?
Why is it that liberals cannot understand, no matter how clear the evidence, that SOCIALISM HAS NEVER AND WILL NEVER WORK????
Why is it that liberals cannot understand, no matter how clear the evidence, that deregulation did not cause our current financial crisis but that its real cause was actually overregulation in the form of social engineering and too much government intervention in our lives?
Why is it that liberals cannot understand, no matter how clear the evidence, that socialized medicine only leads to worse care -- by deterring talented people from entering the medical field, government rationing -- by creating a supply shortage in available medicine and care-givers, and unsustainability -- due to the declining economic growth caused by the tremendous tax burden of having to pay for such a system?
Why is it that liberals cannot understand, no matter how clear the evidence, that showing weakness to our enemies only invites attack?
Why is it that liberals cannot understand, no matter how clear the evidence, that raising taxes leads inevitably leads to less economic output and growth and ultimately less revenue to the government and that lowering taxes will always lead to greater economic vitality and strength and ultimately more revenue to the government?
Why is it that liberals cannot understand, no matter how clear the evidence, that Barack Obama's plans are not new or visionary, but are rather the same failed policies that have caused such horror, suffering and pain so many times throughout history?
Why is it that liberals cannot understand, no matter how clear the evidence, that Barack Obama's economic prescriptions can and will only lead to stagflation, a tremendous decrease in our standard of living, misery and ultimately worldwide catastrophe?
Why is it that liberals cannot understand, no matter how clear the evidence? Or is it that they just simply refuse to understand?
---------
Here are some quotes from the last Democrat to actually get it (if only Obama really cared about actually saving our economy)...
"Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort – thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate." -- John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963
"A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues." -- John F. Kennedy, Sept. 18, 1963
"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus." -- John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962
"Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government."-- John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963
"It is no contradiction – the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today's economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates." -- John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963
--------
Some words of wisdom from the father of the Democratic party (apparently Obama and the Dems aren't too interested in these truths either)...
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." -- Thomas Jefferson
"I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive." -- Thomas Jefferson
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases." -- Thomas Jefferson
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
interesting. would you say that jfk was the last democrat? why is that? he landed us into some financial trouble, esp with the bay of pigs invasion. you know, a lot of comparison was drawn between nixon/kennedy's debates and mccain/obama...do you agree an older, sweating candidate doesnt have a chance in hell against a younger, more suave candidate?
ReplyDeleteas of right now, in your opinion, is obama doing *anything* right? he did promise tax cuts and he's not dumb...he knows he must push forth these tax cuts or undergo scrutiny....just curious what your views are.
I would say JFK was the last major Democrat, perhaps in the Jeffersonian mold, who believed in smaller government and in American exceptionalism. Since LBJ, the Democratic party has really become the Socialist party and I don't intend any hyperbole. If you look at the Democratic party's platform and philisophical underpinnings, they are definitely more in line with a European/Democratic Socialist, religiously secular, humanist viewpoint. JFK believed in lower taxes and understood the connection between individual liberty, innovation and creativity and economic prosperity and he spurned the "big-government" FDR type command and control view.
ReplyDeleteKennedy obviously made several missteps, some very serious like the Bay of Pigs. His misstep there was based more on bad intelligence than anything. I think Bay of Pigs operation was abandoned by him because Cuba already had the Nuclear weapons in Cuba and by proceeding with the operation risked an escalation of tensions possibly leading to WWIII. This, of course, led to an emboldened U.S.S.R. trying to send more missiles to Cuba, ultimately leading to the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Your point about this causing a financial problem is not the case. His economic program (cutting tax rates) worked and the economy responded very positively to that move.
As far as the debating style or old person vs. young person issue goes regarding candidates. There is definitely a visual aspect to campaigning and with the 24 hour news cycle, it tends to become all about sound bites. I think that McCain's failure had much more to do with his not being palatible to the Conservative base of the party and his not being seemingly incoherent campaign. He didn't focus in on issues and any time he did, he would drop it once it began working. An example is his campaign pledge to drill for domestic oil. That pledge was working, however, once gas prices began receding, he dropped the message, or at least watered it down. I think, in the debates, if he had really gone straight for Obama, he easily could have won. However, there are people who will vote for a candidate who is good-looking or young. There have always been voters like that. But, I think, by and large, people want to hear a concise message and want to be spoken to and not at. I think Obama succeeded in speaking to his audience (even if it was mostly high-minded rhetoric) and McCain just came off as frenetic and incoherent.
Now, as for Obama's performance, so far...
There are a couple of things Obama has done that is ok, however, most of what is going on, at least as it appears to me, is sleight of hand. His rhetoric is one thing, but his actions are another. Each of his major initiatives are incremental steps towards his larger goals. He wants universal, single-payer healthcare -- but in America, that just will not fly and instead of failing, as the Clinton Administration did in '93 trying to push it outright, he is incrementally doing it by expanding certain types of coverage (SCHIP and Medicaid) and trying to introduce a slush fund to create a future government insurance. The problem is that the existence of the government insurance will attract companies to dump their insurance coverages because it saves them money, but will force more people into the government pool. The government program will not reimburse doctors at market value for care and will therefore force doctors to charge the private insurers more for the same care, thereby increasing the premiums. Eventually what will happen, is that it will be too costly for people to go the private insurance route and will therefore be forced in a de facto way into the government program. That's how he is trying to bring about a single payer system.
He is doing the same thing with energy. He is imposing cap and trade which will again raise the cost of fuel and heating costs. Eventually, it will become too costly for people and they will have no choice but go for whatever alternative the government decides they want to pursue. The problem is, either way, the costs will be enormous.
He did promise tax cuts, but again, it's the same sleight of hand. He wants to offset his tax cuts with tax increases somewhere else. He, also, wants to increase taxes tremendously on the income earners and producers in the country.
His policies are an attack on wealth creation and economic prosperity. He really does want to redistribute the wealth, no matter the cost.