Clinton (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} clintp) wrote,@ 2008-10-28 10:31:00 |
|
Quadrennial Message
In one week, it's Election Day. The candidates of choice this time around are Senator Barack Hussein Obama II (D-IL) and Senator John Sidney McCain III (R-AZ). For all practical purposes, there's no-one else of importance running. So it's come to this.
I have just one thing to say on the matter.
There are a lot of things that are troubling me right now with the state of the United States, but the two that stand out are the lousy economy and the erosion of personal freedoms.
The erosion of personal liberty has been going on for a while now. The first time I remember noticing was in college where I'd heard the term "hate crime" for the first time. With such strange notions as special crimes against someone's civil rights, you can almost hear the Founders turning in their graves. Fast forward 20 years and the USA PATRIOT Act makes the Alien and Sedition Acts look tame by comparison -- at least those had political opponents in Congress and later the White House. There is no refuge from the Department of Homeland Security. With the combined resources of domestic and foreign intelligence they can pretty much do whatever they like under the banner of "National Security." With the ease and speed at which information spreads, no government agency should be trusted to keep my secrets.
I think this will be the Bush Administration's legacy. Not Iraq, a recession, nor anything else will last as long as those rights being given away.
I am actually more worried about what Obama's about to do to freedom than Bush. Incredible?
That Sen. Obama has socialist leanings should not surprise anyone. The fact that it took an unscripted question from some schlub from Ohio to get him say it outright worrisome. It's a damming statement against every journalist he's ever spoken to in the past 3 years.
In the midst of an economic recession, the public is going to be very receptive to the message of a mothering Federal government. The government will take care of you in your old age, the government will provide your health care, and the government will make sure that every family has a house, a car, and a television set.
At its core, socialism is all about equality. Everyone should have the luxuries of life regardless of their natural talents, looks, status, intelligence, attitude, health or work ethic. Want to argue the point? Then ask a socialist whether a poor, untalented, ugly, dim, lazy and unhealthy person should have their own house, free health care, and a little spending money to go with it. "Of course they should. Everyone has a right to be happy."
But those things don't come cheap. There are two fundamental costs. The first is, you must tax those that are using what they've got in life to give to those that don't. "Tax the rich, give to the poor!" might sound good but "Tax the well off middle class to give to the poor!" begins to loose its luster. And if you're young, middle-of-the-middle class, and on your way into the "well off middle class" it's troubling. And you've gotten the Federal government into the business of drawing lines between what it means to be rich and what it means to be not-so-rich. $250k/year? $100k/year? What's the right number?
The other more insidious cost is your freedom. With the willing and active participation of the mob, your right to earn a dollar's pay for a dollar's work will evaporate before your eyes. A dollar's pay for a dollar's work if you're under $30k/year. But only $0.75 pay for a dollar's work if you're under $100k/year. And a mere $0.62 pay for a dollar's work if you're under $250k/year. (Someone dig up a real feminist from the 1960's to tell you what bullshit this is.)
So the rich loose a bit of their money, big deal.
Yes. It's a very big deal. If you ever want to become one of them it is. If you're earning $31k/year, can you make yourself 20% smarter? Prettier? More talented? Annually? You will have to, just to keep up with the rising taxes as you earn more and more.
And the already wealthy (a notch above the rich) are exceedingly good at hiding their money. Force them into a socialist economy, and you'll see just how fast they can lock it up and send it overseas. They're not getting taxed, but you will be.
It's not just my income I'm worried about. Socialists as a rule have a big stake in keeping tabs on my habits and my personal life. If society is to be adequately regulated, it must be adequately monitored to provide feedback to the controlling body. Bush installed cameras everywhere to make sure I don't bring toothpaste onto an airplane. Obama will install cameras everywhere to make sure my kid's lemonade stand pays its full share of taxes, is eco-friendly, offers lemon-free and sugar-free lemonade, submits to FDA inspection, while being handicapped accessible, and busing in a more diverse clientele at his expense.
McCain? I'm not thrilled with him at all. But what other choice do I have?
In one week, it's Election Day. The candidates of choice this time around are Senator Barack Hussein Obama II (D-IL) and Senator John Sidney McCain III (R-AZ). For all practical purposes, there's no-one else of importance running. So it's come to this.
I have just one thing to say on the matter.
There are a lot of things that are troubling me right now with the state of the United States, but the two that stand out are the lousy economy and the erosion of personal freedoms.
The erosion of personal liberty has been going on for a while now. The first time I remember noticing was in college where I'd heard the term "hate crime" for the first time. With such strange notions as special crimes against someone's civil rights, you can almost hear the Founders turning in their graves. Fast forward 20 years and the USA PATRIOT Act makes the Alien and Sedition Acts look tame by comparison -- at least those had political opponents in Congress and later the White House. There is no refuge from the Department of Homeland Security. With the combined resources of domestic and foreign intelligence they can pretty much do whatever they like under the banner of "National Security." With the ease and speed at which information spreads, no government agency should be trusted to keep my secrets.
I think this will be the Bush Administration's legacy. Not Iraq, a recession, nor anything else will last as long as those rights being given away.
I am actually more worried about what Obama's about to do to freedom than Bush. Incredible?
That Sen. Obama has socialist leanings should not surprise anyone. The fact that it took an unscripted question from some schlub from Ohio to get him say it outright worrisome. It's a damming statement against every journalist he's ever spoken to in the past 3 years.
In the midst of an economic recession, the public is going to be very receptive to the message of a mothering Federal government. The government will take care of you in your old age, the government will provide your health care, and the government will make sure that every family has a house, a car, and a television set.
At its core, socialism is all about equality. Everyone should have the luxuries of life regardless of their natural talents, looks, status, intelligence, attitude, health or work ethic. Want to argue the point? Then ask a socialist whether a poor, untalented, ugly, dim, lazy and unhealthy person should have their own house, free health care, and a little spending money to go with it. "Of course they should. Everyone has a right to be happy."
But those things don't come cheap. There are two fundamental costs. The first is, you must tax those that are using what they've got in life to give to those that don't. "Tax the rich, give to the poor!" might sound good but "Tax the well off middle class to give to the poor!" begins to loose its luster. And if you're young, middle-of-the-middle class, and on your way into the "well off middle class" it's troubling. And you've gotten the Federal government into the business of drawing lines between what it means to be rich and what it means to be not-so-rich. $250k/year? $100k/year? What's the right number?
The other more insidious cost is your freedom. With the willing and active participation of the mob, your right to earn a dollar's pay for a dollar's work will evaporate before your eyes. A dollar's pay for a dollar's work if you're under $30k/year. But only $0.75 pay for a dollar's work if you're under $100k/year. And a mere $0.62 pay for a dollar's work if you're under $250k/year. (Someone dig up a real feminist from the 1960's to tell you what bullshit this is.)
So the rich loose a bit of their money, big deal.
Yes. It's a very big deal. If you ever want to become one of them it is. If you're earning $31k/year, can you make yourself 20% smarter? Prettier? More talented? Annually? You will have to, just to keep up with the rising taxes as you earn more and more.
And the already wealthy (a notch above the rich) are exceedingly good at hiding their money. Force them into a socialist economy, and you'll see just how fast they can lock it up and send it overseas. They're not getting taxed, but you will be.
It's not just my income I'm worried about. Socialists as a rule have a big stake in keeping tabs on my habits and my personal life. If society is to be adequately regulated, it must be adequately monitored to provide feedback to the controlling body. Bush installed cameras everywhere to make sure I don't bring toothpaste onto an airplane. Obama will install cameras everywhere to make sure my kid's lemonade stand pays its full share of taxes, is eco-friendly, offers lemon-free and sugar-free lemonade, submits to FDA inspection, while being handicapped accessible, and busing in a more diverse clientele at his expense.
McCain? I'm not thrilled with him at all. But what other choice do I have?
