Tired of the Occupiers.

I am tired--no I am very tired--of the media's coverage of the silly antics of young people with nothing more productive to do than camp out in a public place and complain about their lot in life.

These "99 percenters" have tents, sleeping bags, money for food, cell phones, cameras, and nearby sanitation facilities. How do they think all that came about? I took this quote from an article, sadly I don't remember just where. It does make some good points about the silliness of the occupiers.

Protesters don't really have a coherent message except they seem to want what someone else has earned. They feel entitled to more somehow. Why? Yes, some of them took out loans to attend college. So what? No one required them to. They could have worked their way through like lots of us did. But loans were easier. Oh, I'm beginning to see a pattern here.

The media tries to compare the "occupy" movement with what they called the Tea Party. There is little in common. The occupy protesters are just entitled young people who feel like they should have more possessions and less debt, but don't know what to do about it. I have a few ideas, but they wouldn't want to hear them. These ideas would involve responsibility, sacrifice, and work (perhaps for less money than they "deserve" for a while). Maybe they could earn enough to pay a few income taxes. ICK.
The Tea Party had well-specified goals: small government, less intrusion into private lives, lower taxes. But the media tried very hard to diminish coverage and vilify citizens attending meetings supporting those goals.

I'm wondering how long this self-indulgent foolishness will continue when the weather gets seriously wet and cold. Maybe all these "dedicated" campers will find it uncomfortable enough to go back to their dry and heated homes.

With the exception of some "reality show celebrities," and I use the word celebrities very loosely, and the rare people who are born into wealthy families, those with a lot of money worked very long and hard for it. I guess that idea doesn't appeal to everyone.

Hating the coming year

In a way, I wish the elections were tomorrow. I think another year is going to be torturous! The Republican candidates will be trying to be conservative enough, while explaining that they can be moderate and work with Democrats. Democrats seem to want to seed fear, envy, and name-calling without giving any indication they are willing to work with anyone for a solution to the impending melt-down.

Charles Krauthammer describes President Obama's strategy:

"What do you do if you can't run on your record--on 9 percent unemployment, stagnant growth and ruinous deficits as far as the eye can see? How to run when you are asked whether Americans are better off than they were four years ago and you are compelled to answer no?

Play the outsider. Declare yourself the underdog. Denounce Washington as if the electorate hasn't noticed that you've been in charge of it for nearly three years.

But above all: Find villains."

A couple of months ago Obama tried excuses: blaming Japanese supply-chain interruptions, the Arab Spring, European debt, and various acts of God. Those didn't work. So the new strategy, as stated by Mr. Krauthammer is: "Don't whine, blame. Attack. Indict. Accuse. Who? The rich--and their Republican protectors--for wrecking America."

"In Obama's telling, it's the refusal of the rich to 'pay their fair share' that jeopardizes Medicare. If millionaires don't pony up, schools will crumble. Oil-drilling tax breaks are costing teachers their jobs. Corporate loopholes will gut medical research.

It's crude. It's Manichaean. And the left loves it. As a matter of math and logic, however, it's ridiculous."

I've blogged before about the weakness of that argument. Charles Krauthammer raises several more examples of Obama's taking the low road. "...this kind of populist demagoguery is more than intellectually dishonest. It's dangerous. Popular resentment, easily stoked, is less easily controlled, especially when the basest of instincts are granted legitimacy by the nation's leader."

Oh I'm going to dislike the games being played before November 2012.

Obama failures just keep coming.

President Obama continues to pander to his radically liberal base while showing little concern about the welfare of the people of the United States. His focus is solidly in promoting sound bites of policies with no real substance and trying mightily to incite the class envy the believes will get him reelected. A couple of recent articles in the Morning Bell highlight some very real concerns.

But, as with so many other ideas, the song changed once he was elected.

David Brooks, a columnist for the notoriously liberal New York Times, wrote a piece calling himself an "Obama Sap." He mentioned the many times he had high hopes for something President Obama said or did, only to be disappointed in the truth of the man's actions. I wonder if there are other Obama saps out there. I'll bet there are.

Borrowing a good comic strip

This Non Sequitur comic appealed to me because of the liberals in government and their continued belief that increasing taxes will provide them with money to solve problems.

An op ed piece in the newspaper today made this even clearer:

Government intervention may look good to the media but its actual track record-- both today and in the 1930s--is far worse than the track record of letting the economy recover on its own.

Americans today are alarmed that unemployment has stayed around 9 percent for so long. But such unemployment rates have been common for years in Western European welfare states that have followed policies similar to policies being followed currently by the Obama Administration.

These European welfare states have not only used the taxpayers' money to hand out "free" benefits to particular groups, they have mandated that employers do the same. Faced with higher labor costs, employers have hired less labor.

Thomas Sowell, Hoover Institute, Stanford University

Taking money from people who earned it, filtered through the government, to give to those who have done nothing to earn it does not work. Never has, never will. But apparently it is a theory that liberals are not willing to give up on.

Wisdom from Abraham Lincoln

I found a paper with quotes from Abraham Lincoln, and I think they are very applicable today. I also believe that President Obama and the liberals in power are trying to do exactly what Lincoln warned against.

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.

You cannot further the brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred.

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.

You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.

You cannot build character and courage by taking away initiative and independence.

You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.

Abraham Lincoln

Disregard reality

The main stream media's reporting about the on-going budget "talks" in Washington is canted toward the left, so it is important to find articles that lean the other direction. Thomas Sowell makes some valuable points:

So much of the political candidates are about the quick and easy slogans, whether or not the candidate even means or believes them. President Obama himself was a master in 2008. Let's try and find some truth.

Wait, the government got less tax money when the top income tax bracket was 73 percent? Why confuse the voters with truth? Talking points are used in discussions of government-controlled health care, gun control, rent control, welfare, and many other programs while reality is ignored.

Budgets, Presidents, and big debt.

Budgets have been in the news for months, and while regular folks continue to wrestle with their own finances, our President just pretends he understands the concepts. He and the liberal progressives seem to believe that everything will be fixed by more money--other people's money.

There was an excellent op-ed piece written nearly two months ago by Jay Ambrose. President Obama had just given a speech. I may have to copy nearly all of it, since I can't decide what to leave out. The title is "Obama's speech was Hyperbolic, Irresponsible." In his words, the speech "...was nastily, absurdly partisan..." He said it was "...irresponsible, dishonest, ideologically nutty..." Wasn't Obama supposed to be better than this?

It is an old trick. There aren't enough of the very well-off to make a difference in the polls or voting, and since many other voters resent their wealth it's easy to pick on them. But beware, when enough has been taken from those who invest and operate businesses that their growth stops, the middle class is next.

That is not the county I grew up in. I miss it.

So much to say!

One reason I've been so slow getting up a new post is there is so much to talk about--where do I begin? Maybe since we just paid our tax bill, and our first quarterly payment for this year, I'll rant a bit about the liberal notion that they should be able to spend even more of the money we earn.

Thomas Sowell discussed the "no tax cuts for the rich" idea back in early December.

Another problem is the definition of "the rich." The term is used by the left as a way to encourage envy by the voters who wish they were. Who is "rich?" According to President Obama, any couple earning more than $250,000 a year. The problem is that includes most of the small business owners, who are the economic backbone of our country.

Walter Williams explains the problem with this notion:

Compounding this fuzzy thinking is the fact that nearly 50% of Americans pay NO income taxes. Who is left? Regular, hard-working people who have spent the time, energy, and thought to building their financial houses.

I heard a radical idea once and I'm sorry I don't remember where. What if everyone got one vote, then people who pay income taxes got an additional vote for each certain amount they paid in? Seems very fair to me.

No progress

I want to carry on today about the liberal Democrats and their pursuit of a "progressive" society. The election results seemed to show that most Americans were not pleased with the direction President Obama (and Pelosi, Reid, etc.) was taking us. Funny, but the liberal leaders could not accept that premise. George Will made some extremely interesting observations:

Speaking specifically about President Obama, Mr. Will continues:

Progressives believe that people must be pulled toward correct knowledge by a government run by the enlightened. Moving "up" from the rigid constraints of the Constitution is their very definition of progress. George Mason University economist Don Boudreaux stated that such liberal ideas "are almost exclusively about how other people should live their lives."

George Will continues:

What happened at the November election was an alarmed and rational American majority disagreed.

Sometimes I just have to

Occasionally I just need to pass along a very good article, so those who don't take the paper, or don't get the chance to read it, can appreciate the wisdom or humor presented. I may comment and I may just hit the main points, but there are some very articulate and thoughtful writers out there. This particular article is written by Thomas Sowell and talks about "social justice."

The idea of social justice is a favorite of the liberals. After all, it sounds right--we all believe in justice. Right?

Some would argue that it is not the fault of those that were born into families that didn't value education or hard work, or to dysfunctional parents who didn't prevent self-destructive choices. But now it's not a "social" problem any more, unless one believes that it is society's fault that different families and communities have differing habits and values.

I have had numerous experiences and encounters, made multiple small decisions that have determined the course of my life. I don't blame, nor give credit to, "society" for any of them. For better or worse, they were my own.

Sorry, my teacher side is coming out now. If you want a peek at a different kind of society, read The Giver, by Lois Lowry. Many of my sixth grade classes have discussed it.