Posted by: theoptimisticconservative | August 9, 2011

Palin knocks it out of the park

Few people in the public eye have said anything useful about the recent unpleasantness with the national debt and the national credit rating.  The president hasn’t.  The vice president hasn’t.  Surprisingly few of the declared Republican candidates have.  The MSM haven’t.  They’re busy trying to make the expression “Tea Party downgrade” go viral.

Indeed, at this hour of reckoning, with the Dow plunging and markets in turmoil around the world, the MSM have achieved another playground-taunt triumph with the silly Newsweek cover featuring an unflattering photo of Michelle Bachmann.  These people seem to have no sense of proportion, no judgment, no recognition that things have become serious and the time for sophomoric media jabs is past.

Who cares how they can make Bachmann look on a magazine cover?  The tabloids demonstrate several times a year that they can make the world’s most beautiful women look like something from the back of the refrigerator, if they photograph them in bad light with a telephoto lens.  The Bachmann cover is the equivalent of a slam-book entry, about as intelligent as holding your nose and chanting “You smell!” at a classmate.  Ridicule is the cheapest thing there is – and in politics, it’s usually deployed to shift the focus from a needed debate to specious topics and emotion.  I’d call it a reversion to high school, but it would be an insult even to middle-schoolers to pin it on their age group.

Meanwhile, Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan have had good, inspiring, on-target things to say about the US fiscal crisis.  Michelle Bachmann has had good things to say.  John Bolton had an important piece making the case that national security is inextricably linked with fiscal security, a much-needed point in the context of the recent debate.

But Sarah Palin came through today with a Facebook post that strikes the right tone and is at once simple, direct, and comprehensive.  It doesn’t rail at past mistakes, nor does it come across as a raised-voice, you’ve-got-to-get-this-people communication.  Palin takes it for granted – with refreshing common sense – that we are in a crisis, its features are obvious, and the task now is to deal with it, not continue to argue whether it’s really a crisis or how big it is or whose name we can pin on it.

She makes no bones about the significance of the problem we face.  I am particularly impressed with her point that if we don’t square ourselves away, the specter hangs over us of IMF staffers showing up on our doorstep with China and France and Germany arrayed behind them, ready to throw folders on a desk and start telling us how much we can spend on cable TV and incidentals each month.  Whether things would really play out for the US as they are playing out for Greece and Ireland is a valid question, but Palin is quite correct that the pitched confrontation is on the horizon now, as it was not six weeks ago – and she has the courage to face that possibility head-on.  It’s not pleasant to mention it, but it’s the right thing to do.

The last third of Palin’s post is devoted to laying out what we need to do.  Grow the economy by releasing the regulatory clamps on it, starting with the energy sector.  Cut spending and reform entitlements.  She doesn’t pretend the latter would be easy, but she faces head-on the fact that it is inescapably necessary.  I urge you to read her post for the discussion of particulars.  It is material and convincing without being in the weeds.

The piece is positive and encouraging for its forthrightness.  There is nothing “clever” to be done in this situation; it’s all straightforward.  The US federal government has to cut spending and let the economy grow, even if that means breaking the stranglehold of unions on the public trough and overruling advocacy groups and government bureaucrats who don’t want the economy to grow.  Pretending that the federal budget is too complex to be governed by the ordinary rules of accounting – or that the US is too special to be limited by the ordinary definition of fiscal solvency – is a dodge, not a sign of insight or expertise.

Palin focuses like any good executive on the big picture.  We have to cut spending and get government out of the economy’s way so it can start pumping out revenues again.  These things are increasingly obvious to everyone, and moreover, they constitute a plan.  Talking ourselves into corners about other, tangential things isn’t even interesting any more.  It feels so wrong that it’s hard to watch anyone’s news program at the moment: no one seems to be talking about what matters.

What is interesting is how few in our national political life have put the case together, as Palin has, without temporizing or bloviating.  I haven’t heard anyone else do what she does with this post.  She acknowledges the actual, enormous scope of the problem, envisions a solution, and outlines what to do to achieve it, with encouragement that it can be done.  It is sad and a little frightening that so many Americans have become unable to see this for what it is:  leadership.  Almost everyone else is focused more narrowly, on one aspect of the problem or another, and a good few commentators don’t seem to even have the vocabulary or the mental infrastructure to address the problem itself; they can only express opinions about the impossibility of the politics surrounding it.

It is the opposite of stupid to recognize the problem’s stark and simple outlines when all around you are swinging blindfolded at piñatas.  We spend too much, and we suppress economic growth and revenues with regulation.  Palin articulates that clearly.  Her ability to reach out directly through social media, and put her case in her terms, is a net positive for our current political climate.  She remains one of the best reasons to not let the MSM dictate our ideas and preferences to us.

J.E. Dyer’s articles have appeared at Hot Air’s Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions,Patheos, and The Weekly Standard online.

About these ads

Responses

  1. The only thing Palin knocks out of the park is her own empty head.
    Her credibility long preceded it and whomever it was writing the Facebook thing posted under Palin’s name lashed together the usual bunch of cliches, irrelevancies and distortions.

    she and her crew are fairly practiced at flinging feces but mostly they just dirty their mitts and it sticks to them rather than really traveling.

    I thank our Founding Fathers for their wisdom in not allowing women to vote or hold office. It’s that type of limited government that the lord intended for America.

    For heaven’s sake and for our moral and fiscal health, participation in governance must return to being left solely to men of property.

    from Patheos….

    http://www.patheos.com/community/slacktivist/2011/08/06/the-tea-party-just-cost-you-322/

    • What you say about Palin is only, and completely, true of your own comment here.

  2. Ms. Palin is a strong,warm blooded woman. She has feet of clay. She is REAL. She is a Straight Shooter right or wrong.
    She does not appeal to people (particularly men) that love their own voice and minds.
    My son is 16. He suffers from this teen problem. I did also. I grew out of it. I hope he does also.
    She IS threatening to staus quo folks and to the self appointed elite who take it for granted their responsibility to explain and direct the world for the rest of us. They are the do gooders and medicine men of the 21st century.
    Ms. Palin severely gores the Boobus Americanus contingent of the American Left.

    I would like to make a disclosure to be perfectly honest. When I watch Ms. Palin on television, I need a glass of ice water fairly quickly.

    • wreed, I’m happy for you that you enjoy watching Palin on your tv with a glass of ice water in your other hand, but some folks object to Palin’s patter not because they love themselves too much but because they believe that she shoots straight away from describing things accurately or with any real depth or breadth.

      your reaction to her, an emotive one, about sums up the use for her appearances.

      • Consider yourself gored Fuster.

        • consider yourself a member

  3. The problem lies in our ‘Duke and Duke’ party apparatus, who let the Democrats off the hook, S&P has admitted if ‘cut, cap, and balance’ had passed, we would have retained our credit rating, but let’s get real, we
    haven’t had a budget in nearly three years, what did we think would happen,

  4. Washington is not about sensible plans or about running or fixing anything anymore. Washington is all about policy and partisanship and securing power and privilege by promoting some ideology that might be made to look appetizing to a lot of people, regardless of how demonstrably failed it might be. That is the power struggle that we see there every hour of every day and none of it has anything to do with doing “what’s right”.

    Ironically, these days most of the discussion in Washington is not about “what” but about “how deeply” they actually stick it to the nation. And this comes to us courtesy of both sides of the isle.

    Our politicians get away with this because they are, for the most part, playing to an uncaring or uneducated audience who’s only attention is given to the “what’s in it for me” question which often comes quickly followed by the “oh, and make that happen right away” command.

    All of Palin’s plans (no, I haven’t read the post yet) will be wasted when the question is inevitably asked: “And how does all that affect my own entitlements and my own government handouts because I really, really like getting all those goodies and have somebody else pay for it”

    What the liberals have done masterfully in the past decades is that they have managed to move America from the proud Republic it once was to the Centralized Federal Socialism that it now has become. They managed to base all that on making us an entitlement paradise that, predictably, gets huge numbers of recipients to accept the entitlement status quo as a given right.

    Washington has even made the states the willing recipients of federal entitlements by way of which the Republic has been increasingly weakened for it.

    Some citizens actually and sincerely believe that welfare, public education, free health care, food stamps, and the many other government entitlements are not only a terrific “New Deal” but, also, that these are constitutionally guaranteed to each and every one of them (therefore that they are “entitled”). Their indoctrination has been so good that they now believe that it is fair to overspend, beg and borrow beyond the country’s means or, if that is not enough, to overtax some people disproportionately to others because that “equalizes” the masses and that equality of well being and personal comfort, is also an entitlement.

    They don’t really care much about the particulars or the details because that constitutes way too much work and effort. So, they don’t look at the blatant inequality of some union members that, unlike them, make huge sums of money just for joining some union and pulling some lever, cashunk, cashunk, cashunk, without even having a high school diploma (free, of course) or a High School education (which is not really the same thing as a diploma). As if that huge inequality was what constituted real “equality” and as if that unfairness was what constituted “fair”.

    To them it has now become fair that some “worker” that doesn’t really have to work but instead sits in some union supervised romper room, playing cards, dice and dominoes and getting paid for ever or for as long as their manufacturing line remains shut down. To them it’s fair to get tenure regardless of their lack of capacity or desire to teach. And to the rest of those that hope for their own entitlement fest, that is all fine and dandy because they hope to get some similar breaks for themselves some day from an economy ran amuck by all this foolishness.

    So, sorry to dampen your enthusiasm, as if such a thing was even possible, but Palin’s words, her advise and whatever sensible plan you are referring to, will be thoroughly wasted on them as, I am sure, it will also be wasted on many here in this blog. That is so because, sadly, the left has done a wonderful job of it and they are all way past the point of no return.

    • Maybe, but you belie your despair by expressing it–after all, you must hope someone will listen to you.

      • Just venting. But, yes, I guess you do have a point. Otherwise, why post (or read) anything at all…?

        In any case and after all is said and done, I do expect that we are indeed way past the point of any meaningful corrections within the current system. At least any that would make a real difference, even if we can still openly talk and vent about it.

        • great rafa, if the current political system in America is a failure, maybe we should try becoming the Islamic States of America.

          cheeses scheisskopf, the sky ain’t falling quite yet.

        • We’ll still have to try to keep living even if the present system fails (which, I agree, is more likely than not at this point). It might help to keep in mind that the federal government is too big, not just for its constitutional purposes or our own good, but to police all the rules it is putting place for us. It might be possible to frustrate more and more of its purposes–sometimes, for the brave, through civil disobedience, but perhaps often under the radar. We might think of it as thousands of mini-secessions, so that we form the relationships we’ll need to survive the collapse of the government. And, if things work out, those new relationships will be part of a restoration of the constitutional order (only through such a restoration will things work out anyway).

    • I’m sympathetic to most of your viewpoints in general, though in particular cases we may differ. I would say that if any person or group has not given up and wishes to influence public support away from the entitlement-union nest and into the realm of free market capitalism and state autonomy they should probably curtail or drop all the fair talk.

      From the perspective of most lower class members, yapping about whats fair is comical (though they invoke it cynically often). They see the Kennedys and Steve Forbes, the Trumps and the Chelsea Clintons the doctors kids and so on and know that life ain’t about whats fair. Sure theres the story of pluck but to them it translates to the story of luck. They don’t read much Malcolm Gladwell or Nassim Taleb but they don’t have to, because its obvious on a much less dramatic scale right before them. In the argot of the street its called “getting the come up” or “gettin over” and it happens every day in the derivatives market.

      What I would recommend is a change in the communications from an emphasis on how unfair it is that some radiologist has to cough up an extra percentage to an emphasis on how the section 8-food card-disability- three kids on disability- section 8 merry-go-round is a trap. How regulation kills entrepreneurship and protects existing megacorporations. How college frankly is easier than high school and how building a business in a free market is hard but also fun.

      I realized the latent potential of the underclass more fully when I worked narcotics and saw how hard some drug dealers were willing to work, and how much actual thought the top 20% of them put into their business. By top 20% I don’t mean the cartel bosses but the top tier street level guys. Some were just evil incarnate but many could have sold something else just as well, but none of their “community leaders” thought much of capitalism.

  5. “the sky ain’t falling quite yet.”

    Hopefully not, fuster, hopefully not…

    I’ve been wrong about lots of things lots of times before but I’ve never wanted to be wrong as much as I want to be wrong about this.

    • skepticism and second thoughts are good, as I realized long, long ago and turned down that offer from, it turned out, a pre-op TV.

      inshallah, things will get more balanced in these tumultuous United States before too long.

  6. I agree with OptiCon that Palin’s post was thoughtful and thorough. Not brilliant but more than serviceable.

    Here’s my own two cents: While it is likely that an immediate, serious cut in spending — say, returning us to the 2007 level (perish the thought) — would bring some short-term disruption (particularly with the laying off of Federal employees), I believe that it would be more than offset by its positive impact, as a simple, but decisive, action, on the markets and on investment. It would be so easy for Obama to say now: “I’m going on vacation, or a bus tour, or whatever, but I expect that when I return my cabinet will have prepared plans for the immediate 10% reduction in spending.” Instead, he tells us that he’ll have a “plan” in “a few weeks.” Thank God he wasn’t around when Pearl Harbor hit.

    Oh, and Fuster: your pointless snipping is really getting old. If you don’t like what Palin has to say, please grace us with your own coherent thought about how the US government and our businesses and citizenry should DEAL NOW with this crisis. I would think that you could put it in a paragraph. Give it a try.

    • DAN, it’s gotta be all about job creation.

      That’s why I say, I, like every American I’m speaking with, we’re ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the tax payers looking to bail out, but ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the healthcare reform that is needed to help shore up our economy, helping tho— it’s got to be all about job creation too, shoring up our economy, and putting it back on the right track, so healthcare reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans. And trade, we’ve got to see trade as opportunity, not as— competitive— scary thing, but one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today, we’ve got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that.

  7. I am not sure that anything Congress considered could have avoided the S&P downgrade. We have to remember that the President threatened to default on our debts, despite every analysis showing that we had plenty of money to service the interest and rolling maturities of our Treasury instruments. Once you’ve threatened that you won’t pay your creditors, rational people tend to lose some confidence in you.

    I also think the slam on Newsweek for the “unflattering” photo of Mrs. Bachmann is a little unfair. (1) That’s what news magazines do, especially to conservatives, and (2) although I’m sure they tried, they didn’t come up with a photo that I would call particularly unflattering. With respect to Mrs. Bachmann, an unflattering photo might be hard to come by.

    Newsweek’s bigger sin is what they said — trying to tag Mrs. Bachmann as being in some kind of an hysterical “rage.”

  8. I sometimes wonder if the Opticon actually believes in some of the nonsense she comes up with. I’m beginning to suspect she is a closet liberal who is slyly attempting (rather successfully) to undermine the fringe right by making it look ridiculous.

    Now, if you open the pages of the Washington Times on any given day, for instance, a publication which really really hates Obama and everything to do with the Democrats, you will constantly find unflattering photos specifically chosen to make Obama etc. look shifty and alien. Yes the’re all at it, and, yes, its juvenile. At least the non-fringe-right press has not taken to portraying a (Jewish) Supreme Court Judge as a Nazi. Presumably, JED considers this latter example as the height of maturity and seriousness.

    I searched vainly for some nugget of originality and insight in the release from Palin’s PR dept. Instead I found nothing but the usual right-wing cliches interspersed with boiler-plate homilies and ‘apple-pie’. Surely, Palin’s PR, replete with mega-funds from her recent reality-TV tour and FOX money, could have done better.

    Thankfully, the American people have always seen through her, and the polls haven’t seen any significant changes in all the time since she burst into prominance as McCain’s fatally ill-chosen candidate for VeeP that would suggest she would ever be considered electable as President. All the PR in the world, and all the sugar-coated homilies, can’t overcome the innate good sense of the US people to sniff-out a phoney.

    The markets have pretty good sense too. It has taken a look at the economic fundamentals (and S & Ps credibility) and continues to fund US debt at record low interest-rates. That hasn’t changed either. There is a rush of funds from the EU area into the safe-haven of US government paper. That is not to say that the economic outlook is good. We are still all threatened by an EU-sparked worldwide recession, and all of us in the Western World (particularly, the public-sector, military and civil) will have to be more careful about spending.

    Finally, we should mark the passing of one of the great heroes of US politics – Senator Mark Hatfield, one of the few politicians of either party with unchallengeable consistency. A gentleman.

    • “All the PR in the world, and all the sugar-coated homilies, can’t overcome the innate good sense of the US people to sniff-out a phoney.”

      So true. Examples abound, John Edwards, John Kerry, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Teddy Kennedy, Al Gore, Arlen Specter, Joe Biden, and soon B. Hussein Obama.

      • chuck, you’re leaving out a couple of even fishier fellows.

        well, Nixon and all his boys got caught out he and had to quit . .. turns out he was a crook.

        and Reagan got off by telling the court that he just couldn’t remember whether he knew anything about what his cabinet members and other subordinates working all around him were up to.

      • So true indeed.

        The polls (RCP) show that the President would beat any Republican of the shower so far declared or thinking of declaring. Against Bachperson and Palin the margin would be double digit. All the persons on your list (with the exception of Edwards) rate higher in the regard of the American people than Bachperson and Palin. Obviously you have a different opinion.

  9. I agree that none of the current conversation is really about fairness. You simply cannot promote fairness on the back of selfishness, sloth, greed, inequality and unfairness. That was my point exactly. I was simply trying to point out the effectiveness of the left’s propaganda and how it has taken root in America’s culture to the point that “fairness”, real or not, permeates the debate often under obviously false pretenses.

    We have been snookered into having to defend against falsehoods and contrived, selfserving premises and, from a communication’s point of view, that is a very hard road to travel on, as current results plainly prove. When we allowed the left to set the parameters of the debate, we lost a lot of ground. Some of that ground will be very hard indeed to make up after so many decades of lies and negative propaganda.

    • I would suggest rerouting debate to the question of what we consider an acceptable role for government in the first place: rather than debating a better “plan” for education, health care, finance reform, etc., we should be clear for ourselves what role, if any, we think government should play in those areas–and, then, refuse to speak about anything beyond that limited role except in terms of how we can go about obstructing government intervention therein. And there may be many possibilities for obstruction, once we accept the notion of refusing to play along; we can also target very specific reforms which faciliate such obstruction, like, say, currency pluralism which would allow people to opt in to stable money.

    • you think “no taxation without representation” wasn’t about “fairness”?

      • Sorry, but you totally lost me with that question.

        However, let me say this about that…

        Every war, every revolution, every major political move, regardless of how needed or justified, has to have a central call, a point of justification. These points are prepared by experts and depend almost entirely on the prevailing moods of the citizens at the time they are contrived. In modern times we call these “talking points” but they have been in use for centuries and lie at the heart of politics.

        The taxation of which you speak was “justified” by its own “talking points” in Britain’s parliament. They hoped to defray the cost of keeping troops in the colony, troops that, they said, protected the colonists from the indians, the French and whatever other evil they could conjur up that fit the status quo of the time. They patiently waited and upped the anty when they determined that there was enough wealth in America to pay for some of the costs of running the legal government of all of the British comonwealth at that time.

        That whole calculation opened up an opportunity for the colonists to decry the rather easy-to-explain unfairness of being taxed without a proper voice. In fact, what they were saying is that they would accept no taxes from any distant King that refused the colonies of a voice in how much and what for. That was the birth of that particular taklking point to which you refer. It was used to partially justify a revolution that was much more about independence and a change of venue than about taxes. Indeed the American revolution was mostly about “representation”.

        Fast forward to today, please.

        Are we still being taxed? Yes.

        Are those taxes equitable, fair and just? No. Not really. Certainly not equitable because of the income sliding scale nature of our current tax code which make some citizens more “equal” than others. Not really “just” because of the waste and inneficiencies with which they are treated. But, the awarded “fairness” and “righteousness” of these taxes is the preferred fuel for many of the talking points that certainly dominate the discussions coming out of Wasington today to justify what is mostly a huge redistribution of income, a subject that has become one of the main purposes of all taxation in America.

        I guess that the recipients oif that redistribution feel well represented in taxation. Most of the donors do not.

        Can you state categorically that you are properly and faithfully represented in Washington when it comes to spending and taxiation? I await your answer… :-)

        • — “Can you state categorically that you are properly and faithfully represented in Washington when it comes to spending and taxiation?” —

          who in the history of the world’s representative governments could state that?
          I would venture that almost nobody is fully satisfied with taxes, tax laws, and the ideas behind them all, but not agreeing with the philosophy or the provisions of the rates or anything doesn’t equate to not being represented.
          I am indeed represented and my views are 1 in a 100,000,000 or so…..therefore if I find that the laws aren’t equitable it does not mean that I’m correct, but only that the laws are not to my liking….

          Demonstrating that the laws are not equitable or non-representative requires a bit more, rafa.

          (and, for the record, I think current and former federal tax policies are a lousy mess).

  10. Sure…between you and me that is the smart play. But, “we” are not the problem, politicians in Washington are.

    What the public at large does, instead of what you suggest, is that they continue to allow themselves to choose between the lesser of two evils, the socialists in the GOP and the super socialists in the Democratic Party because, well…just because that line of logic (ilogic?) sounds good to an awful lot of people. In doing so all that is achieved is a slight slowing down of the constant and persistent move to the left.

    All the time that we struggle with these “choices”, the prestidigitators in Washington all pray to the same god: socialism. They do that because it is, they believe, the assured way for them to retain their power. Maybe that’s not true of all of the politicians nowadays but, certainly, it is about most of them, Republicans and Democrats alike.

    I believe that Democracy, particularly the almost completely centralized federal democracy that we are becomming or have already become, promotes or, perhaps, feeds off of socialism like flies feed off of…let’s say sugar for now.

    It’s all about the number of votes, not the righteousness of the policy.

    • rafa, the constant shift to the left is largely a consequence of security and prosperity and is only as constant as the feelings that facilitate it.

      when folks are worried about having enough for themselves and their families, they move in several different directions.

      • I do admit that prosperity, history shows us, makes people complacent and that complacency does not provide a very good platfornm for these matters. So, in that sense, prosperity does tend to help create the opportunity. But that’s not the same as saying that what is happening is all the fault of prosperity.

        That would be like saying that drowning is the fault of all that water… :-)

        • consequence in the sense of prosperity being a precondition, not absolutely the cause.

          you’re right, one doesn’t drown because of the water, but it’s highly unlikely that one drowns without water first being present.

          • That’s a circular argument and those tend to lead nowhere.

            Also, the problem with that line of thinking, if you were serious, is that it is rather useless to spend time worrying about too much water when we should really be spending our efforts and time worrying about how to stay afloat.

            Because, after all, we can’t eliminate water and we shouldn’t eliminate prosperity.

  11. I’m not sure enough that this answers it, fuster. It’s too general and much too vague.

    I believe that these changes are conjured up and belong to long term plans that are followed, sadly, by the two parties.

    One Party, the democrats, pursue socialism as a policy and as the best way for them to insure their power and privilege. They push for and successfully implement decisions that affect us beyond what we deserve from our prosperity, hence the huge deficit that we are experiencing. Their commitment to redistribution is such and their timing so well defined that they now feel free to openly speak of income redistribution as something good, necessary and to be desired. Actually they treat income redistribution as an entitlement. This is an open, out of the closet attitude that was unheard of a few years ago.

    The other party, the republicans, is basically choosing to go after the same thing but at a slower more moderate pace. Perhaps not all republicans do it in pursuit of policy but as a knee-jerk defensive political position but some republicans do indeed pursue socialism, big government and entitlements as policy. I guess it depends entirely on which republican politician we are talking about. But the fact still remains that both political parties are headed in the same direction, albeit at a different speed.

    Again, I don’t think it is because of our prosperity as much as because of our current democratic institutions and systems which lend themselves, almost inexorably and perfectly, to the siren’s song of stroking the masses with goodies and entitlements. The end result, however, is the same.

    The revolutionaries that conquered other countries less prone than us to universal suffrage, said it many years ago and they were so convinced of what they were saying that they actually put it in writing. America will eventually fall without firing a shot.

    So far they have been spot on.

    • no, rafa, — the democrats, pursue socialism as a policy “–they don’t pursue socialism at all, not for any “means”.

      look up the definition of socialism and see if you can demonstrate that the Ds want the state to control all the means of production….

      you might be confusing a few things here.

  12. They do already.

    Regulations are strangling producers and limiting their ability to advance and develop. Taxes take from them a large part of whatever they manage to achieve and, lately, they have certainly jumped at the opportunity to actively control some of our major companies financially. Their surrogate foot soldiers of choice, the Unions, are doing a pretty good job of it as well. Some government run institutions control a large part of the financial industry and the feds control the value and worth of whatever is left. They have moved quite aggressively to control just about every aspect of our personal and individual well-being, health care included, and they have positioned government to have the last say about just about every little thing that we can or can not do.

    Good, bad or indiferent, they have succesfully wormed their way into private business and private lives. That they do so by way of surreptitious means doesn’t mean that they don’t do it, just that they are not ready to publicly admit it. Yet.

    And the Republicans are complicit in all that; they just move at a slower pace and are more careful not to lose the attention of a lot of their base voters.

    There, was that fair and balanced…?

    But, opinions being what they are, I’m sure you have your own about this as well as many other things.

  13. well, I’m not going to try to pretend that I understand all of the apparently limitless regulations imposed upon business by federal, state, and local govt’s.

    in my (seemingly limitless) years working in hospitals, between the govt regs …and the JCAHO regs…. and the sometimes grotesque rules of the insurance company scammers….I’m a bit acquainted with them.

    but I will give you some lip about the legal regulations being ” surreptitious means “. that they aren’t. they get plenty of publicity.

    now, if you want to apply that to the insurance companies, you’ve got a case.

  14. Sarah Palin, the giant killer, who, with faith in what is right, endures the hate from the elites who wish to tell us they are smarter than we are so we should listen to them and accept their manacles. How many people has she inspired? What will she still do? How many others like her have followed her example? Did Scott Walker as he also has been and is subjected to the hate and slander money can buy?

    When common and decent people, upon whom our government has always rested, see the naked hate and spittle flying against mere common sense, it turns them off, and even if they don’t agree with Sarah’s position, they certainly respect her fortitude and character. What the liberals hate, however, is that most common and decent people agree with Sarah’s plain speaking, a speaking so out of character with the preaching down to and arrogance of the ruling class.

    America is dethroning its would be kings and queens. Let them eat only if they have earned their bread, and let them speak, as Sarah does, only the truth.

    • If it’s the “elites” how come Palin is so unpopular in Alaska, Meg?

      Why is it that she’s disliked by more than half of them? They all elite or do they know her a lot better than you?

      • I see the Palin blog just keeps on rolling. There is something about Sarah.
        I notice Fuster doesn’t argue against Ms. Palin’s record as Gov. of Alaska or her positions on issues. He simply advances personal attacks.
        She is a common woman with the galling attribute of firing concise and perfectly timed arrows of common sense at entrenched buffoons.
        The buffoons did go to the right schools, know the right people, are very polished, on message and all that.
        They have also bankrupted the country. But don’t forget, they are very classy people and the rest of us common people are so lucky to have the entreched political class to ruin all of us in The Right Way.
        Ice water Fuster?
        Fuster will now have the last word.

        • idiocy, reed. her record is that she ask for Alaskans to vote for her to serve as their governor….and then quit.

          that’s her record.

  15. The following is a NY Times comment on Sarah Palin:

    Sarah Palin has a fundamenta­l misunderst­anding of reality, of life for ordinary Americans, and for how the government of the United States operates. for someone that proclaims her patriotism and that she is a “real” American at every chance she gets, her lack of knowledge and complete ignorance of, say, the Constituti­on, is stunning. She is a celebrity lightweigh­t more interested in dividing America and buying expensive “bus wrap” than actually providing leadership and solutions for our country.

    Now, here is what he meant to say:

    Sarah Palin has a fundamenta­l underst­anding of reality, life for ordinary Americans, and for how the government of the United States operates. For someone that shows her patriotism and that she is a “real” American, her knowledge of, say, the Constituti­on, is stunning. She is a celebrity heavyweight but still more interested in saving America and providing leadership and solutions for our country. I love that Sarah Palin.

  16. I love that Sarah Palin….

  17. The creature is holding a hammer and a scicle (not pop). Hmmm…what could that possibly mean…?

    And yet another war? By jolly, fuster will more than likely think that taxes are about to go up because, well…why else would taxes go up…?
    :-)

    • gee, fuster thinks that war costs a lot and that taxation to pay those costs mayhaps might prove preferable to increasing the debt.

      some of us optimistic sorts think that we need to maintain a larger standing army then we now have, others opt for 42 or so carrier groups, or hundreds more F22s as well as fleets of F35s…..and of course a limited federal government without that new-fangled income tax.

  18. And so, if high cost is the driving force of your criticism about national defense, war and all that ugly, expensive stuff that the evil conservatives expect from government, then what else do we spend billions on that you also think costs the nation a lot…? So much, in fact, that you would actually like to eliminate it. Anything? Anything at all…?

    • rafa, I didn’t notice that I had offered any criticism of national defense.

      what I did suggest is that if we’re going to have all the very expensive hardware, we should pay for it instead putting it on the credit card.

      I do think that we overbuy a bit and that we often start to confuse “national defense” with defending every corner of the globe…sometimes more to the defense of other countries’ interests than our own.

      There are plenty of programs to be re-evaluated, Last time I looked, farm subsidies were still going strong while many of the programs no longer made sense. There were still some programs subsidizing people living here who had left communist nations.

      Is the federal government still doling out money for states to build highways?

  19. OK, then…

    Since you didn’t offer any criticism on National Defense, does that allow your criticism to reach the conducting of war in more specific terms? I would think that you are too smart to answer “yes” to that so consider it a rhetorical question.

    On the rest of your post, I find little to disagree with. In fact, I agree with the rest of your statements but admit that I am a bit confused about the “programs subsidizing people living here who had left communist nations”. If by that you mean those that applied for and were granted political asylum then I am not so sure about agreeing with that trick answer. Political asylum is not exclusive to those individuals fleeing communist nations/regimes but is, as far as I understand it, extended to anyone that is fleeing persecution by any form of government. That these are, for the most part, communist governments and that these government make it very easy indeed to qualify for political asylum due to their dictatorial ruthlessness is something that sort of describes that nefarious system of oppression quite well, not necessarily our policies for political asylum.

    I would much prefer to state that as follows: subsidies to those that come here, not because of any particular form of political persecution, but in search of money and public assistance. The reason that I would seriously limit this other form of immigration is because that is more of an incentive to come on over than a deterrent and because it lends a much too handy tool to honorless politicians who are on the look out for easy votes. The responsibility for the welfare of these people, after all, lies squarely with the governments that fail them, not with us. So, let them, even help them to place demands on those failed systems directly. Political asylum is different from economic asylum. We spend way more on the economic kind than on the political kind and that, in my opinion, is wrong.

    By the way, that those failing systems are, for the most part, based on social injustice, engendered mostly by socialism, is also beyond discussion. This is particularly so when we speak of South and Central America, Mexico comes to mind right away, but also with Asian countries whose citizens flock here by the thousands. And that, fuster, is just another clear statement of what that corrupt and unfair system does to a people.

    As for the Feds dolling out money to states, I also agree with you. The Feds doll out money for one purpose only and that would be to gain control, dominate and purchase loyalties and fiefdoms. Let the feds reduce their taxes and let the States take care of their own back yard. Not all highways are meant to be federal and the states should shoulder some responsibilities lest we all become…California.

    I leave you with this thought: Of all the programs that we are discussing here, National defense and the subsequent protection of our borders is the only federal Government mandate clearly described and underlined by our Constitution. Freebies, government doll outs, farm subsidies, free healthcare/education/food stamps/etc. are the creation of politicians ruthlessly and relentlessly looking for votes at somebody else’s expense.

    • “Since you didn’t offer any criticism on National Defense, does that allow your criticism to reach the conducting of war in more specific terms? I would think that you are too smart to answer “yes” to that so consider it a rhetorical question.”

      I’m far from too smart to answer yes (and suggest that you be careful not to overestimate anybody’s intelligence … or analysis)

      IIRC the first power given to the Congress in Art 1 (section 8, wouldn’t ya know)

      is to borrow money on credit!!!!

      there are a few more,including regulated all commerce sans intrastate.
      if you care to give it a gander, you might have to revise that last paragraph, rafa.

      (and maybe you mean “dole” rather than doll…even if “doll outs” sounds a heck of a lot more interesting)

  20. Well, thank you very much for correcting me on that. I just knew there had to be something useful about you… :-)

    And, about borrowing money on credit, something we all do (or is it doo?) all the time, I’ll just mention that the legal right to doo something (please get back to me on that quickly) does not really allow for it to be done irresponsibly (or might that be “don irresponsibly” as Done Juan used to say?). The consequences that we common people face do not let us borrow money irresponsibly without having some sort of accountability sooner or later, and, yet, your answer seems to indicate that you are okey-dokey with the government doing it that way because of the seemingly blanket permission they have to do so.

    Or is it that, besides being a terrific proof reader, you just like to make circular arguments that lead nowhere?

    Did I get okey-dokey right, by the way?

  21. no,we don’t all borrow money all the time. those that do find that when the bill comes due, it comes with rue….precisely because you have the legal right to borrow it that isn’t limited to borrowing responsibly.

    (I borrowed money to buy a house, otherwise never borrowed more than a few bucks from a friend ‘tlll payday.)

    and don’t be so touchy about spelling corrections, for pete’s sake….the opticon is the only award-winning speller among us. the rest of us gotta help each other out.

  22. Wasn’t being touchy at all. I am well known in other haunts for my misspelled words. Just thought I’d pull your chain for a change. And, for the record, proof reader, I thought your play on words (dole and doll) was rather well brought.

    As for the rest, irresponsibility should come at a price. Allways. Whether borrowing or doing something else.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 253 other followers

%d bloggers like this: