The time is now 3:43 pm
You last visited
June 7, 2026, 2:27 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062802134_pf.html
"Want to protect the poor? Then give them jobs
Most people who are 'forced’ into minimum wage jobs move quite quickly up the earnings ladder, says Janet Daley
By Janet Daley
Published: 9:00PM BST 26 Jun 2010
Source Telegraph.co.uk
"At last, we are having the right argument for our time. Virtually everybody who is in touch with political reality now accepts that the old contest – socialism vs capitalism – is over. We all believe, with greater or lesser degrees of enthusiasm, in free-market economics. So the real source of contention that remains is the size and role of the state.
Anyone who thinks that this is a puny arena – that the boundaries of debate have shrunk to a less inspirational, purely managerial scale – is mistaken. The passion with which those on the Left are now defending their new turf should make it clear: this fight will be to the death because the power of government to control social and economic outcomes is seen by them as the last plausible incarnation of their moral world-view. The current arguments about welfare reform which the Government has robustly initiated are going to bring this abstract confrontation into the day-to-day experience of national life.
Now it is perfectly understandable that those who have a vested interest in state power – public sector trade union leaders, for example – should be prepared to risk everything to preserve it, but have the more thoughtful Left-liberal proponents really thought this through? Are they actually prepared to go down fighting for the idea that the state is the source of social virtue and must be the answer to all of our civic problems?
If we learnt anything from the terrible ideological crimes of the 20th century, it was that over-powerful states were dangerous: that even if they did not commit murder or enslave their own populations, their good intentions ended up producing perverse effects simply through the gross, insensitive interventions of central bureaucracy which could take no account of individual needs. Can anyone still believe that the largely catastrophic consequences of Big State solutions to poverty, to housing shortages, to unemployment, to educational disadvantage, have been pure coincidence?
The effect of government housing programmes is a perfect case. Council housing – with its class-ghetto implications – always seemed to me to be a pernicious social phenomenon, reinforcing social divisions and encouraging passivity. Not only were people told where they would live, but they were often forbidden to make changes to – or take responsibility for – their own homes. But now, in areas where unemployment has become endemic, council estates have become social death-traps.
As Iain Duncan Smith points out in our interview with him today, the security of tenure of the council tenant means that he dare not risk moving to another area of the country – or even to the far side of his own city – to seek employment for fear of losing his housing rights. So we have large swaths of unemployed people tied like serfs to the land, in workless communities, doomed to a hopeless future in which no one in their everyday acquaintance is in paid employment.
This is a grotesque state of affairs that was born out of good intentions, but by now it should be clear why it has come to this pass: when the state creates a mass, collectivist solution to a problem, it ends up treating people as categories (“the poor”, “the deprived”, “the homeless”) rather than as individuals who are ultimately going to have to determine their own fate.
Mr Duncan Smith speaks of introducing mechanisms for “portability” and “flexibility” in housing provision, which is another way of saying that we must create routes for people to escape from the monolithic state solution in which they are imprisoned.
The council estate is a way of encasing people in a bricks-and-mortar embodiment of government policy, but benefit dependency is a more all-encompassing form of incarceration from which it can be virtually impossible to break free. The scandal of welfare dependency as a way of life is now so well-established that there is no need to rehearse its depressing facts again.
But we must be clear that we have not got to where we are by accident. It is the basic premise of Big State thinking that has produced the monstrous edifice that we know as the benefits trap: the idea that “the poor” are a fixed and immutable section of society who must be “protected”. Sadly, what “protecting the poor” generally amounts to in practice is “protecting poverty” – which is to say, preserving it. Welfare dependency creates huge disincentives to entering employment because few jobs at entry level can offer a competitive package of payments and support equivalent to the benefits system.
At this point the Big State camp will shriek: “Why should people be forced into demeaning, low-paid jobs?” Answer: because most of them will not stay on such low pay for long. All the statistical evidence from the US welfare-reform programmes shows that people who are “forced” into minimum wage jobs initially, move up the earnings ladder quite quickly into better-paid employment, with their places at the bottom being filled by newer recruits to the workforce. Getting a job at almost any rate of pay is, indeed, the best and most lasting route out of poverty.
There may always be a cohort of people in low-paid work, but the important thing is that they not be the same people. Poverty should always be regarded as temporary: the goal should be to facilitate people moving out of it. At the moment, our tax and benefits system penalises people both for taking a job in the first place and then for climbing up the income ladder. This is crazy – and it is a direct consequence of the tendency of government programmes to regard personal initiative and effort as a bureaucratic inconvenience.
The tragic inevitability of government intervention is that when you create a permanent agency to deal with a problem it has an inherent tendency to make the problem itself permanent. This is not only for self-serving reasons – to justify its own continued existence – but because it prefers to deal in fixed entities such as poverty, deprivation, or educational inequality, rather than to view the infinite range of human possibilities and personal circumstances as a dynamic, ever-changing spectrum in which individual vagaries matter more than any total result.
Labour’s “target culture”, which is now being busily disowned by absolutely everybody, even its own architects, was the final apotheosis of Big State folly. But the idea that every social outcome and public-service goal could be quantified in objective terms was really just the logical conclusion of a philosophy of government that no one in his right mind should adhere to any longer."
-
Long, detailed with dates, well worth the time to read.
_________________
"Regulators Failed to Address Risks in Oil Rig Fail-Safe Device - NYTimes.com
"Kopp the Custard Man
"It doesn't have quite the snappy ring of "Joe the Plumber," but it will do. Earlier today Joe Biden was in Wisconsin, trying to help Russ Feingold salvage his Senate run, and he stopped at a frozen custard stand. When he asked the proprietor how much the custard cost, the proprietor answered, "Nothing, just lower our taxes." Here is the exchange:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzBzytYUdhk
Biden, of course, had no response. The last thing Joe Biden or any other Democrat intends to do is lower any taxpayer's bill. The longer the Dems govern, the more obvious it becomes that there is a stark and growing division between two categories of citizens with diametrically opposed economic interests: those who work in the private sector and those who are government employees. The Democrats are the party of the public employee unions. That sums them up in a nutshell; there isn't much more to be said about them.
This graph, courtesy of Veronique de Rugy at The Corner, depicts the contrast in these two groups' fortunes. Since the recession started, almost eight million private sector jobs have been lost. But no worries if you're a government employee; in the public sector, almost 600,000 jobs have been gained. We are experiencing a deep private sector recession, combined with a government boom:
******GRAPH ******
The Democrats' "stimulus" bill was a joke. Much of the money never has been spent, and most of what was spent went to state and local governments to subsidize the salaries of public employees, the Democratic Party's core constituency. Consequently, the public employee boom continued as the recession deepened.
If you are a government employee, you have little reason to favor tax cuts: taxes pay your salary. As confiscatory taxation and over-regulation strangle private enterprise, the government is presented with endless excuses to increase public employment as a supposed response to the crisis in the private sector. It is a vicious cycle, but one that inevitably comes to an end. The goose stops laying eggs, or, as Margaret Thatcher put it, eventually you run out of other people's money.
In the meantime, the sharp conflict we are experiencing between government and the private sector is almost enough to make a neo-Marxist out of me. We have an oppressive ruling class--the government and its foot-soldiers, members of AFSCME--and an exploited, subservient working class, those who toil in the private sector for wages that currently average only around one-half of what our ruling class, government employees, are paid. The tick, in other words, is now faring much better than the dog.
Workers of the private sector, arise! You can no longer afford to keep your public sector masters in the lavish style to which they have become accustomed.
UPDATE: Biden thought Kopp was being a "smartass" for suggesting that the Democrats should lower taxes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO13_tJ6x44
Everyone involved laughed it off, but a serious point lingered. A simple way to think about the Democratic Party is, you're the human being, they're the tapeworm. Yet they claim a weird sort of parasite's moral superiority over you: if you point out that they have their hand in your pocket, you're a "smartass." The Democratic Party needs to be torn, root and branch, from our public life."
Wonder what kind of storm this would have created if done under the Bush Presidency?????????????? Of course it doesn't give them the power to quiet dissension, censor or control information ..... because they said so.
___________
"Obama Internet kill switch plan approved by US Senate
President could get power to turn off Internet
By Grant Gross
Published: 11:02 GMT, 25 June 10
Source Techworld.com
"A US Senate committee has approved a wide-ranging cybersecurity bill that some critics have suggested would give the US president the authority to shut down parts of the Internet during a cyberattack.
Senator Joe Lieberman and other bill sponsors have refuted the charges that the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act gives the president an Internet "kill switch." Instead, the bill puts limits on the powers the president already has to cause "the closing of any facility or stations for wire communication" in a time of war, as described in the Communications Act of 1934, they said in a breakdown of the bill published on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee website.
The committee unanimously approved an amended version of the legislation by voice vote Thursday, a committee spokeswoman said. The bill next moves to the Senate floor for a vote, which has not yet been scheduled.
Obama security review gets mixed reception
The bill, introduced earlier this month, would establish a White House Office for Cyberspace Policy and a National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications, which would work with private US companies to create cybersecurity requirements for the electrical grid, telecommunications networks and other critical infrastructure.
The bill also would allow the US president to take emergency actions to protect critical parts of the Internet, including ordering owners of critical infrastructure to implement emergency response plans, during a cyber-emergency. The president would need congressional approval to extend a national cyber-emergency beyond 120 days under an amendment to the legislation approved by the committee.
The legislation would give the US Department of Homeland Security authority that it does not now have to respond to cyber-attacks, Lieberman, a Connecticut independent, said earlier this month.
"Our responsibility for cyber defence goes well beyond the public sector because so much of cyberspace is owned and operated by the private sector," he said. "The Department of Homeland Security has actually shown that vulnerabilities in key private sector networks like utilities and communications could bring our economy down for a period of time if attacked or commandeered by a foreign power or cyber terrorists."
Other sponsors of the bill are Senators Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, and Tom Carper, a Delaware Democrat.
One critic said Thursday that the bill will hurt the nation's security, not help it. Security products operate in a competitive market that works best without heavy government intervention, said Wayne Crews, vice president for policy and director of technology studies at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an anti-regulation think tank.
"Policymakers should reject such proposals to centralize cyber security risk management," Crews said in an e-mail. "The Internet that will evolve if government can resort to a 'kill switch' will be vastly different from, and inferior to, the safer one that will emerge otherwise."
Cybersecurity technologies and services thrive on competition, he added. "The unmistakable tenor of the cybersecurity discussion today is that of government steering while the market rows," he said. "To be sure, law enforcement has a crucial role in punishing intrusions on private networks and infrastructure. But government must coexist with, rather than crowd out, private sector security technologies."
On Wednesday, 24 privacy and civil liberties groups sent a letter raising concerns about the legislation to the sponsors. The bill gives the new National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications "significant authority" over critical infrastructure, but doesn't define what critical infrastructure is covered, the letter said.
Without a definition of critical infrastructure there are concerns that "it includes elements of the Internet that Americans rely on every day to engage in free speech and to access information," said the letter, signed by the Center for Democracy and Technology, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and other groups.
"Changes are needed to ensure that cybersecurity measures do not unnecessarily infringe on free speech, privacy, and other civil liberties interests," the letter added."
"Teen shot by Border Patrol had smuggling arrests
Jun 26, 1:16 AM (ET)By ALICIA A. CALDWELL
"EL PASO, Texas (AP) - A 15-year-old Mexican boy shot and killed by a U.S. Border Patrol agent was among El Paso's most wanted juvenile immigrant smugglers, according to federal arrest records reviewed by The Associated Press......."
"20 Must-See Charts On America's Disastrous Level Of Government Spending
http://www.businessinsider.com/heritage-foundation-budget-spending-deficit-2010-6#-1
"Mark Tapscott: Big Government is dying in the Gulf oil spill UPDATED!
By: Mark Tapscott
Editorial Page Editor
June 24, 2010
Source Washington Examiner
"It's not just millions of gallons of black gold spilling into the Gulf of Mexico that are being lost. Also disappearing into watery despair are the last shreds of credibility for progressive Big Government.
It's Day 65 of the Deepwater Horizon spill and the only hope of stopping the flow of thick, gooey crude remains the relief well being drilled by the private sector.
None of the ass-kicking political speeches by President Obama, bureaucratic edicts by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar or EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, or hypocritical posturing for the cameras in Congress has plugged the hole to stop the flow of suffocating oil headed to the beaches.
We see this week a remarkable confluence of events signaling the eventual end of Big Government: The bureaucrats and politicians can spend trillions but they can't plug the Gulf oil spill, agree on a budget in Congress or end the Great Recession's foreclosures and unemployment.
We've been here before. In the 1950s and '60s, Detroit's Big Three automakers utterly dominated the market. Americans bought only Chevys, Fords and Plymouths because our cars and trucks were "the standard of the world."
Detroit auto execs just laughed when Volkswagen Beetles trickled over here from Germany. Then, as Toyota and Honda began attracting serious attention from early adopting consumers, the Big Three confidently vowed to push the new invaders back to Japan.
It didn't happen. Instead, Detroit steadily lost the ability to produce quality products. By the 1970s, late-night comedians joked that every new Chrysler came with its very own union worker to reattach the chrome pieces as they fell off.
Imports couldn't be rolled back because General Motors, Ford and Chrysler were hamstrung by executive hubris and the endless demands of the United Auto Workers union for higher pay, more generous benefits and permanent job security. Give us the welfare state in microcosm or we will shut down the assembly lines, the union bosses shouted.
The execs caved, so American cars cost on average $2,000 more to build than those from Japan, and the union refused to give up the insanely complicated work rules that robbed management of needed flexibility to respond to a changing marketplace.
Predictably, when consumers compared Detroit's costlier offerings with cheaper, better-made Japanese products, they logically chose the latter. GM went from 60 percent market share to less than half that in the 1980s. Ford barely evaded bankruptcy and Chrysler survived only because Washington bailed it out.
Now it's Big Government that needs a bailout because its progressive politicians and bureaucrats can't stop doing what they've always done -- spending more, taxing more, regulating more, grabbing more power for themselves and their special interest buddies.
The result is that by trying to do everything for everybody, Big Government steadily loses the capacity to do anything for anybody. Thus, the oil keeps spilling into the Gulf as the politicians speechify, the bureaucrats issue new orders and the congressmen posture.
This is why, as just as most Americans long ago stopped trusting Detroit to build the world's best cars, today we no longer believe the grand promises that more massive, wasteful government will bring prosperity and good health for our families, security in our old age and a better life for our kids. We see the Gulf.
So do the progressives. Worrisome hints abound of their response to their swelling crisis:
They wrote Obamacare behind closed doors in Congress, then rode roughshod over public opposition to make it the law of the land.
At the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Election Commission, they're reaching for tools to silence their critics in the media and on the campaign trail. And when a judge rules their Gulf drilling ban is unconstitutional, they give him the middle finger, too, with a vow to impose a new ban.
In short, they're doing what they always do -- grabbing more power over the rest of us. And telling us it's for our own good.
UPDATED: New NBC/WSJ poll has jolt for Obama
AllahPundit at Hot Air says the oil spill calamity has finally begun to hurt President Obama's popularity and this development is reflected in the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal survey. The survey finds 42 percent approve of Obama's handling of the spill, while 50 percent disapprove.
Overall, according to NBC/WSJ, Obama's approval ratings stand at 45 percent approving and 48 percent disapprove. There is much, much more in the data and AllahPundit suggests starting on page 19 of the crosstabs."
Have seen various reports about this .... it's hitting mainstream media now.
____________
"Is BP burning sea turtles alive?
http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/oil_spill/is-bp-burning-sea-turtles-alive-06222010
"SPEAKING OF CONFIDENCE IN OUR "RULER"
By Neal Boortz @ June 24, 2010 9:25 AM Permalink | Source Boortz.com
First ... remember that Obama sees himself as our "ruler," not our leader. It was his campaign spokesman who said "We'll be ready to rule from day one" just before the election. That was a hint, folks; a hint most people missed.
Maybe people are waking up to the disaster they cause at the ballot box in 2008. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows that Americans are "more pessimistic abou the state of the country and less confident in President Barack Obama's leadership [rule?] than at any point since Mr. Obama entered the White House." Well isn't that special. That means that more Americans are paying attention. That's a good thing."
http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/2010/06/speaking-of-confidence-in-our.html
"Obama Changes His Tune
June 23, 2010 Posted by John at 3:47 PM"I'm glad that President Obama has appointed Gen. David Petraeus to replace Gen. McChrystal, but I can't help wondering whether Obama himself feels any discomfort at turning to the hero of the Iraq surge to try to bail the administration out in Afghanistan. After all, Obama opposed the Iraq surge before it happened, and after the fact claimed that it had made only modest gains and was not responsible for the most significant improvements in Iraq. This video from September 2007 reminds us that before Obama became a lousy President, he was a lousy Senator. Watch as he badgers Petraeus and ambassador Crocker and belittles their efforts in Iraq; almost eight minutes go by before either witness gets a word in. Petraeus never does talk: ......"
******VIDEO*****
A follow up to my previous post. You decide.
___________
Tuesday, June 22. 2010
Posted by Karl Denninger in Oil The World at 22:16
Source The Market Ticker
"Open Contempt: Will The Judiciary Sit For It?
http://market-ticker.org/archives/2438-Open-Contempt-Will-The-Judiciary-Sit-For-It.html
Tuesday, June 22. 2010
Posted by Karl Denninger in Oil The World at 18:19
Source The Market Ticker
"Obama Loses: Drilling Ban
"...... How about the fact that MMS rubber-stamped the well designchange on the casing just days before the well blew up? (Known fromCongressional testimony.)
That MMS appears to have known about earlier gas kick problems at thewell site, and thus had no reason to approve those changes? (Reportedpublicly.)
That MMS also appears to have intentionallyignored regulations requiring blowout preventers to be certifiedoperational and capable of shutting in a well at all times.
And finally, there were four specific safety problems identified with theblowout preventers - some of them identified four or more years ago.
Why did the well blow up?
Because the regulators didn't regulate.
Does this justify a "full stand-down" order? No.
It justifies arresting the MMS employees responsible.
It justifies arresting the BP employees responsible.
And, if Transocean has responsible employees who are still alive, itjustifies arresting them too.
For?
Manslaughter, for starters. 11 men are dead.
The judge was correct in issuing his injunction, and the malfeasanceand misfeasance in this agency is uniquely owned by PresidentObama. A year and change into the administration, if hewas unhappy with the people at MMS, he could have replaced them.
He did not.
The buck stops on his desk, and there are 11 dead men's heads thatare sitting square on it in the Oval Office.
Solve the problem, yes. But the problem lies with the Governmentthat has refused to enforce the law, just as was - and still is - the case withthe banks."
http://market-ticker.org/archives/2437-Obama-Loses-Drilling-Ban.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Allyn_Root
_____________
Sunday, May 9, 2010, 12:22 AM
Source Wayne Allyn Root's Blog
"It’s time to stop mincing words. Obama is not a fool. He is not incompetent. He is not a madman. He knows exactly what he’s doing. He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis, and social chaos- thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within. But the bonus is brilliant…as he destroys and taxes to death business owners, he also cripples his political opposition.
Rahm Emanuel cynically said, “You never want a crisis to go to waste.” It is now becoming clear that the crisis he was referring to is Obama’s Presidency. As Glenn Beck correctly predicted from day one, Obama is following the plan of Cloward & Piven, two professors at Obama’s Columbia University. In 1966, they outlined a plan to socialize America by OVERWHELMING the system with government spending and entitlement demands. Add up the clues below. Taken individually they’re alarming. Taken as a whole, it is a brilliant, Machiavellian game plan to overwhelm the system, wreck the U.S. economy, damage or destroy the free market, in order to turn the U.S. into a socialist/Marxist state with a permanent majority that desperately needs government for survival.
*Universal healthcare. The healthcare bill had very little to do with healthcare. It had everything to do with adding millions of new union and government employees (sixteen thousand new IRS agents) feeding at the public trough. Obama doesn’t care that giving free healthcare to 30 million Americans will add TRILLIONS to the national debt. Or that not one new doctor was added to the system, thereby causing a healthcare crisis. What he does care about is that it overwhelms the system and cements the dependence and loyalty of those 30 million voters to Obama and big government. Who but a socialist revolutionary would pass this reckless spending bill in the middle of a depression? Why now? Why the rush? Why risk destroying the economy on a reckless, unproven scheme? There is only one answer -- OVERWHELM THE SYSTEM.
*Cap and trade. Like healthcare legislation having nothing to do with healthcare, cap and trade has nothing to do with global warming. It has everything to do with overwhelming the system, redistribution of income, government control of the economy and a criminal payoff to unions and Obama’s biggest contributors. Those powerful and wealthy unions and contributors (like GE who owns NBC, MSNBC and CNBC) can then be counted on to support everything and anything Obama wants. They will kick back hundreds of millions in contributions to Obama and the Democratic Party to keep them in power. The bonus is that all the new taxes on Americans with bigger cars, bigger homes and businesses helps Obama “spread the wealth around.” Who but a socialist revolutionary would pass this reckless tax and spending bill in the middle of a depression? Why now? Why the rush? Why risk destroying the economy on a reckless, unproven scheme? There is only one answer -- OVERWHELM THE SYSTEM.
*Make Puerto Rico a state. Why? Who's asking for a 51st state? Certainly not the Puerto Ricans, who have repeatedly voted against it, and certainly not American taxpayers. Who's asking for millions of new welfare recipients and government entitlement addicts in the middle of a depression? But this has been Obama’s plan all along. His goal is to add two new Democrat Senators, five Democrat Congressman and a million loyal Democratic voters who are dependent on big government. Who but a socialist revolutionary would support this reckless scheme in the middle of a depression? Why now? Why the rush? There is only one answer -- OVERWHELM THE SYSTEM.
*Legalize 12 million illegal immigrants. Just giving these 12 million potential new citizens free healthcare alone could overwhelm the system and bankrupt America. But hey...it adds 12 million reliable new Democrat voters- who can be counted on to support big government. Add another few trillion dollars in welfare, aid to dependent children, food stamps, free medical, education, tax credits for the poor, and eventually Social Security. Who but a socialist revolutionary would support this in the middle of a depression? Why now? Why the rush? There is only one answer -- OVERWHELM THE SYSTEM.
*Card check. This disastrous bill creates more union employees EVERYWHERE- all of them Democratic voters. More union employees mean more union dues and hundreds of millions of new dollars to spend on campaign contributions to Democrats. Who cares that it will damage the capitalist system? Who but a socialist revolutionary would support this scheme in the middle of a depression? Why now? Why the rush? There is only one answer-- OVERWHELM THE SYSTEM.
*Stimulus & Bailouts. Where did all that money go? It went to Democrat contributors, organizations (ACORN), and unions- including billions of dollars to save the jobs of government employees across the country, and billions more to hire new government employees. It went to save GM and Chrysler, so that their employees could keep paying union dues. It went to AIG so that Goldman Sachs could be bailed out (after giving Obama almost $1,000,000 in contributions). A staggering $125 billion went to teachers (thereby saving their union dues to teachers unions). All those public employees will vote loyally Democrat to protect their bloated salaries and pensions that are bankrupting America. And their union dues will be forwarded directly to Obama and Democrat politicians. All while the private sector is melting down. Pretty soon a government job will be the only game in town. The country goes broke, future generations face a bleak future, but Obama, the Democrat Party, government, and the unions grow more powerful. The ends justify the means. OVERWHELM THE SYSTEM.
*Spend trillions on bailouts. Who needs welfare mothers, when you can addict America’s largest companies on welfare? These companies are now beholden to Democrat politicians and therefore powerless to criticize anything Obama does. The trillions to GM, Chrysler, AIG will never be paid back. But, that’s no concern to a socialist revolutionary who wants to destroy capitalism, control business, and OVERWHELM THE SYSTEM.
*Raise taxes ONLY on small business owners, high-income earners, and job creators. Put the entire burden on 10% of the population, redistribute the income, punish success, and reward those who did nothing (except vote for Obama). Why? Because such a plan destroys the group that contributes the most money to fiscally conservative politicians and causes. Reagan wanted to dramatically cut taxes in order to “starve the beast” (by cutting off funds for government). Obama wants to starve his political opposition by taxing them to death. OVERWHELM THE SYSTEM.
With the acts outlined above, Obama and his regime have created a vast and rapidly expanding constituency of voters dependent on big government; a vast privileged class of public employees who work for big government; and a government dedicated to destroying capitalism and installing themselves as socialist rulers by OVERWHELMING THE SYSTEM.
My God...Add it up and you’ve got the perfect Marxist scheme.
Only one thing stands in their way – you and me, the American taxpayers. If we want to save the greatest country and economic system in world history, we had better get busy. We had better fight back hard. Our children and grandchildren’s futures are at stake. And please don't assume the GOP is the answer. They had their chance. Bush spent irresponsibly; Bush never vetoed a single spending bill; Bush supported bailouts, earmarks and stimulus; Bush was responsible for the Medicare expansion; Bush spent a trillion dollars on two never-ending wars; Bush was the disaster that opened the door for Obama.
The answer is to support true fiscal conservatives who understand that national debt is the real global threat to our survival. Libertarians who truly support economic freedom are the real Tea Party candidates who want to truly change "business as usual" in Washington D.C. Libertarians don’t just talk the talk- we walk the walk. On November 2nd let's throw every incumbent in Congress out (with a few exceptions like Ron Paul)...and if the new class let's us down...let's throw them all out again in 2012. Eventually they'll get the message- the citizens are in charge."
http://www.rootforamerica.com/blog/index.php?m=05&y=10&entry=entry100508-212223
Some satire ...... we NEED a comic relief break. Enjoy! 
________