THE AFTERMATH
Guy de Maupassant ends his great novel “Une Vie” with the statement “Life is never as good or as bad as one thinks.” Conservatives should understand that in politics, things are rarely as good or as bad as one thinks in the aftermath of an election.
Hat tip Paul MirengoffDEMOCRACY’S FATE
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville
ca. 1840WELCOME TO RANDOM THOTS
If you are a new reader of Random Thots we invite you to click on the SELECTED POSTS link in the FEATURES sidebar on the right.
Here you will find a list of the most significant articles published within the last year or so, each with a brief synopsis of its content and an easy link to the full article.
FEATURES
Search Random Thots
-
LAST 20 POSTS
- HOW YOUR TAX MONEY IS BEING SPENT – THE PROCESS
- WHAT DEBT?
- SOMEONE WILL HAVE TO PAY THE BILLS
- A CANADIAN PARLIAMENTARIAN LOOKS AT THE U.S.
- SOLUTIONS ARE NOT THE ROAD TO POWER, A CRISIS IS
- WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND IT’S US
- OLD WHITE MEN AND THE FISCAL CLIFF
- WHAT IS THE EUROPEAN VIEW OF AMERICAN POLITICS?
- GIMME THAT OLD TIME SECESSION…
- JUSTAKARTOON
- JOHN KERRY FOR SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
- REACTION FROM A READER
- “MORE FLEXIBILITY AFTER MY RE-ELECTION”
- THE RESCUE OF AIRMAN ROGER LOCHER
- IT WAS NOT ONLY ABOUT STUFF
- AMERICA LOST THE ELECTION
- IF YOU DON’T LIKE THE ELECTION RESULTS HERE IS WHAT YOU CAN DO
- THE LAWN SIGN AND BUMPER STICKER PREDICTOR
- SNIPPETS FROM ELSEWHERE
- OBAMA’S INFRASTRUCTURE DEMOLITION TEAM
Monthly Archives
SUPER COMMITTEE – FAILURE or SUCCESS?
Thomas Sowell asks the question, was the Super Committee’s report of no agreement a failure or a success?
Many people are lamenting the failure of the Congressional “Super Committee” to come up with an agreement on ways to reduce the runaway federal deficits. But you cannot judge success or failure without knowing what the goal was.
If you think the goal was to solve the country’s fiscal crisis, then obviously the Super Committee was a complete failure. But, if you think the goal was to improve the chances of the Obama administration being re-elected in 2012, it was a complete success.
Responsibility for the spending that created our enormous and unprecedented deficit would fall squarely on Obama and the Democrats had there been no Super Committee. But with it, and with the impasse, the Democrats get to pass off half of the blame to Republicans for not coming up with a workable deficit reduction plan.
Sen Jeff Sessions of Alabama had this and more to say,
The budget process began with the submission of the president’s budget plan. Analysis of that plan quickly revealed that the president’s $1.6 trillion tax increase proved totally inadequate to offset the enormous levels of new spending that would occur. Under this plan, over ten years, we would accumulate another $13 trillion in debt, never produce a single deficit less than $748 billion, produce a deficit in the tenth year of $1.2 trillion, and leave entitlement programs like Medicare in grave financial peril.
and
The Senate Democrat majority then made a decision: Rather than introduce a plan of their own, they chose to ignore the law and craft no budget at all.
Had the president made clear he wanted an agreement, a deal would have been achieved. It seems clear he wanted a campaign issue instead. Rather than confronting the great threat of our time—our $15 trillion debt—the commander-in-chief fled the battlefield. That’s not clever; it’s irresponsible. (Courtesy of Power Line blog)
Politics is like an iceberg. What you see is only what’s on the surface. Below the surface is where you find the real mess mass. Scratch that, leave it mess. .
CAPITALISM HAS DESTROYED EUROPE – GERMANY IS RESPOSNSIBLE FOR THE CRISIS IN GREECE
The magazines and newspapers in Europe are filled with stories pronouncing the end of capitalism. They hold globalization and the free market system responsible for the financial crisis that has beset them. It is greed in the private sector that threatens the continuation of the welfare state, they say. There is no thought that it may be greed that drives the protesters who want to be carried by someone else’s life savings rather than work a little bit longer and create a little bit of wealth of their own.
To those who say capitalism is the cause, I have a few questions to ask. When you retired from your government job at age 55 with a pension large enough to live on, where did the money to pay you come from? With the free medical care you have enjoyed for most of your life, where did that money come from? With free public education for your children and heavily subsidized university tuitions, where did that money come from? Do you know? Do you care?
Your government didn’t create it. It was generated by the capitalist system you seek to end. If you are successful what is your plan for a better system that will generate greater wealth, enough to continue and sustain and the benefits you have been enjoying and refuse to sacrifice?
The most absurd claims are the claims you read in the Greek papers, claims that Germany is to blame for the bankruptcy of Greece. By that reasoning, I could buy a yacht for myself and blame you, dear reader, if the yacht is taken away from me because you wouldn’t pay for it. Now that’s greed.
Posted in Opinion
Tagged crisis in europe, Free market, Germany, Greece, Welfare state
USELESS IDIOTS
Saul Alinsky is dead. So is Occupy Wall Street. Or if it’s not dead it is in the throes of dying. Alinsky taught revolution as a three act play. Act I is to gain respect. That does not happen by defecating on police cars and shutting down subway stations at rush hour.
In the first couple of weeks of OWS, the movement was seen as counterpoint to the Tea Party. It may have even been intended as such by its founders, whomever they may be. There were people with honest gripes about the lack of jobs, crony capitalism, ill conceived bailouts, and stimulus that didn’t stimulate. However, given the obsession of the OWS leadership with democracy and endless “General Assemblies” the movement never found a unified direction. You can’t steer a ship with a hundred rudders in the hands of a hundred helmsmen each with a different idea of which direction forward is.
Gradually the cross section of ordinary Americans who really did want jobs and better government withdrew. They left the tent cities to the shower-less and the anarchists whose idea of social justice is – why make it if you can just take it? This is exactly the type of behavior Saul Alinsky sought to correct. Without effective leadership they are proving to be no more than a band of useless idiots.
Posted in Opinion, Political polemics
Tagged Occupy Wall Street, OWS, Saul Alinsky, Wall Street
AS IT WAS IN AMERICA AND STILL COULD BE
This Looney Tunes style cartoon clip was released by Harding College (Arkansas) in 1948. It has had over 5 million hits so you may have seen it but I couldn’t resist posting it. You see, I graduated from Harding in 1948. Not the university in Arkansas, but from a High School in Connecticut (Bridgeport).
We didn’t have videos then, but we had movies. We also had trailers. Not the ones that go behind cars, these trailers went in front, in front of movies. There were Buster Keaton shorts, Movietone News and cartoons like the one below. Most were just entertainment but once in a while a trailer carried a message. So it is with this one.
Obama is mentioned at the very end. Not by name of course; it was 1948.
RANDOM THOTS for Nov 16, 2011
Thomas Sowell had this to say about Herman Cain:
The 90 percent black vote for Democrats is like money in the bank on election day. A prominent black conservative who offers an alternative view of the world is a serious danger politically, because if that alternative view has the net effect of reducing the black vote for Democrats just to 75 percent, the Democrats are in big trouble at election time.
In this political context, merely defeating a black conservative at the polls or at confirmation hearings is not enough. He must be destroyed as an influence in the future — and character assassination is the most obvious way to do it.
On the corporate income tax.
Who pays the corporate income tax? Corporations? You may as well ask who pays the cigarette tax? Cigarettes? Neither corporations nor cigarettes pay tax. Only people pay tax. It’s all reflected in the price.
On the 99 Percenters
There is a cute video floating around somewhere in the blogosphere, or what is it they call it now, the cloud? The script was inspired by the Halloween tradition of trick or treat. A young boy asks a young girl for her candy because he has none. They spar back and forth for a bit as the girl explains how she worked for her candy and saved some rather than eating all of it as she received it. The boy’s response never varied. He simply repeated “I want some of your candy”. The young girl never gave in. Finally the boy ended the debate with “It doesn’t matter. I will get your candy. There are 99 of us and only one of you.”
But fear not faint heart. The candy bullies are closer to 1% than the 99% they claim. You are free to share your candy as you see fit.
Posted in Randoms
WHO ARE THE PEOPLE WORSHIPPING AT THE ALTER OF MATERIALISM AND GREED ?
A combination of the success of the free market system and gradual increase of government largess has all but eliminated depression style poverty. The poverty argument no longer engenders the same level of anger when those classed as poor have cell phones and iPads, drive cars, own homes and still pay no income tax.
Today’s anger is not about poverty; it’s about riches. The Wall Street protesters are not fighting poverty; they are protesting the unequal distribution of wealth. They are protesting the fact that some people have more than they do and they want some of it. All you need to do to see why the Occupiers have less is to examine a cross section of them and compare it a cross section of Tea Party types, or upper East-side New York liberals for that matter.
All the rich want to do is keep some of their own money and pay out the rest in taxes and give some to charity. They don’t want to take money from someone else just because someone else has it. Wanting more money may be greed, but isn’t wanting someone else’s money without earning it an even greater greed? The Occupiers want someone else’s money. And they want it to they can buy the latest iPods and better cars. If they really want to end greed they should get a job.
Posted in Political philosophy, Political polemics, Videos




