“The president’s plan to increase taxes on the upper two percent covers the spending by this federal government not for eight years, not for eight months, not for eight weeks but for eight days. Eight days only,” said Mr. Price. “It’s not a real solution. So, again, I’m puzzled by an administration that seems to be more interested in raising tax rates than in gaining economic vitality.”
Some of the new claims, especially in New Jersey, were due to Hurricane Sandy–but these were offset by a decline in claims filed in New York. The highest numbers of new filings came from Pennsylvania and Ohio, where there were thousands of layoffs in the construction, manufacturing, and automobile industries.
In order to deal with new political and economic conditions, Wilson called for a government of unlimited powers unfettered by the old constraints required by an unchanging human nature. The 1776 Declaration of Independence would give way to a “new declaration of independence” that would enable 20th-century Americans to contend with special interests, political machines, and big business.
But in fact Wilson’s new declaration of independence was a declaration of dependency. It established the basis for a phenomenon foreseen eight decades earlier by Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America. He warned that democracy is susceptible to a certain form of tyranny: the rule of a “benevolent” government, catering to the public’s needs and whims in exchange for their freedom, which creates a servile people dependent on the largesse of government, happily acquiescing in the loss of liberty as long as the government fulfills their material desires. He called this tendency “soft despotism.”
The other day I came across a 14-year old article written by the former Harvard professor Robert Nozick for the Cato Policy Report. It attempts to give a simple explanation for why many intellectuals oppose capitalism:
Intellectuals feel they are the most valuable people, the ones with the highest merit, and that society should reward people in accordance with their value and merit. But a capitalist society does not satisfy the principle of distribution “to each according to his merit or value.”
The intellectual wants the whole society to be a school writ large, to be like the environment where he did so well and was so well appreciated. By incorporating standards of reward that are different from the wider society, the schools guarantee that some will experience downward mobility later.
Those at the top of the school’s hierarchy will feel entitled to a…
View original post 91 more words
Thomas Sowell penned this column earlier in the week, and it’s well worth reading.
Confidence men know that their victim – “the mark” as he has been called – is eventually going to realize that he has been cheated. But it makes a big difference whether he realizes it immediately, and goes to the police, or realizes it after the confidence man is long gone.
So part of the confidence racket is creating a period of uncertainty, during which the victim is not yet sure of what is happening. This delaying process has been called “cooling out the mark.”
The same principle applies in politics. When the accusations that led to the impeachment of President Bill Clinton first surfaced, he flatly denied them all. Then, as the months passed, the truth came out – but slowly, bit by bit. One of Clinton’s own White House aides later called it “telling…
View original post 630 more words
Considering the shameless media bias surrounding Obama, here’s another example of how the liberal media protects the current disaster in the White House.
Barry likes to make us think that the rich are at fault. Higher taxes on the rich will bring prosperity according to Mr. Obama’s innovative methods. Nevertheless, most people have no conception of the trillion dollar deficits that Barry has managed to create while he gives no honest answers on how this money will be paid back. What does a trillion dollars look like? How can anyone justify such spending? I was mad about W’s spending, but Barry makes George look thrifty! Anyway, the video above puts this spending in perspective and blows a huge hole in Obama’s “strategy” regarding the economy, tax policy, and getting this nation back on track. If you get a chance to watch the movie “2016,” then you probably will consider the reality that Barry really wants America to stay off track, plunge the nation into a sea of red ink (we are already there), and never recover. How else can you explain Obama’s policies?
Things aren’t looking so great for Barry. Nevertheless, I credit his election in 2008 to the vast numbers of naive, ignorant, or stupid people who vote for Democrats. I can’t say that Mitt has it in the bag given the aforementioned reasons. We have so many people who lack education, fail to understand how wealth is created, and believe in the mantra that taxing the rich will fix everything while collecting government handouts for their vote. In the real world where hard work, innovation, and family values leads to stability, wealth, and happiness, one has to wonder what values drive Barry and his policies. We’re less than two days from the election day. Let’s pray enough citizens with rational minds will send Barry back to Chicago, Hawaii, Jakarta, or wherever this guy is from!
Books will be written about what happened, but early on the president made two terrible legislative decisions. The stimulus bill was a political disaster, and it wasn’t the cost, it was the content. We were in crisis, losing jobs. People would have accepted high spending if it looked promising. But the stimulus was the same old same old, pure pork aimed at reliable constituencies. It would course through the economy with little effect. And it would not receive a single Republican vote in the House (three in the Senate), which was bad for Washington, bad for our politics. It was a catastrophic victory. It did say there was a new boss in town. But it also said the new boss was out of his league.