There is a pretty interesting book, The Tipping Point, by Malcolm Gladwell, that explains how when a few people are influential, that influence can spread throughout a populace much bigger than themselves. It can be used to explain advertising, car sales, births out of wedlock or a number of other things. I’m going to use the book to explain what has happened to conservatism in the last decade or so.
Back in the time of Goldwater and Reagan, the political fathers of modern conservatism, they both believed that small taxation was important; however, they each also believed that small government was a virtue. Thus, the two goals intertwined with one another. In their brand of government, if tax receipts were low, then government expenditures would necessarily be low as well. This probably explains the time warp that I am trapped in ideologically.
In the 1980s, Newt Gingrich came up with a clever idea in Georgia. At the time, Dems and Reps were about evenly split among the people, and they had about an equal number of Congressional seats. Newt went to the African-American leaders in the state, and offered to make some seats permanently African-American, which they readily agreed to. White Dems couldn’t complain about it, since if they did, few African-Americans would vote for them anyway. So, a number of Republicans were elected in seats that were previously held by Dems. This was repeated in the rest of the Deep South.
After the 1992 election, a large percentage of Republican House seats were held by those in Southern states, giving them the balance in power within the party. I never recognized the scope of this until I lived here, but in the South, we don’t believe in taxes of any kind. We provide services, but only those (with the exception of prisons) that are subsidized by people who live in the rest of the nation. Thus, virtually all Southern states receive much more from the federal government than they pay into it. Part of this, to be sure, is because of the high poverty rates in this area, but that is clearly endogenous to the issue.
So, generally Southern politicians don’t see it as incongruous to decry raising taxes while not exerting much pressure to reduce services. Their state and local governments depend on the lucre provided by the rest of the nation to keep this region afloat. And we can see how the tipping point comes into play. No big deal to fix our problems is possible, because Boehner can’t agree to anything that raises taxes. Likewise, if taxes do not go up, no Democrats will find it palatable politically to sacrifice their vote-getting mechanism, entitlements, if they are not offered anything substantial in return. And unless the problem with entitlements is fixed, the whole debt limit problem will be with us for generations to come. So, in all probability, we’ll just kick the can down the road and let someone else in one of these future generations find the courage to actually deal with this.
No politician is discussing how the problem is going to be exacerbated exponentially soon. The problem is that baby boomers are going to be retiring soon. This will obviously cause pressure on Medicare and Medicaid funding levels. As the percentage of the population receiving these entitlements increases, politicians are going to be ever more fearful of reducing their benefits. So if the problem with entitlements is not dealt with right now, it never will be, I submit.
Nobody will much care. People who think that they are dependent on government largess will gladly spend the money that is given them. Interest groups will be grateful that nobody eliminated their loopholes or raised their taxes. Democrats will continue to bemoan any movement to reduce Medicare; Republicans will continue to warn us that raising taxes even a little, for only a few people, is one of the signs of the apocalypse.









July 23rd, 2011 at 7:22 pm
Let’s be honest here, financially speaking there’s alot wrong with the country. Taxes are too high, the government spends too much, illegal immigration is a serious cancer to the country, the military is not receiving enough money, the government has been borrowing against Social Security[I liked Bush's proposal to give me my dam(spelt wrong purposely not to be moderated) money like members of Congress], obamacare is going to worsen the economy, illegals get medicaid, foreign aid is staggering including the UN which does nothing, the unions get too much in pensions and annuities, and frankly speaking not by way of partisanship, this president has spent us into a lightyear of debt. From 10 trillion to 14 trillion in 2 years. Keep in mind the 10 trillion dollar figure before obama is from decades of spending and obama made it nearly 150% of its’ value in only 2 short years.
obama performed the following:
- the failed 787 Billion dollar stimulus.
- cash for clunkers which was a failure.
- Quantative easing 1(please google) – potential massive inflation.
- Quantative easing 2(please google) – again, potential massive inflation.
- Soon to come Quantative easing 3(please google) – again, potential massive inflation.
- Putting a moratorium on drilling for oil & natural gas / shale.
- Using the EPA to enforce Cap & Trade.
- Discouraging clean coal technology.
- the failed corporate bailouts(taxpayers are losing money on GM).
- the failed home mortagage default bailouts.
- the uncertainty small businesses have due to the obama administration’s unpredictable policies & behaviors.
On top of all this, just to keep everyone informed, obama is the biggest receiver of Newscorp. donations [parent company of Foxnews - Hillary was second, and nancy(she's a maniac on the floor) pelosi 3rd or 4th], as well as Goldman Sachs, GE who got a waiver from obamacare, and other major corporations.
His Treasury Secretary timothy geithner has been wanting to resign for months and is waiting for a deal to be reached on the debt limit talks so he can bounce and hillary is Secretary of State so obama can keep his enemies close to him. biden is a nincompoop so we have absoutely nothing to look forward to and everything to fear in the even obama croaks. The situation for the future of the country is currently grim until November 2, 2012…
July 23rd, 2011 at 8:49 pm
cash for clunkers was a failure>? Quantitative easing was a failure? You claim there is clean coal technology? What uncertainty of small buiness outside of the republicans threatened default? What mickey tells the truth? whaaaa,? you guys wouldn’t know the truth if it bit you in your fat apparently under(un)employed rears. Lets be clear, so many of you right wingers here never speak the full truth about anything and it shows. You cherry pick selective facts to support your prejudiced hypothesis and most(all) would flunk out of any schools I ever want too because your stuff wreaks of spin and manipulations of the truth. You even blatantly disdain the turth with wanton ill will yet think your entitled to sit in judgement on others? Thats antisocial thinking plain and simple. I mean, bottom line, outside of what could have been well meaning policy differences, you guys arent being honest, period and will spin any untruth hoping to unelect Obama. You talk just like ignorant chest beating brown shirts with unenlightened brains. I wouldn’t even trust most of you to write a check that cashed. How do you guyz even get a landlord or mortgage underwriter to even deal with you?
July 23rd, 2011 at 8:55 pm
Arriba, great posts.
I hope you”re wrong about our gutless leaders kicking the can down the road again. I want to see a default as I believe it would force us all to accept the only real solution ie substantial benefit cuts AND tax increases.
July 23rd, 2011 at 8:59 pm
this is exactly the kind of financial coup talk that I am talking you guys are all about. I notice the criminality of your thinking is getting worse and worse till where you don’t even know when your way over the line of decent well meaning government anymore. The nexus between criminality and the right wing.
July 23rd, 2011 at 9:54 pm
Change? Change? What we need is for conservatism to DISAPPEAR. Then maybe we would get somewhere.
July 24th, 2011 at 4:34 am
@ Brian,
Cash for Clunkers did fail. According the Edmunds.com, only about 125,000 vehicles were sold due to the program that otherwise would not have been sold without it. Divided by the $3 Billion which funded it, that works out to $24,000 in cost to taxpayers per car. Over all, some 690,000 vehicles were traded in during that period, most fairly recent models, less than 5 years old, all of which were destroyed. This denied the used car market, as well as the parts markets to make money, robbing those industries of money and jobs. The consumers also took a hit as used car prices have remained high, as have parts for repair.
July 24th, 2011 at 4:38 am
@ Brian
As for ‘clean coal’, yes, there are technologies which are already being used which have greatly reduced coal power plant emissions. Our air quality is better now than decades ago and remains in the top tier of all nations using coal.
A report this week about oil rigs leaving the Gulf of Mexico due to the Obama moratorium will cost us some 290,000 oil industry jobs, as well as more in secondary industries.
Nice going, Obama!
July 24th, 2011 at 4:59 am
2 and 4, just more unsubstantial off the mark bullsht.
Attack the personalities when you have no argument.
All but the first sentence in # 2 can come down.
Even though theres nothing to back the claim except for Brians word.
#4 is totally useless also.
Andys 6 & 7 proves this without a doubt.
July 24th, 2011 at 5:38 am
andy what are you even thinking? clean coal is an oxymoron. they can’t even sequester the co2 emissions from oxidizing the carbon in coal by burning it duhhhhhh. The technology is just stalled. Cash for clunkers was stimulatory, and moved a lot of more efficient gasoline consuming cars off the lot so the gift will keep on coming as a lot of gas guzzling suv
s will be retired. Your another one that just selectively cherry picks arcane factoids someone claims when they support your hypothesis that anything people positive is wrong. Your philosophy, frankly, is bankrupt for lack of a better word. Micky hope the roosters were caw cawing all morning long while you were grilling up your bangers and beans for breakfast.
July 24th, 2011 at 6:24 am
“they can’t even sequester the co2 emissions from oxidizing the carbon in coal by burning it duhhhhhh. ”
You dont sequester it by burning it.
But they do sequester it previous to different methods of disposal that keep co2 out of the air
(see wiki “clean coal”)
So your point is a false narrative
===========================================
“Cash for clunkers was stimulatory, and moved a lot of more efficient gasoline consuming cars off the lot so the gift will keep on coming as a lot of gas guzzling suv”
Totally subjective with not one retaining aspect.
Just opinion as opposed to the facts
“It’s over, finished, done. And quiet returns to the auto showrooms of America. Cash-for-Clunkers has outlived its funding. But left us with a host of useful lessons.
First, government forecasters are really bad at their job. The program was originally funded with $1 billion of taxpayer money to cover rebates of $3,500-$4,500 on cars traded in for more fuel-efficient models, and the money was expected to last for about six months. It lasted for one week.
The $2 billion added to keep the program alive lasted less than a month. No surprise, then, that the government just discovered that its forecast of the deficit in the coming decade is light by a mere $2 trillion, or almost 30 percent.
Second, the government’s talents, whatever they might be, do not include efficient administration of its programs. The 135 pages of rules setting out what dealers had to do to recapture the refund money they laid out, were constantly changed, the web site they were to use to apply to get their money back frequently crashed, and some had to drop out of the program because they had run out of cash.
The Department of Transportation assigned 2,000 workers to process dealer paperwork, but they seemed unable to get the money to dealers who, having laid it out in response to promises of prompt repayment, desperately needed the cash. So if you think the President’s plan to “reform” health care will make it easier to cope with the paperwork surrounding hospital and doctor’s bills, think again.
Third, Cash-for-Clunkers proved that if you give people $4,500 to buy a durable good, they will be more likely to buy it while the refund is available than later. But it does not show that the increase in spending meets one of White House economist Larry Summers’ tests – sustainability.
The buyers of the almost 700,000 cars – 41 percent from Japanese makers and 39 percent from the (once) Big Three – for which dealers have filed $2.88 billion in refund requests included many who merely accelerated their purchase. Estimates are that 60 percent of buyers would have bought cars this year without this incentive. So dealers are expecting a very quiet few months.
And from the stimulus effect of the program must be deducted the appliances, clothes and other stuff that consumers will not buy in the future, now that they have the burden of lease or loan payments for their new vehicles.
Fourth, if you want to reduce dependence of foreign oil, don’t look to Cash-for-Clunkers for help. On the best of assumptions about the fuel saved by replacing inefficient Clunkers with cars that get perhaps 10 mpg more than the Clunkers they replace, the reduction in gasoline consumption will cut our oil consumption by 0.2 percent per year, or less than a single day’s gasoline use.
Unless, of course, the new car is more frequently driven because lower fuel consumption lowers the cost of driving, and increases the pleasure of taking to the road, in which case the saving will be less, or none.
Christopher Knittel, associate professor of economics at the University of California, estimates that the cost of reducing emissions was somewhere between $237 per ton and $365 per ton. Since the market price for carbon has fluctuated between around $20 and $40 per ton, “the program is an expensive way to reduce greenhouse gases.” But cost is not something this Congress and the administration systematically factor into their policy ruminations.
Fifth, but fuel saving was only one goal of the program. The main stated goal was to cut carbon dioxide emissions and thereby postpone the day when the globe will be so warm that the ice cap melts, islands are inundated and we face a gory future. That, the program did, although only inconsequentially, given the pell-mell construction of coal plants in China and India. But at a horrendously uneconomic cost.
Sixth, unionization matters. Cash-for-Clunkers added $3 trillion to the billions of taxpayer money expended to save General Motors and Chrysler, i.e., members of the United Auto Workers. What a like sum might have done for furniture makers, or the hotel industry, or small businesses, was never even considered.
Seventh, programs such as Cash-for-Clunkers have no regard for lower-income consumers. By mandating the destruction of trade-ins, Congress removed 700,000 cars from the used-car market, inevitably driving up prices of the cars that lower-income consumers tend to buy.
And by ordering that a trade-in’s engine be destroyed by replacing its engine oil with a sodium silicate solution (which turns out to be in short supply!), Congress sharply reduced the salvageable used parts that are bought mostly by poorer consumers to keep their cars running.
There’s more, but you get the idea. It takes a politician to declare Cash-for-Clunkers a success.”
Examiner Columnist Irwin M. Stelzer is a senior fellow and director of the Hudson Institute’s Center for Economic Studies
===============================================
“Micky hope the roosters were caw cawing all morning long while you were grilling up your bangers and beans for breakfast.”
The Bantam C0ck banged your mom for breakfast.
Or was that a frozen Capon she was diddling herself with ?
And tell her to leave the Corbish game hens alone.
They keep falling out making a dreadful noise worse than qweefs
July 24th, 2011 at 8:09 am
pumping co2 into the ground has just not worked out as hoped, so no, they cannot sequester co2 yet and it doesn’t look feasable from what they have learned. too many problems and in many ways not so dissimilar from fracting except flames won’t come out of your faucet. Can’t you be accurate about anything? you don’t even have a clue what your talking a bout. That is probably the most pathetic thing.
July 24th, 2011 at 8:20 am
“The military is not getting enough revenue”.
Are you kidding me?
The U.S. Department of Defense budget accounted in fiscal year 2010 for about 19% of the United States federally budgeted expenditures and 28% of estimated tax revenues.
Including non-DOD expenditures, defense spending was approximately 28–38% of budgeted expenditures and 42–57% of estimated tax revenues.
We spend more on defense than the next 25 countries combined.
Current expenditures as a percentage of GDP are higher than during the Cold War.
This reminds me of the nuclear arms race. People would be alarmed if the Soviets had passed us in the number of nuclear warheads, 2300 to 2200.
Somewhat ridiculous when after a few are lobbed it was a zero-sum game.
We provide security to the rest of the world on our dime.
Seriously, how much is enough?
All of this budget and entitlement talk and the defense budget garners nray a mention?
Ridiculous.
You can only kill someone once.
July 24th, 2011 at 8:32 am
pumping it into the ground is “sequestering” you idiot.
Besides, any fool knows that “today” with increased cars on the road, increased manufacturing, increased electrical supply, increased population…
our air is still cleaner than it was in the 70s n 80s even with the burning of sequestered materials.
Its all fine and dandy that environmentalists are looking for that euphoric replacement but until there is a viable one you have no business bashing the present methods.
If were going to pollute our air I’d rather do it with our coal than with Middle Eastern oil.
When your solar, wind, geothermal,bio fuels, hydrogen can all supply and keep up with demand then ya’ll can start your bellyaching and look reasonable.
Until then you’re no better than 60s hippies who wanted to tear it all down with no replacement of their own.
Bottom line is Barry said energy would necessarily skyrocket and they have to the benefit of no one but the companies he says he hates and has put and incredible burden on middle class America and business.
Epic fail.
People are dying because they cant keep cool or warm.
The MO is perfect and traditional of him.
Create a disaster to motivate.
He thinks these actions will speed up in getting alternatives to the market at the cost being counted in lives and misery such as the 1000 plus elderly who died in the French heatwave due to artificially inflated energy prices.
He is a hypocrite.
While pretending to be the champion of the working class he is actually creating the classes of the “haves” and the “have nots”
July 24th, 2011 at 8:35 am
“You can only kill someone once.”
If thats the way you see it then you’re hardly capable of determining their importance
July 24th, 2011 at 8:38 am
Buzz;
‘Seriously, how much is enough?”
Heh, you guys are too much.
During the Iraq war you were beating up the administration for not supplying our troops with needed armor and defenses.
Now were giving them too much ?
July 24th, 2011 at 10:04 am
@ Brian,
Who cares about CO2 emissions??? CO2 is not the problem as it is part of Nature. Your premise is false because you accept the lie that global warming is the result of man-made CO2.
“Clean Coal” is that which emissions are cleaner, especially those of sulfur, which is a genuine pollutant with widespread health and environmental negatives. Sulfur dioxide is something that can and should be dealt with.
July 24th, 2011 at 10:08 am
Co2 is a problem as it traps radient heat in the atmosphere, from our sun, you know that star constantly emitting energetic photos in the sky? I have no beef against finding yet better ways to use coal efficently. I am simply challenging your assertions that everything is your way. which it isn’t
July 24th, 2011 at 11:07 am
“I am simply challenging your assertions that everything is your way. which it isn’t”
Hey, its not always your way either shthead.
You never ever ever concede to anyone no matter how much the facts prove you wrong.
So spare us your indignation.
Theres no conclusive evidence one way or the other that CO2 stores enough heat to bring on the cataclysmic threat on the horizon you guys keep insisting is inevitable.
Ass holes like you were saying ten years ago that the release vof CO2 into the atmosphere would be the death of humanity by now.
So far you’re wrong.
AND !!!
IF IT WERE TRUE THE RESULTS WOULD TAKE A MILLENNIA TO OCCUR
If you doubt my words, observe what Dr. Kevin Trenberth himself says in his Rocky Mountains News response: “Gore’s statement that ice-sheets melting in Greenland or the West Antarctic would raise sea level by 20 feet is correct, although it was misleading that he did not put a time-frame on this.”
Ask yourself: why didn’t Gore put a time-frame on it?
The answer: a twenty foot increase would, all things remaining equal, take millennia.
As Dr. Trenberth himself once stated: “… temperatures would have to remain 5.5 degrees Celsius higher than today’s for several millennia before the Greenland ice sheet would lose even half of its ice. The Greenland ice sheet has in fact recently thickened by 2 inches per year – a total of 20 inches in 10 years” (Johannesen et al., 2005).
Is that, as Dr. Trenberth says, merely “misleading” on Gore’s part?
Or is it an outright prevarication?
Dr. Vincent Gray, a New Zealand scientist who recently resigned from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), where he had served as an expert from its inception, left because, in his words, “the world will slowly realize that the ‘predictions’ emanating from the IPCC will not happen. The absence of any global warming for the past 8 years is only the beginning. The whole process is a swindle. The IPCC from the beginning was given the license to use whatever methods would be necessary to provide evidence that carbon dioxide increases were harming the climate even if this involves manipulation of dubious data and using people’s opinions instead of science to prove their case.
Today, as weve seen recently with the UN Emails, its all too obvious, by their scientists own admission, everything for the last 8 years has been bullsht-yet morons like Brian and the greeniacs keep beating the same drum
July 24th, 2011 at 11:42 am
micky if you ever took a real general chemistry course in college and pass the exams for real you would know that global warming is inevitable in a habited planet. The equations are irrefutable, and its just plain common sense to anybody who has ever done any gen chem lab experiements, called the heat of reaction. They all generate heat, then trap it with any organic bio-mass and the temps go up as long as the sun keeps shining. Why would you guys even FEEL THE NEED to endlessly debate this?
July 24th, 2011 at 12:58 pm
“micky if you ever took a real general chemistry course in college and pass the exams for real you would know that global warming is inevitable in a habited planet. ”
Have you learned anything since you got out of grade school ?
My sources mentioned are of a calibre far greater than your stupid fcking home economics class Brian
You want to argue with some of the worlds foremost scientists (Vincent Gray, Trenberth etc..) who’ve quit and exposed this horse sht scam ?
“The equations are irrefutable,”
LIAR
I just refuted it with cold hard history and scientific fact that it would take a milleniam which is why the report had no time stamp on it.
“They all generate heat, then trap it with any organic bio-mass”
Once again you incredible fckin moron.
NO ONE IS DISPUTING THAT BUT WE ARE DISPUTING THE LEVEL OF DAMAGE YOU GUYS SAY IT WILL CAUSE TO THE PLANET !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wow ! You’re a regular fckin genius !
the sun warms matter it contacts ???
WHO’D OF THUNK ???
“Why would you guys even FEEL THE NEED to endlessly debate this?”
Because you morons will not leave us alone and are imposing regulation upon regulation on us based on a false claim !
July 24th, 2011 at 12:59 pm
There is no debate – the sun makes the earth warmer – CO2 doesn’t have a damned thing to do with it.
July 24th, 2011 at 1:53 pm
wrong, the co2 in the atmosphere traps more heat energy in its carbon-oxygen divalent covalent bonds and increases their kinetic energy thus radiating even more heat back into the biosphere some of which is absorbed terrestrially, before that energy could of escapee into space. And thats only one source. You know nothing.
July 24th, 2011 at 1:56 pm
oh micky is against regulations, oh i see, is that the problem? Oh is he going to act like an angel now with no regulations? oh i see. you know micky you not only don’t know what your yoddling about, your wrong too. Like the big double whammy.
July 24th, 2011 at 2:07 pm
The truly saddest thing here, is after the taxpayers bailed out the big banks, wallstreet, the corporations, and invested a great deal of money saving the very system that profits the very rich, it quickly turned on them and unemployed them to keep their profits and bonuses and ceo pay intact, and now is supported a right wing groups of politicians helll bent on gutting the taxpayers social security and medicare they have been paying paycheck by paycheck into their whole working lives, In essence renegging on the deal that if taxpayers just obeyed the laws and paid the taxes they too would get something in the end, a decent retirement for their later years. Its just stunning the lack of gratitude of the business sector towards what taxpayers and workers have done for them.
July 24th, 2011 at 3:45 pm
“wrong, the co2 in the atmosphere traps more heat energy in its carbon-oxygen …”
whatever.
You cant seem to get it thru your thick fcking skull that its not proved to be responsible for thepiddly few degrees in temp everyone was crying about 10 years ago that said was going to kill us all and melt the caps.
It never fcking happened you idiot !
Do you understand how it makes all your science junk and subjected to whomever is paying the scientist ?
At that point science is no longer objective.
Among global warming alarmists, it’s become somewhat vogue to criticize the “credentials” of anyone, scientist and non-scientist alike, who disagrees with the catastrophic scenarios. Turnabout, as mentioned above, is only fair play.
“There is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.”(Lindsen)
As Doctor Lindzen notes in the above-quoted passage, government-funded scientists depend entirely upon politicians for their research money. Science, therefore, which by definition is an objective discipline, is instantly politicized: i.e. science is made non-objective… Get it ?
Science becomes a thing of consensus – which by definition means that science is no longer science.
Instead of rational debate and scientific inquiry, we’re subject to these endless lobby campaigns, these endless invectives, these endless personal smears like your last fcking comment about regulations, and against any scientist who dares to do her job — question and investigate — and this is the reason we now hear the constant authoritarian cry: “Silence! The debate is over.”
This kind of ad hominem attack is many things, but science is certainly not one of them. Nor is it going to get the world to a better place, as your ignorant ass thinks it will.
“oh micky is against regulations, oh i see, is that the problem? Oh is he going to act like an angel now with no regulations? oh i see. you know micky you not only don’t know what your yoddling about, your wrong too. Like the big double whammy.”
First of all, I did not say “NO REGULATIONS” and you shouldnt speak as you’re the ass hole who wants EVERYTHING regulated except for you as if you’re some elitest schmuck who loves to be the exception to all the rules you designate.
Instead, the elitist shmucks like you, who live off the fruits of technology, progress, and, in a phrase “free-market capitalism”, have chosen to foist and force the doctrine of environmentalism onto the world, so that the Third World cannot develop but must (so say the Brians) be kept in grinding poverty, replete with disease and death — all because our “jeopardized planet” demands it, and because corporations are evil, and because, anyway, the elites say so. The environmental elites are the new socialist rulers.
This is the government you want Brian that the people have turned to for ’social justice’; for protection and aid, in the form of labor and social legislation; for reason and order, in the form of government ‘planning.’ This is the government that has implemented progressive income taxation and inheritance taxation; minimum wage laws and maximum-hour laws; laws giving special privileges and immunities to labor unions; antitrust legislation; social security legislation; public education; public housing; socialized medicine; nationalized or municipalized post offices, utilities, railroads, subways, and buslines; subsidies for farmers, shippers, manufacturers, borrowers, lenders, the unemployed, students, tenants, and the ‘needy’ of every description. This is the government that has implemented food and drug regulation, building codes and zoning laws, occupational health and safety legislation, and more. This government has created arbitrary money and abolished the gold standard — to make possible the inflation of the money supply without limit. They have, in short, created over fifty thousand new laws and countless other regulations, which have swept across the country and the world with the force of a tidal wave, so that the concept of self-ownership, self-governance, and limited government seems antiquated to all but a handful who understand what’s at stake; thus, any mention of individual rights, the recognition of which is the only way for humans to actually live prosperously and freely, is now considered out-of-date. Yet if human freedom is ever to be won, it is only through the recognition of each individual’s absolute right to his or her own life and his or her own property that will accomplish it.’
Please think about that the next time your idiot ass calls from “more government involvement just in case, because, after all, what could the harm be?”