I know, I said that I would try not to bring politics into this blog, but when I saw this, it was just too much.
This video supposedly is causing a great sensation among liberal democrats and others even left of them. You can see the affect on the enraptured Northeastern liberals in the audience. The views espoused in it are some of the reasons why I do not see myself supporting liberal causes and liberal candidates. Forget about the Bush bashing (even after almost 3 years he left office – a sure sign that democrat’s policies have been failures), I want to talk about the stuff after that. If anyone wants to talk about those four things she mentions about Bush, I can do that later, point by point. Anyway, about what she said in the 2nd part. Here are my thoughts:
1. If she really wanted to go off on people that take advantage of public money and goods without giving something back, she should have done it against the 47 percent of the people in the United States that do not pay any income taxes. That successful factory owner that she has such disdain for due to the sin of wanting to keep more of what he or she makes, probably pays more into the system than the workers he hires. The United States has a very progressive tax system and if that factory owner happens to be in the top five percent of earners, he is in a group that contributes over fifty percent of the federal income tax revenue. Of course, to build that factory, he or she probably had to pay all sorts of fees and stuff. That person’s company is also probably paying licenses for this and that on a regular basis and who knows what other taxes – all of which goes to government coffers. Ranting against greed is one thing, but greed is present everywhere, even in the entitlement mentality of those that may not make a lot of money and especially in the unsatisfiable maw of government. You have not seen greed and corruption unless you have seen our government in action, it is horrible and would make honest people into Ron Paul supporters (I know some who did). The thing is, in context of the world our government is kinda mild when it comes to that kind of stuff compared to other country’s governments….
2. She should also stop with knocking down straw men and stop the bait and switch. Conservatives want limited government, not no government. People that want no government are the anarchists (though some of those that espouse anarchy these days are not quite that, if you strictly define anarchists). If all government did was infrastructure, law enforcement, military and education – that would make even the libertarians smile. However we know the scope of government is way beyond that now. Which brings me to the bait and switch: I mean, because I am for infrastructure, I should also be for obamacare? Because I am for law enforcement I should be for public unions? Because I like some of the things that government does and think that they are legitimate, that I should think all the other stuff that it does as equally good and legitimate? If I vote for a bridge, it should be for a bridge, not some ongoing, neverending government program for whatever else.
3. Finally this is the main reason I do not ever see myself supporting liberals: the destructive anger and hypocrisy. Notice the use of ‘them’ (to denote the entreprenuer) and ‘us’ and how she is filled with righteous indignation that ‘they’ would try to keep more of what ‘they’ make after ‘they’ had a fill of things that were provided by ‘us’? What is this ‘they’ and ‘us’? I’m sorry, there is no ‘they’ and ‘us’ here – we are all Americans. How dare you even think of running as a U.S. senator with that mentality? I can’t imagine her taking the same tone with illegals or even Islamic terrorists with the same tone – she would probably be a lot more measured taking on those subjects on than with the subject of ‘rich’ Americans or American corporations. You know the entities that provide goods and services to Americans and employment to Americans (as well as a large chunk of tax dollars to American government). Then on top of it, she dares state that ‘no’ she is not talking about class warefare? I may not be as smart as her, but to me if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck – it probably is a duck. How destructive do you think she would be if she carried that to congress? The thing is, all of her life, she has not pursued the objectives of so called everyday Americans. She has attained positions in high levels of government and teaches at an elite institution – probably making a healthy six figures if not more. If anything, she is less ‘us’ than the factory owner or the entreprenuer that she labels as ‘them’ – she is more them than they are and she has not run from it. Heck, she probably will be running to be one of a hundred special people in the world….
This lady is supposedly some real smart person. She teaches law at Harvard and was the person picked by Obama to oversee TARP. She is probably going to run on the democrat ticket to challenge Scott Brown for the Massachusetts senate seat. All I can say is: Lord, please save us from these smarter than thou’s that want to rule over us.
