Friends of Darwin


He loves and she loves

Just Causes

  • Support_denmark

  • Marykay_1

Password required

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

« Alan Simpson suffers a "Barbara Bush Moment" | Main | Sarah Palin's words: "A realness that's not common in the political world" »

November 27, 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

It is mighty sad that most of the pols from both parties are so out of touch with the principles that our founding fathers knew were the basis of true freedom.

Alan Simpson co-authored legislation that "solved" the illegal immigration problem back in the Reagan administration.

No wonder Obama wants him as the Republican face of the deficit commission.

Amazing that the Nation got from 1776 to 1936 without one, single 'entitlement' program, and yet Americans built a continent spanning Nation and created the greatest industrial system the world has ever seen. Plus kept their currency relatively stable up to 1912.

Now with all the 'entitlements', a financial set of systems that shows the entire suite of problems with the old National Bank plus many others, a minimum wage that makes it better to have jobs overseas than in the US, plus subsidizing health care via the tax code that: our money loses 95% of its value, we lose our industrial strength, and we are now in a debt problem unlike any other seen in this Nation since its Framing.

What happens when the money is worthless and the power goes out on the 'third rail'? We soon shall find out.

Planet? What Planet? I have a bad feeling about this.

If looking for an unprincipled common ground is not a good thing, I would suggest looking for a principle.

Here's one: "Raising taxes is not reducing government spending."

This statement is the title of Prof. George Reisman's essay against Harvard Prof. N. Gregory Mankiw's NY Times article that the Deficit Commission should think about closing all those tax loopholes.

Reisman writes:

The essential theme of the article is that the government is spending when it decides to forgo tax revenue that it otherwise could have collected. Indeed, tax revenues forgone in the enactment of tax deductions, such as for interest payments on home mortgages or charitable contributions, and tax credits, such as for first-time homebuyers or adoptions, are now commonly described as “Tax Expenditures.” The thought is that the government is spending money in deciding not to take it in taxes and to allow the taxpayers to keep it.

The underlying assumption of those who hold this view is that the government already owns the funds in question whether it has collected them in taxes or not. The government is the alleged owner of funds that belong to the taxpayer and which it abstains from taking. It allegedly spends these funds in allowing the taxpayers to keep them.

The fundamental question is, who is the owner of the funds paid in taxes?

For more see his web site: capitalism dot net.

Ah the mythological reasonable Republicans and conservatives of the past. Who can forget how they were loved by one & all? The fawning press, the international accolades, the adoring masses - the heavens literally smiled down on all those intelligent, rational and well-spoken Republicans & conservatives of yesteryear. Why oh why are we burdened with these coarse, shrill know-nothing cretins of present day?

And it really shouldn't be surprising that Alan Simpson (OUR HERO!) would conflate Olbermann & Rush. I know nothing of Mr. Simpson personally, mind you, other than he was one of those eminently sensible Republicans that existed back in the day but I can tell by looking at him that his actual knowledge of popular culture in all probability ended at least 20 years ago.

There is no common ground. The country isn't polarized enough.

Like it or not, we're going to be governed by the voice of the people and when they vote against reason and common sense, our republic, along with our society, will crumble. I think our current mess will only get worse, because there are too many of us who expect the rest to support them.

I don't expect the tea party movement to hang together very long if it becomes Balkanized and quarrelsome. That may sound like an appeal to "unprincipled common ground," but as long as elections count, we will have to take whatever common ground we can get.

Where did you get the idea that elections counted? As long as we have regulations by unelected bureaucrats enforced by unelected judges, we can vote for whom we please... for all the difference it makes.

His ignorance in calling out the elderly as the selfish generation is quite humorous because Mr Simpson will never want for nor need to fall under the auspices of the Federal Government in his declining years however this Federal Government saw fit many decades ago to start taking money directly out of people's pockets and generation after generation of politician saw fit to PROMISE the good life to those same voting seniors and now they want to embarrass them and mock them? Well those seniors have damn well paid the price of admission to that program and the Federal Government will damn well take care of them. If Mr Simpson wants to talk about the selfish, he need look no further then the idiots controlling DC and the 25 and under generation who have been taught that everything is "free" under this Democrat Administration and Congress (remember Pelosi promising you could paint or write poems and still have "free" healthcare?).

He need look no further for the solution than each and every Government agency, including but not limited to Dept of Edu, DOE, IRS (flat tax will take care of that appendage) etc.

The import of 'we are not looking for unprincipled common ground' is a battle to the political finish between those who put the government at the center of American society and those who put the individual there. That's not right verses left but political class versus citizenry. We citizens must press the fight over the scope of government towards a decisive finish of enforceable limits to government spending, else the entitlement state will bankrupt us all.


I just grow with differing concepts from the mighty SISSU these days.

Of course I agree, Mr. Simpson is wrong.

But the reality is, I agree with listening to his opinion, just as I would agree with reviewing the opinion of all Mr. Simpson suggested should not be listened to.

It is the substance of the offering, not the form of venue.

But in my opinion, Mrs. Bush has every right to express her opinion - and as typically blunt she has always been, she may have expressed it a little too coldly for many. But she has every right to offer it, just as Simpson, and it is worthy to take the offering into some account.

Just as I do when I encountered the ugly response from Mrs. Palin, who turned to ugly Populism and class warfare, using a terrible term like "blue blood".

And this is where I would honestly challenge my own old blog friend, the mighty SISSU, and wonder if she actually paid attention to the substance of the offering of Mrs. Palin.

You see, I object to many things Mr. Limbaugh has said over the years, even though I was a diddohead from 93. For example, his use of "blue blood" terms was also simply ugly class warfare within the Republican game - entirely NOT conservative or American. Also, Mr. Beck has peddled an easy fashion of equating the two Parties, which simply defies reality, reason, even history. It is hardly accurate, honest, ethical, and often is used to play a safe INDY game.

No, you see, I feel strongly it doesn't matter if you are in the "HIP" Conservative realm - on a certain side, it is the actual substance of the offering. And too many these days, are following fashion - not leading with substance, facts, reality. This is why Delaware was a fiasco, not a victory. This is why after 2004, you had fools on the Conservative side calling GW Bush a 'traitor', actively calling for his Impeachment. The fashion consumed all, not paying attention to the substance.

We see it daily, and it grows tiresome, even undermines the good cause.

Basis is essential. Some in Conservative Circles even seem to ignore some glaring bits of reality about others, because they deem them apart of a certain Conservative community. But the ignoring of the basis, only leads to a loss of credibility for all.

For example, when ARNOLD the failed Gov. of Cali challenged Sarah Palin's environmental offering, Sarah responded by reminding all she grew the Alaskan bureaucracy by building "Climate Panels" as Governor. So many Conservative fashion followers were thrilled with Mrs. Palin being so robust in her defense of herself, ignoring the actual substance of this offering was indeed left of the mark - a true Democratic Partisan policy effort.

So basis is the essential element which no conservative would ignore. No matter how "hip" the source. Nor would any conservative not be willing to review another opinion, fact, etc., out of fear it could challenge their viewpoint. WFB had it right, and one can only hope we return to the basis.

I will respond to Old Fan with a simple factual point. Beck is always saying "Don't Trust what anyone else is saying even me and find out for yourself what the truth is" versus Simpson who is "You should stop listening to people like Beck and listen to people like me instead."

Funny its the guy who says you shouldn't listen to other viewpoints beside my own that we should consider more seriously.

The comments to this entry are closed.

The Cold Turkey Cookbook

Look to the animals

  • looktotheanimals


Blog powered by Typepad