Rambling on American Conservatism

I think I figured out why Jeremy Boreing's "Conservatism / American Liberalism" point of view gets under my skin so much.

Jeremy once decried the 'groypers' who trolled 'conservatives' over homosexuals. In doing so, he said "American Conservatives want to conserve American Liberalism". This is a callback to the foundations of the Republican party where they were considered the liberals of the day.

Which is why many modern 'liberals' claim there was a Party-Switch™. (Spoiler: there was none.) The Republicans were pro-abolition and pro-human-rights and were for the government helping those who needed help. These were seen as 'liberal' for the day.

Modern 'liberals' call this 'big-government' and equate it to FDR-style programs. (It isn't.) But the original Republicans definitely did NOT believe in what Jeremy calls 'American liberalism'.

One HUGE proof that early Republicans were not no-government libertarian types was when they had the federal government enforce abolition on the southern states against their will. If I recall, they were kind of forceful about it.

"I guess it’s popular on the right these days to decry libertarians anytime you don’t like one of the many consequences of freedom." - Jeremy

Consequences of freedom can be ugly. This is why we are not a democracy, but a republic. It's for the protection of the minority group.

"Do you believe this is the same culture it was ten or fifty or a hundred years ago?" - Jeremy

Surprisingly, it's not that different. It's just people keep redefining terms (like 'conservative').

I've been putting scare-quotes around 'liberalism' because they're not really liberal. They're authoritarian progressives. And many 'conservatives' are actually libertarians or even anarchists.

Which is why we have such trouble discussing EVERY issue. Words should have meanings.

Jeremy says we "cannot and should not" use government to enforce morality. Then he says we can on abortion because: reasons.

While I agree on abortion, it's the same on any cultural issue. What people do affects society, so society has a stake in what people do.

Progressives laugh when we discuss 'slippery-slopes' in every argument. And within only a couple of years, every slippery slope has occurred and we have to fight the same battles again.

But if we had only used politics and government to regulate this before, we wouldn't have to.

Saying politics will change if we change our culture ignores the fact that culture unbridled will change our politics whether we want it to or not. It's they tyranny of the majority and the tragedy of the commons, wrapped into one disaster.

And then people like Jeremy say, "but Conservatism is American Liberalism" while the circling of the drain continues.

The #YangGang can't do math

Andrew Yang talking to Joe Rogan:

• "[The US is spending] $1.5 trillion on 126 welfare programs and Social Security."
• "The real price tag [for UBI] is $1.8 trillion, if you say everyone who is 18 and up. Now for context, the entire US economy is now $20 trillion... and the Federal budget is $4 trillion."
• "When you put money into people's hands, it doesn't disappear. It's going to go right back into the economy."
• "Of the $1.8 trillion, we're going to get back (let's say) $800 billion in new tax receipts."
• "We're going to save $100-200 billion on things like incarceration, homelessness services, and emergency room healthcare."
• "So, if you look at the cost savings, and the value gains, and the economic growth, that actually gains you back about $1 trillion."
• "The way you get back the last $800 billion... we need to put in a new tax that actually gets the American public a slice of every robot-truck mile, Amazon transaction, Facebook ad."

Let's do the math. (FUN!!!)

The civilian population, ages 16 and over and not in jail, is about 258,392,000. Half of which are currently receiving some sort of government assistance. Even if we assume none of them will receive UBI (which, according to Yang, many will get at least a partial payment), then we are paying out $1.5 trillion AT MINIMUM every year. So at least his estimate of $1.8 trillion is somewhat accurate.

But $1.8 trillion is almost half of the Federal budget of $4 trillion (estimated $4.41 trillion for 2019). Of that $4 trillion, $1.45 trillion is Social Security and $0.45 trillion is welfare. The UBI won't change that, as we are only considering the half of Americans who don't already receive government assistance. So we are adding $1.8 trillion of spending on TOP of the $1.9 trillion already being spent in government handouts. Our budget goes from $4.41 trillion to $6.31 trillion overnight.

"But we get that money back in tax receipts." No we don't. Of federal revenue, ad valorum taxes currently account for $1.6 trillion dollars. Our GDP is about $20 trillion, so ad valorum taxes are about 8% of our GDP. Even if we increase our GDP by the full $1.8 trillion, our ad valorum taxes would only raise $1.75 trillion; an increase of only $150 billion, not $800 billion.

Let's say we place an income tax on the UBI (which is stupid to tax government handouts, but it already happens in many instances). We currently get $2.4 trillion in income taxes, which is about 12% of GDP. We add the same $1.8 trillion, in its entirety, to the GDP and tax it at 12%, we get about $200 billion. So far, between ad valorum and income taxes, took back about $350 billion of the $1.8 trillion.

(EDIT) I just learned that Hauser's Law says:

In the United States, federal tax revenues since World War II have always been approximately equal to 19.5% of GDP, regardless of wide fluctuations in the marginal tax rate.

Ad valorum = 8% of GDP. Income tax = 12% of GDP. Total revenue = 20% of GDP. Damn I'm good (even if by accident).

Saying we're going to save money on incarceration by paying people is to deny reality. The people who already get government funding are the most likely to commit crimes. Yang said he's not going to be paying people UBI to those getting government money (or at least not more than his magic $1000/mo). So the people who are committing the most crimes wouldn't see any more money. No more money = no less recidivism. Therefore, $0 dollars gained.

As for saving on healthcare, we are making the logical leap that some of the UBI will be spent on health insurance and preventative healthcare. If it is, then it's not being put toward very much of the GDP, ad valorum taxes, or income taxes. But let's play along, shall we? Federal spending on healthcare, after you remove services like senior care and R&D, which will not change, we're spending about $500 billion federally. Most of this, $400 billion, goes to the states for services which would include those pesky emergency room visits. Even if we reduce this by half (which is overestimating, but let's be generous), we are only saving $200 billion.

So, with $150 billion from ad valorum taxes, $200 billion from income taxes, $0 dollars from reduced incarceration, and $200 billion from reduced healthcare costs, we have a grand total of $550 billion of the needed $1.8 trillion. We need to create new taxes, such as the Value-Added tax (VAT), and raise $1.25 trillion.

Where. Does. That. Money. Come. From?

This is where the logic breaks down between liberals and money. They think the following:

1. Money put into people's hands goes into the economy.
2. Money taken from them through taxes comes from magic fairy dust.

---

figures:

Income Taxes = 37% total 
Social Insurance Taxes = 23% total 
Ad valorem Taxes = 24% total 
Fees and Charges = 9% total 
Business and Other Revenue = 7% total

Income Taxes = $2.4 trillion 
Social Insurance Taxes = $1.5 trillion 
Ad valorem Taxes = $1.6 trillion 
Fees and Charges = $0.6 trillion 
Business and Other Revenue = $0.5 trillion 
Total Direct Revenue = $6.5 trillion

Income Taxes: Individual and corporate income taxes.
Social Insurance Taxes: FICA taxes, unemployment, disability taxes.
Ad valorem Taxes: Sales, excise and property taxes, licenses.
Fees and Charges: Fees for government services other than taxes.
Business and Other Revenue: Revenue from government businesses such as liquor stores and utilities.

---

source:
Joe Rogan Experience #1245 - Andrew Yang - Streamed live on Feb 12, 2019
Total Government Revenue in the United States - Fiscal Year 2019
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey - Civilian noninstitutional population - Age: 16 years and over
We've Crossed The Tipping Point; Most Americans Now Receive Government Benefits - Forbes - by Merrill Matthews - Jul 2, 2014
Total US Government Spending
US Gross Output for 2017 Released

a tree is to be judged by its fruits

I was once naive enough to believe the Clintons were able to do the right thing. I have grown up and put away childish things. The scales have been removed.

I know, point by point, why the Clintons and the current incarnation of the Democrat party is corrupt to the core. I know how, with each election, they have learned how to manipulate people to their will. Platitudes such as "Free [anything]" drive the young, the poor, and the disenfranchised to vote for "Hope and Change".

They say the road to Hell is paved with gold. Well, the road to economic ruin is paved with free college, free healthcare, subprime home loans, and government subsidized loans.

Democrats create class warfare saying the "rich need to pay their 'fair share'", meanwhile knowing the top 20% pay 80% of all income taxes. That's not 'fair' enough? They push for 'middle class' tax cuts, meanwhile the lowest 45% pay no income taxes.

Democrats create racial division. But their economic policies are preventing the advancement of the people they claim need the most help. They provide incentive to get welfare, convincing people it is 'deserved'. Then they create a disincentive to advance oneself in education and employment by threatening to take away the 'free' benefits. This creates a cycle that is hard to break. Now, more african-americans go onto welfare than are born each year. And latinos are quickly catching up to them.

Democrats push these divisions because they know the demographics will win elections. Look at election maps, county-by-county. Over the years, the Democrats have taken over all of the inner-city area, areas of the poor and the uneducated, areas caught in the cycle of welfare. And the greater the need and desperation, the more they vote Democrat.

Yet, in all of these heavily voting Democrat areas, controlled by Democrats for thirty or forty years, you find no advancement. They say we need better schools, but they don't provide them. They say we need better jobs, but they push businesses to close. They say we need higher wages, but higher wages are being forced to leave these cities. They say people need a livable wage, but the cost of living is highest in Democrat strongholds.

Tomorrow, vote. Vote for whomever you believe can meet the promises they've made. But a tree is to be judged by its fruits. And a rotten tree produces rotten fruit.

who is getting hurt by welfare?

Government Assistance Statistics:

Year	Recipients	% of Eligible Pop.	Est. Eligible Pop.	White persons %	White persons #	White as % of Eligible Pop.	Black persons %	Black persons #	Black as % of Eligible Pop.
2009	~44 mil	18.6%	~240 mil	11.8%	~5 mil	2.2%	38.9%	~17 mil	7.2%
2010	~48 mil	20.2%	~239 mil	12.7%	~6 mil	2.5%	40.9%	~20 mil	8.2%
2011	~50 mil	20.9%	~239 mil	13.2%	~7 mil	2.7%	41.3%	~21 mil	8.6%
2012	~52 mil	21.3%	~245 mil	13.2%	~7 mil	2.8%	41.6%	~22 mil	8.9%

Growth:
2.67 million additional recipients per year
0.67 million additional White Recipients per year
1.67 million additional Black Recipients per year

Dynamics of Economic Well-Being: Participation in Government Programs, 2009–2012: Who Gets Assistance? (US Census.gov)

---

Population estimates 2010:
309 million persons
72.4% White persons
~224 million White persons
12.6% Black persons
~39 million Black persons

Assistance:
~239 million eligible persons
78% of population eligible for assistance
~48 million Recipients
15% of entire population are Recipients
2.7% of White persons are Recipients
50.8% of Black persons are Recipients

QuickFacts - US Census.gov

---

Population growth is ~4% per year.

4% of 224 million White persons is 8.96 million new White persons per year.
0.67 million White persons are added to the Government Assistance rolls per year.

4% of 39 million Black persons is 1.56 million new Black persons per year.
1.67 million Black persons are added to the Government Assistance rolls per year.

More Black persons go on Government Assistance per year than are born.

we've been saying this FOR YEARS

Congressional Budget Office says Obamacare "Creates A Disincentive For People To Work"... well no kidding.

REP. PAUL RYAN: Just to understand this, it is not that employers are laying people off, it's that people aren't working in the work force, aren't supply labor to the equivalent of 2.5 million jobs in 2024, and as a result that work force participation rate, less labor supply, lowers economic growth.

DOUG ELMENDORF, CBO: Yes. That is right, Mr. Chairman.

RYAN: So, who are these workers? Who are the people typically in this category? What kind of worker from an income scale side are being affected by this?

ELMENDORF: The effect is principally on the labor supply of lower wage workers. The reason is what the Affordable Care Act does is to provide subsidies focused on lower and more middle income people to buy health insurance, and in order to encourage sufficient number of people to buy an expensive product like health insurance the subsidies are fairly large in dollar terms. Those subsidies are then withdrawn over time for people as their income rises. By providing heavily subsidized health-insurance to people with very low income and withdrawing those subsidies as income rises, creates a disincentive for people to work, relative to what would have been the case in the absence of that act. These subsidies are, of course, make those lower income people better off. This is an implicit tax, not the sort of tax we normally think about, where if the government raises taxes we are worse off and face a disincentive to work more, but providing a subsidy people are better off, but they do have less incentive to work.

emphasis is mine...

---

source:

CBO Director: Obamacare "Creates A Disincentive For People To Work" | Video | RealClearPolitics By Tim Hains, February 5, 2014

Happiness is.

what is happiness?... Aristotle had quite a bit to say on happiness... and so it seems do conservatives.

PBS (oft-thought as liberal) had a recent discussion about happiness and your ideological beliefs... this may come as a surprise to the liberals out there, but conservatives are happier on average... and the reasons may surprise you... below are some selected portions of PBS's findings:

One of the biggest correlates with happiness in our surveys was the belief of a meritocracy, which is the belief that anybody who works hard can make it. That was the biggest predictor of happiness. That was also one of the biggest predictors of political ideology. So, the conservatives were much higher on these meritocratic beliefs than liberals were.

belief in your own merit makes you happier... the belief that you are owed something makes you unhappy... this is what conservatives call "common sense".

Now, optimism alone doesn't determine contentment. Religion boosts happiness. So does marriage. But Napier's research accounted for that.

JAIME NAPIER: "We adjusted for education, for income, for marital status, religion, people who lived urban vs. rural, all kinds of things. So, you know, on average, just your ideology alone is an independent predictor of your subjective well-being."

did you get that?... i know the jokes about marriage, but it makes you happier... it makes me happier... just ask my wife; she'll tell you what i think.

and "religion boosts happiness"?... oh, the compounding effect of a religious conservative.

they even adjusted for education and income... this means that even poor, stupid conservatives are happier than rich, educated liberals... alternatively, a well educated conservative is still happier.

Napier says American economic malaise of the past few decades disheartened everyone, but liberals most of all.

So, everybody was decreasing in happiness as there was more inequality, but liberals to a significantly greater extent than conservatives.

And, in 1974, the difference between liberals and conservatives on happiness wasn't statistically significant. It was, basically, ideology didn't predict happiness in 1974.

so, the Summer-of-Love liberals were equally happy as their conservative counterparts... and while the inequality of wealth became greater, only the liberals became unhappy... apparently, they seem to think they aren't getting their fair share... the conservatives, on the other hand, aren't looking for a hand-out, so they are content to work for what they earn.

It's not true that conservatives are richer than Liberals. Liberals are actually richer than conservatives.

The reason that conservatives tend to be less concerned with income inequality is not because that they're ignorant. It's not because they're calloused. It's not because they have less of a sense of a morality. It has to do with the fact that they see the world differently.

sorry to take away all of your arguments, liberals... apparently, statistically speaking, you're the rich ones... but, somehow, you've made the claim that the conservatives are the 1%... not true... you've claimed they're ignorant, callous, and immoral... not true.

what is true is that liberals are the cause of their own problem... the expectation that someone else owes you anything sets up a logical fallacy... Person A expects value V from society Z... society Z is the sum total of all persons, "n"... for all persons "A" to each receive V from Z, then Z owes a total of V*n (split equally to A*n)... simple math... (V*n)/(A*n)= V/A or 1V per 1A... however, for society to have V*n to give, it must receive from A*n the total amount for distribution... that means, each A must contribute 1V to Z prior to receiving their 1V in return... liberals don't want to give into the system from which they expect to receive... but if no one puts into the society, it is fallacious to think you can get anything out of it... maybe you've heard of squeezing blood from a turnip?

liberals would have you believe that there are two groups giving into society and two receiving... person A is poor and needy (proletariat)... person B is rich and needless (bourgeoisie)... therefore, the above math goes something like this: 0A+2B=V₁ (value put into society Z)... V₁=V₂ (value taken from society)... V₂=2A+0B... "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need." - Karl Marx

---

With regard to what happiness is (men) differ, and the many do not give the same account as the wise. For the former think it is some plain and obvious thing, like pleasure, wealth, or honor. They differ, however, from one another -- and often even the same man identifies it with different things, with health when he is ill, with wealth when he is poor.

Happiness is desirable in itself and never for the sake of something else. But honor, pleasure, reason, and every virtue we choose indeed for themselves, but we choose them also for the sake of happiness, judging that by means of them we shall be happy. Happiness, on the other hand, no one chooses for the sake of these, nor, in general, for anything other than itself. Happiness, then, is something final and self-sufficient.

Aristotle

---

source:
Why Are Conservatives Happier Than Liberals? PBS NewsHour Dec. 9, 2011 PBS

welfare debunked: the crisis of our time

[The welfare state] is the outcome of a three-stage development during the last one hundred years, beginning with the stage of individual relief graded according to genuine needs, passing through public social insurance, and ending up in today's stage of universal, all encompassing security.

Social demagogues use the promises of the welfare state and inflationary policy to seduce the masses, and it is hard to warn people convincingly of the price ultimately to be paid by all. All the more reason for those who take a more sober and longer view to redouble their efforts to undeceive the others, regardless of violent attacks from social demagogues, who are none too particular in their choice of means, and from the officials of the welfare state itself.

Few people can still close their eyes to the contrast between the extraordinary successes of a social and economic order relying on the regulating and stimulating forces of the market and free enterprise, on the one hand, and on the other the results of a continuous redistribution of income and wealth for the sake of equality. It is a contrast which is intolerable in the long run. One or the other will have to yield -- the free society and economy or the modern welfare state. To use the words of another distinguished British economist, Lionel Robbins, a man who weighs his words carefully, "the free society is not to be built on envy."

Government-organized relief for the masses is simply the crutch of a society crippled by proletarianism, an expedient adapted to the economic and moral immaturity of the classes which emerged from the decomposition of the old social order. This expedient was necessary as long as most factory workers were too poor to help themselves, too paralyzed by their proletarian position to be provident, and too disconnected from the old social fabric to rely on the solidarity and help of genuine small communities.

People regard as progress something which surely derives its origin and meaning from the conditions of a now all but finished transition period of economic and social development. They forget that if we are to take respect for human personality seriously, we ought, on the contrary, to measure progress by the degree to which the broad masses of the people can today be expected to provide for themselves out of their own means and on their own responsibility, through saving and insurance and the manifold forms of voluntary group aid.

Are we to call it progress if we continuously increase the number of people to be treated as economic minors and therefore to remain under the tutelage of the state? Is it not, on the contrary, progress if the broad masses of the people come of age economically, thanks to their rising incomes, and become responsible for themselves so that we can cut down the welfare state instead of inflating it more and more?

A short time ago, a member of the House of Commons movingly described her father's plight in order to prove how inadequate the welfare state still is. But this is not proof of the urgency of public help; it is merely an alarming sign of the disappearance of natural feelings in the welfare state. In fact, the lady in question received the only proper answer when another member of Parliament told her that she should be ashamed if her father was not adequately looked after by his own daughter.

Today's welfare state is not simply an improved version of the old institutions of social insurance and public assistance. In an increasing number of countries it has become the tool of a social revolution aiming at the greatest possible equality of income and wealth. The dominating motive is no longer compassion but envy.

---

source:
Crisis of the Modern Welfare State by the US House Joint Economic Committee in July, 1994
As excerpted from the book "A Humane Economy: The Social Framework of the Free Market" by Written by Wilhelm Röpke in 1960. Excerpts are from the chapter, "Welfare State and Chronic Inflation."
FULL TEXT

---

---

Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

- The Life of Reason: Volume I by George Santayana, 1905

---

---

History, in par, repeats itslef.

- Mr. Kuhlman, high school history teacher

ReBlog - history will repeat itself

history will repeat itself... this is a truth we learned in our youth... our social studies, civics, and history professors said it time and time again... and yet we don't listen... we don't learn... history will repeat itself.

If we are to survive the looming catastrophe, we need to face the truth - By Janet Daley 9:00PM BST 06 Aug 2011 - Telegraph
[emphasis added]

Which of these is the most important question to ask in the present economic crisis: how can we promote growth? Should we pay off government debt more or less quickly? Is the US in worse trouble than Europe? Answer: none of the above.

The truly fundamental question that is at the heart of the disaster toward which we are racing is being debated only in America: is it possible for a free market economy to support a democratic socialist society? On this side of the Atlantic [UK], the model of a national welfare system with comprehensive entitlements, which is paid for by the wealth created through capitalist endeavour, has been accepted (even by parties of the centre-Right) as the essence of post-war political enlightenment.

This was the heaven on earth for which liberal democracy had been striving: a system of wealth redistribution that was merciful but not Marxist, and a guarantee of lifelong economic and social security for everyone that did not involve totalitarian government. This was the ideal the European Union was designed to entrench. It was the dream of Blairism, which adopted it as a replacement for the state socialism of Old Labour. And it is the aspiration of President Obama and his liberal Democrats, who want the United States to become a European-style social democracy.

But the US has a very different historical experience from European countries, with their accretions of national remorse and class guilt: it has a far stronger and more resilient belief in the moral value of liberty and the dangers of state power. This is a political as much as an economic crisis, but not for the reasons that Mr Obama believes. The ruckus that nearly paralysed the US economy last week, and led to the loss of its AAA rating from Standard & Poor’s, arose from a confrontation over the most basic principles of American life.

Contrary to what the Obama Democrats claimed, the face-off in Congress did not mean that the nation’s politics were “dysfunctional”. The politics of the US were functioning precisely as the Founding Fathers intended: the legislature was acting as a check on the power of the executive.

The Tea Party faction within the Republican party was demanding that, before any further steps were taken, there must be a debate about where all this was going. They had seen the future toward which they were being pushed, and it didn’t work. They were convinced that the entitlement culture and benefits programmes which the Democrats were determined to preserve and extend with tax rises could only lead to the diminution of that robust economic freedom that had created the American historical miracle.

And, again contrary to prevailing wisdom, their view is not naive and parochial: it is corroborated by the European experience. By rights, it should be Europe that is immersed in this debate, but its leaders are so steeped in the sacred texts of social democracy that they cannot admit the force of the contradictions which they are now hopelessly trying to evade.

No, it is not just the preposterousness of the euro project that is being exposed. (Let’s merge the currencies of lots of countries with wildly differing economic conditions and lock them all into the interest rate of the most successful. What could possibly go wrong?)

Also collapsing before our eyes is the lodestone of the Christian Socialist doctrine that has underpinned the EU’s political philosophy: the idea that a capitalist economy can support an ever-expanding socialist welfare state.

As the EU leadership is (almost) admitting now, the next step to ensure the survival of the world as we know it will involve moving toward a command economy, in which individual countries and their electorates will lose significant degrees of freedom and self-determination.

We have arrived at the endgame of what was an untenable doctrine: to pay for the kind of entitlements that populations have been led to expect by their politicians, the wealth-creating sector has to be taxed to a degree that makes it almost impossible for it to create the wealth that is needed to pay for the entitlements that populations have been led to expect, etc, etc.

The only way that state benefit programmes could be extended in the ways that are forecast for Europe’s ageing population would be by government seizing all the levers of the economy and producing as much (externally) worthless currency as was needed – in the manner of the old Soviet Union.

That is the problem. So profound is its challenge to the received wisdom of postwar Western democratic life that it is unutterable in the EU circles in which the crucial decisions are being made – or rather, not being made.

The solution that is being offered to the political side of the dilemma is benign oligarchy. Ignoring national public opinion and turbulent political minorities has always been at least half the point of the EU bureaucratic putsch. But that does not settle the economic predicament.

What is to be done about all those assurances that governments have provided for generations about state-subsidised security in old age, universal health provision (in Britain, almost uniquely, completely free), and a guaranteed living standard for the unemployed?

We have been pretending – with ever more manic protestations – that this could go on for ever. Even when it became clear that European state pensions (and the US social security system) were gigantic Ponzi schemes in which the present beneficiaries were spending the money of the current generation of contributors, and that health provision was creating impossible demands on tax revenue, and that benefit dependency was becoming a substitute for wealth-creating employment, the lesson would not be learnt. We have been living on tick and wishful thinking.

So what are the most important truths we should be addressing if we are to avert – or survive – the looming catastrophe? Raising retirement ages across Europe (not just in Greece) is imperative, as is raising thresholds for out-of-work benefit entitlements.

Lowering the tax burden for both wealth-creators and consumers is essential. In Britain, finding private sources of revenue for health care is a matter of urgency.

A general correction of the imbalance between wealth production and wealth redistribution is now a matter of basic necessity, not ideological preference.

The hardest obstacle to overcome will be the idea that anyone who challenges the prevailing consensus of the past 50 years is irrational and irresponsible. That is what is being said about the Tea Partiers. In fact, what is irrational and irresponsible is the assumption that we can go on as we are.

history will repeat itself... this is a truth we learned in our youth... our social studies, civics, and history professors said it time and time again... and yet we don't listen... we don't learn... history will repeat itself, unless we heed it's dire warning.

time to go; where's the handbasket?

Just 14% of Likely U.S. Voters now say the country is heading in the right direction, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey taken the week ending Sunday, July 31. That finding is the lowest measured since November 2, 2008, just before Barack Obama was elected president.

Right Direction or Wrong Track - Rasmussen Reports™

---

I been in the wrong place
But it must have been the right time
I been in the right place
But it must have been the wrong song
I been in the right vein
But it seems like the wrong arm
I been in the right world
But it seems wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong
...
I'd a took the right road
But I must have took a wrong turn

---

amen, Dr. John... amen.

a moral (amoral?) government

The headline of the full-page ad asks, "What Would Jesus Cut?—A budget is a moral document." The text continues, "Our faith tells us that the moral test of a society is how it treats the poor."

The ad was produced by Sojourners, a self-described "evangelical" organization whose slogan is "Faith in Action for Social Justice." The ad was signed by Sojourners president Jim Wallis and more than two dozen Religious Left pastors, theologians, and activists. They urge our legislators to ask themselves, "What would Jesus cut?" from the federal budget.

How would you answer that question? My answer would be, "It's a nonsense question. Your premise is faulty. Your priorities are not His priorities."

Jesus had many opportunities to confront the Roman government about its spending priorities. It was, after all, one of the most brutal regimes in history. If the question "What would Jesus cut?" has any biblical relevance, we should be able to cite instances where Jesus lectured the Roman oppressors the same way the Religious Left lectures America.

Just compare ancient Rome with America today. Rome sent its armies out to conquer; America sends its soldiers out to liberate. Rome demanded tribute from other nations; America sends aid and emergency relief around the world. Rome enslaved nations; America rebuilds nations.

If the federal budget is a "moral document," what does it say about America? It suggests to me that America may be the most moral nation on earth! Name one other country that has spent $15 billion fighting AIDS in Africa. Name one other country that has provided more disaster relief, that has built more schools and water treatment plants, that has supplied more food aid around the world, that has sent more doctors, teachers, and technical advisers to developing nations.

Even America's military budget—much of which is being spent to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan—reflects the basic compassion and unselfishness of the American people. Clearly, America hardly deserves any scolding from the Sojourners soapbox.

Did Jesus ever lecture the Roman Empire about its budget priorities? In Matthew 8, when the Roman centurion approached Jesus in Capernaum, our Lord could have said, "How dare you, a Roman warmonger, come to Me asking favors? Change your priorities! Tell your bosses in Rome to stop buying chariots and start funding welfare programs!" But Jesus didn't lecture the centurion. He said, "I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith!"

In Matthew 22, when the Pharisees asked if it was right to pay taxes to Caesar, the Lord could have thundered against Caesar's misplaced budget priorities. Instead, He said, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

In John 18, Jesus stood before Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect, a friend of Caesar. Why didn't He give Pilate an earful about the injustice of Roman rule? If ever there was a time for Jesus to "speak truth to power" and become the "social justice Messiah," that was it!

But Jesus didn't preach the social gospel to Pontius Pilate. Oh, he spoke truth to power, all right. He delivered a profound message to Pontius Pilate—and to you and me: "My kingdom is not of this world."

Now, I'm not saying that Christians are never called to confront their government. God bless Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the Confessing Church for standing against Nazi genocide. But that's not the situation here.

And I'm not saying there isn't a social and compassionate dimension to the Christian gospel. There certainly is! Jesus had great compassion for the poor.

He preached in Nazareth, "The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because He has anointed me to preach good news to the poor." He sent word to John the Baptist, "The deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor." Jesus presented the obligation to help the poor as an individual responsibility, a Kingdom responsibility—not the duty of the secular government.

Both the religious and secular Left in America seem to want government to replace the church in ministering to the poor and needy. One of Barack Obama's first proposals as president was a plan to slash tax deductions for charitable donations by high-income taxpayers. President Obama reasoned that a tax deduction "shouldn't be a determining factor as to whether you're giving that hundred dollars to the homeless shelter." Maybe so—but since private charities do so much good for the poor, why eliminate incentives for charitable giving? Could it be that liberals see private charities as competing with the big government welfare state?

In Romans 13, Paul tells us that we pay our taxes and support the government so that we will have a just, orderly society in which law-abiding citizens are protected from wrongdoers. But the responsibility for mercy and compassion belongs to the church—not the government.

What would Jesus cut? When He stood before the Roman Empire, He didn't suggest cuts. He received cuts. His flesh was cut by Roman nails and a Roman spear. He was bruised for our transgressions, and with His cuts we are healed. That's the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Stay tuned. In Part 2, we'll see how Jesus dealt with the "radical leftists" among his disciples.

- by Michael Youssef, Ph.D. (Master's degree in theology at Fuller Theological Seminary in California and a Ph.D. from Emory University in social anthropology.)

Keep Jesus Out of Your Socialism - MichaelYoussef.com
Keep Jesus out of your socialism (Part 1) (OneNewsNow.com)

http://twitter.com/MichaelAYoussef
http://www.youtube.com/user/MichaelAYoussef

war on poor

'Let's not look at the intentions behind minimum wage,' he said. 'We have to ask, what are the effects? Put yourself in the place of an employer who must pay $7.25 no matter whom you hire. Will that employer hire a person who can only add $3 or $4 of value per hour?' [says Walter Williams of George Mason University.]
He will not. And so fewer young people get hired and 'get their feet on the bottom rung of the economic ladder.' This hurts all young people, but black teens most, he says, because 'many of them get a fraudulent education in the public school system. So a law that discriminates against low-skill people has a doubly negative effect on black teenagers. The unemployment rate among black teens today is unprecedented in U.S. history. In the '40s, black teenage unemployment was less than white teenage unemployment.'

by John Stossel in his article, Government Against Blacks

while it may be statistically true that the minimum wage laws have hurt (primarily) young blacks, the real problem here is that a minimum wage hurts poor people, regardless of color/race/ethnicity... the idea behind minimum wage was to protect the poor from the corporate wage-masters... but has it kept more people down than it has raised up?

so, my question is this: knowing what has been painfully obvious for decades, what is the solution?... can we simply remove minimum wage laws without leaving workers unprotected against unfair employers?... if we overturn the Davis-Bacon Act, do we leave ourselves open to the lowest bidder who pays slave-like labor rates?... have we gone too far down the rabbit-hole to return from whence we came?

Thomas Sowell - Basic Economics

ever wanted to know in simple terms how economics works?... this is the man... Thomas Sowell discusses the facts and fictions of economics.
why, historically, raising taxes doesn't raise revenues... why the Great Depression had decreasing unemployment until federal involvement... why a trade imbalance doesn't cause unemployment...
things i thought i knew are no longer so.
Watch Uncommon Knowledge: Thomas Sowell - Basic Economics RIGHTNETWORK

Immigration by the Numbers -- Off the Charts

check your memory, and vote informed

'I REMEMBER, SO I'M VOTING, AND NOT REPUBLICAN.'

let the debunking begin:

• "Tax breaks for corporations" - we addressed this in another post, but corporations are the vehicles who create jobs, not the government... and President Clinton signed NAFTA.
• "Katrina / levee failures" - while Bush did cut funds to the Corp of Engineers (who build the levees), that project would not have been completed until 2015... Clinton, however, cut funds to ALL military, from 1992 through 2000... THOSE projects would have finished before 2005 and "might" have saved portions of New Orleans.
• "Needless war in Iraq" - well, if you count harboring terrorists (proven as early as 1999 in Al-Majallah, the London arabic language magazine; to Missouri's own Dick Gephardt (D) saying in a 2002 This Week interview, "There's lots of intelligence and it's additive as you go along, of meetings between Iraqi military and intelligence officials and members of al Qaeda.")... or the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that Iraq had and USED... if the gassing of 3000 Kurds wasn't enough proof (dead bodies don't lie), how about the uranium (a.k.a. Yellowcake) which CNN reported being found (July 7, 2008) in Iraq?... how about 500 TONS of it?... funny, they don't have those kind of reactors.
• "Record Deficit" - do we have to talk about record deficits?... Obama has you beat, buddy... and he's still passing spending bills (not to mention the Healthcare takeover).
• "Spending money on our nation is wasted money" - wait... what?... i guess you can make any spurious claim you want.
• "Wall Street Bailout" - if the Democrats hadn't placed lending rules which forced banks to give marginal loans to get FICA backing, causing banks to sell these loans to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (government institutions), causing Wall Street traders to trade these loans with the expectation of them collapsing (betting against them)... i won't go on... a Ponzi scheme only can run for so long before it collapses and destroys the lowest tier... and you can't secure a loan when it is a no-credit, no-collateral, no-SIGNATURE contract... ridiculous.
• "State rights / narrow point of view" - right... so when the populous votes against [homosexual marriage][marijuanna legalization][insert other liberal agenda], then it's up to the liberal judges (often appointed) to overturn the will of the majority... wait, that's the Democrats... how about when a state votes to uphold federal immigration statutes?... it was the Democrats who took the state to court; imposing their "narrow point of view" on the sovereign state.
• "Blocked healthcare for 9/11 responders" - why did the Democrats suspend House rules in an attempt to pass this bill without debate or amendments?... by doing so (suspending rules) they caused the bill to require a 2/3 majority... NOW needing 291 votes, they got 255... had they not played rule-games, they would have needed 218 votes, well below what they got... maybe it's not the Republicans who blocked the bill... they just wanted a hand in it... the Dem's were hoist of their own petard.
• "Dismantled agencies which protect food supply" - yeah, cutting government waste causes salmonella... i wonder what dismantling the US Military does?... or the CIA, FBI, DHS, ICE and Border Patrol.
• "Wealthy" - again, they make the jobs and pay the majority of the taxes... figure out economics.
• "Social Sec / Medicare" - agreed... we should funnel more money into these bottomless pits of inefficiency and fraud... they're working so well... oh, and why did the Democrats refuse to increase Social Security payments in line with inflation this year?... did we not have inflation?
• "Civil Rights" - those damn Republicans... always against Civil Rights... especially those Republicans like these guys:

Frederick Douglass
Harriet Tubman
Sojourner Truth
Booker T. Washington
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

• "Civil Rights, continued" - how about these notable Democrats?

Nathan Bedford Forrest - KKK Grand Dragon
Robert Byrd - Senator
Harry S. Truman (joined the KKK in Kansas City to garner votes)
Hugo Black (FDR's first appointment to the Supreme Court and lifelong KKK member)
Albert Gore, Sr (Al's dad) opposed the '64 Civil Rights Act
AL Governor George Wallace (declared there would be segregation forever)

• "Less money = More money" - it's economics, guys!... learn the Laffer Curve... i just did an entire post on this... if you can't look that up, watch Ferris Bueller's Day Off... Ben Stein defines it well.
• "In power / Banking crisis" - yeah, arrest the paramedics at the scene of the accident... hang the janitor for cleaning up other people's messes.
• "Take our country back" - wasn't this the slogan of Obama?

What makes you think you're so right?

In everyone's rush to judgement, few take the time to consider the truth.

Consider these examples:

• Illegal immigrants are only doing what they think is best for their families; yet, they are still breaking the law.
• A woman has the right to choose to not have a baby; abortion still ends a life.
• Those who do not have healthcare would benefit from having it; someone has to pay for it.
• The unemployed need capital to survive; someone has to work for it.

In every case, there is a value judgement. Some say the illegal alien deserves to reap the benefit of the host country. They have risked life and limb. Those who risk nothing should gain nothing.  But shouldn't those who follow the rules also be rewarded?  In a zero-sum game, for every winner there is a loser. Money which is earned by an illegal comes from those who are legal.

The woman has every right to choose what to do with her body. It is not anyone else's decision. Every individual has the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".  When do we grant the same honor on the child which was conceived? A child, born one second ago, cannot be killed lest it be deemed murder. A child, waiting to be born in one second, is simply a late-term abortion. Some would still value this as murder, but terminate that life three months early, and it's no longer murder. It's a medical procedure. Removing an unwanted growth.

Healthcare and welfare are both zero-sum games. Someone benefits from the work of another. A single mother, whose sole income was her deceased husband who died without life insurance to cover even his own funeral, has few choices in healthcare and welfare. As a society, we make the judgement that she is in need and worthy of help. Our work goes to care for her and her children. Yet, if her children grow up and do not provide for themselves or their own children, when do we make the value judgement to cease assisting them? And when we do, aren't we "taking away" their subsistence and their homes?

Every one of these choices is a value judgement. If you believe one way greater than the other, that is your right. But never dismiss the other end of the spectrum. It is equally as valid.

too astonished to give this a title

WTF?:

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION is not a new problem...Natives Americans (some of my ancestors) use to call it WHITE PEOPLE.

so, is what you're saying, everyone go home?... or is it that unchecked migration is okay?... if it's #1, then you're against illegal immigration, and you're for returning the Gaza back to the Israelites... if it's #2, then you're okay with people stealing goods and services from tax payers, without paying taxes, themselves...

if you're for #1, fine, but we "invaders" are taking our industry and agriculture back with us... your "ancestors" were perfectly fine the way they were with their 40 year life-span and 500 warring tribes...

and if you're for #2, you're the reason we pay for billions in healthcare for people who want to be nothing more than parasites... having LEGAL immigrants is what has made America the greatest country in the world; a country where people like you are able to espouse their point of view, no matter how foolish...

so, which is it?... do you want the Jewish people to return to their homes in Israel?... or do you want to send the rest of us into poverty paying for people who don't contribute to the greater good?


and this said on September 11th... a day when people should be patriots... this guy wants to either dissolve the country or destroy it.

Unemployment -OR- Get a shovel!

i just read a post on FaceBook by someone i don't know who was apparently upset by other people he didn't know who were upset by people they didn't know who were taking advantage of unemployment benefits... (did you follow all that?... good.)

a portion of his rant follows:

I consider myself conservative and responsible, but I have never seen so many ill-informed and downright selfish people in one place in my life as I found at Freedomworks. I find some of your views on unemployment particularly vile, as many of you want to blame high unemployment numbers on the unemployed and many of you want to take away unemployment benefits...my sole source of income at the moment.
Let me make it perfectly clear, I did not choose to become unemployed, I do not enjoy being unemployed. I and no other unemployed person chose to send all of our manufacturing to China. Unemployment insurance is paid by our former employers on our behalf, it is not welfare, it is there precisely to help working people who have lost their jobs. Anyone who has a problem with that can kiss my butt, go straight to you know where and tell the Devil I sent you. That is all.

being the jerk that i am, i let him know how his response upset me...

i was recently laid off and went on unemployment... i couldn't find work in my field (architeture)... so i looked in related fields (marine arch., engineering, drafting)... no luck... i looked in similar fields (construction mgmt, etc.)... ...no dice... i looked in unrelated fields (store management, personnel, etc.)... some... i looked into menial fields (labor, manufacturing, fry cook)... lots... there's work out there... if you're willing.
i was unemployed for two whole weeks... i got one whole unemployment check... now, i recently got lucky and i got an offer in my field, which i start in two weeks... but, if able and willing, there is no reason to be unemployed for TWO YEARS... the people who are unwilling are the ones we complain about... and if that includes you, you can kiss mine right back... there's a ditch somewhere that needs digging... get a shovel.

the part that many people seem to overlook when discussing unemployment, welfare, or any other social program is that these are intended to HELP people in need... they are not lifestyles... the complaint many have is not the existence of the government program, but the abuse of the government program... i am (temporarily) working for someone who is deeply involved in public housing... he has experience in public office... he works with, and for, people who are unemployed, on welfare, receive food stamps, etc... he is an advocate for those in need... and even he says the government throws away money on them... for example, in one housing area, the people living there receive free homes, utility stipends (which are not required to be used for utilities), food allowances, and a dozen other government assistance programs, not to mention the regular building maintenance and support at the government's expense... each year, it would be financially cheaper to buy each of them a house, give it to them, and walk away than it is to continue to provide them the constant support they demand... and we're not talking one-room shacks... we're talking 2BR, 1-1/2 bath, 1000 square feet, A/C, full kitchen, washer/dryer hookups, each with all the amenities... not the Taj Mahal, but we are talking free, here!...

another example he cites is an elderly lady he once met... in all probability, she needed the government assistance... her husband had passed, children moved out, no savings to speak of, no applicable skill, health issues... she needs the assistance... however, her children that moved out, moved across the street into public housing... her grand-daughter moved in right next door (in public housing)... and the grand-mother just couldn't be prouder of her family... every single one of them were using the system to get that monthly check for doing nothing other than saying "i want it"...

anecdotal evidence for and against are everywhere... while it would be heartless and unfair to put people out onto the streets, it is equally unfair to take working people's earnings to pay for those who refuse to earn their own way... at some point, by providing a lifestyle without accountability, you have removed the impetus to be self-reliant and self-sufficient...

this, good sir, is what we desperately do not need!