Voting With Our Private Parts
I don’t believe in the apocalypse and I’m deeply suspicious of people who see the end as nigh every time a favorite policy or politician is shot down. But last week’s election prompts visions of economic earthquakes triggering a tsunami of debt, with catastrophe surging forward wiping out everything in its path. If that sounds like hyperbole, it might be, but only slightly. Massive debt accumulation started this recession/depression and we’re far more indebted today than we were in 2007. We have simply kept the monster at bay by using easy credit to pay for it all. What's changed? Not a thing. So, how do we recover? The simple answer is; we don’t.
President Obama has done nothing to deal with the growth and spending by government except to make it worse by continuing to expand the size of government. The republicans have been only slightly better. And that may be the real problem; we are willing to except the bad, as opposed to the terrible, as a substitute for the good.
The republicans want to balance the budget while continuing to increase the size of the military, which they seem not to recognize as being a form of “Big Government.” Any attempt to curb military spending, even by holding it to 2007 levels, which the democrats proposed, is met with much wailing and gnashing of teeth. Images of jihadists overtaking the greatest super power the world has ever known, armed with portable nuclear devices, is placed front and center in the minds of the elect. For the democrats, holding entitlement spending in check is met with propaganda about starving children running in packs like wild dogs and seniors eating Alpo in freezing, Soviet-style hovels. The political speech is so far removed from reality that it more closely mirrors a sci-fi fantasy novel than American life.
There will always be a hint of truth in such statements in order to justify the fearmongering. Nuclear equipped Jihadists are a very real threat, if not at the moment, then certainly in the future. And hunger is no laughing matter, but is nonetheless greatly exaggerated, to even greater political effect. There is, however, a world of difference between legitimate concern and the paranoia that under-girds so much of the nation’s political discourse. Whether these concerns ever become a reality depends in no small part on how we deal with them today. Spending recklessly will ensure that we could be broke and unable to take care of our most basic needs in the very near future. This includes the cost of food, housing and a reasonable ability to defend ourselves.
President Obama has done nothing to deal with the growth and spending by government except to make it worse by continuing to expand the size of government. The republicans have been only slightly better. And that may be the real problem; we are willing to except the bad, as opposed to the terrible, as a substitute for the good.
The republicans want to balance the budget while continuing to increase the size of the military, which they seem not to recognize as being a form of “Big Government.” Any attempt to curb military spending, even by holding it to 2007 levels, which the democrats proposed, is met with much wailing and gnashing of teeth. Images of jihadists overtaking the greatest super power the world has ever known, armed with portable nuclear devices, is placed front and center in the minds of the elect. For the democrats, holding entitlement spending in check is met with propaganda about starving children running in packs like wild dogs and seniors eating Alpo in freezing, Soviet-style hovels. The political speech is so far removed from reality that it more closely mirrors a sci-fi fantasy novel than American life.
There will always be a hint of truth in such statements in order to justify the fearmongering. Nuclear equipped Jihadists are a very real threat, if not at the moment, then certainly in the future. And hunger is no laughing matter, but is nonetheless greatly exaggerated, to even greater political effect. There is, however, a world of difference between legitimate concern and the paranoia that under-girds so much of the nation’s political discourse. Whether these concerns ever become a reality depends in no small part on how we deal with them today. Spending recklessly will ensure that we could be broke and unable to take care of our most basic needs in the very near future. This includes the cost of food, housing and a reasonable ability to defend ourselves.
As a nation we should'nt have to choose between guns or butter—that is, unless we pay too much for both, because inflation has eroded the value of the dollar due to bad fiscal policy and overspending, which is really a circular problem. And, so far, President Obama’s fiscal policy has been very bad indeed. Even worse than President Bush’s, this is no easy feat.
Therein is the problem as I see it, Americans have become so dulled by relentlessly negative news and political campaigns that they can’t think beyond simple slogans and empty rhetoric--where the hardcore evangelists on both sides can promote their cause with a deep faith in the one thing they hold most dear, namely the righteousness of their own beliefs. What else is there beyond faith with only the thinnest connection to reality? Americans stand at the sidelines, watching, as their savings and retirement disappears and their sons and daughters are sent off to war. They're broke, pissed and confused--and keeping them them that way may be the most effective political strategy of all if your real intent is to keep the rabble preoccupied and out of the way.
In the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, people sent food and provisions to New York. Mayor Michael Bloomberg refused to allow those goodwill offerings to reach their intended target. He would only allow "State approved" foods to be used, the rest could be thrown in the trash. You can't trust "The
people" to even prepare a meal and offer aid in a crisis without "Big Daddy" giving the OK. If folks have to go hungry, well, that's the price we pay for safety. Who knows better than a billionaire turned politician. Apparently, when he was just a billionaire he was a bad guy, but, now that he's a
billionaire with a liberal agenda, he's become an enlightened leader of the people.
America is increasingly becoming a nation of children, taking down the ship of state, having reduced it to a party barge overloaded with a bunch of drunken twenty-year olds, welfare queens, Marxists masquerading as Feminists, billionaire bankers, the military and just about anybody with a gripe that their mamma and daddy didn't love them enough.
It would seem that only the government can compensate for so much past dysfunction. Why would anyone believe that an institution incapable of delivering the mail without registering staggering losses should be held in such high regard? Because government, in this instance, is just a concept, one detached from reality and therefore detached from accountability. It is the stuff of fiction and imagination, nothing more. But for liberals, that's enough.
This offers a pretty good cross section of American voters, for both the democrats and republicans; at least it’s their primary base. And the more infantile the nation becomes, the better their chance of maintaining and sharing power. “Keep it simple stupid” is a core political slogan for our times. If you attempt anything more complex, you’ll find yourself un-electable.
I hear it constantly in stories about how the republicans are for the rich and how democrats are damned socialists, spoken with a barely contained and seething anger, like a ventriloquist trying not to move his lips. The truth is that both parties have their core of believers and they will say whatever needs to be said in order to appease their bosses. If you want a clear image of the enemy, look no further than the closest mirror.
What exactly would it mean to help the poor? Welfare, food-stamps, free healthcare? How about jobs, a functioning economy, with inflation kept in check so those hard earned dollars have some purchasing power, "Huh, what, I can’t hear what you’re saying man, it sounds like bullshit. Like some rich white guy who hates black people and gays and stuff”!
Clearly, there are myriad fools as well in the Republican Party. Folks who hark back to the days when Blacks knew their place, Jesus was welcome in every home and you could still pray in schools. Back when God was an American, women were women, men were men and nobody was gay. If we could only return to those days things would be swell.
And so it goes. The people will ultimately get what they ask for. There is, however, an unfortunate disconnect between the true meaning of their requests and the reality of the higher taxes, slow growth, and high unemployment that will be their answer.
There will be increased insecurity in the markets, especially the commodities market, which will ensure higher prices for fuel, food and higher rents. Real estate prices will likely continue downward, but rents will remain high, meaning the poor will be worse off than ever. Politicians will blame everybody else; including big business—and the poor will remain trapped in a prison of their own making, with the democrats as their beneficent jailers.
There will be the illusion of concern, however, as liberals fret incessantly over the disenfranchised, representing a growing and permanent underclass of people who’ve sold their share of the American Dream for a measly handful of entitlements. The republicans will come to rest in their permanent role as a bunch of crusty, aging, white guys who seem to stand against everything.
Therein is the problem as I see it, Americans have become so dulled by relentlessly negative news and political campaigns that they can’t think beyond simple slogans and empty rhetoric--where the hardcore evangelists on both sides can promote their cause with a deep faith in the one thing they hold most dear, namely the righteousness of their own beliefs. What else is there beyond faith with only the thinnest connection to reality? Americans stand at the sidelines, watching, as their savings and retirement disappears and their sons and daughters are sent off to war. They're broke, pissed and confused--and keeping them them that way may be the most effective political strategy of all if your real intent is to keep the rabble preoccupied and out of the way.
In the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, people sent food and provisions to New York. Mayor Michael Bloomberg refused to allow those goodwill offerings to reach their intended target. He would only allow "State approved" foods to be used, the rest could be thrown in the trash. You can't trust "The
people" to even prepare a meal and offer aid in a crisis without "Big Daddy" giving the OK. If folks have to go hungry, well, that's the price we pay for safety. Who knows better than a billionaire turned politician. Apparently, when he was just a billionaire he was a bad guy, but, now that he's a
billionaire with a liberal agenda, he's become an enlightened leader of the people.
America is increasingly becoming a nation of children, taking down the ship of state, having reduced it to a party barge overloaded with a bunch of drunken twenty-year olds, welfare queens, Marxists masquerading as Feminists, billionaire bankers, the military and just about anybody with a gripe that their mamma and daddy didn't love them enough.
It would seem that only the government can compensate for so much past dysfunction. Why would anyone believe that an institution incapable of delivering the mail without registering staggering losses should be held in such high regard? Because government, in this instance, is just a concept, one detached from reality and therefore detached from accountability. It is the stuff of fiction and imagination, nothing more. But for liberals, that's enough.
This offers a pretty good cross section of American voters, for both the democrats and republicans; at least it’s their primary base. And the more infantile the nation becomes, the better their chance of maintaining and sharing power. “Keep it simple stupid” is a core political slogan for our times. If you attempt anything more complex, you’ll find yourself un-electable.
I hear it constantly in stories about how the republicans are for the rich and how democrats are damned socialists, spoken with a barely contained and seething anger, like a ventriloquist trying not to move his lips. The truth is that both parties have their core of believers and they will say whatever needs to be said in order to appease their bosses. If you want a clear image of the enemy, look no further than the closest mirror.
What exactly would it mean to help the poor? Welfare, food-stamps, free healthcare? How about jobs, a functioning economy, with inflation kept in check so those hard earned dollars have some purchasing power, "Huh, what, I can’t hear what you’re saying man, it sounds like bullshit. Like some rich white guy who hates black people and gays and stuff”!
Clearly, there are myriad fools as well in the Republican Party. Folks who hark back to the days when Blacks knew their place, Jesus was welcome in every home and you could still pray in schools. Back when God was an American, women were women, men were men and nobody was gay. If we could only return to those days things would be swell.
And so it goes. The people will ultimately get what they ask for. There is, however, an unfortunate disconnect between the true meaning of their requests and the reality of the higher taxes, slow growth, and high unemployment that will be their answer.
There will be increased insecurity in the markets, especially the commodities market, which will ensure higher prices for fuel, food and higher rents. Real estate prices will likely continue downward, but rents will remain high, meaning the poor will be worse off than ever. Politicians will blame everybody else; including big business—and the poor will remain trapped in a prison of their own making, with the democrats as their beneficent jailers.
There will be the illusion of concern, however, as liberals fret incessantly over the disenfranchised, representing a growing and permanent underclass of people who’ve sold their share of the American Dream for a measly handful of entitlements. The republicans will come to rest in their permanent role as a bunch of crusty, aging, white guys who seem to stand against everything.
Shortly before the election I saw posts suggesting how brave the aging Hillary Clinton was for not wearing makeup in public. In a world where the nation is sixteen trillion dollars in debt and counting, where some very crazy people will probably eventually get their hands on weapons of mass destruction, eye makeup, or the lack thereof, has become a meaningful signifier of political substance.
At least half of the nation, maybe most of the nation, continues to bite the hand that feeds due to their collective economic iliteracy. Mitt Romney was vilified by the media for buying and then selling off companies for a profit, which cost hundreds of workers their jobs. The fact that many of these companies were failing was beside the point—or that by making the company more efficient and profitable he may have actually saved many times the number of jobs than were lost. In the real world, where resources are limited, losing two hundred jobs in order to save eight hundred is meaningful. Better to lose some, than lose them all. But, when people don’t have a clue about how their government or economy actually works, catchy slogans inevitably replace political meaning and personal needs replace the public good. It’s what I want, what I need, the government should pay for my abortions, my medical bills, my retirement, subsidize my job, pay for my food, housing and my higher education.
How would this work? Where would the government get the money? Tax the rich is the most common answer. The rich apparently don’t pay their fair share. So, how is it that 3% of the population pays 50% of all income taxes, while 47% of that same population pays no income tax at all? What does a “fair” share look like? Fairness doesn’t even enter into the equation; liberals, like all cultists, redefine the meaning of terms so there can be no reasonable dialogue between groups. Before you can determine what should be done you will have spent all of your time arguing about the meaning of the word "meaning."
Let me make it clear, I have no problem with helping the poor, those few who have special needs due to health or circumstance. And a strong military is necessary in a potentially dangerous world. I do have a problem with using entitlements and vast military expenditures to create permanent voting blocs for either the democrats or republicans.
What we've become is a nation subdivided into partisan cults; single women increasingly vote with their vagina's, minorities’ bank on their minority status, the elderly vote their age, the poor are content to be marginalized for a paycheck, the military manufactures fear, politicians are beholden to their beneficiaries, and the people are bought off in the hope that they'll vote accordingly.
The only thing left is for white men to begin to vote as a group and write stirring Broadway shows like “The Penis Dialogues” subtitled “Conversations about masturbation as a way of political life”! After all, that’s a pretty accurate reflection of American voting patterns.
Mark Magula
At least half of the nation, maybe most of the nation, continues to bite the hand that feeds due to their collective economic iliteracy. Mitt Romney was vilified by the media for buying and then selling off companies for a profit, which cost hundreds of workers their jobs. The fact that many of these companies were failing was beside the point—or that by making the company more efficient and profitable he may have actually saved many times the number of jobs than were lost. In the real world, where resources are limited, losing two hundred jobs in order to save eight hundred is meaningful. Better to lose some, than lose them all. But, when people don’t have a clue about how their government or economy actually works, catchy slogans inevitably replace political meaning and personal needs replace the public good. It’s what I want, what I need, the government should pay for my abortions, my medical bills, my retirement, subsidize my job, pay for my food, housing and my higher education.
How would this work? Where would the government get the money? Tax the rich is the most common answer. The rich apparently don’t pay their fair share. So, how is it that 3% of the population pays 50% of all income taxes, while 47% of that same population pays no income tax at all? What does a “fair” share look like? Fairness doesn’t even enter into the equation; liberals, like all cultists, redefine the meaning of terms so there can be no reasonable dialogue between groups. Before you can determine what should be done you will have spent all of your time arguing about the meaning of the word "meaning."
Let me make it clear, I have no problem with helping the poor, those few who have special needs due to health or circumstance. And a strong military is necessary in a potentially dangerous world. I do have a problem with using entitlements and vast military expenditures to create permanent voting blocs for either the democrats or republicans.
What we've become is a nation subdivided into partisan cults; single women increasingly vote with their vagina's, minorities’ bank on their minority status, the elderly vote their age, the poor are content to be marginalized for a paycheck, the military manufactures fear, politicians are beholden to their beneficiaries, and the people are bought off in the hope that they'll vote accordingly.
The only thing left is for white men to begin to vote as a group and write stirring Broadway shows like “The Penis Dialogues” subtitled “Conversations about masturbation as a way of political life”! After all, that’s a pretty accurate reflection of American voting patterns.
Mark Magula
|
|
|