SOCIALIST-COMMUNIST POLITICS IS BACK EN VOGUE IN EUROPE.

Today the socialist-communist party of the Spanish, Podemos, led by Pablo Iglesias, published the main points of their neo-communist manifesto. Iglesias and his Podemos cohorts have managed to surge in popularity



The plan reads like a 16-point plan of expressed stupidity, a plan that is blind to the nature of mankind and of progress.

There is so much fallacy wrapped up in the proposals as to reveal the childish minds of those who thought up the silliness.

Points of Reality

1. There is no such thing as "the public." Thus, there is no such thing as public service.
2. Credit and finance are useful to individuals, not to any abstraction.
3. A wage is price. Blocking price discovery distorts. It leads to abundance in one area and dearth in another.
4. To be solvent, a payer of annuities must know the terms (the time limit and the sum limit).
5. All income is the same.  If income taxation exists, the rules must be the same, whether for an individual or for a firm. The lack of depreciation schedules for individuals reveals that both capital outlays and income gained gets subsidized for firms.
6. Mortgage-backed securities amount to a subsidy to bankers' risk. Political subsidy of mortgages distorts prices. Politicians should be prohibited from underwriting mortgages.
7. It's insanity for legislators to incur debt to fund salaries and welfare. Worse, it's immoral to force others to pay taxes to fund interest on debt that pays for bureaucrat salaries and welfare. Politicians should be prohibited from incurring debt except to fund revenue-enhancing infrastructure like ports, roads, bridges and tunnels.
8. No woman needs to marry and subjugate herself to a man. It's mere rhetoric and parroted stupidity to claim housework is unpaid labor. To whom is the housewife selling her skills through time (labor) in a purchase and sale? Who is buying from the housewife in a purchase and sale?
9. Anytime, employees are free to pool their wage profits and credit into capital and start their own competitive firms.
10. Legislative debt problems arise from bad borrowing and spending practices by politicians. Countries don't need debt restructuring. Citizens everywhere need political restructuring, which would strip power and authority from politicians across a wide swath of activities.
11. "But it's for the children" is one of the dirtiest and oldest political tricks from the book of political tricks.
12. Citizens already have minimum incomes that comes from subsidized rent, food and the like. Often, those minimum incomes are quite high.
    
    Rather than institution of a minimum income, which never would be enough according to its proponents, a maximum payout of welfare should be imposed both on a yearly basis and a lifetime basis. Never should welfare take the form of cash or bank credits.
    
    Food should be dispensed from soup kitchens imposing a strict diet upon recipients. Meal times should be curbed with doors abruptly locked at closing time.
    
    For those needing shelter, bunk houses should be built. Children should be segregated from adults.
    
    No able-bodied individual ought to receive welfare without also receiving skills training and psychological training.
    
    Welfare, which is another way of saying minimum income, ought to be a tough-love experience used to help anyone fix himself or herself upon a new path of betterment.
13. If politicians levy taxes on the sale of property, which is the right of ownership and never what is owned, on cars, on clothes, on concert tickets, there is no legit reason to not also tax the sale of property in stocks or bonds.
    
    As I explained in WHY IS THE ECONOMY SO HORRIBLE? BECAUSE ACADEMIA ECONOMICS IS FAKE,
    
    Though most think of property as things possessed, property always has meant the right of ownership and never the thing owned. Only when property gets created, can trade arise between two persons.
    
    The name for property put to making stuff is called capital. The name for property put to purchase and sale for cash and credit is wealth. The name for property that can be sold to satisfy debts is asset. The name for property pledged against a debt is collateral.
    
    As I explained in The Theory of Trading Property for Profit,
    
    Stocks and bonds are known as corporate securities. Legally, stocks evidence property (ownership) while bonds establish liability on property.
    
    That said, corporate organization through securities does what instruments of property transformation do and that is to upgrade property making it merchantable.
    
    Improved land for purpose, purpose-built buildings, and specialized machinery stand fit only for purposes as designed. As highly specialized property as capital, such property loses its merchantable qualities through specialization.
    
    However, when split into fractional property of partial rights as represented by stocks and bonds, such property becomes highly merchantable.
    
    As a credit instrument, a bond give evidence upon a promise to pay principle and interest from future profit. A stock gives evidence of ownership but promising nothing with respect to profit.
    
    The holder of a bond becomes a creditor to those who issued that bond. The holder of a stock becomes part of the company who issue it and thus a fractional debtor for all liabilities of the company, including bonds.
    
    Since stocks and bonds are mere property, and if politicians levy taxes on the buying and selling of other property in purchases and sales, then no legit excuse exists to not also levy taxes on the buying and selling of stocks and bonds.
    
14. For a bonus, quickly learn about the reality of taxes in IF YOU DRIVE A CAR, I'LL TAX THE STREET. IF YOU TRY TO SIT, I'LL TAX YOUR SEAT. MR. WILSON. MR. HEATH.
    

Read more ...

SODA JERK BLOOMBERG SWEETENS THE EFFORT FOR SODA-HATERS IN CALIFORNIA

Soda jerk billionaire Michael Bloomberg has pitched $200,000 to support advertising for a moronic ballot measure to be voted upon this November by residents of the City of San Francisco. Inveterate meddler Bloomberg wants residents to pay a 33.8¢ tax for each liter of soda because the idiot believes doing so shall dissuade parents of fatty kids from buying soda.



Why should everyone else who enjoys a soda now and then be held responsible for the irresponsibility of idiot parents?


Parents ought to be taxed directly for contributing to the fatness of their kids. Rather than a penny for each ounce of soda, how about taxing parents quarterly $10 a pound for every pound their kids weigh over a healthy weight?

Physical development scientists use the Body Mass Index (BMI), a calculation based on height to produce a normal weight range. It would be quite easy for parents to bring their kiddos to a weigh station every three months. Weigh stations could be put in every public school.

Using a BMI tax scheme, for a 4'2" child weighing 130 pounds, thus having a 36.6 BMI, parents would be forced to pay $415 every three months. That tallies to $1,660 a year.

That kind of outlay would smarten up parents quickly no doubt. In short order, Americans would have the fittest kids on earth.


Here is a big gulp of reality. Fatty kids come from irresponsible parents. Soda is not to blame.

Soda isn't alive. Blaming soda is like blaming a drug pusher for a druggy's willful heroin addiction or blaming a knife or a gun for a murderer's willful act of killing someone.

These days, a good number of American mommies and daddies rely upon the productive to pay for their food bills. Politicians give these mommies and daddies EBT cards. No one should expect mommies and daddies who buy soda for their fatty kids with EBT cards to care a whit about paying a tad higher price since everything is free to them already.

It shocks that someone can be as stupid as Bloomberg is at times and yet the guy has a net worth of $34 billion, making him the 16th richest man of the world. According to the Social Security Administration's life expectancy calculator, responsible, freedom-loving Americans must suffer with Bloomberg for at least 13.5 more long years of soda jerk meddling.

Read more ...

IT'S TALENT DIVERSITY AND NOT INCOME INEQUALITY

The world has those of good and those of evil. The facts are the same for both. 

What you weigh as worthy of you gives to you your perspective. To look at the world seeing but evil is the art of pessimism. To throw evil into the background is the art of optimism.

To see income inequality is to live as the pemissist. To believe others tell you that income inequality is evil is to fall a trick of those who are in evil themselves.

Rightly, there is talent diversity and it is from talent diversity that income inferiority arises. 

As I have spelled out before, there is no such thing as income inequality.

Talent is will one has to trade the skills one has for cash and credit in a purchase and sale. 

Most never discover their talent and by that all should understand that most never discover the skills they have nor the skills they could get, which they would be gung-ho willing to trade for cash and credit.

All recognize the talents of Robert Downey, Jr., Hugh Jackman, Lady Gaga, Justin Bieber, Taylor Swift . Almost no one questions why these talented entertainers should earn $75 million (Downey), $55 million (Jackman), $80 million (Gaga), $58 Million (Bieber), $55 million (Swift) [see Forbes here and Forbes here ]. 

Yet when the shareholders of the firms that hire the likes of Downey, Jackman, Gaga, Bieber and Swift, earn millions, most decry such as evil capitalists.

If you lack talent and if you believe that talent is born, then you need only look to the genetics of your parents. If you are lacking talent, then it's your parents' fault, your grandparents' fault, their parents before them and thus all of your ancestry.

If you lack talent and you do not believe that talent is born but rather comes from focused effort, then you need only look to yourself. You alone are to blame for your income inferiority.

If you have what you believe is talent but few are willing to bid high enough to buy your talent in a purchase and sale, you can delude yourself and blame everyone in society of property, which is the only society that strangers can form, for failing to see and appraise your talent according to your self-deluded fantasy.

Or, you can (wo)man up, stop having a sook, and set yourself to work acquiring talent that others are willing to buy at high prices in purchases and sales. 

However, if you agitate in a mob to have income inequality turned into an equality by force, leveraging government for one's friends and oneself at the expense of others, you become a teeny tyrant, differing only by degree but not by kind from Leopold II, Hitler, Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot.

It's immoral to force people to comply for whatever the cause, no matter how noble sounding. 

For more on the Religion of Inequality preached in the false churches everywhere, read other fine articles right here on Bizarro Theater.

Read more ...

WHEN YOU CAN SNATCH THIS PEBBLE OF TRUTH FROM MY HAND, TIME FOR YOU TO BECOME FREE

This one line of dialogue spoken by Kwai Chang Caine, Shaolin monk, in the episode Superstition (Season 1, Ep. 12), sums up the current state of Americans quite well.

Many Americans pay outrageous sums of taxes, on income, on purchases, on cars, on parks and much more so that many other Americans can pretend to work at overpaid government jobs and others still can collect all manners of welfare while they feign one weakness or another.

In my nipper years, I watched Kung Fu, an action-adventure western with a Taoist mystic vibe starring David Carradine as a Jesus-like Shaolin monk named Kwai Chang Caine who wandered the American Old West in search of his long-lost brother. 

To set up the show, Caine, the orphaned son of an American man a Chinese woman living in China, gets accepted into a brotherhood of Shaolin priests.  In this Shaolin monestary, Master Po becomes Caine's beloved a mentor and elder. When the Emperor's nephew indiscriminately murders Master Poe, Caine loses his self control in a heat-of-the-moment reckless reaction and murders the nephew.

With a price on his head and at the urging of a dying Poe, Caine flees to America to save himself. While in America, Caine faces a series of tests enduring the hardships of prejudice, stupidity, greed and violence.


Easily, Kung Fu the original series is perhaps the only fictional show ever aired that could make anyone think and perhaps better himself or herself.

Read more ...

BUT IT IS FOR INEQUALITY! AT WHAT POINT DO PEOPLE STOP EXPONENTIALLY DOUBLING DOWN ON STUPIDITY?

CLUELESS KENNY

Instead of taxing the rich to help the poor put there by the rich, we should do something different. Raise minimum wages to match inflation, ban tax rebates while employees are on welfare, the list goes on. We must have equal power to negotiate or we will lose every time.

Here is an argument for raising minimum wage that does not involve bleeding heart rhetoric.

People on minimum wage spend everything they earn to survive. They cannot thrive because the opportunities to improve their lot take capital they don't possess and never will at their wage level.

We want the economy to improve. Raising wages will accomplish this goal on a macro economic level. After all, if the majority of your employees don't earn enough to buy your own products you have limited your consumer base. If this wage level is industry standard, then most other companies pay their employees insufficiently to buy your products as well. Pay them enough and they will have the choice to buy your products, go to school for an education, earn even more and buy yet more products. Do it for the economy.

ME

A tad more than 5% of all hourly-paid workers get paid an hourly wage at or below the minimum wage. That is a scant 1% of the total U.S. population!

You would have us believe that raising the wages of 1% of all Americans who have the lowest incomes is going to do anything?

Do you not see the absurdity of your beliefs, how silly-minded your beliefs are?

The Federal Minimum Wage is $7.25. One percent of the U.S. population is 3.139 million (2012).  Full-time work amounts to 2,080 hours a year. The 2012 U.S. GDP was $15,680 billion ($15.68 trillion). So if all 1% of Americans who minimum wage earners worked full-time, they would have earned a scant 0.30% of GDP, that is ZERO POINT THREE PERCENT. Said another way, that is three-tenths of one percent.

If Congress doubled the minimum wage to $14.50 an hour and all minimum wage earners worked full-time for a whole year, they would only have earned six-tenths of one percent of GDP! If Congress tripled the minimum wage to a whopping $21.75 an hour, the do-you-want-fries-with-that workers would only have earned about 1% of GDP (0.996%)!

So rather than calling for minimum wages to rise, people who barely buy anything, why don't you call for the pay of CEOs to be increased one-hundred fold? After all, rich people buy the most stuff.

Why are you calling for wages to rise for people who have limited wants rather than calling for wages to rise for those with insatiable wants, those accustomed to spending much and often?

By your thinking, giving people more to spend causes more trade and thus creates growth in what most call the economy. So why anoint those least capable of knowing how to spend to do the task?

Either way, merely injecting more cash and consumer credit does little more but to raise prices. Scholarly men have known this since the late 1690s at least (John Locke, Sir Dudley North). Why don't you know this?

Giving people more cash does not increase production. With a few extra dollars each week, the poor suddenly are not going to call for new Cadillacs and Lincolns to get manufactured.

The poor won't eat more pasta nor more bread nor will the poor drink more milk merely because they have a few extra dollars each week to spend. Giving the poor a few more dollars will do nothing but raise prices. More cash chasing the same output results in RAISING PRICES ONLY.

All prices conform to the one, true , infrangible law of trade — the Law of Prices, which holds the winning bids of purchase and sale in the face of what is on offer sets the price.

If minimum wage were the answer, why hasn't it ever been the answer? In the United States, statutory minimum wages were first introduced nationally in 1938.

In a whopping 76-year trial run, minimum wage never has alleviated poverty. SEVENTY SIX YEARS OF MINIMUM WAGE LAWS have done nothing.

Aid to Dependent Children (ADC), later renamed AFDC and later still TANF has been around since 1935! In a 79-year trial run, welfare never has alleviated poverty.

So, why should 77 and 80 years suddenly be the turning point years for those failed programs, the expression of failed thoughts and false beliefs?

CLUELESS KENNY

But, but, but ... What about the children?!

ME

If you want to see a righteous rise in wages, you should call for an end to minimum wage as well as an end to specific welfare. The combination of minimum wage and welfare amounts to a subsidy to employers whose capital structure gets predicated on using minimum wage workers on the whole.

No one would work at a loss (wages - living expenses). It is only because of subsidy of welfare that many choose to be workers at minimum wage.

The right move is the end minimum wage laws and all political interference in trade. That idea frightens more businessmen to a greater degree than it does the people as too many businessmen fear authentic, manly competition.

Another right move would be to restrict immigration for the next 10 years and perhaps longer as all net population increase in the USA since 1980 or so has come from immigrants and their descendants. In conjunction, if the Congress could evict the 20 million or so illegal aliens residing in the USA, a significant chuck  of the pool of low wage bidders would be erased. That would go far to pressure wages upward for no-skill workers.

Read more ...

HOW IS THAT HIGH-PAYING WELFARE GIG WORKING OUT FOR YOU, GOVERNMENT "WORKER"?

Government jobs pay more than private sector jobs for comparable work. It is convenient mythology owing to clever rhetoric that government work pays less than private sector work. See here, here, here and here. 

Government work is fake-work, make-work for the most part. Outside of ports, roads, bridges, border defense, contract enforcement and property assurance as to weights, measures ingredients and the like — you know, general welfare, the only kind of welfare authorized by the Constitution — government work is super high-paying welfare and nothing more.

People who work for government in any capacity other than the general welfare suffer from significant self-delusion as to their actual livelihood and worth to those in society of property.

All should be sure that private sector workers engage in work that produces property that might be wanted. That stuff is called wealth. Government work produces nothing and most often exists to inhibit the production of property and hence wealth.

Often, government work is stealth competition, paid for by taxpayers, but worked at the behest of those who engage in regulatory capture. 

Read more ...

LAW VS JUSTICE. GOVERNMENT VS SOCIETY. POLITICS VS YOU.

The only legit reasons for government are to protect the individual and his property from a mob and to certify claims about property when in a society of property so that men can engage in trade, which is the purchase and sale of property, rather than war among each other. 

As always, the reason behind a society of strangers, which is what we have, is a society in property. Society of strangers arises because of one thing — property, which  means right of ownership and never the thing owned. The purpose of strangers banding together in society of property is to trade freely their right of ownership, their property, for money, which is the measure of contract, of human relations, in pursuit of profit.

All too often, too many believe the reason for government is to define laws. Yet, legit government does not exist for enforcement of law,  good or otherwise. Legit government is about the administration of justice. Justice arises in maintaining right and redressing wrongs.

Laws are unneeded for justice. Law is secondary and unessential. Customs are fine enough for justice. Custom is to society what law is to government. Each expresses the measure of men's insight of the principle of right and justice. 

Law helps to impart uniformity and certainty to the administration of justice. Law helps to protect the administration of justice from disturbing influence of improper motives of those entrusted to impart justice. Law helps to protect the administration of justice from errors of impartial judgment. However, the existence of law is optional and not obligatory.

Government evolves from society. Never does society evolve from government. Before government there is society. Before society there are only individuals. 

Society isn't built. Society is merely individuals as strangers who form association through property for mutual benefit of trade, self-interest and self-expression. The only society in which strangers can live is a society of property. Government springs forth to enlarge the circle of strangers.

The necessity of government arises because of rogues who feign willing participation in society, a society of property. Government must exist only to protect the individual from a mob who seek to dispossess him from his property. Government must exist to ensure truth claims about property. 

Illegitimate government usurps power and starts shuffling people's property against their wants for the sole purpose of maintaining power over all. So in all forms of illegitimate government you see socialistic, bureaucratic welfare, which, immorally retards man's progress as it inhibits individuals who receive such welfare from discovering who they are and what are their talents. 

All problems arise when some usurp power through government to advance themselves by stealing or impairing the property of others, rendering government no better than rogues.

The moving away from bare subsistence, which is poverty, is progress. All progress of humans through all time has been advanced by property put to use as capital to produce property traded as wealth along with the mitigation of risk in the production of ever more property, which means right of ownership and never the thing owned. 

The reward for overcoming loss with property at-risk is profit. It is a way for a people to ensure resources are being used properly and products being made that those who are efficient want.

Politics is the art of using rhetoric to steal property. Politicians and bureaucrats get their property by confiscating it from others. Politicians and their Agent Smiths who inject themselves into the process cause dislocation in resources  and products creation. Retrogression happens under illegitimate government. 

Mankind advances through individuals, property and the drive to hedge against prices and that alone. Mankind falls into retrogression when reverting to neo-tribalism in whatever form, such as self-conceit, pseudo-scientific socialism or totalitarian socialism, which all know as communism.


Americans live in society of property as the basis for a society of strangers is a society of property. The purpose of government is to protect the individual and his or her property from the mob and rogues. When government becomes the mob and rogues, it's over. 

The true debate is individualism and property or power and dictate. When confronting  the true debate, in short, reality — individualism and property or power and dictate — all get forced to see that those on the right are on the same spectrum as those on the left.

All political doctrines are doctrines of control. The spectrum of political doctrine looks like this, from Left to Right:

Communism ↔ Socialism ↔ Syndicalism ↔ Oligopolism ↔ Fascism

The debate of political doctrines is debate about which property should be impaired or stolen, who must suffer the consequences and who gets to do the the stealing and impairing  There is no room for individualism on that spectrum. The winning move, of course, is to jump off that spectrum.

In the USA, governments at all levels have become mob and rogues. Americans have fallen into serious retrogression over the last 153 years, with the majority of it coming in the last 85 or so.

Specific welfare — paying for food and medicine for individuals by impairing property of others — rather than general welfare — ports, roads, bridges — is what has done it, along with legal tender cash.

Through the power of specific welfare Crony Politics, Crony Governance and Crony Regulatory Capture arise. Yet, through rhetorical appeals of envy and jealousy, capitalism gets blamed being misspoken as crony capitalism. Parroting the misguided phrase spoken from ignorance — crony capitalism — fails to do service to anyone. The horrible, wrong label — crony capitalism — implies there is something wrong with capitalism, when never there is. 

Capitalism is the doctrine of property (right of ownership) used to create wealth (things that have buying power in trade). Capitalism means living by using property to produce a surplus of more property and hoping to sell that surplus for a price such that the sum of sales exceeds the cost to gain those sales.

Without capitalism, there isn't an economy. It's impossible to have an economy without capitalism. Capitalism has nothing to do with politics. 

Read more ...

TYRANTS BIG AND SMALL. DYSTOPIAN UTOPIANS FORCING SOCIAL COMPACTS UPON YOU WHETHER OR NOT YOU LIKE IT

The other day on G+, someone shared this picture into his stream:

Welfare is the means to power. Power must be grabbed first.Once anyone wrests control of power, then that one can achieve one's political goals.

Unless men and women are willing to arm themselves and kill enough others to gain control by violent overthrow, the means to power is welfare doling.

Politicians can not gain power without securing enough votes. Without enough voters, any pol can not gain office and thus do as his financiers bid her or him. The way poles secure votes is through bribing voters with welfare doling. 

Politicians can not exist without your enemies. Welfare recipients are your true great enemy. Likely, your Medicare grandmother is your enemy, your SSDI cousin is your enemy. The Pell Grant recipient college student from down the street is your enemy.


And then this gem of a fellow, Chuck, chimed in:

By Chuck's words, Chuck seems to be unwilling to rob someone directly, so Chuck champions men and women with real balls to rob everyone else, merely so Chuck can get his  kickback crumbs for supporting them.

Likely, Chuck prefers sweet sounding rhetoric like welfare instead of what he seeks, kickback. So, like millions of others, Chuck shall accept the lie that a kickback is welfare.

Under the constraint of his kickback crumbs, Chuck can express his preferences dishonestly rather than making himself valuable and thus exchange worthy in a voluntary fashion, which would let him get his preferences expressed voluntarily.

I  asked Chuck why, exactly, should anyone be forced to pay income taxes or face prison merely because Chuck wants to live at their expenses? What makes Chuck so important and thus so deserving that anyone not related to him and not voluntarily wanting to give to him should be forced to give to him or become imprisoned?

I  asked Chuck where are his relatives? Where are his mommy and daddy? Why didn't Chuck forge better relationships or perhaps any at all with his relatives and neighbors? Why aren't they paying for him voluntarily? However, Chuck failed to answer. 

Ironically, it seems as if Chuck hasn't been living up to the social compact through voluntary action, action he had complete control over doing. 

All contracts are voluntary. There is no such thing in law as an involuntary contract. Imposing action upon another by force while no voluntary contract has been agreed upon has a name. We call that slavery. We call that servitude. We see that one has become the chattel and thus the property of another.

Using "society" is disingenuous to mean a people under rule, or a people living within a defended, bounded area. Yet, all too many do so when trying to justify their Dystopian visions.

Men can attest the word society to the 1530s meaning friendly association with others, entering English from the Old French societe, in turn from Latin societatem in turn from socius meaning companion.

Though he differs in degree, how does Chuck differ in kind to any tyrant in the history of humans who wanted others to use force on his behalf so that he could live without honestly producing something wanted by others and then engaging in honest exchange? 

At day's end, humans want to get their preferences expressed and met. If they can't do so voluntarily, they will seek other means.  

Few humans have bravery. Yet, some do. They will impose their will upon others.  

Most who can't get their preferences expressed and met voluntarily, shall seek the few who have bravery to help them achieve their wants. 

And there you have it. This is what is wrong the earth over with humans. This is why there is suffering as there is. 

Even if Chuck isn't seeking welfare, but merely supporting politicians who dole out welfare in exchange for gaining and locking power, then Chuck is as bad as the ones who accept welfare and thus have revealed your immorality, the same as they do.

It's only a matter of degree, but not different kind, when someone champions politician-doled welfare acquired by involuntary means or when someone champions politician-doled subsidy to bomb makers and farmers.

At least an immoral man of bravery would acknowledge reality and say something like ...but I want stuff and I don't want to earn the buying power to get that stuff through honest exchange by first packaging up my skills through time into something all would call a product, selling that product to the highest bidder, so I am going to use my muscles and willingness to murder to get what I want.

The problem with all of the Chucks of our world is their intellects are insufficient while their greed — their want to get something without giving up something else wanted in a voluntary exchange — is all too sufficient for them not to see reality. They try to justify their immorality, their  inhumane action, their  misanthropic action to get their preferences expressed and met by any means, if necessary. 

Others be dammed! As long as the Chucks get their way and gets to live their lives, free-to-them, getting their preferences expressed and met under constraint of what robbers shall dole to them for his pledge of loyalty, well screw everyone else who wants to be free, free in mind, body and soul, free in self. 

To support his push for PPACA, Obama argued that in future, a person is going to need medicine and thus a person ought to be compelled by law to buy medical bills paying insurance, now, to cover that alleged actuarial eventually.

If everyone accepts Obama's premise as true and thus his conclusion, it's then easy to apply the same template and logic to other things.

• All persons shall need housing. Sometimes bad things happen, thus all persons should be compelled by law to buy rent / mortgage bills insurance.
• All persons shall need food. Sometimes bad things happen, thus all persons should be compelled by law to buy food bills insurance.
• All persons shall need electrical energy. Sometimes bad things happen, thus all persons should be compelled by law to buy electric bills paying insurance.
• All persons shall need food. Sometimes bad things happen, thus all persons should be compelled by law to buy food paying insurance.
• All persons shall need new work skills. Sometimes bad things happen, thus all persons should be compelled by law to buy education bills paying insurance.

So I asked Chuck, 

• Why didn't you buy rent / mortgage bills insurance?
• Why didn't you buy food bills insurance?
• Why didn't you buy clothing bills insurance?
• Why didn't you buy electrical energy bills insurance?
• Why didn't you buy higher education, new skills acquisition bills insurance?

The irony is that Chucks fail to honor the social compact and fail at responsibility to themselves and to all others with whom you might have relationship, if any. Instead all Chucks advocate tyranny and violence, forcing and coercing others to behave and comport to their Dystopia vision, that in your vacuous, weak-intellect mind seems to be Utopia.

Read more ...

DUTCH KING TELLS THE DUTCH THAT 20TH-CENTURY STYLE WELFARE MUST END

Hey Willie. Lead by example! 

Read more ...

WE WILL USE FORCE, IF NEEDED, TO GET YOU TO HELP

Read more ...

HOLY JEFF SPICOLI

Peter Schiff has fun with La Jolla California's newest Jeff Spicoli surfer dude, Jason Greenslate. 

The two-part in-depth look at Jason Greenslate can been seen in the vids below.

Read more ...

"DIDN'T NEED NO WELFARE STATE"

Though Edith and Arch sang the opening song about the 1920s, the show took place during its times, the 1970s. 

For those who lived through those years, the 70s were a mixed time. Some of the best rock music came from 70s — Pink Floyd's Meddle, Dark Side of the Moon, Wish You Were Here, Animals; Rolling Stones' Sticky Fingers, Exile on Main Street; the Clash's London Calling.

Some of the best movies came from the 70s — Star Wars, Dirty Harry, Jaws, Rocky.

Yet, the 70s were a low point in American, Canadian, Australian  and British history. Years of government ownership of industries and excessive regulation in markets held living standards low.

The 70s were the years of syndicalism — a mix of socialism, unionism and oligopoly industrialism. The 70s were an ugly time.

Energy was expensive. People couldn't afford cotton so they wore polyester. Heavy-handed car unions led to horribly made and unreliable cars compared to earlier times. 

The college university Ph.D. preached plans for poor blacks and Hispanics. Thus, bureaucrats corralled  them like in animals in free-to-them welfare housing, called projects. The Projects were crime-infested war zones.

Graffiti was written everywhere, on everything, Already overpaid union workers went on strike often. Garbage piled on the streets of the cities. 

Politicians of the 1960s had stuck Americans into a horrible, useless war against the Vietnamese. As most know, 58,000 Americans were killed, many forced to fight as they were drafted by crazed politicians to fight an unneeded war.

People tried to escape through sexual swinging and transcendental meditation. They tried to escape through psychedelia  music first and then through disco and later through punk rock angst. 

Mostly though, people escaped then as they do today, through television. CBS aired a show called All in the Family starring Carroll O'Conner as Archie Bunker,  who represented old America, the white male past, playing a white-haired clown-bigot who lacked a university degree.

His son-in-law, Mike Stivic played by Hollywood TV royalty Rob  Reiner represented progressive America. Mike was hip. Mike was university educated. Mike had colored friends who know were calledblacks.

Actress Jean Stapleton played Edith Bunker, the daft, supportive housewife of Archie's. Edith represented American Christians, as she played the simpleton who chimed in with well-meaning comments from a loving,  kind-heart. 


Those Were The Days
——————
Boy, the way Glenn Miller played!
Songs that made the Hit Parade.
Guys like us, we had it made.
Those were the days!

And you knew where you were then.
Girls were girls and men were men.
Mister, we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again.

Didn't need no welfare state.
Everybody pulled his weight.
Gee, our old LaSalle ran great.
Those were the days!
——



The Roaring 20s might have been the times for some, but the Herbert Hoover 1930s were horrible. Hoover, a tremendous meddler, instituted  crazed policies caused the Great Depression. Later, FDR  tripled-down upon on Hoover's crazed meddling, doing what Hoover had done but on a scale comparable to the Hoover Dam.

Read more ...