Are you for the Big Gov’t or No Gov’t Occupiers?
The blind hypocrisy of our times is worrisome. And the inability to think coherently is just astounding. I find it amazing that one can “support” this Occupy movement – for it is both for big government, total government control of everything I suppose, which is what the Communists want – and it is for no government, no laws, like the Anarchists want. The signs stand next to each other, for heavens’ sake. At www.jamiewf.com is the daily compendium of the mush.
And so which side are you on? Seriously – total or none? How can you be for both? Or is the old Marxist fallacy that the big government will wither away once all the goodies are in the hands of the few, still lurking in the mind?
What do people think is the goal of these Occupiers? Are we all to sleep in the public parks? How come none of my friends who support this have decamped from their comfy homes and gone on down to the encampments? No, they’ve gone down perhaps for a bit to the small throngs and bleated about the system, to which they then quickly went right back to. Are these people against the very lives they lead? Or do they think that somehow the government should seize the wealth of the rich and dole it out to everyone else? And what will people do with this gift? Why, they’ll spend it on stuff evil corporations make, I’m sure.
I find it even stranger that middle class people would want to give up their comfy lives and live in squalor. Or would support anyone else doing so. You know, I have had a few rough patches in my life, so I went and stayed with friends, or hell, I went traveling. If one has no place to live, then go on a trip and see the world. I didn’t move into a tent in a public park and demand other people’s money that’s for sure.
I find the greed of the Occupiers to be astounding – for greed it is when one simply demands other people’s money. It might even be called theft. But how will they effect their wondrous plans, which they themselves haven’t figured out yet? Will they seek public office so that they can pass laws requiring the banks to hand out free cash to people? The Democrats – Pelosi, Biden, Obama, on and on through the establishment that the Occupiers are against – are all in support of this Occupy. How can one be For something which seeks to get rid of you? Or is there a different purpose to the hypocrisy? Or do you think these people are virtuous in some way I can’t see?
Then there’s those who support the idea that the big banks should not have been bailed out – yes, well that’s what started the Tea Party – which did not set up camp anywhere and demand the destruction of the banks, that’s for sure – but instead argues for reining in the government to stop giving money to banks. OK, so you don’t support bank bailouts – me neither. And who supported bank bailouts? Obama – he ran on a platform of shoring up the supposedly collapsing financial sector. Though no such thing was happening. Now the man is for people who are against his own policies? And the people for him don’t like his policies – but they don’t like a political movement which is actually against bank bailouts? That’s just mind numbing to me.
To what purpose are billionaire media companies staffed with millionaire news readers supporting those in the streets against billionaires and millionaires? Will Wolf Blitzer conceivably give up his multimillion dollar a year salary? That’s laughably absurd. And few bother to see the glaring hypocrisy? Or the nefarious other plan, still not clear, of course, of what the media is going to get out of this? What could it be? Do people not see that the problem is that the media is supporting government controlled establishment system media? Isn’t that what you are against? We should be laughing our heads off at Anderson Cooper and Rachel Maddow and the rest of these fools, not dwelling on their every breathless announcement about the wonders of people who hate millionaires – for the news media are the 1% – who are they kidding?
Hell, Joy Behar and Matthew Brodderick admitted it quite openly on her show – laughed about it even. Thought it just funny how they were the 1% and were all in favor of the Occupiers against the 1% – ain’t that rich? And no one in the audience just cracked up laughing at the absurd bizarre nature of Joy and Matt just laughing their tuckus off at the poor fools, while pointing out the audacity of the hypocrisy. And neither Joy nor Matt gave any hint that they were going to leave the 1% anytime soon. Neither one wrote a check to anyone in the audience.
You know, it’s one thing to want to help the poor. But government merely ladling out cash forever to the poor doesn’t make them wealthier – it keeps them poor. What is the plan to make the poor rich? There is none. 40 years of the “War on Poverty” and the poor are still with us – only, these poor aren’t the poor of years ago – no, most of those poor years ago got rich!
But the plan is ever more government “free” stuff – paid for with taxes on companies and the top 10% already. And there’s more poor now than ever. The ranks of the unemployed is rising, the ranks of the never employed is increasing – food stamps are up. Rental assistance, housing assistance, social needs as they’re called – all are going up. Why? Well, it’s rather simple – because of the economic policies of this president and the laws that he’s gotten passed – which give money by the Trillions to big banks and big companies and friends of themselves. And these are the people you want back in office? Those who act directly opposite to what you claim you want? Amazing.
So while Obama speaks of all this “let us help the people” stuff, he’s been damaging the people with his policies. And people don’t see this? Like I keep saying – if the $500 billion deficit of Bush was horrendous – where is the outcry against the $1.5 trillion dollar deficits three years running of this president? No, they want him to have four more years, so many people do – so he can run up more trillions in debt. It’s so strange to be for someone with whom you essentially disagree, while being against the Tea Party because it is what you are for — merely because one is “Democrat” and the other “Republican.”
The billionaire media companies aiding and abetting this while trying to destroy Herman Cain with vague and so far, apparently, unsubstantiated accusations by professional accusers. Meanwhile, they laud Bill Clinton who is a known woman abuser; and embrace Elliot Spitzer, expert for the prostitution. I would suppose the last thing the Democrats would want is a black man as the Republican candidate – then they wouldn’t have the racism card to play. I hear it all the time – Republicans are all racists – my own friends tell me this with a certainty which is astounding – and no amount proof or lack of evidence seems to sway them. And now, a black man run big in the presidential race – and Republicans are still racist? Egad.
And about racism – I live in a city that’s something like 40% black – I don’t see any racism whatsoever – except, well, my liberal friends use the N-word with alarming frequency and I’m like, “excuse me? Don’t use that word around me, please.” Meanwhile, yesterday the painters working across the street were blaring some rapper crud with “nigga’” at the end of every verse. This too is part of our modern hypocrisy. I have a liberal friend in Phoenix, she loves going to poetry slams of the oppressed – so oppressed they are that they have time to write poetry about their oppression before heading off to a fine dinner – I’m sure she’s heard “nigga’” in the poetry – and this is OK?
And who the hell is oppressed in this nation? I keep hearing that there’s all this oppression – well, big government always leads to oppression – it must – for the government must make us all the more alike so it runs better for the bureaucrats. And what do my friends against this vaunted oppression want? More big government to solve the problem that doesn’t exist. In all the years of living in astoundingly diverse cities I keep seeing astounding diversity – and yet, the liberals still freak out that there’s no diversity somewhere. Open your eyes already.
It just flummoxes me. I can’t figure out how you can be against the rich, and then vote into office the rich people you are against. Or at least people who manage to get rich quick once they get into office. And what greed must a man or woman have to run for political office eh? Yes, Republicans too, I’m an equality political basher, trust me on that.
Well, my liberal friends, you may just wind up Occupying yourselves and the rest of us into the poor house with quite the 1% in charge and they telling you that for the good of the people opposition to their work is not good. And let me tell you, that will be repression indeed.
The thing to do is get rid of the cronies by not doling out taxpayer money to some companies that are given favor because of the cronyism you complain about. I read just yesterday that some Russian company – yes, all the way over there – got a $738 Million loan from our Department of Energy. And Obama is trying to help job creation here? Oh really? How on earth could giving a taxpayer funded loan, almost certainly never to be paid back, to a Russian company to do work in Russia, do that? And this is good, because the current administration does it with “good intentions” or something? Yikes.
For decades I’ve been calling for dismantling much of the government – so I guess I’ve been quite the Occupier. I want to return the tax money back to the people who earned it so they could spend it as they wish – not so it can be given to some banker in New York who gives donations to any politician, and especially not to Al Gore who got a Billion Bucks from the government he so recently left. My my, what a crony he must be, eh? Ah, but he’s a good crony I suppose, right? Mush.
If you are against the cookie jar of crony capitalism then you simply have to be against virtually our entire cookie jar of a government ladling out people’s cash to their friends. They’re giving away your money, folks. Don’t you see this?
Here, perhaps this might make it clear: If you wanted to help a poor person in your town it would be so much more effective to just mail them a $100 check every month to help them out then it is to send that $100 to Washington so that some bureaucrat can live high on the hog in the richest counties in America and there be but $25 left to help the poor person you want to help after each level of bureaucracy, paper and buildings is paid for.
You want to preserve Social Security and make people live nice in their dotage? Well, then let them keep their $100 a month they pay into the system in their own passbook savings account and let them earn the interest, so that when they retire they have a few hundred thousand or more in the bank, instead of having to wait for the $1,000 check come always a few days after the last dose ran out. And what the government has done with the cash taken in from Social Security taxes is give out loans to their friends on Wall Street and Russia even – and leave IOUs in the vaults of the SS (don’t you love the acronym? The irony.)
And who did the switching of wealth for IOUs? Why, the Democrats and Republicans in Name Only, as they’re are often styled – or the Demopublican Party if you will – you know, in one party bipartisanship for the good of the people. Electing more of these people is not a good idea.
Along comes Paul Ryan, Republican who wishes to move the money back to the people – all of them – and he’s the horrible man trying to destroy the system and kill off the poor or something. Meanwhile, the Occupiers are demanding the end of the system and you’re voting for people who wish to maintain the system. And you call me crazy? Ain’t that, um, rich.
- Posted in: Uncategorized