Filed under: Bureaucracy, Capitalism, Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Economy, Election 2016, Free Markets, Freedom, Politics, Progressivism | Tags: Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Third and Final Debate
I tried to watch, but I just couldn’t take much of it. I know how we came to be inflicted with these two candidates, but here we are. Hillary would never have come to public attention had she not married Bill Clinton, who in spite of his enormous failings, was a very talented politician. John Hinderaker mentioned that this is the first time that “service” as First Lady is offered as a qualification for the presidency.
She has terrible judgment, is a complete economic ignoramus, and requires enormous amounts of coaching to get through an appearance. I find her trick of personalizing every issue “I’ve met those women and…because of that non-existing meeting I really know everything about the problem and how to solve it,”offensive. I think she’d already tried that one 3 or 4 times before I turned her off. She is well coached—if the talk turns to this uncomfortable subject, charge Trump with the Russians, or demand that he release his tax returns or…
Donald Trump has no skill as a debater. He did better tonight than last time, He does not recognize big openings, and is not prepared with specific answers. An example was the question on abortion. Planned Parenthood does abortions and provides birth control. They are not a health care organization. They do not screen for cancer, they do not have the equipment in any of their locations.
Partial-birth abortion in the third trimester is an ugly and unnecessary procedure. Because the baby is too big at that late date to be born normally, the head must be crushed to get the baby out of the birth canal. Understandably, a lot of people object, and unless there is an unusual threat to the life of the mother, should go under the category ‘you should have thought of that earlier.’
It’s when you turn to economic questions that Hillary really demonstrates her complete ignorance. Beginners and low-skill workers are offered a minimum wage because they aren’t worth much and businesses have to teach them how to work. The rules of supply and demand come in here. There is a nearly unlimited supply of beginners and low-skill workers. Easy to get someone else. Forcing businesses to pay a higher minimum wage simply means fewer beginners will be hired, and there will be high unemployment for the low-skilled.
Both Hillary and Nancy Pelosi are sure that if you give food stamps or more unemployment benefits to the poor, they will spend that money, and it will circulate from hand to hand, as they buy groceries, the grocer will buy something he wants, and so on, and the money will somehow magically grow in the process. Seems goofy, but that’s what they think. You see how much that growth has expanded the economy in the last 8 years.
Economies grow with new businesses and new ideas and more expansion of existing businesses. You don’t do that with food stamps. You also don’t do it by taxing the rich to build “infrastructure.” Roads and bridges, except in the interstate highways, are the business of the states, not the federal government. You don’t just say ‘new highway’, and it happens. There are plans and approvals, legislation, votes, environmental impact statements, protests, lawsuits. It can take years. Remember Obama’s sheepish admission: “I guess there aren’t really any shovel ready jobs.”
Here’s another common sense intrusion. Poor people don’t create jobs, and middle class people don’t create that many new jobs either, unless they have considerable backing. It’s people who have some extra money to invest who create jobs and growth. They are investing in the hope of growing their investment. When there is the hope of getting investors, people start new businesses. When there is the hope of getting investors, people take the chance of bringing their idea to fruition. Leftists always want to fix things by taking more money from the rich. They believe that money be dispensed by the government, because they’re smarter than the rest of us doofuses.
The people in government regard the rest of us with contempt, disdain, and they think we are ignorant. No wonder they assume that things must be done by government. They’re painfully wrong, as the last eight years demonstrate. One percent growth is not an accomplishment.
Hillary is going to grow the economy with infrastructure (been there, did that, didn’t work) and create jobs with more people building solar panels (been there, done that,didn’t work—think Solyndra). She’s still blabbing about equal pay for women. Is any woman impressed by this? Equal pay for women doing the same job as a man has been fixed law since 1963. Oddly enough, the women working for Hillary are paid considerably less than the men. All hat, no cattle. (old joke)
She’s also advocating more government job training. There are lots of different estimates about how many job-training programs there are currently, but it ranges around 47-49, none particularly effective.
I don’t know what we would get with Donald Trump. His basic economic plan is excellent and tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy will free up lots of money to be invested. What are they going to do with it, stick it in a mattress? They will invest it, and those investments supply the new money that the economy is hungering for. It’s called supply-side economics, and worked for Jack Kennedy and for Ronald Reagan for whom it began a 20-year boom in the economy.
Democrats believe that all good things must pass through the hands of the government. Why they believe that so firmly is a mystery, because there is almost nothing that the federal government does well. There are some things that are so big that they must be done by government, but they are done badly. Think VA, FBI, EPA and so on and so on.That’s why Republicans urge small government. The less they are in charge of, the fewer things they can screw up, and they won’t need so much of our money to do it, which will leave us free to be more creative with our own money. Have big ideas, and create new things.
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Crime, Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Election 2016, Freedom, Media Bias, Military, Politics, The United States | Tags: "Rigged Elections", Is it just the word "rigged?", vote fraud
After the second debate, several prominent conservative sites again had the vapors. Donald Trump suggested that the votes were rigged, and to suggest any such thing was just beyond the pale. How dare he suggest a rigged vote!
After this third debate, we had the same thing. Donald Trump refused to state flatly that he would accept the results of the vote, and it was another hissy fit. He is suggesting… How dare he…. Madison and Jefferson would…
At the same time. James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas has some Democrat activists, notably one Scott Foval, deputy political director at People for the American Way, saying they had been busing people in from other states to vote illegally, for fifty years. They “manipulated the vote” and devised extensive methods of avoiding suspicion. (If you have not watched the two videos, you should.) After the videos were released, Scott Foval and Bob Creamer were fired. It was noticed that Bob Creamer had visited the White House 342 times. To talk to whom? A Wikileaks Podesta email says it’s OK for illegal aliens to vote if they have a driver’s license. The top election official in Indiana says she has found thousands more incidents of what she characterized as potential “voter fraud.” Several states have noted dead people voting. New Yorkers who have a second home in Florida end up voting in both states. But suggesting a rigged vote is unacceptable?
Republicans have tried to clear up suspicions of vote fraud by requiring photo ID to vote. You cannot enter the Justice building without photo ID, buy an airline ticket, write a check, open a bank account or visit the doctor, but the very suggestion that you should have photo ID to vote, elicits screams of “Racism” from the Democrats.
So please explain why it is supposed to be shocking that Donald Trump would suggest that the media is rigging the election, or that failing to say he would immediately accept the results of the election is beyond question, and unacceptable.
Here in Washington State we have been forced to accept a mail-in ballot system, one that most poll watchers say is most ripe for fraud. That came after there was a huge scandal when Christine Gregoire was elected on the third re-count after a new package of ballots was found in a back room somewhere or other. We have seen years when, gosh, those military ballots just didn’t get back from overseas in time to be counted.
Each of us American citizens have a single vote, and we really want it to be counted. It is inconceivable that some people just don’t bother voting. And we really do expect a clean and fair election.
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Capitalism, Crime, Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Economics, Election 2016, Foreign Policy, Free Markets, Freedom, Law, Media Bias, National Security, Politics, Progressivism, Regulation, The United States | Tags: Government Corruption, Insulting the Voters, Wikileaks Revelations
So far we have learned that the fact-checkers don’t really check the facts—their answers are usually wrong. Lots of superlatives: the best, the worst, the most, the least, true evil, total hogwash. Lots of propaganda. What can you believe? Who is telling the truth? Is there any truth anymore? The disclosures from Wikileaks continue to arrive.
Back on April 10, 2015. a memo came out about an off-the-record cocktail party for influential reporters, anchors and editors. The purpose was to give reporters and their editors their first thoughts from team HRC in advance of the announcement and launch period. They would be framing the HRC message and framing the race. Reporters who had RSVPd were Diane Sawyer, George Stephanopolus, Jon Karl, John Heilman, Mark Halperin, Norah O’Donnell, and many more.
We learned from the released emails that team Hillary hoped to end up with Ben Carson, Ted Cruz or Donald Trump as the Republican candidate and the easiest to defeat. I’m sure that it is simply a coincidence that at the Republican debates with seventeen candidates, very successful governors or members of the Senate or the House, and one female CEO, the media coverage went mostly to just one candidate, and the rest struggled for a chance to speak.
The Podesta emails show team HRC openly debating in emails how to cover-up the Benghazi emails. They know how bad they are and want to get a more favorable narrative out there before the committee learns about it.
There was an allegation that the FBI was offered plum assignments for their agents overseas if they would just look the other way when investigating the Hillary emails. And other allegations that Obama, who had said he didn’t even have Hillary’s email address, was corresponding with her regularly under an assumed name.
The released emails show close cooperation with the media and deference to the campaign. Another features one of Podesta’s colleagues from the Center for American Progress admitting that the institutional left “conspires to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry” ostensibly to impose their radical agenda on us without much resistance.
Hillary told Goldman Sachs executives that Americans who want to limit immigration are “fundamentally un-American” according to the leaked transcript of her October 2013 speech made public by Wikileaks. And she’s all for the H-1B program of importing foreign workers.
Hillary gets the questions for an interview before it happens so she can prepare. She gets the scripts before a TV appearance. Editors give her team a chance to edit their reports before they are disseminated. The State Department coordinated their release of emails with the campaign, The Podesta emails suggest there should be a Catholic spring, in which Catholics themselves demand the end of a middle ages dictatorship and the beginning of a little democracy and respect for gender equality in the Catholic church.
The leaks certainly prove just what Hillary claimed that there is a public persona and a private one. Probably the very reason she decided on a private server at her home in defiance of federal regulations was to try to be sure that the private persona never got exposed to the vast right-wing conspiracy. If you’re not trying to get rich on the taxpayer’s dime through illegal methods, you don’t have to worry that much about exposure.
There’s a reason why they are called public servants—they are supposed to report to us. They are required by law to save their records which are to be available to the public, on demand. There’s a reason why “government corruption” is the number one real fear among the American people.
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Capitalism, Democrat Corruption, Economy, Free Markets, Freedom, History, Progressivism, The United States
The real motives of liberals have nothing to do with the welfare of other people. Instead, they have two related goals—to establish themselves as morally and intellectually superior to the rather distasteful population of common people, and to gather as much power as possible to tell those distasteful common people how they must live their lives.
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Capitalism, Economics, Economy, Free Markets, Freedom, Law, Regulation, The United States | Tags: Economist Mark Perry, The American Enterprise Institute, The Minimum Wage
Economist Mark Perry presents his Venn diagram of the day:
If a 20% tax reduced consumption of sugar drinks, what about a 107% increase in the minimum wage?
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Capitalism, Domestic Policy, Economics, Foreign Policy, Free Markets, Freedom, National Security, Politics, Progressivism, Regulation, Taxes, The United States, Unemployment | Tags: Can We Trust the Candidates?, Can't Trust the Fact Checkers, Can't trust the Media
Troubling times. I find that I cannot watch the debate. Hillary, freshly coiffed by an expert, made up by an expert, dressed by an expert with a flattering collar that reflects all attention on the well done face and none on the weight she’s put on, is too much for me to take. That is a compliment, if a backhanded one. She’s really very well turned out for an important debate.
But even more so, because she is a compulsive liar, re-inventing herself each time she opens her mouth, to appear warmer, more caring, more capable, and just downright good—except that it just isn’t true. Canned lines. Everything has been focus-group tested to see how it will play. When she said in a speech that there were “public positions” on an issue and “private positions,” it was not just a rare moment of candor, but an excuse if she gets caught at anything.
I have a deep intolerance for liars and lies, not, I hope, as any sort of holier-than-thou thing, but merely that understanding the world and what is going on is hard. People at their most honest are often mistaken or wrong. The only thing we have to guide us is our experience of the past, and other’s experience, but we never know enough. We are stumbling through a darkened wood trying to find the real and honest, and people who lie, deliberately, to confuse and mislead because of their own greed—are the enemy, trying to keep us stupid.
Have you noticed that whatever the subject, Hillary has met with those people, shares their concerns, feels their pain, and has an answer to their problems. Here’s an occasion where the question to Hillary was about her statement that there were “public positions” and “private positions” about a policy and wasn’t that two-faced? Her response is fascinating, and attempts to turn the question gradually into an attack on Trump and insinuation that the Russians are trying to influence our elections for the benefit of Trump. Whew! Some spin, and she ends up with Donald not releasing his tax returns. That’s an impressive trip around all sorts of attacks without ever dealing with the original question.
Hillary is a radical leftist. She was an admiring student of Saul Alinsky and his Rules for Radicals, who teaches how to manipulate people in order to control them to get power. She wrote her senior thesis about him. Obama was a student of Alinsky’s methods and purportedly his best student ever at applying his methods in community organizing.
The leadership of the Democratic Party has moved far left. It’s open borders, and free trade in the hemisphere. Christiana Figueres, as Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity, but to destroy capitalism. The Left pretends that their goals are something new and different, but it’s just the same old story that ends up as Venezuela.
They want to be in charge. They want to make the rules, and they want the power. That’s where Hillary is, and her choice as vice presidential candidate is just as hard left. In spite of impressive degrees or titles, they just don’t know enough to manage a people. You have to trust the people and trust in their creativity and their choices. They don’t need your management, they need to be able to trust you. They are supposed to be the boss, and you government people are the public servants, doing their bidding, not the other way around.
The people are concerned about uncontrolled immigration. They are concerned with a president who operates by executive orders and ignores the Constitution. They are concerned about terrorist attacks and the refusal to do anything about it, including calling terrorism by name. They are concerned about an economy that just costs more, and does less and less efficiently, and doesn’t seem to grow at all.
Even the British papers say that Trump won this debate, so it must be so. We’ll see how it plays out in the polls, which may or may not mean anything at all. These are troubling times, and we can no longer trust the fact-checkers, let alone the media. A strange, strange year.