Showing posts with label Marxism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Marxism. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

Racist Interest Rates?


A short conversation with an Obama-bot educator:





I did my very best to ignore and deflect a racialist implication...





Could she give me a straight answer?


No she could not!


Speaking of "Eurocentric thinking," here's an endorsement of some dead white Europeans:


So much irony, so little hope for Lakia's students...


Lakia Scott

Graduate Assistant

Department: Middle, Secondary and K-12 Education
lscott33@uncc.edu

Lakia M. Scott is an urban education doctoral student in the Department of Middle, Secondary, and K-12 Education in the College of Education at the University of North Carolina, Charlotte. Lakia serves the Urban Education Collaborative by assisting with the procurement and implementation of grant funding and serving as a point of contact for the Scholarly Lecture Series. Having obtained her Bachelor’s (Texas Southern University) in Journalism, she continued on to receive her Master’s (Prairie View A&M University) in Curriculum & Instruction with special emphasis in Reading. Lakia also serves as the Editor for the Urban Education Research & Policy Annuals, a graduate student journal that seeks to elaborate on relevant issues and implications in the field of Urban Education. Her current research interests include: urban literacy, technology and accessibility for urban student populations, and charter school environments as an educational equalizer for vulnerable populations.

Saturday, March 27, 2010

Smack Down: Pro-ObamaCare Doctor Speaks Up


In yesterday's post I shared some quotes from Massachusetts state treasurer, Timothy P. Cahill. Cahill says Massachusetts is for all intents and purposes already on ObamaCare, and the state is going bankrupt as a result:

Our experience in Massachusetts tells us that [Obamacare] will burden future taxpayers with unfunded liabilities they cannot afford. Health-care inflation will continue. Mandates will increase insurance premiums. And the deficit will reach frightening levels as the law's costs greatly exceed the projections of its advocates.

I took this quote, and a few others from Cahill's Wall Street Journal article, and posted them on a health care website. A physician responded to me thusly:

You seem to be saying that if many American sicken, suffer, and die because they can't pay their medical bills, and if taxpayers object to paying these bills, then you believe these people should sicken, suffer, and die. That's the general feeling of doctors on this forum, and it strikes me as heartless.

With all due respect, good sir, this is one of the most shallow and simplistic arguments I've heard since 5th grade. If this kind of thinking is representative of a significant percentage of educated people, is there any reason to ask how we lost control of the health care system to the Federal Government?

Here's the response I posted on the health care website:

M****,

I'd like to see some evidence that the Democrats' health care agenda will result in less sickness, suffering, and death. Where's the evidence that the federal government can allocate health care resources more judiciously and more humanely than everyone else?

I'd like to know how empowering the Federal Government of the United States at the expense of individual patients is going to improve health care. Are politicians and bureaucrats uniquely virtuous? Are politicians and bureaucrats uniquely wise and knowledgeable?

Please explain how transferring more wealth and more power into the hands of a smaller number of politicians and bureaucrats can be expected to reduce waste, fraud and abuse.

You seem to have an unshakable trust in the Federal Government, M****. What is the basis of this zealous faith? What did the Federal bureaucratic machine do to earn your loyalty?

I think the Federal Government is as fallible as any other institution...and its future capacity to produce systemic failures and to perpetuate corruption will be proportional to its growing enormity.

You might appreciate this short video.

So far, no response from the good doctor. I'll provide an update if a response ever appears.


More


Monday, March 2, 2009

RightKlik Rewind: Liberal Hypocrisy


I have no doubt that there are many people who sincerely believe that "spreading the wealth around" promotes the common good and that redistribution somehow makes for a more fair, just and equitable world.  Apparently, Obama is one of these people.  He has famously stated "...I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." 

Some say that if Obama believes in redistribution, he should be helping his impoverished brother in Kenya, or his poor aunt in Boston.  Maybe.  But maybe Obama has already tried to help his family.  Maybe Obama's family is too proud and independent to accept help. You and I don't know the situation, so let's give Obama the benefit of the doubt.     

Obama wants to abandon tired, failed conservative ideas like personal responsibility.  He wants to improve the world through "redistributive change," and he plans increase taxes and fatten up the U.S. Treasury to make it happen.  Taking it a step further, Obama has also made it clear that he will do everything he can to help spread the misery: 

Part of what I'm hoping to introduce...is a new ethic of responsibility where we say that if you're laying off workers, the least you can do when you're making $25 million a year is give up some of your compensation and some of your bonuses ... That kind of notion of shared benefits and burdens is something that I think has been lost for too long, and it's something that I'd like to see restored.

I never thought Americans would buy into this BS, but in November, they did. So I said, "Fine Obama, you won, you call the shots."  But then I remembered a little exchange between Obama and McCain.  McCain said, "Nobody likes taxes. Let's not raise anybody's taxes."

"Well, I don't mind paying a little more," Obama responded.

WAIT A MINUTE!  He said what?

"...I don't mind paying a little more."

*Wow*

Hey Obama! There's good news.  If you really want to pay more, YOU CAN DO IT RIGHT NOW.  The United States Treasury will accept your patriotic donation.  This is no joke.  If you need to know more, click here.

Obama, this is your chance to lead by example.  Make a big deal about it, have a big fancy check-signing photo-op surrounded by smiling celebrities and politicians; heck, you could even invite that Obama Girl.  You could show us how much you hate those nasty Bush tax cuts by sending an amount equal to what you saved because of those cuts.  With the millions you made from your book, I'm sure it would be a lot of money.  

But don't stop there, dear leader.  Show us this "new ethic" of shared burdens—forgo half of your salary! The median household income is $45,000, but you make $400,000 per year, not including handsome benefits. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Obama, put your money where your mouth is and make a financial donation to the U.S. Treasury today!  You do believe in the things you talk about, don't you?


More


Left ignores unprecedented federal power grab
It's interesting how the same folks who vehemently complained about the overbearing Bush mandates want to blindly take every red cent from the Obama administration, with strings firmly attached.

Q&A: Mitt Romney on How Obama's Doing
I believe that with all the challenges America faces, the simple solutions and the hopes that were sold by the Obama team are inadequate to the task ahead.

"Card Check" Not as Bad as Thought! It's Worse.

*This classic weblog post was originally broadcast on November 2, 2008, but if you didn't read it, it's new to you!

Saturday, February 28, 2009

RightKlik Rewind: Marxism

Solve this problem:

Democratic President + Democratic Senate + Democratic House of Representatives + Democratic Media =  ?

HINT:



More:



A President Who Won't Uphold the Constitution?


Taxing the achievers
There are people who actually believe that Obama is going to succeed in his quest to return economic prosperity to our country through taxation. There are also people who believe that wet streets cause rain. These people are commonly called "idiots."

*This classic weblog post was originally broadcast on October 29, 2008, but if you didn't read it, it's new to you!

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Barack Obama and The Bloodletting of America


Through all kinds of poorly-conceived schemes, our leaders in Washington seek to revive our ailing economy, or at least to give the impression that they are taking the problem seriously.  These remedies will ultimately do more harm than good, and as they draw us closer to wholesale socialism, they could turn a case of the sniffles into a life threatening illness.  Obama urges Congress to "act quickly" on yet another economic stimulus plan.  I hope they don't.  In this case, the cure is almost certainly worse than the disease.  For all the stimulating and reviving we've seen lately, we've seen little or no success.  Our elected officials are bloodletting the economy.

Here's a refresher on the practice of bloodletting. Bloodletting was the longest-running tradition in medicine. It originated in the ancient civilizations of Egypt and Greece and lasted through the second Industrial Revolution.

"Most bloodletters would open a vein in the arm, leg or neck with small, fine knife called a lancet. They would collect the blood in measuring bowls. Doctors bled patients for every ailment imaginable. They bled for pneumonia and fevers, back pain and rheumatism, headaches and melancholia; even to treat bone fractures and other wounds. Yet there never was any evidence that it did any good.

"Bloodletting was based on an ancient system of medicine in which blood and other bodily fluids were considered to be 'humors' whose proper balance maintained health. Sick patients were thought to have an imbalance of their humors, which bloodletting was thought to restore. Bleeding was as trusted and popular in ancient days as aspirin is today."

"George Washington, the first President of the United States, was bled to treat severe laryngitis in 1799 and died shortly thereafter. Of this incident, one medical historian writes: 'Today we find the removal of about eighty-two ounces of blood from a sick patient in less than sixteen hours to be incredible. However this was the method of treatment being taught in those days. It was the treatment of choice for many diseases and the complications of using this method were not understood by the physicians of that day.'" 

Reports indicate President Washington had somewhere between five to nine pints of blood drained from his body.  We don't know if these multiple bloodlettings resulted in his demise, but bloodletting clearly was not the solution. 

"It wasn't until well into the 19th century that people began to question the value of bloodletting. Scientists such as Louis Pasteur, Joseph Lister, and Robert Koch showed that germs, not humors, were responsible for disease. Furthermore, medical statisticians tracking case histories began to collect evidence that bloodletting was not effective. Eventually the practice died, although it continued in some parts of America into the 1920s."

It is important to keep in mind that well loved remedies do not always have a basis in any kind of evidence. They often have no impact on the underlying causes of disease, and in many cases they are very harmful. 

This brings us back to the economy.  As has been widely publicized, president-elect Barack Obama believes in the power of redistributionism to heal our ailing economy. Barack's famous words to Joe the Plumber: "...I think that when we spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."  This statement represents the redistributionist essence of socialism.

But socialism was the twentieth century's economic equivalent of bloodletting, a well loved remedy with no evidence so support its efficacy.  In fact there is abundant evidence to show that socialism is every bit as irrational and harmful as bloodletting.

"As a buzzword, 'socialism' had mostly good connotations in most of the world for most of the twentieth century. That’s why the Nazis called themselves national socialists. That’s why the Bolsheviks called their regime the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics..."  But the promise of socialism never materialized.

"While [socialism] promised prosperity, equality, and security, it delivered poverty, misery, and tyranny. Equality was achieved only in the sense that everyone was equal in his or her misery

"In the same way that a Ponzi scheme or chain letter initially succeeds but eventually collapses, socialism may show early signs of success. But any accomplishments quickly fade as the fundamental deficiencies of central planning emerge. It is the initial illusion of success that gives government intervention its pernicious, seductive appeal. In the long run, socialism has always proven to be a formula for tyranny and misery. 

"A pyramid scheme is ultimately unsustainable because it is based on faulty principles. Likewise, collectivism is unsustainable in the long run because it is a flawed theory. Socialism does not work because it is not consistent with fundamental principles of human behavior. The failure of socialism in countries around the world can be traced to one critical defect: it is a system that ignores incentives. 

"In a capitalist economy, incentives are of the utmost importance. Market prices, the profit-and-loss system of accounting, and private property rights provide an efficient, interrelated system of incentives to guide and direct economic behavior. Capitalism is based on the theory that incentives matter! 

"Under socialism, incentives either play a minimal role or are ignored totally. A centrally planned economy without market prices or profits, where property is owned by the state, is a system without an effective incentive mechanism to direct economic activity. By failing to emphasize incentives, socialism is a theory inconsistent with human nature and is therefore doomed to fail. Socialism is based on the theory that incentives don't matter!"

"Both history and current events demonstrate that the socialist reality is always bad for the individual, and this is true whether one is looking at the painfully brutal socialism of the Nazis or the Soviets or the Chinese, with its wholesale slaughters, or at the soft socialism of England, in which people's lives are ever more tightly circumscribed, and the state incrementally destroys individual freedom.  And that is why Obama's socialism matters. Regardless of Obama’s presumed good intentions, socialism always brings a society to a bad ending."

Evidence-based political solutions would be ideal. As with evidence-based medicine, evidence-based politics would promote policies that have been proven to work. Bad ideas like Marxism and socialism would be abandoned. 

But political thinking is still as backward and irrational as medicine was 200 years ago. Too many politicians don't care if their policies don't ultimately work; they only care about getting votes in the easiest way possible. The ideas of socialism are easy to sell, and the consequent failures are easily attributed to other causes.  Therefore, despite the fact that Marxism and socialism have been repeatedly proven to be failures, leftists keep going back for more. 

Americans gave up bloodletting in the practice of medicine over a century ago.  How long will it take for Americans, and the rest of the world, to give up bloodletting in the practice of politics?

More

Remembering How Far Health Care Has Come Since George Washington's Time
Why Obama's socialism matters
Thankful for Our Piece of Pie
Daschle-Obama Health Care Reform?
A Libertarian Defense of Social Conservatism

Civics Quiz
Are you more knowledgeable than the average citizen? The average score for all 2,508 Americans taking the following test was 49%; college educators scored 55%. Can you do better? 

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

The Obama Equation

Solve this problem:

Democratic President + Democratic Senate + Democratic House of Representatives + Democratic Media =  ?



Important Reading:

Don't miss this video!

*Final Note: Obama is ahead in the polls.  Sitting out the election is a vote for Obama.  You don't even have to get out of your chair to help Obama win!

Sunday, October 26, 2008

The Laffer Curve...Very Funny

Understand why socialism and progressive taxation are so awesome with a stupid but funny video demonstration of the Laffer Curve:


Here is a more serious (and accurate) video description.

And finally, a few words from Laffer himself.


Never mind... this is undoubtedly a load of corporate propaganda.