Friday, December 27, 2013

Republican Jesus

Liberal propagandist Stephen Colbert had this to say:

Here's the central thesis that Colbert, representing all liberals, is putting forth: That Conservatives are wrong to seek to limit the size and scope of Government. That efforts to reform social spending are anti-Christian. That reducing any spending by Democrats is anti-Christian. That by opposing Democrats we are violating the teachings of Jesus!

Democrats talk a lot about Jesus. A common meme among them is "Republican Jesus," the notion that Conservative political values are hypocritically opposed to the values and teachings of the very religion to which Conservatives overwhelmingly belong.  Here's an example:

Well, anyone familiar with the actual teachings of Jesus knows about things like the Parable Of the Talents in which Jesus discusses a rich man who entrusts his wealth to his servants. The good servants (according to Jesus) invested their master's money and earned a profit. The bad servant buried the money in a hole and thus did not "increase it." None of the servants were stupid enough to give the money to Liberals to spend as they saw fit. Rather, Jesus directly advocated investing money to increase wealth.

Wait a second, liberals scream, what about this?

Thursday, December 26, 2013

The Prosperity Gospel

The so-called prosperity gospel has a bad rap, partly for good reasons and partly for bad reasons.  It enabled a large part of the Christian community in the Western world yet another reason to look down on charismatic Christianity, and allowed large camps of both fundamentalist and liberal Christianity to have a common enemy within "Christendom."  The prosperity gospel grew out of an apparently controversial belief that God wishes his children to "prosper and be in health."  Fundamentalist and liberal Christianity thus formed an even bigger tent with atheists and humanists who believe that if there is a God he was only interested in healing sickness while Jesus was walking the earth as a means of advertising for the "good news."

Even free market advocate Jay W. Richards gets in a dig on the down-and-out "prosperity gospel":
Except for preachers of the misguided “prosperity gospel,” however, many of us still worry about capitalism. Some of the problems result from the word itself, which can conjure up images of greedy and cackling moneychangers.
However, in the wake of a time where many Christians were much more focused on dreams of comfortable living than they were on blessing others with those resources, even many who still believe that God wishes people to be healthy will now shy away from the idea that God wants people blessed with resources.

Tuesday, December 24, 2013

Gigantic Lies

Obama's Not the Only One Telling Whoppers

In 2011 the hyper-liberal Senator Bernie Sanders had this to say on the floor of the Senate:

First of all, as countless others have pointed out, this doofus doesn't seem to know the difference between a deficit (the amount by which spending is greater than revenue in the current year) and debt (the total amount borrowed as the result of past deficits).

Secondly, I should point out, this is the guy who's an "independent" because the Democrats aren't far enough to the left for his taste.

Although his lack of knowledge between deficit and debt indicates his current mental status, he's apparently not too senile to lie like a Democrat (although his Alzheimer's does prevent him from telling lies that are anywhere near to believable.)

Let's start off with the notion that "the deficit was caused by two wars- unpaid for." Let's assume he's talking about Iraq and Afghanistan. Let's further speculate that he means "debt" rather than deficit.  Because if he truly meant "deficit" in the year 2011, a time in which President Obama wasn't even bothering to submit budgets and the Democrats held the Senate quite strongly, then his speech was really an accusation against them.

Two wars unpaid for?  No...

  • FY2003 Supplemental: Operation Iraqi Freedom: Passed April 2003; Total $78.5 billion, $54.4 billion Iraq War
  • FY2004 Supplemental: Iraq and Afghanistan Ongoing Operations/Reconstruction: Passed November 2003; Total $87.5 billion, $70.6 billion Iraq War
  • FY2004 DoD Budget Amendment: $25 billion Emergency Reserve Fund (Iraq Freedom Fund): Passed July 2004, Total $25 billion, $21.5 billion (estimated) Iraq War
  • FY2005 Emergency Supplemental: Operations in the War on Terror; Activities in Afghanistan; Tsunami Relief: Passed April 2005, Total $82 billion, $58 billion (estimated) Iraq War
  • FY2006 Department of Defense appropriations: Total $50 billion, $40 billion (estimated) Iraq War.
  • FY2006 Emergency Supplemental: Operations Global War on Terror; Activities in Iraq & Afghanistan: Passed February 2006, Total $72.4 billion, $60 billion (estimated) Iraq War
  • FY2007 Department of Defense appropriations: $70 billion(estimated) for Iraq War-related costs
  • FY2007 Bush administration proposed $100 billion for the Iraq War and Afghanistan
  • FY2008 Bush administration proposed $190 billion for the Iraq War and Afghanistan

Friday, December 20, 2013

A Limousine Liberal Takes On The "3Squares Challenge"

I recently came across this headline on a news website: CEO who lived on $36 of groceries for a week reveals just how hungry it made her.

Turns out there’s something called the “3Squares Challenge” in which people attempt to live solely on the $36 per week provided by Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as “food stamps”).  Right off the bat this is pretty ridiculous- I guess none of the liberals who started this “challenge” know what the word “supplemental” means.  That’s weird, they’re constantly telling us how much more intelligent and educated they are.

OK, feed yourself for $5.14 a day.  Got it.  As a conservative my first thought would “okay, so no caviar, Grey Poupon, or imported truffles for me!”  But apparently that’s not how Melinda Moulton, the woman who “courageously stepped up to the challenge” thought.

Here’s what she bought:

So, based on what I’m seeing, she went to the same upscale “ritzier than Whole Foods” store that she always shops at and bought the same vegan/organic/mother earth crap she always buys.  And then was shocked when “this was all $36 would buy.”  Which wasn't even true. Thankfully the DailyMail, unlike most American media, did some actual digging and found out she also bought Green Tea (which I’m guessing wasn't Lipton) and the same trendy upscale vitamins she always buys.  Eh, it's hardly news that liberals lie.

So why didn't she do what everyone who’s been a poor student does and buy a $5 case of Ramen?  She comes right out and tells us: “I didn't want to change or compromise who I am or what I eat.”  Oh, so you wanted to “rise to the challenge” but you weren't willing to stop being a rich, spoiled, limousine liberal.

My goodness, that is important news!  It’s been discovered that you can’t live like a pampered hippie on $36 a week!  How heartlessly cruel this all is!

Monday, December 2, 2013

The Truth About Austerity

I recently came across this on the Internet:

Here in America our 47% would laboriously sound out the word “austerity” and then respond “wuzzat?”  The better educated among them might speculate that Austerity is an island in Europe that’s somehow related to Germany and is where kangaroos live.

Put simply, austerity is a reduction in spending by a government experiencing large deficits and ballooning debt.  It is a “live within your means” policy, modeled after individual families not spending more than they earn.  Here in America austerity is referred to by the more straightfoward term “spending cuts.”

The picture above was undoubtedly produced by some liberal, using a hefty dose of their infamous liberal logic. It is fundamentally a complaint that austerity includes cuts to “social spending” specifically  welfare, food stamps, and other benefits.  My goodness!  Taking food out of the mouths of orphaned babies!  How heartless can one be?

What’s the opposite of austerity?  Oh, that would be stimulus.  It stimulates the economy! You know, if the liberals are going to be this transparent with the labels they come up with why don’t they go whole hog and use the terms “Evil greedmongering vs. Kind Carebearing.” When you put it that way, the right choice is obvious!

OK, let’s strip off the emotional labels and just call it Policy A vs. Policy B.  Policy A involves a nation spending money it does not have and thus sinking deeper and deeper into debt.  This has two (hopefully unintended) consequences:
  1. An ever increasing amount of the annual budget must be spent on paying interest.  Politicians try to distract people from this reality by using the obfuscating term “servicing the debt.”  It really boils down to paying an amount of money every single year and receiving absolutely nothing in return.  How big an impact does this have? Well, thanks to the $7T Barack Obama’s regime has added to the debt, America paid $223B worth of interest in 2012.  That’s 6% of the total budget, over three times the cost of the entire Food Stamps (now known by the euphemism SNAP) program.
  2. The more debt a country has, relative to its economic output, the lower its credit rating goes. And this then increases the interest rate on borrowing money.  Which ties back into item #1.

Policy A, the “just keep spending money you don’t have and borrowing to do so” policy has a definite limit- eventually a nation will have borrowed so much money that it needs to spend 100% of tax receipts on interest payments alone. Or, more commonly, it will run out of people willing to take the risk and lend more money. By the time a country hits this point, they’re usually so hopelessly addicted to deficit spending that there’s just no chance of them living without it.  So what do they do?  Caught in the paradox of “have to get more money” and “can’t get more money” they always do the same thing:  Print money.  It’s happened recently in Argentina and Zimbabwe, North Korea, and most of the countries that used to be part of the USSR.  Less recently it’s happened in Germany, Austria, and even here in America in Colonial times. Money printing inevitably leads to hyperinflation with all its attendent horrors: Riots, starvation, a complete economic collapse, and frequently the collapse of the government followed by a period of martial law and/or outright facism.

So Policy A inevitably leads to a horrific train wreck.  When things really get tough, who do you think it is that’s dying in the riots?  Starving?  The wealthy elite with their hoards of gold, food, and ammo in fortified retreats or the “the poor?”  Policy A is just about the worst thing that could happen to anyone but history has shown clearly that it is always hardest on the people at the bottom.  The people who counted on the government for food and rent and suddenly that government vanishes in a puff of smoke.  Even before the collapse, during the hyper-inflationary period, the poor will get welfare checks of $1,000,000,000… at a time when a gallon of milk costs five million.  The pitiful few times in history when Policy A didn’t end in disaster is the when the nation, realizing what’s ahead, switches to Policy B.

Policy B is the “never spend more than you take in” policy.  It’s the “balanced budget, no deficits” policy.  Now, one would think that “live within your means” could be perpetuated forever.  There’s no ballooning interest payments, so why not?  Well, Policy B has some side-effects as well.  One of which is that you can’t increase spending without increasing revenue.  How do you increase revenue?  Well, unfortunately liberal Democrats seem to be able to think of only one way to do this: Increase tax rates.  One would think it quite strange they would perpetuate this move; Fifty years ago Democrat-darling President Kennedy, in a nationwide address, pointed out that paradoxically raising taxes reduces revenues and that decreasing rates increases them. It also hampers the economy so as to lead to greater unemployment which leads to less revenue because there’s fewer taxpayers.  This swiftly snowballs into a death spiral of Raise taxes->Kill Jobs->Reduce revenue.  Eventually a nation reaches the point where so many people are dependent on direct government that they can muster enough votes so as to get people willing to switch to Policy A regardless of the perils.

So, to summarize, Policy A (unlimited spending of borrowed money) inevitably leads to either the incredibly painful and messy end of a Nation or (best case scenario) a switch to Policy B.

Policy B (don’t spend money you don’t have) inevitably makes “social justice” (a polite euphemism for the masses voting themselves increasing amounts of “free” government money) more attractive, which then leads to a switch back to Policy A.

You hear a lot about “austerity” and “cuts” these days.  Nine-out-of-ten liberal economists will cite Maynard Keynes as they pronounce austerity “the worst thing you can do to an economy.”  Twelve-out-of-ten (the liberals commit a whole lotta voting fraud) welfare recipients will tell you it’s inhumanly cruel to expect them to get along with anything less or even worse to *gasp* expect them to get a job.  I must admit, Policy A (unlimited spending) is a really fun party… right up until the whole thing comes crashing down.  Then it’s riots, starvation, and out-of-control crime, usually followed by brutal totalitarianism.  All of which hits the poor ten times harder than anyone else.

And yet, proponents of Policy B (getting spending under control) are eternally vilified for being uncaring, unsympathetic, and greedy.  Of waging a war on “the poor.”  Meanwhile, the people willing to spend unlimited amounts of other people’s money (most of it borrowed) are lionized as social heroes and win the undying support of the very people they are dooming to unspeakable poverty or worse.

So here’s my corrected meme picture for the state of affairs:

 Not as catchy and it lacks that class-warfare “us vs. them” appeal.  But at least it’s accurate.