Asking the question “who’s leading the Tea Party”? Is like asking someone, “how much dry water do you drink?” Or, “how often do you go swimming in an empty pool?” There are two answers to these three questions and they should be very obvious to even someone who lost their brain and didn’t bother replacing it. Never and no one. The Tea Party is not a party or a group, so they don’t have one leader or one group leading people to a better future of what have you. They are a collection of groups and different people who all make up this right-wing populist movement.
The Tea Party ranges from intelligent sane and rational conservative libertarian folks like Rand Paul and perhaps P.J. O’Rourke considers himself part of this group. To people who look and act like the only reason they aren’t currently institutionalized, is because there are already too many people like them who are institutionalized. And there just not enough beds and mental hospitals to go around for them. Or they were released because of budget cuts. The Michelle Bachmann’s and perhaps Ted Cruz’s of the world. The jury is still out on Senator Cruz’s sanity. Is he a complete partisan demagogue asshole. Or he is half a pack short of a six-pack of beer mentally.
Similar to the libertarian movement or the, yes socialist movement that is still around, just watch MSNBC talk and read The Nation or The New Republic now, there isn’t any one central authority that brings these parties together. Because they aren’t part of a larger party and in many cases like with the Socialists in America, spread out into different parties including the Democratic Party. So they don’t have anyone who is leading them. Source:FORA-TV
Again about politician’s, but we get the politician’s that the majority of American voters vote for. That is how American democracy works. So if you vote for someone for public office and lets say within months or weeks or days, perhaps even hours of that person taking office after they won the election, look for the nearest mirror and look at it. Because that is the person you voted for and a lot of other dumb voters voted for. And if you want to say that, “Joe or Mary wasn’t the person that I voted for and is now doing things they said they wouldn’t do. And not doing things they said they would do. They tricked me and that is their fault”. When you were in school and you didn’t do your homework, or didn’t study for a big test, who took the blame for that? Your teacher and parents who told you to do those things, or you? You’re at fault for not doing your homework and that includes politics.
I covered the Tea Party yesterday and by the way, I’m tired of saying the Tea Party, because that is like saying the Marshan, because that person or group doesn’t exist. At least as far as we know, I’m not an astrologist, or pretend to be one. But the Tea Party movement is exactly that and they have plenty of people who look just as sane and as intelligent as you or me. If you’re reading this, I hope you’re sane, especially if you are planning on commenting on this. And then you have people who looked like they were residents of a state mental institution that was lacking funds and was forced to shut down. And as a result all these mentally handicapped being released as a result. The Tea Party ranges from classical Libertarians, like certain members of the Ron Paul movement, to Conservative Libertarians like Rand Paul on the center-right, to the Far-Right, Christian-Conservatives and Neoconservatives. It is a very vast and politically diverse movement, that the Republican Party has to have right now.
I like P.J. O’Rourke’s comments on socialism and Margaret Thatcher’s great line about the problem with socialism, is that eventually you run out of other people’s money. And that economic growth and opportunity is not a zero-sum game. That you don’t have to share the current pot to make everyone wealthy enough to live well in America. That what you can do instead is to expand the current pot of wealth. Something I think today’s Socialists may never understand and that they also seeing that everything that is done positively done in a country, has to come from government, especially the big centralized government. When the fact is if Uncle Sam or government in general just gave his nephews and nieces the tools that they need to make a good life for themselves, that chances are most of us will do exactly that. That they just need economic fuel and for Uncle Sam to take his foot off of, well our feet and let us move on our own. And we’ll do very well for ourselves in America.
You know, if you don’t like your politicians, here a few things you can. Stop voting for those politicians. Gee, there’s a crazy idea that just might work. Vote for not better people, because voting for someone better than a crook and idiot, is not much of step forward. Vote for good people who’ll do a good job for you and your community. If those people aren’t running, recruit them to run and find the resources so they can run an effective campaign. If you can’t find that person, but you’re that intelligent, qualified, good person to work in public service, then run yourself. If we had more voters like this, we would have better politician’s and a better political system and government as a result
I guess I will talk about the Tea Party, but as P.J. O’Rourke put it, there isn’t any one Tea Party. We are not talking the Republican Party or the Democratic Party or the Libertarian Party or libertarians. The Tea Party is a movement of people primarily from the South and Midwest, with the libertarian wing of the movement, wing of the movement that I somewhat respect, coming from the West. The Matt Kibbe and Dick Army wing of the movement. Their foot soldiers if you want to call them that, tend to be middle class, blue-collar working class people who perhaps are from an America that is disappearing and have decided they are going to fight back and bring that America back.
The foot soldiers of the Tea Party movement might be blue-collar working class folks, but their funders primarily are country club Republican billionaires who back people in these groups that they want to run for office. Without the Koch Brothers and the Tea Party, where is the GOP right now financially? Bankrupt perhaps begging President Obama the man they hate and represents everything they despise, like the New America with so many Americans who weren’t prominent in the 1950s when these traditional Americans who are now the Tea Party were running the country. Perhaps the GOP would be begging President Obama for a taxpayer bailout so their party can stay in business.
The Tea Party with their billionaire funders, are now the financial arm of the GOP. The foot soldiers might still be working class Joe’s and Mary’s, but their leadership are billionaires and represent the old school Republican Party. The good old days when the rich called the shots in the GOP and now have these working Joe’s and Mary’s out there with these rallies trying to convince Americans, especially Americans who look and live like them, that they are part of them and come from the same America.
But where is the Tea Party without the Koch Brothers and other billionaires? At home, pissed off, perhaps at their local tavern throwing their chicken wings and sandwiches at the tube every time President Obama and other Democrats from the same generation get up, give a speech or introduce some new policy. Generally speaking we are not talking about a group of people from normal economic and personal backgrounds who were pissed off over what is going on the country. And then got up and decided to organize their neighbors and community at the local dinner, bar or church. But people with strong political and financial connections, who organized the people through the internet to stand up and put this movement together. And that is the Tea Party movement. Source:OPC America
Sounds to me at least that Chris Matthews voted for George W. Bush for president at least once. 2004 I think is pretty much a given the way he was talking about President Bush and seemed unimpressed by Senator John Kerry. And never saw Senator Kerry as someone who could beat President Bush. But in this interview, it sounds to me that he voted for then Governor George W. Bush for president in 2000 as well. Or maybe Matthews is just a fair-weather fan and goes with the winner no matter who the winner is. The ultimate blind-follower and faddist who’s addicted to the crowd and making sure he’s always part of the crowd. Sounds like a personality description for a lot of Americans. So now I like Matthews even less or dislike even more, you know what I mean.
As far as the Baby Boom Generation, I agree with P.J. O’Rourke especially on this. But hey without the Boomers, there wouldn’t be a lot of Gen-Xers and I would probably be somewhat lonely in Generation X, because my parents are from the 1930s, or what Millennial’s call the dinosaur age that they only know about because of what they’ve seen from their video games. But to go back to the Boomers, P.J. is right that they are the most self-absorbed generation at least in recent American history. You don’t get labeled the M Generation otherwise. Me, meaning “government give me what I want after the you tax me to death, bring me back to life and take care of me”.
As far as Bill Clinton, again I’m a liberal New Democrat, but if you look at where the country was when he became President and how he left it and look at his policies as President that he was able to put through, I don’t see unless you just hate the guy how you can’t call him a successful President. Whether that is very good or great, at least good, but I put him down as very good. A B+, that if he had personal discipline, 1998 is a completely different year for him and it is not wasted because of the Monica Lewinski scandal. We’ll never know that obviously, but President Clinton, House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Senate Leader Trent Lott were working on a broad bipartisan agenda together for 1998.
But to go back to P.J.’s point about the Boomers, they are the most self-absorbed generation that we know of. Bill Clinton is the President or the King of this generation and everything in his life is about him. Not saying he doesn’t care about anyone else, but everything he does has something to do about him for good and bad and for mostly good. And to a certain extent and not trying to take any responsibility away from Wild Bill as I call him, but perhaps he is a victim of his own generation. And so is Chris Matthews, speaking of self-absorbed selfish assholes, Matthews could be Wild Bill’s Vice President or Prince.
The timing of this interview is perfect because the General Motors and Chrysler Motors were facing bankruptcy and perhaps even at risk of going out of business. Which would’ve been a disaster for America and not just because of the lost of good jobs that it would cost the country. But also in prestige that it would’ve cost the country. The world’s only superpower that would’ve been down to one motor company being Ford. GM and Chrysler were both bailed out in late spring or early summer of 2009, which is when this interview was done. So they were definitely talking about a relevant subject here.
GM and Chrysler, the number one and I believe maybe tenth largest automobile company in the world in Chrysler’s case, ( that is an estimate from me ) were both saved and are both back in black today and have been back in black for several years now. Millions of jobs saved, fewer people being unemployed in the heart of the Great Recession as a result, the country didn’t collapse. So right now that GM and Chrysler bailouts that both came conditionally, are looking like very good investments right now.
But why did GM fail? I would argue because they stopped making good cars. The Caprice, which I believe was a great car or at least a borderline great car. Sort of a combination of a big luxury car, but that had very good power and handled well, a very popular police car. GM stopped making that and they stopped making the Monte Carlo, which was a big sporty car, with great power and handled very well, but also very comfortable. Sort of like a sporty luxury car. They tried to become more like Japan with smaller cars, because so many Americans were buying Japanese, but their cars simply weren’t as good.
Oldsmobile is now out of business, but Buick which is like the little brother of Cadillac, smaller cheaper luxury cars, are still around. Pontiac, which I at least is a better version of Chevrolet, at least with their sporty mid-size cares, is out of business as well. When these companies under better management, should still be in business today. Chrysler essentially over promised their employees with benefits and when the Great Recession hit, they got hit in the head over and over on that and eventually got knocked down.
Chrysler might be the best of the big three in America, even though they are number three. Ford Motors is the best run of the big three and didn’t have any financial difficulty in this period and the only one that didn’t need or take public assistance. Ford Motors runs two other profitable auto divisions, Mercury and Lincoln and their cars are doing very well right now. Their cars and trucks, the Taurus might be the best sporty mid-size car in America right now. Source:WGN Radio
"Don't vote it only encourages the bastards". Well I guess another way of looking at that would that if you don't vote, some dumb bastard will vote instead and vote for the crooked bastard that is in office. Voting is not the problem with politics or democracy. Sure, voting is how we get bad politicians in the crooked and incompetent sense. Meaning someone who is simply in office to further their career, or simply not up to and qualified for the job they were elected to. But those politicians tend to get elected by people who vote based on personality and pop culture relevance. "I like Joe or Sally, because we use the same computer or smart phone, or have the same interest in movies or sense of humor".
It's the dumb voters and the smart people who are too lazy to vote that are the problem with American politics. Not good people who run for office and get elected, or lose to people, because they didn't have the funds to fight back against very skillfully attack ads and, well bullshit that was thrown at them from, well a bastard politician or candidate running against them. A crooked candidate or politician's path to victory is the stupid vote. "If I can win the stupid vote and discourage smart people who know what I'm about and what I'll do if I win from voting, I'm home free.
The stupid vote and stupid people in general the morons of the month club and their fellow members are what keeps crooks and liars in office. But the worst arch enemy of the crooks and liars are the smart people who know the crooks are crooks, but feel their votes may not count and the crooks will find a way to get elected and reelected anyway. So you get the smart people to vote, now the crooks and liars have a real problem. "Now not only the smart people are voting and know what I'm about and what I have done, but all I have for a line of defense are morons to defend me!". The better educated a society with the most educated voters possible who actually vote, the fewer crooks in the system.
Well P.J. O'Rourke once again giving me plenty of material to work with. Only this time there isn't a damn thing that I agree with on, somewhat disappointed about that, because I do see him as an intelligent real Conservative or Conservative Libertarian. Let's start with President Bill Clinton, I realize he used the name Bill Clinton over and over to the point that I almost felt dizzy from drinking a glass of Sprite that was spiked with a bottle of Bourbon or something. But it sounded like he was talking about Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kucinich, or Carl Marx, someone really radical on the Left, at least in America.
I realize that before Republicans and the Far-Right learned of Barack Obama and even knew the man existed, Bill Clinton was considered the devil to them. The Satan of Satan's, because he was a Baby Boomer from the 1960s, who believed in freedom for other Americans and not just Christians and very wealthy Anglo-Saxon Southern Protestant men. That America was for Americans and not just a group of us, but for all Americans and that freedom both economic and personal freedom was for all Americans. Which for the Far-Right, you might as well be arguing for making Satan's birthday a national holiday or something, because of how evil and Un-American that sounds to them.
Okay, here's a good one, the conservative idea of freedom. Hum, freedom for who and what you do you mean by that? Would be my question, because unless you are talking about Barry Goldwater from back in the day where the term Goldwater Conservative comes from, that was later followed by the term Conservative Libertarian that is accurately used to describe former Representative Ron Paul's politics and his son current Senator Rand Paul, if this is what you're talking about, great I agree with you that this is real freedom. Big government out of the wallets and personal lives and it's coming from Conservatives.
But if you're idea of freedom is freedom for you and the people who tend to agree with you and even look like you and have the same religious beliefs as you and live their lives the way you do, but for everyone else freedom is doing what you approve of and not the freedom to be an individual and live individually and if you do you risk jail time or even prison time, then no. This is not freedom and you are not talking about limited government, but serious limited freedom. The right to live the way others approve based on their religious and moral beliefs.
Just to go back to President Bill Clinton for a second, he was truly seen as a devil by the Far-Right of the GOP and perhaps Satan himself in the 1990s. Not hated as much as Barack Obama today, but Wild Bill represents everything that the Far-Right the Traditional Values Coalition thinks is wrong with America. The Baby Boom Generation that P.J. O'Rourke is from and the 1960s. And they believe America has been going downhill ever since the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s where Americans regardless of racial, ethnic, cultural, geographical or religious background now feel free to live their own lives and if everything Americans have been gaining more freedom ever since.
The whole statism issue the last thirty-years or so, hasn't been coming from the center-left in America. But from the Far-Right and people who want to impose their moral and cultural values on the rest of the country even through law. "Get big government out of our wallets, so we can stick it in the bedrooms and the rest of the homes of free adult free-thinking Americans". That real statism that is in America, but it is coming from the Far-Right, not center-left Liberals like Bill Clinton and others. Yes the Left and the Democratic Party has a nut house and their own statists, but so does the Right and the GOP.
Here's where I agree with P.J. O'Rourke when it comes to the economy. And why I don't like big government when it comes to social issues or personal issues. When government taxes or spends money to the point that now the people don't have that money to spend on themselves and their families, government then takes over responsibility for the people. It is no longer there to protect our national security and protect us from criminals and be an insurance system for when we are in need. But it then becomes the national parents of the country and makes people dependent on them.
As a Liberal I want government to serve as an insurer for the people. Not the insurer, but as an insurer to help people when they are in need. When they are robbed, lose their home, physically assaulted and other things. But not there to take care of people's basic needs. Their housing, their food, their health care, health insurance, pension plan, job and every other thing that American adults have to decide and figure out for themselves everyday. We live in a federal state, not a nanny state, or a welfare state, and certainly not a police state. Which means there are limits to what government, especially the national government can do for the people.
Big government equals big problems especially when it makes people dependent on it for it's basic survival. We don't need Uncle Sam and is wife Aunt Mary or whoever his wife is to play mom and dad for a country three-hundred fifteen million people. We are not a country of genius's either, just look at our pop culture where we have an unlimited amount of experts on what their latest celebrity had lunch or what type of smart phone they use or what is the cost of their house. But couldn't tell you who their governor or U.S. Representative or Senator is, even if it meant a whole day at no cost for them with their favorite celebrity as grand prize. But most of us are capable of making our own basis life decisions and do that everyday. Source:KBDI-TV
In the piece I wrote about P.J. O'Rourke yesterday there was a piece that I left out, that I sort of wish that I put in. But hey, today's a new day and I'll be able to stick that in here, like you stick in ice cream that you can't seem to live without in a very crowded freezer.
I'm not a Libertarian and I don't agree with O'Rourke on everything. And here is where he is wrong about not voting. What are the two biggest threats to corrupt politics and corrupt politicians? Educated voters and educated voters who vote on a regular if not every time they get a chance. And if they live in Chicago or perhaps anywhere in Illinois, they may get to vote for the same person twice in the same election.
I guess even if you're dead in Chicago not only does your vote still count, but your votes in the same election and contest still count. And that is all of the Chicago material that I have, for now.
The educated voter whether they are only able to vote once per-contest or not, (ha ha) is the biggest threat to a corrupt politician. Why I say that? I'll tell you anyway, because the educated voter knows about the corrupt politician because they keep up with the news and the news that effects their representative or executive in their town, district or state. And they know who has that Senator, Representative, Mayor, Governor whoever in their back pocket and what those groups get for their investment.
As a Liberal I would never be in favor of compulsory voting. In English that means requiring people to eat their vegetables, I mean vote by law. Especially when our politicians are at best only as good as the people they are supposed to represent. And even if they were as good as the people they represent, they wouldn't be good enough. That would just be big government nanny state: "We're going to force those vegetables down your throat for your own good. And if you still don't comply, we'll lock you up, which will be worst for you. But we'll say it's for your own good, so we can get away with it". But imagine what an educated electric would mean for corrupt politicians? "I might have to clean up my act, or risk losing my next election, or worst going to jail".
Imagine if we had politicians as good as the people or even better. People who don't just get themselves a good education, but then use those skills to do something outside of technology, celebrity culture or entertainment and used that education to get involved in public service and current affairs. Not because they like politics and think it would be an easy way to earn a living at taxpayers expense and not have to work that much and just find enough special interest groups to keep happy so they never have to worry about losing. But because they hate the corrupt political system and the corrupt politicians in that system and want a better system that actually represents those people.
You match the educated good government candidates with educated voters, now the corrupt politician is out of a job. Why, because one thing that we know about educated voters is that they actually bother to vote and don't just keep up with real news and current affairs. So now you have educated voters voting for good government candidates and those good government candidates become good public servants. And know I'm not an alcoholic and I'm not high on any illegal drug, right now and I know this might sound like a drunken fantasy or a pipe dream. Like dreaming about the Detroit Lions actually playing in their first Super Bowl (not winning the Super Bowl) or the Redskins having a good team again under Dan Snyder.
But if people just bothered to learn about the people who are running for office and are currently in office and keep up with the government that they are forced to pay for, they would be "mad as hell and not going to take it anymore" and take that anger out on the people who are in office. And vote for those people who were pissed off enough to run for office to change the system and give the country a government that is responsive to the concerns of the country and responsible.
I know all of this would mean watching less realty TV, not knowing what their latest celebrity wore to the last awards show, or what they are in jail for now. Or less time on Facebook and their smart phone. But wouldn't it be worth that to have good government that we actually don't mind paying for?
There's an old American saying that goes like this. "We get the government that we paid for". Another way of saying that is that we get the government that we voted for. "Look buddy, you voted for those assholes in charge. What the hell do you have to complain about?" And for people who didn't bother to vote, seek help please, but they get the government that other people voted for. Just because you were too busy on your iphone or watching reality TV, or don't think voting is worth it, you live in the same country as everyone else in that country and get government as well for good and bad.
I don't feel sorry at all about people who voted for people that they now don't like. They could've voted for someone else, or bothered to do their homework before they voted. And I don't feel sorry for people who don't vote and then later complain about the political system. When they aren't doing their part to make it better. We live in a democracy in the sense that the people vote for the leaders and the candidates and incumbents who get more votes than their opponents are the people who win and assume office. That is what majoritarian democracy is about.
I like P.J. O'Rourke's comment about personal responsibility and spending other people's money. Great Danny DeVito movie about that by the way, but imagine if someone gave you a blank check of someone else's money. How responsible would you be with that, or forget about the blank check, a check for ten-thousand dollars over a month or so, how well would you do with that money? If that money comes with no strings and no responsibility, you won't spend that money very well at least compared with if you were to spend ten-thousand dollars over a month of your own money. And having to live with the consequences of every financial decision that you make.
I don't want government to go away or disappear and I'm not a Libertarian unlike P.J. O'Rourke. But at the same time I don't want government managing my life for me, or trying to manage someone else's life. Why, because they aren't trying to manage people's affairs for them with government money. They are trying to manage the affairs of people with the people's money, the taxpayers money. So of course they are not going to spend that money as well, because if they screw up, they can just tax us more to try to fix whatever problem they just created.
When Uncle Sam or whoever the government uncle is in whatever the country, says "I know you have a problem and I want to help you and I'm the government and it won't cost you anything." Your first question should always be, "how much will your help cost me?" After you tell Uncle Sam to get his big fat hand out of your pocket. Because anything that government does comes with a cost that is paid for by the people who live in that particular country. Of course it is not free if you pay taxes, because with those taxes you're paying for those public services that you receive.
As far as freedom and fairness. You can't have one without the other. If someone is not able to by law to be as successful as they possibly can base on their own own work and production and the services they provided for others, because government has their hands down their pockets and in their piggy banks taking whatever they can away from that individual, then that person won't be successful. They'll say "why should I work so hard and be so good at what I do, when government just takes away most of what I created to give it to other people who aren't doing well?" Oh by the way, government is doing that in some name of fairness.
As far as the Baby Boomers, I have mixed feelings about them. I love the individualism of the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s that allowed for Americans to be Americans and what the Founding Fathers essentially wanted to create, a society for people to be free to be themselves. But at the same time while they did that, they went completely the other way when it came to economic policy and created a society where people now expected government to give them things. There was this Tom Jefferson liberal free society on one hand. While on the other hand there was this Tom Hayden or Bernie Sanders collectivist utopian society where people weren't expected to act for themselves and take care of themselves.
The so-called Me Generation that Boomers tend to get labeled as, is me meaning "give me Uncle Sam! I deserve this, that and the other thing and you the government should give that to me at someone else's expense. Because why should I as an individual have to do those things for myself?" And public education, again that is only as good as the people want to be and a lot of that has to do with the kids that are part of that system and the parents that they come from. If you raise their kids well and make education a big part of what you are trying to get across to them, chances are those kids will do well in either a public or private school. But if you don't, unless they are a great bright kid perhaps smarter and more mature than their parents, they won't do very well in school.
Government, education, politics and politicians are only as good as the people. Well at best they can only be as good as the people. The only thing worst than people not voting, are dumb voters who always vote or at least vote a lot. Because they are voting for people that they aren't knowledgable about and perhaps do not even understand that. You want good politicians, public servants and educators, you need to do your part to make that happen and not expect others to do that for you. The two worst fears for crooked politicians, are educated voters and a lot of educated voters. You do your homework, vote for the people who'll represent your best interests and hold them accountable, you'll have the best government that you possibly can.
Imagine trying to live in America and then trying to following American politics without a sense of humor, actually try living in America without a sense of humor by itself and all of the garbage (to put it mildly) that we have to see and put up with.
But just to talk about American politics, try following and keeping up with that without a sense of humor. We would probably be a country of Michele Bachmann's and Michael Moore's. Not just a nutty country, but a country of nuts. It would be heaven only for squirrels, but in actuality a country of mental patients and hell for everyone else.
If you can't laugh at American politics especially with a lot of things that government does, you have to pay for it, you'll be in hell all of your life and never be able to laugh at anything, because you would have no sense of humor.
I agree with P.J. O'Rourke about eating the rich. If you want people to be successful in life and not live in poverty, then you need to incentivize them to be. And not take most of their money away from them when they are successful. Good parents at least don't punish their kids when they get good grades.
Good parents don't say: "god dammit Joey (or Sally)! What the hell are you doing getting straight A's (or mostly A's and some B)? What are you trying to do, go to college and get a good job so you can move away from your mother and father?" They encourage them to do that and incentivize them to keep it up and if anything do even better.
Well, similar to people who are rich and financially successful. Instead of putting Uncle Sam's big fat greedy hand down a wealthy woman or man's pocket and take that money from them to people who need food stamps just to eat, we say being financially successful is a good thing and we want more people to be rich, not less.
Now socialist parents might say to Joey or Sally or DeAndre or Laquisha: (you know whoever it might be) "God dammit! What the hell are you thinking getting great grades? What are you trying to do, go to college or something and not have to live off of the welfare state like your mom and dad?" Because Socialists tend not to like individualism, self-determination others ways of saying freedom. They like collectivism and that no one should be so free that people don't need others, meaning government in order to take care of themselves.
Which is why Socialists slap the hands of rich people with a whip so they never want to make another dollar on their own and want government to take care of them instead. We should encourage people to be successful in school and in life, including adults who haven't made it yet and empower them to finish their education. So we have more successful people and not less. And more parents who praise their kids for doing real well in school and gotten themselves a good education themselves so their kids can just focus on getting a good education as well.
Source:FORA-TV- Political satirist P.J. O'Rourke, at the National Press Club in Washington, talking about the lack of fiscal responsibility in the Republican Party.
"Political satirist P.J. O'Rourke criticizes the fiscal irresponsibility of recent conservative legislators. He says the poorest and least advantaged always suffer the most from any of the "three ways to pay for the electorates' fiscal irresponsibility.
Deliberately offensive, determinedly provocative and extremely funny, PJ O'Rourke is the conservative journalist and satirist that makes even lefties laugh.
In Australia recently as a guest of the Centre for Independent Studies, he used this talk at the National Press club to deliver a scattergun critique of conservatism.
During the Q&A session he answers questions about gun control, the GFC and his personal drug use. - Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Patrick Jake O'Rourke is an American political satirist, journalist, and writer. Born in Toledo, Ohio, he was educated at Miami University (Ohio) and Johns Hopkins University."
What is fiscal responsibility, well to me that means spending what you have and can afford and nothing else. You don't have to be a Conservative to believe in that, just have common sense. Just like you don't have to be an American to like apple pie, but if you are an American you probably have more access to apple pie than let's say if you're a Chinese living in, I don't know let's say China. ( Just to use as an example)
But you would think Conservatives would believe in fiscal responsibility, because how often they preach about responsibility. But of course New Gingrich has preached about family values in the past, haven't heard one of his sermons lately, no idea why. Perhaps it had something to do with the fact he had an affair with one of his staffers when he was Speaker of the House.
Well, the right-wing will say that President Bill Clinton had an affair with a White House intern. But Bill Clinton doesn't preach about family values, kinda the way Fidel Castro doesn't preach about the need for democracy in Russia. His consistency would be severely lacking there for obvious reasons. Which gets me to the point about the current Republican Party, the Party of Reagan. Low taxes, economic liberty, individual responsibility, they use to be the party of fiscal responsibility. Until they woke up and realized they had a Republican President and Congress back in 2003.
In 2003 when the Republican Party had just won back the Senate, to go along with the House that they already had and President George W. Bush, decided who needs fiscal responsibility, Congress has the authority to borrow at will. "If it's legal, then it must be the right thing to do". Kinda like someone using the logic: "everyone else is doing it, (fill in the blank) it must be all right". Well if all these people (not everyone literally, I hope) stuck knives up their noses until they were massively bleeding, would you do that to. Sometimes you have to use your own judgement and not play follow the leader like a six-year old.
By the way, the Republican Party woke up again in 2009 and noticed that there was a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress with a 10T$ federal debt and a 1T$ deficit and decided: "oh boy (or something to that affect) now we'll be the party of fiscal responsibility and blame Democrats for the problems we created! Thats our ticket back to power!' Or at least some power and it worked. The GOP won back the House of Representatives in 2010. In case you've been in a coma for a few years, or vacationing in a cave in Afghanistan, if you were doing those things, I hope you have some pictures or brought back some kabob. Or even survived the experience, I heard there's a war going on over there or something.
I'm not saying the Democratic Party is innocent here, even though I'm a Democrat we have what's called the Progressive Caucus made up of a bunch of 21st Century Socialists and want to move America to Sweden. Well, actually design our Federal Government around the Swedish Government and double the size of our Federal Government. And if you think you pay too much in taxes right now, move to Sweden because your taxes would be lower there if the so-called Progressive Caucus/Party ever came to power in America.
What was great about America back in the day lets says 1980s and 90s, is you had a real Conservative Republican Party in the classical sense and a real Liberal Democratic Party again in the classical sense. And of course you had your whack jobs, that would escape from the mental institution or get released by a drunk doctor and run and get elected to Congress. But those people weren't in charge, the adults in both parties were. Today the whack jobs in both parties have enough power, that if you don't do exactly what they want, you may get fired.
Democrats and Republicans today who are not to sound crazy, may face a primary challenge which is why almost nothing gets done anymore because the adults in both parties don't have enough power to do what they want to do. And are afraid to work with the other side and if you're a believer in limited government like myself thats not always a bad thing. The least the Federal Government does, the more power the people have.
