Posted on 01/04/2013 2:54:54 AM PST by SueRae
The rout was complete, the retreat disorderly. President Obama got his tax hikes — naked of spending cuts — passed by the ostensibly Republican House of Representatives. After which, you might expect him to pivot to his self-proclaimed “principle” of fiscal “balance” by taking the lead on reducing spending. “Why,” asked The Post on the eve of the final fiscal-cliff agreement, “is the nation’s leader not embracing and then explaining the balanced reforms the nation needs?”
Because he has no interest in them. He’s a visionary, not an accountant. Sure, he’ll pretend to care about deficits, especially while running for reelection. But now that he’s past the post, he’s free to be himself — a committed big-government social democrat.
As he showed in his two speeches this week. After perfunctory nods to debt and spending reduction, he waxed enthusiastic about continued “investments” — i.e., spending — on education, research, roads and bridges, green energy, etc.
Having promised more government, he then promised more taxes — on “millionaires” and “companies with a lot of lobbyists,” of course. It was a bold affirmation of pre-Clintonian tax-and-spend liberalism.
Why not? He had just won Round 1: raising rates. Round 2 is to raise yet more tax revenue by eliminating deductions. After all, didn’t John Boehner offer him $800 billion of such loophole-closing revenuejust a few weeks ago?
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
“we have a President who would be in over his head as a High School class President”
You’re being generous. Hussein is about one-half a brain cell away from the short bus. He’s a charismatic idiot whose salvation was/is taking advantage of Affirmative Action offerings at critical steps along the way. A white man with identical experience and intelligence would be drooling in some prison now.
I’m not discounting the immigration angle certainly, but I’m even more concerned by our domestic Under 30 crowd. Virtually every one of them I speak with is utterly ambivalent on any issue of substance, and seems more than willing to give Socialism a try.
And they are, for the most part, college educated and white.
When I view the leading members of the Republican Party today, I see people who are far more concerned with what the MSM thinks than the voters. Since the MSM is a branch of the Democrat Party, it basically comes down to these Republicans basing their decisions on what Liberals will say. What they (the Republicans) cannot seem to comprehend is no matter what stances or decisions they take, they will be viewed upon with disdain.
President Reagan was a proud Conservative who was concerned with the feelings of the electorate and not the Media. In other words, he was recognized by voters as a true (Conservative) leader, which is why he not only turned out Conservative voters, but also appealed to many Democrats.
In the last Presidential election, a “Moderate” Romney didn't turn out the base and didn't appeal to Democrats (even though he shared many Democrat beliefs). Had Republicans run an unafraid Conservative, the election wouldn't have even been close and Obama would now be planning his retirement.
President Reagan would win election today just as he did before. It's like Rush says, “Conservatism works every time it's tried”.
You wrote an extremely good post. Only quibble is I don’t think this movement depends on obama himself going forward. Obama was essenttial to get it going and start the major. But once socialist pieces are in place they are extremely hard to dismantle. I think hillary or others would have no problem carrying the flag going forward. The only thing that will stop them is educational information about the long term effects of what they are doing. They will continue to defeat us unless we get leaders that can communicate what is going on and go around the MSM. Right now we have no one that can get it done.
nathan bedford ping
too thoughtful to let go to waste lost in a Freeper thread
see #14
Here’s a thought - I just actually thought of this. When individualism was formally codified into our founding documents and system of government - most citizens of this country were likely subsistence farmers or otherwise self employed as artisans, shopkeepers etc. There were a few plantation owners, many slaves (who didn’t vote), and probably relatively few people who either didn’t own a small business or work for one.
Now, in the 21st century the exact opposite is true. Most people either work for a collective (a corporation) or are supported by one (the government).
And this is after being schooled by the government collective for something like 15 or more years.
This fact alone is bound to be transformative of the country as a whole. Do we expect people to espouse principles of self reliance, individualism, individual responsibility when for most of their lives they have been deriving physical and spiritual sustenance from one collective or another?
Two generations of “progressive” education have produced exactly the results they hoped for.
Not much to disagree with there.
It’s hard to say. Hitler only got ahead because he was Hitler, even though he had had to change his original identity to turn into what we now think of as “Hitler.” That is, he was the child of an abandoned mother, he was a despised Austrian/Bavarian who wanted to be an “Aryan,” meaning a Nordic German, and he changed his name from Schicklgruber to Hitler because he thought it sounded better for his future career (just as Stalin changed his despised Georgian name to Stalin, meaning “Man of Steel,” and Obama went through several name changes). But while Hitler/Schicklgruber had his own ideas and wrote his own manifestoes, I think that once he was dead the whole Nazi project would have collapsed.
On the other hand, Stalin got ahead not as a founder but as a sociopath who (like Obama and Hitler) had changed his name to reflect what he would like to be and then glommed onto a movement that he thought could bring him power. It did, obviously, and the fact that he then eliminated the people who had gotten him there didn’t alienate the population (who were by then totally subject to his police state anyway) but simply made the subsequent apparatchiks be a little more conscientious about swearing allegiance to Stalin.
I think Obama is more in the Stalin mode than the Hitler mode.
Hitler didn’t change his name, it was his father who chenged his name from Schicklgruber to Hitler 10 years before Adolph Hitler was born.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alois_Hitler
Hitler didn’t change his name, it was his father who chenged his name from Schicklgruber to Hitler 10 years before Adolph Hitler was born.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alois_Hitler
Hitler’s grandparents were related, so both his father and his mother had claim to both names (Schicklgruber and Heidler or Hitler) and because Adolph Hitler’s father was illegitimate, he bore his mother’s surname and then changed his name to Hitler.
The name was finally selected by the junior Adolph, originally known as Alois, as the most advantageous, least Austrian sounding name among the many to which he had a right.
Like Obama, Hitler came from a confused, dysfunctional family and, like the boll-weevil, was always lookin for a home. It’s a pity that they both found their home in being sociopathic dictators.
I don’t think this is an aberration because of obama. The country has a lot of center-left people (in addition to the hard leftists) that buy into this european style one-world no borders philosophy. Generations of young people have been fully indoctrinated by NEA and MSM. It is a mistake to think this will correct once obama is gone. It is much worse than that. Once a huge mass of people are locked into the receiving side of socialism you have a major problem.
BTTT!
BTTT!
“And who in the MSM, including Charles will bring up the quote “ not raise your taxes one thin dime””
True that! Note the source here! (NOT the NYT or WaPo!)
“Workers making $30,000 will take a bigger hit on their pay than those earning $500,000 under new fiscal deal”
I can see it now. Editors sitting around wondering how to spin this.
Comment: well taxes did go up on everyone.
Answer: we can’t allow that to be revealed in that straightforward a manner.
Comment: just received a call from White House with answer
Question: What is it they WANT us to say/print
Answer: Class warfare.
Response: Great. We are done for the day, time for drinks, and celebration
Although not as prominent as it is now, the Socialist ideology did exist in the 80’s when Ronald Reagan won two Presidential elections in landslides. While it might be more difficult for a Conservative to win election today for the reasons you stated, I still believe an afraid Conservative can convey the wisdom and success of the ideology. It’s just that as such a Conservative, you’re not going to be popular with the Leftist Media.
I still wonder why if these leaders of the current Republican Party are so concerned with the Media’s opinion of them, why don’t they just switch Parties?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.