Keynes - Who Cares?

The economic policies of the present administration have been referred to as Keynesian Economics.  I know too little about Keynes and about economics to sort out details to determine if the current policies are totally in line with Keynes' theories.

However, Keynes was in favor of big government spending, and that seems in line with what has been practiced by BO and buddies.  They say this policy will improve our economy.

"But," we ask, "What about the payback?  What about the debt our children and grandchildren will inherit?"

Seems there were similar concerns in Keynes time.  Reportedly, he was asked about the effects of the policy in the long run, to which he replied, "None of us lives forever."

A pretty flippant reply.  Not as bad as, "Who cares about our children and grandchildren as long as we have what we want?"  But same meaning, same very selfish and uncaring attitude.

Certainly today we're spending our children's and grandchildren's future, but our economy is not thriving.  All that debt for our grandchildren and nothing to show for it.

Well, BO and buddies, got any Keyesian cracks for this situation?

Former President Carter

Former President Carter says his actions as Ex-president are superior to those of the other Ex-presidents.  Someone please lock up or at least gag the man.  He is diminishing the office of ex-president!

Whether it is impending dementia or just old age crankiness, gagging him would be doing him a favor.

Guilt and Worse

Bad behavior precipitates a vague guilt on its own, but apparently many feel that the Christian religion, just by existing, causes the guilt, even if the sinner doesn't believe in it.  The attacks of conscience are behind the anti-Christian movement. 

Separation of state and church, which is not of the constitution but from a later date, does not mean eradication of history, eradication of Christian symbols in our government buildings, or eradication of Christianity itself.  But some people willfully distort the meaning  to justify their anti-Christian mission.

Now, interestingly, the same persons interested in eradicating Christianity are bleating about freedom of religion, but not of course, in regard to the Christianity they want to eradicate.  No, this is in defence of a religion that believes in forcing their idea of law onto the state.  No separation of state and church for them.

I'm all for freedom of religion, but it does not justify everything. 

If a new religion sprang up that believed you would go to heaven if you killed a neighbor and you were that neighbor, would you be crying freedom of religion?  If that new religion believed in slavery, would you condone it because of freedom of religion?  If that religion believed in castrating their children and eliminating all homosexuals, would you defend that as freedom of religion?  If that religion harbored violence and destruction within its ranks, would you defend that in the name of freedom of religion?

Shari'a law will do more than just instill the guilt that so enrages the anti-Christian.  Women are castrated and forced into life under a burka, which is merely a symbol of their slavery status.  Homosexuals are not only unacceptable clergy, but punished.  No more bikinis and no more gays.

"Death to the Infidel" is more than a battle cry; it is a belief.  Who is the infidel?  Not just the woman or the homosexual or the civilian lawbreaker.  Oh, no, it is the non-believer neighbor. 

"Thou shalt not kill" seems like a better idea.

The Christian church may resist the gay clergy and look askance at the outrageous sinner, but when is the last time they castrated a woman and put her under a burka?  When is the last time they physically punished a gay?  When is the last time they stoned anyone? 

OofDah!

All Are Created Equal?

I've been thinking about the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights and thinking in particular about the "created equal" clause.  It seems it is often misinterpreted, or intentionally misused to push a political agenda.

Of course, looking at the clause in terms of created with equal physical or mental capability, handsomeness or ugliness, or birth into a family of means or not - well, then, it makes no sense.  But is that what the founding fathers meant? No.

Or does it mean the government should play "Robbing Hood" and take from the working and give to the idle?  No.

Does it mean the government should seize all jobs and all property and hand back equality -  equal food, equal clothing, equal housing, equal possessions? No.

So what did they mean?

They were talking about equality under the law.  You know, justice is blind, the theme the founders and early statesmen promoted.  Whether nobility or common man, rich or poor, handsome or ugly, physically weak or strong, or mentally astute or handicapped, everyone would be equally protected under the law.

Inequality under the law was one of the reasons the early citizens of this country fled England and came to the New World.

Equality under the law meant that government officials, teenage stars, and football celebrities should receive the same kinds of protection and punishment as everyone else. 

Sadly, this does not seem to be happening. Lately, justice seems to have lost its blinders, noticing some are stars or celebrities, noticing some are rich and influential, and noticing some are politically connected to the "correct" views. 

Justice is not only determining type of punishment, but even guilt or innocence, based on the the very factors to which it should be blind.

OOFDAH!

Stephen Colbert Testifies to Congress

So they ask a clown to testify before Congress.  Appropriate.  Congress is a joke.

What would a sissy like Colbert know about illegal aliens?  He spent a day with them and found it grueling work?  Means nothing.  Soft, non-working Colbert would find any "real" job grueling, including office work, teaching, and flipping burgers. 

He makes jokes about his inability to do manual labor. He suggests manual labor is okay for Manuel, but not for whites.  What rot! If anyone else intimated that, the press would fall over themselves calling, "Racist!"

It seems Colbert and friends think the only reason for illegal Mexicans to be in this country is that employers can pay them very little.  Of course, they ignore the reality that taxpayers get to supplement those wages with "free" social benefits. 

Who is actually benefitting?  Why, the employer, of course.  We taxpayers are subsidizing his business so he can pay lower wages and gain higher profits.  Meanwhile, citizens who would be willing to work for decent wages get shafted. 

Enforce the laws, prosecute illegal entry and make the employers pay decent wages. Both LEGAL Mexicans and whites will be better off. 

OofDah!  This issue is NOT funny and even Congress should realize it!

Fat Cats

DC denizens surely have been howling a lot over the "fat cat" Wall Streeters.  Too much skimming off the top and too many big bonuses, they assert.

Who is "they."  Well, it seems "they" are politcos whose net worth grows faster than that of skimmers and big bonus guys. 

Now, I know the politcos get outrageous salaries but from whence cometh all that wealth?  "They" do not get paid enough to multiply their net worth to that extent - you know, by millions each year.  That is, unless they are taking bribes and pay-offs, essentially selling their votes. 

OofDah!  At least the "fat cat Wall Streeters" pay out dividends occasionally;  "fat cat politicos" merely take money and cheat America.

Dog Catcher

Apparently the main-stream media is demanding that O'Donnell (Delaware candidate) produce every document down to birth, kindergarten, and all. 

I'm thinking, if a professed non-Democratic candidate ran for dog catcher in Dinkytown, the press would demand documentation down to birth, kindergarten, and all.

Yet Obama has not released his full medical records, nor his college transcripts, nor any of his undergraduate work.  His dissertation at Columbia has mysteriously disappeared! Many of the records of his Illinois state representative term have mysteriously disappeared! And where are the articles written for the Law School paper? Have they mysteriously disappeared or they on lock-down with his transcripts?

OofDah! The dog catcher might win the election but would never be allowed to serve a term under those circumstances.

Since BO reputedly is soooo intellectual, don't you wonder why his college stuff is locked down tight or lost? What's to hide?

Also, do you wonder why the IMPARTIAL press demands documentation from only one party.

And, do you wonder why the press makes a big deal of inexperience only if candidates are not from that one party?

News service or propaganda press?