Understanding the Liberal Mind -- Part 1

I am always on a quest to understand the liberal mind. How could other wise intelligent people view the world in such a wrong manner? It baffles me.

In an effort to better understand and explain the liberal mind, I came up with the analogy below.

Imagine this...

If We Ran Our Household in The Same Way Liberals Want The Country To Be Run -- A Scenario To Consider:

A parent has twelve year old twin sons. The sons both want to buy a new bike. The bikes they want cost $300 each. The boys fear that they will not be able to save up the money to buy the bikes before the summer is over, so the parent agrees that if the kids can save up half the cost of the bike, they will match them dollar-for-dollar for the rest.

Son #1 is diligent in saving his allowance. He gets a paper route. He mows lawns around the neighborhood. He rakes leaves and does various other jobs. At the end of the summer he saves up the $150 needed to pay for half the cost of the $300 bike.

Son #2 is not as diligent. He spends his allowance on candy. He gets a paper route, but is often late and does not do as good of a job, so his tips are low. He does not bother to look for jobs around the neighborhood. At the end of the summer he is well short of his savings goal. He has saved $100.

The two boys go to their parent. Son #1 says, "Mom, I've lived up to my part of the deal. I have my $150. I'm ready to buy my bike." Son #2 says, "Mom, I think I deserve the bike. Even though I did not save up the required amount of money, I really need and want that bike."

What are the parents to do?

Most parents would buy the bike as agreed for son #1. They would then use the opportunity to teach son #2 a lesson about work ethic, sacrifice, saving, discipline, setting and obtaining goals, etc. They would tell son #2 that he has to go back and work for the the final $50 then he too would get the bike. That's generally what a good, logical-thinking, loving parent would do.

But what would the liberal parent do?

The liberal parent would think, "It's not fair to son #2 that son #1 is such an achiever". Applying to parenting the same liberal policies that liberals want to apply to our government, the parent would then take $25 from son #1, give it to son #2 so they would both have $125. They would then buy each of them a $250 dollar bike.

Moral of The Story:

You can see from this example how the liberal policy brought down the entire standard. Both boys were forced to accept an inferior $250 dollar bike, rather than applying a little extra work and discipline to son #2 to allow both of them to get the $300 bike.

If, as a parent, you truly believe that the latter way (the liberal way) of handling this scenario is superior to the first method, I have nothing more for you. I can not ever hope to understand you. If that is your belief, I can no longer consider your liberalism to be just a difference of political outlook, but more of a mental illness. However, I suspect that most parents, even politically liberal parents, would have handled this scenario closer to as I first described. They would agree that my first solution makes more sense. If that's true, why then does this not carry over to politics? Why do liberals believe in burdening achievers with the dead weight of non-achievers? Is this a collision of logic versus emotion?

Liberals: Please weigh in!

A Classic Tax-n-Spend Liberal – That’s Change?!

It’s just over a week until Election Day, and I’ve resigned myself to a Barack Obama victory. Obama has run a campaign with the theme of “Change”. Change you can believe in. Change we’ve been waiting for. (Note: Both of these Obama slogans end in a preposition – a grammar no-no. I hesitate to point this out because I’m no grammar expert. I’m sure to have grammar faux pas in this very post. However, I’m not running to be leader of the free world, with millions of dollars at my disposal.). Change for America. Change the course of history. Change the rising tides of the seas. Change, change, change, blah, blah, blah.

Oh, there will be changes, but they won’t be the kind of changes Obama supporters are hoping.

If you think the economy is tough now, wait until Obama wins.

Despite all his grand talk, Obama is nothing more than your classic tax-and-spend liberal. A fact that cannot be disputed is that Obama plans to increase the level of federal budget spending. This is not my opinion, or some Conservative attack. It’s simply fact. Obama’s social programs, particularly his health care plan, will increase the federal budget. Even with an end to hostilities in Iraq, an Obama administration plans to increase spending. The argument here is not whether increasing federal spending is good or bad. I’m simply pointing it out as fact that spending will increase under the Obama plan. That’s the “spend” part of Obama–the-tax-and-spend-liberal.

As far as taxes go, yet another undisputable fact is that Obama plans to increase taxes. OK, one can argue that he plans to raise personal income taxes on only the top 5% of Americans (More on that later), but regardless of who will be paying the taxes, the fact remains that he certainly plans to raise taxes. When the government plans to take a higher percentage of available income in taxes, no matter who’s paying, that’s a tax increase. That’s the “tax” part of Obama-the-tax-and-spend-liberal.

Let’s delve a little deeper into Obama’s tax increase plan. In addition to raising the personal income tax on the top 5% of wage earners, Obama plans to let the Bush tax cuts expire. Regardless of his campaign rhetoric, this will certainly impact some of that precious 95% that Obama claims will be unaffected. On top of these taxes, Obama’s plan is to raise the capital gains tax as well as taxes on corporations. Such tax increases are indirect taxes on individuals. They don’t show up on your 1040 form in April, but they certainly impact you, whether you notice it or not. These hidden taxes play well with the populace because they tap into people’s intrinsic jealousy. They fan the fires of class envy, and eventually get passed on to the “little people” anyway.
Senator Fred Thompson used an analogy of a pool to help explain Barack Obama’s tax plan. Imagine our economy as a big pool. We are all in that pool together; corporations, working people, rich people, unemployed people, retired people – all together. So, if the corporations are on one side of the pool, and Obama takes water away from them, what happens to everyone else in the pool? The water level does not just go down on the corporation’s side; it goes down for all.
Obama is under the impression that an increase in the corporate and capital gains taxes will not have impact on most Americans. Well, again to steal a concept from Fred Thompson, raising the corporate tax will have no impact on you as long as you don’t work, invest, or buy anything from a corporation. Unlike government, which continually runs on deficit, the bottom line is not a moving target for a corporation. If the government takes away more money in the form of taxes from a corporation, that corporation will have to take actions to make up for this loss. Those actions could come in the form of tightening their corporate belts, but it can also come in the form of layoffs, reduced spending and investment, and the passing on of costs to consumers. Corporations are already meeting to layout plans for cuts to offset the Obama tax increases.
Obama likes to say that we are all in this together. In his now famous lecture to Joe The Plumber, Obama said, “spread the wealth”. Obama needs to understand that when it comes to taxes we are also all in this together. Once again, liberal policy will fall victim to unintended consequences, and instead of “spreading the wealth” the Obama tax plan will most certainly spread the pain.

Majority Should Not Rule On Gay Marriage

You may have heard that Connecticut (my home state) became the third state to allow gay marriages. The state supreme court ruled in favor of gay marriage in a 4-3 split decision. This quick post is not about the issue of gay marriage. If you wish to read the details of the Connecticut decision, you can go to the Hartford Courant, or some other news source, to get the full story. I've included a link below.

http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-gaymarriage1011.artoct11,0,5399554.story

This post is about understanding the risk of tyranny of the majority.

One of the arguments put forth by gay marriage opponents in Connecticut is that gay marriage is not supported by the majority of voters in Connecticut. Their argument is that courts should not decide the issue. They wish to put it to a state-wide referendum, knowing full well that gay marriage would be rejected in such a referendum.

At first glance, one might argue that a state-wide referendum makes sense. After all, this is a democracy. Majority rules, right?

However, even in a democracy there are some issues that can not be left up to the people. This might seem to some like democratic blasphemy. However, I leave you with this thought: What would have been the outcome if the issue of slavery were put to state-wide referendums in the mid-1800s?

Our founding fathers were wise to understand the risks of a direct democracy. I hope that risk is still understood today.

Bring on the Socialism!

After watching the second of three US presidential debates last night, it's clear that both candidates intend to move the country towards complete socialism.

In anticipation of the proliferation of socialism throughout the country, and using the logic laid out by politicians during this election season, I've listed three services that the new socialist government should provide.

New Socialist Government Service #1: Maintenance and Up-Keep of Homes
If I or my neighbor does not keep his/her house in good condition, neighborhood property values can be hurt. Through this most recent $700 billion bailout discussion we've already seen how the decline in housing values can lead to a financial-credit crisis. The government needs to take all steps necessary to bolster home values and avoid a financial crisis in the future. Therefore, the government needs to take over the maintenance of homes. This would include lawn care, painting, and general maintenance like leaky gutters, broken windows, etc. In a country with as much money as we have, our stability should not be held hostage by the laziness of a few. Also, imagine all the jobs that would be created with this new service. I'm already looking forward to the extra free time on my weekends and evenings!

New Socialist Government Service #2: Repairs to Motor Vehicles
The biggest complaint by educators and local governments regarding the "No-Child-Left-Behind Act" is that it's an unfunded mandate. No more unfunded mandates, such as the government burdening individuals with ensuring cars meet emissions and fuel economy standards! Global warming is such an immediate threat that it is too important to trust individuals with the up-keep of greenhouse gas-producing vehicles. Besides, I'm not a car expert. The government needs to take over car maintenance to make sure cars are running at peak efficiency (to limit our dependence on foreign oil), and as clean as possible. Plus, people are already burdened with such high gas prices that it would not be compassionate to expect them to shoulder the costs of repairs. Therefore, the government should take over auto repair to prevent the collapse of the economy, and the destruction of the earth.

New Socialist Government Service #3: Babysitting of Children
We all know that there is nothing more important than our children. They are our future, and there is no amount of spending that is enough for our precious children. We need to give them the best of everything. The government already controls education, and has their hands in regular daycare. However, how can we in good conscience trust our children to local teen aged girls to watch our children when we go out for dinner and a movie?! These local babysitters are largely untrained in early childhood development, and emergency medical response. This is unacceptable. Think of what damage could be done to our children's self esteem if they are continually subjected to such untrained personnel. Therefore, for the future of our country, the government should provide babysitters. The government should initiate a training program to qualify all sitters. Any parent that leaves their kids with a non-government certified supervisor should expect a visit from the local department of children and families. The stakes are just too high! Just think of the risks we are taking entrusting our children to people with no government oversight!
Come to think of it, there is no governmental oversight or training for parents either...

These are just 3 of many new services the government could, and should, offer in the near future.

My friends, we need to embrace this socialist movement. We are on the cusp of a Utopian society where we "average citizens" no longer have to worry about anything because the government will take care of it for us. The future looks bright.

Why I Can't Cancel My Newsweek Subscription

I've been a subscriber to Newsweek magazine for years now. The magazine has always had a left-ward slant, but in recent years it has become nearly unbearable. The magazine is filled with liberal opinion pieces, and liberal-biased journalism disguised as non-biased reporting. While reading the most recent issue, I became disgusted vowed to cancel my subscription. This vow has passed my lips several times before in the past. However, this time, like all the previous times, I was drawn back. I read George Will's column on the very last page of the magazine. George Will's column, once again, prevented me from canceling my subscription.

The subject of this weeks column was the erosion of election day due to the rise of pre-election day voting. You can read the column at the following link:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/161202

I was appalled at the mess our election process has become.

But beyond the actual issue discussed in the article, I was taken aback once again by the skill of George Will. His use of language and ability to lay out an argument is unparalleled. No other person has had the ability to change my mind on a subject as often as Will.

George Will is known as a conservative columnist, but more often than not his articles are non-partisan. The article this week has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans. He also throws in a column about sports and other various subjects on occasion.

The columns written by George Will are so good that they keep me subscribing to the liberal propaganda publication by the name of Newsweek magazine. I recommend taking the time to read his columns regardless of your political leanings.