Tuesday, September 08, 2009
If you want to live in an economic boom, move to Washington
In the middle of the worst recession ever, imagine my delight to learn that the economy of Washington, D.C. is about to boom on account of massive increases in federal hiring. If you live down there, consider sending us all a little "thank you." Because, you know, we and our progeny are paying for that.
7 Comments:
By 
, at
Tue Sep 08, 09:36:00 AM:
From Link,
All us peasants should get our pitchforks and firebrands. So long as the unemployment rate in DC is points below that of Ohio ... and big companies hiring lobbyists has a higher ROI than R&D, something's wrong. No one in the DC federal government helps any of us. They're parasites.
I have a long harangue below on how "green jobs" got slipped into the Energy bill -- what Van Jones was really about. We're being told legislation is necessary to stop the apocalypse, but we're robbed blind in the detail. This is business as usual in DC ... Obama & Co want to ratchet this up to pull off the greatest robberies of all time ... in plain view.
Our representatives in Congress, together with their MSM enablers, live in a bubble. That has to change. I'd run a unified campaign in 2010 against the Democratic Congressional leaders ... not Obama, who's still personally popular. Nancy, Harry, Henry, Bernie, Charlie ... "The only way to get these scumbags tossed out of their Committee chairs is to vote out the Democrat from your district ... take back your government." This has the potential to be even bigger than the sea change that hit Congress in 1994.
Link, over
By , at
Tue Sep 08, 11:53:00 AM:
TH, this post makes me feel a bit ill.
By 
Viking Kaj, at
Tue Sep 08, 12:10:00 PM:
We are sincerely in trouble when government is our only growth industry. And it isn't even tax and spend, it is now borrow and spend with the politicians leaving a destroyed currency in their wake. Both Democrats and Republicans are equally culpable in this crime. If Social Security were private, the managers would be indictable for running a Ponzi scheme.
I think the only way to reform the system is to develop an active 3d party alternative.
Some examples of 3rd parties that have led to significant (if not always positive) changes: 1860 Democratic Split; 1912 Bull Moose Party; 1948 Progressive Party; 1968 American Independent Party; 1992 Reform Party. Without the influence of 3d party candidates these elections would most likely have led to different results. And ultimately, the results affected national policy.
Politicians only listen when they are threatened with losing their jobs. And since the Republican party has abandoned fiscal responsibility for a purient preoccupation with reproductive physiology and excessive foreign entanglements that we can no longer afford, there is no real alternative.
We need to really shake these idiots up. And the only way to do that is to make sure that a 3rd party with a focus on fiscal discipline has enough success that its agenda is coopted by one of the major parties.
How's them pitchforks, Link?
By Viking Kaj, at
Tue Sep 08, 12:42:00 PM:
By the way, I don't know that Obama is all that personally popular, there seems to me to be a big well of anti Obama sentiment out there. He is a polarizing figure.
What surprises me is on a national level criticism of the man's policies is imputed as politically incorrect, in other words it seems impossible to criticize him in any way. From where I sit we have truly entered the era of self-imposed "Newspeak". Blackwhite indeed!
I think we can safely criticize Obama because he treats the presidency as an extended book tour using airforce one as his 'tour bus' to personally enrich himself.
We can criticize Obama because he is a product of the Chicago machine, he is essentially corrupt, he is practising crony politics under the guise of economic stimulus, and he will leave us with a destroyed currency as a result.
To impute any other motive to the man is to ignore the evil dwarf behind the throne, Rahm Emanuel.
My prediction is that things will turn against Obama when we hit the double dip. And after that it could get ugly, I'm thinking Jimmy Carter ugly.
By , at
Tue Sep 08, 12:43:00 PM:
Republicans have a shot to redeem themselves in 2010 by winning back the House, and then a new Newt emerging as the grown-up in the room. It could be a way to get fresh blood in the party, and to change its profile. I'd pick women and Hispanic candidates wherever I could -- distinguished solid citizens ... "ordinary people" ... no Government majors.
Just running against Nancy and Barney can work in 2010. Ideas can wait until 2011 - 2012. With control of the House, running committees is a platform for launching ideas with a new Newt as QB. Unlike Clinton, Obama is too much of a shithead ideologue to adapt to this. He'll turn even more peevish than Carter did.
Third parties often result in perverse outcomes. We'd need a true crisis to lay the groundwork. It's not out of the question, sadly.
I have a project I never get to, which is to annotate the Constitution to show the many ways we've undermined that inconvenient document. Bringing back what we lost can be a unifying theme. This can actually be progressive. "Liberal" used to have an entirely different meaning. Many of Obama's key blocks of support are actually retrogressive. Ironic, but true.
Link, over
By , at
Tue Sep 08, 04:29:00 PM:
Echoing Don Surber on this subject, "There are two Americas: Those who work for the government and those who pay for it."
By Viking Kaj, at
Thu Sep 10, 10:54:00 AM:
We will know we are getting somewhere when there are the following two Americas: those who work for it, and those who are in open rebellion.
In case we forget, this country started as a tax revolt. The fact that the founding fathers also siffed most of their creditors was just icing on the cake.
Teaparty anyone?
