Video: 14-year-old conservative prodigy predicts easy win in 2012
posted at 4:30 pm on March 1, 2009 by Allahpundit
I’m, er, highly skeptical, but I like his spirit. A safer bet is that he’ll have his own talk show by then. Fun fact: He’ll be 31 in 2026, just old enough to run for the Senate seat that’ll be up in his home state of Georgia. Hey, politics is like basketball: Gotta scout ‘em while they’re young.
Exit question: “Principle, not policy”?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4
You realize both Jimmy Carter had a higher job approval rating at this stage. How well did that work out for you?
.
GT on March 1, 2009 at 9:54 PM
You should say “clown shoes” more. Kevin Smith is a true talent.
Jim Treacher on March 1, 2009 at 9:55 PM
Last I checked, your guy, the BIG O, is the one trying to push his far left agenda on the 47% who voted against him.
LEBA on March 1, 2009 at 9:56 PM
LEBA, you arent doing anything to stop him, now are you?
Weaksauce.
strangelet on March 1, 2009 at 9:59 PM
What would you suggest? Maybe Silent Bob would know.
Jim Treacher on March 1, 2009 at 10:02 PM
You think a 14-year old intelligently articulating what’s right about conservatism is creepy, but a glass-eyed 9-year old child adoringly singing “Obama’s gonna change it; Obama’s gonna lead ‘em” about a handout-chasing, racist church-going Marxist pal to PLO spokesmen and domestic terrorists is A-OK?
Crusty on March 1, 2009 at 10:04 PM
…member of local pro-life organization, research and vote in every election, actively deliberate on issues with family members and neighbors. Oh. And I send an email nearly every day to Barrack Obama at Whitehouse.gov though I doubt by now they even read them as I’ve never once gotten a reply to one question I’ve asked.
LEBA on March 1, 2009 at 10:06 PM
This is a FANTASTIC clip because it gives me another indication that there are those in Jonathan’s generation who “get it,” who aren’t mesmerized by the cult of Obama’s personality, and who do not ingest the MSM-MTV garbage.
I look at kids like him, including my pride and joy, my daughter who is within a couple of years of him, and feel that this generation could make our nation truly great once again someday, even after all the damage Obama and his cronies will have inflicted upon it by then.
We must continue to teach our children well. We must encourage their passions to learn and give them the tools they need to become the persons they can be. It is up to us. Let our own voices and passion for our country echo throughout the succeeding generaions, long after we are gone.
OneVision on March 1, 2009 at 10:08 PM
…NRA member, gun rights advocate and local NRA instructor for concealed carry…I’m doing my part, trust me.
Yep. We’re stockn’ up on ammo ’cause the sh*ts about to hit the fan..buyn’ gold and buryn’ it in the backyard…driven my 12mpg suburban with my MAC-is-BACK bumper sticker and a gun rack. Shep is in the back ready to bite yo a** if you try to park yo prius next to my rusty ride.
…hadja goin their for a sec. You thought I was a PhD making 250k running a small, but thriving international business, right? Naaaah.
LEBA on March 1, 2009 at 10:17 PM
It’s also in the nation’s interest for the Dems to collectively commit suicide (real, not political) and I don’t see you rushing to do that.
venividivici on March 1, 2009 at 10:20 PM
I don’t know. Why do you?
radiofreevillage on March 1, 2009 at 10:21 PM
A word in the last line of previous post should have read “generations.” (Getting too tired to hit all the keys.) I obviously suffer from the absence of a spell check function here.
Good night, my fellow patriots.
OneVision on March 1, 2009 at 10:23 PM
So, you’re coming out of the communal closet admitting you’re a socialist.
GT on March 1, 2009 at 10:23 PM
Shouldn’t you be out saving the planet or rescuing a polar bear or something? For that matter if you are a good little greeny, socialist shouldn’t get rid of you computer to help save the planet? Look how much energy you are wasting?
Kjeil on March 1, 2009 at 10:30 PM
This is stupid. The GOP is slowly being reduced to a fringe party.
While I admire the kid and respect the fact that he is getting involved with politics his core ideology is flawed.
The principles are what the GOP/Conservatives have been pushing for the longest time. The core ideology is flawed.
You can’t have a society purely based on the individual OR strictly based on the whole government. There must be balance.
Until you (meaning the entire Conservative movement) realizes that you will slowly be reduced to the fringe portion of society.
ckoeber on March 1, 2009 at 10:41 PM
what a pity…the rethuglicans now have to rely on 14 year olds for survival…lol
shwapneel on March 1, 2009 at 10:42 PM
Hmmmm…..low taxes, smaller government and personal responsibility is a “flawed ideology” for Conservatives.
Right. Got it.
GT on March 1, 2009 at 10:47 PM
Well, when it comes to refuting Liberalism, a 14 year old is about all we need.
.
GT on March 1, 2009 at 10:47 PM
HotAir has become Trollsville. It isn’t so much an exchange of conservative ideas anymore, just a constant battle with liberal troglodytes.
Sad.
pugwriter on March 1, 2009 at 10:49 PM
Oh, they’re harmless enough. It’s a light workout.
Jim Treacher on March 1, 2009 at 11:01 PM
Yes it is.
– Low Taxes: We have always looked to lower taxes to solve every economic problem and look where it has gotten us. Not only did we lower taxes under G.W.Bush but we lowered it under Reagan, the first Bush, and in some cases Clinton. Yet the income disparity has INCREASED and we have nothing to show for it.
– Smaller Government: You shout small government yet in every administration the size of government has INCREASED. You want to know why? It isn’t because the Republicans in the House, Senate, and White House lied to you. It is because once they got there they realized that there are a few things in life that your hated government and ONLY your hated government can do.
- Personal Responsibility: Love this one. Everything starts and ends with you. Yet how can you succeed when there are things like the cost of education, cost of healthcare, wages that don’t keep up with inflation? Your solution? Give the man/woman with THE MOST MONEY a tax break and HOPE that he/she gives it to you. If I am that man/woman, I will most likely just pocket the difference.
You peddle the same tired arguments and yet they have been shown to fail. I believe that you are good people but one day you will have to realize that, like feudalism, monarchies, and sharecropping, conservatism is old, out of touch, and just not how business should be done.
ckoeber on March 1, 2009 at 11:01 PM
And just how old and tired is the “waiting for the great proletarian revolution” schtick? The application of 1933 solutions to current problems? The idea that some group of dead-ass bureaucrats in Wasghington knows better about my “needs” than I do? These have been shown to fail, as well. Time and time again.
ddrintn on March 1, 2009 at 11:09 PM
The Great Society. The War on Poverty. Such stunning successes that we have to try again and again and again. What’s that definition of “insanity” again?
ddrintn on March 1, 2009 at 11:13 PM
There isn’t any arguments for the “proletarian revolution”. Items like affordable healthcare, affordable education, a modern electrical grid, and a balanced economy that favors everyone (instead of just banks) are hardly socialist.
What is old and tired is linking the two together.
No one has said that they know your needs better than you do. The entire agrument has been giving you ACCESS to those needs.
ckoeber on March 1, 2009 at 11:17 PM
Wow if my son spoke like that–I mean I am amazed at his accomplishments right now, but I want to boost him up to be THAT confident expressing himself. He’s on the shy side…
I still luv him and I want to adopt him…PLEASE GIVE HIM AN HOUR GOSHDARNIT NOT 2-3 MINS!!!! Grrr!!!
ProudPalinFan on March 1, 2009 at 11:19 PM
My Goodness!
Its been bugging me since I first saw and then worse when I heard him, but now I got it figured out!
I dunno if someone else has said this but he looks and sounds like a young Michael Medved.
Thats a mixed bag as I used to LOVE Medved but after his slobbering love affair (borrowed from Bernie Goldberg) with John McCain I don’t much pay attention to him any more.
However this kid seems like the genuine article and for those folks saying hes a mimick and has no opinions of his own are stupid and should get out more. have they never seen any other child prodigys before, or are they just jealous or obtuse?
-Wasteland Man.
WastelandMan on March 1, 2009 at 11:20 PM
RadioFreeUSA on March 1, 2009 at 4:41 PM
Hon you just hit it right outta the park…
ProudPalinFan on March 1, 2009 at 11:21 PM
I don’t know of a single credible explanation of the current economic crisis that includes “tax cuts” in the chain of causality. Care to elaborate on how you see tax cuts implicated in the current situation? Also, it is not the job of the government to reduce or exacerbate income disparities. I typically put in a 16 hour day, working in a highly technical field which required years of schooling and training and have been involved in making decisions that impacted millions of dollars and hundreds of people. Why shouldn’t there be a huge income disparity between me and the average person, who has neither the training nor the responsibilities that I have?
Your second point about smaller government attacks a complete strawman. No serious political thinker would argue that there aren’t things that can only be done by government. The problem is that leftists define that as nearly everything, whereas conservatives say that only in the case of true market failure or instances where a “public good” (e.g. the legal system) is being provided, should the government step in. Other than that, the government should let markets work. Any other approach is impractical because humans, by nature, are built to operate in markets where buyers and sellers come together voluntarily. That is why every non-market-based political system relies heavily on coercion and propaganda.
Your point about personal responsibility is so incoherent that I don’t even really want to begin to address it.
The principles of American conservatism and the rights of the individual are actually the only NEW political development of the last few hundred years. Leftism is actually a reversion to a primitive form of relation of the individual to the collective, the same one that had existed since the origins of society with the development of agriculture. You have no earthly idea what you are talking about if you think otherwise.
venividivici on March 1, 2009 at 11:22 PM
And yet you have no problem linking “conservatism” with some sort of Jacksonian populism or Jeffersonian agrarianism.
Government is going to give me ACCESS to “affordable health care” or “affordable education”? How well did the government do in the mortgage business?
ddrintn on March 1, 2009 at 11:22 PM
Barack Obama is 47 years old. These comments don’t even make any sense.
ckoeber on March 1, 2009 at 11:25 PM
Yeah, I agree.
“Your solution? Give the man/woman with THE MOST MONEY a tax break and HOPE that he/she gives it to you. If I am that man/woman, I will most likely just pocket the difference.”
So the obvious answer is to hand over as much as possible to the federal government and have limitless faith in the goodness, wisdom and kindness of our blessed bureaucrats and lamebrain careerists in Congress to do just what we need with it.
Social spending as we know it at the moment exists for one thing: the continuing power of a political class by the formation of permanent dependents. We are about to see that scenario played out with a vengeance.
ddrintn on March 1, 2009 at 11:29 PM
He appears to be living a smart young man’s dream. And I think you flatter yourself that the life you provide to most fourteen-year-olds is so wonderful.
Kralizec on March 1, 2009 at 11:32 PM
When you give money to the government, you are giving money to politicians. That’s giving money to a person and waiting for scraps. Why do you think they call it “pork barrel projects”? That’s the scraps they threw to slaves back in the day. Those tax breaks to the people who earn the most creates jobs, promotes small business growth and prevents the flight of capital we are seeing every day in the markets. Obama says he’s going to save / create jobs by paving roads, building bridges, hiring more cops, nurses and firemen, then says they will be private sector jobs… he is lying. Those are public sector, blue collar jobs, and none of the stimulus provided for them. It was all Democratic party giveaways. The money printed to pay for that will cause inflation. Your party’s ideas for making healthcare and education affordable are wrong. Your leaders are only interested in skimming profits and getting themselves reelected. They are too lazy, stupid and cynical to make money in the private sector, and now they want to punish those who succeed.
chunderroad on March 1, 2009 at 11:34 PM
But LEBA…all that stuff is not gonna transform your rump status.
You need leaders that appeal to independents, youth, teh college-educated, black ppl and brown ppl.
And that is not Palin.
Doubling down on failed paradigms and sloganeering is useless in the 21st century.
strangelet on March 1, 2009 at 11:35 PM
First, it is not the responsibility of Government to guarantee outcome. I challenge you to show me where it says otherwise in the Constitution. Second, under Reagan and his tax cuts the “Rich Class” grew while the “Middle Class” and “Poor” shrank.
What you fail to realize is that not all Republicans are Conservatives. Just a reminder, we are talking about “Conservative Ideology” which you say is flawed. If you were to say that the GOP is flawed, I’d agree.
Yet, in spite of all that I have succeeded. Just because you’ve convinced yourself that you can’t doesn’t mean that no one else can.
The flaw in your argument isn’t that tax breaks are given to those with the most money. Tax breaks are given to those who pay taxes. The more you pay, the bigger the break is going to be. In any case, they are still going to pay the largest share.
Take New York City. Just 1% pays 50% of the taxes. That means that in a city of 8 million people, roughly 40,000 pay half of the taxes. Now if I give all taxpayers a 10% across the board tax break, are you saying its wrong because those who pay the most will get the biggest returns? And what happens if you raise the taxes on those 40,000 and a quarter of them get tired of it and move out of the City?
When Reagan successfully reduced the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 38%, investments went up, unemployment dropped and the revenue to the Treasury nearly doubled by the end of his second term. That benefited everyone – Rich, Middle-Class and the Poor. The number of Poor dropped because they moved into the Middle Class. The number of Middle Class dropped because they moved up to becoming one of the Rich.
Conservatives believe that taxes should be used to generate income to pay for what is necessary for Government to provide according to the Constitution.
Your argument is that taxes should be used make life “fair”. Unfortunately, your method does nothing to elevate people but rather to punish success.
That,s the problem. They didn’t fail. They were abandoned in spite of its success.
GT on March 1, 2009 at 11:35 PM
..,.worked like a charm for the Democrats this time around.
ddrintn on March 1, 2009 at 11:37 PM
Age and Maturity of rarely the same thing.
.
GT on March 1, 2009 at 11:38 PM
In case you believed that Obama is really going to raise the taxes for the wealthiest, he gave Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen a multi-million dollar tax break filed as a personal exemption, though the man has billions already. You’ve been snowed.
chunderroad on March 1, 2009 at 11:38 PM
I don’t want Conservatives to “appeal” to them. I want educate them. Do that and the appeal will take care of itself.
The problem with the GOP is that they lost their appeal when they abandoned the principles that got them elected in the first place. The GOP isn’t going to regain their “appeal” by becoming Democrats.
GT on March 1, 2009 at 11:41 PM
Actually…not so much.
Democrats are working as hard as they can to make everyone they can into a democrat. That is their self-interest.
Republicans should be doing that too.
But they aren’t.
Evolve or go extinct.
strangelet on March 1, 2009 at 11:42 PM
That’s it, in a nutshell. This “new paradigm” is same ol’ same ol’. It will become apparent soon enough. I guess not enough were around in Carter I to recognize Carter II when they see it.
ddrintn on March 1, 2009 at 11:42 PM
GT, could you please state those principles?
strangelet on March 1, 2009 at 11:43 PM
Alright, a discussion!
Let’s go through this piece by piece.
I, nor any major progressive voice, have argued that tax cuts are the source of the problem. The problem we see is that they do not effectively address the issue in every situation. Tax Cust will not help in this scenario because people are shoring up assets (money, securities, etc.)
A tax cut in this situation will do nothing to spur spending because (1) there is no trust in the entire financial market
and (2) there is a great deal of uncertainty in the future as a whole. No one knows which bank/company will survive; why spend money where it would be safer given the current climate. This is where government spending comes in. When there are large investments in things we need (roads, bridges, electrical grids, schools, etc.) we now have a relatively stable entity injecting capital into the market.
Again, a misconception about where a progressive is coming from. We are not arguing to replace the private market. That is complete are utter nonsense. We are arguing that if the private market is not working to serve the common good (whether due by design, neglect, or malice) that the government should step in, make any corrections (such as regulation, a public option to drive costs down, etc.) and then let the market continue as normal.
Excellent examples of this include Social Security, the US Postal Service, FDIC, and unemployment insurance. While each program mentioned is different, the premise is the same.
Healthcare, education, and energy is no different.
Don’t let other people twist the truth. Find out for yourself.
Incoherent, huh. Let’s stick to actual debate instead of ineffective putdowns, shall we.
There seems to be a need to roll leftism with socialism, communism, etc.
Independant thinkers understand the difference between shared responsibility and complete government control.
As for your comment about the role of government in terms of income disparities, you and the progressives are actually on the same page. We have not and will not argue that each person should get things just because they want it. You mentioned your years of schooling and training for your position that you have (which I congragulate you for, by the way.)
But how would you like it if the costs for the years of schooling was far out of reach?
The progressives only argue to give people a fair shot. We have never argued to give people things just because they want it.
ckoeber on March 1, 2009 at 11:46 PM
Alright, just read page 1 b/c I have to go to bed. But I will write this: What has Sarah said all throughout the campaign?
“WE NEED TO GO BACK TO THE BASICS”.
In any way, shape or form, it does not matter. What conservatives need to do is this: A self study on where we stand, what are our beliefs, what/who we support the most (aside from family and friends), and what are we willing to do to get the country properly informed. This needs to happen right after we meditate on US first.
Trolls? After a teen? Sorry, that to me is a big NO NO. This is what liberals stand for? Is this what you defend and support as YOUR FUTURE? This teen is homeschooled (see the other thread of his speech@CPAC). He is not a product of public or private education.
I am disappointed that liberals dare to take a cheap shot at a teenager. Liberals in this forum are showing the worst of themselves by not being supportive of this young man’s abilities and confidence by insulting in this forum with personal attacks. If that is what you think of our next generation, then I believe we are doomed as a collective society.
Don’t complain coming here and throw cannon fodder at us. We are not taking it, we are protective of ourselves and this country, and (as your LEADER said during the campaign), *ejem*, children of candidates are off limits. What happened to the Palins? Did you stop that, did you respect them, did Obama respect it and tried to put an end to it? NO MORE!
I am a wife, a mother and an American born and raised in PR. Liberals are Americans as well, and we wish libs were more supportive of our next generation. If you libs don’t wish to grant this young man’s abilities and potential, then I am sorry that in the morning, when you wake up and take a look at your own kids you’d wish someone would defend them, stand up for them and support them if and when you’re not around.
If you criticize and put down this teenager don’t expect others to stand up to your children.
RANT IS OVER, OFF TO BED = PPF
ProudPalinFan on March 1, 2009 at 11:46 PM
The principles people will find congenial after Obama strangles the economy. The only question is how much damage will have been done. You think Obamanomics is a new thing? LOL
ddrintn on March 1, 2009 at 11:47 PM
You see, GT…..I think most citizens (anymore) are increasingly socially liberal and fiscally conservative.
Conservatives have (unfortunately) self-branded as socially conservative and fiscally liberal, pace Bush’s wallstreet welfare, buggering the prime, and mondo deficits.
So…exactly what are “conservative principles” and just who are those principles going to appeal to?
strangelet on March 1, 2009 at 11:49 PM
hehe
long_cat on March 1, 2009 at 11:51 PM
Those first two mentioned, at any rate, are hardly shining examples of efficiency.
Sure: the first expression polls better than the second.
ddrintn on March 1, 2009 at 11:51 PM
Well, Russell Kirk has them defined as 10 Principles. They are listed [url=http://www.heritage.org/research/politicalphilosophy/hl86.cfm]here[/url].
Krohn reduced them down to just 4 – Life, Personal Responsibility, Less Government and “The Founding Principles” (as proscribed by the Founding Fathers).
Krohn’s description is fairly broad but accurate IMHO.
GT on March 1, 2009 at 11:53 PM
A HUGE problem is that while people pay lip service to the small government trope, they really really want government to do shit for them.
Like social security, medicare, and nat’l healthcare.
strangelet on March 1, 2009 at 11:53 PM
Liberals have (unfortunately…well, fortunately) been away from the spotlight and from the levers of domination for so long that a lot of people have forgotten what disasters they can create. We’ll see.
ddrintn on March 1, 2009 at 11:54 PM
I’m not sure you caught my meaning. You said it would be better for the country if the GOP “brought its A game” and I said that the country would be better off if there were no Dems living in it. I find you people utterly useless, whether you’re bringing your A,B,C,D or E game.
I grew up in a Dem union household, so I’m familiar with all your positions and policies, I just outgrew them. One can only hold on to childish fantasies for so long, after all.
venividivici on March 1, 2009 at 11:54 PM
I get it. All politicians are evil. That’s why I should support Bobby Jindal (a politician), Sarah Palin (a politician), and Ron Paul (a politician), among others.
Give me a break. I understand the cynicism. You have bad politicians on both sides of the isles using their power for their own benefit. You also have good politicians that do work for the greater good. Just like every other business and sector.
You don’t discount good policies because of bad people. As for Obama “lying”, that’s just reductionism, plain and simple. Jobs will be created directly and indirectly due to the Recovery and Reinvestment act passed. I am certain you can identify projects within the act that don’t fit your requirements for good spending vs. wasteful spending.
But I don’t hear any arguements against the Unemployment Insurance, expanded healthcare coverage, or public education that is a part of this bill. Rather, you are just nit-picking on line items that don’t even make up three (3) percent of the bill.
That’s just sad.
ckoeber on March 1, 2009 at 11:56 PM
Remove your fingers from your ears and do some research. There are plenty of objections to all the above. So much so that the Democratic governor of Tennessee is (like Jindal) threatening to take a pass on some stimulus money.
ddrintn on March 2, 2009 at 12:00 AM
okthen.
Life– fail….I cite prop 48 in colorado. 74% against the life-at-conception bill. Also…Roe v Wade…not going anywhere, sorry.
Less Government– fail…like I said, social security, medicare, medicaid and coming-soon-to-a-neighborhood-near-you….nat’l healthcare.
Personal Responsibility– you’re kiddin’ right? America is a litigious society deeply invested in the Culture of Blame. Fail.
Would you please state the Founding Principles as you believe they are relevent to conservatism?
strangelet on March 2, 2009 at 12:01 AM
Personally I find the notion that the Financial meltdown was solely caused by Republicans and conservative economic policies complete and utter BS. Whilst Republicans could have done more to prevent it from happening once they began seeing the early warning signs, it was the Democrats that sowed the seeds of this disaster and merrily helped it grow to epic proportions all the while benifiting and profiting from the political and financial kick backs it produced. People like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd should be strung up for what they did to the economy and the democrats in general should be taken to task on their role in the collapse. You say that this is what the last 20 years of conservative economics has resulted in . I say no this is what the last 50 years of liberal idealism, Social engineering, and political corruption has resulted in.
Dreadnought223 on March 2, 2009 at 12:03 AM
Nice if you can provide this evidence. I performed a search and found no such info.
ckoeber on March 2, 2009 at 12:05 AM
No, it isn’t. But “Life – fail”? I could cite the unpopularity of Obama’s decision to lift the ban on taxpayer funding of abortions; the distaste for late-term abortions and abortion on demand, and others. the country isn’t rabidly pro-life, but it isn’t in accord with Obama’s views on abortion, either.
Honestly, I’ll believe that when I see it.
ddrintn on March 2, 2009 at 12:07 AM
Actually, both examples ARE efficient. Social Security would work if we didn’t take the accumulated funds and use it for other projects (WARS a big example). If we would have left it alone it would have been one of the greatest government programs, period.
As for the Postal Service, hardly. Delivery of practilly billions of letters within five days is hardly an example of inefficiency by any standard.
The reason why it “polls” better is because it’s true. Most people realize that it is not always about you nor is it always about the government. Again, there is balance.
ckoeber on March 2, 2009 at 12:17 AM
If that were true, the Libertarian Party would be stronger than it is.
No. That is how the Left has branded them. You simply accepted that premise.
Bush is not a Conservative in spite of the Left’s insistance that he is. Bush is more accurately described as a moderate.
Uh, no. That started with the Carter and Clinton Administrations. First with the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act which required banks to make loans to people who by normal standards would not have met the test of being a qualified buyer. It was Fannie Mae Chairman Franklin Raines who said that he was “under increasing pressure from the Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate-income people.”
It wasn’t the Conservatives who “buggered” the prime. It was the Democrats.
The last time I checked, it is the House where are spending bills must be derived according to the Constitution. It wasn’t Conservatives who ballooned the deficits. It was liberal Democrats and spineless Republicans who did it. And in any case, I’d be careful accusing Conservatives of deficit spending considering that in 20 months and 10 days, the Democrats and Obama will have spent what Bush spent in his entire 8 years in office which includes the cost of running two wars, the burst silicon bubble and the one trillion dollar financial hit caused by the 9/11 attacks.
Country Club Republicans asked that same question when Reagan sought the GOP nomination for President in 1976 and again in 1980. History has already shown the answer when Reagan won in a landslide twice.
.
GT on March 2, 2009 at 12:17 AM
Social Security is enough of a Ponzi scheme to put Madoff to shame. The USPS posted nearly $3 billion in losses last year. If those are your ideas of efficiency, I can see why you’re a fan of “governmental action”.
ddrintn on March 2, 2009 at 12:23 AM
Show me.
List them.
GSA rates.
Job descriptions.
Longevity.
If you start with Overseer of Crossing ‘T’ and dotting ‘I’ and work down it would be helpful.
Limerick on March 2, 2009 at 12:25 AM
“Schools” might not be the best example.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123396676711659061.html
“To understand the problem with the stimulus bill, it helps to focus on specific parts. Take the $142 billion for schools, which is nearly double the total outlays of the Department of Education in 2007. Now consider that much of this cash would go to public-school systems that don’t even need the money for its earmarked purposes.
The Milwaukee Public School system, for example, would receive $88.6 million over two years for new construction projects under the House version of the stimulus — even though the district currently has 15 vacant school buildings and declining enrollment. Between 1990 and 2008, inflation-adjusted MPS spending rose by 35%, per-pupil spending increased by 36% and state aid grew by 58%. Over the same period, enrollment fell by a percentage point and is projected to continue falling, leaving the system with enough excess capacity for some 22,000 students.”
Again, those other items you mention do typically get classed as “public goods” and often reasonably so. Clearly, though, the idea that just by throwing around the magic words “schools” or “roads” or “bridges” that it means the money is automatically spent WELL.
And, people aren’t “shoring up assets” as much as they are paying down debt. This is necessary at some point and, quite frankly, now is as good a time as any. It is clear, or should be clear by now, that people were in over their heads debt-wise and adding more debt, only doing it on the government’s balance sheet instead of the individual’s, is not the answer. It’s like trying to cure your brother’s heroin addiction by starting to do heroin yourself. Pure nonsense. And, since it is clear that there is a type of “herd behavior” thing happening in the accumulation and decumulation of debt, there will NEVER be a time (in an over-indebted economy) when the exact perfect number of people pay down their debt while the other over-indebted consumers continue to spend, thus avoiding the “paradox of thrift” situation. It should be obvious, but people seem to be continually missing this point.
Demanding that private markets always and everywhere serve “the common good” is a logical absurdity. While private markets in things like human trafficking are clearly illegal and should be stopped, private markets in things like transfatty foods, while arguably contrary to “the common good” satisfy private needs just fine and should be left to function on that basis.
Each of those programs you mention could have its function provided by private markets and provide arguably better value. For example, Social Security’s return, for someone my age, is about 1.5%. Even a CD beats that, nevermind the stock markets, which typically return at least 5-6%/year over time. Returns for earlier participants were higher, of course, due to the Ponzi-like nature of the program.
I’m sure you didn’t imply the condescending tone of your “don’t let other people twist the truth” statement but let me just tell you that you’re some kind of advanced thinker and I’m poking along in the intellectual slow lane is laughable. You know why? Because I used to hold all of your positions when I was like 18 years old, having grown up in Massachusetts in a Dem household. As I said in another post, at a certain point you have to look at things and ask if they are true or not. Not one single aspect of leftist dogma escaped that analysis when I did it. So, please, keep your opinions about my need for personal intellectual growth to yourself or better yet, realize that I consider you an inferior version of my own young self of 20 years ago, spouting the same lame arguments I used to.
Look, any “point” that starts out with personal responsibility, jumps to inflation, veers over into tax cuts for the wealthy and ends with a variation on trickle-down economics, with no logical connection between them, is incoherent.
See, education costs are another perfect example of the unintended consequences of liberal policies. One of the biggest drivers of tuition inflation is the fact that there is so much money being provided via student loans subsidized by the government. I’m actually a beneficiary of student loans, but I don’t think there’s any question that their availability has distorted the costs of education, as have other forms of federal subsidies for higher education.
venividivici on March 2, 2009 at 12:29 AM
I, nor any progressive, has argued that the government should garuntee outcome. All people deserve a FAIR shot. Costs for many things (food, education, healthcare, etc.) have made circumstances for millions of people so hard that they never get a fair shot. All of the conservative principles, when translated into actual policy, does nothing to address this.
I will agree that not all Republicans are conservatives, just as not all members of the Democratic Party are progressives. But from the standpoint in which you argue and who you identify with I would have to say that you are closely aligned with the GOP. When they (the GOP) are in office and in power they execute policy that are closer to your ideology, do they not?
As for you succeeding, that is great and I congragulate you. Now, are you willing to cast millions of your fellow americans as failures. How about 47 million of them? Those are just the amount of people without medical coverage. Let’s take all of the people who attempted college but couldn’t finish because of the cost or life circumstance. That’s their responsibility, according to you. How about the rising cost of energy? Tough luck for people who can’t afford it.
And finally, taxes. People love the NYC example. For some reason highlighting the income disparity there seems to be great. Under your pretense, not only should 40,000 people be catered to more simply because they pay more taxes but that they are somehow success stories and the other 7,960,000 people are failures of their own making.
It doesn’t bother you that maybe, just maybe, there might be something wrong with that picture.
ckoeber on March 2, 2009 at 12:35 AM
Disagree that ‘all that stuff isn’t going to transform’ my status…I actually belong to a very large constituency in a very Republican state with conservative senators, congressmen, and a governor that I campaigned and voted for.
Conservative principles are quite appealing to any people group that will take the time to study them. Anyone, even a 14 year old (Jonathon Krohn) can learn, appreciate, agree with and articulate them.
I never mentioned Palin in any of my posts. Not sure why you dropped your drawers and mooned me with that one.
I wholeheartedly agree with this. Empty slogans and the failed paradigms of the past (Carter, LBJ, FDR) are useless to combat the apathy and entitlement agenda of the dependent masses… As an O-supporter you’ve apparently forgotten ‘yes we can’ and ‘hope and change’. Perhaps you could communicate your ever-so-strong O-pinion to your leader?
LEBA on March 2, 2009 at 12:57 AM
Its nearly 1am and I have to be at work at 7am so I’ll keep this brief.
Liberals do believe in using government to guarantee outcome. Universal Health Care is a prime example.
There is nothing in the Constitution that gives Government the authority to make things “Fair” as you have defined it.
You ask if I am willing to cast millions as failures as if it has anything to do with my success. A specious argument to say the least.
As to the 47 million who don’t have health insurance, that is another specious argument. How many of those 47 million don’t have insurance because they choose not to? I was one of them until I turned 30.
To you and liberals in general, “fairness” is defined by how much a government offers to those in need from the money its citizens have coughed up in order to stay out of jail.
.
GT on March 2, 2009 at 12:59 AM
Yep. 7,960,000 failures of their own making.
Limerick on March 2, 2009 at 12:59 AM
What’s wrong with the “progressive” picture is that the desire is to make those 40,000 just as “miserable” as the rest. It isn’t about lifting others; it’s about hammering down those who achieve and produce. It’s only “fair”, after all. That view and the policies that accompany it aren’t sustainable. It is a hopelessly a rebours attitude that has been shown to fail many a time.
ddrintn on March 2, 2009 at 1:02 AM
To set the record straight let’s just say that it is a dog-eat-dog world. Been that way since Darwin’s greatX100 grandpa ate Darwin’s greatX101 uncle. Freedom is a wonderful thing. You get to do the carving.
Limerick on March 2, 2009 at 1:11 AM
Sorry. Late to the game…
…of what? A win for us in 2012? You’re a card, Allah. I’d love to play high stakes poker with you one day :)
Ugly on March 2, 2009 at 1:16 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/49/19450420_Hitler_65bd_awards_HJ_Iron_Cross.jpg
alex342 on March 2, 2009 at 6:50 AM
Does anyone know if Jonathan is in public school, private school or home school? I would guess one of the last two.
Public education today in general (I know it is not true of all teachers) is as much or more about indoctrinating children into liberalism than it is about education.
Based on Obama’s STOU speech last week, I assume that he was admitting that the liberals are not being as successful in their indoctrination as they would like. That may be a part of why he said that dropping out of high school is “no longer an option” and may explain why he wants every American to go to college as well. Do liberals need more time to fully brain wash young people? Is it possible that some young people are developing an immunity/resistance to liberal indoctrination?
Ordinary American on March 2, 2009 at 7:36 AM
He is home schooled but apparently a part of a larger group with a lot of interaction.
Cindy Munford on March 2, 2009 at 8:16 AM
Liberals are in left field, and this young man is the future. You find it hard to find a liberal at this age, because they are still playing with their Barbie dolls and toy trucks. They’ve no idea of what they want until someone tells them what they want and what they have to do for the people or group that got it for them.
MSGTAS on March 2, 2009 at 9:15 AM
There you go again with the Hitler reference.
Seriously. Is that the best you libs can come up with? Are you that incapable of refuting Krohn’s arguments? Are you that much of a pansy?
Looks like the obvious answer to all three questions is “yes”.
.
GT on March 2, 2009 at 9:26 AM
At least we know when its is a possessive, not a contraction.
Tennman on March 2, 2009 at 10:09 AM
I get it. All politicians are evil. That’s why I should support Bobby Jindal (a politician), Sarah Palin (a politician), and Ron Paul (a politician), among others.
You made the fallacious argument that supply side economics is giving tax breaks to the wealthy and hoping they toss you scraps. I said that allowing the government to confiscate your tax money is, in fact, what you promote while you argue against it.
No, you apparently understand nothing. Our government was designed by political and philosophical geniuses who laid out a system of checks and balances that would need very little updating throughout the years. You have people both in the public and private sector, some who do their jobs well and some others who are corrupt or corrupted by power. That is human nature, which is why our founders advocated for limited government, as defined by our Constitution, not paid lip service by a neophyte Marxist with a Messianic complex or the K Street whores.
Actually, the objection the governors opposed to stimulus funds have is the federal government overstepping the 10th amendment and imposing unemployment on individual states that will bankrupt them, promote fraud and increase actual unemployment. The government could never hire enough people to keep up with this massive caseload; they’re already slow and incompetent in nearly every state. The blue collar jobs Obama promises are precisely the kind where state employees abuse overtime, then collect unemployment as soon as and as long as they can, then abuse their pension perks. How can a politician call attention to this corruption without their job being threatened? Most of them won’t. It will bankrupt this country, though, as surely as it did CA.
Whoever said Obama is a good person? I said his lie about creating “private sector jobs” then listing public sector jobs exposed him as the cynical, pandering trash talker he is. He knows exactly what he is doing, and he is skating by on charm (something I find him short of) for as long as the public will let him. They’ve been whipped up into a panic and will apparently believe anything now. The stimulus bill has been picked apart and criticized by everyone from the CBO to the AP. It has been given a great deal of attention here on Hotair.
$30 billion for road construction, $87 billion to help states pay for Medicaid, $145 billion for $500-per-worker tax breaks, and other components.
How quickly will federal agencies spend their stimulus money? Will state and local governments use their shares to avoid firing workers, provide services, cut taxes or as nest eggs? When will people receive tax cuts, and will they spend or save them? How much economic growth does a dollar spent on road-building produce, compared to a dollar used to extend unemployment benefits?
Less than a third of this money would be spent by 2010, so it does nothing to stimulate the economy. It buys votes, as I said before. 300 economists called it a colossal waste and only two — Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein — have tentatively supported it.
No, you’re sad. You don’t even know the post office is losing money these days.
ckoeber on March 1, 2009 at 11:56 PM
chunderroad on March 2, 2009 at 10:13 AM
For the record, government healthcare would have euthenised my grandmother, a diabetic with myriad health problems and a cancer casualty.
As Betsy McCaughey reported for Bloomberg News, Daschle’s vision was to eliminate costly treatments and slow progress on medicine:
Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. “Meaningful user” isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time” (511, 518, 540-541)
What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make.
The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.
chunderroad on March 2, 2009 at 10:34 AM
Also, read more on this link.
chunderroad on March 2, 2009 at 10:43 AM
That last post in response to
chunderroad on March 2, 2009 at 10:45 AM
GT, during Bush’s 8 years in office he and Greenspan colluded to reduce the prime from around 9% in 2000 to FREAKIN’ 0.5% in 2008.
Get a clue, dude.
Here’s the 411 on abortion.
There is ZERO correlation between deploring late-term abortions and striking down Roe v Wade.
And teh Cultcha-Life Warriors are powerless as long as Roe is in place, as Douthat has pointed out umpteen times.
strangelet on March 2, 2009 at 12:42 PM
Sure….but who’s gonna do that?
You have to go out an make converts, evangelize them like Reihan says.
The last election was the political equivalent of the extinction event at the K-T boundary……..refusing to evolve is not an option, sry.
strangelet on March 2, 2009 at 12:47 PM
So why did Obama win the election? After all, he is the poster child of “failed paradigms” and “sloganeering”.
I mean, the moron tries to renact failed liberal policices of the 20th centuries, and his “hopenchange” sloganeering is vague and empty.
Norwegian on March 2, 2009 at 2:13 PM
Well, Norwegian, the proof is in the pudding, right?
Look at what national healthcare did to the Tories.
A quarter century of Labor.
People may pay lip service to small government, but they really do want nat’l healthcare, unemployment insurance, social security and medicare.
So I guess those aren’t failed paradigms lol.
strangelet on March 2, 2009 at 2:48 PM
I bet this kid could handle an interview with charles gibson or katie couric.
Just sayin’.
benny shakar on March 2, 2009 at 3:00 PM
Here’s a clue. Bush wasn’t President in 2000 and Greenspan stepped down from the Fed in 2006.
Here’s another clue…..you have no idea what you’re talking about. The subprime for a housing loan in 1990 via FHA was 4.5%. When did it jump to 9% in 2000?
When did this conversation between you and I turn to abortion?! What hallucinogenic substance are you snorting now?
GT on March 2, 2009 at 3:20 PM
Prodigy? How can anyone smart possibly be a conservative?
Oh the humanities!!!
Dr. ZhivBlago on March 2, 2009 at 4:48 PM
…absolutely nothing.
Jim Treacher on March 2, 2009 at 4:50 PM
Maybe. I’ll bet he also knows that the automobile wasn’t a US invention.
Just sayin’.
ddrintn on March 2, 2009 at 4:58 PM
Benny has evidence to the contrary, and he’ll be back shortly with the website number.
Jim Treacher on March 2, 2009 at 5:10 PM
Jim Treacher on March 2, 2009 at 5:10 PM
Alright, Jim. Sweet tea all over the monitor. You’ve been having fun with target practice lately with all the new and old Trolls are here, haven’t you?
kingsjester on March 2, 2009 at 5:12 PM
PARTIAL LIST OF DOCUMENTS THAT BARACK OBAMA REFUSES TO RELEASE -. OBAMA’S SECRECY AND “CLOSED RECORDS” POLICY
Indonesian Passport – Not released
Application for U.S. Citizenship (as former citizen of Indonesia) – Not released
Immigration Records – Not released
Original Vault Copy Birth Certificate – Not released
Certificate of Live Birth – Counterfeit Version on Obama Web Site
Obama / Dunham Marriage License – Not released
Soetoro / Dunham Marriage License – Not released
Soetoro Adoption Records – Not Released
Fransiskus Assisi School Application – Not released
Punahou School Records – Not released
Selective Service Registration – Counterfeit version generated
Occidental College records – Not released
Columbia College Records – Not released
Columbia Thesis – Not released
Harvard College Records – Not released
Baptism Certificate – None
Medical Records – Not released
Illinois State Senate Records – Not released
Law Practice Client List – Not released
University of Chicago Scholarly Articles – None
searcher484 on March 2, 2009 at 8:27 PM
Age is a silly way to judge people, if it declares Obama competent and this young man incompetent.
darktood on March 2, 2009 at 8:35 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4