That’s odd. This story coming out has been one of the most damaging things to Obama. The comments weren’t bad. But the article did show that – or represent that – the experts on the subject think Obama and his band of wet-eared-twits are incompetent fools. And it’s not a political thing. Mc Crystal voted for Obama – I’ve heard. Hell, out of all the people feeling like jackasses for voting for Obama, Mc Crystal is in the top ten.

But seriously, who could blame any warrior for bitching about this administration’s attempt at administrating war? The whole group was dead-set against the surge in Iraq. They wanted to leave!!! That’s how Obama got off the ground politically. Before that he was giving pessimistic idealistic cheap-shot shit to Petraeus in senate hearings.

And Biden – good Lord… He’s still against the surge in Afghanistan. His idea was to leave and strike at terrorists with the Navy via missiles and drones. Holy-horseshit Biden, even with soldiers on the ground peaking in windows we’re struggling not to kill civilians and make more terrorists – when we kill terrorists with missiles and drones.

Sometimes democracy produces some seriously stupid events. Unless we plan to stay in Afghanistan for the next couple decades, as apposed to starting withdraws according to Obama’s Lefty time-table, I’m not sure how we’ll pull this thing off. Canning guys like Mc Crystal for this kind of crap isn’t going to help.

Do you get the feeling, when Obama has to step outside and partake in the job of actual leadership, that he feels he’s getting sidetracked? I think Obama saw the President as the guy who get’s to say where we pull over to eat and when, but didn’t realize 99% of the time he’d have to be driving this damn country and not pushing his big fancy agenda.

And that’s what half this thing is about. Obama has his nifty time-line and is still openly planning to start withdraws next July, even though we are currently stuck up to the axles. Everyone with a brain has been screaming and crying about why announcing time-lines to Al Qaeda and the Taliban is extremelyunwise, illogical, and insane – sort of like telling them how you, or that you have, extracted intelligence from one of their failed suiciders.

Obama hits his old problem here: ideology trumping logic. If his Left suspected his Afghanistan commitment was open ended – and some do – they’d turn on his hopy-changey ass. But he’s stuck! He already used 2007-2008 pleasant Afghanistan to hammer on Bush and the, then difficult, efforts in Iraq – calling Afghanistan necessary and not optional and a bunch of other words that would commit even a slimy politician to the effort – at least for a while, until some logical-sounding reason can be found to leave.

At least with Afghanistan some of the criticism is right. You guys know, I’ve always had faith in Iraq. When former Iraqi’s were saying Iraqis aren’t capable of talk, they’ll just hit each other with shoes, I remembered a photo taken just after the fall of Baghdad: Smoke was rising from the city and US troops where holding up traffic going in. The photographer was behind an old pickup FILLED with ripe tomatoes. They had to get those tomatoes to market or they’d rot! I felt then these people had what it would take to build a society without a dictator keeping them inline. I don’t have this faith in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is HUGE, primitive, corrupt, CRAZY, desperate, and just plain generally not-smart. But like McCain said over and over: It’s not troop presence that people are against, it’s casualties. That’s one more thing McCain said that’s proven true. Can anyone think of anything Obama or Biden said that has proven true?  POSERS!!!

WL (whiny Liberal)

WL: What’s more important, enforcing immigration laws or laws against rape, murder, hard drugs, and spousal and child abuse? The AZ law is the type of misguided thinking that causes immigrants to fear the police. Victims don’t report instances of rape and abuse, and others are afraid or unwilling to offer valuable information to police about serious crime. There are better ways to enforce immigration [strawman alert].

AZ: Indeed, people who are openly breaking the law are often hesitant to report crimes by others or crimes perpetrated upon themselves. But the fact that a problem exists is not a reason to neglect a solution to the problem that is causing it. Many of those serious and violent crimes are committed by Mexicans (often gang related) freely and illegally passing through our borders. The amount of crime is simply exceeding the man power we have available, and the lack of Federal assistance is making such measure necessary to protect our citizens and visitors, regardless of race.

WL: There’s no way to prevent racial profiling. Police already pull minorities over with probable cause for other crimes disproportionately. This law makes it easier for police to profile brown people as illegal immigrants, a problem Latinos are already dealing with. This law would force citizen Latinos and foreign visa holders to keep their papers on them at all times! Nazi fascist state.

AZ: Correct. Racial profiling is one of those things you really can’t prevent because it occurs in the mind of the officer and can’t be proven. But, at least this law tries to prevent it, specifically, unlike the other laws you’re talking about. And, other than prevention of racial profiling, this law has nothing to do with race or skin color. Currently a suspect’s citizenship status can only be confirmed if they are suspected in another crime. The purpose of this law is to allow our police to enforce immigration laws without having to play the game of waiting for more serious crimes to occur.

WL: Immigration laws are in the Federal domain, and so should be enforced Federally.

AZ: Yeah, well, why don’t you try bordering a civil war with violence spilling over, running your police ragged while Washington proclaims your border fence a failure. Maybe this will light a fire under there enlightened think-they-know-better-from-1500-miles-away hopie changie asses! We need troops damn it! Things are getting Detroit around here.

WL: Police are a bunch of uneducated power-happy white guys who hate minorities and violate their rights every chance they get. I know because a cop pulled me over once and I’ve got minority friends. This just makes their bigotry not only legal but institutional.

AZ: Oh no. You got us. We confess. Our officers just love making people miserable, especially the self-hating blacks and Latinos on the force. And while we’re confessing, we should also admit that the reason we keep it so hot here is to keep out blacks and the reason we grow spines on our cactus is to poke the Jews. We’re still trying to figure out how to keep out the Arabs. We’re thinking about a law that requires police to suspect a driver doesn’t have a license if their driving is extremely poor. Ooohhh, I’m so angry I almost like it – Ooooo those non-members of my primitive group. Hmmmmmm, my ignorance makes me want to hit people with a 2×4 when I feel they threaten my click. *fart*

There are those protesting the new AZ immigration law that think personal experience is the most important component in understanding and defeating the law and issues behind it.

However, you can’t think that your own personal experience or perspective gives you any help in making logical thought. It just takes one premise and turns up its value in your mind so high it drown out all the others. That’s why you can’t talk logically about gay marriage through the context and filter of heightened emotional inflamnity.

Of course a Latino with parents in AZ will feel anxious about this law. Does that give them a better ability to come to the most logical conclusion about it? What about a family – of any race – who deals with illegal immigrants coming across their land and ruining their livelihood. They see this law as a savior. But does that focused perspective give them a superior view of logic?

No. Absolutely not. They are both fixated on how the law will affect THEM, and not how it will affect EVERYONE, or how well it will or won’t work – logically – how fair and just it is or isn’t – logically.

Logic is a method of thinking – ongoing. It’s not a word to use to strengthen a semantic argument, or an imaginary machine that spits out definitive answers to the world’s questions unless you stick with finite specifics – not “Regan was a(n) [insert creative phrase]”.

Simply, logic is an evaluation of premises. The reason increasingly complex subjects produce increasingly less logical solutions is due to missing premises. You make ‘gut’ decisions because your evaluation of a person or situation is extremely limited. If you somehow knew everything about the human body, the way we know everything about a car, diagnosis would be a simple exercise in logic.

Examples as to why personal experiences aid clear thinking proves otherwise. Those who know blacks, Latinos, Indians and like them get pissed when they perceive emotionally that someone is giving them a hard time. So what if your personal experience was otherwise? What if the Latinos you knew you didn’t like at all? Would you then support something you thought gave them a hard time?

If you’re not careful. You would defend your friend at the expense of the world. Try the old conundrum of saving the suffering child with your only vaccine rather than using that vaccine to make more vaccine for the whole tribe as they will all be sick later. According to your example, you save the child if you knew him/her and liked her/him. But soon, when the whole tribe is suffering, including other children that you might also like, the original logic will become clear through your vale of emotion.

As for the actual AZ law, it doesn’t give police the right to demand your ID. Just like now, they’d have to have probably cause. Just like now, they can’t demand your ID unless they have cause to think you are breaking the law – and the AZ law specifically prohibits racial profiling and has classes the police have to take in order to implement the law without violating civil rights.

The idea that this law is so bad for citizen Latinos is death-panel-esc.

Having friends of a certain identity does nothing for your perspective. That’s silly. Thinking your experiences increases you understanding is silly. It just ties you emotionally to a single premise/perspective.

Let’s take the Abolitionists as an example. They weren’t slaves and didn’t know slaves. They didn’t own slaves either. They were a bunch of people who read about a variety of different perspectives and were able to see the plane-as-day logic that enslaving humans is wrong. They didn’t have to experience slavery themselves, try owning a slave, or talk to a slave. They just saw that drawing of how slaves fit in a ship and become interested in the subject.

Or better, take Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. The reason his movement worked so amazingly well was because he emerged from his personal perspective, became educated, achieved understanding of all perspectives and premises involved, and only then was he able to instruct his activists in a way, and construct his arguments in a way, that would break through everyone’s personal experiences and private perspectives – because he understood them all and wasn’t fixated on his own. Malcolm X on the other hand…

If the civil rights movement relied only on black people reacting to their perspectives, and all their white friends, we’d still probably be trying to talk our Democrat friends out of their Jim Crow laws.

It’s not like this law is implementing systematic racism, which is how the crazy Liberals are portraying it. We could jerk each other off forever while ilegals poor across the border and ruin possibilities for legal immigrants – who are also often Latinos – BTW.

Once implemented, if rampant racial profiling does occur, police precincts will suffer numerous law suits – hell, I imagine suits will be attempted either way. And if the officers can’t show probable cause – well – precincts will surely have to find ways of keeping their officers from breaking the law, just like they keep police from shooting citizens, or they’ll end up using their whole budget paying plaintiffs.

Many people simply misunderstand the purpose of the public nuclear strategy. Liberal bloggers describe it like so: This is done in order to ensure that an all-out nuclear war isn’t created when so many other alternatives exist. (agreements ensure nothing) And then you hear Liberals calling up NPR voicing their indignation that the US nuclear strategy includes using nukes in any case for any reason – because we know how terrible they are now – it’s insane – and so on.

OK. I understand why the average Liberal might see our nuclear strategy like this. I mean, look at Obama. He can’t make a good move on either war or make a hair’s worth of progress against terror activities without posting it on the national refrigerator for us all to praise. And besides this, Liberals in general don’t seem to grasp the desperate realities or hard logics of war.

The nuclear strategy is part of the overall strategy of deterrence. In the simplest terms: If you don’t want the crazy people in the world to use their nukes on you – you damn well better keep them convinced you’re crazy enough to use your nukes on them in retaliation – immediately.

During the cold war maintaining this was essential. Likewise, enemies like India and Pakistan maintain the same deterrent check. Once Iran and N. Korea get there nukes, their neighbors will need nukes to deter them. Agreements won’t replace this logic, not when a war can be won and a civilization vaporized within an hour. (Remember, Hitler had that solid wall of democracies to his north and west convinced he had no designs on them, so they had no reason to stop him, until he picked them off one at a time leaving merry old England to fight the good fight by her self.)

Obama has decided it’s best to make some updates to the policy, primarily that he promises not to use nukes on countries not armed with nukes – with the noted exception of countries actively developing nukes in direct contempt of the national community, namely Iran and N. Korea. (Hey guys!) And he has no plans to update the current decades old US nuclear arsenal, but will be dismantling some according to future agreements.

Now the first one might seem natural, obvious, and logical – something that should have been included all along. Why would the US use nukes on a non-nuke country, besides Japan? The US and its allies have lived this past 50 years under a nuclear umbrella that not only protected them from nukes, but also Nazi-German-like conventional aggression, the kind made possible by tanks and trucks, the kind that can change the map over the weekend, the kind that Soviet military hardware was built for that every third-rate government owns. That’s why Western Europe doesn’t keep a serious standing army, the US is there to fish them out of any serious challenge to their sovereignty.

Under such an umbrella, only the truly crazy and brazen would invade a US ally. Sadam Hussein? Kuwait? Thankfully Kuwait was bordered with other allies and Sadam was so uncoordinated and weak that the US was able to push him out with one mighty effort. But the deterrence failed then because Sadam believed the US didn’t have the will to stop him, he underestimated, or rather we didn’t properly display, our crazy.

So why is Obama making such an odd change? Why is he compromising our crazy? Why is he giving the crazies of the world one less reason to behave?

Well, he wants to talk Iran and NoKo out of their nuclear weapons programs without a military strike, and thinks credibility will help. (Ever try to talk a crazy person out of something?) His idea is that, if he isn’t developing nukes, promises not to use nukes on non-nuke countries, and moves to reduce the US arsenal, the crazy guys will see the rationality in giving up their nukes. In other words, it will be harder for them to say: “eh, but you’re doin itnnnnnnnnnnn!”

If you ask me, this line of reasoning sounds like a campaign gimmick gone awry, like Cat’s Cradle fans starting a Bokononist church. There’s no way in hell Obama will earn a shred of credibility with the crazy leaders of the world, not the kind they respect anyway. And meanwhile Russia, China, and other rivals (possible future enemies) are updating their arsenals.

Again – one maintains a ready arsenal for fighting a war – so that war won’t have to be fought. We make bombs not so we can drop them. We make bombs so we can drop them, so we won’t have to. One can see how the philosophy behind this policy is dangerous. (deproliferation is another asinine topic for later, so enough with Obama’s reasoning)

The Liberals are going crazy over Sarah Palin’s latest Obama-bash in this regard. She equated the policy to announcing that anyone can – go ahead and punch me in the face, I won’t do anything about it. The Liberal counters, as usual, are nearly as fun an entertaining as Palin herself. They can’t point out any problems with her logic. They pretend she’s stupid without expressing why, and ponder if she’s just rabble-rousing. Then, usually end their piece extrapolating Sarah’s opinion into some radical view: She doesn’t agree with the policy change so she must want to go nuking some people!

Regardless, what I DO like – or love – about the policy change is the immediate message it has sent. “Ok – everyone without Nukes is cool. We’re not going to wipe you off the map any time soon. Oh – except for you two over there, yeah, you two.”

lol – Ahmadinejad is up to his usual mockery and N. Korea – well – N. Korea is being N. Korea. Mind you, I’m not saying I like the initial message because of the immediate failure of its ultimate goal – that failure being Iran and NoKo’s continues butt-slapping. I like it because it inadvertently told the two remaining spokes on the axis of evil that we got missiles with their names on them. Those two crazies NEED to know we’ve got all 14 of their probable locations targeted and ready for sudden abrupt zapping.

Honesty, I’ve bee mulling that (spending freeze) over for the past couple hours or so and I don’t know what to think. I’ve heard rumors Obama will talk about tax credits in the State of the Union Address too. I don’t know what to think.

I have the feeling this is a purely populous move after the Tea-Baggers violated Massachusetts.

Or, maybe the Whitehouse is finally bending to logic. Six months ago Noisy Dove was screaming that the clumsy pork laden state-backfill “stimulus” bill was a shameless waste of money. Today – I’m sitting here watching MSNBC (Obama channel) and they are all in agreement now – finally – that the “stimulus” DIDN’T WORK!!!

So maybe Obama is giving up on the broad-brush ideal that government spending of any kind is stimulus – which it’s not. Only spending on things that produce economic activity greater than the investment is stimulus. Otherwise they just shovel money out of one place and fill in another. Only in this case we’re printing the money or borrowing it from outside the US and shoveling it into sub-economies, like state bureaucracies – or trickling money out on infrastructure. Oh – and the randomly places barrels of pork too.

But – you know what this most likely is? This is most likely more of the same Obama we’ve seen for the past 2+ years. He says one thing while he does another. With all the spending he has increased I doubt any spending freeze a year from now will be an actual spending cut – probably more of a spending shift – since military and economic spending is exempt. There’s the TARP funds too that Obama plans to spend as they come back – instead of pay off the loans we used to get the funds. So if you count that – and whatever else I’m not thinking of – I doubt this freeze will do anything mathematically significant.

It will give Dems in Conservative states the chance to say “Spending Freeze” this fall while Tea-baggers are chasing them out of office though.

LOL – Astroturf.

Well then, stop using characterizations. I’d like to think I have something to learn from Liberal thinkers, but all they do, as you’ve done today, is state general needs and characterizations along with the ever present Bush bash:

I just know that Obama is trying to shrink the gap between the rich and the poor. Unlike Noisy Dove and Glenn Beck, he doesn’t think policies designed to do so will destroy the country. He just thinks it is the moral imperative of a government to represent all the people, including (if not especially) the poor and ignorant. Some, including Obama, actually think shrinking the gap between rich and poor will make the country stronger. If the bank CEOs had been under tighter control, the world wouldn’t be in an economic down turn. His policies reflect his ideals.

I can’t really blame you at this point though. All Obama has proven to be is a symbol – a mascot to be carted around and make fancy vague sunshine speeches while Nancy and Reid force through the most god-awful legislative concoctions man kind will likely ever know.

I don’t know how to learn anything from any of this. That’s why I keep telling you to explain the policies you support. You read a British magazine. You like it. So you let them do your economic thinking because they’re smarter than you? Seriously? Your admitting that my insulting accusation was true – you believe something without understanding it because you like believing in it. You have a “very British” perspective… That’s lame Dr. Dove – totally lame. I hate believing half the conclusions I’ve come to.

And I’m not getting emotional about a political side – ffs. Thanks for assuming I could actually care though. What annoys me is when anyone makes illogical or useless arguments, or simply states things generally without explanation to refute something I’ve carefully explained.

That’s why it’s exhausting you know. When you have an idea that you can’t explain, nothing is more exhausting than having it challenged. That’s why I said before: if you can’t explain something just say so. But don’t pull out comfortable Liberal falsities you choose to believe then be surprised when I call bullshit. And when I call bullshit don’t call me partisan – or ranting Noisy Dove – just because the bullshit is on the left today.

Give me a logical reason to support one of your ideas. If you do I’ll support it. Until then I’m going to assume that, if we have 10 chickens that each lay one egg every other day we will get 5 eggs per day. And if we slaughter one chicken, yes, we will have a great deal of much needed meat that we can use to proudly and historically feed people with, I’ll agree with that. But I won’t believe we will continue to have 5 eggs per day. And I won’t believe that we have increased our overall protein intake. It has nothing to do with ideology. It’s just logical.

Here’s some more Noisy Dove ranting for you. Since calling my honest conclusions a Noisy Dove rant seems to make you feel superior – or less threatened perhaps

Hey now. There’s no need to get offensive. You were ranting. You love ranting.

I get really exhausted having these conversations. My personal beliefs on politics and economics are distinctly British. Its probably because I’ve been getting my news from the Economist since medical school. I let them think for me on this kind of stuff. They know more than me. The magazine is socially liberal and economically conservative. Oddly, they think Bush was one of the worst presidents in U.S. history.

American liberal political philosophy is no more illogical than American conservative political philosophy. Whenever I read something that says Bush was nobly defending our nation, and that Obama has a secret ulterior motive, I can’t help but to put on a liberal American hat and start fighting for their ideology. I just can’t help it.

I hate strong political views, because they’re dangerous, and almost across the board based on a simplified version of reality that jives with some kind of flawed political ideology. Look at the current healthcare reform bill. It is a total disaster, and the price tag is like a trillion dollars. I can almost guarantee it will make healthcare worse for everyone. Look at the war in Iraq. The American people were led to support it based on a lie. Its cost us at least a trillion dollars, and we still may loose the damned thing. On top of that, it has cost the U.S credibility throughout the world.

My point is that I don’t think we should have such strong emotional ties to political ideas. Good doesn’t come from it. They can devolve into the kind of nonsense conversations that noisydove and drdove get into.

I suppose my point is that our political conversations would be a lot more informative if they weren’t filled with characterizations of the opposing side. I have something to learn from American conservatism. You all have something to learn from American liberalism.

If the housing act – whatever the name of that was – the thing that make Fannie and Freddie – such overregulation – the world wouldn’t be in this mess…

Did you ever take even one economics class Dr. Dove? And seriously, I understand your point. It’s the point made by every other Liberal. We need to do this to help these. This isn’t fair. I think reducing the income of the rich is worth helping the poor. I don’t need to hear any more of that. I’d like to know HOW your programs are supposed to work, scientifically, fundamentally, philosophically, specifically – because they never have.

Here’s some more Noisy Dove ranting for you. Since calling my honest conclusions a Noisy Dove rant seems to make you feel superior – or less threatened perhaps:

Obama’s health reform won’t be helpful to the 40 million uninsured because it’s not health reform. If you can tell me how it WILL help the uninsured I’ll sure as shit support it.

The economic stimulus did nothing for any ‘little guy’ unless that ‘little guy’ runs an asphalt business or works in government.

Obama is already shrinking the gap between the poor and rich. The fact he got elected did that. The Dem policies continue the trend. Business is scared shitless of expansion. Most are tapering down – fearing over capacity, higher taxes, higher energy costs, and higher employment costs. That means entrepreneurs are struggling or hesitating to start or expand the industries that will feed and cloth us in the coming decade – due to lack of investment. You know, like solar panels and stuff, ironically.

And this monetization – this making of dollars out of this air, that’s reducing the gap more than anything. Once this downturn is over, and the pent up cash hits the market, what do you think will happen to the value of the dollar now that these hundreds of billions were magically produced? Inflation. Inflation is basically a tax on anyone who owns dollars.

This was adorable:

I just know that Obama is trying to shrink the gap between the rich and the poor. Unlike Noisy Dove and Glenn Beck, he doesn’t think policies designed to do so will destroy the country. He just thinks it is the moral imperative of a government to represent all the people, including (if not especially) the poor and ignorant. Some, including Obama, actually think shrinking the gap between rich and poor will make the country stronger.

So tell me then Dr. Dove, because Glenn and I would like to know. How will any of these policies help or better

represent the poor. I know that is your camp’s image: The guys out to fight evil business and help the poor poor. But all I see are ideas that harm business, the thing that actually does help the poor. All I see is a legacy of trapping the poor in housing projects and spreading a sense of entitlement.

And are you trying to say Obama think making everyone poor will make the country stronger? Or are you saying his

policies will somehow make poor people richer? I’d like to know how. If you don’t understand how just say so – because that’s what I think. I think you have no grasp of economic principle but like the feeling of compassion – so you buy into this illogical garbage.

For Noisy Dove: Ok, that was a beautiful Noisy Dove political rant, but you’re missing my point. I’ll try to explain.

For Professor Dove: My belief that Obama is trying to merge to two Americas is based on his background and political actions. Apart from a few token consessions, nothing he’s done has been for those with power and money. That’s basically the opposite of GWB. Obama’s pushing this current healthcare reform, which will be harmful to everyone except the 40 million uninsured Americans. The democratic goody-bag (aka economic stimulus) did little for businesses, and much more for “the little guy.”  And as to your comment:

“It does, however, appear that Obama is trying something drastic to help the poor.  But capitalism doesn’t exist without the poor.  It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on how America will look in 15 years as far as the inner city world, the well-off world, and how the overall economy will function.”

I have no idea how things will look. I just know that Obama is trying to shrink the gap between the rich and the poor. Unlike Noisy Dove and Glenn Beck, he doesn’t think policies designed to do so will destroy the country. He just thinks it is the moral imperative of a government to represent all the people, including (if not especially) the poor and ignorant. Some, including Obama, actually think shrinking the gap between rich and poor will make the country stronger. If the bank CEOs had been under tighter control, the world wouldn’t be in an economic down turn. His policies reflect his ideals.

? The war in Iraq was a success. Maybe you were too little to remember Dr. Dove, but it was the lack of an immediate victory strategy that got us into trouble. No one predicted Iraq would fold up like a paper bag and we had ‘control’ of the place before we were ready – which allowed the insurgency and made for hasty arrogant decisions.

I don’t want to talk about your odd idea that Bush had economic gain in mind for the war. That’s about as logical as Bush planning 9-11 or the outsourcing with cheaper foreign CEO idea.

The argument that Bush went in so as to stake a sizable military presence in the area – that’s logical. That’s what I figured would at least be the bonus affect of the war from its beginning. We need a presence there badly. The alternative was to keep two carrier groups in range indefinitely.

Regan did exactly what needed to be done. He stimulated business and we quickly emerged from the recession. He did the opposite of what Carter was doing, which was keeping us in the recession, AND IS WHAT OBAMA IS DOING NOW BUT WITH EXTRA ZERROS.

And I appreciate your compassion. But if you truly care about your fellow man test what you’re going to inoculatehim with first. This whole Liberal idea of pumping money into second America is the reason there still is a second America. As the standard of living in America grew, more people moved out of industrial areas – like Detroit – and many factories shut down and went elsewhere – probably due to union concerns.

The Lefties like Obama have the idea that “They’re going to hurt people with money, and they’re going to try to help those without it.” Now shit, if that actually worked, or if we didn’t know if it worked, I’d say give it a go. BUT IT DOESN’T FUCKING WORK, WE KNOW THAT. Trickling welfare into the ghettos is the reason we have ghettos and weird housing projects. When you give someone money you teach them not to try, especially when you give them just enough to keep living a miserable life right where they’re at – only able to afford the bare necessities and develop animosity. This same thing happens in small country towns. If they want more money the options are: Have a baby or commit crime.

“If that means greater government control of business, and less individual freedom, I think that’s sacrifice he’s willing to make.” What if the history of the last century isn’t all fables and analogies? Dr. Dove, the way to help the second America isn’t to taper down the success of successful people and trickle a bare subsistence onto the poor. It’s giving the poor reasonable jobs. And the way you give them jobs is to stop scaring the shit out of everyone trying to make something out of American.

Anything is better than this cycle of poverty Liberals love to create with their compassionate hearts. Even allowing people to become millionaires and hire away Democratic electorate.

Oh let me – let me.

Cap and trade will chase numerous factories out of the country, causing further flight from small towns and urban areas to commercial suburbs – creating new poor people and stranding them next to their closed former employer.

The new taxes will function similarly. Few millionaires will feel comfortable expanding their businesses and hiring people, which will keep the level of unemployment high. We will eventually see the two Americas merge in the sense that more and more Americans fall out of the job market and demand government aid, which causes government to increase taxes to supply the aid, which further harms productivity, and forces more people out of their jobs, and eventually out of the job market all together, where they are forces to demand government aid.

You might think the cycle would become obvious and politicians would stop the tax and make game, but they won’t, because they haven’t yet, not on the left anyway. The poor people who have no hope of finding work in the newly merged American continue electing whoever promises the biggest prizes.

We continue taking the millionaire’s millions and giving the poor their hundreds. Obama sees not everyone isgetting enough eggs, so he wants to slaughter some chickens to feed them (since some farmers have more chickens than they need anyway) – and assumes we’ll have the same or more eggs later.

The analogy is valid. Over taxing an evil millionaire takes away his ability to reinvest into his operations. This means – of course – less investment and less growth – less new jobs and fewer old jobs. Better to let the millionaire build his ideas and aspirations – which involves hiring people and training them with valuable skills. And if you want to help the dirt poor folks, lower the minimum wage. Stop cutting unskilled people out of the job market – which is what min-wage does. Get some operations near those poor areas to take advantage of the labor. The poor can finally start working their way out of those miserable ghettos, projects, and dead towns.

In other words, let the farmers keep more chickens than they need. What they’ll do is convert some of their egg production into making new chickens. Eggs will get cheaper and in greater supply. Then we’ll all have eggs.

It you want eggs stop killing the fucking chickens!!!!!

I think a better question to ask Dr. Dove is: How, using economic science, will these policies of Obama actually help anyone? Because even if wealth were a constant, and we took ALL the rich people’s money, there wouldn’t be enough to welfare the poor into middle class. So redistribution won’t work, even without counting the fact that it destroys the source of what it’s distributing.