My fellow Americans:

I must say, it was fascinating to tune in Tuesday night and watch you decide to commit financial suicide.  It was even more fascinating to watch those of you at the Obama rally in Chicago cheering so wildly.  I can’t help but wonder what exactly you were cheering for.

HE TOOK THE NATION ANOTHER SIX TRILLION DOLLARS DEEPER INTO DEBT!  WOOO-HOOOO!  WE NEED MORE OF THAT!

HE RAMMED THROUGH A HEALTH-CARE LAW THAT WILL DISCOURAGE BUSINESSES FROM HIRING NEW EMPLOYEES!  YESSSS!! THAT’S HOW YOU FIX A STRUGGLING ECONOMY!

HE GAVE BILLIONS OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO COMPANIES THAT WENT BANKRUPT!  LET’S HEAR IT FOR GOVERNMENT CREATING JOBS!!

And of course many of you were just happy to have a president who gives you so much free stuff, like this economic genius so typical of Obama’s supporters:

So there you have the key to Obama’s success.  The 47% (and growing) share of Americans who pay no income taxes and feel entitled to live off those of us who do formed a winning coalition with millions of young economic illiterates who gave answers like these to a reporter:

“Are you concerned about the national debt?”

“Uh … like, I kinda thought the U.S. lends money to all the other countries, so I don’t think we probably have a national debt.”

“Do you worry at all about the national debt?”

“Not really.”

“Do you have any idea how large the national debt is?”

“No, but I’ve heard it’s pretty big.”

“Well, how large do you think the national debt is?”

“I bet it’s at least 200 billion dollars.”

Yes, yes, I know … many of you in the crucial swing state of Ohio fell for that line about Obama “saving” the auto industry.  You swallowed that crock of @#$% because (to be frank) you don’t understand diddly about economics.  Obama didn’t save the auto industry.  He bailed out an inefficient automobile company that should have been allowed to fail.  Unless Americans decided to buy fewer cars just because GM was no longer making them, the auto industry would have been just fine.  With GM gone, car buyers would have taken their business to Ford or Toyota or Honda (Toyota and Honda produce their cars in the U.S.), who would have ended up hiring more workers to meet the extra demand.  Employment would have simply shifted to producers who didn’t need government bailouts to stay alive.

I’ve got to give the Democrats credit for their long-term strategy.  They’ve managed to turn such a large share of the voting population into government dependents, a Republican presidential candidate has to nearly run the table among the non-dependents to win.  The “give me free stuff!” crowd will continue growing and imposing itself on the rest of us until the party ends — which it will, and very, very badly at that.

Now that Obama (who saved the auto industry!) has been given another four years to wrack up trillion-dollar deficits, the Federal Reserve will keep pumping out trillions of phony new dollars to cover the debts, inflation will necessarily spiral upward, prices will rise as the purchasing power of a dollar necessarily falls … and you, my economically illiterate fellow citizens, will blame greedy businesses for raising prices.

Now that ObamaCare doesn’t stand a chance of being rolled back, insurers will be forced to cover routine, expected, and non-threatening conditions (such as a lack of birth control pills), premiums will necessarily rise as insurers pass the cost of those routine, expected and non-threatening conditions on to policyholders … and you, my economically illiterate fellow citizens, will blame greedy insurers for raising premiums.

Now that Obama has been re-elected, the Bush tax rates will expire, the people who actually create jobs will have more of their capital confiscated to be spent on “green” companies that are about to go bankrupt and other brilliant “stimulus” plans, so they’ll end up hiring fewer people … and you, my economically illiterate fellow citizens, will blame greedy businessmen for not hiring more people and raising wages.

I could go on, but you get the idea.  You’re about to get exactly what you demanded at the polls:  runaway inflation, higher prices on damned near everything, higher insurance premiums, fewer new businesses, fewer jobs, and a national debt that will crush your children and grandchildren.

Enjoy the consequences of your decision.  And a decade or so from now when the U.S. has turned into the next Greece, citizens are rioting in the streets because our dead-broke government can no longer send them checks backed by money borrowed from China, and the Treasury is begging the IMF for a bailout, remember:  You asked for it – you @#$%ing morons.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Share/Bookmark
62 Responses to “Suicide Watch”
  1. Rocky Angelucci says:

    For a brief moment today I allowed myself the feeble hope that our nation would reach between the couch cushions and find a nugget of intelligence.

    Silly me.

    Nope, too many people decided they need ObamaPhones and other free stuff.

    • Melissa says:

      The free stuff is too tempting, I guess. My neighbor told my husband he was voting for Obama because “Obama gave my son money for college.” That man works 3+ jobs year round and ought to know better–from whom did Obama take this money to give to his son? So short sighted!

      Nice of Obama to reach into his own pocket like that.

      • ThornInYourSide says:

        I’m sure that the cost of college far far outweighed any tax that was taken from a guy working 3 jobs year round. Once again, you don’t sound like much of an economic genius Mr. Naugton.

        I’d reply, but I have no idea what point you think you just made there, genius. What does the cost of college have to do with anything in this post?

        Reading your writing is like listening to drunk trying to make a point.

  2. Peggy Sue says:

    Crap. I should have bought more gold.

  3. Jenny says:

    Oh, god, Tom. What the hell? I can’t explain it. I’m at a complete loss. I’m concerned most about Obamacare, because I can only conclude that socialized medicine will now become permanent. Then what’s next? I just can’t understand it. I feel like we’re hurtling toward Mike Judge’s Idiocracy.

    I can explain it. The Democrats have brilliantly turned an ever-growing share of the population into government dependents. To win a national election, Republicans have to win nearly all of the remaining votes.

    • ThornInYourSide says:

      Explain why EVERY other industrialized nation in the world provides some form of nationalized health care except for the US. Explain why you think it’s ok to continue setting the table for corporations to socialize the costs and privatize the profits in this country.

      Tom, you are NOT “God of economics” that you purport to be. Following the principles you espouse will pitch us into a lock-jaw depression. Record percentages of wealth are concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer owners.

      And if you think they have the interests of small businessmen like you and your father, you are a colossal fool.

      I’m going to violate my rule about not arguing with idiots and reply.

      I don’t give a crap if every other industrialized nation provides some kind of nationalized health care. Most other industrialized nations also have a state religion. Should we have one? Is what other countries do the definition of what’s right? The “every other industrialized” nations are also going broke because of their national health care systems. We have trillions of dollars in unfunded future liabilities already because of Medicare. Putting everyone on Medicare will only add to trillions more to a debt we’re already incapable of paying and thus hasten our demise.

      As for me thinking it’s okay to corporations to socialize their costs, well … I’m sorry you’re incapable of reading and comprehending plain English. I have never advocated for corporations socializing their costs. It’s the bailout crowd that socialized costs, and I’m against bailouts. Bailing out GM was socializing costs. The millions that went down the toilet because of Obama’s “stimulus” to Solyndra and other “green energy” boondoggles was socializing the cost.

      Following the principles I espouse would slowly get us out of debt. The lock-jaw depression is coming, you moron, but it’s coming because of the gargantuan debt burden. Interest on the debt will soon be our single biggest expenditure, gradually squeezing out all other spending. The debt will eventually require either massive spending cuts (thus shrinking the GDP) or huge increases in taxes (thus shrinking the GDP, because people can’t spend what’s been taxed away) or both. When the GDP goes on a long contraction because of the debt, then you’ll have a depression.

      I don’t expect you to grasp that, since you’ve already demonstrated you can’t comprehend plain English or simple logic.

      • ThornInYourSide says:

        “I don’t give a crap” pretty much sums up how you feel about everyone except yourself.

        What on earth does state religion have to do with nationalized health care? You call everyone who disagrees with your beliefs a ‘moron’ and then you make a ridiculous connection like that. Do you understand that not having a nationalized health care system makes it very difficult for American companies to compete in the global marketplace? Am I a ‘moron’ for making that observation?

        “I have never advocated for corporations socializing their costs. It’s the bailout crowd that socialized costs, and I’m against bailouts.”
        Link to your outraged blog post that Bear Stearns was bailed out in 2008 but no arrests were made over the fiscal shenanigans that went on since the repeal of the the Glass–Steagall Act in 1999. At least the S&L scandal of the 80′s resulted in some of these corporate criminals going to jail.

        You have already leaped to the erroneous conclusion that I’m an unemployed Obama phone carrying loser. Wrong. We have a household income well over $150K, no debt, health insurance through our employers, and over $300K in retirement funds.

        You argued that since other countries have national health care, we must be wrong for not having it. Since most other countries also have a state religion, we must be wrong for not having one. If you disagree that we should have a state religion, then “every other country has (insert liberal dream here)” is moot.

        When American companies are burdened with the cost of ObamaCare, they will indeed have difficulty competing in the worldwide market.

        When exactly did I call you an unemployed loser? I don’t know your employment status and never speculated on it. You have this strange habit of putting words in my mouth, then criticizing me for the words you put there.

  4. Gerard says:

    Yeah…. but didn’t Romney want to increase military spending on money that you don’t have… and started making noises about Iran which could have meant more wars with money you don’t have. Didn’t Bush run up this crazy debt in the first place. Didn’t Romney hypercritically talk about China “playing with their currency” in the debates despite the fact that US is the #1 commiter of this sin by always printing more knowing that being #1 there will always be demand for their $…. (wont be for ever btw)

    I would have thrown my vote away to Gary Johnson had I been a citizen because I wouldn’t have had faith that Romney would/could have restored your economy.

    On a two party preferred I would have begrudingly voted Obama – only because its better to spend money you don’t have on health care rather than warfare, the war on drugs and so forth. Plus I hate being aligned with right wing “big goverment” social views.

    Bush ran up debt, which is Bush’s error, not Romney’s. Romney doesn’t want the U.S. to keep attempting to print its way out of debt, which means his criticism of China isn’t hypocritical.

    Protecting the country is the one of the few legitimate constitutional functions of the federal government. I don’t believe protecting the country means messing around in the affairs of other countries, but if Iran does get a nuke, the world will be considerably more dangerous. If and when we do find ourselves facing a war we truly need to fight, we’ll be too broke to pay for it.

    What is a right-wing social view in your book?

    • Gerard says:

      A stereo typical right wing social view in my view point would be -

      Interfering with marriage equality arrangement or putting provisions against people who dont meet the sexual social norm based on the dominant faith of the country. In your country mostly influenced by the Protestant Christianity. Monotheism didn’t invent the instiution of marriage but Conservative Monotheists generally go on like they own a monopoly of who can or can’t marry.

      Another one – slushing money away on the war on drugs. More specifically the war on cannabis. Only the other day I had a smoke (via a vaporizer) one night and went past a bunch of sniffer dogs the next day funded by my tax dollars at the station on the way to work. I have a uni degree, pretty skilled at what I do, work 2 jobs and do contract work, and am in the highest income tax bracket and these Conservative f-wits want to use my money to inhibit me from inhaling a vapor and laugh at stuff in the privacy of my own home after a work out. They can get stuffed – further more people who want need to use it medically should….. end of story.

      Another one – Euthanasia…. I put other mammals down out of torment – namely my X-pets. Why should hominin primates be exempt if thats what they truly want? Yes – provisions need to be made to ensure that its truly what you want and not family members out to manipulate the situation. That aside – Conservatives can shove the “we have the gift of life” crap right up where the sun doesn’t shine. No one asked or accepted the gift – you just got it. And if your terminally ill it sometimes just doesn’t seem too much like a gift.

      Another one – early time abortion. Now I grant you that this is not black and white. But in the event of rape or incest it is. Particularly if its done early on. Conservative view points on this subject are generally not motivated by rationality but by religion. One that I dont subscribe too. I’m more then happy to discuss this issue with centrists who might have differing views to me. But if the extent of their debate is “cause God said so” then I don’t want to be aligned with such lazy thinking.

      Another one – putting people in prison for anything…. including personal Cannabis possession. Doesn’t really happen here though. But for trivial crimes and guess what…. people often come out worst then they started. I can tell you if my government put me in prison for Marijuana possession or personal use even for a week id be pretty jaded. Id be inclined to use my Unix skills and join anonymous to make Government’s life difficult and help out Julian Assange. ** DISCLAIMER – I NEVER HAVE HACKED INTO ANYTHING IN MY LIFE… JUST MAKING A POINT **…. but blue collar people in prison come out with alot worse and jaded too and learn new blue collar crimes

      Another one – Capital Punishment…. if you kill children, rape women or what ever there is nothing like being put to death and exonerated after the fact. It would work if justice systems could be 100% accurate – but its not. And never will be.

      Another one – and this is trivial… I dont give a crap about the Australian flag. I personally find it mildly offensive that some one sells out their intellect and defines a sense of self worth under a symbol that ties them to tribal primate group. Though, like my conservative counterparts I value freedom of speech to highly to inhibit any one to be pro or against a flag. But when bores like John Howard want school students to romantacise our flag and national anthem I think get a friggen life and stop invading our culture. I like the fact that we take the piss our of flag and national anthem and make efforts not to remember it. We had it great under Hawke who couldn’t give a stuff and at the same time demoralized the Conservatives by dragging them kicking and screaming with what should of been their good policies while ignoring all their crap. Here is an idea for Conservatives – why not define your sense of self worth by the things you do and not by re-affirming what you are or what tribe/country/team you belong to.

      Another one – Animal rights…. Im the first to stay I enjoy a good steak. But I sympathize with the left. When I hear stories of barbaric cruelty that has recently come out in abattoirs of Australia and live produce sent to Indonesia. Pigs bashed to death with metal polls. Lambs thrown against walls until they are dead and so forth I do think there is need for regulation and trade restrictions. Animals certainly have a higher degree of conscientiousness and a better developed nervous system then a friggen fetus. In a civilized country efforts need to be made that they are slaughtered humanly.

      Tobacco in public places is another one.

      Well…. howz that for a rant! :) …. Slightly off topic I know, but you asked….. for the most part im probably preaching to the converted. There is a few points of which you would disagree with I know. I don’t identify myself as a Libertarian in a ideological sense but in 95% of cases I would agree with what they say in purely pragmatic terms.

      I certainly identify with Ron Paul and Gary Johnson alot more then I would Mitt Romney or Obama. I don’t even know if Mitt Romney was moderate, or a crazy conservative…. I just dont know. I like him more then Santorum… that guy was a dooch… At the dinner table have no idea what I would talk with about.

      We agree on many of those issues. That’s why I’m a libertarian, not a conservative.

  5. Melissa says:

    Very frustrated here, too. :/

    Hope your “free” IUD is worth it, you ****ing morons.

    • ThornInYourSide says:

      You don’t want the lower economic classes reproducing as it’s a burden on the taxpayer, yet you don’t want them to use birth control even though it is vastly cheaper and more effective than unplanned parenthood.

      Trust me, birth control is dirt cheap. You have to be realistic about human behavior, and if you don’t want to get labeled by Tom as an “Economic Idiot” you should realize that it costs YOU PERSONALLY pennies per year to provide federally funded birth control to those who need it.

      I don’t care who reproduces, as long as they don’t expect me to support their children. I also encourage people to use birth control. The “it only costs you pennies per year” excuse is no reason to force one citizen to pay for what another citizen wants.

      • ThornInYourSide says:

        So even if the government provided birth control to anyone who wanted it and it personally cost the taxpayers pennies, or even a few dollars per year out of their total tax burden while saving millions and millions of dollars that it would cost to support unplanned/unwanted children who are a tremendous social burden you still would cling stubbornly to your ‘no socialized health care’ platform.

        That doesn’t sound like a smart economic decision. Yet you call everyone who disagrees with you a moron.

        The issue being brought up about the supposed “War on Women” wasn’t the government providing birth control. It was the government ordering the Catholic Church to provide birth control to its female employees — thus ordering the church to violate its own religious teachings.

        “Saving millions and millions of dollars” in social burden by providing free birth control is attacking the wrong end of the problem. The federal government shouldn’t be in the child-support business in the first place. That would truly save millions and millions. As it is, the guarantee of federal support encourages millions of millions of single women to have sex and get pregnant without demanding any support or responsibility from the biological father. That’s why the illegitimacy rate more than tripled after Great Society welfare programs were expanded. Anything you subsidize, you get more of it — that’s basic economics. Meanwhile, you’re assuming single women get pregnant because by gosh, they just can’t afford to buy their own condoms, so if we buy birth control for them, they’ll stop getting pregnant. I hardly think so. Condoms cost about 50 cents each.

        No, I only call people morons if they’re obviously morons.

        • Becky says:

          It’s absolutely ridiculous. I live a very cautious life because I’m single and struggle to support my life (in part due to taxes) and can’t possibly fathom supporting a child. Buuuut if other women want to a) have birth control b) have children c)have abortions I’m supposed to support all of those decisions? Sorry but where does the constitution go over the part about me being responsible for the poor decisions of others? Also, if birth control costs “pennies or a few dollars per year” why the F*&#^^% can’t people buy their own? If I’m paying for it, I should get a say in their decisions. And my choice is…sterilization. Done! Problem solved!

          Well, remember, it’s a “living, breathing” Constitution, so it now means whatever judges and legislatures want it to mean.

  6. Jim says:

    Considering who the media/RNC put up as an opponent, can you be surprised that Obama won?

    The media was behind Romney? Are you kidding, or am I missing your point?

    • Wyatt says:

      The media assumed that Mitt Romney would be the nominee chosen by the Republicans- he was the ‘presumptive nominee’ from the beginning, and that’s how the coverage of the conventions was steered whenever it wasn’t busy making fun of Rick Perry (which is fine by me, as Rick Perry is kind of a whore). It’s not that the media was BEHIND Romney, I just like to think they knew Obama could beat him and not Ron Paul.

      The Republican Party is kind of struggling against its own future. If they allowed Ron Paul to compete fairly instead of cheating him and his supporters, I genuinely think we’d have a new president right now.

      I don’t think Ron Paul could’ve beaten Obama. The libertarians haven’t done a good job of making a case most Americans can grasp and support.

  7. Elenor says:

    Oh Tom, I’d cheer and shout Bravo! at you, but I’m crying too hard (metaphorically, anyway…)

    I’m one of those eeeeevil business owners, widowed and left with one of the few American manufacturing companies still here. I desperately want to hire (back) my subcontractor (an ex-employee whom my husband had to let go back in the … what was it? 2001? 2002? economic crash). He has been a long-haul trucker for 8+ years now, and he desperately wishes to get off the road and stay near his family… {shrug} I couldn’t afford it before the Obamination was re-elected, and I fer shure won’t be able to now!

    I’m also one of those greeeeeeedy (but, alas, uninsured) business owners who won’t be able to afford Obama-care (not for the 47% (of which: “Hey! I are one!”) and not for myself!), so I’ll have to continue struggling with the payment plans set up by the hospital, the ER doc, and the radiologist — all $8,600+ — for my unexpected kidney stone treatment! (Oh, hey wait! Didn’t candidate Romney say I could get treated in the ER for just a “couple hundred dollars”?! Maybe that only applies to illegals and poor children. Of which: I aren’t one!)

    Well, at least I’ll also be able (I hope!) to continue paying on the payment plans “our” beneficent govt set up to help me with last year’s taxes… all $22k of them (my husband died before making any tax payments: for us as serf… er… as “citizens”…. and for the corporation. *I* was unable to make any tax payments last year as I tried to pick up and carry on after his death.

    Of course, I desperately wish to suck at the govt teat also: it took a couple months and an appeal to get ‘accepted’ into the VA Health system. (I *AM* a veteran after all, with nearly 8 years of (peace-time, remember back then?) active duty service!) But I’m class 8D — second to the bottom — so, “no soup for me”! (No medical care either.)

    Can’t quite qualify for HARP (mortgage re-fi, for folks in trouble), my credit union and bank won’t let me re-fi like a normal person: the #=*&@+* appraiser did a slap-dash job with (SO!) many errors, which when I appealed, they blew off; PLUS the govt (surprise!) has put some truly idiotic appraisal requirements (in a panic after the housing crash), meaning my TWO-story house is “appraised” as a one-story house. (How insane is that?!)

    Oh well… Thanks for letting me whine…. I’m not broken (nor yet, entirely broke! {fingers crossed}). I’m just staggering under the complete lack of “govt help” (to the middle class, to biz owners, to older folks, to widows, to the uninsured, to homeowners, to — pick your allegedly protected class!) combined with the complete piling on of govt’al idiocy that is making my life … well, let’s call it difficult.

    At least you can still make me laugh. It’s through my tears… but any port in a storm (as the east-coasters are learning).

    I hope ObamaCare doesn’t sink you, Elenor.

  8. Jeff says:

    I swore I wasn’t going to read anything to do with the election but I’m glad I read this. Made me realize I’m not only the only sane person left. I’ve pretty much lost faith in at least half my fellow citizens (do I have to call them that?)

    What I can’t decide is if we’ve driven off the cliff and are already free falling or if there is just nothing in the way of the bus anymore.

    I don’t like the election result, but I kind of figured we were voting for who was going to drive a bus that’s already going down the cliff. Maybe it’s better if Obama is president when we crash. That way the people who don’t know diddly about economics will at least associate the crash with him.

    • Jeff says:

      I think I like your analogy better – the bus *is* already going down the cliff. I guess the question we’ll never know is could it have been stopped with Romney instead of Obama? Not sure I think it would’ve – it seems like when anyone gets elected they suddenly decide that spending money is fun – esp. when it’s not theirs. I do think Romney understands the value of a hard earned dollar more than most presidents we’ve ever had, though.

      Yeah, we’ll never know. It may have already been too late to stop the debt-bomb from exploding. Now it’s just a question of when that happens.

  9. Giuseppe Corvo says:

    The GOP paid for shitting on Ron Paul and his supporters. The irony is delicious. Four more years of Obama is a disaster pretty much like four years of Romney would have been a disaster. This will play out pretty much the same way it would have under Romney…the people who believe this system can be reformed politically do not understand the degree of rot in the system. NWO, here we come…..

  10. wte9 says:

    This will make you weep harder. Utter madness. Economic illiteracy at its finest, worthy of FDR: http://washingtonexaminer.com/95-blacks-say-feds-should-provide-jobs/article/2512739

    And as long as people believe the fiction that governments can create jobs, we’ll keep heading towards that cliff.

  11. Yes, I cringe every time I see someone talk about how Romney was going to take away a woman’s “right” to “no-cost” birth control. It’s so incredibly frustrating not to be able to reach through the computer screen and slap a Facebook friend while yelling, “THERE’S NO SUCH THING AS ‘NO-COST’ ANYTHING!!!”

    And, Ye Gods, don’t even get me started on health insurance. We have a small company; just 7 employees (since our clientele consists completely of retail apparel stores, we’ll see how long we’re here after last night). We have provided an insurance plan from Day One. and the premiums have just been crushing us. So last year, at the advice of our insurance guy (and an investor in our business), we did away with our PPO plan and went for a high-deductible HSA plan. My husband and I, who are in pretty good health for a couple of 50-year-olds (thanks to our paleo diet), love it. Our head programmer, who is 64 and in crappy health (his wife’s is even worse) is not. You see, they don’t like knowing how much their health decisions cost them, and they are upset that their combined prescriptions cost them their ENTIRE deductible ($4000!!!) every year.

    Ah, well – they both turn 65 next year and will go on Medicare (not that he isn’t b!tching about THAT already, too). He was extremely snotty when I suggested he speak to our insurance guy about the best way to handle that. He actually said, “Yes, well, his advice may be great for the company, but not for the employees.”

    Say that again? Does he really believe that what’s in this company’s best interest is not in his? Yes…yes, he does. He sincerely thinks it would be better for us to have another massive lay-off like we did in 2008 (we let go half of our staff), than for him to have to think about how much his poor health choices cost him. Perhaps he doesn’t know he’d be the first laid off, and I know for a fact he can’t afford to retire. But he probably doesn’t worry about that, either, because he knows Comrade Obama will take care of him – and there’s the fact that he’ll probably be dead (or merely senseless) from the damn statins he takes when it all goes to Hell in a hand basket. It’s not his problem, is it?

    As for the end of the Bush tax rates, and the fact that Obama just wants the “rich” to “pay a little more”…the taxes paid by a household earning $70,000 is going to increase $3,600 come January 1st. $70,000 a year makes you rich?? I guess, considering where we’re headed, it does.

    I am just so frightened for us.

    Unfortunately, a majority of people think like your programmer. Stuff should be just “free” somehow.

    • ThornInYourSide says:

      Link to “a household earning $70K per year is going to pay $3,600 more in taxes” next year.
      The election is over. The relentless campaign of misinformation, fact distortion and outright lies about Obama’s plans can cease now.

      What misinformation, fact distortion or outright lie have I spread about Obama? Be specific. Quote from the post.

      • ThornInYourSide says:

        Again, from the very post by Jan’s Sushi Bar that we are replying to:

        “As for the end of the Bush tax rates, and the fact that Obama just wants the “rich” to “pay a little more”…the taxes paid by a household earning $70,000 is going to increase $3,600 come January 1st.”

        Just wondering where that data is coming from.

        Are you having technical issues or something? Why do you keep asking for a “quote from the post” when it’s right up there, not 20 px from my reply?

        I didn’t cite the figure, so I didn’t prove the source. But since you’re too intellectually lazy to look things up yourself, here are some figures:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_fiscal_cliff#Effects_of_tax_increases
        http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/blog/2012/10/new-study-forecasts-unprecedented.html

        You really should stop using the handle “ThornInYourSide.” To be a thorn in my side, you’d need to provide an intellectual challenge. Calling me a racist and putting words in my mouth doesn’t make you intellectually challenging. It just proves that my “moron” label is accurate.

  12. Dave Sill says:

    I’m disappointed with the result, too. My candidate might have made a serious dent on the deficit/debt, and would no doubt have improved personal liberty. I’m talking about Gary Johnson, of course. Romney might have had a slight edge over Obama on fiscal restraint, but I can’t get behind a religious kook who wants to tell people what they can or can’t do based on their concept of morality.

    Nearly all politicians favor telling people what they can or can’t do based on their concept of morality. Democrats believe it’s immoral to deny people with pre-existing illnesses insurance, it’s immoral to pay people less than what they consider a “fair” wage (what’s “fair” is a moral judgment), it’s immoral to earn what they consider “obscene” (another moral judgment) profits, it’s immoral to hire who you prefer if your preferences don’t meet their defined racial quotas, etc. The entire welfare system is based on the left-wing vision of what’s moral.

    What new imposition of government-mandated morality did Romney support?

    • Dave Sill says:

      “What new imposition of government-mandated morality did Romney support?”

      Well, I’m more concerned about the existing impositions of morality than any potential new ones, but, since you ask, we don’t know what Romney might have been planning–or what his heavenly father might have told him to do six months from now. I’m glad we don’t have to worry about that.

      So you were worried about imaginary new laws imposing morality? Based on what in his record or public statements? The Catholic church says birth control is a sin … would you dismiss any Catholic presidential candidate on the theory that he or she would try to outlaw birth control?

      • Jess says:

        Really, Dave? Speaking as a Mormon, I can tell you what Mitt’s ‘heavenly father’ will be telling him to do six months from now: live and let live. Mormons, as a general rule, aren’t out to force the world to adhere to their standard of morality. One of the religion’s keystones is the concept of free agency: the right of every man to decide what kind of a person he’ll be.

        You can argue all day that Mitt would have been unable to separate his religion from his civic duties, but his political record shows that that’s complete bullshit. Besides, we have protections against one man’s morality dictating public policy built right into the system; the fact that Obama is ignoring them doesn’t mean Romney would have.

        And for the record, lest I start sounding too pro-Romney, I’m very much in the camp of people who see that the bus is headed off the cliff and don’t know that it matters much who’s driving it. It just irks me that otherwise intelligent people have chosen Obama as the lesser of two evils based on a biased and poorly researched preconception of Romney’s religion.

        I had a good friend in California who’s a Mormon, and she told me the same thing: she has no interest in imposing her religious beliefs on others through the government. She considers herself a libertarian Republican. I also remember Donny Osmond arguing very forcefully against government ordering record companies to label some rap songs as “obscene.” He said what’s “obscene” or unacceptable should be decided by parents, not by the government.

      • Dave Sill says:

        No, like I said, I am more concerned with existing impositions of morality that he supports than any potential new ones he might introduce. But with religious kooks of any flavor–including Catholic–the potential for new impositions is non-negligible. Especially compared to a libertarian/Libertarian candidate.

        So by your view, only an atheist could be trusted to be president. Sorry, I don’t buy it.

        • Dave Sill says:

          Actually, Tom, I don’t think there’s anyone who can be trusted with that level of power. But with the choice between Obama, Romney, and Johnson, for me it was a no-brainer. And I’m not just talking about their belief in the supernatural.

          I of course would have preferred Johnson. But since the only candidates with a chance of winning were Obama and Romney, I voted for the less objectionable option.

    • Jason Brady says:

      Here is what I’ve heard of Romney’s support for government-mandated morality:

      * Outlawing abortion
      * Porn
      * Same-sex marriage
      * Marijuana

      Many of these are part of his social background, as a Mormon.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mitt_Romney

      People who are anti-abortion believe a human is being murdered, so for them it’s no more “imposing morality” to stop it than it’s imposing morality to outlaw homicide. I don’t care if gays are allowed to marry or not, but I’m very much against judges just deciding to impose their definition of marriage and bypassing the voters. It’s no different from judges just up and deciding “marriage” can be defined as a man marrying three women.

      As a libertarian, I’m opposed to laws against drugs or porn, but I don’t see either major party being courageous on those issues.

      • Dave Sill says:

        Whether or not abortion is legally considered is a matter of law. Just because someone believes it’s murder doesn’t give them the right to enforce that belief if they’re in a position of power.

        For example, JFK said:

        “I believe in a president whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation, or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office, I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me.”

        I find that reassuring and would have appreciated hearing the same sentiment from Romney, but I *still* wouldn’t have voted for him because he’s so far from me on the issues that matter most to me.

        I’m pro-choice within certain limits, but I don’t consider people who believe abortions kill human beings and therefore should be outlawed as religious kooks. If you do believe a fetus is a human being, you couldn’t logically take any other position. At one time, blacks weren’t considered human either, at least not by slave-holders. But we don’t look back on the abolitionists as religious kooks trying to impose their version of morality on slave-holders, do we?

  13. Jana says:

    When I was in the 4th grade we had to elect a student president. In the speech one of the candidates made he peppered it with candy bar references and at each threw out a full size candy bar to the crowd. Needless to say, he won by a landslide. The other student candidate didn’t have a chance. I remember being very disappointed the next year when giving out bribes was banned. It’s been 25 years since that happened and I’m quite astonished that we’ve succumbed to this tactic as adults. It’s understandable from a 10 year old, but adults?!

    People who believe they’re entitled to have the government take care of them are adults only in the chronological sense.

  14. Nick says:

    I wonder if Obama will blame himself for the mess he inherits after his second term starts.

    Seriously though, the Republicans have control of the House, so I have hope that the damage can be contained to an extent (revenue bills originate in the House through Constitutional mandate), but taxes are going to go back up (the “Bush tax cuts will expire” as the media like to say) because the Democrats still have control of the Senate. Also, Obamacare has no hope of getting repealed, as you mentioned. It’s going to be four more years of the same aside from the tax hike. I think little, if any, significant legislation will get passed. I’m sure I’m missing something, but those are my thoughts in a nutshell at this point.
    As for Jim’s comment that the media picked Romney, I think he was talking about the primary, not the general election. The media kept talking about him (and ignoring Ron Paul) even when other candidates were front runners.

    Agreed on the media simply deciding Ron Paul was a non-factor. Same with Gary Johnson.

  15. Kari says:

    While I think there are people that vote Dem for the “free stuff”, I think a lot of people vote Dem because of the Rep stance on social issues such as gay marriage and abortion. Every time some moron says something along the lines of “it’s God’s plan for a baby to be born out of rape”, the independent voters cringe and run to the other party. (But hey, if we’re taking that stance, then we don’t need any doctors at all, since any illness or injury would be part of “God’s plan”, so we can go ahead and repeal Obamacare.) If the Republicans want to get more of the middle vote, I think they need to concentrate on what they do well – small government, fiscal conservatism – and stay out of people’s bedrooms and bodies.

    And for the record, I voted for Romney, but I am continually frustrated by the Republican party’s stance on these issues and how they push away the moderate voters.

    I share your frustrations with those Republicans. I want the libertarian wing of the party to take over.

  16. Clark Reddell says:

    You do realize that the 47% that you’re talking about include the elderly, the disabled, the unemployed, and people who are employed but don’t make enough money to be able to pay income tax, right? You seem to be under the impression that everyone who doesn’t pay income tax are all able bodied 20 year olds who are just too lazy to work. While a small percentage of the 47% are just being lazy, the vast, huge majority are the people listed before.

    Also, why do you want Romney to be president? He ran Bane Capital, whose business model revolved around running small businesses into the ground and laying off all the workers. If you want a president who will create jobs, then you’re just a hypocrite for supporting Romney, who again, went out of his way to destroy jobs and increase unemployment. Also, I love how republicans complain about bail outs, yet Romney was more then happy to accept a bailout while he was working at Bail Capital. So it’s okay if a Republican accepts bailouts, but it’s not okay for a Dem to?

    Jesus, Tom, I don’t even like the Democrats (I think they’ve shit all over Liberalism and turned it into a joke (I’m a CLASSICAL Liberal, which means I support individual freedoms, i.e. Gun Rights)), but this is just silly. You Republicans seriously need to review your goals as a party, because hypocrisy is running rampant, and I don’t think it’s intentional. Specifically, you need to denounce false-Republicans, like Tod Akins, Romney, that other guy I can’t remember who said that Embryology and Evolution are products of Satan, and the likes.

    1) Bane capital didn’t run businesses into the ground. They turned around failing companies, and yes, that will often mean cutting staff instead of everyone losing his or her job. Companies that are doing things right and earning good profits don’t need turning around.

    2) I wanted Romney to win because Obama sees no problem wracking up trillions in new debts every year, and that’s going to sink the country.

    3) The elderly are richest demographic group on average, as they should be. Let’s not get into the nonsense about poor ol’ grandma eating cat food. You don’t seriously believe 47% of the population is disabled or otherwise unable to work, do you? I’m talking about working people who pay no income taxes. That’s a very dangerous situation … people just love to vote for tax increases that they’ll never pay. That’s why I love how Tennessee is funded — by a sales tax. If state politicians want to raise taxes, they have to raise them on everyone. Amazing how support for more taxes and more spending dwindles when half the voters aren’t promised they won’t have to pay in.

    4) What’s with the “you Republicans” comment? I’ve made it clear over and over that I’m a libertarian. I voted for Romney because I believe he would do less damage to the country.

    • ThornInYourSide says:

      Hey Tom it’s “Bain Capital” although your misspelling is unintentionally both hilarious and more accurate.

      By the way, if “Bane Capital” were to do a turnaround of a software company that employed you as a programmer, you’d be one of the first to get cut. They don’t like middle-aged engineers that cost the company well over $100K in salary and benefits. A guy like Romney does a hard-nosed business analysis and realizes that 100 guys from Bangalore are lined up ready to do the same work for 30% of the cost.

      Also considering how much McDonalds, bacon and butter you eat, they’d be horrified at the price of treating your impending heart disease.

      Well, that’s strange … my current employer had a round of layoffs lately and I somehow survived, even though they’re switching platforms in the future and I’ll have to learn a new programming language. I can only conclude they like my work.

      I’m a contractor by choice — I turned down an offer to become an employee (What? They offered to HIRE a middle-aged software engineer permanently?! ) — so I provide my benefits, not them.

  17. Peter Hill says:

    But how was Romney going to cut taxes by 20%, increase military spending, and ‘balance the budget’???? During the entire campaign we ‘never’ saw how that math could work (without draconian cuts to government that were not politically feasible).

    And how could Republicans deny the War On Women when they had proposed a record number of abortion restrictions since the Tea Party victories???? That and those stupid rape comments made the War On Women all too real.

    And finally, how can Republicans stay relevant when their base is largely composed of Whites over 50 ??? Could any major brand survive with these demographics????

    He wasn’t going to balance the budget unless he was willing to make huge cuts in entitlements. It can’t be done without huge cuts in entitlements. The hope was that he would either make those difficult choices or at least spend us into financial doom more slowly.

    The “war on women” apparently consists of refusing to order the Catholic church to buy birth control for women.

    Agreed, the demographics are totally against Republicans. The Democrats have successfully turned a big share of the population into government dependents, so a Republican has to nearly sweep the non-dependent voters to win a national election.

  18. Ken Crosson says:

    “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.” – H.L. Mencken

    And so we shall.

  19. Mike Miller says:

    Tom,

    I’m trying to stay optimistic, and your cold reality is really ‘harshing on my mellow.’ Hey, maybe the democrats have the marijuana thing figured out to balancing this all out in the end.

    Seriously, you’re spot on. Have a shot of heavy cream. Take 2 breaths, and build a big fence around the farm. It could have been worse. I’m mormon and really had my hopes dashed.

    Mike

    I’ll be building a fence and stocking up on ammunition. When the debt bomb explodes and we become the next Argentina or Greece, I want to be prepared.

  20. Bret says:

    I don’t blame the poor people happily taking what’s being given to them. In a way, they’d be stupid not to take it. I blame the elitist liberal dolts who should know better.

    I was never hopeful for Romney. I knew as soon as he got the Republican nomination that he would not surpass Obama’s ridiculous popularity. (Come to think of it, none of those Republican pre-candidates ever stood a chance.) I wasn’t particularly impressed either with a candidate who presided over his own state-level version of Obamacare. My aunt, a lifelong Republican, who lives in a Boston suburb, had to admit she was holding her nose when voting for Romney.

    Republicans in general do not give me much sense of hope or relief. A Republican all-star favorite, George W. Bush, committed plenty of economically damaging misdeeds himself–namely mismanaging two wars into stagnant failure and bailing out a slew of oversized businesses–with never a word of rebuke from his fellow Republicans. Yes, Romney is not Bush, but he belongs to the same party and ideology, and I doubt very much Romney had many firm convictions that he would not shift on a dime if he thought such a move would effect greater popularity.

    Both mainstream political parties are horribly inept, and the general population is no better. Under the current paradigm, smart thinkers such as Libertarians will never win the presidency or any significant portion of either house of Congress or the Supreme Court. Perhaps we can begin to incorporate them starting at the state level. If one or two Libertarian governors multiplies into 8 or 10, and then into 20, then Libertarians will stand a much better chance at winning national elections. We need something to change. The two blundering excuses for parties we have now are not going to get it done.

    I used to trust our government implicitly and assumed they knew what they were doing, at least well enough to prevent something like an economic collapse. But then I took a glance at a few key historical events, among them the last 50 years of public health policy influenced by Keys & McGovern, and found a new meaning of ineptitude. It then occurred to me there is nothing special about elected or appointed officials (or hundreds of them altogether) that gives them the clairvoyance to understand how the world works. They won a popularity contest (either publicly or privately), that is all. Otherwise, they are not one iota different from the rest of us.

    I’m afraid far too many people currently think the way I used to think. Such naivete allows them to live a simple, happy life, where everything makes sense all the time. It also allows them to turn a blind eye to truly understanding how money is made and how a society functions. And these masses of people are the real culprits of the current predicament. They are the ones the Democrats and Republicans are catering to.

    We as a nation have gotten the government we earned. If it means inevitable economic catastrophe, I say let it come. Afterwards, when we are rebuilding our society, maybe we will have learned enough from the experience to rewrite our Constitution in a way that will prevent this kind of nonsense from happening to America ever again.

    I agree. I wasn’t particularly enthusiastic about Romney, but Bush pretty much sucked. I can’t stand a politician who calls himself a conservative and then spends money like he’s been bar-hopping with Ted Kennedy.

  21. Frank says:

    What luck for rulers that men do not think. – Adolf Hitler

  22. Peter Hill says:

    In 1980, Reagan’s stump speech included references to the Welfare Mother who drove a Cadillac to the Welfare Office. Supposedly a true story that Reagan read about somewhere. But strangely Reagan’s Welfare Mother is still alive in all the comments here. In fact Tom has actually pictured her as the “Obamaphone” lady.

    Yet I see no comments regarding Corporate Welfare. Where huge amounts of revenue are lost every year. In fact ‘Romney’ could be pictured as the poster boy for corporate welfare with all his Swiss and Cayman accounts.

    Seriously, when your day-after reflections are focused on the Welfare Mama, that’s an indicator of a certain shallowness.

    I am vehemently opposed to corporate welfare and have expressed my opposition to (for example) agricultural subsidies on both of my blogs. Archer Daniels Midland is perhaps the biggest welfare queen in the country. But one form of federal welfare doesn’t justify another. Both should be gone.

    The ObamaPhone lady quite nicely captures how the Democrats buy loyalty and votes with taxpayer money. Other than the rare elections where anti-war sentiment has been dominant, their appeal to the voters since the time of FDR has basically boiled down to VOTE FOR US! WE’LL GIVE YOU STUFF AND MAKE OTHER PEOPLE PAY FOR IT!

    Unfortunately, politicians of both major parties have promised more than we can possibly afford, which is why we’re well on our way to a debt-bomb disaster. The only question now is when it will explode.

    • Nice says:

      “I am vehemently opposed to corporate welfare and have expressed my opposition to (for example) agricultural subsidies on both of my blogs. Archer Daniels Midland is perhaps the biggest welfare queen in the country. But one form of federal welfare doesn’t justify another. Both should be gone.”

      You say that, but you are much more likely to theme your blogs around race-baiting topics that show black or poor people at their worst. Or your bashing of Michelle Obama who dared suggest that Americans might try to eat a green vegetable once in a while, and lay off the goddamn McD’s. Show me a blog about your ‘outrage’ at Archer Daniels Midland (who have caused far more damage to this country than some lady with a free phone).

      I’ve never seen you call out any corporation that nosed up to the trough and gorged at the taxpayers expense. Do a blog about the hundreds of billions of bucks in waste, fraud and abuse that funded the Iraq War. Nope, you go for the Rush Limbaugh inspired “fat black woman with an Obama phone.”

      I guess it’s more important to rack up comments on the blog than it is to present both sides of the deficit crisis. You have a nasty streak in you a mile wide and 3 feet deep, all under the guise of being an “Economic Genius”.

      I guess you think if you just toss out accusations without actually basing them on what I’ve written, that makes them true. If you actually read the Fat Head blog, you’d already know how often I’ve criticized corporate subsidies. If you’ve read my debates with my liberal pal Paul, you’d already know how often I’ve criticized corporate bailouts. Meanwhile, you can find exactly one post that included an image of a minority welfare recipient. From this, you concluded that I’m “likely to theme your blogs around race-baiting topics.”

      In other words, you’re doing exactly what my liberal pal Paul does: providing living proof of Professor Hicks’ observation that since leftists can’t win arguments based on logic or reason, they often resort to calling their opponents racists to avoid having to debate on facts. I know you don’t actually read my posts, but I explain that to Paul in this one:

      http://www.tomnaughton.com/?p=1243

  23. Daniel Kirsner says:

    At least a woman will still have the right to chose, if she can find any old contraceptives or abortifacients in the ruins of a burned out building that once housed a pharmacy. And if any doctors are still to be found alive, she will still have the right to demand an abortion, and perhaps pay for it with the fetus itself–good for at least one meal when roasted on a stick above a stack of burning Paul Krugman books.

  24. Ringo says:

    Tom, your palpable (and understandable) anger seems a little late. As a libertarian, I would have expected an angry post after the Republican National Convention debacle where Ron Paul was effectively barred from the nomination process. Once that happened, Robomney was a shoe in. The debates were more of a lovefest than a delineation of the candidates differences. Under Romney we would have runaway spending except it would have gone to military spending and bombing Iran instead of socialist domestic programs.

    Good points, although at least Ron Paul was invited to the debates. Gary Johnson, who I believe would have been a very effective debater, wasn’t.

    • TonyNZ says:

      Is there even the embryo of a proportional representation movement happening in the USA at the moment?

      That’s how it works for the House of Representatives.

    • TonyNZ says:

      These sorts of stories always strike me as a bit like holding the nations children to ransom.

      “We need money to bail out the schools.”

      “We don’t really have the money at the moment…”

      “But the children won’t be able to go to school! Are you telling me that you are ANTI-CHILDREN-GOING-TO-SCHOOL?!”

      “But we can’t afford…”

      “This person is putting “PROFITS AHEAD OF OUR NATIONS’ CHILDREN!”

      and so forth…

      Yup, if you want to over-spend or over-regulate, just claims it’s for the kids and you’re in.

  25. Craig says:

    To the handful in this thread having a dig a conservatives. Take note of the stats, from national debt, to unemployed/underemployed, to the number of children born out of wedlock, the number single mothers, the price of gas and the cost of living, the number on food stamps, the growth of Gov and all the others. If in four years time all those numbers have showed dramatic improvement you will be able to say a great big, ‘I told you so!’ If however, the numbers are all dramatically worse, well then, you own it all. What is it the left love to say, ‘You didn’t build that!’ Well in this instance they’ll be completely correct. Somehow though, I doubt you’ll be clamoring to take ownership of it all.

    • Bret says:

      They’ll own it the way their beloved hero owned his mess during his campaign: “None of this is my fault…we’re still trying to overcome the permanent damage done by George Bush.” On Wednesday morning I heard exit polls reflected some 50% of voters agreed the current state of the economy is Bush’s fault. Cognitive dissonance or staggering ignorance? I guess there’s no need to decide.

      I will admit, before 2008, I didn’t think it was possible to add $5 trillion to the national debt in 8 years. Mr. Bush certainly made history. But you’ve really got to hand it to Obama: he managed to SURPASS that in HALF the time, and he STILL gets reelected by blaming his predecessor. What a brilliant politician. And what an apparently stupid electorate.

      It’s staggering ignorance. Most people still believe Bush’s policies caused the housing bubble and crash. They can’t explain how, of course, but for some reason people feel qualified to have loud and unshakable opinions about economics without ever cracking a book on the subject.

      • Nice says:

        Right, it was poor minorities who caused the housing bubble and crash. Had nothing whatsoever to do with Greenspan’s profoundly incorrect assumption that no regulation of the financial markets was required. The markets take care of themselves, Ayn Rand told me so. Yep, and those ‘black box’ derivatives (about a Trillion Dollars worth) floating around out there had nothing to do with it either. Nor did systemic failure and a series of interconnected disasters on Wall Street in the fall of 2008.

        Nope, it was all due to a bunch of black people with bad credit who made out like bandits when the houses they overpaid for suddenly dropped 50% in value overnight. I guess they ended up with all that lost equity.

        Enlighten us Tom, post the link that explains your version of what caused the bubble and crash. And don’t just say “I always talk about it, I’m not going to put link here. You’re just not paying attention”. POST THE DAMN LINK.

        Once again, Professor Hicks would be proud of you for providing such a clear example of how leftists are reduced to calling their opponents racists, since they can’t debate on facts. If you can find a single post anywhere in the world where I blamed black people for the housing bubble, I’ll lick your shoes.

        You might want to try actually reading the blog before you decide you know what I have or haven’t written in the past. The housing crash wasn’t caused by lack of regulation. It was caused by government deciding everyone should own a home and interfering massively in the housing market … as explained in these posts, which of course you’ve never read:

        http://www.tomnaughton.com/?p=324
        http://www.tomnaughton.com/?m=20120722
        http://www.tomnaughton.com/?p=1252

  26. Mark says:

    Since I found my sensibilities many years ago and embraced my true libertarian self, I am appalled with not only the Democrats, but also the Republicans. Most of my family claim to be “conservative”. obozo being re-elected is the fault of both sides. The free loading left combined with the phony right. I posted the following on my facebook page:

    I feel nothing but contempt for those who choose to support obama. BUT, for all of those who claim to be conservatives, you are just as guilty. For years you have supported Republicans who have talked the talk of limited government and fiscal restraint. There is one major problem here. Talk only goes so far. Very few of them have stepped up to walk the walk. What do you really expect when your all talk party performed as Democrat-lite all these years. Look in the mirror and accept the reality that you are just as much to blame for this fiasco as the mindless automatons on the left.

    I totally agree. Bush called himself a conservative and then spent like a liberal. All he did was help to tarnish the brand.

  27. Tony says:

    November 6th, 2012 will mark the day, that America officially turned away from our founding ideals and officially became modern socialist state, in the form of Western Europe. We have absolutely reached the tipping point. The last two elections, the Republican party ran the most moderate candidates imaginable in John McCain and Mitt Romney. The Democrats ran the most left wing Senator and Presidential candidate ever, and he beat the second most left wing Senator in the country, Hillary Clinton. What happened? The media painted both Republicans as “right wing” extremists, while the liberals were “moderates”.The media continuously talked about the fraudulent War on Women, but remained silent on vicious personal and sexist attacks against Sara Palin. They talked about small absurd issues, in completely disregarded the insane fiscal policy of this administration.

    In both elections the extreme left wing candidates won. There are numerous reasons for this, mostly philosophical. Mainly the destruction of our moral fabric and education systems. The media, the education system and popular culture has completely re-written history to portray the Nazis and communists as a right wing ideology. To portray the confederacy and the party that attacked and destroyed the rights of minorities and women as Republicans, when in fact they were all Democrats.

    To condemn all capitalists as evil, except liberals. To dumb down the public and replace God with the state. I am not very religious, but I certainly understand the basic tenant that are rights are derived from god, not from other men, and how important that distinction is.

    And last but certainly not least, the complete economic destruction of our country, that both parties have helped to create, although much, much more on the left. This will be reviewed in historical annals as the most arrogant and idiotic way to destroy yourselves in the history of the world. At least the Roman Empire and the Greeks did not have a historical guide and a modern way to process information when they destroyed themselves. We have no such excuse.

    Yes, it’s stunning that the National SOCIALIST party (Nazis) has been successfully painted as right-wing by historians. Hitler hated the communists, but mostly because they were competing for the same supporters.

    A liberal friend on mine once said in an email exchange, “You only have the rights the government gives you.” That’s one of the scariest opinions I’ve ever heard.

    • TonyNZ says:

      If I remember correctly (I’m no historian and it is years since I sat in a history lesson, but) Hitler rose to prominence because of the dire financial situation Germany was in (money devaluing at an alarming rate due to WW1 reparations and he promised the people jobs.

      He provided these jobs by extensive militarisation, thus presumably making the government the nations biggest employer, funded by the “future prosperity” that his policies would “in theory” lead them to. This made the average German’s success inherently linked to the government and it’s resources.

      Does this sound familiar?

      And no, Goodwin’s law cannot be invoked here, this is simply a discussion as to whether Hitler was “right wing”.

  28. Osama Magdi Elmageid says:

    Well Tom,

    The election results tell me one thing and one thing only: We as good citizens, conservatives have a lot of work ahead of us. Really, it’s not up to Obama – it’s up to us. Sure, he can do executive orders and all that. Don’t let him do it for free – without a fight. Any Senate/House election that comes needs to be a Republican victory. The conservative media will also be more important than ever before. And one more thing: There will never be any other Democrat that can unite the selfish bunch of people once Obama is done with his term. The Democrats threw everything they could at us with no regard to ethics only to nearly lose the election. Really, let the Democrats enjoy this victory for the next time they will not be facing a gentleman like Romney was (he was way too nice). Yes, we will be poorer from here on out. This however is not just about money. This fight to restore America is not over until it’s over, Tom.

    I appreciate your optimism.

  29. Ed says:

    Gee, just think. Now we will get to have all of the benefits of living in Greece, Spain or Italy and don’t even have to put up with the inconvenience of moving. I can hardly wait for the rioting to begin. Oh wait, the government has been getting ready for that all year. The ammo is stockpiled and the detention camps are ready.

    Heck, we don’t even have to learn another language!

  30. Bret says:

    Tom, you’ve mentioned in previous posts that if the founding fathers were to wake up and take a look at our current form of government, they would be appalled and disgusted, and I am inclined to agree. While I respect the founding fathers and the intents with which they wrote our Constitution, I can’t help but reason that their writing job was flawed, due to the simple fact that the current government was able to evolve from the original. (Then again, mandatory health insurance is not actually Constitutional, but I won’t go there.)

    If the smartest libertarians in the country got together tomorrow and rewrote the Constitution, I wonder what it would look like. If I was on the panel, I would want to keep most of the current Constitution, but there are definitely some clauses/amendments I would insist on including, in light of recent political blunders. In no particular order:

    1. Every governmental budget must be balanced, except during a national state of emergency, as declared by the president or the congress. In such times of declared emergency, the annual deficit may not exceed 1% of the previous year’s GDP. The congress will never authorize a budget deficit for more than four years, consecutive or nonconsecutive, out of any 10-year period, no matter what the circumstances.

    2. Any amount of national debt must be detracted via budget surplus no later than 10 years after its original accumulation. “Its original accumulation” is defined as the time in which the deficient budget was legally approved, or, in the event of an unexpected shortfall in revenue, then at the next budget approval.

    3. [for the love of God!] No individual written law shall exceed 10,000 words or 25 pages of typed text, whichever is less.

    4. Every individual law will be written with a singular central goal, theme, or purpose, as outlined in the executive summary, abstract, or other introductory paragraph(s). No law will contain text or verbiage in any portion of the document–including any abstracts, summaries, forewords, introductions, epilogues, afterwords, appendices, or attachments–on any topic or regulatory matter not directly related to the aforementioned singular central goal, theme, or purpose.

    5. No law may regulate any element of commerce, except to prohibit deliberate dishonesty on the part of the buyer or seller. If all parties are represented in good faith and all information pertinent to the transaction disclosed to each party in a manner that would be deemed reasonable by an average citizen, then each party is free to engage in that commerce.

    6. No law may regulate any element of employment, except to prohibit deliberate dishonesty on the part of the employer or employee. If all parties are represented in good faith and all information pertinent to the employment disclosed to each party in a manner that would be deemed reasonable by an average citizen, then each party is free to engage in that employment.

    7. When the government deems taxation necessary, income will be taxed at only a flat percentage of its total. Under such circumstances, all wage earners will be taxed at the same rate, regardless of the amount of income they earn. This rule of simple, flat percentages applies also to income from the stock market and fom sales. Each of these three types of income may be taxed at its own unique rate.

    8. If the government so chooses, wage earners in clearly defined income brackets may claim deductions of their otherwise total taxable income, as authorized in the current tax code. The tax code may stipulate a standard deduction, itemized deductions, or an option between the two. At no time will more than five different deductions be available to the population.

    9. No government entity may compel any private citizen or corporation to purchase any good or service for any reason.

    10. No government entity may prohibit any private citizen or corporation from engaging in any action, unless that action causes undue, clearly defined, and factually linked harm or harassment to another human being or corporation. Due harm or harassment may be defined by state or local authorities in instances where one’s rights have been unduly infringed upon by another.

    11. The president will be elected by a plurality popular vote made by legal registered voters. [i.e. if turns out Libertarian 34%, Democrat 33%, Republican 33%, and Ralph Nader 0%, then the libertarian wins]

    I think those sentiments in spirit and in theory would provide a productive change to the current mess. I guess it’s pretty obvious that I’m not a lawyer or a lawmaker, and it’s probably pretty obvious why. I’m sure I’ve missed some important stuff, but that’s where I’d start.

    I’m with you on all of the above. The Constitution as written wouldn’t have allowed for travesties such as ObamaCare. The expansion of federal power into areas where the federal government doesn’t belong required a Supreme Court willing to interpret the Constitution out of existence. Later this week I’ll post bits of a long-ago Supreme Court decision demonstrating how a court that respected the Constitution would rule.

  31. Alicia Thorsona says:

    I TOLD YOU you shoulda run for president!! NAUGHTON 2016!!!!!!!

    I’d never survive the opposition research.

  32. Jim says:

    Hi Tom,

    I am a big fan of the low carb site and your movies. I had to pop over here to see what your take was on the election. Believe me we share the same feelings on the outcome. One of the biggest disappointments for me and many is that we honestly thought it was going to go differently. I know in this post election season we are all coming up with reasons for why it went this way. Yes I agree the democrats have done a great job of getting many people on assistance of some sort. People are scarred to lose that even though it may hurt our country. I certainly think there is a disconnect between hurting our country and losing a benefit. I really don’t think people believe that anything really bad will happen.

    Having said that I think in the end we on the political right (conservative and libertarian) have to first realize that we really have to get out there and fight to win our country back. It is more than just going and voting now. We will have to do things many of us wish not to do which is to engage others and challenge ideas. How this will play out I am not sure yet. Yes I think we made a terrible choice but that choice wasn’t just made by those who voted for Obama. I can’t tell you how many people who probably voted for Romney and other candidates on the right talked about them in a negative light. A good friend of mine used the term “I will hold my nose and vote for Romney and then take a shower after”. I heard others use the same terms. One of my best friends called the election for Obama at 7:30 am at work and I live in the eastern time zone. Sure he voted but his attitude was that of giving up. This is an attitude I found among many people. The enthusiasm just wasn’t there. If it isn’t Ronald Reagan they don’t seem terribly interested in speaking good things of the candidate. Just bad things about the democrats. Guess what. Nobody is Ronald Regan and nobody is ever going to be because he is so elevated as a President these days by those on the right. If a 1980 Ronald Reagan were to run these days with a different name I bet nobody would get excited about him/her. Instead the vicious media rumors would allow us to so easily bring out our pessimist side and believe me we on the right have allowed pessimism to become a sickness. Sure the Obama supporters are morons. I know some of them and believe me they are happy in their delusion. I just think we on the right have to figure out a way to get excited about our candidates again. I don’t think we need to mirror the democrats but there was a time when we got excited about our candidates for our own reasons. I don’t see that anymore. I honestly think when we lost that we lost the election.

    I was really upset last week and then angry. Now I am fired up and to me the battle to win our country back starts today. It starts with being positive about our ideas and our candidates. No candidate is perfect but some are more perfect than others. It starts with not letting liberals get away with the things they say. If they come into a room trashing ideas we know are good ones than at the very least say you disagree and say it is a good idea. Many liberals would shut up if they thought they would be challenged when they open their trap. There are nice ways to disagree too. The consequences are too great to do anything else. It isn’t time to give up the ship yet. It is time to get to work and get this ship righted. Pun intended. Most great wars in this country were fought against all odds and a few of these wars have been fought internally. This is a war of ideas that we have fought before. We need to win it again and also realize we will fight it again in another 50 to 100 years.

    I agree. The battle for freedom must be relentless, because our history shows that there are always those who want to strip freedom away — and they’re smart enough to do it one little bit at a time. Unless we fight them on every attempt, they’ll win.

  33. Stephen says:

    I’ll admit this was the first time I voted for a Democratic president. Thinking back at all the times I voted Republican (and them taking office), they really were never fiscally responsible or stood up for freedom. I primarily voted on social issues this time around since those are the things that only matter to me anymore. I gave up on the federal deficit and budget once it hit 100% GDP.

    In my once state of Minnesota (2010-2012), we had a Republican majority in everything thinking something was going to get done. The deficit and budget were never fixed and they tried to ban same-sex marriage even though public opinion showed we didn’t want that issue brough up in the first place. We ended up rejecting the stupid ban and voted them out. (Hey, at least we can say we did something tolerant and progressive that California failed to do twice, he he).

    Maybe it is just me and my anecdotal evidence, but it doesn’t seem that the Libertarians really care about social issues either. I see a lot of “Oh, I’m not against gay people or same-sex marriage, I’m just against all marriage,” even though they never stand up for gay families’ rights and are in a privileged marriage of their own. It is easy to say stuff like that, but they never stop to think about gay families that aren’t getting the same rights in medical decisions, inheritance, and parental custody for their children because in some states it’s okay for 51% of the people to say they don’t want them to have those rights and protections. So much for “Live and let live” that I see flying around everywhere. Even when the courts inevitably say that defining marriage as a man+woman is unconstitutional because it discriminates against sex, sexual ordination, gender identity, family status, religion, etc, both the Republicans and Libertarians are there to say “Activist judges! How dare they grant those rights!” I just think in my head “lolwut, I thought we were for freedom, but whatever.”

    It also seemed like it was a weekly thing when a Republican was making a really insensitive comment about rape and abortion that even had my Libertarian friends say, “Holy crap, I don’t think I can ever vote for a Republican again.” There is also the whole inconsistent thing about how the death penalty that’s forced by the government should be completely legal but when a sick quadriplegic person who wants to die but can’t do it on their own should remain illegal. At least I’m consistent in my “Pro-Death” stance of legal abortion, death penalty, and doctor-assisted suicide.

    I really don’t know what to say anymore about this country, but the state I’m currently living in now (NV) will uphold the rights of women to their own bodies, grants marriage rights to same-sex families, legalized medical marijuana (though it looks like it may be legal in all cases in the coming years), and legal prostitution with no state taxes on top of it all. Can I say that I live in a more free state than most? He He.

    I actually have more respect for big-spending Democrats than big-spending Republicans like George W. Bush … at least the Democrats are being true to their stated principles.

    The issue many of us have with judges waving their magic gavels and declaring current marriage laws unconstitutional is that they’re apparently suffering hallucinations while reading the Constitution — or simply deciding to impose their own preferences. State laws that restrict marriage to a man and a woman are no more unconstitutional than laws that forbid polygamy (which, unlike gay marriage, has existed in human societies around the globe for thousands of years) or forbid me from marrying my niece. The correct and constitutional way to change a marriage law is to convince a majority of legislators to do so. If they can’t be convinced, too bad … we don’t get to just wave our magic gavels and negate laws we don’t happen to like by declaring them unconstitutional — based on nothing in the actual Constitution. If judges can willy-nilly redefine the Constitution to produce results we like, they can do the same to produce laws we don’t like.

    You won’t find many libertarians all hot and bothered about marriage laws because marriage is a benefit (or supposed benefit) conferred by the state. We don’t look to the state to make our lives better.

    • Stephen says:

      I know only a few states overturned such laws via the court system; however, the ones that did overturn such laws were based on Equal Rights / Protection / Anti-Discrimination Clauses. I see where you are getting at with the courts; however, do you feel it is the “interpretation” of these clauses that are too broad or something? I know the state that used to be south of me ruled such laws discriminatory in a unanimous decision by both conservative and liberal leaning judges based on the Equal Protection Clause.

      Yes, the activist courts declared that laws restricting marriage to an unmarried adult male and an unmarried adult female who aren’t close relatives violates the Equal Protection clause. That’s hogwash. The law DOES apply equally to everyone. If you meet the above conditions, you can get married whether you’re black, white, young, old, Catholic, atheist, etc. If the law allowed a man and woman to get married unless one of them is black or Jewish, then you’d have a violation of the Equal Protection clause. Hell, you can declare yourself a practicing homosexual male and STILL marry a woman. That’s what equal protection under the law means — it applies equally to everyone.

      What the gay-marriage advocates want is a change in the definition of marriage that matches their desire to marry each other. It’s no different than if polygamists demanded a change in the definition that allowed a man to marry three women, thus matching their desires. It’s also no different than if brothers and sisters, or first cousins, or uncles and nieces who really, really, really want to marry each other demanded a change in the law to match their desires. Would anyone actually claim that a law that didn’t confer state-sanctioned marriage on me and my adult niece is a violation of the Equal Protection clause?

      Whether or not gay marriage is a good idea is a totally separate issue. I don’t care if they get married or not. If it came up for a citizen vote in Tennessee — that’s one correct way to change the law, the other being a change in the law by the legislature — I’d vote to extend the definition to gay couples. But I don’t want judges just deciding their preferences should supersede the will of the voters or their representatives and declare laws they don’t like unconstitutional based on nothing in the Constitution.

      • Stephen says:

        Okay, I take that it’s in the “interpretation” of the clause.

        What I’m not (slightly) getting is when you wrote, “If the law allowed a man and woman to get married unless one of them is black or Jewish, then you’d have a violation of the Equal Protection clause.” Is this scenario set up differently from when blacks and whites were able to get married while enjoying all of the local, state, and federal benefits of marriage but they were only allowed to marry into their own race? If so, then Loving vs Virginia would seem to be an activist ruling overriding the values of the voters and legislatures in states where a segregated definition of marriage existed. I’m thinking this maybe has to do with race, gender, and sexual orientation being protected and marginalized classes of people or something. Interesting discussion though.

        If people are only allowed to marry within their own race, then they don’t have equal protection under the law, because the law is being applied differently based on race — you could marry the woman of your choice, but I can’t marry the woman of my choice simply because she’s black. Laws that define marriage as between and man and woman aren’t applied differently. They are applied the same to everyone. You can declare yourself a homosexual male and still marry the woman of your choice.

        • Bret says:

          I’m starting to agree with the folks that want government to cease all recognition of marriage in any form. The notion of lifelong monogamy seems to be a uniquely religious phenomenon, and one that goes against many of our native instincts. Opponents of gay marriage can never seem to produce a coherent argument that is not fundamentally based on religion. Accordingly, it seems inappropriate for the government to treat people differently based on their participation in this religious practice or lack thereof.

          I can’t find any logical reason to oblige one category of would-be marriage participants but not another, whether straight, gay, polygamy, or incest. Seems to me if two (or more) consenting adults want to live together and make/adopt children, that’s their business and not the government’s. The tricky category is incest, since it is commonly understood to cause birth defects potentially. But then again, to prohibit consenting adults from engaging in it on those grounds would be like mandating abortions of fetuses with Down’s, or prohibiting two unrelated adults who have a strong chance of passing diseases to offspring from reproducing.

          If we just took away the government’s ability to meddle in familial arrangement, then marriage could be kept what it should be: a private, familial affair. Anyone could live together and have a family who wanted to, and nobody would suffer discrimination. People who wanted to get married could still do so under their religion or whatever nongovernmental authority they chose, including their own.

          One last argument against governmental recognition of marriage… I frequently hear people complaining of discrimination against gays because married people supposedly get a tax break. Maybe I’m missing something, or maybe those people are just ignorant. But the tax effect I’ve observed is that marriage gives the government an excuse in most cases to tax two people’s income at a higher rate than if they were single. Doesn’t seem like much of a benefit to me.

          I’m with you. I don’t see why marriage should be a government issue in the first place. If two people want to sign a contract declaring themselves a partnership, great. Government can enforce that contract, just like any other. If churches want to recognize marriages as a religious sacrament, fine.

          On the tax issue, they called it the “marriage penalty.” You’re correct, it wasn’t a benefit. I believe it’s coming back when the Bush tax cuts expire.

          I believe lifelong monogamy is quite possible if you marry the right person.

  34.  
Leave a Reply