By Semperpapa
I am continuously stunned by the issue of "equality of income" being brought up by the progressive drones and by the ignorant followers in the media and other liberal enclaves.
What does "equality of income" really mean? Are these fools really believing that there should not be any difference in the retribution that a worker should receive regardless of experience and ability?
It is utterly preposterous to believe that there should not be any difference in income between someone who takes the risk of starting a business, who takes the creativity and personal chance of starting a business and the person they hire?
It is a reality that these individuals who take the chance and build a business based on an idea and a service they believe could make life easier for people and their business profitable, will invest a much greater amount of personal time and finances into the venture. Many of these business owners, ironically, greatly reduce their personal income when the business hits hard times, in favor of maintaining the income of their workers.
And yet, the current regime clearly and skillfully intends to create a divide between the business owner and the very workers. The media calls it class warfare, a very misguided term.
The warfare the current regime and the left in general is fostering in America is clear: American vs. American, based on support for the regime. If you are supportive of the tyrannical policies, you are allowed to prosper, otherwise you are maligned and marked for destruction. All clearly and fundamentally contrary to the Constitution.
But the hypocrisy goes deeper.
Mark Cuban, owner of the NBA team Dallas Maverick is a big time liberal, supporter of Obama.
But as Cuban is the owner of the NBA team, I find it inconsistent to learn that Dirk Nowitzki has a salary of over $19 Millions to increase to over $22M in the 2013/2014 season, but Brandan Wright's salary is barely higher than $900K or Ian Mahinmi's is barely over the $800K.
Can Mr. Cuban tell me why the discrepancy? Could it be that the contribution of Nowitzki to the success of the team is higher than that of any of the other players on the roster?
So why isn't Cuban paying his players the same? He should pay all the players the same salary as Nowitzki, for sake of "income equality".
And the argument could also be made for Mr. Cuban himself. Why is he a millionaire and owner of the team? why does he not share the ownership, and the millions, with all people involved in the Mavericks' organization equally? I am sure that the locker room attendants' salaries are not as high as his profit.
I do not hear Obama calling on the professional sport team owners to equalize the income inside their organizations.
Similarly, I am absolutely positive that when some big name like George Clooney, Mat Damon, Susan Sarandon or Scarlet Johansson are cast for a cinematographic role, their compensation is not equal to that of every other actor in the production. So, what makes Clooney's booking more worthy of a higher pay check than any of the other actors?
Name recognition? Acting abilities? The prospect that having a name like that on the movie marquee would attract more viewers and therefore make more money for the producers?
Yes, yes and definitely yes.
Again, I don't hear Obama accuse Hollywood of income inequality. No call for "fair share" from Obama for Steven Spielberg, Michael Moore or Tom Hanks.
The truth of the matter is that in a truly equal society, the very essence of freedom is only in the opportunities available to every member of it society.
Opportunity is synonym of freedom. The opportunity to work as hard as it is in our capacity to achieve a better level of financial independence possible. Most of all, independence from any form of governmental coercive control of the conditions by which free expression of one's strengths and capabilities are exercised.
Instead, government has become as intrusive as any liberal government in the world. America used to be a beacon of freedom and opportunities for the rest of the world, but the liberal politics of the last 100 years has created the basis of the decline of our principles.
Sure advancements have been achieved. The Civil Rights movement is possibly greatest sample, but, as it happens so often, good advances are taken hostages by those who aim at exploiting other people's suffering in order to maintain personal power and significance (i.e. the revs Al Sharpton and Jessi Jackson).
For the progressive liberal movement, the only equality they have at heart is that of their hypocrisy.
Just my thoughts!
Monday, February 20, 2012
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
No More Star & Stripe, Only White Flag For America
By Semperpapa
The everlasting symbol of the current White House: the white flag!
And no I am not being duplicitous with my words, just observant.
What I am talking about is the sudden announcement yesterday of the decision that Obama wants to reduce the number of American nuclear weapons by 80%.
This move, according to the usual apologists from the regime media like the Associated Press, is just Obama making good of his campaign promises and desires to eliminate, as the American president, nuclear weapons worldwide.
Surely a noble goal to have, together with the lowering of the ocean waters and the elimination of poverty and the coexistence of radical Islam with the West, but seemingly not much more than a utopian bunch of bull crap.
The truth of the matter is that the belief the world is under any circumstance safer today that it was during the Cold War is false. In some respect it is actually more dangerous than that, as the mutual assured destruction policies of deterrence may have no meaning any longer.
For instance, after the fall of the Soviet Union, intellectual knowledge regarding nuclear weapons from America's past foe, has been on sale to the highest bidder. Considering that a lot of the world's wealth has been concentrated in the Middle East and in view of the advancement of radical Islam we are witnessing thanks to the so called Arab Spring, the chance of nuclear weapon technology, or any other weapon of mass destruction technology for that matter, to fall in the hands of radical Islamists is very high.
Ron Paul's indifference to the possibility not withstanding, the ability of radical Islam to have access to such weapons is not something that common sense people can actually embrace. Call me crazy, but a culture that is in love with the mere idea of mass human death and destruction in the name of a pedophile prophet should not be allowed to possess the very tool by which they could easily achieve their bloody scheme.
But Obama is determined to surrender the Nation to the enemies of America without not even a hint at self defense. Why?
I know that the apologist and cult-like followers of Obama will respond that Obama got bin Laden, after all the sole achievement of positive nature from this administration, but considering that the ability to reach Osama was created by George W.'s policies and the actual action was conducted by Navy SEALs, members of the hated US Military, it is really humorous that the liberals place so much upon that sole event to demonstrate Obama's national security "achievements". All the man had to do was say "GO" after having weighed in any potential personal political repercussion from the action.
The reason for the waving of the white flag is the elections of November 2012. Obama is appeasing all the tree-hugging, flowers-in-the-barrel, I-Pad waving hippies of 2012. His action against bin Laden, the use of drones, the failure to close Guantanamo have alienated the lunatic left fringe, even if the destruction of the American economy and the emasculation of the Military has regained Obama some of the much needed support.
What is amusing to me is that Obama could do anything he wants without risking the delivery of votes next November from the fringe of American domestic enemies inspired by the Obama media. No matter what, the unwashed masses of the American Marxist left will vote for the man.
So here we are, cutting our nuclear arsenal by 80%, working to cut the Military budget by $1 trillion, and all the while Iran is marching undisturbed toward nuclear proliferation, North Korea remains an unknown entity with nuclear weapons and the Middle East is on the verge of exploding into an Islamic caliphate with Nuclear Iran as its strong harm, not to mention the Pakistani nuclear arsenal a coup away from being in the hands of al Qaeda.
This is all so reassuring, isn't it? And we have not even mentioned Russia!
But it is all in the plans, the plans of reducing our nation to the level of a third world country, breaking it down financially and culturally so that once at the very bottom of the socio-cultural abyss, progressives will ride in on their horses and save the day, asking ONLY, as a repayment, unlimited power for the foreseeable future.
And even the price of few hundred thousands innocent Americans, especially if from the throngs of those who cling to their Bibles and their guns, is acceptable for the achievement of power.
It was in China for Mao (40~70 million Chinese peasants sacrificed) or for Stalin in the Soviet Union (20~40 million Russian peasants sacrificed), it would be for king Obama and queen Michelle.
Just my thoughts!
The everlasting symbol of the current White House: the white flag!
And no I am not being duplicitous with my words, just observant.
What I am talking about is the sudden announcement yesterday of the decision that Obama wants to reduce the number of American nuclear weapons by 80%.
This move, according to the usual apologists from the regime media like the Associated Press, is just Obama making good of his campaign promises and desires to eliminate, as the American president, nuclear weapons worldwide.
Surely a noble goal to have, together with the lowering of the ocean waters and the elimination of poverty and the coexistence of radical Islam with the West, but seemingly not much more than a utopian bunch of bull crap.
The truth of the matter is that the belief the world is under any circumstance safer today that it was during the Cold War is false. In some respect it is actually more dangerous than that, as the mutual assured destruction policies of deterrence may have no meaning any longer.
For instance, after the fall of the Soviet Union, intellectual knowledge regarding nuclear weapons from America's past foe, has been on sale to the highest bidder. Considering that a lot of the world's wealth has been concentrated in the Middle East and in view of the advancement of radical Islam we are witnessing thanks to the so called Arab Spring, the chance of nuclear weapon technology, or any other weapon of mass destruction technology for that matter, to fall in the hands of radical Islamists is very high.
Ron Paul's indifference to the possibility not withstanding, the ability of radical Islam to have access to such weapons is not something that common sense people can actually embrace. Call me crazy, but a culture that is in love with the mere idea of mass human death and destruction in the name of a pedophile prophet should not be allowed to possess the very tool by which they could easily achieve their bloody scheme.
But Obama is determined to surrender the Nation to the enemies of America without not even a hint at self defense. Why?
I know that the apologist and cult-like followers of Obama will respond that Obama got bin Laden, after all the sole achievement of positive nature from this administration, but considering that the ability to reach Osama was created by George W.'s policies and the actual action was conducted by Navy SEALs, members of the hated US Military, it is really humorous that the liberals place so much upon that sole event to demonstrate Obama's national security "achievements". All the man had to do was say "GO" after having weighed in any potential personal political repercussion from the action.
The reason for the waving of the white flag is the elections of November 2012. Obama is appeasing all the tree-hugging, flowers-in-the-barrel, I-Pad waving hippies of 2012. His action against bin Laden, the use of drones, the failure to close Guantanamo have alienated the lunatic left fringe, even if the destruction of the American economy and the emasculation of the Military has regained Obama some of the much needed support.
What is amusing to me is that Obama could do anything he wants without risking the delivery of votes next November from the fringe of American domestic enemies inspired by the Obama media. No matter what, the unwashed masses of the American Marxist left will vote for the man.
So here we are, cutting our nuclear arsenal by 80%, working to cut the Military budget by $1 trillion, and all the while Iran is marching undisturbed toward nuclear proliferation, North Korea remains an unknown entity with nuclear weapons and the Middle East is on the verge of exploding into an Islamic caliphate with Nuclear Iran as its strong harm, not to mention the Pakistani nuclear arsenal a coup away from being in the hands of al Qaeda.
This is all so reassuring, isn't it? And we have not even mentioned Russia!
But it is all in the plans, the plans of reducing our nation to the level of a third world country, breaking it down financially and culturally so that once at the very bottom of the socio-cultural abyss, progressives will ride in on their horses and save the day, asking ONLY, as a repayment, unlimited power for the foreseeable future.
And even the price of few hundred thousands innocent Americans, especially if from the throngs of those who cling to their Bibles and their guns, is acceptable for the achievement of power.
It was in China for Mao (40~70 million Chinese peasants sacrificed) or for Stalin in the Soviet Union (20~40 million Russian peasants sacrificed), it would be for king Obama and queen Michelle.
Just my thoughts!
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
The People's Sword: The Vote.
By Semperpapa
At least this is what reasonable and responsible politicians tell us: make your voice heard and go vote.
In November 2010 we did so and some notable individuals were voted into office(Col. Allen West comes to mind immediately), but definitely not enough.
So is the vote our sword? Is the ballot what we have left to exercise our right as members of a representative republic? Of course not. People who are unhappy with the political system they are subjected to, have the power of overthrowing that political system and replace it with something better or worst.
As we have witnessed in Egypt, Libya and we are seeing in Syria, civil unrest may not bring about the changes that equal freedom.
Even here in the land of the free as intended by the Founding Fathers, the power of the vote has been corrupted and diluted. One more example of this truth is what the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal did just today: declaring Prop 8 unconstitutional here in California.
Prop 8 was a controversial proposition that made its way on the ballot in 2008 to allow the people of California to express their opinion regarding same sex marriage.
The people of California overwhelmingly agree with the supporters of the proposition to establish that marriage is intended to be between a man and a woman. It was not a proposition that would discriminate against homosexuals, except for the issue of marriage.
Regardless where one stands on that issue, the fact remains that the issue was voted on by the people. But as soon as the results were in, lawyers filed suits on grounds of unconstitutionality.
At least this is what reasonable and responsible politicians tell us: make your voice heard and go vote.
In November 2010 we did so and some notable individuals were voted into office(Col. Allen West comes to mind immediately), but definitely not enough.
So is the vote our sword? Is the ballot what we have left to exercise our right as members of a representative republic? Of course not. People who are unhappy with the political system they are subjected to, have the power of overthrowing that political system and replace it with something better or worst.
As we have witnessed in Egypt, Libya and we are seeing in Syria, civil unrest may not bring about the changes that equal freedom.
Even here in the land of the free as intended by the Founding Fathers, the power of the vote has been corrupted and diluted. One more example of this truth is what the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal did just today: declaring Prop 8 unconstitutional here in California.
Prop 8 was a controversial proposition that made its way on the ballot in 2008 to allow the people of California to express their opinion regarding same sex marriage.
The people of California overwhelmingly agree with the supporters of the proposition to establish that marriage is intended to be between a man and a woman. It was not a proposition that would discriminate against homosexuals, except for the issue of marriage.
Regardless where one stands on that issue, the fact remains that the issue was voted on by the people. But as soon as the results were in, lawyers filed suits on grounds of unconstitutionality.
This has become a normal occurrence in California with the propositions system. Several of them were voted on by Californians, only to be blocked in the court system by activist lawyers.
Personally I do not vote on proposition any longer for such reasons. In the case of Prop 8, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal decided that the will of the people means nothing and the pressure from lobbyist and activist tramples the voting of the majority.
My question is simple. If a proposition is so blatantly unconstitutional, as some would have you think, why isn't the prop entirely prevented from reaching the ballot? Shouldn't the legality of a proposed piece of legislation be scrutinized before the population is asked to endorse or reject?
The truth is that those who support or reject these propositions take the gamble to receive the blessing of the people one way or the other. In the case of Prop 8, the people spoke clearly, but those who disagree were counting on the ultra-liberal mindset of Californians for the defeat of the proposiiton. When things did not go their way, then they use the court system.
How much taxpayers' money would have been saved if Prop 8 never made it on the ballot? If the wording in the proposed legislation does not pass the test of constitutionality, than it should be rejected and reworked until it does. In most cases, though, the work of progressive courts like the 9th would render anything common sensical utterly usless.
Just my thoughts!
Monday, February 6, 2012
Two Fat Boys And A Criminal Agenda
By Semperpapa
And I am talking about two fat white boys with their asses full appearing in a commercial during the Superbowl.
The two jokes are the New York mayor Bloomberg and the Boston mayor Thomas Menino (I swear if this Menino asshole is Italian I will blow a gasket!).
So the two assholes show up in a commercial that attacks the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. And this is from two morons who are mayors of two cities where the infringement of the constitutional rights of the American people is under attack the most (what would have made it even more laughable would have been to see the mayors of Chicago and Washington DC flanking the two tubs-o-lard).
The fruit cake from New York uses the wounding of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson last year to attempt some sort of legitimacy for his idiotic point.
With 24,000 gun laws in the American books, the "problem" as seen by these hypocritical assholes should not be an issue. The truth, which is something these morons would not know if it crawled up their fat asses, is that the only limitation to the right to own and bear arms is effective on those of us who have such weapons for legitimate reasons, not the criminals.
But what the assholes like Bloomberg and Menino and so many others really want is the complete elimination of the right assured by the Constitution. And why?
Simply because their clear and insidious agenda of taking over the lives of the people is to insure that the people do not have the ability to stop the over intrusive government, the very reason why the Founding Fathers had the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights, the only Amendment that truly safeguards the whole document.
Bloomberg, who thinks of himself as the king of the Big Apple, surely goes around with a substantial armed escort that isures his fat ass is protected. But that's because it is Bloomberg, the rich fat ass mayor.
What about my family, Michael? Can you guarantee that any of these stupid ass laws, or their totality, will 100% guarantee the safety of my family? And if not, can you guarantee that your life is worth as much as that of my loved one?
No you can't, you hypocritical bastard!
Just my thoughts!
And I am talking about two fat white boys with their asses full appearing in a commercial during the Superbowl.
The two jokes are the New York mayor Bloomberg and the Boston mayor Thomas Menino (I swear if this Menino asshole is Italian I will blow a gasket!).
So the two assholes show up in a commercial that attacks the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. And this is from two morons who are mayors of two cities where the infringement of the constitutional rights of the American people is under attack the most (what would have made it even more laughable would have been to see the mayors of Chicago and Washington DC flanking the two tubs-o-lard).
The fruit cake from New York uses the wounding of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson last year to attempt some sort of legitimacy for his idiotic point.
With 24,000 gun laws in the American books, the "problem" as seen by these hypocritical assholes should not be an issue. The truth, which is something these morons would not know if it crawled up their fat asses, is that the only limitation to the right to own and bear arms is effective on those of us who have such weapons for legitimate reasons, not the criminals.
But what the assholes like Bloomberg and Menino and so many others really want is the complete elimination of the right assured by the Constitution. And why?
Simply because their clear and insidious agenda of taking over the lives of the people is to insure that the people do not have the ability to stop the over intrusive government, the very reason why the Founding Fathers had the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights, the only Amendment that truly safeguards the whole document.
Bloomberg, who thinks of himself as the king of the Big Apple, surely goes around with a substantial armed escort that isures his fat ass is protected. But that's because it is Bloomberg, the rich fat ass mayor.
What about my family, Michael? Can you guarantee that any of these stupid ass laws, or their totality, will 100% guarantee the safety of my family? And if not, can you guarantee that your life is worth as much as that of my loved one?
No you can't, you hypocritical bastard!
Just my thoughts!
The Half Time Yearly Crap
By Semperpapa
I must admit that I only watched the Superbowl half time "entertainment" for just few minutes. Not being a fan of Madonna, there was no point in me to waste my time engaging in observance of her not-lady-like-moves. I know, I sound like an 80 year old, so sue me.
And I did not watch the clown looking folks who shared the stage with Madonna, although I was intrigued by the sound of marching band performance emanating from the television set.
One part I am so glad I did miss though is the one every media outlet is speaking of today, in short the ugly British bitch rapping idiot that decided to show her appreciation for the opportunity to "perform" in front of an American public by flipping the bird to the audience.
Now, I am not a fan of the useless art of rap music, not sure the qualifier "music" should be applied to such useless garbage, but that's for another day. Not being a fan, as I was saying, would never get me to become aware of the ugly woman that told me "fuck you" without even knowing me. And I sure would have been better off, and yet I am not feeling that insulted after all.
In the first place, being addressed in such way as a society (obviously she intended to address the entire American public with her scrawny middle finger) by such an ugly piece of crap is an obvious sign that we, as a society, are doing something good. I believe that if liberal progressives hate me, I must be on the right course.
Today people are saying that she should apologize to Madonna. Really? For what? I don't have any illusions that the extravaganza of this ugly woman (guess her street name is M.I.A.) was not part of the "message" the wonderful Madonna wanted to send the American people. If I am wrong, than Madonna should apologize to the American public.
As for the NBC idiots and the NFL morons, they would not know anything offensive if it smacked them in the face with the exception of something religious, more specifically Christian.
So, my dear MIA or whatever your damn name is, you can flip me off as much as you want and as far as I am concerned you can go back to the hole you came from, never to be heard of again...you got your 15 minutes. The only chance you may have to show your ugly face to the Americn peole again may be at a second Obama inaguration. He and Michelle may be the only ones you probably impressed with their shared message.
To the people that got all bent out of shape by the vulgarity, I just say this: if you were offended by the middle finger and yet allowed your precious offspring to watch the commercials, than your hypocrisy will never set you free.
Just my thoughts!
I must admit that I only watched the Superbowl half time "entertainment" for just few minutes. Not being a fan of Madonna, there was no point in me to waste my time engaging in observance of her not-lady-like-moves. I know, I sound like an 80 year old, so sue me.
And I did not watch the clown looking folks who shared the stage with Madonna, although I was intrigued by the sound of marching band performance emanating from the television set.
One part I am so glad I did miss though is the one every media outlet is speaking of today, in short the ugly British bitch rapping idiot that decided to show her appreciation for the opportunity to "perform" in front of an American public by flipping the bird to the audience.
Now, I am not a fan of the useless art of rap music, not sure the qualifier "music" should be applied to such useless garbage, but that's for another day. Not being a fan, as I was saying, would never get me to become aware of the ugly woman that told me "fuck you" without even knowing me. And I sure would have been better off, and yet I am not feeling that insulted after all.
In the first place, being addressed in such way as a society (obviously she intended to address the entire American public with her scrawny middle finger) by such an ugly piece of crap is an obvious sign that we, as a society, are doing something good. I believe that if liberal progressives hate me, I must be on the right course.
Today people are saying that she should apologize to Madonna. Really? For what? I don't have any illusions that the extravaganza of this ugly woman (guess her street name is M.I.A.) was not part of the "message" the wonderful Madonna wanted to send the American people. If I am wrong, than Madonna should apologize to the American public.
As for the NBC idiots and the NFL morons, they would not know anything offensive if it smacked them in the face with the exception of something religious, more specifically Christian.
So, my dear MIA or whatever your damn name is, you can flip me off as much as you want and as far as I am concerned you can go back to the hole you came from, never to be heard of again...you got your 15 minutes. The only chance you may have to show your ugly face to the Americn peole again may be at a second Obama inaguration. He and Michelle may be the only ones you probably impressed with their shared message.
To the people that got all bent out of shape by the vulgarity, I just say this: if you were offended by the middle finger and yet allowed your precious offspring to watch the commercials, than your hypocrisy will never set you free.
Just my thoughts!
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Why Am I Rejecting Such A Deal?
By Semperpapa
After some long and deep thinking, I have reached the conclusion that I have been keeping the wrong approach to my personal economics.
I have been against the progressive, Marxist redistribution of wealth way to make sure someone else is held responsible for my bad handling of financial matters. Really stupid, in retrospective.
What I should instead do is embrace the concept and ride the wave of blood sucking for as long as possible.
I have two old cars sitting on my driveway, one actually not running, that I have not been able to afford fixing. The other with over 130K miles making all kind of noises. I have not been able to purchase another vehicle because I have been utilizing a good portion of my income to pay off the debt I have incurred as I tried to run a business when the economy crashed taking me down too.
The conclusion I have reached is that the most convenient course of action I have now is the embracing of the progressive ideology of empowering the government to take from the "rich" and give it to me.
I work 60 hours per week and commute another 15 hours/week to a job that as much as I like it, it creates a lot of stress for me for a pay I deem insufficient for my worth.
All the while, over 12% of the people around me are unemployed and getting paid for almost two years by...me. I pay an exorbitant amount of taxes for it too.
I am underwater in my mortgage, but the new Obama proposal will not do diddly for me, because I have a job and am couple of weeks overdue on the payment. According to the brilliant dude's plan, qualifying for the "help" from this new proposal requires to have so many months of on time payments. Someone should tell Mr. O'Brilliant that if I was in the position to be always on time with my payments, I would not be looking at any assistance from the Government.
Nancy Pelosi stated that unemployment is good for people and the economy because it allows people to explore some personal interests, like photography, she said. And to think that I had rejected such brilliance of thinking!
In the last 33 years of my life, I have been on unemployment insurance for a total of 5 months. In those days, 1993, I could only get the payment for a limited time frame and I had to show real efforts in searching for employment to get paid. Yes, photography or anything like it was the least of my concerns with a family to support.
Today, I still work, but I am beginning to see the light. I should find a way to lose my job and go on unemployment for the next 99 weeks. Stop paying for my debt and my mortgage and everything would be fantastic.
This new course of action would allow me to get paid for doing nothing and pursuing some personal "interest", qualify for all kind of government handout for almost two years without even having to show any intention of getting employment.
And all on the dime of the rest of the American suckers who go to work and produce every day.
All I have to do is vote for Obama and the Democrats, because they are for redistributing the wealth of the "rich" to the rest of us. Yes, the smart thing to do would be to defect from the community of the producers and join the community of the takers...
Why am I rejecting such a deal? Just because the Obama progressive ideology will soon run out of the "rich" money and have to stick it to lower and lower income producers, should not give me pause in taking advantage of such a sweet deal.
And you know, the neighbor up the street with the three cars parked on his property is unfair, when I only have one working car, so I think I will call some SEIU and ACORN folks and get them to help me take one of those cars for myself...maybe the Mercedes.
After all, progressives believe that there should not be proprietorship, that the state should give according to necessity and political affiliation.
I feel good to have reached such an epiphany. The hell with personal responsibility and give in to a government that will take care of me. What could go wrong.
Just my thoughts!
After some long and deep thinking, I have reached the conclusion that I have been keeping the wrong approach to my personal economics.
I have been against the progressive, Marxist redistribution of wealth way to make sure someone else is held responsible for my bad handling of financial matters. Really stupid, in retrospective.
What I should instead do is embrace the concept and ride the wave of blood sucking for as long as possible.
I have two old cars sitting on my driveway, one actually not running, that I have not been able to afford fixing. The other with over 130K miles making all kind of noises. I have not been able to purchase another vehicle because I have been utilizing a good portion of my income to pay off the debt I have incurred as I tried to run a business when the economy crashed taking me down too.
The conclusion I have reached is that the most convenient course of action I have now is the embracing of the progressive ideology of empowering the government to take from the "rich" and give it to me.
I work 60 hours per week and commute another 15 hours/week to a job that as much as I like it, it creates a lot of stress for me for a pay I deem insufficient for my worth.
All the while, over 12% of the people around me are unemployed and getting paid for almost two years by...me. I pay an exorbitant amount of taxes for it too.
I am underwater in my mortgage, but the new Obama proposal will not do diddly for me, because I have a job and am couple of weeks overdue on the payment. According to the brilliant dude's plan, qualifying for the "help" from this new proposal requires to have so many months of on time payments. Someone should tell Mr. O'Brilliant that if I was in the position to be always on time with my payments, I would not be looking at any assistance from the Government.
Nancy Pelosi stated that unemployment is good for people and the economy because it allows people to explore some personal interests, like photography, she said. And to think that I had rejected such brilliance of thinking!
In the last 33 years of my life, I have been on unemployment insurance for a total of 5 months. In those days, 1993, I could only get the payment for a limited time frame and I had to show real efforts in searching for employment to get paid. Yes, photography or anything like it was the least of my concerns with a family to support.
Today, I still work, but I am beginning to see the light. I should find a way to lose my job and go on unemployment for the next 99 weeks. Stop paying for my debt and my mortgage and everything would be fantastic.
This new course of action would allow me to get paid for doing nothing and pursuing some personal "interest", qualify for all kind of government handout for almost two years without even having to show any intention of getting employment.
And all on the dime of the rest of the American suckers who go to work and produce every day.
All I have to do is vote for Obama and the Democrats, because they are for redistributing the wealth of the "rich" to the rest of us. Yes, the smart thing to do would be to defect from the community of the producers and join the community of the takers...
Why am I rejecting such a deal? Just because the Obama progressive ideology will soon run out of the "rich" money and have to stick it to lower and lower income producers, should not give me pause in taking advantage of such a sweet deal.
And you know, the neighbor up the street with the three cars parked on his property is unfair, when I only have one working car, so I think I will call some SEIU and ACORN folks and get them to help me take one of those cars for myself...maybe the Mercedes.
After all, progressives believe that there should not be proprietorship, that the state should give according to necessity and political affiliation.
I feel good to have reached such an epiphany. The hell with personal responsibility and give in to a government that will take care of me. What could go wrong.
Just my thoughts!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
