Another Washington Yawner
By Robert Ringer - Friday, December 9, 2011
Watching Republicans and Democrats battle over extension of the payroll tax cut is like watching two bald men fight over a comb. Little wonder that a large percentage of the population ignores politics. But, hey, never forget that we’re the chumps who elected these crooked clowns to partake in such silly games.
Republicans are using the latest comb fight as a platform to argue for extending and “reforming” (Has anyone figured out what that word even means?) unemployment benefits and getting the Keystone XL pipeline project approved.
It goes without saying that Chairman Obama has no intention of ever allowing the U.S. to be the beneficiary of the Keystone pipeline, because it would slow his plans to fundamentally change America into a socialist hell in at least two ways.
First, it would create 20,000 jobs directly, and many more indirectly. Which would mean fewer workers dependent on the federal government for their survival. Second, it would help reduce our dependency on foreign oil, which would be a huge boost to the economy.
No way BHO is going to allow those things to happen. Instead, he will delay any decision on the pipeline until after the 2012 election, after which, if he’s still in power, he will veto any attempt to move forward with it. What a thoughtful world citizen he is to want to give China access to billions of barrels of oil right here in North America.
On the other hand, if the past is prologue to the future, Republicans will once again find a way to at least extend unemployment benefits, which is rapidly becoming nothing less than a guaranteed income for those who don’t work. Makes you want to shake John Boehner and Eric Cantor by the lapels and shout, “Why in the hell are you even talking about extending unemployment benefits again?”
And what about the much ballyhooed extension of the payroll tax cut? It makes for great theatrics, but does anyone really care? Pardon me while I yawn and take my daily Congressional News Nap.
You have permission to reprint this article so long as you place the following wording at the end of the article:
Copyright © 2012 Robert Ringer
ROBERT RINGER is a New York Times #1 bestselling author and host of the highly acclaimed Liberty Education Interview Series, which features interviews with top political, economic, and social leaders. He has appeared on Fox News, Fox Business, The Tonight Show, Today, The Dennis Miller Show, Good Morning America, The Lars Larson Show, ABC Nightline, and The Charlie Rose Show, and has been the subject of feature articles in such major publications as Time, People, The Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Barron's, and The New York Times.
To sign up for his one-of-a-kind, pro-liberty e-letter, A Voice of Sanity, Click Here.
Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints. Make your case passionately, but please keep your comments civil and to the point (150 words or less). Obscene, profane, abusive, or off-topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked.
If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion. Thanks for your participation.
19 Responses to “Another Washington Yawner”
Leave a Reply
1500 characters maximum.
As usual, your commentary and wit are right on target. One quibble, however. How would the Keystone pipeline reduce US dependency on foreign oil?
Last time I checked, Canada had not been annexed to the US.
Republicans are not interested in getting the XL pipeline approved. In Nebraska where Republicans dominate the one house system, at the request of the Republican governor, they held a special session to throw a monkey wrench into the XL pipeline project.
With the exception of Ron Paul Republicans are very little different from Oboma. They had control of the White house and Congress long enough to have ended foolishness like the EPA, and all restrictions and regulations on oil drilling and development. They had control long enough to cut spending and balance the budget. They had control long enough to close foreign military bases and bring the troops home, But they abused their control by entering into un-winnable wars that moved the nation closer to bankruptcy.
It is totally a waste of words to argue politics using the words Democrats and Republicans they are the same thing. Both are working for the destruction of freedom and the U.S. economy.
I recommend the book “Red Republicans and Lincoln’s Marxists” It tells the history of Marxism in this country and shows how socialists have been working to destroy the freedoms in America for 160 years and having quite a bit of success all along. This book is so much more then the title implies. I knew much of what I read in this book but the authors put it forth in a way that helped me get a new understanding of the whole picture. It probably helped that I was also involved in the “Truth Project” series at the same time.
“With the exception of Ron Paul Republicans are very little different from Oboma.”
Yes, as Michele Bachmann said, [Newt is] a “frugal socialist.”
I say that a majority in her party are frugal socialists, including her.
I agree with Hillfarmer. Dems and Repubs are cut from the same cloth, squabling over minor issues to create good political theater for gullible voters while at the same time agreeing to ignore real solutions to real problems that face our nation. From the looks of things they are hell-bent on creating an elite ruling class (of which they all are members for life) to lord over the rest of us. There are larger forces afoot, of course, and one can’t help but think that the current crop of electeds are doing their best to suck up to the new world masters so that they might at least retain a slot in the international ruling class. It is comforting to me to watch the current crop of youtube videos demonstrating people’s firearm skills. Those who think the people are going to surrender quietly may want to watch a little youtube.
I am even more disappointed in your framing of issues’ in this analytical judgement – with this article … the only line in a paragraph I agree with is “Watching Republicans and Democrats battle over extension of the payroll tax cut is like watching two bald men fight over a comb”.
Believe what you like the sound of ~ but the public isn’t fooled! It really is the other way around – the shameless shenanigans’ going on within the maze of Congressional and Lobbyists’ mental images’ is very apparent … do you see beyond your “marketing” viewpoint ~ outside of your DC view … will make imaginary hair stand up on some pates’
If only us thinkers could elect a 3rd party candidate regardless of what the GOP or Dems did it would shake the system to its liberal and massive spending foundation. I will cast my own vote in such a direction, period,,,
the system is not liberal. it is conservative.
“the americans proceeded to give themselves a constitution which should hold them together more effectively than the congress that had carried them through the war, and they held a convention for the purpose at philadelphia during the summer of 1787. the difficulty was to find terms of union between the three great states – virginia, pennsylvania, massachusetts – & the smaller ones, which included new york. the great states would not allow equal power to the others; the small ones would not allow themselves to be swamped by mere numbers. therefore one chamber was given to population, and the other, to the states, on equal terms. every citizen was made subject to the federal government as well as to that of his own state. the powers of the states were limited, the powers of the federal government were actually enumerated, and thus the states & the union were a check on each other. the principle of division was the most efficacious restraint on democracy that has been devised, for the temper of the constitutional convention was as conservative, as the declaration of independence was revolutionary.”
the federal constitution did not deal with the question of religious liberty. the rules for the election of the president & for that of the vice-president proved a failure. slavery was deplored, was denounced, and was retained. the absence of a definition of state rights led to the most sanguinary civil war of modern times. weighed in the scales of liberalism the instrument, as it stood, was a monstrous fraud. and yet, by the development of the principle of federalism, it has produced a community more powerful, more prosperous, more intelligent, and more free than any other which the world has seen.”
lord acton’s rationalization there at the end is a confused conflation (as is his characterization of the philly convention). but the bits I would bid you ponder are “every citizen was made subject to…”, “division was the most efficacious restraint on democracy”, “the temper of the constitutional convention was as conservative, as the declaration of independence was revolutionary”, & “the instrument, as it stood, was a monstrous fraud”.
the con-stitutional chains bind you – not it. democracy IS division – division division is a double negative. conservative absolutely means cartelization – not liberty (which was the sales pitch for the revolution). whether the “good cops” (antifederalists) were, and were merely overwhelmed, or were in on it (or mostly so), the fraudsters were right there, from inception – and they prevailed.
so, for the thinkers: voting, democracy, con-stitution? the thinkers who put all that together did not do it for you, they did it to you. and those aren’t disco chains around your necks.
Where are the graphics? Just when I thought you were going to begin using graphics you seem to stop. That guy Hank is dynomite…
We use 20 million barrels of oil a day. We produce 7 million barrels, a short fall of 13 million barrels. A million barrels of oil equals a million jobs created. If we supplied our own oil, which we can and should do, we would automatically create 13 million good paying jobs.
##### First, it would create 20,000 jobs directly, and many more indirectly. Which would mean fewer workers dependent on the federal government for their survival. Second, it would help reduce our dependency on foreign oil, which would be a huge boost to the economy.######
Sorry, But I disagree. The Pipeline will not create any jobs at all, it Might ,save a few,but create new ones, Not a chance, and the little Oil taken out of these fields, will not lower the cost of oil, it won’t even replace the oil China and India now use(which is what is actually keeping oil prices on the rise).Thirsd problem I see with it, is it is dirty, and destroys our mother earth, and it is time we move away as far and as fast as possible from the use of oil…Not dig more out of the ground…
st go,
How can you say it will not create jobs? Any construction creates jobs. It is possible some of the workers will be moving from a completed job somewhere else to begin this job. That is the nature of construction jobs. One project is finished and another started but they are new jobs.
If loud mouth environmentalists or anti-American zealots (read Oboma and all who restrict oil development via regulations) halt this project it will reduce the number of new construction jobs.
Seven hundred thousand barrels-per-day is not a small amount of oil. If supply and demand is allowed to work any new supply will either lower the price or prevent price increases.
As far as being time to move away from using oil…. that should be determined entirely by free markets. Oil is falsely priced high right now or alternative energy would not even be in the picture.
Prior to the 1973 oil shortage staged by the government, oil industry and the news media crude oil and wheat were about the same price. Kansas City Wheat is $6.50 right now and known world supplies of crude oil are higher now then in 1973 world wide grain supplies are historically low. It is hard for anyone to make a case for crude to be much over $10 a barrel.
We can never be prosperous with high priced energy. Especially when the high price is a false price (not established by free markets) due to OPEC price controls and foolish regulations.
St go, ignore loud mouthed environmentalists and anti-American zealots
I am going to send money to Ron Paul. Will he be elected? I don’t know but I am going to give him my support.
If we elect another lackey as POTUS I will know I tried to help with concrete ACTION. We need somebody in charge who wants: What’s Best For The USA!!!
Right on George!
If Ron Paul is not on the Republican ballot in the general election I will vote for a third party candidate. Ron Paul has a track record to be right on every issue. If the other Republican candidates cared for the United States they would give up their selfish ambition to be president and endorse Ron Paul.
Have the Libertarians ever considered that some looters are more competent than the producers from whom they loot? They may steal so that they may take better care of something. That is not to say that the maority of looters fit into this categry.
It does not matter if the looter does take care of it. He is still a looter and therefore evil.
If I produce something it is mine and it is mine to care for it how I choose. For some busybody to decide he should take it to give it better care is wrong. If he wants to take better care of something then let him produce it and care for it how he chooses.
Devlin, your looter comments seem out of place unless you are talking of the taking of liberty. If that is the case then I refer to a quote from C. S. Lewis… “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.” – C.S. Lewis
similar to this one, by edmund burke, “the great inlet by which a color for oppression has entered into the world is by one man’s pretending to determine concerning the happiness of another.”
A producer who has produced something greater than the thing he stole, may still be a part-time robber. What would be his motivation? Suppose he is an animist or a pantheist, he believes things are unique like people, and to mismanage a thing is unjust. American society is devoid of spirituality. This is beause we make a dichotomy between things and sentiments. Robbery is an act of violent agression. Ayn Rand says violent agression is immoral because we can not have creative intellectual producers in a society where people are compelled. This is a closet theory. In reality, most agression is maneuvering, and most maneuvering. The same strategic thinking is involved in developing an enterprise and war. In Japan the Samurai culture was inherited by businessmen. The Libertarian philosophy is a very popular, simplified, distorted, and watered down adaptation of Ayn Rand’s objectivism, which itself is a very misinformed, watered down, popular adaptation of Aristotle. Aristotle was the mentor of the greatest conqueror in history, Alexander of Macedon. So something does not add up here. They say even the Devil will quote <> if it is useful to him. Aristotle also says that women and men are equal with respect to Liberty, but because of metaphysical differences in sex psychologies between men and women, Authority should be delegated to men alone. For aristotle <> are beings with rights, the right to life and protection from harm, slaves are all unreasonable beings.
The premise that agressive violence and intellectual activity can not coexist is only part true if not false. A hero both produces and conquers, Ayn Rand escaped from the Soviet Union, yet there were many who did not run and found means to live powerful, productive, prosperous, and upright lives despite the rigors of the totalitarian regime, subvert and finally topple it. Ayn Rand married a man she did not love, whom she met on the set of a movie while working as an extra, to elevate her social status. She also informed on people during McCarthism. An actual Romantic Realist onscreen hero of her age, Cary Grant (the star of Charade, To Catch A Thief, My Girl Friday, Notorious, and North by Northwest), who was a Republican, who did not squeal in the McCarthist purge, is not mentioned in her Romantic Manifesto, but she lists James Bond. As the Cherokee proverb goes, look at woman’s footprints, not her lips. Another premise that is false, is that a rich sosiety is always better than a poor one. Wealth is not always estimated by toys that dull the brain. Hardship sharpens wits and teaches people to appreciate the finer things in life, that are non-material.