If I get to be president, white men in male-only clubs are going to do great in my presidency.

 Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)

It’s cool though, there is no system of privilege for white males in the United States. And definitely no systemic abuse of power by white men in positions of authority. 

san-geeek-a said:

I went to see Bill Clinton speak at my university today because I thought it would be kind of fun, and it was actually a democrat rally for the election. They criticized the republicans for wanting voter ID laws and how that's voter suppression, but I don't understand how minority's aren't offended by that. Democrats are basically saying that black and Hispanic people are too stupid and poor to get their ID. If a country like India can have voter ID laws, why not the US?

It’s classic victim mentality.  Some people really do believe that some people don’t have the capability to do something because someone must be holding them down.  It doesn’t just apply to minorities, it also applies to most liberals in general.  Everyone is a victim because someone else is privileged:

  • People can’t vote because they can’t obtain an ID easily enough.
  • People can’t get ahead in society because the man is holding them down.
  • People are struggling to make ends meet or put food on the table because the rich are hording all the money.
  • People can’t obtain affordable healthcare because insurance companies are greedy.
  • People can’t even walk down the streets because cops are always around harassing them.

Liberals, especially politicians, will continue to perpetuate this mentality as long as people are willing to buy it…and a lot people really believe it.  If you are a victim, that must mean you need the government’s help.

Could the film Interstellar be…conservative?

I thought this short clip from the new movie Interstellar seemed like something parents across this country are dealing with their public schools decides to sell their narrative to their children.

In the clip, Matthew McConaughey’s character argues with a school faculty member about whether or not the United States went to the moon.  The faculty member’s rationale is that it was all propaganda to sell rockets and bankrupt the Soviet Union.  She even goes as far to say that if we are going to learn about the wastefulness of the twentieth century, then children should learn about this planet.  Hmmm…where have I heard that before?

I don’t have much faith in Hollywood anymore, but with recent, clearly conservative, films like the Avengers, Captain America: the Winter Soldier, and even the Hunger Games, perhaps this could be a trend?  Then again, without watching the rest of the film, they could spin this clip in numerous directions. 

What do you think?

I come to bury Reaganomics, not to praise it.

How well has Reaganomics achieved its own goals? Perhaps the best way of discovering those goals is to recall the heady days of Ronald Reagan’s first campaign for the presidency, especially before his triumph at the Republican National Convention in 1980. In general terms, Reagan pledged to return, or advance, to a free market and to “get government off our backs.”

Government Spending. How well did Reagan succeed in cutting government spending, surely a critical ingredient in any plan to reduce the role of government in everyone’s life? In 1980, the last year of free-spending Jimmy Carter the federal government spent $591 billion. In 1986, the last recorded year of the Reagan administration, the federal government spent $990 billion, an increase of 68%. Whatever this is, it is emphatically not reducing government expenditures.

Deficits. The next, and admittedly the most embarrassing, failure of Reaganomic goals is the deficit. Jimmy Carter habitually ran deficits of $40-50 billion and, by the end, up to $74 billion; but by 1984, when Reagan had promised to achieve a balanced budget, the deficit had settled down comfortably to about $200 billion, a level that seems to be permanent, despite desperate attempts to cook the figures in one-shot reductions.

Tax Cuts. One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn’t the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and “fairness” in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn’t Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?

The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous “tax cut” of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It’s true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined. The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase. One was “bracket creep,” a term for inflation quietly but effectively raising one into higher tax brackets, so that you pay more and proportionately higher taxes even though the tax rate schedule has officially remained the same. The second source of higher taxes was Social Security taxation, which kept increasing, and which helped taxes go up overall. Not only that, but soon thereafter; when the Social Security System was generally perceived as on the brink of bankruptcy, President Reagan brought in Alan Greenspan, a leading Reaganomist and now Chairman of the Federal Reserve, to save Social Security as head of a bipartisan commission. The “saving,” of course, meant still higher Social Security taxes then and forevermore.

Deregulation. Another crucial aspect of freeing the market and getting government off our backs is deregulation, and the administration and its Reaganomists have been very proud of its deregulation record. However, a look at the record reveals a very different picture. In the first place, the most conspicuous examples of deregulation; the ending of oil and gasoline price controls and rationing, the deregulation of trucks and airlines, were all launched by the Carter administration, and completed just in time for the Reagan administration to claim the credit. Meanwhile, there were other promised deregulations that never took place; for example, abolition of natural gas controls and of the Department of Energy.

Overall, in fact, there has probably been not deregulation, but an increase in regulation. Thus, Christopher De Muth, head of the American Enterprise Institute and a former top official of Reagan’s Office of Management and the Budget, concludes that “the President has not mounted a broad offensive against regulation. There hasn’t been much total change since 1981. There has been more balanced administration of regulatory agencies than we had become used to in the 1970s, but many regulatory rules have been strengthened.”

Foreign Economic Policy. If the Reagan administration has botched the domestic economy, even in terms of its own goals, how has it done in foreign economic affairs? As we might expect, its foreign economic policy has been the exact opposite of its proclaimed devotion to free trade and free markets. In the first place, Adam Smith ties and Bastiat to the contrary notwithstanding, the Reagan administration has been the most belligerent and nationalistic since Herbert Hoover. Tariffs and import quotas have been repeatedly raised, and Japan has been treated as a leper and repeatedly denounced for the crime of selling high quality products at low prices to the delighted American consumer.

In all matters of complex and tangled international economics, the only way out of the thicket is to keep our eye on one overriding question: Is it good, or bad, for the American consumer? What the American consumer wants is good quality products at low prices, and so the Japanese should be welcomed and admired instead of condemned. As for the alleged crime of “dumping,” if the Japanese are really foolish enough to waste money and resources by dumping—that is selling goods to us below costs—then we should welcome such a policy with open arms; anytime the Japanese are willing to sell me Sony TV sets for a dollar, I am more than happy to take the sets off their hands.

Not only foreign producers are hurt by protectionism, but even more so are American consumers. Every time the administration slaps a tariff or quota on motorcycles or on textiles or semiconductors or clothespins—as it did to bail out one inefficient clothespin plant in Maine—every time it does that, it injures the American consumer.


After news surfaced recently that the ACA enrollee numbers may not be as optimistic as once reported, it would seem that Obamacare was nothing more than a big Medicaid expansion.  In other words, just another concerted effort to over-regulate the private health care market and put even more people on the government doll.

Don’t let anybody tell you that its corporations and businesses that create jobs.

Hillary Clinton

Also… are you fucking kidding me?

On its best day Government creates jobs like Wal-Mart creates a lobster dinner. Sure, it provides the ingredients to make it possible (sometimes) but it doesn’t actually cook the dinner.

What Mrs. Clinton wants you to believe is that when you take the Lobster home and turn it into dinner it’s her that did the cooking.

Not you.

And that’s bullshit.

Government is perpetually trying to take the credit for the achievements of the private sector. This is just one more example.

In North Korea the government “creates jobs”. Not in America.