Randian Prophecy

This morning my cellie and I were watching the news, and they were talking about Obama’s plan to supposedly stimulate the economy.  Which, for a Democrat like Obama, basically means throwing money at the problem and forcing private companies to conduct themselves for the “good” of society.

However many gazillions of taxpayer dollars are being given away doesn’t really matter; those colossal numbers have ceased to hold any meaning.  This time, however, apparently stipulations are being made that the companies that receive government money will be forced to buy American goods and services.  While they may sound good, the reality is that it creates a scenario where government-induced semi-monopolies can put out whatever half-assed product they want to meet a baseline and charge whatever they want. (Of course, it also means that Washington politicians are deciding who gets what contract, which is a whole other Pandora’s Box.)  Watching the news, I heard the apparent democratic solution to the problem of overcharging: price control.  Now we’ve come to price controls.

A thought immediately struck me, and I turned to my cellie, who was reading a book and listening to the news at the same time.  That book happens to be Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, which I convinced him to read after extolling its virtues ad nauseam.  I said, “This shit [what we're hearing on the news] sounds exactly like what happened in Atlas Shrugged.”  My cellie laughed and said he was about to say exactly the same thing to me.

In the book, Ms. Rand laid out a surefire method for destroying an economy, toppling a great nation, and breaking the human spirit.  The horror of the scenario is that it’s insidious; it disguises itself as a noble cause, as being charitable and neighborly and devoted to helping your fellow man.  In the novel, the purveyors of this method, the looters, say exactly the same thing that Washington politicians are saying today: That this simply must be done for the good of the people.

Don’t get me wrong; I’m not some alarmist claiming that what happened in Ayn Rand’s fictional world is coming to pass.  I’m not saying that there are “signs” of the scenario taking place.  But seriously, given the massive government growth over the last several years, the interventionist policies of this new administration, the entitlement debts that keep piling up, and the instant-gratification spending of our politicians, is there a favorable ending to this anywhere in sight?  Maybe I’m just missing it, but I don’t think so.

Ann Coulter on The View

I think it’s clear that Ann Coulter not only enjoys her shock-jock gimmick that sells books, but she also finds it amusing that so many people start shrieking uncontrollably whenever she appears on their show to defend it.  What’s funny to me is practically every time Ms. Coulter is interviewed by a liberal, they seem to embody the cliches that she mocks so prodigiously. 

Take someone like Whoopi Goldberg.  Okay, Ann Coulter’s point about actresses such as Halle Berry using their black heritage as a way to fast-track their career is a contentious one.  Regardless of how much Ms. Coulter truly believes in this argument, she knows full well that it’s going to raise hackles.

But how did Ms. Goldberg respond to the point?  All she could manage was that since Ann Coulter didn’t have “experience” in this matter, her argument was “bullshit.”  Apparently since Ms. Coulter is blonde and pale-skinned, she’s incapable of making a valid argument about any issue involving black Americans.  When Coulter reminded her that she wasn’t arguing from personal experience, Ms. Goldberg again failed to deliver any rational response to the argument and retreated to saying that Ms. Coulter “can dish it out but not take it.”

These are simple tactics for shutting down discourse rather than meeting the argument.  Ms. Goldberg might as well have said, “You’re a mean person, Ann, so nothing you say  matters.”  And the “personal experience” counter is about as ridiculous as I’ve ever heard, a shadow of the moronic liberal tactic of attacking Republican politicians for “starting” a war and sending troops to fight in it even though they don’t have kids in the military.

By this rationale, maybe Barack Obama shouldn’t have been allowed to criticize Hillary Clinton because he doesn’t have a vagina – he doesn’t know what it’s like to be a woman in politics.  How about we reverse this tactic on the liberals and say they can’t make valid arguments against the War on Terror until they go fight in it?

Whoopi Goldberg just ended up making Ann Coulter’s point, her ubiquitous claim that liberals aren’t capable of arguing rationally.  And besides, is Ann Coulter really so horrible, compared to liberal shock jocks?  I don’t her Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar blasting all the Hollywood dingbats who say Bush is Hitler and other nasty things that make Ann Coulter appear civil.  Rosie O’Donnell say on that show and called our troops terrorists.

And what about Ms. Goldberg herself?  I remember when John McCain was on The View, and she made that “slavery” comment about the way John McCain supported the Constitution.  That was one of the dumbest, most insulting things I’ve ever heard a rational person say with a straight face.  How about she apologize for implying that a presidential candidate needs to clarify that he’s not pro-slavery?  Honestly, what would Ms. Goldberg think if Elizabeth Hasselbeck had asked Barack Obama, “You’re pro-choice, so does that mean you’re comfortable murdering babies?”  Can you imagine the gasps and self-righteous whining?

The Bankruptcy of the Traditional Marriage Argument

I was just thinking about how much time I spend chastising Barack Obama, and how I think John McCain is vastly preferable as our next president.  Yet I’m a social liberal – more liberal than Obama in at least one area.  After all, Obama is against gay marriage (he’s stated that he defines marriage as being between a man and a woman).  Me, I say anyone who’s against gay marriage should mind their own business.

But I’m open to hearing an argument against it.  I would enjoy being convinced that I’m wrong.  So far, other than the absurdity of the religious argument (i.e., gay marriage is wrong because my arbitrary fairy tale says so), I’ve heard three main objections.  The first is that the opponent of gay marriage simply makes some variation of this statement: “For thousands of year, marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman.”

My answer to that is usually: “And?”  Eating three meals a day is also a well-rooted tradition that has been around for thousands of years.  Yet there’s nothing scientific or even healthy about it.  In fact, for optimal health and a more efficient metabolism, science has shown that the body is designed to graze (consume six or seven small meals a day).  Eating three meals a day has no practical value, and if you’re aware that there are healthier options, there’s no practical reason to continue doing it other than social convenience.  On the topic at hand, simply because it’s tradition for marriage to be between a man and woman is not a practical reason for disallowing gay marriage.

The second objection is that traditional marriage is better for a cohesive society (stable homes, nuclear families, etc.).  I would love to hear how the people who voice this argument arrived at their conclusion.  Where’s the evidence?  Where’s the case study?  What about Massachusetts?  Is social cohesiveness dissolving there?  How about in other counties (like the Netherlands)?  Are there studies that show gay people are more likely to get divorced than straight people?

And even if there were, so what?  It’s not the government’s business to tell us what’s best for us.  Don’t you think alcohol, tobacco, and gluttony are much more destructive to a society than gay marriage?  Why don’t we ban those things?  The answer is because adults are free to do what they want in this country, as long as they don’t harm the person or property of another.

The third objection is rather abstract “to protect the kids.”  So far no one has ever elaborated on how gay people getting married is going to hurt children.  I just don’t understand the concern of these “concerned” parents.  Do they honestly think allowing gay people to get married will somehow convert their kids into homosexuality?  In California, there’s whining because a teacher’s association has donated money to keeping gay marriage legal.

The other day I saw a woman on the news voicing her “concern” for the kids.  She never even came close to saying exactly why kids needed protection from gays or gay marriage, but her other admissions were ironic.  Apparently she walks to school with gay couples and their adopted kids.  She has gay friends.  She thinks they should have the exact same legal rights (civil unions) as straight couples.

And yet, allowing them to get married is bad for kids.  How?  What kind of hypocrisy is this?  If she’s fine with them adopting kids, having inheritance rights, grieving rights, the tax break, and so on, what’s the problem with walking down the aisle?  They’ve been legitimized, they’re already a married couple in everything but name, so what line does the ceremony cross?

President Obama

The other night I heard Ann Coulter call Barack Obama a “socialist who wants to surrender.”  What’s funny about a statement like that is a great many of Obama’s supporters and political allies probably wouldn’t disagree!  (Imagine that, Obama supporters agreeing with Ann Coulter.)  I mean, he surrounds himself with America-hating, Marxist-leaning scumbags like “Reverend” Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, and some of the people in groups like Acorn.  He’s comfortable with George Soros, Media Matters, and the Daily Kos.  Louis Farrakhan and Hezbollah have voiced their support for him.

Let’s look at the two charges in Ms. Coulter’s statement.  First, Obama wants to surrender (in Iraq).  What would have happened, had we listened to Obama’s plan a couple years ago and pulled out Iraq in defeat and humiliation?  What would have happened to Iraq if we’d listened to Obama and decided that the Surge wasn’t going to work?  Maybe Obama doesn’t consider this “surrender,” but I guarantee that al Qaeda would have.  How would Obama like to see thousands of Muslim extremists cheering in the streets that they “defeated America?”  Christ, he still can’t even admit that the Surge was the right plan!  And where was his vote to condemn the “General Betray Us” ad created by his political pals?

I’m inclined to agree with Obama that going into Iraq was probably the wrong move overall.  If we could do it all over again, we wouldn’t take that route.  But that doesn’t make Ms. Coulter’s statement any less true.  Surrender is still surrender.  The point here is not whether we were wrong about Iraq in the first place; the point is whether pulling out (surrendering) would be yet another mistake.

Then we have the term “socialist.”  Okay, we all know that Obama isn’t a socialist in the strictest sense.  But certainly it’s fair to say that he subscribes to some socialist tenets.  We’re talking about a guy who wants nearly a trillion dollars in spending entitlement programs.  A guy who continuously spouts a populist message of class warfare and wealth redistribution.  I read The Audacity of Hope:  Obama supports salary caps for CEOs!  He had the audacity to claim that wealthy Americans have too much by giving a list of what he sees as extraneous luxuries!

Then we have his vice president on TV saying that it’s “patriotic” for the wealthy to pay more taxes.  Biden even shamelessly used the word “take” when talking about taxing the rich.  So now you’re unpatriotic if you disagree with non-producing politicians deciding how much of your money they should take and where it should go.  I find that absolutely amazing.

If left-wing guys like Alan Colmes want people to stop referring to Obama as a socialist, maybe he should tell him to stop preaching a message of taxing the rich and giving to the poor.  Obama shrouds it thusly: “There are things we must do, and the only way to pay for these things is by taxing those who are doing well.”  He makes it sound like he’s only doing what’s necessary, like making the best of a wave that’s crashing over us by surfing it.

Of course, the operative word here is “must.”  Things we “must” do.  What a crock.  What Obama really means is, “There are things I think we should do to remake America in my very left-wing vision.”

Touchy-Feely Economic Policy

I literally can’t understand why the American people think George Bush and the Republicans are to blame for the current economic problems.  Say what you want about Bush, but the economy has been absolutely wonderful for the last seven years, almost the entirety of his time in office.  It’s only the last couple months that things have turned sour.

What exactly have the Democrats done in the last two years about the economy?  I hear all sorts of Johnny-come-lately politicians claiming to have warned about the economic crisis, but not one of them did anything.  Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, the Democratic social engineering programs, and the government-backed groups like Fannie and Freddie all shoulder most of the blame here.  And yet, for some reason people are hooting like monkeys, saying: “This is George Bush’s fault.  This is because of Republican deregulation.”

That’s garbage.  Regulation and social engineering is at least mostlyto blame for this mess, and that’s indisputable.  Government intervention is now making it worse.  If you want to blame Bush for something, blame him for backing (along with Obama, McCain, and all the rest) that sickening bailout bill and these other economic “stimulus” packages.

Still, government’s just not that important in the long run.  The economy will recover, and not because McCain backs a new bill or Obama signs a new entitlement program.  The economy will recover because it’s made up of millions of people engaging in free trade and enterprise.  I wish the government would just stand aside and let them get on with it.

What’s scary to me is that the government is beginning to do the one thing – the only thing – it possibly can that will actually, seriously screw things up forever.  What’s scary is that every Marxist-leaning Chicken Little is coming out and saying “Capitalism is broken.”  They’re growing emboldened.  They see a borderline socialist like Obama about to become president with a borderline socialist Congress to give him whatever he wants, and they’re secretly clapping their little rat claws with glee.  This is the first step towards their version of what’s “right” and “moral” for society.  And it’s inevitable: With this election cycle, we have a choice between Big Government and Bigger Government.  With the economy as bad as it is, people are willing to vote for anyone who promises relief and a check in the mail.  They’ll give the looters a lot of leeway, they’ll nod along to social programs and stimulus bills and more regulation for those “greedy” rich people.

After all, it sounds so lovely on paper doesn’t it?  It’s all about being nice and giving back to the country that’s done so much for you.  You’ve done so well; shouldn’t the government require that you pay a little more – just a little – to help those who simply want a good home for their kids?  What could be more decent than that?  Doesn’t it sound so unfair and mean-spirited that McCain wants to give all those rich corporations tax cuts?  What do those greedy bastards need with more money?

We could say that those “greedy bastards” are the ones doing all the investing in America and creating all the jobs.  We could say that all McCain wants to do is leave them alone and stop punishing them as if they’re criminals who need to be fined.  We could say that someone has a right to do whatever they want with the money they earn.  We could say that it’s stunningly immoral to take what others earn at the point of a gun and give it to those who “deserve” it.

None of that ever seems to matter.  It’s as if all people want to hear is: “We’ll make it all better.  We’re going to reward you with an allowance and lots of rules to protect you from your own decisions because we care.”  This is what they seem to want, and this is what they’re going to get.

Predatory Lenders

I hear a lot about “predatory” lenders nowadays, institutions that apparently give loans that are too expensive for people to afford.  I guess the argument is that these financial institutions know very well that the people they’re loaning money to couldn’t pay back the loans, so their behavior becomes “predatory.”  They’re preying on people.  Right.

First of all, many of these “predatory” lenders have been pressured or encouraged to give loans to poor people by social engineering politics and groups like Acorn.  Some politicians and community organizations seem to think that giving people homes they can’t afford is a sound policy.  This is a Democratic problem.  Chris Dodd and Obama are the biggest recipients of money from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.  Obama gave $800 grand to Acorn.  It’s amazing, but the Democrats are the ones in bed (literally in Barney Frank’s case) with these faulty financial social programs that are mostly to blame for the economy – and yet Americans are equating the Republicans with a bad economy.

Actually, I guess this isn’t so amazing when the entire Democratic economic “plan” is: Vote for us and we’ll give you money.  I hate to say this about the American people, but it seems many would rather cheer for a plan promising handouts than a plan that will create jobs.

But back to the point.  I would love to see how many documented cases we have of people who are now in trouble and can’t pay their mortgage, who were deceived by their lender.  I would love to see the numbers on this.  How many of them were actually lied to or tricked?  If they were, then those lenders should be prosecuted.  But as we all know, this isn’t a case of the lenders doing anything illegal; it’s overwhelmingly a case of people taking out loans they couldn’t afford.

I hate to be a cold-hearted bastard, but here it is: Deal with it.  Life isn’t fair.  As adults, we live with our bad decisions; we don’t demand that the government steal other people’s money to pay for them.  It’s not as if these lenders put a gun to anyone’s head and forced them to take out a loan they couldn’t afford.  If you didn’t read the fine print, if you didn’t pay enough attention to interest rates, if you assumed that the housing market would keep going up, that’s YOUR fault.

Let’s say a man goes to Las Vegas and gambles away his savings, his house, his kids’ college fund, and gets his family thrown out on the street.  Should the government help him out?  Granted, it’s a sad fact that his family lost their home, but the should the government force others to pay for this man’s bad decisions? 

How about the casinos?  After all, they’re willingly and knowingly rigging a game in which they always win.  People go there and lose vast amounts of money all the time.  Should we crack down on these “predatory” Las Vegas casinos?  Or should we say, “Hopefully you learned your lesson” to the poor guy?

Life isn’t fair.  It definitely isn’t easy and without risk.  Giving poor people homes they can’t afford – while certainly a sweet gesture – isn’t doing them a favor.  And there’s nothing moral about taking the money other people have earned and redistributing it to those who possibly, arguably deserve it.  This is the real world, not some idealistic socialist fantasy-realm that certain politicians would have us believe.

America’s First Left-Wing Radical President

Maybe I’m way out of the loop here, but I just don’t understand why Americans are voting for Barack Obama.  A man with this many questionable ties and friendships is going to be in the Oval Office.  A man who sat listening to a racist scumbag like Jeremiah Wright for twenty years and then has the temerity to tell us he never knew the extent of his views.  Christ, Obama acts like Wright just said his controversial statements in a vacuum, like he got drunk one night and started spouting off.  This “reverend” paints these sickening notions as the main thrust of his message.  They’re on the church’s website, they’re on fliers in the lobby!

Yet Obama defends this guy, then decides to drop him when it might hurt his political career, then tells us he never knew the man had those views.  And America doesn’t care.

We have a similar situation with Bill Ayers and his wife.  Again, Obama’s piddling little excuses come out.  He was eight years old when Ayers committed his bombings.  Okay, but how old was Obama around 9/11, when Ayers stated that he should have done more?  How old was Obama when he sat on boards with this guy or wrote a blurb for his book?

This is mind-boggling to me.  We’re going to put this guy in the White House!  One of the most liberal leaders in America is going to have a very Democratic Congress at his beck and call.  A guy who is comfortable hanging out with – and even choosing as his mentor and spiritual advisor – radicals, racists, and domestic terrorists.  How is Obama going to fight terrorism?  He doesn’t even have the moral fortitude to tell a guy like Bill Ayers: “You’re an unrepentant terrorist who hates this country – I’m not going to talk to you or have any dealings with you whatsoever.”

I’m a convicted felon and I wouldn’t shake hands with a guy like Bill Ayers.  But Obama needed the guy for his political career.  And America doesn’t care.

This isn’t about partisanship.  If McCain had ties to people like Wright and Ayers, I would absolutely be calling for his head.  But it wouldn’t matter – if McCain had friends like Wright and Ayers, he would have been forced out of the race long ago.  He never would have had a chance.  Jeremiah Wright talks about “white greed” and America being run by racist white men and the “United States of KKK.”  What if McCain had chosen as his lifelong spiritual advisor someone who said equivalent things?  And what if McCain’s excuse was, “He’s really a good man who taught me about Jesus.  Don’t listen to that time he called all black people crack-smoking gangbangers.  That was just one stupid thing he said.”

Even without his connections, the future Obama envisions for this country appears rather ominous.  More government spending, more social engineering, wealth redistribution, mandated health care, an apologist approach to dictators like Ahmadinejad, a blame-America-first stance.  But hey, he’s charismatic and he promises to give all the voters money.  So elect away, America.  Put your hands out and Obama will smile and pat your little heads and give you your allowance.  He knows what’s best for you.  Just ask him.

As I’ve said before, I hope Obama does well.  I hope things improve.  I don’t wish harm on him and especially not on America.  But this seems to me absurd.  Wake up, people.

Joe the American

I was watching Hannity & Colmes when their guest was “Joe the Plumber,” and he said something that almost brought tears to my eyes.  Something that Obama and his socialist-leaning friends and colleagues could never understand.  Something the snivelers of the left-wing media will probably ridicule. 

Alan Colmes said that Obama’s tax cut to middle-class Americans would essentially put another thousand bucks in Joe’s pocket.  So, Colmes asked, wouldn’t you want to support the candidate who is going to give you that break and make it easier on your home budget?

I thought Joe’s response was inspirational.  He sad that he wouldn’t, in fact, want that extra thousand bucks.  Why?  Because it would come from the pockets of those who had worked harder than he had or caught a better break.  I was agog.  I swear I wanted to plug in my guitar and play “The Star-Spangled Banner” at top volume. 

It was about values for Joe, not about whether he thinks he deserves more money.  Being a leftist, Alan Colmes didn’t know how to respond.  I suppose that in his America , the politician that buys the most votes by telling middle-class Americans how pathetic they are should be the one seen as more “in touch” with the people. 

As is typical with Colmes, he brought out the old tactic of rushing to the bottom.  He pointed out that America has always had a progressive tax system, that we’ve always expected the wealthy to foot more of the bill, that even Reagan and Bush taxed the rich more, that even McCain is leaning toward a socialist move like buying up bad mortgages. 

Guess what, Mr. Colmes?  Saying that “everyone else does it” does not excuse it.  And neither does it make it a good policy.  The progressive tax system is wrong.  McCain is wrong.  Reagan and Bush were wrong.  We should get rid of the IRS and institute a flat or fair tax.  And here’s a big surprise for you: The wealthy would still be footing most of the bill even if they paid the same percentage as everyone else!

What Joe the Plumber said was one of the most refreshingly American things I’ve heard on TV in a long time.  No wonder everyone’s paying attention to him.  No wonder the left-wing media is ridiculing the man.  Imagine that: The choice is between a free check for a thousand dollars, and adhering to your belief that social welfare and wealth redistribution is wrong.  This country would be in a lot better shape if everyone would choose like Joe the American did.

The First Presidential Debate

I want McCain to be our next president, but at the debate, when the topic was economics, I thought his performance was subpar, to say the least.  Obama kept pointing out his economic “plan” of giving ninety-five percent of the country a tax break, and McCain kept returning to talking points about cutting spending.

Don’t get me wrong: spending needs to be controlled, and no one can argue that McCain would be more adept at such a task than someone like Obama.  But it almost seemed like McCain couldn’t answer a question, or even that he was incapable of defending free market capitalism from a “borderline” socialist like Obama.

Here’s what I wish McCain would have said.  When Obama spewed his populist promises about how only the top five percent of the earners in this country would see their taxes raised under this plan, I would have loved to see McCain give that creepy smile of his and say, “Senator Obama, under my plan, no one will see their taxes raised.”

What exactly is Obama’s plan anyway?  I’ll tell you:  Let’s throw more money and government intervention at the problem and hope for the best.  His economic policy is pretty much the same thing you hear from all Democrats (and all pandering politicians, to some extent).  They simple promise to give people money.  That’s it.  That’s all it really comes down to.  They prey off of people’s insecurities, financial hardships, and bills, and they promise that a nanny will come along and burp them and make everything okay.  Since when did politicians become Santa Claus?

McCain came off better when the topic was foreign policy.  The gap in policy experience between the two men was as striking as always.  But it’s not all about experience, either.  It’s also about wanting a person in the White House who will make the right decisions.  Obama’s first reaction to events (such as saying both Russia and Georgia need to “show restraint” when Georgia was invaded) seem to fall along the lines of multiculturalism and Blame-America-First nonsense.  I’m not questioning his patriotism, but honestly, how many times has he focused on the idea that America needs to cater to other countries needs and desires?  How many times has he said, “America is the greatest country on Earth, but…” and rambled on with some typically left-wing indictment of American hegemony?  Christ, speaking about Russia invading Georgia, he even brought up Iraq and said America needs to “lead by example” and not go invading countries willy-nilly, as if the War in Iraq is in any way comparable to Russia invading Georgia.

And the best he can come up with in a debate is to continually compare his opponent to George Bush.  At least John McCain has a more substantive argument than comparing Obama to Jimmy Carter, for example.

Obama and McCain on Economics

The economy’s not doing all that great, so Obamais making some headway in the polls.  For some reason, people equate the current economic crisis withGeorge Bush, and then George Bush with John McCain, so they start to lean toward Obama.  And of course, the Obamacampaign is playing this up for all it’s worth, putting forth the notion that if you want the economy to get better, don’t elect McCain because he’ll keep doing what Bush has done.

I’d love them to answer exactly what President Bush has done to make the economy this way.  In fact, every single person I’ve talked to or heard can’t name one single bill Bush has approved or vetoed that is responsible for the economy.  Neither can they think of something McCain will do that will be along the same lines as Bush.

Okay, I’m kind of a dunce in some areas, but do Americans need to go back to freaking high school?  Do they not realize that the Democrats have been in charge of Congress for the last two years?  And that Congress is responsible for making laws, passing spending bills, and changing economic policy?  Has Obama every blamed his own party for anything in the last two years?  Using the Obama logic, shouldn’t we avoid putting a Democrat in the White House?

I think one thing about Bush’s policy is bad for the economy: his spending.  He spends like a Democrat (he just doesn’t raise taxes to pay for it).  I think we can all criticize him for that.  Now the taxpayers have to pick up another $700 billion-dollar bill for the bailout for AIG.  Again, I’m very far from an expert in these matters, but doesn’t a bailout of that magnitude only push the problem ahead farther?  Doesn’t it simply cause more inflation, the same inflation that brought about the home mortgage crisis in the first place?  What good does a bandaid do, if the wound doesn’t get better?

People are always so quick to name the rich fat cats on Wall Street as the crooks.  Bill O’Reilly does it almost every night on his program, calling CEOs”villains.”  He equates greed with evil.  Even President Bush comes out and says that people short-selling stocks are “parasites,” as if making profits by predicting that stocks will go down is somehow morally different from making profits by predicting they’ll go up.  Every politician, whether Republican or Democrat, keeps promising more help to the American people by taxing the American people.  Joe Biden said his wealth redistribution plan is a call for “patriotism.”  Now you’re unpatriotic if you see something wrong with a non-productive politician taking money from people who produce and arbitrarily deciding where it should go.  Absolutely stunning.

You know what I’d like to see?  You know what would make me stand up and cheer?  I’d love to see a politician (whether Democrat or Republican), when asked about a solution to the mortgage crisis, look the American people in the eye and say: “Don’t buy a house you can’t afford.”  Maybe it’s heartless, but they’re adults; they can take it.