Idiocy has consequences, as does brainwashing school children

53% of Democrats admit to “positive feelings” towards socialism, 75% positive towards the federal government, 55% positive towards capitalism.

23 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

23 responses to “Idiocy has consequences, as does brainwashing school children

  1. JRH

    Same poll shows 23% of Republicans have a positive image of socialism, which either means the poll’s sample was disproportionately weighted toward honest bankers, or the proper reading is that a high percentage of Americans don’t know what these terms mean.

    • I’ll go with ignorance every time when it comes to polling average voters, JRH, but it’s discouraging to think that we’re turning out so many voters who don’t understand either capitalism or socialism. Of course, if they’d been taught to read while in those schools, maybe they could figure things out for themselves.

  2. Cos Cobber

    JRH, full time dem apologist. Must be a slow week on campus.

  3. Inagua

    “….the proper reading is that a high percentage of Americans don’t know what these terms mean.”

    These are the same ignorant losers that you are so happy to have as voters.

  4. AJ

    75 % have positive feelings for Government??? Here’s government busy stealing people’s stuff. And if it wasn’t bad enough that they are thieves, they’re stupid thieves, selling the loot for nowhere near what it’s worth.

  5. Pot Calling Kettle

    Quick question for the fiscal geniuses on this site (Inagua et al) who are so quick to criticize the current efforts at reducing the current debt: How would you do it? Your party never provided any actual answers to that issue. When pressed on actual numbers and actual policies, they dodged the issue ever time. Easy to sit in your little seat and criticize, when you offer no compelling alternative…….Barry’s gang may not be the most effective, but there’s no other game in town where people know what the rules are.

    • Paul Ryan presented a complete budget addressing the debt, Pot Head – watch for him next election cycle, although I’m sure you won’t have to wait that long to find out how he’d do it now. “Barry’s gang may not be the most effective”? What plan do they have and why have they been hiding it? Taxing a few rich folks is not a serious plan, it’s an appeal to the mob, period.
      UPDATE: InstaPundit has posted an editorial from the Chicago Tribune, of all papers:

      Chicago Tribune To Obama: Hey, What About Those Spending Cuts?

      As we’ve said before, we wish Obama would take the money Boehner offered and run. Republicans make a strong argument that increasing revenue by limiting deductions, rather than sharply hiking rates, would have less of an impact on economic growth.

      Yes, Obama campaigned on those tax rate increases. But he campaigned just as fervently on the need for a “balanced” mix of revenue hikes and spending cuts. With his obsession on tax rates rather than on debt and entitlements, the president does not look focused on finding a two-party solution for crises that two parties created.

      Americans who voted for Obama reflect that call for balance more than his ultimatums have: Politico reported Monday that a poll for a moderate Democratic think tank, Third Way, found 85 percent of Obama voters favoring higher taxes on the wealthy: “Yet 41 percent who supported the Democratic incumbent want to get control of the deficit mostly by cutting spending, with only some tax increases, while another 41 percent want to solve it mostly with tax increases and only some spending cuts. Just 5 percent of Obama supporters favor tax increases alone to solve the deficit, half the number who back an approach that relies entirely on spending cuts.”

      What Americans see, though, is a White House offering essentially the same tax-centric budget that Obama proposed last winter, while Republicans have moved away from the no-new-revenue budget the House passed.

      Instead, Boehner and other Republican leaders on Monday offered Obama a package similar to the deal the two men agreed upon, then scuttled, in mid-2011.

      [InstaPundit} : Obama isn’t interested in raising revenue so much as punishing high earners and humiliating the House GOP. Forward! to Revenge!

      • JRH

        A complete budget that addressed the debt? Maybe run those numbers again — Ryan’s budget would increase the deficit for a decade, with promises about the out-years — something that, when it comes from a budget you don’t like, is a fatal defect.

    • AJ

      Quick answer: The liberty movement, which in the last election was Ron Paul. Here’s a trillion in cuts for starters. The rest of it (Dems, Repubs) is just talking points coming out of the heads side and the tails side of the same coin.

    • Inagua

      Pot – You accuse me (and others) of criticizing “the current efforts at reducing the current debt.” There are no such efforts. No one in power in Washington is interested in balancing the budget or reducing the debt.

      However, it could however be done very easily. 1) Reduce military spending from 4.7% of GDP to 2%. Why have ten carrier task forces when we can’t even send assistance to Benghazi where we had a drone watching a terrorist attack in real time for eight hours? 2) Eliminate the CIA. These fools got everything wrong about the Soviet Union, and the last head spy was such an incompetent that he couldn’t even master the intricacies of email sufficiently to hide an affair. 3) Means test social security and Medicare at death. Give the feds first lien on the estate, if any, of anyone who got more benefits than they paid for. 4) Return to the principles of the 1986 tax law, which taxed all income from whatever source at the same rate.

      None of this will happen until the situation becomes truly dire, which I think is several generations away. Financial basket cases like Greece and Detroit have been following the Bush/Obama financial model for over 50 years, and they are just beginning to experience the ill effects of profligacy. Margaret Thatcher was right that the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money to spend, but it takes a very, very long time to run out of money, especially when you can borrow all you want at 1%.

      Meanwhile, enjoy the low growth, the low employment participation, and lower standard of living.

    • Anonymous

      Medicaid/Medicare budget slashed by 2/3 and converted into block grants to the states and subject to annual renewal. No longer a guaranteed entitlement. If New York, IL, and California want to gold plate their programs, fine, let them do it on their own dime. If Wyoming doesn’t want to have a program any larger than the federal grant, also fine.

      Social Security, progressive raising of age of eligibility depending upon birth year, until age of eligibility is average life expectancy + 1.75 standard deviations. Opt out provision for youngsters if they contribute to their own private accounts. Reduced inflation indexing. Ultimate phase out as entitlement, and again an annual budget item. Social Security disability returned to states for both qualification standards and budgets.

      Complete elimination of the Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Commerce, HHS, and HUD. Disbandment of DHS, with renewal of ICE, Border Patrol, and the Coast Guard. Closing of all federal fusion centers. Complete elimination of TSA. Elimination of BATFE, with Explosives going to FBI, and Alcohol and Tobacco going to Treasury.
      75% reduction in Department of Transportation, the remaining stub to include Air Traffic Control and a small standards department.
      85% reduction in Department of Agriculture, along with elimination of subsidies.
      85% reduction of EPA.
      Department of Justice trimmed by 50%, courts, FBI, and that’s it. FBI severely restricted on the data it can collect and retain without warrat. Complete elimination of DoJ Civil Rights Division.
      Simplification of tax code to a flat tax, and an 85% reduction of IRS.

      15% initial reduction in Defense budget starting with the closing of overseas bases.

      Change in term and eligibility for unemployment insurance to 12 weeks.

      Change in term and eligibility for Food Stamps, term to 1 year, with sunset provision for the entire program and returning to the states.

      Change to AFDC in term and eligibility. If you are receiving to AFDC, you don’t get to vote. IF you want to receive AFDC, mother and father have to be together. No more single mother babies as income machines.

      Pell Grants for high achievers who can make the grade but don’t have the money. This results in a 75% reduction in the program.

      Term limits.

      50% reduction in Congressional pay. 75% reduction in Congressional office and staff budgets. No Congressional pensions. If Congress doesn’t pass a budget, Congress doesn’t get paid or reimbursed for expenses. Balanced budget requirement. Deficit spending to be approved by 2/3 of both houses of Congress. Executive Branch budget cut by 2/3.

      All laws to be enacted with sunset provisions.

      Get the fed budget down to 12.5% of GDP or less.

      There you go.

  6. Inagua

    “It’s not tu quoque if the original proposition is that one side is worse than the other.”

    JHR – The original proposition was not that one side was worse than the other; the original proposition was that you were a hypocrite to advocate votes for illiterates while decrying the fact “that a high percentage of Americans don’t know what these terms [capitalism and socialism] mean.”

    • JRH

      This little thing is far past the point of interesting, but the original proposition I was referring and responding to was CF’s, viz., that stupid polls like this somehow demonstrate unique ignorance among voters identifying as Democrats. The point about the percentage of Republicans who believe in demonstrable falsehoods (something that, to me, evinces more ignorance than a subjective question about the relative merits of two broadly defined ideologies) was not tu quoque, because it was not offered to say, “What you say is bad isn’t bad because others do it, too,” but rather, “What you say is unique is not unique.” Anyway. There’s some time I’ll never be able to get back.

      As for the whole premise here: to sit and debate the merits of “capitalism” and “socialism” is a bit bizarre, considering we’ve never been a country that had anything resembling an entirely “free” market. Our history is as much about John Rockefeller as it is the Tennessee Valley Authority, and as much about Andrew Carnegie as it is the Erie Canal — which, by the way, if you have a small business, you didn’t build that.

  7. Inagua

    “…polls like this somehow demonstrate unique ignorance among voters identifying as Democrats.”

    Are you now disputing the Democrats have a lock on those voters that democratic campaign operatives themselves refer to as “low information voters?” Come on, even the MSNBC shills openly admit this.

    The premise is in fact valid, as significant sectors of the economy are in fact free and largely unregulated and unmonopolized. Consider entertainment, fast food, office supplies, lawn care, beauty parlors, clothing, supermarkets, bodegas, delis, real estate brokerage, books, luggage, dry wall, plumbing fixtures, barbecue grills, toasters, ovens, refrigerators, etc, etc, etc.

  8. JRH

    Wow. If you think real estate brokerage is “largely unregulated,” you may not have a very firm grip on reality.