Food Stamps Stimulate Jobs

Obama's Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack thinks that food stamps are an economic stimulus. If that's the case then why don't we expand the program? Surely giving everyone food stamps will expand the economy even faster. And why stop there? Why don't we give everyone $1000.00 gift certificates that they can spend at any store? Surely that would stimulate the economy in the same way. Think of all the jobs that would be made designing the gift certificates, putting them into envelopes and mailing them. Think of the jobs created as people use these certificates buying TVs and cars and going out to restaurants.

What a wonderful idea. Why haven't I thought that before? Oh, I did - it's called The Ditch-Digger's Fallacy.

Obama's Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack: "Well, obviously, it's putting people to work. Which is why we're going to have some interesting things in the course of the forum this morning. Later this morning, we're going have a press conference with Secretary Mavis and Secretary Chu to announce something that's never happened in this country -- something that we think is exciting in terms of job growth. I should point out, when you talk about the SNAP program or the foot stamp program, you have to recognize that it's also an economic stimulus. Every dollar of SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in the economy in terms of economic activity. If people are able to buy a little more in the grocery store, someone has to stock it, package it, shelve it, process it, ship it. All of those are jobs. It's the most direct stimulus you can get in the economy during these tough times."

Atlas Shrugged, The Movie

I just saw the Atlas Shrugged movie trailer and must say I was a little disappointed: the dialogue seemed stilted and I wasn't "sold" on the characters. I did like the fact that the story takes place in the NOW; I did like the fact that it shows politicians as anti-business and anti-individual. I have hope that the movie will focus upon the downward, corrupting, death spiral that is socialism and spotlight the need for a revival of, and the respect for, the role of individual freedom in society.

The second time I saw the trailer I liked it better. Here is an interview with the producer.



Some lamebrains on the left will call this a "conservative" movie. There is nothing "conservative" about Ayn Rand. If you have any questions about how conservatives have felt about Ayn Rand then read what Whittaker Chambers and other conservatives have written about her. Ayn Rand is an atheist who ridicules the concept of God and revealed knowledge of any sort. How then can she possible be considered a conservative?

If you see that "conservatives" are now promoting Ayn Rand - then you, the intelligent liberal that you are, need to acknowledge that the concept conservatism has changed - and, in fact, should start realizing that the word "conservative", along with "liberal", are ones not properly defined. After all, Ayn Rand could legitimately be called a liberal as she promotes individual liberty as opposed to government control; rational, non-religious discourse as opposed to revealed truth; and capitalism (the free exchange of goods and services) as opposed to socialism (distribution of goods and services by government fiat).

Do you think that I'm crazy for thinking that? If so then I'm in good company. Here's Milton Friedman on the subject

"I never characterize myself as a conservative economist. As I understand the English language, conservative means conserving, keeping things as they are. I don't want to keep things as they are. The true conservatives today are the people who are in favor of ever bigger government. The people who call themselves liberals today -- the New Dealers -- they are the true conservatives, because they want to keep going on the same path we're going on. I would like to dismantle that. I call myself a liberal in the true sense of liberal, in the sense in which it means of and pertaining to freedom."

If you're interested here is an interesting review of the movie written by Frank Beckmann writing for The Detroit News:
'Atlas Shrugged' makes it to screen

After viewing a preview copy of "Atlas Shrugged-Part 1," I can attest to its success in following the Rand story line with several exceptions, including its setting in 2016.

But the changes don't alter the book's message that an over-reaching government will destroy American capitalism and innovation much as critics of Obama administration policies believe is happening today.

Years ago I put out "Who is John Galt" stickers on NYC streets and the subways. Perhaps it's time to do it again.

I'm an Extremist

The left calls people like me "extremists." For the moment let's leave to another conversation how we determine and what we consider to be extreme. Let's look at the following statement:

"The bigger the majority, the easier it is to advance an agenda, especially if it includes some of the GOP's more divisive priorities such as school vouchers, court system changes or a constitutional spending lid."

Missouri House may gain more GOP members

You may be for or against school vouchers but is this truly an extreme position? How about passing a law saying that the state can't spend more than it takes in? These ideas are what some people consider to be extreme. If balancing the state's checkbook is extreme then I'm an extremist.

Donna Brazile, in yet another article, Brazile: Republicans Aren’t Enthusiastic, Just Mad shows the total lack of understanding by the left about their opposition.

But let’s dispose of some myths. The country is not “disgusted” with Democratic policies, as some media commentators wish we would believe. For instance, strong majorities favor a Medicare-style national health plan, even if they have to pay more for insurance, and even if the question is phrased with an insurance industry bias, according to a Harris Interactive poll.

And yet the unifying factor in the Tea Party movement, that which unites Social Conservatives and Libertarians is the overreaching of government involvement in society as epitomized by the Health Care bill. Are there pockets, or even large sections of Americans, who are in favor of socialized medicine? Yes. But they're not enthused by the bill that was passed and the opponents of the bill are demanding that this monstrous legislation be repealed. In my opinion, if the Republican Party, does not defund and work to its repeal there is a real possibility that the Republican Party, as we now know it, will be gone in one or two more election cycles.

Is there really an enthusiasm gap between Democratic and Republican voters this election cycle?

Well, that all depends on what you mean by “enthusiasm” and what you mean by “gap.”

...[Y]ou don’t draw the kinds of crowds President Barack Obama and former President Bill Clinton have been drawing if there’s a lack of enthusiasm.

Nobody says there isn't ANY enthusiasm on the left, only that it pales in comparison to the coalition that has formed to oppose the statist policies put forth by Obama and the Pelosi-Reid Congress.

“What about all those angry tea partiers, though?” you ask. The key word is “angry.” Angry people aren’t enthusiastic; they’re just angry. And once the object of that anger is gone, there’s not much left, except perhaps more undirected anger.

Tea-party anger is not enthusiasm for Republicans or Republican policies — the only folks more disliked than incumbents are those inside the tea-party movement itself. Polls show a majority of Americans don’t align themselves with the tea party. A late August CBS poll, for example, found that 54 percent did not support the movement.

You're right, once the object of their anger is gone: the health care bill, cap and trade, take-over of industries, excessive taxation is gone - then the anger will dissipate. You mention that 54 percent did not approve of the movement and forget that 46 percent do favor a strong movement that is very Libertarian, very much for limited government, very much for rolling back government excesses, very much for a re-reading of the constitution and limiting the Federal government to those stated powers.

This is an extraordinary shift and you're missing it.

Finally you quote an article from the Huffington Post and say that:

Democrats create jobs, the American way.

Which way is that Donna? Since when is creating government jobs, and having people live off of government largesse the American way?

Ronald Reagan - They Don't Speak for the Rest of Us

An amazing video.

What does the term "Far Right" mean?

The term "Far Right" evokes the fear of tyranny; of jackboots; of oppressive, cruel government; the elimination of individual freedoms, happiness; and of the crushing of the human spirit.

In short it evokes the image of Hitler and Nazi Germany. Why then are free-market, pro-individual rights thinkers considered “far-right?” Because right is no longer a term that has a meaning on its own; it simply means not-left. Whatever the etymological origins of the term left and right (French Revolution) it no longer stands on its own. Whatever philosophy is not left and opposes the left is now considered right. The more it opposes whatever currently stands for left the more it is called right.

What makes one Left-Wing or Right-Wing?

Are there points or positions that all left wing people share? Are there points which all right wing people share? What makes someone left or right wing?

If you are pro-choice are you left or right wing? If so, what about abortion is left or right wing? Can you be left-wing and not be pro-choice? Can you be right-wing and be pro-choice?

For years socialist countries were opposed to abortion in their attempt to keep population levels high? Does that mean that being pro-choice is really "right wing?" No, the contrary decision by the Chinese to lower their population and increase abortion shows that there is nothing intrinsically "left" or "right" about abortion.

What about gay marriage? Can you be left-wing and be against it or be right-wing and be for it? If gay rights, culminating in gay marriage, was a left-wing issue then gay marriage, or at least greater rights for gays, would have been achieved in the former Soviet Union, China, Eastern Europe, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia and other places in the world which have embraced Marxist-Leninist philosophy.

Instead we saw homosexual men and women imprisoned and executed simply for being gay excuse me, for being a counter-revolutionary. The Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, China, and revolutionaries such as Che Guevara, considered homosexuality to be part-and-parcel of the bourgeois, decadent west.

What makes someone Left or Right? It's simple: do you want to live in a state which respects individual liberty or a state where experts/bureaucrats/those-who-know-better/dictators make virtually all decisions for you.

Is it more complicated than that? Yes. But not much - as it all boils down to the nature of individual liberty.

Is it wrong to ask if Obama is a closet Marxist?

Is it wrong to ask or suspect that Obama may be a closet Marxist or Communist? Absolutely not. He has too many close associates who are avowed Marxists. This does not make him a Marxist but it naturally brings up the question and the suspicion.

And, so you ask, who cares if they’re communists? Well, would you say the same thing if they were Nazis? To me they are the same thing. Yes there are differences, but the similarity to someone who believes in individual liberty is minimal.

Communists intern and kill the bourgeois. Nazis killed the Jews. The Nazis just took the abstraction of the bourgeois and associated it with “The Jew”. Both communists and Nazis abhor the concept of individual liberty and individual rights; both treat any form of dissent as traitorous and deserving of death or imprisonment. In short if you believe in individual liberty, in individual rights then you have nothing but contempt for both Nazis and Communists.

Of course there is a difference: Nazis believe in the union of the race; that the individual is but a cell in the body politic of the race. Communists believe in the union of the class; that the individual is but a cell in the body politic of the class. It is a major difference and we should celebrate said difference; but as an individualist; as someone who believes in individual freedom; as someone who feels the purpose of government is to uphold and safeguard individual rights and contracts I may understand and relish the intellectual arguments that separate Nazis and Communists. Nonetheless I have nothing but contempt and disdain for both philosophies and will not live peacefully under either.

Did I oversimplify the argument in the above paragraph? Of course I did. But I leave it to you, the supporters of either the Nazis or Communists to explain to me how “you” or your ideal government would treat an individual who disagrees with the norms being enforced by your ideal government.

You don’t like Republicans because they hate gays you say? Then why do you wear a Che t-shirt?