Thursday, June 13, 2019

"Bernie's Bill of Rights"

Bernie Sanders (I-Vt) just gave a speech at Georgetown University in which he espoused a number of 'rights:'

1.  Medicare for all - health care should be a right, and not a privilege, according to Bernie and all leftists.

2.  Everybody has a right to a living wage of $15.00/hour or more.

3.  Everybody has a right to free higher education.

I think he listed a few more 'rights', but these three are the ones I recall him blathering about.  If you ask me, a 'right' that is granted to you shouldn't cost me anything, because I should have a right to keep the money I earned.  Sounds reasonable, right?

The Bill of Rights (1st ten Amendments to the Constitution) are all granted to U.S. citizens and don't cost other citizens anything at all: the right to bear arms is just that; that doesn't mean that you are granted the right to have a free firearm given to you.  The right to practice freely whatever religion you choose, that's also in the Bill of Rights, but that does not mean I must be forced to build you a church so that you can practice your freedom of religion.

These 'Rights' that Bernie says we all should have are not rights, or at least not the definition of a right that the Founding Fathers had in mind when they set up our system of government.  These rights of Bernie cost a lot of money to somebody other than the holder of the 'right.'

A right of free college sounds good, but college costs big bucks, and if that right is granted to somebody, someone else pays for it, namely the taxpayer.  And when taxpayers are forced to fund free stuff for others, that's called theft and it's nowhere near considered a 'right.'  

The 'right' to make a minimum of $15/hour, sounds pretty good.  But that is not a right, if employers are required to fund a position that is worth $7/hour to them, then they are being squeezed by an additional $8/hour per 'right holding employee.'  Notice that McDonald's and other fast food establishments may be forced to pay a minimum wage, but as of yet they are not forced to hire anybody if they choose not to: kiosks are starting to pop up in these restaurants, which require only an initial capital investment, and subsequent ZERO wages afterwards.  The effect of this 'right' to make $15/hour winds up granting the 'right holder' an effective wage of $0.00/hour, when his job is automated.  

Bernie's Bill of Rights sounds good to free loaders, sponges and ne-er-do-wells.  But to the rest of us, it just sounds like re-packaged socialism in a box called 'rights.'

Sunday, May 19, 2019

Why socialism fails - 'the tragedy of the commons'

It was painful to listen to the arguments on the town hall hosted by Fox News anchor
Charles Payne the other night in his 'Capitalism vs Socialism' debate.

The pro-socialist panel all had one assumption that they based their entire argument on: that people are essentially good, and that they will behave in a manner that benefits society when participating in a system of shared resources.

That assumption sounds great on paper; given a choice to screw things up for everybody else, or do the right thing and control your desires, people will do the right thing.  On paper, everybody would agree that if this assumption is correct, then socialism should work out great.

Herein lies the rub: it has been shown in practice throughout man's history on this planet that when given this choice, many will not do the right thing, and that ultimately these shared resources dry up for everyone except those whose job it is to dole them out.  

People will almost always make the choice that benefits them and their like-minded associates, and to hell with the rest of those who also share their world.  And this choice is often made by those oblivious to the harm they will do to society.  It really doesn't matter.  Shared resources will be hogged by a small group of sociopaths every time.  It may even be a tiny fraction of the population sharing that resource, those minority hogs will screw things up for everybody every time.

The practical results of this can be seen as early as when mankind figured out how to start a fire.  They would then set the forest on fire, and then when half their world was burnt to the ground and lots of dead animals (and people) resulted, they would go through the burnt countryside and eat the cooked victims (presumably animals, but you never know).  To hell with the victims, all they cared about was chowing down on those dead burnt deer.

But the socialists on that Fox News panel failed to recognize this human trait.  They moaned and groaned that in a time of great prosperity in this country, there are those that have been left behind and that those poor souls did not get their 'fair share' of the benefits of the good times.  Accordingly, these socialist pundits propose dumping this evil fair market system in favor of a government controlled economy, where the down and out will be given their 'fair share' that would have otherwise been snatched by the rich scumbags who gamed the system in their favor.

That argument is so false, it only takes a moment to think on how things would work out should they win the day and install a government controlled system whereby the down and out get a slice of the pie, regardless of their contributions towards the general public good.

"Free riders", or whatever you want to call them, will soil such a system right away.  There will always be a minority (or sometimes a majority) of folk who will lie sideways in the public trough.  If it's free, they will dig in whole hog.  Why work for something if it will be given to you?  Why indeed?

The difference between capitalists and socialists is one major view on humanity: capitalists view human behavior in a practical manner (with justified skepticism on whether most people will act in a manner that will not harm the system).  Socialists assume that people are always good, and that they will follow the rules and not screw things up for the rest of us by gaming the system.

Oh, to live in the land of the perfect socialist system where unicorns frolic in the meadow full of gum drops, and where there is not a tear in any eye.  That land has never existed anywhere on earth, ever.

But that doesn't stop these socialists from trying to force their false Utopia on the rest of us.

Tuesday, April 30, 2019

Plugs Biden throws hat into ring, (again)

This latest foray into presidential primaries will be Joe Biden's third time around.  First time in 1988, he garnered 1% or so before he was forced to drop out because of the negative coverage of his blatant plagiarism of other people's speeches.  Any Republican had done this, and their political careers would have been over forever.

Nope, not Lunch Bucket Joe Biden.  He threw his hat into the ring again in 2008, and again, got pounded by the heavyweights at the time (Barry Obama and Crooked Hillary).  Uptick on that campaign was getting the tap for Veep, where he had a subsequent run of 8 years of mediocrity and gaffes, which simply was an add on to his prior 40 years of public service consisting primarily of mediocrity and gaffes.  

What is different this time around?  Not one damn thing.  He's still a gaffe machine, still has no accomplishments to speak of, and now has 19 other candidates sniping at his piss poor 47 year record.  He will be lucky to make it out of this primary season unscathed, as he will surely be battered and bruised with his terrible record completely out there for Donald Trump to shred with glee in the general election.

But I do believe this goof ball will indeed be the last man standing on the Democrat side, as the other 19 idiots running against him are touting The Green New Deal, Medicare for All, Free College, and lately Reparations for Slavery - all serious deal killers for anybody seeking the Oval Office.

The Donald will have Four More Years.  

Wednesday, March 13, 2019

Elites pave the way for their kid's college.....

We are as a nation shocked...SHOCKED!!!  Rich celebrities fudge their kid's application process into elite colleges, what outrage!!!  Then we all wonder if it was our kid's slot that was stolen by these rich ass wipes who bought that slot, which should have been available on merit only (yeah, right.).

Did anyone ever check George H.W. Bush's merits when he applied to Yale (his daddy was Sen. Preston Bush).  I don't think so.  No need, everybody knows 41 was the smartest guy ever to trod the soil (not).  How about his little boy Dubya's credentials on his application to Yale?  No need, everybody knows Dubya was brilliant (yeah, right).  And Chelsea Clinton's application for admission to Stanford?  Did that ever see the light of day?  No need, she's brilliant. 

What took everybody so long to get indignant about this?  It's been going on since man crawled out of the ooze: huge caveman rises to the head of the tribe owing to brute strength, then hands the club/pointy stick over to his son when the time comes.  Who saw that coming?  Everybody, that's who.

The news desk chief interviews a bunch of folk to anchor the evening news broadcast: he picks the tall young handsome guy with cleft chin, chiseled good looks and full head of hair, and rejects the bald old short fat guys who also applied.  Shocking, isn't it?  It should not shock anybody.

Skinny little pencil neck 98 pound weakling applies to sumo wrestling school: his application gets lost, but several 500 pounders behind him in line are escorted right in, no waiting.  Discrimination, we shout!  Shut up, you dopes: this is the way life works.

Duh.

And yet the headlines screetch: "Elites pave the way for their kid's college admission."  As shocking as "Dog bites man."  Or, "Trunk full of votes found in Democrat's car trunk, and he wins election."

Wake up.  This is how things always have been, are and always will be.  I'm not saying it's the way things SHOULD be, but dumb ol' Fredd is nothing if not a practical, realistic cynic.




Thursday, January 24, 2019

Which nutbag will the Dems tap to challenge The Donald?

The list of liberals vying for the Democrat nomination for 2020 is currently, to quote the late Barbara ('Babs') Bush, 'a sorry lot.'

With the Democrat zeitgeist roaring down the socialist road under the leadership of the latest liberal dummy, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes, the planks within the party heading up to the election look much like the framework established in 1972 by George McGovern: tax the hell out of everybody, and then provide free stuff to everybody.  That kind of idiocy worked great for McGovern to get the nomination, but I think we all remember how that went for him in the general election.  Richard Nixon ate George's lunch to win re-election, and Dick Nixon was no conservative.

Bernie Sanders established the theme in 2016: medicare for everybody, free college for everybody,  tax the bejeezus out of everybody except the poor, free stuff for everybody!  He gave Crooked Hillary a run for her money in the primaries, and you better believe a lot of current Dem hopefuls took notes on how Bernie did so well.  Even though he got cheated blind by Hillary, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the Democrat machine and their rigged 'super delegate' sham of a nomination process, the path to the 2020 Democratic nomination is clear: promise free shit for everybody.  And most if not nearly all the big liberal names are going with promising everything to everybody for free.  Well, not everybody: if you are a rich fat cat, you get nothing except fleeced.

Sure, Donald Trump has baggage which may challenge his electoral chops, but I have to believe that even the dumbest of the dumb fellow Americans of mine have got to know that there is no free lunch.

I'll go out on a limb here and predict that The Donald will win re-election, but not by a landslide.  Unless Pochahontas (Sen. Elizabeth Warren D-Ma) gets the tap, then all bets are off.  Trump will mop the floor with Heap Big White Hope.

Sunday, January 20, 2019

Chicago to elect a Democrat to replace Rahm Emanual as mayor

There's not a single Republican to be seen in the Chicao mayoral race as far as the eye can see.  The Windy City, The City of Big Shoulders, Chi-Town, 4th largest city in the U.S. (and falling, it is losing thousands and thousands of residents every year, those who move to escape the violence and high taxes) is yet again going to elect a Democrat as mayor.

There hasn't been a Republican mayor in Chicago since 'Big Bill' Thompson stepped down in 1931.  Since then, Democrats have ruled Chicago politics with an iron fist.  

And since then, the city has run up unsustainable pension liabilities to the tune of $42 BILLION dollars, with a B.  Additionally, it has one of the highest per capita murder rates for a major city in the world.  Gangs rule the south and west sides of this city, and it simply isn't safe to walk the streets at night without risking your life.  It just isn't.  And the taxes within the city are some of the highest in the nation.

And mayor Rahm Emanual (D) is stepping down after 8 years at the helm, only to be replaced next month by one of the following candidates:
  • Toni Preckwinkle (D)
  • Gery Chico (D)
  • Susana Mendoza (D)
  • Paul Vallas (D)
  • Dorothy Brown (D)
  • Bill Daley (D)
  • Lori Lightfoot (D)
  • Willy Wilson (D)
  • Bob Fioretti (D)
  • Jesus 'Chuy' Garcia (D)
  • Neal Sales-Griffin(D)
  • La Shawn Ford (D)
  • John Kozlan (D)
  • Amara Enyia (D)
  • Garry McCarthy (D)
  • Jeremiah Joyce Jr. (D)
Each and every one of these candidates on the ballot believes in their heart of hearts that Chicago needs tighter gun restrictions to help bring gun violence down.  And yet statistics prove again and again that an armed population is a polite population.  Taking away guns from law abiding citizens just makes them vulnerable to armed criminals.  Duh.

Every one of the candidates is OK with the sky high taxes currently paid by their future constituents.  Perfectly OK with them, and almost all of them plan to raise taxes in some manner.

And not one of these candidates above have any clue as to how to fix the time bomb that is their unfunded pension obligation.  This topic is not even on the list of issues for the campaign.  Huh?
  
One would think that the residents of Chicago must like all the murders, insolvency and taxes going on in their city.  They must, since they are voting for more of the same - yet another tax and spend, gun grabbing Democrat to call the shots for yet another 4 years in their dying, shrinking, deadly city.