He has met the enemy, and it is us

The unknown_whether the current efforts are nefarious or just misguided.  When the (inevitable) shortfall occurs, since the current spending trend is unsustainable and there aren’t enough rich people to tax, what happens?  Actually, there aren’t even enough working people to tax at anything close to a rate that will not bring either stasis or revolt.  At some point, China will say “No mas!” Then it gets really interesting whether the dilitants in control will be able to titrate our decline at anything close to a controllable fall.

Certainly there are arguements that this is the grand plan anyway.  Cloward-Pivenesque collapse of the system, then just declare martial law and start dictating. Such a hassle trying to set up a planned utopia with that pesky Constitution trying to guarantee freedom.  Remains to be seen how quickly the current steerers get replaced with folks who will try to do some damage control, or if the current deviation away from the concepts of America’s founders are too severe to be undone.  Of course, it’s so inspiring making the big decisions that there will probably be an attempt to shut down our countries planned built-in option of turning over the compost without having to shoot people.

Interesting times coming.  Isn’t that a Chinese curse?  Seems appropriate.


About drrik

3rd career and 2nd childhood. Spends spare time repairing old things. Aspires to burn more gasoline, gunpowder, and ink in pursuit of slowing down. Child of the 60s and aspiring student of history. No desire to see us repeat the failed social experiments that keep failing for lack of human beings that meet the left wing standards and have to be killed off. Did engineering long enough to realize that very little is new and the wheel does not need to be reinvented.
This entry was posted in constitutional, economy, election, socialism, welfare and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to He has met the enemy, and it is us

  1. Thedrpete says:

    Sorry to put this here, drrik, but I don’t have a better one. Are you going forth as both “Drik” and “drrik”?

  2. drrik says:

    Drik on townhall.
    That nom de guerre was already taken at WordPress. drrik is the closest I could get. Hope it’s not confusing. Pretty clear from most of my content what I have to say and my bent. Suspect that the dirk on WordPress is not doing the same thing. When I log in from the work computer, it had an old browser and the IT staff won’t update it so I’m stuck loggin in as Drik from work.
    Thanks for the interest.

  3. CW says:

    “…nefarious or just misquided.”

    That is the 64 Trillion-dollar question. I’m guessing it’s a combination of both, since no one could be this clever or this stupid.

  4. drrik says:

    In Dinesh Desouza’s book The Roots of Obama’s Rage, he explores a paradigm where both of those are quite possible. Idea is that Obama is following the ideals of his idealized daddy and taking down the neoclolonialists. Although we were a colony too, we serve as a convenient surrogate whipping boy to receive all of the credit/blame for all of the failings of the womanizing drunk absentee sire. The reality is that Obama Senior’s chief rival, Kenyatta, had a vision for his country that is proving to have been a MUCH more effective vision of a political system, one that would’ve yielded a future for Kenya that would have put them on competitive standing with S. Korea and India. Instead they have settled on losing compromise that solidified Kenya’s future as a backwater. And Presbo is treating us as tho responsible, serving as an archangel to punish us for failings of this philosophy that has failed everywhere it has been tried.

  5. CW says:

    I think liberals are children. They are adults who have never matured, psychologically. Children are driven to gratify their own egos – to get what they want and to feel good about themselves. Often, the things they do to satisfy this need are behaviors that are considered bad or evil in adults – lying, manipulation, cheating, showing indifference to the rights of others, etc.

    I think Obama – true to his lack of maturity – was driven by a need to be approved of by the father who abandoned him, and this is what motivated his pursuit of the ideals his father supposedly championed. But the question is, does the pursuit of something noble (we’ll call it that for now) if it is knowingly done at the expense of the rights and liberties of others, and if it is done to bolster one’s own sense of importance, qualify as evil or is it merely misguided?

    If I had to give an answer I would say that the goals of liberals often begin as misguided but eventually cross the line into evil.

  6. Drik says:

    Good post!
    I think that the goals of liberals are noble and probably universal, for no man will not serve as his own protagonist. But they first dehumanize those that oppose their efforts, be that republicans or any that oppose the liberal/democrat/lib/prog goal. The opposers have to be evil themselves, then it becomes ok to do bad unto them. The Naziis who were in the loop committing genocide did not view what they did as evil. Rather it was noble because the Jews were somehow intrinsically inferior, less than human, evil, or tainted first. Therefore what was done to them was ok.
    To do evil, it is first necessary to divide the world into “us” and “them”, ignoring our common humanity and goals.
    Alinnski called this “moral relativism’. Another way of saying that the end justifies ANY means as long as it accomplishes the goal.
    The difference, what you are calling misguided goals, are rather misguided means. The direction where anything goes versus the institutionalizing of the welfare state. The liberals get caught up in the plight of an individual, while ignoring the consequences of the death of the society. No “right answer, but rather a question as to whether it is enough to attempt good for a short term even if the long term result is the collapse and inability to do good at all. The conservatives tend to view this as “what profitith a man if he gain the world if he loses his immortal soul”.
    This becomes the basis for the liberal=stupid versus conservative =evil arguement. The liberal is viewed as unable to conceptualize that their programs don’t work long term. The conservative is viewed as not caring about the individual right now.
    Unfortunately it means that the liberal view is discountable by the conservative because it is not workable. And it means that the conservative can have any means necessary used against them by the liberal to triumph.
    Because they are only fighting against “evil”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s