PDA

View Full Version : Liberal Decay



Rockntractor
08-05-2012, 09:25 AM
By Jeffrey Folks

Last week I spent a few hours with one of America's finest writers. My old friend is still writing, producing some of the best fiction published in America today. And like most writers and intellectuals in this county, my friend is a staunch liberal.

He has been a liberal for over 60 years. Like many in his generation, his liberalism is a relic of the days when the left identified, or at least claimed to identify, with hard-pressed working men and the unemployed. My friend's liberalism has not evolved. It is stuck in fond memories of a childhood during which FDR's soothing voice filled the airwaves with those heartening fireside chats. For 11 years Roosevelt proclaimed that prosperity was "right around the corner." The corner was never turned, but three times the people reelected him.

That is the jolly, hopeful, "we're all in it together" sort of liberalism to which my writer friend still ascribes. He seems not to have noticed that the left has become at once more radical and more cynical. Today, the American left doesn't care a whit about hard-pressed workers or the unemployed -- not that it ever did. What now concerns the left are the massive donations from special interests that make it possible for radicals like Obama to occupy the White House.

Those special interests include unions, environmentalists, trial lawyers, billionaire financiers and entrepreneurs, academics, and minorities. This is not the same broad base that voted FDR into office. Unions no longer represent the poorly paid mass of workers -- they represent an elite whose wages and benefits far exceed those of non-unionized workers. Trial lawyers and academics constitute another elite, while minorities seek to preserve their supposed right to educational and hiring preferences. Environmentalists oppose growth at every turn, even at the expense of the livelihoods of their fellow men. In fact, none of these liberal special interests advances the needs of the broad middle class. All of them are working to further their own interests at the expense of ordinary Americans.

The left's special interests have sacrificed today's hard-pressed middle class on the altar of their own greed and lust for power. The Democratic Party promotes a slow-growth economy as the "new normal" because slow growth is the price it must pay to reward its special interests. Altogether, the cost of rewarding these interest groups is now slowing economic growth by an astounding two thirds. Instead of the normal 4% non-recessionary growth rate, our economy is now growing at 1.5%, about one third of what it should be doing. What is happening to the other 2.5% GDP growth? It is being redirected to the special interests that support the Democratic Party.

At every campaign stop, Obama claims to be "fighting for the middle class," but it is precisely the middle class that has been targeted by the left as the source of its funding for special interests. It is simply a fact that under Obama, ordinary Americans are making less, and their net worth has declined. Meanwhile, the number of Americans working has declined by 5.8 million since the start of the Great Recession. That's the same recession that Obama claims to be working night and day to reverse.

Why have ordinary Americans done so poorly under Obama? It is because Obama is fleecing them at every turn so he can reward his cherished special interests. Liberalism is now an elitist movement that preys on the middle class while it enriches special interests. It is conservatism that stands for ordinary working people.

My writer friend is a brilliant, compassionate, well-intentioned human being, but he understands nothing of this. He still believes that workers are enslaved by capitalist bosses and that turning things over to the government will make everything better. He doesn't realize that long ago the Democratic Party inked a devil's bargain with the well-funded special interests that have drained the wealth from ordinary Americans.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/liberal_decay.html#ixzz22g5qwZpA

Unreconstructed Reb
08-05-2012, 10:05 AM
"Liberalism is now an elitist movement that preys on the middle class while it enriches special interests."

And the biggest special interest is themselves. Example: Harry Reid has served as Nevada gambling commissioner and senator for just about his entire adult life but has amassed a fortune estimated at $10 million.

Starbuck
08-05-2012, 10:38 AM
"Liberalism is now an elitist movement that preys on the middle class while it enriches special interests."

And the biggest special interest is themselves. Example: Harry Reid has served as Nevada gambling commissioner and senator for just about his entire adult life but has amassed a fortune estimated at $10 million.

Reid, whose salary is 195,000 yearly as Senate Majority Leader, explains it by saying he is merely a fine investor.
I'd say!:biggrin-new: My, my. Supported a family in fine style and saved up damn near more than he has earned!

But I am not anxious to pin his ears to the wall over this issue. I am afraid Reid and I would appear to be brothers if I accused him without evidence to support my accusation.

Unreconstructed Reb
08-05-2012, 01:18 PM
Reid, whose salary is 195,000 yearly as Senate Majority Leader, explains it by saying he is merely a fine investor.
I'd say!:biggrin-new: My, my. Supported a family in fine style and saved up damn near more than he has earned!

But I am not anxious to pin his ears to the wall over this issue. I am afraid Reid and I would appear to be brothers if I accused him without evidence to support my accusation.

Questions Harry Reid won't answer:
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/05/flashback-questions-harry-reid-wont-answer-part-i/

There are many other ways that these politicians game the system for their own benefit. For example, there was a guy from Chicago that got elected to the Illinois state senate and shortly after that his spouse got a plus 300K per year part time job that she didn't have to show up for.

Novaheart
08-05-2012, 02:08 PM
Reid, whose salary is 195,000 yearly as Senate Majority Leader, explains it by saying he is merely a fine investor.
I'd say!:biggrin-new: My, my. Supported a family in fine style and saved up damn near more than he has earned!

But I am not anxious to pin his ears to the wall over this issue. I am afraid Reid and I would appear to be brothers if I accused him without evidence to support my accusation.

This is why I get angry when I hear the willfully ignorant refer to politicians as "public servants" as if they are to be confused with people who do actual volunteer work, or even those who work below the going rate of their education or station in a vocation (like society social workers).

Many of these folks have done things normal people are not permitted to do. Normal people can't claim to be working full time for the government, while also collecting a salary at a university, or a speaking schedule which clearly demonstrates that they are speaking or traveling when they are supposed to be in the building and on the clock. When was it decided that elected officials don't have to punch a clock and can't be held accountable for having multiple "jobs" at the expense of their office? Who do these people answer to? And I don't mean the voters, I mean a supervisor.

If for nothing other than curiosity, someone should be clocking these people in and out to show how little they actually work. Instead, you have guys like a former Congressman who claim to work impossible hours on the Hill, while at the same time claiming to have spent all this time being a regular full time husband and father in a far suburb and his alleged home. His schedule simply did not allow for his claims.

Novaheart
08-05-2012, 02:10 PM
There are many other ways that these politicians game the system for their own benefit. For example, there was a guy from Chicago that got elected to the Illinois state senate and shortly after that his spouse got a plus 300K per year part time job that she didn't have to show up for.

Isn't it interesting the number of Congressional wives who have tidy incomes as society matrons? It would be fun to see a list of the jobs and/or appointments (not to mention qualifications) of the Congressional wives. Perhaps Caligula wasn't too far off the mark.

Starbuck
08-05-2012, 02:27 PM
"Public Servants" Indeed.

Then, when they finally retire they slobber all over themselves as they 'thank' us for the 'opportunity' to 'serve'. They serve very little but themselves, in most cases.:blue: