28 thoughts on “The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy”

  1. As I’ve said before, if this, instead of putting their money into the cause of statism, just GAVE money to the poor, poverty could be eliminated. Of course, if that were true, what excuse would “liberals” (and by “liberals” I mean of course “tax-happy, coercion-addicted, power-tripping State-f*ckers”) have to keep picking our pockets?

    1. I agree — I think we could do better with a guaranteed basic income, rather than the current assortment of anti-poverty programs. Don’t give people food stamps, housing vouchers, heating assistance payments — give them money. The research shows that it’s more efficient, and at least as effective.

        1. Ask Sarah Palin, or almost any other Alaskan. Any of them could teach you about the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend. Does money lose its value when it given, by law, in Alaska?

          1. Alaskan dividends are based on the value of oil that is pumped out of the ground. Giving poor people an allowance straight off the printing press has an inflationary effect.

            Remember the price of a good or service will always rise to the minimum subsidy plus whatever a person is willing and able to spend.

          2. “Giving poor people an allowance straight off the printing press has an inflationary effect.”

            So, don’t do it that way.

            One approach: The Alaskan oil industry could have been set up without the Permanent Fund, but it wasn’t. What sort of Permanent Fund could be set up in the other 49 states or by the Federal government? Alaska isn’t unique in that it has resources.

            Also, this might be of interest:
            Rightwing suport for basic income
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income#Right-wing

          3. I can’t speak to why Alaska does this.

            But, giving someone money for the express accomplishment of breathing by the force of law is just wrong on so many levels. It sets everyone else up as forced donators to the receiving class, and if the receiving class can vote, it means they can just vote themselves more money for the same accomplishment of breathing.

        2. What value would money have if you just gave it away by government law?

          What value do Social Security benefits have? The same value as any other cash. Currently a lot of our anti-poverty efforts involve giving recipients money that’s restricted, e.g. food stamps that can only be spent on food. We should give them regular, unrestricted cash instead.

          1. Yes, and they all include an expansion of the money supply, which leads to inflation. Giving money away is the same thing, it would just lead to market distortions in different places, say, a trip to the strip club for those poor, impoverished folks. (Remember the Katrina debit cards?)

            At least Social Security includes some savings, though the rest comes from printing currency out of thin air.

          2. What value do Social Security benefits have?

            Exactly! When social security became law, the cash given was considered sufficient to cover things like a person health, clothing, food, and housing. But because it was just given out to everyone, many wasted the money on things like radios, eventually TVs, automobiles, vacations, and various other luxury items. Eventually Social Security became no safety net.

            The Progressive solution, give out free medical care too. So we’ve done that, but people still don’t get check ups. They go to the ER when their sick rather than seeing their own doctor. Hospitals are treated like hotels, because every money spent via Medicare means more social security money to spend on bingo.

            The newest Progressive solution, let’s give them even more money.

            It’s stupid Jim. It’s stupid because there will never be a value sufficient to meet the “needs”, and short of restricting liberty, no ability to ensure “needs” come before “wants”. And that’s true after the fact that you have enslaved the labor of others to produce what little value the money had before it was confiscated from them to be given to others.

          3. Jon: Social Security payments do not expand the money supply. You are confusing fiscal policy (taxes and spending) with monetary policy (managing the money supply). Social Security is fiscal policy: money is collected as payroll taxes, and disbursed as benefit checks; the money supply is unaffected. Congress and the President control fiscal policy, the Federal Reserve controls monetary policy.

            a trip to the strip club for those poor, impoverished folks. (Remember the Katrina debit cards?)

            Anecdotes aside, the evidence is that when you give poor people cash, very little of it is wasted. It turns out that poor people are better authorities on what they need than policy makers. Isn’t that a conservative notion?

      3. Care to touch on the hypocrisy here? These rich Democrats are engaging in behavior that the Democrat party and Obama endlessly rail about. They are even giving money to 501c3s that are engaged in politics! The IRS, DOJ, and FEC should crack down on these shadowy groups and investors right?

        1. The IRS, DOJ, and FEC should crack down on these shadowy groups and investors right?

          Yes, if they’re breaking the rules. And the rules should be tightened. But there’s no hypocrisy in playing by the current rules, while advocating for the rules to be changed.

          1. “And the rules should be tightened.”

            You know, the rule doesn’t get any more tight than “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…”

            Yep. That’s pretty clear cut. No law. None. Nada. Zilch. Zero. Rien.

            Is any of this getting through to you?

          4. “But there’s no hypocrisy in playing by the current rules, while advocating for the rules to be changed.”

            Ahh but you guys are not playing by the rules.

      4. Great idea, dude! Let’s start with YOUR money! When that’s all gone, we can talk about everybody else’s…

      5. BJ, you do realize I was talking about these rich State-f*ckers giving away their OWN money, right?

        “I remember when ‘liberal’ meant being generous with our own money.”–Will Rogers.

  2. Anyone who wants more background on the Democracy Alliance should read Matt Bai’s “The Argument”. Excellent book.

    Also, google “The Colorado Model” and read “The Blueprint” for the application of the Democracy Alliance structure and strategies at the state level, as a sandbox for developing their application to other states.

  4. Jon: Social Security payments do not expand the money supply. You are confusing fiscal policy (taxes and spending) with monetary policy (managing the money supply). Social Security is fiscal policy: money is collected as payroll taxes, and disbursed as benefit checks; the money supply is unaffected. Congress and the President control fiscal policy, the Federal Reserve controls monetary policy.

    No, you are wrong. I damned well know the difference between fiscal policy and monetary policy. I pointed out that some money comes from collected taxes, but not all. If SS were solely from revenues, we wouldn’t need to be subsidizing it. 2012 ran a deficit You could say that SS expenditures equal revenue, but since there is no “lock box”, the money comes straight out of borrowing.

    Anecdotes aside, the evidence is that when you give poor people cash, very little of it is wasted. It turns out that poor people are better authorities on what they need than policy makers. Isn’t that a conservative notion?

    I’m working class and I have friends who work in places like grocery stores. EBT cards now allow for junk foods. So I don’t know where you get your info that little is wasted. I can easily find people willing to sell me their EBT cards for half the amount in cash. Anyone who is around poor people knows this happens. Not if you life in a champagne liberal ivory tower.

  5. “Don’t give people food stamps, housing vouchers, heating assistance payments — give them money. The research shows that it’s more efficient, and at least as effective.”

    Mark this date on the calendar, folks, for today I agree with Jim. Eliminate all federal assistance to individuals – SS, welfare, EBT, the works – and replace it with a monthly stipend, an equal amount for every citizen. At the same time, wipe out the entire federal tax code and replace it with a national sales tax and lotteries. The federal government staffing requirements would drop dramatically, compliance costs would drop dramatically, the potential for abuse would be limited, and disincentives to work would be removed. Win win win win.

    2. Remove means testing and you greatly reduce perverse incentives associated with gooberment support programs. You also greatly reduce administrative overhead associated with determining eligibility.

    3. I have a more radical plan. Cut out all “coercive charity,” and let people who want to help people do so voluntarily, with their own money. I call this radical plan “freedom.” It’s a little known concept in Obama’s America, but Baghdad Jim should look into it.

  6. Don’t give people food stamps, housing vouchers, heating assistance payments — give them money.

    These really are the end times… I agree with Jim!

    The point is smaller, simpler, easier to control, government. It’s one of the things I like about the fair tax: a single tax rate with a single universal prepayment each month. These two variables could result in more accountability (but never underestimate these elected criminals to avoid accountability.)

Comments are closed.