Who are the elite? People under the influence of cults is similar to that we observe in addicts. Typical behaviour for both includes draining bank accounts, neglecting children, destroying relations with family and losing interest in anything except the drug or cult. Keith Henson
A Perennialist sage met a ruler. The ruler said: "If you wish, you may ask a favor of me." The sage replied: "I cannot seek favors from a slave of my slaves." "How is that?" asked the ruler. The sage replied: "I have two slaves who are your masters: greed and self-love." Socrates Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity, quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. Benito Mussolini He mocks the people who proposes that the government shall protect the rich and that they in turn will care for the laboring poor. Grover Cleveland The rich and the well-born, according to the Federalist Papers, was greatly feared by the founders. John Jay Hooker It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. Andrew Jackson If we command our wealth, we shall be rich and free; if our wealth commands us, we are poor indeed. Edmund Burke Experience demands that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the general prey of the rich on the poor. Thomas Jefferson The rich will do anything for the poor but get off their backs. Karl Marx The reason why China suffers bitterly from endless wars is because of the existence of feudal lords and kings. Qin Shi Huangdi 260 BC - 210 BC I can do whatever I want - I'm rich, I'm famous, and I'm bigger than you. Don Johnson The rich swell up with pride, the poor from hunger. Sholom Aleichem etc etc etc Peace, Doc On Nov 16, 11:45 pm, "M.A. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 'Socialism'? It's Already Here.By George F. Will > Sunday, November 16, 2008; B07 > Conservatism's current intellectual chaos reverberated in the Republican > ticket's end-of-campaign crescendo of surreal warnings that big government -- > verily, "socialism" -- would impend were Democrats elected. John McCain and > Sarah Palin experienced this epiphany when Barack Obama told a Toledo plumber > that he would "spread the wealth around." > America can't have that, exclaimed the Republican ticket while Republicans -- > whose prescription drug entitlement is the largest expansion of the welfare > state since President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society gave birth to Medicare > in 1965; and a majority of whom in Congress supported a lavish farm bill at a > time of record profits for the less than 2 percent of the American > people-cum-corporations who farm -- and their administration were partially > nationalizing the banking system, putting Detroit on the dole and looking > around to see if some bit of what is smilingly called "the private sector" > has been inadvertently left off the ever-expanding list of entities eligible > for a bailout from the $1 trillion or so that is to be "spread around." > The seepage of government into everywhere is, we are assured, to be temporary > and nonpolitical. Well. > Probably as temporary as New York City's rent controls, which were born as > emergency responses to the Second World War and are still distorting the > city's housing market. The Depression, which FDR failed to end but which > Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor did end, was the excuse for agriculture > subsidies that have lived past three score years and 10. > The distribution of a trillion dollars by a political institution -- the > federal government -- will be nonpolitical? How could it be? Either markets > allocate resources, or government -- meaning politics -- allocates them. Now > that distrust of markets is high, Americans are supposed to believe that the > institution they trust least -- Congress -- will pony up $1 trillion and then > passively recede, never putting its 10 thumbs, like a manic Jack Horner, into > the pie? Surely Congress will direct the executive branch to show compassion > for this, that and the other industry. And it will mandate "socially > responsible" spending -- an infinitely elastic term -- by the favored > companies. > Detroit has not yet started spending the $25 billion that Congress has > approved but already is, like Oliver Twist, holding out its porridge bowl and > saying, "Please, sir, I want some more." > McCain and Palin, plucky foes of spreading the wealth, must have known that > such spreading is most of what Washington does. Here, the Constitution is an > afterthought; the supreme law of the land is the principle of concentrated > benefits and dispersed costs. Sugar import quotas cost the American people > approximately $2 billion a year, but that sum is siphoned from 300 million > consumers in small, hidden increments that are not noticed. The few thousand > sugar producers on whom billions are thereby conferred do notice and are > grateful to the government that bilks the many for the enrichment of the few. > Conservatives rightly think, or once did, that much, indeed most, government > spreading of wealth is economically destructive and morally dubious -- > destructive because, by directing capital to suboptimum uses, it slows wealth > creation; morally dubious because the wealth being spread belongs to those > who created it, not government. But if conservatives call all such spreading > by government "socialism," that becomes a classification that no longer > classifies: It includes almost everything, including the refundable tax > credit on which McCain's health-care plan depended. > Hyperbole is not harmless; careless language bewitches the speaker's > intelligence. And falsely shouting "socialism!" in a crowded theater such as > Washington causes an epidemic of yawning. This is the only major industrial > society that has never had a large socialist party ideologically, meaning > candidly, committed to redistribution of wealth. This is partly because > Americans are an aspirational, not an envious, people. It is also because the > socialism we do have is the surreptitious socialism of the strong, e.g., > sugar producers represented by their Washington hirelings. > In America, socialism is un-American. Instead, Americans merely do > rent-seeking -- bending government for the benefit of private factions. The > difference is in degree, including the degree of candor. The rehabilitation > of conservatism cannot begin until conservatives are candid about their > complicity in what government has become. > As for the president-elect, he promises to change Washington. He will, by > making matters worse. He will intensify rent-seeking by finding new ways -- > this will not be easy -- to expand, even more than the current administration > has, government's influence on spreading the wealth > around.http://tinyurl.com/5kavnq --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
