Democrats in a nutshell

Mary Katharine Ham caught John Kerry finally admitting what Democrats fear most of all:  that people will take control over their own destinies, without the elite in government dictating how their hard earned money should be spent.  Perhaps if Kerry had ever held a real job and earned the money himself, he might have had a different attitude than the one she exposes:

Sen. John Kerry took to the Senate floor today to pace, rant, and raise his voice in a monotone simulation of human passion as he spoke up for the massive spending bill the Democrats want to pass today under the guise of “stimulus.”

During his speech, he addressed the argument made by fellow senators and many economists that tax cuts might be more helpful to stimulating the economy than long-term government spending. The American people are also coming around to that view, according to a recent CBS poll, which found only 22 percent of them favor more government spending over tax cuts as stimulus.

His argument against tax cuts for Americans during these hard economic times was illuminating:

I’ve supported many tax cuts over the years, and there are tax cuts in this proposal. But a tax cut is non-targeted.

If you put a tax cut into the hands of a business or family, there’s no guarantee that they’re going to invest that or invest it in America.

They’re free to go invest anywhere that they want if they choose to invest.

Indeed, people with their own hard-earned money in their own pockets are free to spend, save, invest, or not wherever they please. Kerry betrays the fear that haunts every good liberal— that the American people won’t spend their money on exactly what good liberals would spend it on. Good liberals must, therefore, advocate for forcibly relieving the American people of the better part of a trillion dollars of their own money to fund things like STD education, welfare programs, and water parks.

Senators like Kerry have placed their own ideological desires over the right of the American people to a clean stimulus bill without the long-term spending even Obama himself admits is in it.

You can read the rest of Ham’s scarily accurate post about Kerry and liberal elitism here.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Pingback: Right Wing News()

  • Charles Martel

    Elsewhere on this site I referred to the possibility that Joe Biden’s head might explode.

    Now I realize that it’s my own head I should worry about.

    Is it possible to be more arrogant and clueless than John Kerry? How does a reasonably talented and fortunate person like him reach the point where he harbors such contempt for his country and his countrymen? I honest-to-God don’t understand how one reaches such a low estate.

  • Ellen

    Well I’m totally gobsmacked. Why don’t we forget about salaries altogether and just give all the money to the government and let them take care of it. After all they know best.

    We’ll start with Teresa’s money.

  • Zhombre

    Thank God neither Gore nor Kerry got to the White House. Kerry’s remarks shows just how inverted contemporary liberalism has become from its earlier roots. Liberty has been expunged. In an earlier century, one might have called for Kerry to be tarred, feathered and sent back to King George, if not hanged.

  • pst314

    Not surprising, when you remember that John Kerry praised commie dictator Ho Chi Minh, comparing him to George Washington. Scum.

  • Pingback: Right Wing News()

  • suek
  • Earl

    Thanks, Suek….

    It’s the second one that infuriates me the most…..when the Constitution so plainly says “Congress shall make no law…prohibiting the free exercise (of religion)”, and the Supreme Court decisions on this issue are clear and unequivocal — if public spaces are permitted to private groups, the government MAY NOT discriminate on the basis of viewpoint, religious or otherwise.

    The mandarins in Congress see themselves as above the law in some way – they’re just a little smarter than the rest of us, and they know best.

    Torches…..pitchforks……tar…….feathers…….and a rail!!

    Unless, of course, we’re willing end up like Venezuela.

  • suek

    Yeah. On several of these…what I see happening is immediate lawsuits. EOs unenforceable due to unconstitutionality. Obama moves to appeal to Congress to increase the number of Supreme Court Justices which will then be appointed according to their consistency with his views.

    Then we’re toast.

    Our only salvation will be a military uprising, or at the very least refusal of the military to take action against those who _do_ rebel. This is not a good option.

    In fact – what system could we put into place that would be consistent with the freedoms we have had and still not be corruptible? At the very least, I’d think maybe a qualifications test before someone could vote – sort of like a drivers test – but outside of that…I just don’t know. People are always corruptible, and as I recall, there was a quote from de Toqueville about the republic being successful until the populace discovered that they could vote themselves benefits…

    It appears he was right.

    So…is there any way out? It appears that by moving the Census Bureau into the domain of the White House (along with all the money for Acorn), they may have also checkmated any effort to oust the party in 2010 and 2012…

  • Earl

    Well, I really am hoping (and earnestly praying) that you are being overly alarmist…..

    That said, in light of Tocqueville’s observation (and some of my own, over the last 40 years), it seems to me that limiting the Federal franchise to those citizens who actually PAY Federal taxes would be a great idea. Happy to hear about the possible downsides, of course. And yes, I realize that this is never going to happen.

    Can you imagine what the firestorm would have been like had Bush taken the census away from the Commerce Department? I hear crickets on this, right now…….

  • Deana

    This is OT and yet so very indicative of Democrats.

    This article by Judith Warner in the NYT is about how all of these people across the U.S. are having sexual and other fantasies about the Obamas. It has to be read to be believed.

    And yes, you will want to take a shower afterward!

    On a more serious note, though, if you are having fantasies about the president, and then discover that he really isn’t “all that,” how disgusted will you be with him? And yourself?

  • suek

    We didn’t have an election for a President, I fear – it was an election for “American First Idol”.

  • Deana

    I think you are right, suek.

  • Charles Martel

    Well, the Democrats and Obama worshippers are all little Shirley Maclaines now, looking worshipfully at Chance Gardener as he idly surfs through the TV channels, masturbating over him.

    This is what the so-called cream of the crop has reduced itself to–idol worship, as suek suggests. You cannot have a democracy of adults when voters see themselves as members of a fan club instead of as citizens.

    As for the New York Times, is it possible for that seditious rag to descend any lower?

  • Zhombre

    “As for the New York Times, is it possible for that seditious rag to descend any lower?”

    Betcha they do.

  • Bookworm

    Betcha you’re right, Z, but I’m truly incapable of imagining what “lower” will look like. I guess like Justice Potter Stewart and pornography, I’ll know it when I see it.

  • Ellen

    Deana, WTF is wrong with women? Sexual fantasies? About Obama?

    Too much information. Way too much.

  • Danny Lemieux

    Next step, that seditious rag will get government subsidization and finally confirm what it is…a government propaganda sheet. Pravda (“Truth”)?

  • Deana

    I don’t know, Ellen. I was wondering the same thing.

    And then, I have to wonder what SORT of woman would find Obama sexually attractive. I mean, he is a nice looking man but the minute he opens his mouth and you hear what he has to say, it’s over. And then what good are his looks?

    There is something very unappealing about a man who is unprincipled.

  • Danny Lemieux

    I heard that Chris Matthews is contemplating a sex-change operation just so that…no, that can’t be right!

  • Ymarsakar

    Funny, Danny. Women, who can’t make it on their own like Sarah Palin, are attracted to power and the convenience it would provide them. At least, that’s one explanation for why so many women have “stood by their men” when those men have been B Clinton and Eliot Spitzer and that gay governor in New England.

  • Ymarsakar

    “I keep thinking about how I squandered my education and youth,” the New York lawyer wrote to me. “I went off to college from high school being completely community-minded, doing a lot of volunteer work for the homeless and for hunger and tutoring poor kids. Then I got to college and forgot my ideals. Barack was my year at Columbia. Why wasn’t I hanging out with him and being serious and following my ideals instead of hanging out in clubs? Same with law school. I partied my way through instead of taking advantage of all that I could have. Both Obamas were there when I was. I feel like if I’d been a better person I would have gotten to know them.”

    A Washington lawyer expressed similar sentiments: “I feel like I know Barack, that I have worked grassroots and have created change in the way that he has. I [also] have feelings of a mom who had possibility but ended up running school auctions and mediating family business matters rather than having the opportunity to be out there on a national level creating change. So when I watch Barack I feel like: I can do that … and what am I doing with my life? Even though he is way smarter and more articulate than me.”

    Sounds to me like religious visions. And for the same reasons.

  • Ymarsakar

    I have no dreams about Barack Obama. Why? Because he is not my savior. I do not place my faith in him. If I have dreams, it would be about the cold matter of the universe and the Creator surgoi kasai.