Tag Archives: political parties

Work…Works

Posted on by
2

Sam Adolphsen, Foundation for Government Accountability’s Vice President of Executive Affairs, writing for Fox Business, commented on that in a piece about Medicaid’s work requirement in Arkansas—about which Progressive-Democrats in Congress are in an uproar.

Those Progressive-Democrats have complained that work requirements

“threaten[]” Americans…work [is] a “restrictive condition.”

These politicians of the Left ignore two things. One is the trivial one: no one is forcing anyone to work; the only “restriction” is that, in order to get any of Arkansas’ OPM, recipients must go to work in Arkansas or make a good faith effort to do so.

The other thing is the critical item in the affair.

Since the requirement was implemented, thousands of adults have left the welfare program.
…
…when people go back to work after work requirements are implemented, their incomes double or triple in just a year or two.

And this fallout from that second thing:

Getting these able-bodied adults back to work also frees up resources for the truly needy—the very people that the Medicaid program was designed to help.

It also increases Arkansas’ tax collections that go to the State’s Medicaid program.

Here’s where Adolphsen missed the mark, though.  He wrote

Why are Democrats so against work?
…
It’s an indication of how out of touch these progressive leaders are with everyday Americans.

No, Progressive-Democrats are the smartest kids on the block—just ask them.  They know what they’re doing with their objections to imposing a measure of personal responsibility on welfare recipients, personal responsibility that brings with it personal prosperity.

Those folks getting work and raising their standard of living aren’t actual human beings; they’re just votes spilling out of the Progressive-Democrats’ welfare box.

It Isn’t Pro-Choice, Anymore

Posted on by
Reply

Now it’s pro-infanticide.  That’s the position of the Progressive-Democratic Party after Party Senators voted—unanimously—to kill a bill that would have outlawed immediately post-birth infanticide.

Senator Ben Sasse’s (R, NE) bill, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, would have required doctors to work to save a baby’s life if an abortion attempt failed and the baby was born alive despite the attempt.  All Progressive-Democrat Senators, every single one of them, voted to kill the bill and thereby to let abortion doctors finish killing the baby.

As Sasse put the situation after those Progressive-Democrat Senators had had their way,

I want to ask each and every one of my colleagues whether or not we’re OK with infanticide[.]

Indeed.

On the other hand,

Opponents, noting the rarity of such births and citing laws already making it a crime to kill newborn babies, said the bill was unnecessary.

How cynical. Statistica reports that

There were a total of 17,284 reported murder and non-negligent manslaughter cases in the US in 2017.

Out of a population of some 325 million, that works out to about 0.005%.  That’s pretty rare, too.  Maybe we don’t need those other anti-murder laws, either.

Never mind that the bill would have been an easy way to reduce the post-failed abortion infanticide rate even further.  It still would have been too much like moral work.

Remember this in the fall of 2020.

Kamala Harris Wants to Confront Dark History

Posted on by
1

Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate wannabe and Senator Kamala Harris (D, CA) wants us to take our dark history seriously.

We must confront the dark history of slavery and government-sanctioned discrimination in this country that has had many consequences, including undermining the ability of black families to build wealth in America for generations.  We need systemic, structural changes to address that.

Absolutely.  The Progressive-Democratic Party must confront its dark history of slavery and government-sanctioned discrimination.

The Progressive-Democratic Party must confront its dark history of its Democrat, Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney, who ruled that Dred Scott, a free (because escaped) black man in the north, must be returned to the southern ownership of his owner—and who further ruled that blacks could not be citizens of the United States because blacks were not fully men.

It must confront its demand for the States Right of holding slaves, slavery over which the nation had to fight a bloody civil war to end because of Party intransigence.

The Progressive-Democratic Party must confront its dark history of its creation, the Ku Klux Klan, which it used to terrorize newly freed blacks—and any who supported them—in the aftermath of the Party’s lost overt slavery policy.

The Progressive-Democratic Party must confront its dark history of its Jim Crow Laws, designed explicitly to keep blacks from voting.

The Progressive-Democratic Party must confront its dark history of segregation, resumed in full under President Woodrow Wilson (D), who actively resegregated the Federal government after it had been steadily integrated following the Civil War, a policy for which Wilson insisted blacks should be grateful for the “protection,” and which continued apace in schools under the fiction of “separate but equal,” which included all public spaces, and which extended even to sections of buses, drinking fountains, and rest rooms.

The Progressive-Democratic Party must confront its dark history of destroying black families by enacting “welfare” laws that paid single mothers but not intact families, making it fiscally useful, if not wholly immoral, for fathers to absent themselves.

The Progressive-Democratic Party must confront its dark history of deliberate, overt racial (and gender) discrimination in its “affirmative action” policies that give special treatment based, ultimately, on skin color and/or gender.

The Progressive-Democratic Party must confront its dark history of undermining the ability of black families (such as they’re allowed to exist) to build wealth by keeping them trapped in Party’s welfare cage with the designed-in welfare cliff that prevents welfare recipients—most of whom are minority recipients, with most of those black—from getting a new job or a pay raise that would put them above an income threshold because that would cut welfare payments by more than the pay raise.

The Progressive-Democratic Party must confront its dark present of identity politics that seeks to give special treatment to particular groups of Americans—which is nothing more than segregation modernized.

The Progressive-Democratic Party does, most definitely, need systemic, structural changes to address that.

Amy Klobuchar the Progressive

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Amy Klobuchar (D, MN) and Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential primary candidate is proud to declare herself Progressive, for all that her mouth keeps saying words of centrism, highlighting her work bridging the political divide.

I think [voters] should see me as a progressive because I believe in progress and I have worked towards progress my whole life.

Here’s Herb Croly, one of the founders of the modern Progressive movement.  I’ve cited him on other occasions; this should be a familiar quote.

[A]ny increase in centralized power and responsibility, expedient or inexpedient, is injurious to certain aspects of traditional American democracy.  But the fault in that case lies with the democratic tradition; and the erroneous and misleading tradition must yield before the march of constructive national democracy….  [T]he average American individual is morally and intellectually inadequate to serious and consistent conception of his responsibilities as a democrat.

The necessity for increased centralization of government power that’s claimed by the Progressive-Democratic Party is illustrated by the attempted nationalization of our health care coverage industry that is Obamacare (which we weren’t allowed to know anything about until the bill was passed, recall).  It’s illustrated by the Progressive-Democratic Party’s incessant demand for ever higher taxes and ever higher spending.  It’s Illustrated by Progressive-Democrats’ crowing over having “successfully” driven Amazon out of Long Island City before it even arrived (a withdrawal with which I agreed, but not for Party reasons).  It’s illustrated by the Progressive-Democratic Party’s, and nearly all of its declared and not-yet-declared candidates for President’s enthusiastic endorsement of the Green New Deal, which seeks to nationalize our energy, auto, construction industries—virtually our entire economy—and get it done within 10 years.

Today’s Progressives’ contempt for Americans, echoing Croly’s, is illustrated by ex-President Barack Obama’s (D) dismissal of tens of millions of us as bitter Bible-clingers and gun-toters living in flyover country.  Today’s Progressives’ contempt for Americans is illustrated by the Progressive-Democratic Party’s just prior Presidential candidate dismissing tens of millions of Americans as irredeemably deplorable racist, misogynistic homophobes.  Today’s Progressives’ contempt for Americans is illustrated by their dismissal of the need to secure our borders and the need to control who we let into our country.

Progressive, indeed.  There’s nothing moderate about Progressivism, and Klobuchar is proud—insistent—to be known as a Progressive.

Those…1%-ers

Posted on by
Reply

Those evil 1%-ers.  Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D, NY) hates them.  Senator Elizabeth Warren (D, MA) hates them.  Senator Cory Booker (D, NJ) hates them.  Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) hates them, even though she’s one of them.  The list goes on and on and on of Progressive-Democrats and Modern Liberals in general who hate them.

Charlie Munger, Vice MFWIC of Warren Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway and 1%-er, thinks otherwise.

I think it’s really stupid for a state to drive the rich people out[.]
…
It’s been serious. Driving the rich people out is pretty dumb if you’re a state or a city.

And

They’re old. They keep your hospitals busy. They don’t burden your schools, the police department, your prisons. They give a lot. Who wouldn’t want rich people?

Indeed.

Notice who the envious haters are, too.  The rest of us—politically in the center, right of center, and right, and ideologically middle of the road or conservative—might be jealous of those wealthy ones, but far from hating them, we want to be like them, we want the same success, prosperity, and wealth.  And we’re willing to work for it, rather than claiming “our fair share” of their money or demanding their trappings of success for ourselves.