There are some staggering numbers out there, proposed and perpetuated by academia, suggesting the United States military has murdered more than a million civilians in Iraq since 2002, or roughly 1 out of every 30 people in that country. The "studies" suggest even this claim to be "conservative", as in, this number is a conservative estimate.
Remember, you can never trust any number given by a liberal! (see previous posts)
The numbers come primarily from two studies by the same group of people, conducted in 2004 and again in 2006. The first study surveyed 988 "households" in 33 "clusters" and found 73 total "violent deaths". The report includes a statistical anomaly, stating that the Fallujah cluster alone accounted for 52 deaths. This aberration was left in the final analysis based on the rationalization that it was "not sufficiently abnormal to warrant total exclusion from the study." So 3 percent of the data accounts for 66% of the results and they don't think that's "sufficiently abnormal"?
This is the sad state of science today.
Oh, but they go on to state that in the Fallujah cluster they visited 52 households and 23 were abandoned. They don't state why they surveyed buildings with no people inside and included that in their results, but do make the absurd speculation that the reason no people lived in those houses was because they were killed by U.S. actions.
Any rational-thinking person would now be completely comfortable dismissing the body counts from these surveys as the worthless speculative work of imbeciles. But wait, there's more.
The same group went back in 2006 and this time expanded their survey to 1849 households in 47 clusters. Again Fallujah data was included, and the results of this study state, "With 95% certainty, that between 426,000 and 794,000 Iraqis had died violent deaths as a consequence of the war." With 95% certainty? Seriously? If anything these results are even more dubious because of the attack on Fallujah carried out by U.S. Forces during that time. Remember that Fallujah was Saddam Hussein's hometown - that's where all the loyalists were concentrated (or scared shitless to rise up against their dictator), so the concentration of resistance was significantly higher there than any place else. I would venture that to use the survey numbers in a different light, 66% of the remaining Saddam regime was in Fallujah. Also remember that the U.S. military went to extraordinary lengths to protect civilians there, taking the unprecedented step of delaying the invasion for several days to allow civilians to leave the city! One could easily suggest, and I do, that ALL deaths in Fallujah should be considered enemy combatants.
That invalidates more than two-thirds of the survey results.
Now ask yourself this: Is 1849 households a sufficient sample? To suggest that the sample is a fair representation of the total population is a grave misstep, and one taken with obvious malice against the United States. Also, the 1849 households comprised 12,801 individuals, which is inconsistent with the birthrate of Iraqi women. The individuals number is inflated by 20%. There are 5.4 million households in Iraq, with 22% rural population underrepresented by the survey.
Finally, the survey inquired how many "violent deaths" were experienced by the household. The decision was made not to use actual hospital statistics because, "Only the innocent go to the hospital." Huh? Ignoring that justification as completely contradictory, the survey team instead simply knocked on "random" doors and asked how many people in the household have died in the last 40 months. Whoever answered the door would tell them a number and they would write it down. So actual data was disregarded in favor of the word of a distressed sliver of a largely un-canvassed population. The final conclusion, extrapolated linearly through 2010, is that, "about 20% of households surveyed had lost at least one member, and estimated that 1.03 million people had died in the war. Without compensating for the conservative biases mentioned above, their data and sample size gave them 95% certainty for a number of deaths between 946,000 and 1.12 million."
And the methodology is beyond question because it is the same methodology used in previous war zones, and it is at least somewhat unlikely that all of the previous studies could also have been flawed. Unless of course the same methodology were used... Round and round we go.
Science!!! (*sarcasm*)
Conservative biases? Right, because what they really want to say is that using their original data and including the Fallujah sample, 285,000 people died in the first 18 months of the war, and a linear extrapolation through the total 117 months of operations would yield a result of 1,852,500 civilian deaths and three times as many wounded, for a staggering and unbelievable total of roughly 7.5 million casualties! Viola - George Bush is worse than Hitler! (That was surprisingly easy.)
But they realize only vegetables or people who read Democrat Underground would believe such an obvious falsehood, so they are forced to stick with their "conservative" estimate of about a million deaths. Meanwhile, other outlets suggest anywhere from 15,000 to 748,000 deaths, a spread so large as to be useless.
Look, I am not suggesting Iraqi civilians have not died during the conflict. Clearly thousands have. But even this survey indicates almost as many civilians were killed by insurgents as by coalition forces, and I suggest that is the only conservative number in the piece. U.S. soldiers are bound by rules of engagement that the enemy is not. How many of our boys have died protecting civilians while the insurgents use them as shields? The people who did the survey cannot risk the truth, so they chose to ignore it and instead report lies to be used in anti-American propaganda. How many more will die because of their actions? Could this survey be considered an act of treason?
The truth is we do not know how many people have died and in most incidents we do not know who is responsible. That is the nature of war. The question is simply at what point do we say we can shed no more American blood? That is the only thing we can control. But believe me, when the United States withdraws its last man, violence in Iraq will continue, and it will be on the hands of the fundamentalists on either side of Islam who will perpetuate it. A functioning government with a respected rule of law and police entity is essential, or whatever the number of unintentional casualties at the hands of the coalition will pale compared to what Islam can do to itself.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Friday, December 10, 2010
The Odd Couple
I'm sure I'm not the only one who found the President Clinton event at the White House extremely odd. There was Bill, in all his old-man glory, and I got the strong impression that Obama was just relieved to finally have someone who knew what he was doing running things. Meanwhile, Obama slinked away to a party. Big shocker there. Nobody knows less about governing but more about expensive galas than Bama.
The thing is, I felt relief too. Bill at least understands the art of the deal. Bama is just a complete failure. The office is way too big for him. He's a bad fit.
Did we just watch Barack Obama throw in the towel on his presidency? Is he mailing it in? I wonder.
The thing is, I felt relief too. Bill at least understands the art of the deal. Bama is just a complete failure. The office is way too big for him. He's a bad fit.
Did we just watch Barack Obama throw in the towel on his presidency? Is he mailing it in? I wonder.
Vote Running
The “Dream” Act. Only a liberal could think of amnesty for illegals as a “dream.” But did you know Orrin Hatch was an original sponsor of this bill? He’s opposing it now because his own political future is cloudy as he faces the scrutiny of the Tea Party. He’s come around – that’s the important thing.
It’s a dream for Democrats because Latinos vote for them at a greater rate than even women. The only group more reliably in the bag for Dems is Blacks. Naturally the prospect of creating millions of new votes has the lib leadership all moist. They are especially excited about Texas, where enough illegals reside that could turn that Republican mainstay blue. I mentioned before that Texas already grants in-state status for student illegals, so a large population of Dems’ ideal demographic – young students – is already established there.
I was thinking about what this situation is like in relevant terms. Imagine you are a Mexican. You cross the Rio Grande at El Paso – its ankle deep there – and are met by a border agent. He offers you two choices:
Choice A, you can apply for a student visa, dedicate yourself to succeeding at school for 4 years and when you get your diploma you can apply for a work visa and eventually citizenship. After 6-10 years of keeping your nose clean, working hard and paying taxes you will be granted the trust of the American people and the rights of citizenship that goes with that trust.
Choice B, you can accept this $100, (the face on the bill means nothing to the Mexican) courtesy of the Democrat political party. Every month you remain in the country the Democrat party will give you another $100. For every family member you bring into the country with you the Democrat party will give you an additional $100. In fact, who ever comes with you, as long as you say they are family, will qualify you for another $100. Nobody will check. We would rather you got a job and paid some taxes and stayed out of trouble, but if you don’t we won’t hold it against you. All we want in return is your vote for a Democrat at every opportunity. Do you think you can manage that?
Sound familiar? Seems a lot like drug running to me; cold hard cash for the simple trafficking of drugs, or in this case, votes for Democrats. The more votes you can move the more cash is in it for you, and it’s the easiest thing in the world because the American system of wealth redistribution puts you at the lowest tier by default, so you have the most to gain, and there are no strings. All you need to do is vote Democrat! Just don't question how well that has worked out for Blacks.
Having unveiled the Dream Act for what it really is, I believe Latinos are a double-edged sword for Democrats. On the one hand they want amnesty, so they will vote for Democrats because of that. On the other hand they tend to be Catholic, pro-life, and anti-gay, as evidenced in California last year when their gay marriage ban passed, helped largely by the Latino vote.
What is a liberal to do!
Democrats figure that progressivism will ultimately win out. They will tirelessly wear down resistance with the retread emotional arguments from the dusty playbook. That’s what they think, anyway. I think it is possible the opposite will happen. Once Mexican illegals are citizens, their nature as hard workers and devotion to Christianity may swing them away from the Democrat party. My guess is that will take about 80 years, or roughly the time it takes for the generation that owes their freedom to Democrats today to die off. If you want an argument supporting that thought just think of your grandparents. Mine are still in the bag for Democrats because of FDR.
It’s going to happen. We will soon have an amnesty act. Might as well get it over with and start the clock.
It’s a dream for Democrats because Latinos vote for them at a greater rate than even women. The only group more reliably in the bag for Dems is Blacks. Naturally the prospect of creating millions of new votes has the lib leadership all moist. They are especially excited about Texas, where enough illegals reside that could turn that Republican mainstay blue. I mentioned before that Texas already grants in-state status for student illegals, so a large population of Dems’ ideal demographic – young students – is already established there.
I was thinking about what this situation is like in relevant terms. Imagine you are a Mexican. You cross the Rio Grande at El Paso – its ankle deep there – and are met by a border agent. He offers you two choices:
Choice A, you can apply for a student visa, dedicate yourself to succeeding at school for 4 years and when you get your diploma you can apply for a work visa and eventually citizenship. After 6-10 years of keeping your nose clean, working hard and paying taxes you will be granted the trust of the American people and the rights of citizenship that goes with that trust.
Choice B, you can accept this $100, (the face on the bill means nothing to the Mexican) courtesy of the Democrat political party. Every month you remain in the country the Democrat party will give you another $100. For every family member you bring into the country with you the Democrat party will give you an additional $100. In fact, who ever comes with you, as long as you say they are family, will qualify you for another $100. Nobody will check. We would rather you got a job and paid some taxes and stayed out of trouble, but if you don’t we won’t hold it against you. All we want in return is your vote for a Democrat at every opportunity. Do you think you can manage that?
Sound familiar? Seems a lot like drug running to me; cold hard cash for the simple trafficking of drugs, or in this case, votes for Democrats. The more votes you can move the more cash is in it for you, and it’s the easiest thing in the world because the American system of wealth redistribution puts you at the lowest tier by default, so you have the most to gain, and there are no strings. All you need to do is vote Democrat! Just don't question how well that has worked out for Blacks.
Having unveiled the Dream Act for what it really is, I believe Latinos are a double-edged sword for Democrats. On the one hand they want amnesty, so they will vote for Democrats because of that. On the other hand they tend to be Catholic, pro-life, and anti-gay, as evidenced in California last year when their gay marriage ban passed, helped largely by the Latino vote.
What is a liberal to do!
Democrats figure that progressivism will ultimately win out. They will tirelessly wear down resistance with the retread emotional arguments from the dusty playbook. That’s what they think, anyway. I think it is possible the opposite will happen. Once Mexican illegals are citizens, their nature as hard workers and devotion to Christianity may swing them away from the Democrat party. My guess is that will take about 80 years, or roughly the time it takes for the generation that owes their freedom to Democrats today to die off. If you want an argument supporting that thought just think of your grandparents. Mine are still in the bag for Democrats because of FDR.
It’s going to happen. We will soon have an amnesty act. Might as well get it over with and start the clock.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
The Great Society
There's no need for me to get into this. The epic failure of LBJ's centerpiece has been detailed a hundred times by people far more knowledgeable and intelligent than I. You can find dozens of books online with a simple search on Google or Amazon.
The important point is to tie the indefinite extension of unemployment benefits to what Johnson claimed to want to accomplish. People will not find work as long as government pays them a subsistence wage to remain unemployed.
Ending poverty? Ending unemployment? Government is clearly not the answer, and history has proven it.
The important point is to tie the indefinite extension of unemployment benefits to what Johnson claimed to want to accomplish. People will not find work as long as government pays them a subsistence wage to remain unemployed.
Ending poverty? Ending unemployment? Government is clearly not the answer, and history has proven it.
Let's Make A Deal!
After all that posturing during the election season. After all the nonsense about “D is for Democrat and R is for Reverse” or whatever, and then the ridiculous arbitrary statement that “Tax cuts for the rich are paid for by the middle class,” and, “Tax cuts for the rich will cost $700 Billion.” Well, I guess the democrats don’t really believe that nonsense either, because they signed off on extending President Bush’ tax cuts for all Americans. And good for them – good for us!. Now if only Democrats were “compromising” for the right reason, that being to not further stifle economic growth and try to grow the market for jobs in this country. Unfortunately they intend to make good on their threats. They show no indication of reducing spending to offset the decrease in tax dollars, so the net result will be more debt and more uncertainty, so the economy will remain stagnant.
This is all part of the plan, as demonstrated by two things that happened in conjunction with the extension of the Bush tax cuts. First, Democrats are also going to cut the Social Security tax for one year – not because they intend to reduce benefits, which would actually be a good thing, but because they want to further compound the debt crisis. That’s right, they want that. Second, Democrats have scrapped the previous plan to extend unemployment benefits by 12 weeks and instead extend them an additional 13 months! Naturally this will cost hundreds of billions of dollars at a time when the government is already taking in less than it did before, but it also aligns the next unemployment fight with a very important event:
The Iowa Caucus.
That’s right, in case you forgot, election season started the first Wednesday after the first Monday of last month, and although Bama will probably run through the primaries unopposed this gives Democrats something to grill conservatives on (unopposed in the major media) at the beginning of Primaries season, saturating the airwaves with sappy emotional stories of people who are chronically unemployed. Blah. Blah, blah. So get ready for that nonsense. Meanwhile, don’t expect the President to “compromise” on anything for the rest of his presidency. It is critical to the Democrat strategy to keep the economy stagnant by continuing to spend this country into oblivion. That allows Bama to get in front of the camera and read a message on his teleprompter that goes something like, “We tried it their way, but now we know for sure that tax cuts don’t work…” When in reality the tax cuts do work but our completely inept government has no idea how to implement meaningful reforms that incentivize work instead of joblessness.
Which leads me to my next post: What do we have to show for three generations of incentivizing poverty, i.e. The Great Society!
This is all part of the plan, as demonstrated by two things that happened in conjunction with the extension of the Bush tax cuts. First, Democrats are also going to cut the Social Security tax for one year – not because they intend to reduce benefits, which would actually be a good thing, but because they want to further compound the debt crisis. That’s right, they want that. Second, Democrats have scrapped the previous plan to extend unemployment benefits by 12 weeks and instead extend them an additional 13 months! Naturally this will cost hundreds of billions of dollars at a time when the government is already taking in less than it did before, but it also aligns the next unemployment fight with a very important event:
The Iowa Caucus.
That’s right, in case you forgot, election season started the first Wednesday after the first Monday of last month, and although Bama will probably run through the primaries unopposed this gives Democrats something to grill conservatives on (unopposed in the major media) at the beginning of Primaries season, saturating the airwaves with sappy emotional stories of people who are chronically unemployed. Blah. Blah, blah. So get ready for that nonsense. Meanwhile, don’t expect the President to “compromise” on anything for the rest of his presidency. It is critical to the Democrat strategy to keep the economy stagnant by continuing to spend this country into oblivion. That allows Bama to get in front of the camera and read a message on his teleprompter that goes something like, “We tried it their way, but now we know for sure that tax cuts don’t work…” When in reality the tax cuts do work but our completely inept government has no idea how to implement meaningful reforms that incentivize work instead of joblessness.
Which leads me to my next post: What do we have to show for three generations of incentivizing poverty, i.e. The Great Society!
Down Goes Hillary
Hillary has effectively announced she will not run for President. I wish I could take the credit - my well-timed Bradley Manning post spelled out the nature of her plight better than any other source I've seen - but I'm pretty sure no one reads this blog. My guess is we will continue to see more damaging revelations about Hillary and her complete and total ineffectiveness as a diplomat and bureaucrat come from the Wikileaks site. She's trying to head off some of the embarrassment by letting everyone know now that she has no interest in future public office when in truth she will have so damaged herself that all prospects for future runs for office are dead, dead, dead.
So Wikileaks was good for something.
So Wikileaks was good for something.
Government's New Jeggings
It is truly a sad day. My bleeding heart, um, bleeds. (I’ve been meaning to get that checked out). Our President has chosen to deprive government of hundreds of billions of dollars by allowing the filthy rich two-hundred-and-fifty-thousand-aires keep more of their own money. For shame! How will the poor government make do with less? And right before the holidays! Has this man no compassion for the plight of the government? Did not his prior experience as a community organizer – his only pseudo-real world life experience, upon which he was elected to the lofty office he now occasionally passes through – teach him what it means to be in need, with no means to support oneself except by the mandatory contributions under penalty of law from others more fortunate? I gnash my teeth at him!
We must act now to band together to help the government, which cannot do without these hundreds of billions of dollars, not because it needs the money to feed the hungry, but because it cannot bear to part with expanded digital cable and 100 Mbps DSL. Not because it cannot afford to pay rent but because it must have that new 4G iPhone with the maximum voice and data plan. Not because it cannot afford to clothe its 300 million children but because that fat bitch down the street just got the newest Kim Kardashian jeggings and the government’s ass isn’t that fat so shouldn’t the government have a pair of Kim Kardashian jeggings too? Not because… well you get the idea.
Oh, the humanity!
We must act now to band together to help the government, which cannot do without these hundreds of billions of dollars, not because it needs the money to feed the hungry, but because it cannot bear to part with expanded digital cable and 100 Mbps DSL. Not because it cannot afford to pay rent but because it must have that new 4G iPhone with the maximum voice and data plan. Not because it cannot afford to clothe its 300 million children but because that fat bitch down the street just got the newest Kim Kardashian jeggings and the government’s ass isn’t that fat so shouldn’t the government have a pair of Kim Kardashian jeggings too? Not because… well you get the idea.
Oh, the humanity!
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Why is the Media protecting Bradley Manning?
* I know the answer, but I’ll get to that. *
Bradley Manning is the little prick that stole all the secret documents distributed by WikiLeaks. If you didn’t know that, or only heard it in passing, but know exactly who Julian Assange is, it’s because the US Media is overtly repressing that information.
I am not saying Assange isn’t at least partially responsible, but consider this. Let’s say I give you one million dollars. Then I tell you it’s stolen. Do you try to spend it? You might not, but Assange is the kind of character that would. You don’t need much to figure his type. Just look at the guy – doesn’t he seem like the kind of nerd that was picked on in school, and who later developed into an egomaniac as a defense mechanism against attacks on his fragile self-esteem? As he gained some small notoriety in the hacker community he became a defensive narcissist, but because he wasn’t as smart as he liked to think he failed to make any kind of impact there, too. A latent Napoleon or Hitler complex set in, and he is now consumed with being notoriously famous, and perhaps enjoys the idea of becoming a martyr, at which point he will finally realize acceptance in his life. If only his father had loved him as a child…
Anyway, who cares? Assange is just the distribution vehicle. Any idiot with a credit card could have done the same thing. And for that matter, I can’t find much fault with the New York Times or the other international media outlets that chose to publish many of the docs. Again, those are the dubious characters that were incapable of resisting such an offer. More to the point, none of them wanted to be scooped, especially the NYT.
Bradley Manning has the most to answer for. Even if Assange convinced him to do it, Manning was still the one actually stealing from his country. And he did it with enthusiasm! Even now he has no regret about his actions. Most of the content is frankly laughable – there are few actual secrets, it just makes Hillary look bad – but if the situation in Yemen, specifically, is influenced by this in such a way where American lives are ultimately put at risk, then what Manning did will have directly caused that.
I see no reason why Manning should not be court-martialed and sentenced to execution. That is the only appropriate outcome.
But it won’t happen for one reason: Bradley Manning is gay. The media and liberals are desperate to keep the focus off Manning because at this very moment they are trying to get rid of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, and even though Manning’s homosexuality probably has nothing to do with his crime, the perception could be that a gay soldier’s actions cost American lives. So because we’ve been so bludgeoned by political correctness and we are paradoxically now all so conditioned to overreact to homosexuality, we cannot be honest with ourselves as a society enough to punish the actual criminal for his actions, or at the very least we’re not allowed to talk about it. The media is so desperate to protect him that they have once again turned the villain into the victim, labeling him a “funny little guy.” There is nothing funny about exposing your fellow soldiers to unnecessary risk and life-threatening situations.
Screw it. Hang the guy, admit Hillary’s future political prospects are f*cked, and then move on. We have an economy to un-wreck.
Bradley Manning is the little prick that stole all the secret documents distributed by WikiLeaks. If you didn’t know that, or only heard it in passing, but know exactly who Julian Assange is, it’s because the US Media is overtly repressing that information.
I am not saying Assange isn’t at least partially responsible, but consider this. Let’s say I give you one million dollars. Then I tell you it’s stolen. Do you try to spend it? You might not, but Assange is the kind of character that would. You don’t need much to figure his type. Just look at the guy – doesn’t he seem like the kind of nerd that was picked on in school, and who later developed into an egomaniac as a defense mechanism against attacks on his fragile self-esteem? As he gained some small notoriety in the hacker community he became a defensive narcissist, but because he wasn’t as smart as he liked to think he failed to make any kind of impact there, too. A latent Napoleon or Hitler complex set in, and he is now consumed with being notoriously famous, and perhaps enjoys the idea of becoming a martyr, at which point he will finally realize acceptance in his life. If only his father had loved him as a child…
Anyway, who cares? Assange is just the distribution vehicle. Any idiot with a credit card could have done the same thing. And for that matter, I can’t find much fault with the New York Times or the other international media outlets that chose to publish many of the docs. Again, those are the dubious characters that were incapable of resisting such an offer. More to the point, none of them wanted to be scooped, especially the NYT.
Bradley Manning has the most to answer for. Even if Assange convinced him to do it, Manning was still the one actually stealing from his country. And he did it with enthusiasm! Even now he has no regret about his actions. Most of the content is frankly laughable – there are few actual secrets, it just makes Hillary look bad – but if the situation in Yemen, specifically, is influenced by this in such a way where American lives are ultimately put at risk, then what Manning did will have directly caused that.
I see no reason why Manning should not be court-martialed and sentenced to execution. That is the only appropriate outcome.
But it won’t happen for one reason: Bradley Manning is gay. The media and liberals are desperate to keep the focus off Manning because at this very moment they are trying to get rid of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, and even though Manning’s homosexuality probably has nothing to do with his crime, the perception could be that a gay soldier’s actions cost American lives. So because we’ve been so bludgeoned by political correctness and we are paradoxically now all so conditioned to overreact to homosexuality, we cannot be honest with ourselves as a society enough to punish the actual criminal for his actions, or at the very least we’re not allowed to talk about it. The media is so desperate to protect him that they have once again turned the villain into the victim, labeling him a “funny little guy.” There is nothing funny about exposing your fellow soldiers to unnecessary risk and life-threatening situations.
Screw it. Hang the guy, admit Hillary’s future political prospects are f*cked, and then move on. We have an economy to un-wreck.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
111 Weeks
How do you want to spend the next two years of your life?
Being unemployed sounds like a pretty good option these days. Lame-ass-duck Democrats are going to pass another 12 week extension of unemployment benefits this month, adding to the current 99 weeks that are available. I predicted this would happen when they passed the last extension over the summer. Perpetual unemployment is another method of wealth redistribution, i.e. government dependency, and is therefore a useful tool for liberals in their unrelenting push to destroy prosperity, capitalism, and the American Dream – three major obstacles in the path toward socialism and then communism.
My question is, why 12 weeks? Why not 50 weeks, or 100 weeks, or just make it limitless? The answer is obviously politics. Over the summer Dems accused Republicans of not caring for the unemployed. Conservatives held their ground but lacked the votes to stop the insanity. Dems tried to get the last extension through so it would run out right before the election, but they were delayed by the Oil Spill, but now they see another opportunity. 12 weeks puts the extension to the end of March, which should align nicely with the first legislative push from the new class of conservative legislators looking to cut spending. Democrats can then make their counterproductive emotional arguments and try to score political points in the larger effort to disrupt the momentum conservatives have gained in the last 2 years.
The tactic won’t work – too many people see that perpetually extending unemployment is a scam, and it should serve to underscore the failure of the Democrat economic policy under Bama, Pelosi, and Reid.
Also, I’ve seen and heard of more than one study lately that shows that long-term unemployment is psychologically more damaging than a death in the family. It would seem then that incentivizing unemployment would actually diminish happiness. I’ve said it before, liberals love to share misery.
Being unemployed sounds like a pretty good option these days. Lame-ass-duck Democrats are going to pass another 12 week extension of unemployment benefits this month, adding to the current 99 weeks that are available. I predicted this would happen when they passed the last extension over the summer. Perpetual unemployment is another method of wealth redistribution, i.e. government dependency, and is therefore a useful tool for liberals in their unrelenting push to destroy prosperity, capitalism, and the American Dream – three major obstacles in the path toward socialism and then communism.
My question is, why 12 weeks? Why not 50 weeks, or 100 weeks, or just make it limitless? The answer is obviously politics. Over the summer Dems accused Republicans of not caring for the unemployed. Conservatives held their ground but lacked the votes to stop the insanity. Dems tried to get the last extension through so it would run out right before the election, but they were delayed by the Oil Spill, but now they see another opportunity. 12 weeks puts the extension to the end of March, which should align nicely with the first legislative push from the new class of conservative legislators looking to cut spending. Democrats can then make their counterproductive emotional arguments and try to score political points in the larger effort to disrupt the momentum conservatives have gained in the last 2 years.
The tactic won’t work – too many people see that perpetually extending unemployment is a scam, and it should serve to underscore the failure of the Democrat economic policy under Bama, Pelosi, and Reid.
Also, I’ve seen and heard of more than one study lately that shows that long-term unemployment is psychologically more damaging than a death in the family. It would seem then that incentivizing unemployment would actually diminish happiness. I’ve said it before, liberals love to share misery.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)