Tuesday, December 05, 2006

Andrew Kaduk weighs in on my Post-Election predictions

Andrew Kaduk weighed in promptly; I am just now getting around to posting his thoughts...

Andrew thinks:

1. This would be a very hypocritical move by the Dems, considering they tout themselves as the champions of free speech....or does free speech only apply to left-leaning agendas?

2. Why bother? Bush is their puppet now. Oh, and Pat White is an idiot.

3. I would rather see amnesty than a massive "program" compiled of riot squads, home invasions, random ineffective deportations and generally inefficient uses of our time, money and manpower. I'd prefer we start annexation talks with Mexico, at least insofar as to grant them provincial status, open the border and wait for equilibrium.

4. Aggressively lowering troop levels in Iraq would have exactly the opposite effect many people like to think. This would effectively throw the current Iraqi leadership "under the bus" and open a direct avenue for Iran to send their hand-picked clerics and militants straight in to begin the inevitable takeover process. C'mon, can anybody tell me they're not doing it already? We're the only thing slowing them down right now. I personally believe that Iran was positioning itself to make a move on Saddam Hussein, and we got in their way before they said "go." But that's all speculation...

5. Yeah, what Stan said.

6. I hope the Dems do this. Chuck Rangel is already calling for such an action. It's called "biting the hand that feeds you" and the Democrats will continue to draft inept tax policy until they get it through their heads that this is NOT THEIR MONEY, and we all benefit when people spend this into the economy without using the FedGov as a middle-man. You know, they could just cut spending. Nancy Pelosi and Mark Souder both voted themselves pay increases last year.

7. Co-sign to the "evil" sentiment. That money has already been taxed (several times, I'm sure).

8. It is illegal by most coherent interpretations of the Constitution for the Federal Government to establish a minimum wage. The abilities of employees and the needs of employers will dictate a minimum wage without any legislation whatsoever. If McDonald's only pays $2/hr, they will have a hard time finding anyone to stand by their vats of boiling grease and flip their horse-meat patties.

9. I sure hope the Dems can do something to that effect, but history indicates otherwise. The employment of fancy accounting witchcraft during the Clinton years created an illusion of a balanced budget, and yet the actual debt remained. I'm with you, Mike. If you're gonna do it, do it TODAY.

10. Yup.

11. I'll take a cashier's check for the money I've dumped into SS over the years. Cash is fine too. Now get your grubby fingers off my paychecks. I, unlike many people, have been diligently investing toward my retirement for years. I will continue to do so until a financial advisor says "stop."

12. The government doesn't have any money. Therefore, they should stay out of such expensive business, especially business that they are not qualified to understand or participate in, save maybe as consumers. See the section on "unfunded liabilities."

13. I'll raise my glass and toast Pelosi et al if they can do this, but since [politicians] are generally a bunch of self-serving pricks, I think this law will be complicated, convoluted and generally ineffective.

14. OK

15. Just the word "entitlements" makes my skin crawl. Why exactly is someone else entitled to MY money to aid their eduction? I'm too busy working to go back to school and finish my degree...I'll be damned if somebody's gonna take my money for others to spend in the fashion I wish I had time for... Baaaah. Entitlements. Why make more? What's the point? There are plenty of private lenders out there willing to give kids money for school. Let the professionals handle it.

16. Well, I'm opposed to the government administrating health care in the first place, but since they are doing it already, there's no reason to continue to be stupid about it.

17. If Federal money would be "money well spent" with respect to speculative embryonic research, then PRIVATE money would be even better. The windfall profits that will pile into the accounts of whichever researcher develops a concrete methodology won't come back to the government, so why shouldn't they be investing their own money in the research? How about developing a charitable foundation to fund it? Why does it have to be the government? The only thing that will do is make lives longer and further put the screws to the oh-so precious Social Security system.

18. Harumph, harumph.

19. Yeah, I don't think the oil companies need a crutch at this point. I'm not sure they did in the first place. I would, however, offer a short-term tax abatement to any oil company that builds a new refinery.

20. Gee, I think that being a slave-country to foreign oil is serving us pretty well... (cough, cough).

21. I sincerely doubt it. I think Pelosi is writing checks her ass can't cash.

22. Hey, if they wanna walk around with that dirt smudge on their collective face, more power to them. Jefferson will act as an enduring reminder of the hypocrisy of politicians in general. D's and R's alike want to hold eachother to higher standards than they, themselves are willing to hold. Newt Gingerich's pompous ass talking about "morality" and "family values" while keeping a mistress, Rush Limbaugh denigrating drug users while he was high, politicians rationalizing bad behavior by pointing out people who have behaved worse than they, Nancy Pelosi blaming Republicans for the partisan hackery in Washington in which she gleefully participated...if not often instigated, wow, I could go on all day. I'm glad a bunch of congresspersons got fired. I hope just as many get fired in two years.

No comments: