| Submit your comments on this article |
| Government |
| Juggernaut |
| 2014-01-20 |
| [PJ Media] Excerpt: Losing is not a bad deal if the the loser's purse is bigger than the expected value of the winners pay packet outside the deal. Since it is the Globetrotters, not the Generals, that drive the total size of the revenue, it makes sense to accept second-best. The bigger the audience the Globetrotters attract the bigger the losers' purse of the Washington Generals. It is rational for the Generals to aim for a smaller slice of as long as the Trotters keep growing the pie. Like many of us, author Richard Fernandez has looked behind the curtain and sees little difference. |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #1 Here is a reply I posted at Wretchard's site, it bears reposting here at the 'burg: The philosophizing and the social agenda are interesting, but they are the ultimate goal, not primary one in the present. The goal and not the means. We lose sight of that at our peril. Hillary's inevitability has more to do with the 47% Romney accurately described than anything else. 99% of the people in this country who get their income from a government source - public sector workers, welfare recipients, ag subsidy recipients, grant recipients, attorneys (most of whom are de facto public employees or rent-seekers) and rent-seeking "private" businesses - are going to vote for whichever candidate will have the lowest likelihood of cutting off or even diminishing their income stream. Period. Do not kid yourselves that anyone who works for the government, no matter how conservative their lifestyle is privately, will do anything but vote for the most fiscally irresponsible candidate under ANY conditions. All Hillary, all ANY candidate has to do, is project the image that not one single government expenditure will be cut in any way and they will win any election at the national level. In a down economy, fear of losing the magic government check trumps everything. And I mean EVERYTHING. It is the real explanation for 2012. More than conservatives staying home. More than election fraud. You can point out that this dynamic has been growing for a while, and perhaps so. But the real cause for concern is an ugly new twist. The left has become very aware of this new found permanent voting propensity. They have awoken to its power. They will exploit it to the max. We really, truly have reached the point where if Hillary set fire to a bunch of third graders on national TV pretty much everyone who gets a government check would vote for her against anyone from the center/right anyways. And everyone in the entertainment industry would either claim it didn't happen or blame Republicans. If she told the public work force, people in subsidized industries like education, and welfare recipients, "I'm planning to round up every serious Christian, conservative and orthodox jew, gun owner, and person we can prove advocates for limited government, confiscate their property, and send them to concentration camps and kill them - but your magic checks will never be interrupted", 99% of those people would vote for her with a smile on their face and joy in their hearts. If you believe otherwise, you are a terrible, terrible fool. Russians and Germans - people who had similar attitudes towards the size and power of government and were more educated, more informed, and more enlightened than today's left living in America and the LIV's who have profited by a bloated government - cheered on as their governments committed terrible atrocities, as long as their own situations remained comfortable. What, precisely, is different this time, such that we can be confident history will not repeat itself? |
| Posted by: no mo uro 2014-01-20 08:09 |