Only If We Can Have Scandinavian Demographics

3 05 2015

Vermont

DC:

Bernie Sanders: The US Should Be More Like Socialist Scandinavia

Bernie Sanders said socialist policies in nations such as Denmark, Norway and Sweden should be implemented in the U.S. in an interview with “This Week” host George Stephanopoulos Sunday.

The ABC News host told Sanders he could “hear the Republican attack ad…he wants America to look more like Scandinavia.” The Vermont senator responded saying, “That’s right. What’s wrong with that?”

From the interview itself:

SANDERS: That’s right. That’s right. What’s wrong with that? What’s wrong when you have more income and wealth equality. What’s wrong when they have a stronger middle class in many ways than we do, a higher minimum wage than we do, and they’re stronger on the environment than we do? The fact of the matter is that we do a lot in our country, which is good, but we can learn from other countries. We have, George, the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country on earth at the same time as we’re seeing a proliferation of millionaires and billionaires. Frankly, I don’t think that’s sustainable. I don’t think that’s what America is about.

Too bad that Bernie Sanders is too dense and too ideologically thrown in to realize that Scandinavian systems and Scandinavian results are a function of Scandinavian peoples and Scandinavian folkways and Scandinavian social altruism designed for Scandinavian countries at Scandinavian latitudes and with Scandinavian winters, and that the whole thing doesn’t scale well to the Congo or Baltimore.  Even the Scandinavian-American diaspora and their very similar systems fall apart when blacks show up to mooch.  And eventually, with Scandinavians opening the doors for blacks/Muslims to flood in, so too will their traditionally generous welfare states fail.

 





Give and Take

13 04 2015

Miami

PowerLine, quoting Rubio’s announcement:

Both of my parents were born to poor families in Cuba. After his mother died when he was nine, my father left school to go work. My mother was one of seven girls raised by a disabled father who struggled to provide for his family.

When they were young, my parents had big dreams for themselves. But because they were not born into wealth or power, their future was destined to be defined by their past. So in 1956 they came here, to the one place on earth where the aspirations of people like them could be more than just dreams.

My father became a bartender. My mother a cashier, a maid and a Kmart stock clerk. They never made it big. But they were successful. Two immigrants with little money or education found stable jobs, owned a home, retired with security and gave all four of their children a life far better than their own.

My parents achieved what came to be known as the American Dream. But now, too many Americans are starting to doubt whether achieving that dream is still possible.

The 2012 Republican National Convention in Tampa had one speech after another after another like this.  The speakers, a lot of them non-white, spouted their Horatio Alger stories.  Marco Rubio was one of them, as a matter of fact.  Others like that included New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez, and now Congresswoman Mia Love from Utah.

The reason why that convention turned out to be a big flop was that those speeches and those that gave them were appealing to an audience and a class of voters that doesn’t want to work for anything, doesn’t want to pay their dues to be a real success if they ever will be, doesn’t want to climb the ladder slowly and one step at a time.  They want it all, they want it now, and they want it given to them without obligation.  And that’s where Baracka Claus and the Democrats come in.

That’s what tends to happen when you try to be Democrat lite to compete with Democrat classic for the gibsmedat Democrat voter.

Maybe next time they’ll speak to the people that actually do vote for their crummy party or maybe the people who actually might but don’t quite.  Or do I wish for too much?





Don’t Get Too Excited, As Usual

5 04 2015

Jefferson City

Many of you have seen a story like this running around the internet all weekend.

Don’t hold your breath.

Because, John Diehl is where good ideas among Republican back benchers in the General Assembly go to die.  If there’s someone with money and who passes out money who doesn’t want this bill to see the light of day, King John will make sure it doesn’t.





Great Expectations

18 03 2015

Vero Beach, Florida

CNS:

Sheriff: Federal ‘EBT’ Cards ‘Ultimately Buying Drugs’

“Primarily you are looking at taxpayers’ dollars that provide EBT cards, that are ultimately buying drugs,” said Sheriff Deryl Loar, of the Indian River County Sheriff’s Office in Florida.

(snip)

The Indian River County Sheriff’s Office tells WPEC-TV that career criminal Anthony Wheeler is not the first accused drug dealer found taking payment for drugs with taxpayer-funded electronic benefit cards.

According to a WPEC-TV report on Monday, a search at Wheeler’s Wabasso home yielded heroin, crack cocaine, marijuana and 18 EBT cards issued in various names.

Happens quite a bit; you knock back a dope house and you wind up finding lots and lots of EBT/Link cards.  Ironically, welfare benefits were put on cards way back when in order to prevent this sort of thing.

Now, for his sin of noticing things, Deryl Loar can now expect to be the target of a non-stop jihad from both Democrats, SJWs and #BlackLivesMatter.

After all, who are you to be so bigoted as to expect the Bellcurvii of Indian River County, Florida to pay for their own dope, when we can do that for them?  Because social justice.





A Three Piece Puzzle

4 03 2015

Washington, D.C.

Two pieces of the puzzle in King v Burwell, whose SCOTUS BJs have just started.

Louisiana Gov. Piyush Jindal, writing in NR:

And here’s where some on the right want to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Conventional wisdom in Washington has assumed that, should the Court strike down the subsidies in 37 states under King, states will immediately act to establish their own state-run exchanges — allowing the subsidies to flow once more. Alternatively, Congress might be tempted to pass language extending the subsidies to the federally-run exchange, allowing Obamacare to comply with the Court ruling. That’s a “solution” in search of a problem. If eliminating the subsidies represents a net tax cut, then restoring the subsidies — whether by states creating their own exchanges, Congress passing new legislation, or some combination of the two — would re-impose a sizable tax increase. Americans would pay billions more in higher taxes to fund the newly restored subsidies, making Obamacare that much more entrenched. What self-proclaimed conservative of sound mind would do such a thing? Alternatively, some have talked about enacting a “compromise” that would restore the Obamacare subsidies while reforming some of the law’s new insurance requirements and regulations. But restoring the flow of subsidies means restoring the employer mandate, thus raising taxes. And even if such a “compromise” weakens or eliminates the employer mandate, the Obama administration — to say nothing of the insurance companies themselves — will hardly countenance a repeal of the individual mandate, which restoring the subsidies will only strengthen. So those seeking to restore the flow of subsidies will likely end up having to raise taxes on millions of Americans, in some way, shape, or form.

The emphasis of one given word in this quote is my own addition.

Betsey McCaughey, in the NYP:

Insurance companies will be the biggest losers

Their stock prices have soared since the healthcare.gov rollout — Humana up 66 percent; Cigna, 53 percent; Aetna, 52 percent. No wonder: ObamaCare forces the public to buy their policies.

It’s like a law requiring all Americans to buy cars, subsidizing those who can’t pay. That would send automaker stocks skyrocketing, too.

Insurers are expected to haul in over a trillion dollars of taxpayer money over the next decade. No wonder they’re bombarding the Supremes with arguments defending their cozy deal.

The third piece of the puzzle?  Look at the campaign finance reports of a lot of Republicans, and you’re going to find a whole lot of insurance PACs, 527s, if not semi-directly, then funneled through one or two intermediaries.

It’s why the Republican Party in current form is never going to make a serious run at repeal.  At “best,” they’ll just nibble around some of the worst edges.





Good Providers

26 02 2015

Atlanta

S001157

Daily Caller:

Democratic Congressman: We Need Food Stamps Because So Many Fathers Are In Jail

Democratic Georgia Rep. David Scott said that food stamps are necessary because of America’s “policy” of imprisoning families.

“First of all, the situation regarding employment and jobs, poverty, all of that. All of that has been structured into our economic, social policy over the last quarter-century,” Scott said at Wednesday’s House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing to review the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), talking about the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs before turning to the incarceration issue.

“Our policy of sending so many of our young eligible fathers to prison. Millions,” Scott said. “Our prison population went from 300,000 in 1975 to over two million today. These are providers who are not there. This is why we have so many single female head of households. I mean, so when you look at everything we have done, we’ve got to correct some of these things first.”

Yes, that was a bad idea, for governments to round up good hard working black fathers that are good providers for their families and throw them into prisons for no reason at all at which time they’ll be costing governments money instead of providing governments tax money.





Yeah, That’s a Real Big Mystery

25 02 2015

City Hall

P-D:

St. Louis passes bills to reduce Section 8 concentration in poor neighborhoods

The Section 8 housing voucher program is designed to avoid the challenges of concentrated poverty typically associated with traditional public housing. Tenants receive rent subsidy vouchers from a local housing authority and can redeem them anywhere landlords accept them, as long as properties meet certain standards.

In the end, though, most voucher recipients in St. Louis still end up clustered in lower-income communities.

In an attempt to alleviate that concentration, the City of St. Louis passed two measures last week aimed at making it easier for landlords to participate in the program while also banning the practice of rejecting tenants because they have vouchers.

(snip)

In a study of Section 8 use in cities nationwide, Metzger found that voucher users tended to be more concentrated in poor neighborhoods than non-voucher users who earned less than $15,000 a year. She also found that voucher users were more integrated in cities where landlords couldn’t reject Section 8 tenants.

I would presume that one has to be of low income to get a Section 8 voucher.  So of course you’re going to find a very strong correlation between Section 8 voucher tenants and low income individuals.

In as much as this is a problem, and not a definition, I fail to see how these city ordinances will make it any better.








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,403 other followers