Politics’ 47% Rule

Do Democrat candidates start with 47% of the vote no matter who runs? Is it because many voters don’t pay income taxes?

Yes and yes. People who pay no taxes believe in free lunches. Even if they do not feel like they have the mindset of simply wanting to soak the paychecks of taxpayers to get what they want, still they will vote in a New York minute for huge bond measures even if roundly opposed by everyone else who will actually pay them off, plus interest. It’s a fact of life if you don’t actually pay the interest, borrowed money seems like free money… It doesn’t take long before the Lenders begin to wonder — not about the earners that are to pay off the loan — but about the borrowers on whom the loan will be blown. It’s no wonder the U.S. has been given its first-ever credit rating downgrades–two in the last 3.5 years.

But that’s not all

It’s not even the beginning

The Forty-Seven Percent voters in American elections and not just today but over the last 30 years comprise members of a long list of disparate groups, as follows: Socialists (that is, anti-capitalist Leftist Ideologues); Secularists (that is, atheist fundementalists, anti-Judeo- Christian contra-cultural hedonists and abortionists); Enviro-Wackpots (trust fund liberals and liberal Utopians); and, purveyors of anti-Americanism (that is, the haters of the ideals of individual liberty and personal responsibility—i.e., Marxists).

And, that’s not the end of it. Let’s not forget the Catastrophists (that is, the hypocrites)! For example, we have all of the Global Warming Alarmists–e.g., academia (that takes in the Government-Education Industry) and all unelected, unaccountable government bureaucrats, employees and unions of government employees).

Follow the money. The Catastrophists will always be for the idea of ending catastrophic global warming caused by everyone but themselves, if all it means is curing a non-existent problem with taxes on the guilty—and, more taxes to fund government employee pay raises and pensions—and even if it means paying for government jobs that curtail the production of life-sustaining energy.

The ideology of the 47%’rs is like that of the global warming establishment: they see themselves as victims of those who are employed by businesses that work to produce and pay taxes to provide all of the goods and services the 47%’ers and global warming catastrophists enjoy everyday and would march in the streets like Greeks if they were told they’d have to do without. These outsiders who refuse to buy into the free enterprise system are free to indulge in their practiced art of self-defeatism and then insist that they be insulated from the consequences of their behavior at the cost of the life’s blood, liberty, property, investments and futures of the productive.

“Herein lies the moral danger behind global warming hysteria. Each day, 20,000 people in the world die of waterborne diseases. Half a billion people go hungry. A child is orphaned by AIDS every seven seconds. This does not have to happen. We allow it while fretting about “saving the planet.” What is wrong with us that we downplay this human misery before our eyes and focus on events that will probably not happen even a hundred years hence? We know that the greatest cause of environmental degradation is poverty; on this, we can and must act. (Philip Stott)

What do you believe? Do you believe in a digital world and models of reality according to academics who have never held real jobs – models that can be constructed to say anything you want them to say? Or, do you believe in the real world where things happen for reasons we do not always understand but still must dealt with, even though it can sometimes be dirty and picking up the pieces can sometimes be messy? And, if you live in the real world do you believe that those who don’t want to get messy should have a claim on the earnings of those who are willing to roll up their sleeves and get a little dirt on their hands to get the job done?

Tribalism is built-in. We are looking at mutually exclsive approaches to existence. In science, we can have respect for the scientific method or we can reject that method. Similarly, in economics, we can have free enterprise or we can reject it. The people who reject the scientific method in science are the same people who reject free enterprise in economics — 47%’rs –i.e., moochers vs. the productive.

Many feel it is an important public service to inform people about those things they are told that are not completely true. For example, does the Left really believe in sustainability? How about a sustainable economy where the productive do not have to appoligize for succeeding at providing value to society?

And, how about fear of global warming? The truth is, so long as the outsiders are less than 50% the Left still cannot rewrite history and those who seek the truth will know communism is, The Hunger Games: an abject failure that has been the sower of so many millions of graves. The only thing you can do to save dead and dying Old Europe this time is to help them help themselves by turning your back on the failed course they took.

The truth is, “Ultimately we know deeply that the other side of every fear is freedom.”  (Marilyn Ferguson)

Hot World Syndrome is fear of a hotter, more intimidating world than it actually is prompting a desire for more protection than is warranted by any actual threat.

Are your earnings being confiscated by ecochondriacs who believe they know better how to spend your money than you do? The desire of the liberal fascists to impose their will and fears on the rest of us underlies everything they believe:

“…the predication of government, and United Nations’, policy for energy growth on the unsustainable myth of global warming is a serious threat to us all, but especially to the 1.6 billion people in the less-developed world who have no access to any modern form of energy. The twin curses of water poverty and energy poverty remain the real scandals. By contrast, the political imposition on the rest of the world of our Northern, self-indulgent ecochondria about global warming could prove to be a neocolonialism too far. (Philip Stott)

There are choices and socialism is the most gutless. No one can work in a free enterprise economy without being caring of others, being optimistic about life and giving totally of oneself: the capitalist must actually provide something of value to someone else or the capitalist does not eat (e.g. see the video, Jiro Dreams of Sushi).

I should add : “one must desire more than one has in order to become more.” For this is the teaching which life itself preaches to all living things : the morality of Development. To have and to wish to have more, in a word, Growth that is life itself. In the teaching of socialism “a will to the denial of life” is but poorly concealed… (Nietzsche)

Facts are facts:

We see that global warming alarmists continue to support MBH98/99/08 (aka, the ‘hockey stick’ graph), despite the fact it has been proven to be scientific fraud. Early on, Von Storch called it ‘Quatsch,’ as would any statistician. McShane and Wyner observed, “it is hard to argue that a procedure is truly skillful if it cannot consistently outperform noise- no matter how artfully structured.”

So, isn’t it obvious? Global warming alarmists also are frauds!

The climate change debate and all of the supposed fixes for the non-problem of global warming point to one thing that will not change anytime soon. It is embedded in the Democrat platform:  in good times and bad both here and around the world there will always be 47% living in this country who will never be proud to be an American. Just one example: George Bush did all anyone could to be a president for all of the people and by his efforts proved that 47% would never be turned around. Bush could only make the Left more angry by loving America with his whole heart. “Even if we closed down every factory, crushed every car and aeroplane, turned off all energy production, and threw 4 billion people worldwide out of work, climate would still change, and often dramatically. Unfortunately, we would all be too poor to do anything about it.” (Philip Stott)