Trump Is A Useful Idiot Who Can Be Manipulated By Stroking His Ego (How The Institutional Right Manages Trump To Further Their Goals)

A useful idiot is someone who supports one side of an ideological debate, but who is manipulated and held in contempt by the leaders of their faction... (Excerpt from the Rationalwiki).
After the passage of the recent tax legislation (a Dickensian horror that will exacerbate inequality as it funnels wealth upward), Congressional Republicans got together with their Fuhrer. It was this disgusting orgy of verbal fellatio that made it clear to me that the Republicans have developed a strategy to manage their puppet.

"No puppet, no puppet" Trump declared prior to the election, during one of the three debates in which Hillary Clinton DESTROYED him. Yet, despite losing all three debates, the Putin puppet ascended to the White House. And the degree to which the election was manipulated by Putin (in order to install his puppet) was further revealed.

Which brings me back to the passage of Trump's bogus "tax cuts and jobs" legislation (which was sold as relief for the so-called "forgotten man", but is aimed squarely at our oligarchs. And will also NOT create jobs, given the FACT that trickle down economics is a total sham). Following the Republican legislative victory the GOP decided a gang bang of praise was in order. So each Congressperson took a turn pleasuring the moron who would be signing their Randian tax code rewrite.

This legislation, btw, is likely what Paul Ryan has dreamt of since he was a young boy (who read Ayn Rand under the sheets while masturbating). It surely is NOT what Trump promised during his campaign. Not that he ever had any intention of following through with any of his campaign promises. He lied, of course. Although, in his mind, I'm positive it was just "campaign rhetoric" designed to get him what he wanted (the adulation of the crowd, votes and the presidency).

Now it seems as though institutional Republicans have finally realized (long after Putin did) that Trump can be easily manipulated by heaping outlandish praise on him. A gang bang, for the record, "is a situation in which several people engage in physical sexual activity with one particular individual sequentially or at the same time. The person is the central focus of the sexual activity".

In the video below Senator Orrin Hatch takes his turn in the sequential gang bang by verbally stimulating the engorged ego of BLOTUS (2:33).



Given how OVER THE TOP Hatch's praise is, it is CLEAR to me that he is bullshitting. And spreading the bovine excrement on THICK. Although with Trump (a man with an incredibly fragile ego who lives for praise) it works. Disgusting, but necessary if your goal is to pass legislation that benefits (almost exclusively) the oligarchs. For the most part the American people aren't buying it (why public opinion of the legislation is so low).

"We're going to make this the greatest presidency that we've seen, not only in generations, but maybe ever", Hatch promised. By which he means (I'm convinced) that FINALLY, with Trump as their useful (bill and Executive Order signing) idiot, the Republican dream of bringing FULL oligarchy to the US can finally be brought to fruition (a second Gilded Age).

Below is an ad put out by America First Policies after passage of the GOP's tax theft legislation (0:33).



America First Policies was "founded by a group of Trump loyalists -- many of them with deep connections to VP Pence" according to Wikipedia. Trump sycophants and butt-lickers, or the "ministry of propaganda" as per one YouTube commenter. Propaganda? Absolutely. One actor in the commercial (a little girl at the end) says "Thank you president Trump for letting us say Merry Christmas again". A claim we all know is utter rubbish because nobody was preventing people from saying "Merry Christmas" during the Obama presidency.

"Everyday Americans are standing up to thank president Trump" the video narrator claims. A actor (portraying a blue collar worker) thanks Trump for "cutting my taxes". Another says "thank you for fixing the economy". Fixing the economy? This is the Obama economy. Obama fixed the mess left behind by the former President Doofus. Obama is who we should be thanking, not this idiot. Trump's tax cuts for the wealthy will have the same effect that the tax cuts for the wealthy (that were passed under the Doofus Administration) had.

I expect a Wall Street bubble. Share prices will increase after CEOs use their corporation's tax cuts to buy back shares (NOT hire people/give raises), followed by a recession. This is what is predicted by Economic historian Robert McElvaine, "a leading expert on the Great Depression". The recession could be "severe" and "catastrophic".

But (before that happens) Wall Street is going to go bananas. Which will give Republican voters a false impression that "tax reform" is working. And might help Republicans in the midterms. That is, I believe, their gamble, at least. Lock in their oligarch-favoring agenda NOW, then leave it to a Democratic president to deal with the mess (note that Obama never got rid of the bush tax cuts).

The Trump Administration (and the GOP under his "leadership") will cause GREAT human suffering, then blame the next (Democratic) president when it all comes crashing down. As is their MO (Clinton cleaning up Reagan/GHWB's mess and Obama having to deal with gwb's tax cut bubble which burst following a real estate bubble).

In the meantime we'll continue to see continued undignified/repulsive brown-nosing by the oligarchs (via their SuperPacs/other disinformation vehicles) and their bought-and-paid-for institutional Republican stooges (as well as the purging of "RINOS" like Flake, trumpers eagerly awaiting the death of John McCain, etc). And propaganda like the America First "Alternative Facts/Thank you Dear Leader" ego-stroking advert above. Barf!

 swtd-398 

Paul Ryan Worships Satan. (As Do Many In The Incoming Trump Administration, Including Trump Himself)

And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness ~ The Christian Bible, 2 Corinthians 11:14-15 (excerpted).

Paul Ryan is a fan of Ayn Rand. You might not know it, but the founder of the Church of Satan (COS), Anton LaVey, cited Rand's ideology as an inspiration. According to the official Church website "Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, is an acknowledged source for some of the Satanic philosophy as outlined in The Satanic Bible by Anton LaVey".

Now, supposedly the COS does not believe that Satan actually exists. I say this is bullpucky. Or, it surely does not matter when it comes to Paul Ryan, in any case. Paul Ryan SAYS he is a Christian. Wikipedia notes that Ryan "is a member of St. John Vianney Catholic Church in Janesville". As a (Christian) Church-goer Ryan surely believes in God and he who was cast out of Heaven, Lucifer, the fallen angel.

Remember that Paul Ryan was quite vocal about how much he LOVES Ayn Rand. That is until someone pointed out to him that Ayn Rand was an atheist. Before knowing this he said "I grew up reading Ayn Rand and it taught me quite a bit about who I am and what my value systems are". After discovering (to his great shock) that Ayn Rand did not believe in the Heavenly Father, Ryan changed his tune.

"I, like millions of young people in America, read Rand's novels when I was young. I enjoyed them [but] I reject her philosophy". Sure. That explains why Rand was/is required reading for anyone working for him. And that's why he is still trying to write Rand's philosophies into law. Rand hated all social welfare programs and thought they should be abolished. Ryan hates all social welfare programs and has worked his entire career trying to diminish them. As a first step to abolishing them.

Or, rather he has worked toward profitizing them. Ryan's On The issues page says the government should "allow charities, community groups and even for-profit firms to compete with government for federal money to fight poverty". Take taxpayer money and hand it off to his cronies, in other words.

The Republican desire to block grant money to the states and have a (large) portion of the money go to for-profit entities would result in less help getting to those who need it. According to a 1/6/2017 Huffington Post article, "Paul Ryan's Plan to Merge Safety Net Programs Could Increase Poverty, Not Reduce It".

Which, IMO, is the whole point - screw over poor people while further enriching your cronies and/or the already wealthy. It is the Republican way. Under the Republican icon, St. Ronald Reagan, homelessness increased dramatically (How Reaganonomics drastically increased homelessness).

Although Ayn Rand just wanted poor people to die. Because she hated them so much. Republicans don't care if poor people die. As long as the already wealthy can benefit from their deaths.

This is why I've long suspected/hypothesized that Satan is exerting his influence over our nation via the Republican Party. It "is nearly perfect in its immorality... to justify and extol human greed and egotism is to my mind not only immoral, but evil" Gore Vidal says in regards to Rand's Objectivism.

BTW, the year the GOP nominated George W. bush as its nominee, the stars on the GOP logo were flipped upside down (Bush Era Began Satanic Stars on GOP emblem?). The 5-pointed star, or pentagram, "with a single point upwards depicts spirit presiding over the four elements of matter represents GOOD, while the inverted pentagram is considered EVIL" (paraphrased from The History of the Pentagram from Detoxorcist).

The inverted (point-down) pentagram is also the symbol of Satanism... as per the article "The Pentagram and Ram's Head" from the website "Jesus is Savior.com".

The GOP presents itself as the "pro-life" and "pro-family" party... which is really code for controlling women and homophobia. But the Bible supposedly teaches homosexuality and abortion are wrong. At least that is what Christians who vote Republican believe. But would that not be JUST LIKE SATAN to use Bible misinterpretations to fool people into voting for his agenda?

That agenda being Objectivism, or the vilification of the poor and the cutting of programs that help them. And the cutting of taxes of wealthy people. Don't forget what Jesus said regarding a rich man's chance of getting into heaven. Despite the GOP presenting itself as the Christian/family/pro-life party, their primary purpose is representing the interests of the wealthy.

As for Paul Ryan, I (given my suspicions) did a Google search on "Paul Ryan worships Satan" and one of the results was a 2012 AlterNet article (written after Obama defeated the Mittens/Ryan ticket to win re-election) that confirmed that the Speaker of the House genuflects to the Father of Lies.

Back in 2011 a series of attacks from leading conservative evangelicals darkly warned that Ayn Rand devotees, Paul Ryan included, might be worshiping at the altar of crypto-satanism ... a flurry of mainstream media articles cover a controversy erupting after evangelism superstar Billy Graham prayed with (and in effect endorsed) candidate Mitt Romney and observers noticed that an article on the website of Graham's flagship Billy Graham Evangelistic Association identified Mormonism as a "cult". (Paul Ryan Is an Ayn-Rand Loving "Satanist" and Romney Is in a "Cult?" The GOP's Religion Woes by Bruce Wilson. 10/18/2012).

The COS website says crypto-Satanists are "people who are not Church members, but like what we're doing". First Things, a hard-right Catholic journal (as per the AlterNet article quoted above), describes Objectivism as "The Fountainhead of Satanism".

Over the past few years, Anton LaVey and his book The Satanic Bible has grown increasingly popular, selling thousands of new copies. His impact has been especially pronounced in our nation's capital. One U.S. senator has publicly confessed to being a fan of the The Satanic Bible while another calls it his "foundation book". On the other side of Congress, a representative speaks highly of LaVey and recommends that his staffers read the book. ... Surprisingly little concern, much less outrage, has erupted over this phenomenon. Shouldn't we be appalled by the ascendancy of this evangelist of anti-Christian philosophy? Shouldn't we all - especially we Christians - be mobilizing to counter the malevolent force of this man on our culture and politics? As you've probably guessed by this point, I'm not really talking about LaVey but about his mentor, Ayn Rand. (The Fountainhead of Satanism by Joe Carter. First Things 6/8/2011).

Regarding Objectivism and Satanism, Joe Carter says "at their core, they are the same philosophy". Joe Carter (editor of First Things, a Catholic journal whose "purpose is to advance a religiously informed public philosophy for the ordering of society") furthermore writes that "you can replace the pentagrams of LeVayian Satanism with the dollar sign of the Objectivists without changing much of the substance separating the two".

So, there you have it. Paul Ryan is a Satan worshipper. Or a "crypto-Satanist". Do I believe Ryan actually takes knee and supplicates to Beelzebub? How should I know? As per Joe Carter's article, my inference is that he believes Paul Ryan has fallen "completely under Rand's diabolic sway". "Diabolic", as in "pertaining to or actuated by a devil".

The "devil" (A devil, not THE devil), in Joe Carter's view being Ayn Rand, who he describes as a "self-professed anti-Christ who hated Christianity". "To be a follower of both Rand and Christ is not possible", but Ryan IS a follower of Rand. Despite his lies about rejecting her philosophy. So, if he isn't a follower of Christ, he must be a follower of Satan.

The evidence supports that conclusion, for certain. You don't have to take my word for it. The editor of "America's most influential journal of religion and public life" says Paul Ryan worships The Wicked One for crying out loud! (my inference).

Although, given this fact, you'd think that Ryan would be excommunicated. In regards to the Pope (the infallible leader of Ryan's supposed religion) the Speaker said Francis doesn't understand capitalism. "The guy is from Argentina, they haven't had real capitalism in Argentina... They have crony capitalism... They don't have a true free enterprise system". (Paul Ryan lectures the Pope, 12/27/2013).

Clearly Ryan is a f*cking liar, as crony capitalism is (as I already pointed out) what he wants for the United States. But dissembling is EXACTLY what you'd expect from someone who venerates the Father of Lies!

It does perplex me, however, that some evangelicals (such as this Joe Carter fellow) took exception to Paul Ryan being a fan of Ayn Rand, but (apparently) have nothing to say about the pussy-grabber-elect Donald Trump (I haven't heard any RW religious leaders say anything against Trump, at least). Fact is Franklin Graham suggested evangelicals should vote Trump, a man who told an obvious and laughable whopper when he claimed that the Bible is his favorite book (Trump offers revealingly bad answers about the Good Book, 10/26/2016).

"Few conservatives will fall completely under Rand's diabolic sway" (the actual quote from Joe Carter's article, from which I inferred that one of those few is Paul Ryan). But it isn't a few of them, it is most of them. Does that mean many or most Congressional Republicans are Satan worshippers like Ryan?

I can't say. But I do believe that Satan is exerting his influence over our nation via the Republican Party, and that the election of Donald Trump is part of the Dark Lord's plan to drag as many souls into the pit of hell with him as possible. "Dick Cheney. Darth Vader. Satan. That's power" the anti-semitic Trump advisor Steve Bannon said (Trump's top adviser is now literally praising Satan, 11/18/2016).

Donald Trump is also a fan of Rand. A 4/12/2016 NY Intelligencer article reveals that the Orange Buffoon identifies "with Howard Roark, the novel's idealistic protagonist who designs skyscrapers and rages against the establishment" (Donald Trump's Role Model is an Ayn Rand Character).

So it's not just Paul Ryan, but Trump and many within his administration who subscribe to the evil Randian ideology. The Washington Post notes (in a 12/13/2016 article) "Ayn Rand-acolyte Donald Trump stacks his cabinet with fellow objectivists".

Objectivism and Satanism are "at their core... the same philosophy". And (I repeat) that's not me saying that, but the editor of a leading Catholic journal! Yeah, I think DARK days are ahead of us, given the fact that the incoming administration (as well Congress) is apparently lousy with Satan worshippers. Or Ayn Rand worshippers (big diff). But remember that Trump himself referred to 2 Corinthians as "the whole ballgame" (Citing "Two Corinthians", Trump Struggles To Make The Sale To Evangelicals).

THE WHOLE BALLGAME! Trump and his incoming administration (as well as Paul Ryan) are masquerading as servants of righteousness but (in actuality) are servants of Satan! The proof is pretty conclusive, IMO.

※PaulRyanSatanist.

 SWTD #366 

You Can't Appeal To A Republican Using Either A Religious Or Economic Argument (Re States Accepting The Medicaid Expansion) Because These "Christians" Hate The Poors So Much

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what...who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims. ...These are people who pay no income tax. ...and so my job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives ~ Willard Mittens Romney (dob 3/12/1947) The failed Repub 2012 potus nominee. Remarks at private fundraiser (re why he would not get the vote of the takers) in Boca Raton FL 5/17/2012.

Remember when Rep Alan Grayson said "if you get sick, America, the Republican healthcare plan is this: Die quickly". He was only referring to people who can't afford health insurance, of course. Rich people do not have this problem. Only the Poors should "die quickly" because people complaining about Poors suffering in order for Health Care Insurance companies to continue making tremendous profits are annoying. Better they die quickly so nobody has to be confronted with that unpleasantness and whining about it.

Republicans feigned outrage and demanded an apology. But Alan Grayson was correct. Proof of this is the Republican desire to repeal the ACA. Failing that, they believe Republican governors should reject the Medicaid expansion. Even though they are losing billions in federal funds by doing so. Even though the ACA gives tens of thousands of new customers to the for-profit health insurers. Punishing poor "takers" takes a higher priority.

Although some Republican governors accepted the money. Jan Brewer is one example. John Kasich of Ohio is another. Although in both cases their respective state legislatures are fighting back [1+2].

Because he is running for preznit, Kasich was confronted on this issue during the recent Fox Nooz potus interview. Megyn Kelly (basically) expressed the Republican outrage re Kasich attempting to help the Poors. How DARE he! Surely this is proof he is unfit to be preznit. Which is why Kelly brought it up. Voters needed to know of this and reject him for his un-Republican actions. This specific un-Republican action (he does pass the anti-choice litmus test). But even passing this very important litmus test is not good enough.

Megyn Kelly: Governor Kasich, you chose to expand Medicaid in your state, unlike several other governors on this stage tonight, and it is already over budget by some estimates costing taxpayers an additional $1.4 billion in just the first 18 months. You defended your Medicaid expansion by invoking God, saying to skeptics that when they arrive in heaven, Saint Peter isn't going to ask them how small they've kept government, but what they have done for the poor. Why should Republican voters, who generally want to shrink government, believe that you won't use your Saint Peter rationale to expand every government program? *Audience applauds* Gov. John Kasich: Well, first of all, Megyn, you should know that President Reagan expanded Medicaid three or four times. Secondly, I had an opportunity to bring resources back to Ohio to do what? To treat the mentally ill. Ten thousand of them sit in our prisons. It costs $22,500 a year to keep them in prison. I'd rather get them their medication so they could lead a decent life. Secondly, we are rehabbing the drug-addicted. Eighty percent of the people in our prisons have addictions or problems. We now treat them in the prisons, release them in the community and the recidivism rate is 10 percent and everybody across this country knows that the tsunami of drugs is threatening their very families. So we're treating them and getting them on their feet. And finally, the working poor, instead of them having come into the emergency rooms where it costs more, where they're sicker and we end up paying, we brought a program in here to make sure that people could get on their feet. And do you know what? Everybody has a right to their God-given purpose. ...our Medicaid is growing at one of the lowest rates in the country. ...we went from $8 billion in the hole to $2 billion in the black. We've cut $5 billion in taxes and we've grown 350,000 jobs. *Audience applauds* (Excerpt from the 8/6/2016 Fox Nooz potus interview).

Getting mentally ill people in prison the treatment they need and getting them out of prison sooner saves money. And, a 10% recidivism is a lot lower than the average, which, according to Wikipedia, is 43.3%.

Treating people in emergency rooms, where they can't be turned away (due to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTALA) is significantly more expensive than scheduling appointments and getting treatment before a medical condition becomes an emergency. People with chronic diseases can't show up in emergency rooms and ask for ongoing treatment (which is needed to combat chronic conditions). These people can only show up and ask for help after their disease has progressed to the point where their lives are in immediate danger. Obviously treating these people earlier would be a lot cheaper.

Lastly, poor people who can't afford to see a doctor missing days of work (due to them being sidelined by treatable ailments) costs the economy money. So the Medicaid expansion in Ohio is "over budget", but it does not factor in these savings. At all. It simply ignores them, in addition to ignoring the inhumanity of locking up treatable mentally ill people. As well as the inhumanity of allowing poor people with treatable diseases to progress to a point where their lives are in danger (and at which point it is sometimes too late... meaning they die).

But Republicans revel in inhumanity toward those they deem lesser because their Christianity is fake. I mean, because in addition to ignoring the religious argument (Kelly mocked him?) they only look at the raw numbers. And totally ignore the (somewhat hard to quantify?) savings of accepting the Medicaid expansion and going "over budget". Frankly, it sickens me.

For many Republicans, that their Christianity is not sincere is proven by Kasich's attempt to appeal to it and failing. Proof, in my mind, of how much these fake Christian Republican hypocrites hate poor people. They refuse to do the right thing (those other governors on the stage that rejected the expansion) when you make an argument that appeals to their supposed religious sensibilities. Obviously these sensibilities are non-existent except when it comes to controlling women's bodies.

And they also refuse to do the right thing when an economic argument is presented (money is saved by accepting the Medicaid expansion). Un-believable callousness and indifference that (for some) crosses the line into outright hate, IMO. Think I'm being hyperbolic? Ayn Rand hated the poor, and Mitten's VP choice Paul Ryan talked her up a lot (until it was pointed out to him that she was an atheist) [3].

Which explains why Mittens wanted Ryan (they had a shared hatred). Ryan's budget, the path to (increased) prosperity (for the rich on the backs of the poor), being proof of his hate for the less fortunate [4].

Footnotes
[1] Court Okays Republican Challenge To Arizona Medicaid Expansion (excerpt from a 12/31/2014 Daily Caller article by Sarah Hurtubise) 36 Republican state lawmakers are suing outgoing Republican Gov. Brewer over the legality of a hospital assessment which will fund Brewer's plan to expand Medicaid.
[2] Republican Lawmakers File Lawsuit Against Ohio Medicaid Expansion (excerpt from a HuffPo 10/23/2013 article by Mollie Reilly) The suit, filed with the Ohio Supreme Court... claims the Controlling Board acted in violation of the state legislature by approving the $2.56 billion appropriation of federal funds to expand Medicaid in the state. Governor John Kasich... turned to the board for approval after the GOP-controlled state legislature balked on the issue.
[3] See SWTD #303 (8/10/2015) Ayn Rand Took Great Delight In Killing Large Numbers of Fictional Moochers In Atlas Shrugged.
[4] Regarding my correct usage of the word hate in this commentary... many Republican politicians, if they are not simply indifferent to the plight of the poor, actively despise them and want to punish them for being poor. Republican voters, a not insignificant number of them being poor Southern Whites, are oblivious to this hate, instead voting R because the GOP panders to their hate for minorities and their misguided belief that the Bible says abortion is murder, which it does not. Although Repub politicos and their pluto masters have other reasons for wanting to control women.

Video: Kasich defends his Medicaid expansion and gets some applause, but the very fact that Megyn Kelly demanded an explanation from him in the first place? Helping poor people while citing God? No, many "Christian" Republicans don't find that acceptable.

SWTD #306

Ayn Rand Took Great Delight In Killing Large Numbers of Fictional Moochers In Atlas Shrugged

Ayn Rand's "philosophy" is nearly perfect in its immorality, which makes the size of her audience all the more ominous and symptomatic as we enter a curious new phase in our society... To justify and extol human greed and egotism is to my mind not only immoral, but evil ~ Gore Vidal (10/3/1925 to 7/31/2012) a political commentator, essayist and novelist who identified with the liberal politicians and the progressive social causes of the Democratic Party.

I think that this, the killing of worthless moochers and takers in her 1957 novel Atlas Shrugged (AS), shows that when Rand claimed (see video below) that she did not hate the poor, she lied. Haters usually deny that they're haters. Often they even deny it to themselves. So, even though Rand lied (to herself as well as the public) her writings show she hated poor people. People she referred to as "lice", "looters", "moochers", "parasites" and "takers".

For the record, I have not (nor do I ever intend to) read any of her fiction doorstops (or other published works). What follows are excerpts from articles I found online wherein the article author describes (and comments on) Rand's mass killings of fictional moochers.

when a railway worker in AS decides to punish the wicked socialist government by making a train crash happen, Rand implies the passengers had it coming. She runs through the politics of the train crash victims, implying they were accessories to the socialist government that is being justly punished... [one victim was] an elderly school teacher who spent her life turning class after class of helpless schoolchildren into miserable cowards, by teaching them that the will of the majority is the only standard of good and evil..." And so endlessly on, through over a dozen deserving victims. "There was not a man aboard the train who did not share one or more of their ideas", she notes - so let them burn. (excerpt from a 3/10/2009 HuffPo article by Johann Hari).

But this killing of an entire train full of moochers is just the beginning! The death toll rises considerably when the evil Galt character (the "hero") withdraws to his gulch, from which he encourages other rich a-holes to engage in acts of terror in order to overthrow the socialist government.

Calvin Atwood runs a monopoly for electrical power, and his "going Galt" cuts off the electrical supply for a solid third of North America. Thomas Hendricks' new surgical technique was pushed to the forefront due to government support, resulting in other methods of stroke prevention being ignored, and undeveloped, so when he "went Galt" he directly murdered thousands of people as a result. Atlas Shrugged is littered with these people. Ayn presented them as heroic figures, the same way in which Osama Bin Laden presented the 9/11 hijackers. In the end, these were common terrorists, common criminals, with John Galt at their head. The blood of millions stained theirs, and John Galt's, hands. (excerpt from John Galt Is A Terrorist by Nathaniel Downes. Addicting Info 12/29/2012).

Millions of looters dead, huh? Perhaps the "non productive people" deserved to die, given the fact that "society damned the wealthy for being productive by expropriating the fruits of their labor". Taxed them too much, in other words. Perhaps we should be thankful that the Koch plutocrats are only trying to buy the presidency and install their Wanker puppet, instead of hatching a plan to kill a significant number of people in order to stop society from cruelly damning them with a relatively low tax rate? (As the rich become super-rich, they pay lower taxes. For real).

In the video below, Rand says (re poor people) that we shouldn't "tailor everything for their convenience". "Convenience" being "the state of being able to proceed with something with little effort or difficulty". Yeah, it isn't difficult being poor at all. Even though it should be. We don't want the poor to get too comfortable in that social safety net hammock, right?

This would be the hammock that Paul Ryan referred to when he said "we don't want to turn the safety net into a hammock that lulls able-bodied people to lives of dependency and complacency, that drains them of their will and their incentive to make the most of their lives". However, as Paul Krugmann points out in his article The Hammock Fallacy, "Mr. Ryan and colleagues outright misstate what the research says" and that "the reason so many Americans remain trapped in poverty isn't that the government helps them too much; it's that it helps them too little".

Rand did not want to help poor people AT ALL, and so "opposed all forms of welfare" (Ryan's Ayn Rand obsession). If that isn't hate, it surely is total indifference and a complete lack of empathy.

But, as Rand gleefully killing large numbers of moochers in Atlas Shrugs shows, her disdain for the parasites clearly rises to the level of hate. "The best way to help the poor is to not be one of them", Rand says (quoting prosperity theologist Reverend Ike). She also wrote that if a man "does not choose to live, nature will take its course". Poor people who starve, freeze to death in the winter, or croak due to not being able to afford medical treatment have surely CHOSEN not to live, since it's possible (in Rand's view) to chose to not be poor.

So... there should be no welfare (at all) and if poor people choose to be poor nature will take it's course and they will die.

Video: Did Ayn Rand hate the poor? My verdict? Yes, she absolutely loathed them (1:14).

SWTD #303, ARHP #1.

I Agree With Paul Ryan, Says "Moderate" Idiot

There aren't enough rich people and small businesses to tax to pay for all their spending ~ VP candidate and United States Representative for Wisconsin's 1st congressional district Paul_Ryan (dob 1/21/1970) dissembles during the VP debate on 10/11/1012.

The following from blogger Willis Hart, a self described "Moderate", regarding the VP debate on Thursday 10/11/2012...

Willis Hart: Martha Raddatz asked Vice President Biden a very simple question tonight. She asked him what, other than raising taxes on the wealthy, would the Obama administration do to reduce the budget deficit. His hysterical response... was, "Just let the Bush tax-cuts for millionaires expire!" That was it. ...if [Biden] thinks that that's all that's necessary, then he is a total frigging idiot. (10/11/2013 AT 7:29pm).

Why? Because of the simple fact that raising taxes on the wealthy won't come close to making up the budget shortfall (he agrees with Paul Ryan, in other words). But what this "Moderate" fails to take into account is the positive effect that raising taxes on the wealthy will have on the economy. The government needs this money for programs to create jobs and stimulate the economy.

Historical data shows that during the times when taxes were the highest the economy did the best. In a 7/10/2010 article that asked the question, are low taxes exacerbating the recession, David Sirota points out that, "though the Reagan zeitgeist created the illusion that taxes stunt economic growth, the numbers prove that higher marginal tax rates generate more resources for the job-creating, wage-generating public investments (roads, bridges, broadband, etc.) that sustain an economy.

They also create economic incentives for economy-sustaining capital investment [because] the easiest way wealthy business owners can avoid high-bracket tax rates is by plowing their profits back into their businesses and taking the corresponding write-off rather than simply pocketing the excess cash and paying an IRS levy".

So, no, Joe Biden was not an idiot to emphasize the fact that raising taxes on the wealthy would reduce the budget deficit. It would, in fact, raise much more than the 70 billion dollars a year that the "Moderate" says can't possibly make much of a difference. This "Moderate" is in favor of gutting entitlements, raising the retirement age, and otherwise placing the burden of paying our debts largely onto the backs of the middle class and poor.

This "Moderate" fully endorses the Bowles-Simpson proposal that includes cutting the corporate tax rate and benefits for seniors. Regarding the proposal, commission member Rep. Jan Schakowsky said "Bowles-Simpson is touted by inside-the-Beltway pundits who think that cutting benefits for seniors who have an average income of $22,000 a year is the type of hard choice we need to be making". Schakowsky concluded "we should not and need not reduce the deficit on the backs of seniors and others who survive on a low income".

Schakowsky presented her own plan that increased government investments to grow the economy. This represents the Liberal perspective regarding capitalism. Capitalism is a flawed system of which results in wealth concentrating at the top. The solution isn't the other extreme (socialism), but a mixed system in which the government intervenes to level the playing field and prevent total plutocracy via redistributive programs.

Yet "Moderates" and Conservatives still buy into the fairy tale that is supply-side economics. Even though Reagan's OMB director David Stockman admitted that Reagan's tax cut was a "Trojan horse to bring down the top rate", we keep voting Republicans into office who want to cut taxes and deregulate. bush did it and the result was the Great Recession. Now Romney says that, because Obama didn't turn things around fast enough, the answer is more failed voodoo economics!

Although "Moderates" seek to strike a balance between raising taxes and slashing entitlement programs. But I agree with Rep. Schakowsky, who said "the plan [Bowles-Simpson] is anything but balanced". Any plan that proposes small tax increases (nobody dares suggest anything higher than the Clinton rates) and cuts in investments and entitlement programs isn't balanced or "moderate" in my opinion. It's Conservative.

Joe Biden was right to emphasize the necessity of raising taxes, especially with the fiscal cliff looming. The Democrats MUST not buckle under again and make a deal that does not include tax INCREASES on the wealthy, although drastically cutting military spending is, I think, a close second (so Joe Biden could have mentioned that, and did not). But that isn't what the "Moderate" wanted to hear. In his mind the only "serious" solution to bringing down the deficit is to cut entitlement cuts and raise the retirement age; and with that assessment I must disagree completely.

Proposals like Bowles-Simpson would hurt the middle class and negatively impact the economy, but the "Moderate" instead focuses on the "unfairness" of "taking" too much of a wealthy individual's income (it is, in fact, the primary focus of his blog). Me, I don't know how someone can call themselves "moderate" when they worry SO MUCH about the wealthy being "overtaxed". That's what Conservatives do.

That is one of the responses the "Moderate" post received. A conservative who calls himself "dmarks" described Obama's desire for the tax rates (at least for the wealthy) to go back to where they were under Clinton as "unnecessary" and "greedy". I say it is greedy to cut programs that benefit the middle class and poor, whether the advocate for that course of action is a "Moderate" who thinks taxes could be raised a few percentage points (but entitlement cuts are a necessity) or a Conservative who is dead set against any tax increase (and plans on voting for Romney and tax cuts).

SWTD #121, wDel #13.