More Government Power!
Why is it that about 99.99% of all bureaucrats despise freedom? I mean, they don’t appear to do it openly or knowingly, but if one takes an honest look at them, nearly every last one honestly hates freedom. Just look at all the proposals to “fix” the current economic “crisis.” Every last one involves taking away freedom from people. EVERY one.
On one level, I can understand these actions — bureaucrats want government solutions because they are government — the more government solutions, the bigger government gets, and the more their job is needed. After all, wouldn’t it be odd for a government bureaucrat to actually be honest and say, “Gee, folks, my job has no purpose. I think we should just disband this position and I’ll go work for a living instead.” I know, it’s not going to happen.
But that’s where we are today. Bureaucrats (which includes all government employees, yes, including teachers) have the exact same view on everything: only government can solve the problem. And the ONLY way government can do literally anything is to take away freedom from people. This new “nordic style” regulation is quite clear: you will have less freedom. Just one tiny part: you want to loan your brother some cash to buy a house? Sorry, you will not be allowed to do that because you didn’t ask permission from government to be a mortgage lender. No, seriously, that would be outlawed completely.
How about this friendly-sounding bureaucrat line:
It would give the Federal Reserve more power to protect the stability of the entire financial system while merging day-to-day bank supervision into one agency, down from five at present.
Gee, that sounds nice, doesn’t? It even sounds “conservative,” I think. “Protect.” “Stability.” “Merging.”
Well, what it really means is that government will expand exponentially to create new departments and divisions with oversight for current departments. The “protect” line means “to protect individuals from having the freedom to make risky investments in things they believe in.” Seriously, that will strongly crush the freedom of individuals to invest in anything that’s not government approved. Sorry, start-up firms, you’re not invited to start up in America — it’s just too risky. We can’t have people being innovative, someone might lose money.
“Stability” is right there, too. It means forcing the values of companies to stay more stagnant. It means telling companies that start to make a large profit and have their stock increase to STOP. It means limiting cash payouts on profits to stockholders because that might cause people to sell and other people to be jealous. That’s the bureaucrat definition for “stability.”
And how about “Merge?” Gee, how did that go with Homeland Security? Wasn’t that “merging” current departments to make the system more “streamlined?” Look what a nightmare that has become — a total jobs program for millions of unemployable people with no skills.
And the worst part — all these bureaucrats who set themselves up as experts (see algore) on everything, will talk to the average voter and convince them that without this freedom-crushing plan, it will be the end of the world. Indeed, things like this really make me think we are far beyond the point of no return. Freedom will simply not be permitted in the former “Land of the Free” — because too many people are now employed by government, and they all want government to expand — at the expense of the working people. The only thing left to ponder is how long before government collapses on itself because there’s not enough working people left to pay for all their “stable protection” schemes.
Popularity: 7% [?]
Possibly similar posts - Socialists DEMAND MORE for nothing - Welfare and the Poor - CMS: Punish the Responsible - Charlotte Government Fraud: a-ok - Spot the CMS Bureaucrat
Hi Ogre!!! Guess What? I just looked at the “Primary Rules” in Indiana and found out I can request either ballot as long as I’m a registered voter! I also found out that Ron Paul will be on the Republican ballot!!!
So here is my dilemma… do I vote on the Dem ballot to vote against that America hating Marxist Obama… or do I help send a message that McPain is not wanted?
I am thinking about throwing my vote away on Ron Paul. I mean the mainstream media has “chose our candidate for us already, but maybe it’s a good chance to stroke the GOP’s insecurities and send a message. I know my younger son is voting for Paul along with many of his friends. That is the only way we are going to put a stop to this nonsense government that keeps getting bigger and more restrictive on the basic freedoms our country was founded on! Whatcha think Ogre???
I still have that option, too. And I’m voting for Ron Paul!
I may post a notice to Indiana… just say no to McPain… Vote for Paul.
I think it’s quite interesting, because Ron Paul is still working with Republicans. He believes that the Republican Party can be saved and brought back to it’s small government roots. I’m not so sure.
Did you hear Alan Keyes may be running on the Constitution Party ticket this fall?
No, but yesterday they mentioned a Senator or former Senator Barr that has been talking about running 3rd Party so Conservatives would have a choice. Alan Keyes would be an interesting candidate! I’d like to see what kind of platform he would be running on.
Well, I went to Alan Keyes website and signed the pledge!!! What a fabulous option! He is simply the best qualified person I’ve seen as far as education and experience, and what wonderful values! You will see an email from my online Alan Keyes experience Ogre!
Thanks, I got the email.
From what I’ve heard Barr is looking to run on the Libertarian ticket. I just don’t see how that will help — Ron Paul already got all the Libertarian votes, and look how far he got.
Alan Keyes really is great — and that’s just his views — wait until you hear him speak. I heard a speech he gave on July 4th about America and gun rights. He will knock your socks off if you hear him speak! He could out-speak and debate any other the other three candidates — which is why they’ll never appear on stage with him.