NY Times Wonders If It’s Bad Enough For Ya

More navel gazing,  generalized hatred of police, and denigration of America

(NY Times) THE police killing unarmed civilians. Horrifying income inequality. Rotting infrastructure and an unsafe “safety net.” An inability to respond to climate, public health and environmental threats. A food system that causes disease. An occasionally dysfunctional and even cruel government. A sizable segment of the population excluded from work and subject to near-random incarceration.

You get it: This is the United States, which, with the incoming Congress, might actually get worse.

So,  let me get this straight: things suck big time under Comrade Obama, who’s had a friendly Senate his entire time in office (and Dems had same Senate since 2007), and had the House his first 2 years. Big Government keeps getting bigger and more intrusive. More domineering. More controlling. More tyrannical. Exactly as Progressives want. And we see that with this Progressivism things Don’t Work Well. But, somehow, they might get worse when the Party that wants to reduce the size and scope of government takes over the Senate?

Everything affects everything. It’s all tied together, and the starting place hardly matters: A just and righteous system will have a positive impact on everything we care about, just as an unjust, exploitative system makes everything worse.

Of course,  Progressives have very different opinions of that. And we’re seeing the results. Michael Walsh notes that the article is “also a handy guide to every left-liberal cause du jour, a primal scream of hate against the society that continues to frustrate the Left with its stubborn moral rejection of their Marxist principles”.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

3 Responses to “NY Times Wonders If It’s Bad Enough For Ya”

  1. Jeffery says:

    As predicted, the “attack” by Blacks on the Bosnian woman is St. Louis was a bizarre lie.

    http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/st-louis-bosnian-woman-who-claimed-hate-crime-charged-with/article_2d835f8c-5385-5c5d-9496-de7b6559070f.html

    Also, the troubles in the US with income and wealth inequality didn’t start in 2009 but have been developing the last 35 years. It was no accident either. Government policies – from Repubs and Dems have steadily rewarded the wealthy at the expense of the poor and middle classes. The current spending bill that just passed Congress and that Obama has agreed to sign, rewards Wall Street once again at the same time gutting some pension plans. “According to a team at Bloomberg News, at one point last year (2009) the U.S. had lent, spent or guaranteed as much as $12.8 trillion to rescue the economy.” The “too big to fail” guarantee is worth billions a year. Wall Street keeps the profits; taxpayers eat the losses.

    Are you ready to spend a few trillion dollars on our crumbling infrastructure? New roads, bridges, IT infrastructure, power grid, schools… In fact, can you think of one thing that conservatives can do to America to make things better? Cut taxes on the wealthy and cut government spending?

  2. john says:

    Teach the number of government workers has fallen by over a million under Obama
    How is this a bigger government? Are you suggesting that the remaining workers are now working harder for their pay?
    Didnt government grow under Bush and shrink under Obama?

  3. gitarcarver says:

    Teach the number of government workers has fallen by over a million under Obama

    The OPM disagrees with you john. In fact, not only are you wrong, you’re not even in the same ballpark.

    How is this a bigger government?

    Because “bigger government” also applies to the influence government has over people. There has been a great increase in federal regulations that are not passed by Congress.

    Didnt government grow under Bush and shrink under Obama?

    Well, let’s see….

    In only one month of Mr. Bush’s presidency was the federal workforce larger than it was during the month of Mr. Obama’s presidency when the federal workforce was at its smallest. With the exception of that one month, Mr. Obama’s minimum is larger than Mr. Bush’s maximum.

Bad Behavior has blocked 9022 access attempts in the last 7 days.