Canaries and coal mines

So the French have no stomach for austerity measures. Do we? This would seem a good gauge: if we aren’t capable of cutting the truly unnecessary, then those who feel robbed of their free goodies will rise up a la Cloward-Piven to ensure future reward. Via Hot Air, a test of intestinal fortitude for the GOP:

Say — how’d you like to get a free cellphone?  No strings attached, no contracts, and no payments ever.  Don’t stop at one phone, either — get two, three, five, ten, twenty or more!  The cost is covered by people who are dumb enough to pay for their own cell phones … like you and me.  We’ve been doing it for a decade or more, and it’s now costing us over a billion dollars a year, as Rep. Tim Griffin (R-AR) argues as he fights to bring the program to a halt.

Griffin doesn’t plan on cutting the subsidized landline access–which doeshave safety implications–but cellular only. Even then, will the GOP survive the onslaught of taking-granny’s-phone-away media? Or are we finally able to stand up to false vilification?

“Like, YAY” generation willing to trade “like, liberty” for that pack of free birth control pills

I can’t shake this out of my head.

Pundette posted this gem among many yesterday of a college crowd’s response to a Romney rally [emphasis hers]:

But there was no indication that Romney’s message resonated. Some of those watching called out “Obama 2012.” The first question was pointed: “So you’re all for like, yay, freedom, and all this stuff,” a woman said. “And yay, like pursuit of happiness. You know what would make me happy? Free birth control.”

Young white college gals ain’t so different from the black folks who wanted the free Obama money. Except they’re willing to sell their liberty for easy sex.

Read the rest and wince at what 40 years of like, feminist drivel and like, abysmal education systems have wrought: young ladies willing to prostitute themselves, for like, free!

(On a side note, I wonder what the young lady in question would say if she like, thought about the consequences of “free” birth control so freely given by the state. Like what happens when those free pills don’t work and you’re forced into free abortions? Or forced sterilization? I’m sure she doesn’t worry about such like, atrocities now, but maybe if she read the news she would. Or maybe not.)

Related: Allahpundit‘s palate cleanser isn’t a far stretch for the “like, yay” generation, Onion or not.

Supercuts stylishly affordable

Oh, how the mighty have fallen.

Apparently John Edwards coifs his mane at Supercuts for $12.95 these days, a far cry from the $1,250 he spent per cut during the heady days of the ’08 campaign.

And as Styleite notes, his hair looks no different.

Ouch!

Change: “the job prospects for bachelor’s degree holders fell last year to the lowest level in more than a decade.”

Lesson learned for college kids? Will they know to blame GW for their employment woes? I’m sure. Via memeorandum, the AP reports:

The college class of 2012 is in for a rude welcome to the world of work.

A weak labor market already has left half of young college graduates either jobless or underemployed in positions that don’t fully use their skills and knowledge.

Young adults with bachelor’s degrees are increasingly scraping by in lower-wage jobs — waiter or waitress, bartender, retail clerk or receptionist, for example — and that’s confounding their hopes a degree would pay off despite higher tuition and mounting student loans.

An analysis of government data conducted for The Associated Press lays bare the highly uneven prospects for holders of bachelor’s degrees.

Opportunities for college graduates vary widely.

While there’s strong demand in science, education and health fields, arts and humanities flounder. Median wages for those with bachelor’s degrees are down from 2000, hit by technological changes that are eliminating midlevel jobs such as bank tellers. Most future job openings are projected to be in lower-skilled positions such as home health aides, who can provide personalized attention as the U.S. population ages.

We know a wonderful young man about to graduate from a major state  university. He’s fortunate enough, however, to be leaving school debt-free thanks to a ROTC scholarship. And oh, he’s guaranteed a job as a newly-minted 2nd Lieutenant in the Army with an in-demand BS.

He didn’t vote for Obama, either. Go figure, eh? The kids willing to work for what they want–rather than taking the liberal bait that they’re owed something–are the ones who will emerge successful and debt-free. If only we could all be so savvy.

More from the article:

Taking underemployment into consideration, the job prospects for bachelor’s degree holders fell last year to the lowest level in more than a decade.

“I don’t even know what I’m looking for,” says Michael Bledsoe, who described months of fruitless job searches as he served customers at a Seattle coffeehouse. The 23-year-old graduated in 2010 with a creative writing degree.

Initially hopeful that his college education would create opportunities, Bledsoe languished for three months before finally taking a job as a barista, a position he has held for the last two years. In the beginning he sent three or four resumes day. But, Bledsoe said, employers questioned his lack of experience or the practical worth of his major. Now he sends a resume once every two weeks or so.

Bledsoe, currently making just above minimum wage, says he got financial help from his parents to help pay off student loans. He is now mulling whether to go to graduate school, seeing few other options to advance his career. “There is not much out there, it seems,” he said.

Emphasis my own. What a shame no one told Bledsoe that the practical worth of his major amounted to next to nothing. He is pictured with a nose ring and giant gauges in his ears. Call me old-fashioned, but I wonder how his appearance plays into his inability to garner more than a minimum wage job. (Hint: remove the jewelry, dude!) Further, he asked his parents for money to pay his loans rather than trying to find another low-paying job. No wonder it sounds like a great idea to stack up more debt! Go get that MFA!

Spreading that wealth

Bits and pieces. Via Washington Examiner, Obama obfuscates his intent:

President Obama, who famously called for tax increases on the wealthy to “spread the wealth around,” denied today that his tax increases on the rich are an attempt to “redistribute wealth.”

“So these investments — in things like education and research and health care — they haven’t been made as some grand scheme to redistribute wealth from one group to another,” the president said today at Florida Atlantic University. “This is not some socialist dream,” Obama added, as he called for tax increases on millionaires today to pay for those investments.

A reminder:

When he advocated the same plan in 2008, though, Obama described this “spread the wealth around” policy.  “I’m gonna cut taxes a little bit more for the folks who are most in need and for the 5 percent of the folks who are doing very well – even though they’ve been working hard and I appreciate that – I just want to make sure they’re paying a little bit more in order to pay for those other tax cuts,” he told Samuel Wurzelbacher (aka Joe the Plumber), who is now running for Congress.

Too bad that wealth doesn’t run very deep. Allahpundit: Just a reminder: “Buffett Rule” that Obama won’t stop talking about is aimed mainly at around 400 taxpayers.

400. But who’s counting when all we’re doing is stripping their money away to help others sit on their duffs. Chris Christie nailed it:

Christie said he hasn’t seen a less optimistic period in the country in his lifetime.

“Government’s telling them stop dreaming, stop striving, we’ll take care of you,” he said at a theater at the New York Historical Society. “We’re turning into a paternalistic entitlement society. That will not just bankrupt us financially, it will bankrupt us morally.”

“We’ll have a bunch of people sitting on a couch waiting for their next government check,” Christie said.

It already has bankrupted us morally. Half of the populace takes from the other and is still allowed to vote for more handouts. I’d call that bankrupt.

Is Romney strong enough to make the necessary contrast with redistributionist Obama? Oremus.

 

White House scrubs story of Malia’s jaunt to Mexico for all the wrong reasons

It’s not the security threat. The press treatment of the Bush twins proves that.

It’s the moolah.

Everyone knows how much money Michelle likes to spend on her little jaunts outside the White House. The apple doesn’t fall too far from the tree, eh? It’s not that Americans are warned against all travel to Mexico. It’s the 25 Secret Service agents and 3 armored vehicles that accompanied the young Obama. No wonder the other parents let their kids go on a “school trip.” They had security provided by yokels like you and me.

Unreal.

When do facts ever matter to liberal (Congressmen, no less)?

Charlie Rangel can’t help himself. Via Hot Air, a choice tidbit of liberal nonsense from The Hill:

Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) on Wednesday called for the redistribution of America’s riches and hammered the wealthy for benefitting from a war effort fought by the poor and middle class.…

Rangel offered no specific remedy for adjusting those figures during his comments on the House floor, but argued further that the wealthiest one percent have the added benefit of not needing to get involved in military service.

“Why is it that we know, or that we can suspect, that in this war where we lost so many lives, that so many people have been wounded, that our brave men and women coming home will subject themselves with a lack of funds to deal with their physical or mental problems?” he asked. “Any yet we somehow know that that 1 percent was not involved in defending our great nation.”

“We can almost know without any investigation that the wealthiest of Americans never found themselves protecting our flag,” he added.

Truth matters not to liberals, especially when invoking the 99%. They want socialism because it’s the greatest. Who cares about truth? When confronted with it, they deny vociferously.

In Rangel’s case, The Heritage Foundation has debunked this mythology for years. A refresher from last month:

Who serves? It isn’t the poorest of the poor with no other option

Quite the contrary. From the WSJ [emphasis mine]:

In 2008, using data provided by the Defense Department, the Heritage Foundation found that only 11% of enlisted military recruits in 2007 came from the poorest one-fifth, or quintile, of American neighborhoods (as of the 2000 Census), while 25% came from the wealthiest quintile. Heritage reported that “these trends are even more pronounced in the Army Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) program, in which 40% of enrollees come from the wealthiest neighborhoods, a number that has increased substantially over the past four years.

Indeed, the Heritage report showed that “low-income families are underrepresented in the military and high-income families are overrepresented. Individuals from the bottom household income quintile make up 20.0 percent of Americans who are age 18-24 years old but only 10.6 percent of the 2006 recruits and 10.7 percent of the 2007 recruits. Individuals in the top two quintiles make up 40.0 percent of the population, but 49.3 percent of the recruits in both years.

Go figure. I guess Rangel doesn’t read The Journal. Nor does he–or any liberal for that matter–care about the blatant lie of perpetuating demonstrated untruths on the House floor no less.  Never forget the mantra of liberalism: All’s fair in the name of wealth redistribution

H/t: Pundette.

A Pundette ”Recommended Read.” Thanks!

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 342 other followers