Friday, October 22, 2010

Atlas Shrugged (and Ayn Rand and George Orwell Chuckle)

This graph is self-explanatory.  Obamanomics is defined as borrowing money that becomes the debt obligation of the taxpaying middle class - and is catastrophically unpayable - to enable the Government to hire 100's of thousands of people and put them to work doing either unnecessary or unaffordable tasks.  This is a massive transfer of wealth out of the pockets of honest, privately employed citizens.  In that it guarantees more votes and political support from unions and public employees for those in power, this is right out of the playbook of Ayn Rand and George Orwell.


  1. To put George Orwell in the same sentence as Ayn Rand could cause George to roll over in his grave so fast that it might cause a black hole.

    It's like comparing William Shakespeare to Groucho Marx.

    1. Wow, Jackass. You have it backwards.

    2. Orwell was a visionary, a prophet. He warned us all, and he was right.

      Ayn Rand was a greedy, self-centered bitch, and she couldn't write to save her life.


  2. ROFLMAO. A lot of people feel the way you do about Ayn Rand. I don't see the comparison between her and Orwell quite as extreme as that between Shakespeare and Groucho lol.

    I definitely agree that the plot construction in Atlas Shrugged is inordinately sophomoric. But some of the key speeches are outright brilliant. The pontification about money by Francisco is epic, as is the long speech over the radio by John Galt. The ending was definitely lame.

  3. i'd be curious to see a decades view of this chart. govt spending is no more out of today as it was before obama took office. tarp had still guaranteed some 23.7 Trillion even before he took office.

    given, he's a fraud and a liar, and doeasn't have a vertebra in his back, nor do any of his economic "advisers" who were part of the very reason we're in thie financial/economic/currency un-kosher dill pickle in the first place.

    but it disappoints me to read you use a term like "obamanomics" when we both know that both parties are the cause of this. terms like that give many the idea that they just have to choose the other party, which is what has gotten us into this mess for over 150 years since Lincoln helped knock out the Whigs with the Republican party (a far cry from the values of Republican politicians from today).

    would it be possible to talk about debt policies on the whole, of both administrations? so that people can see that both parties are lying and helping to defraud them/us?

    thanks for the consideration.


  4. Actually, the budget deficit and the debt as % of real, real inflation-adjusted GDP are both even more out of control under Obama than they were under Bush. Granted, Obama jumped on a moving freight train without any working breaks on it. HOWEVER, Obama rode into office on clear, articulated, fancy speech-making promises of CHANGING the course of Government and our country. Remember that? Not only is he NOT changing a god damn thing, his policies are making everything WORSE. And I'm not saying that it would have been any different under ANY other candidate OTHER THAN RON PAUL. But that's why RP only gets 5% of the vote. That's about the % of the population which understands the problems and understands what it will take to confront the TRUTH and to really CHANGE the course of this country.

    Barring that, it is fait accompli that we will eventually collapse. The rest is just noise.

  5. yeah, dave, i don't doubt that this has gotten worse under the obama regime; what i'm positing is that presidents are not in control. many of us who know washington and know the insiders obama was rubbing shoulders with even more than a year before the election, as well as his advisors, nearly ALL of them were those who had helped precipitate these various crises in the first place.

    in other words, bush, obama, etc., don't matter unless the oligopoly and ruling financial elite and disparity in wealth issues are solved, and these are ultimately monetary issues built into our system.

    ron paul does get this stuff, but i'm not sure he's the guy either. but his description of the problem is pretty accurate. though i tend to differentiate DEscription adn PREscription and always dissociate one from the other when analyzing a particular theory's merit.

    though to make my position clear: the situation is getting worse because those who run things in NYC, London, Washington, Switzerland, and the like, are either losing control of this moving freight train, or they're guiding it in this fashion. I can make good arguments both I prefer to wait and see the outcome, which usually answers those questions.

  6. Wow, you've missed the biggest point of Orwell. That TOTALITARIAN governments (whether communist or capitalist) are inherently evil. Totalitarian governments want to control every aspect of your private and public life...what you say and do in your own home as well as in public...and power is concentrated within a small group of political elite... - No you cannot have an abortion, you cannot have sex with another man, you cannot worship the god of your choice, you may not marry who you choose. You may not live where you want, etc.

    It has nothing to do with CORPORATE freedom. Ayn Rand on the other hand takes more of a libertarian tac, in that people AND corporations should be allowed to do whatever they want, even if your actions oppress others....selfishness is the rule. Me first.

    No, they shouldn't be used in the same sentence. Orwell is a genius, Ayn Rand a hypocrite who spoke vehemently against Government benefits, but collected social security in her old age. She also despised anyone who wasn't rich. She believed in "the privilege of the wealthy and demonized not only the slothful, undeserving poor but the lackluster middle-classes as well."

    No, they should not be mentioned in the same sentence.

    1. Wow, you've missed the biggest point of Rand. She resembles a libertarian not one iota... try reading her philosophical essays on Rational Self Interest, a selfishness which you confuse with the more commonly used negative definitions. She advocates this rationality, as well as individualism and self actualization... as does the Bill of Rights and our Constitution. She vehemently denounces oppression of any group or individual by ANYONE, be it corporations or government.
      I challenge you to quote accurately any paragraph whereas she declares to despise anyone who isnt rich. She also states numerous times that the self made men of the middle class are the very best of men, to be admired and aspired towards.
      Ms. Rand had her wealth expropriated, unconstitutionally, and against her will, by a statist government in the form of Social Security Taxation. Were I to state that I was against robbery, would I be compromised if the theives finally brought back a small sum of that stolen and I accepted it? It was mine to begin with... and it doesnt make me (or her) a hipocrite to continue denouncing robbery.
      Read "Philosophy, who needs It", "The Return Of The Primitive" "The Romantic Manifesto" or any of her other essays BEFORE you pass comments on what she means or says... otherwise, you just paint yourself a fool and add to the white noise of ignorance.

    2. Sigh... another retard straw-man'ing Rand. Surprise surprise.