Cool theory: Toy Story 3 a fable for our current political climate?

 

David Harsanyi at Reason.com breaks down the plot from Toy Story 3 and it certainly does sound a wee bit familiar:

Think about it. A slick sloganeering teddy bear convinces a gaggle of beleaguered toys that he holds the key to a brighter future. The toys, longing for leadership after years of broken promises and incompetence, uncritically submit to the teddy bears vision.

Before long, even non-Ivy Leaguers like Mr. Potato Head, Rex, and Slinky catch on. All creeds of plaything are forced to sacrifice liberty and happiness for the collective good—as imagined by a technocratic leader, his feckless vice-leader (a Ken doll), and their muscle (a giant baby doll).

First there is concern and then anger and then revolt. Even Barbie—having shown no interest in political activism for more than 50 years—unleashes the best line in the history of animated films: “Authority should derive from the consent of the governed, not from the threat of force!”

Sacrificing “liberty and happiness for the collective good” has been the hidden foundation of the Obama agenda ever since he slipped up with the wealth redistribution comment to Joe the Plumber. The focus on the “collective good” and being our brothers keepers has been the common denominator in everything from healthcare and financial reform to the mortgage bailouts. Punishing success and rewarding failure has been the subliminal theme in just about everything this administration has done.

And, come to think of it, the “consent of the governed” has been noticeably absent in the majority of President Obama’s moves throughout his first 18 months as POTUS, as he has been successful in pushing unpopular legislation down the throats of an unwilling electorate.

We currently live in an age where the government knows what’s best for all us apparently, no matter how much us drooling idiots may disagree and yeah, Toy Story 3 does a pretty good job of subconsciously putting that fact out there.…

74% of Americans believe the Obama stimulus either damaged the economy or had no effect at all

Smart people, those Americans. It seems as if they’re not buying the complete bullshit rhetoric coming out of Washington that the economy is heading in the right direction and that the stimulus worked economic wonders. Near 10% unemployment, record deficits, and a $13,000,000,000,000 national debt will tend to do that, but I digress.

Anyway, a new poll released today at CBS shows Americans dont really believe that spending close to a $trillion on repaving roads that didn’t need to be repaved worked all the economic magic theyve been told:

Twenty-three percent say the stimulus package made the economy better – down from 32 percent in April and 36 percent last September. Eighteen percent say the stimulus package damaged the economy, while 56 percent say it had no effect.

The presidents job approval rating on the economy now stands at 40 percent – a drop of five points from last month. Fifty-four percent disapprove of his handling of the issue.

And the overall mood on the economy as a whole is in the gutter:

Most also say President Obama has spent too little time on the economy, which Americans cite as the countrys most important problem by a wide margin.

Three in four Americans now say the effects of the recession will last another two years or more. More than eight in 10 say the condition of the economy is bad, up five points from last month.

Just 25 percent of Americans say the economy is getting better – down from 41 percent in April. About half say it is staying the same, and the remaining quarter say it is getting worse.

So, it appears as if real-life economic misery has trumped the deceptive, misleading, and often blatantly untrue words of economic joy from Team Obama.…

WaPo-ABC Poll: Confidence in Obama reaches new low

 

Again:

Public confidence in President Obama has hit a new low, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll. Four months before midterm elections that will define the second half of his term, nearly six in 10 voters say they lack faith in the president to make the right decisions for the country, and a clear majority once again disapproves of how he is dealing with the economy.

It’s safe to assume that the general electorate now thinks that Captain Kick Ass is in over his head, especially with his cataclysmic failure in showing any leadership ability during the worst environmental disaster in our history. An epic failure by any measure – outside of MSNBC of course.

But does the electorate really think Obama now owns from CBS the economy and not the “previous administration?” Maybe not, you say? From CBS:

Mr. Obama’s approval rating on the economy has tumbled five percentage points from last month, according to a new CBS News poll, with just 40 percent of those polled expressing full confidence in his actions.

More than half of those questioned (54 percent) said they disapproved of Mr. Obama’s handling of the economy. Last month, 45 percent approved. The drop in approval has been seen mostly among independents, just 35 percent of whom now say they approve.

Let’s not forget, independents got this clown elected and he’s basically lost them all to this point. A complete lack of leadership and horrendous economic policies, with even more horrendous results will tend to do that. Throw in amateurish foreign policy and a complete disconnect to the American people and you, my Democratic friends, have a disaster of your own to deal with.

The fact of the matter is this: Barack Obama got elected due to tremendous hype, much of which included a tenet of hope and change, as well as a promise to govern from the center and bring the parties together. The latter certainly hasn’t happened – this president has been the most divisive in our history – and all the hope and change he has brought thus far has resulted in close to 10% unemployment and an economy that is heading into a double dip recession.

I’m hearing footsteps, people. Could those be Hillary’s footsteps?…

Eric Holder: Chief Coward in that “nation of cowards” he speaks of

 

The U.S. Department of Justice is planning an independent review of the Johannes Mehserle case in Oakland in order to determine whether or not the shooting warrants federal prosecution, even though the state has already found the police officer guilty of involuntary manslaughter. This is the case where the officer claimed he reached for his Taser and instead, mistakenly grabbed his gun and shot the guy dead.

Terrible situation, no doubt, but Ace raises a good point:

I suppose if the case is merely “reviewed,” and then the Justice Department finds that the shooting was just as the jury called it, this could have some positive effect: ameliorating current passions while not doing much to cause additional injustice.

Still, I cant help but note that the “facts and evidence” did not support any sort of case against the guilty-as-sin New Black Panthers, but here weve got a white guy, found guilty of a serious crime (involuntary manslaughter), and Eric Holder needs a look-see at this case.

A nation of cowards, eh? You know, one misstep I never thought the Obama Administration would make was a determination to insert itself into high-profile racially-charged situations (and to pander to his community activist sort of radical buddies). I just thought he was smarter than that.

But race is like catnip to these guys. They cant help themselves.

I’m no legal scholar, but if Holder pursues the case – again – wouldn’t that in effect be an example of double jeopardy? I’m guessing some sort of loophole between state and federal prosecution exists, but still, the guy was convicted of involuntary manslaughter at the state level. And wouldn’t one think that the Attorney General had more pressing matters to pursue than a review of a case that has already convicted someone of a crime?

Regardless, the hypocrisy is apocalyptic in nature and is, without a doubt, entirely based on race. Eric Holder is the face of a Justice Department overcome with an uber-liberal and racist tone, and the man has evolved into a complete embarrassment to the department he leads.

Eric Holder needs to resign. Pronto.…

The real reason LeBron went to Miami: Big government and tax-happy politicians

In what turned out to be a circus of an announcement, Lebron James chose Miami over numerous other NBA teams, including his former team in Cleveland. By league rules, Cleveland had the ability to offer James more money than anyone. If Lebron James had stayed in Cleveland however, he would have actually made less – even though he was getting paid more – than he would in Miami due to state and city income taxes hed have to pay in Cleveland. CNBC has the breakdown:

…if you match up what James’ salary would be for the first five years in Cleveland and the five years in Miami, you find that the Cavaliers are only offering him $4 million more.

That advantage gets erased — and actually gives the Heat the monetary edge over — when you consider the income tax difference. …

Playing in Cleveland, LeBron would face a state income tax of 5.925 percent, plus a Cleveland city tax of two percent.

Over the first five years of a new contract with Cleveland, James would give back $3,953,060 combined to the state and city for the 41 games each season he’d play at home. But James would have to pay none of that for home games in Miami since Florida doesn’t have an income tax.

Athletes have to pay income taxes to states that they play in on the road, so the games he’ll play away from home — whether he played for Cleveland or Miami — are essentially a wash.

But there are, on average, 11 away games per season where James would have to pay Ohio and Cleveland taxes. Why? Because he has to pay when he plays in the six areas – Florida, Texas, Washington D.C., Illinois, Toronto and Tennessee – that have no jock taxes.

That’s another $1,061,128 he’ll have to pay in taxes that he wouldn’t have to pay in Miami.

Sure, James would be guaranteed one more year if he signed with Cleveland, but unless the business of basketball supremely changes, you have to believe James will be worth as much at the end of the 2014-15 season as he is now.

So if you match up the five years in Cleveland to five years in Miami, and include Florida’s tax advantage, LeBron would actually make $1,014,188 over five years with the Heat than he would with the Cavaliers.

This should come as no surprise though. We’ve been seeing a mass exodus of wealthy individuals in states that have treated the successful as never ending troughs of tax revenue. New York and New Jersey tax policies for instance, have lead to a big shift in wealth to states with no income tax – like Florida and Texas. According to one recent study, New Jersey alone lost nearly $70 billion in net wealth from 2004 to 2008 because fewer rich people moved in than out and one of the main reasons identified for that has been the state’s obscene taxes on the wealthy.

Regardless, just add the disappointment of Cleveland and New York Knick fans in not landing LeBron James to the long list of unintended consequences of big government and liberal policy.…