Posted on 10/23/2013 10:56:09 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
If you hire someone to build a house for you, you’re gonna check on its progress at least a few times before completion - after all, you’ve got thousands of dollars invested.
Now consider ObamaCare - the Admin has MILLIONS of dollars invested, really big money, and we’re expected to believe there were NO check-ups or progress reports at all?
Either this Admin is completely and totally clueless when it comes to any sort of policy execution - a distinct possibility - or they’re lying, they knew all along this project would be problem-plagued and ignored it.
I’m guessing the latter, although “all of the above” is definitely applicable with this bunch’o’bozos.
And if you think things are bad now...remember, you're only just getting started.
What didn't Obama know and when didn't he know it ".....Do we see a pattern developing here? Barack Obama is the most spectacularly uninformed president in history. Or, he's a baldfaced liar. Every potentially embarrassing scandal finds our president totally in the dark, betrayed by incompetent (or criminal) aides and advisors. How can it be his fault if he didn't know?......"
Hey Obama, you built that!
Hayek Was Right: The Worst Do Get to the Top
FEBRUARY 01, 1998 by LAWRENCE W. REED
In spite of freedom’s remarkable, global progress in recent years—from the collapse of the Soviet empire to the growth of “privatization”—there is no sign yet of a shortage of statists with silly and destructive schemes. The best explanation of why and how such people get into positions of power is still found in “Why the Worst Get on Top,” which is chapter ten of F. A. Hayek’s masterpiece, The Road to Serfdom.
When Hayek wrote his best-known book in 1944, the world was captivated by the notion of socialist central planning. While almost everyone in Europe and America decried the brutality of nazism, fascism, and communism, public opinion was being shaped and molded by an intelligentsia which held that these “excesses” of socialism were avoidable exceptions. If only we make sure the right people are in charge, said the statist intellectuals, the iron fist will dissolve into a velvet glove.
Those who, in Hayek’s words, “think that it is not the system which we need fear, but the danger that it might be run by bad men,” are naïve utopians who will forever be disappointed by the socialist outcome. Indeed, this is the history of twentieth-century statism—the endless search for a place where the dream might actually be made to work, settling on a spot until disaster is embarrassingly apparent to all, then blaming persons rather than the system and flitting off to the next inevitable disappointment. Perhaps someday, the dictionary definition of “statist” may read, “Someone who learns nothing from human nature, economics, or experience, and repeats the same mistakes over and over again without a care for the rights and lives of people he crushes with his good intentions.”
Even the worst features of the statist reality, Hayek showed, “are not accidental byproducts” but phenomena that are part and parcel of statism itself. He argued with great insightfulness that “the unscrupulous and uninhibited are likely to be more successful” in any society in which government is seen as the answer to most problems. They are precisely the kind of people who elevate power over persuasion, force over cooperation. Government, possessing by definition a legal and political monopoly of the use of force, attracts them just as surely as dung draws flies. Ultimately, it is the apparatus of government that allows them to wreak their havoc on the rest of us.
Hardly a day goes by that, a half-century after Hayek wrote, the newspapers fail to provide new examples of the worst getting to the top.
...
http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/hayek-was-right-the-worst-do-get-to-the-top/#axzz2IcdUF6vD
http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/hayek-was-right-the-worst-do-get-to-the-top/#axzz2IcdUF6vD
If you like FUBO-Ware 1.0, you’ll love FUBO-Care .1
One thing I noticed is that many Venezuelans who opposed Chavez expressed disappointment at the way he failed to keep his promises, or failed to rise to his historic opportunity. In other words, they were against what Chavez turned out to be, but not what he promised to be.
What they could not understand was the fact that he made those promises, and intended to run roughshod over the country to keep them, guaranteed the horrorshow of an outcome. Looking for a man like Chavez to turn things around by force set the stage for all the abuses that followed.
Which means they are doomed to live this again and again.
In our own country, the problem with Obama isn't that he is incompetent, or failed to do a good job of transforming America. The problem is that he wanted to do it, was willing to run roughshod over the country to do it, and the bigger problem is that at least half of the country was in favor of him doing it. Which guarantees that it will happen again. We'll eventually rid ourselves of Obama. But the half of America that wants what he is selling will still be there.
I wonder how many Republican legislators have read Hayek? I’m betting, not too many.
I didn't know she wrote a book.
P.S. You're welcome, guys.
Isn't that what Napoleon said after Waterloo?
5.56mm
I don't see a book in that picture. I must be missing something.
5.56mm
Ok, but seriously......
This is a video everyone should show their kids.....
The Road to Serfdom (In Cartoons)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QD75lUm51s
You can already see the beginnings.
But Obama tells me that this same thing happens to Apple.
Because you and your boss are MORONS!!!!
Socialists have never anticipated the scale of problems when implementing their ideological agenda. They need only look at the history of the USSR to see that it just doesn't work in practice. And they believe they are so educated. Obviously history was not on their curriculum.
Funny how they jumped all over Bush for not anticipating the problems in Iraq but they use the same excuse for their own issues.
It’s human nature. A society can only have a small number of natural leaders and a majority that are natural followers. It is genetic. A species that depended upon cooperation, yet that didn’t have mostly blind followers, would be doomed. Judging the quality of those leaders is not a genetic imperative, either, for that too would doom that cooperative species.
Yes, we are destined to live this again and again. Liberals, the majority of whom are blind followers, incapable of truly independent thought, are unfortunately a necessity (or at least were, for the majority of human existence). Of course, there are a small number of liberals who do have the natural capacity for independent thought and leadership, but they tend to be highly manipulative, selfish, and narcissistic.
It is why truly free societies are such a rarity, and always will be.
Rush is making a great point about "they knew how awful this was going to be" - it's why Obama gave out all those waivers to his "friends" and supporters.
Can’t manage a website, but qualified to manage nationwide health care system.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.