Our Modern Day Stone Age Family, the Koch's.

Believe it or not, we've been seeing the moderate side of the Koch brothers political agenda. 

After looking at the Libertarian Party platform from 1980, where David Koch ran as the vice presidential candidate, it's obvious we're not dealing with mature adults with any sense of responsibility. They are adolescent bullies free to do whatever, with no supervision. To support a candidate based on a few of the ideological points below supports the passage of every point below. We would have nothing left to hold up a functioning society, or for that matter, a consumer class. It's a wonder they still live in the U.S..

Prepare to be amazed:

“We urge the repeal of federal campaign finance laws, and the immediate abolition of the despotic Federal Election Commission.” 

“We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs.” 

“We oppose any compulsory insurance or tax-supported plan to provide health services, including those which finance abortion services.” 

“We also favor the deregulation of the medical insurance industry.” 

“We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system. Pending that repeal, participation in Social Security should be made voluntary.” 

“We propose the abolition of the governmental Postal Service. The present system, in addition to being inefficient, encourages governmental surveillance of private correspondence. Pending abolition, we call for an end to the monopoly system and for allowing free competition in all aspects of postal service.” 

“We oppose all personal and corporate income taxation, including capital gains taxes.”

“We support the eventual repeal of all taxation.” 

“As an interim measure, all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion should be terminated immediately.” 

“We support repeal of all law which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws.” 

“We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Government schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended.” 

“We condemn compulsory education laws … and we call for the immediate repeal of such laws.” 

“We support the repeal of all taxes on the income or property of private schools, whether profit or non-profit.” 

“We support the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency.” 

“We support abolition of the Department of Energy.” 

“We call for the dissolution of all government agencies concerned with transportation, including the Department of Transportation.” 

“We demand the return of America's railroad system to private ownership. We call for the privatization of the public roads and national highway system.” 

“We specifically oppose laws requiring an individual to buy or use so-called "self-protection" equipment such as safety belts, air bags, or crash helmets.” 

“We advocate the abolition of the Federal Aviation Administration.” 

“We advocate the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration.” 

“We support an end to all subsidies for child-bearing built into our present laws, including all welfare plans and the provision of tax-supported services for children.” 

“We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and ‘aid to the poor’ programs. All these government programs are privacy-invading, paternalistic, demeaning, and inefficient. The proper source of help for such persons is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.”

“We call for the privatization of the inland waterways, and of the distribution system that brings water to industry, agriculture and households.” 

“We call for the repeal of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.” 

“We call for the abolition of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.” 

“We support the repeal of all state usury laws.”

Rand Paul Disaster Capitalist!!!

Detroit’s bankruptcy is an opportunist’s wet dream.

And Sen. Rand Paul smells that desperation. He wants to swoop in and install a Friedman-esque conservative utopia. If you've read or seen the movie based on Naomi Klein’s book, “The Shock Doctrine,” you already know such policies don't worked.

   

The crazy just keeps getting more extreme:

Bloomberg News: U.S. Senator Rand Paul, told a business crowd there that cutting taxes and luring immigrants would turn the city’s fortunes. The Kentucky Republican wants federal legislation to create “economic freedom zones” in distressed cities like Detroit … He said he would cut income taxes to a flat 5 percent in areas of the U.S. with unemployment more than 1.5 times higher than the national average. He would cut payroll taxes and eliminate capital-gains taxes.

Cutting payroll taxes anywhere in the U.S. would basically dismantle and defund Social Security and Medicare…he must know that, right? Of course.

But even more insane is Paul’s gauge of public opinion when it comes to his philosophy, after just making his idiotic proposal:

Paul said the Republican Party stands to lose more national elections unless it attracts a broader, more diverse voter base -- especially blacks -- and promotes individual liberty more than it does tax cuts.

Promoting “individual liberty” is a vacuous generality that could mean anything, by design, pushed by extremists too afraid to actually spell out their dystopian plans. 

But just as opportunist is the rotting cancer setting up shop in Detroit:

Speaking today to the Detroit Economic Club at the Motor City Casino, the libertarian-leaning Paul touted the opening of a new Republican Party office in the city. 

Finally, Paul still thinks helping the auto industry was a bad idea. The shocking thing about the Republican belief system is that never thinks it’s wrong, even when it’s painfully obvious to everyone else:

Paul drew applause when he said the government bailout of General Motors Co. (GM) and Chrysler Corp. in 2009 was a bad idea, a view he said is not popular in the city. 

Libertarian Paradise at Last.

What is a Libertarian? It's what Paul Ryan and Rand Paul are pushing.

We have a new description of "libertarian."

Courier Journal: Bill Maher, host of the HBO show “Real Time,” took off on a riff about the new brand of libertarianism and essentially accusing U.S. Sen. Rand Paul and U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan of being selfish adolescents who have based their political viewpoints of a pseudo-intellectual  author.

Here’s a transcript of the “new rule:”

New rule. Libertarians have to stop ruining libertarianism. Or at least do a better job explaining the difference between today’s libertarian and just being a selfish prick.

Now many years ago on a television network far, far, away, I expressed support for libertarianism because back then it meant that I didn't want big government in my bedroom or the medicine chest or especially in the second drawer of the bed stand on the left side of my bed, and I still believe that but somewhere along the way, libertarianism morphed into this creepy obsession with free market capitalism based on an Ayn Rand novel called “Atlas Shrugged,” a book that’s never been read all the way through by anyone with a girlfriend.

Paul  Ryan once said Ayn Rand taught him what my value systems are and I believe him because her book has a strange appeal to people who are kind of smart, but not  really. She wrote things like “Money is the barometer of a Society’s virtue.” And, “The question isn't who is going to let me, it’s who is going to stop me.”

Ooh, it sounds like something a batman villain says.

Yeah, it’s all something that sounds very deep when you’re 19 years old. … About how government is a dirty trick played by  the weak  on the strong and I can see if you’re a privileged college kid, you can read that and think, “Yeah, that’s right, I don’t need anything so shut up, dad, and pay my tuition. “

And then one day, you graduate and pack up your things and realize that your copy of atlas shrugged belongs in the same milk crate as your beer helmet and the t-shirt that looks like a tuxedo and you move on, unless your Paul Ryan or Rand Paul.

Now, I know conservatives are saying, “C’mon Bill, you’re not really implying that the most influential minds in the Republican Party are intellectually stuck in their teen years?” No, of course not.  I don’t know where I would get that idea. (Paul Ryan workout photo appears beside him.) Which is not to say there aren't libertarian notions that I applaud.  Like reinstating the 4th amendment and shutting down the American empire. But to everyone who keeps trying to shame me about abandoning my libertarian moorings, my message is this, “I didn't go nuts, this movement did.”

 Like when you see a stop light, your reaction should be great, an easy way to ensure we don’t crash into each other, not how dare the government tell me when I can and cannot go. Seatbelts, I refuse to live in a nanny state, I’m an individual and I’m going to soar free as an eagle right through the windshield.

Same with meat inspectors. Who needs them? People can sniff their own meat. And if a few die, the word will get around town,  don’t order the t-bone at the Ponderosa. And then the Ponderosa closes, problem solved, thanks to the free market. 

Today’s libertarians don’t believe the government should be regulating banks, or guns or schools or civil rights, or even helping out after natural disasters and their aggressively hostile to environmental protection but I like air, and water, I’m practically addicted. Libertarians also hate medicare and social and there are problems with those programs. “But here’s the thing, it beats stepping over lepers and seeing human skeletons shit in the river and I also like not seeing those things. I’m selfish that way.

Do Libertarians Support the NRA?

Ted Knighton on United Liberty described why he, as a Libertarian, would not join the NRA. Basically he feels they're not extreme enough. He mentioned the fact that, "Their compromises gave us background checks for firearm purchases, among other things."

So, do I think libertarians should join the NRA? I can’t speak for everyone, but I sure as hell won’t. While I think a single issue group should focus on that one issue, I can’t believe that the NRA is truly interested in defending my right to keep and bear arms. Instead, I believe they’re interested in nothing more than playing the Washington game.

In other words, I personally recommend that libertarians looking to join an organization to defend our right to keep and bear arms not join the NRA. There are many other groups that do quality work in that arena as well, and are less compromising with our beloved Second Amendment rights than the NRA. Gun Owners of America is one such group.

So what do I saw to those who argue that the NRA is the largest gun rights group in the nation? I simply tell them that all things change in time, and it’s way past time for that fact to change.

What does all this mean? Are real Libertarians too extreme for the NRA? Do they really consider background checks which prevent some bad people from getting guns, an infringement of rights?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

More Libertarian Party Wacky Lunacy; “The essential problem with Medicare is that it's a coercive program. Medicare should be terminated.”

With power comes cockiness. With cockiness, we get brutal honesty.

The babbling nonsense from Libertarians is markedly extreme and should be described as such, without humoring these delirious self-absorbed ghouls. For example:

ColumbiaBasinHerald: Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle released the following statement regarding the future of Medicare: "The essential problem with Medicare is that it's a coercive program. All Americans are forced to participate in the Medicare scheme, whether or not they think it's good for them. Paul Ryan's plan does nothing to address that essential problem.

These social leaches would have the rest of society taking care of them in their old age, when in a revelatory moment of clarity, they realize they were wrong. Apparently in their world, everyone has endless amounts of money stowed away in retirement. Poverty doesn’t exist because free market competition lowered prices to dollar store values. Of course people would be working for much less, so saving for their retirement might be a complete impossibility, but details details.

"Getting the government out of health care will rapidly cut costs and improve quality for Americans of all ages.

Yes, cheaper health care will be “better?”

Oh, and if we weren’t sure what conservatives have in mind for Medicare (where’s Politicfact when you need them) we have another crystal clear statement:

"We believe that Medicare should be terminated. The Constitution does not give the federal government any authority to provide or pay for health care. No one should be forced to pay taxes into a system they dislike and don't want to use.

Of course the Constitution was never intended to be the definitive “list” of rights, just a framework, but if you intentionally misread it, then you can make up libertarian drivel like this.

The Cato Institute: “…let's suffer the pain now, and end this system now, so that their lives can be brighter, and their health can be stronger."

And finally, the Libertarian Party position. You’ll notice that all of us will have the freedom to do whatever we “wanted” when it comes to health care. But for those who can’t afford it…to bad? But then, if they did include it, their parties argument would fall apart. Just a lot of nonsense.

The Libertarian Party: "We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions. People should be free to purchase health insurance across state lines."

Except when they can’t. 

Tea Party Loses to Socialism, and Liberal-ish Americans Prefer the Word Conservative When Asked Political Affiliation.

Tea party politics is starting to hit the wall, and many are taking notice. It doesn't mean the worst is over, it just means that people MAY be smarter than originally assumed, by yours truly. Go socialism? BradBlog:

"Blue Texan" at Firedoglake notes an interesting statistic following the release of a new WaPo/ABC News poll:

·         Favorability for the "Tea Party": 35%

·         Favorability for "Socialism": 36%

Go figure. That, despite the absolutely, positively, indisputable fact that the US is a "center Right nation". We know that, of course, because --- despite years of accumulated and well-documented evidence demonstrating the exact opposite [PDF] --- those who listen uncritically to Rightwingers in the media continually parrot the claim (even as they remain unable to offer a shred of evidence to support it.)

Think the country made a hard right turn in the midterms? It looks like a liberal by any other name is still a...liberal. 

The US is a center Left nation [PDF], a new study [PDF] out today, shows, according to Alternet, that "only a quarter of self-identified 'conservatives' may actually be true conservatives on the issues" and "many aren't conservative at all."

As it turns out, very few of those who self-identify as "conservative" don't even seem to understand what conservatism actually means, as "they also like government spending on a variety of programs and generally approve of government interventions in the marketplace, hardly making them true conservatives." All of these data sync up with the general thrust of the original study I linked to.

The new study seems to conclude that many, if not most, of those who self-identify as "conservative", just seem to prefer the name over "liberal" or "moderate". 

Clueless Tea Party Crazy Sharron Angle supports "Honest" lower paying jobs to raise American Families. Get used to it.

In a jobless recession and recovery, the last thing the unemployed worker is able to find...is work. But Republicans and tea party whiners both have acted like the global crash the U.S. created is a bump in the road, a minor inconvenience on the way to getting government out of our lives completely. Ceding the peoples governmental sovereignty to private business is an unusual way to obtain liberty and freedom. What's not to like about unelected CEO governance?

Nevada candidate Sharron Angle thinks employer/employee unemployment insurance is an entitlement, and that lower paying "honest" jobs should be incentive enough for individuals to give up their higher unemployment checks to pay their bills and raise their families. Makes sense to her. Can you say "race to the bottom?"

Why didn't Anyone Call Rand Paul Out on his Board Certified Great Deception?

Thanks you Stephen for pointing out the absurdity of this phony organization.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
USA Board of Ophthalmological Freedom
http://www.colbertnation.com/
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Fox News

Never Mind Pollution and Mountain Top Removal, says Rand Paul.

Rand Paul is the frightening face of libertarianism. He would give our nations resources away to private interests without Americans sharing in the profits made on selling coal, or gas or whatever. Screw the royalty paid by industries.

Libertarian; A Picture of Perfection?

Preface: I have had it out with libertarian bloggers before, and came away frustrated by their false sense of superiority, know-it-all arrogance and disdain for everyone not buying into their world view. At "War on Socialism," Rob Waterson goes after the affable Jim Wallis, who's only crime is that he wishes we all could just get along. With just a few of my own personal warnings thrown in, here's Waterson demonstrating the typical libertarian condescension to non-believing American citizens:

Jim Wallis is a hard core leftist who attempts to wrap up his immoral philosophy in religion in order to legitimize it. Wallis’ Wikipedia entry states that he “actively eschews political labels”, but that is typical of those who work towards more big government control of our lives. They most certainly do not like being properly labeled as freedom-loathing statists.

Writing an article in the Huffington Post , Wallis demonstrates his mastery of dishonest sleight of hand. Wallis first equates the Tea Party Movement with libertarianism and then immediately makes the jump to Rand Paul … He must have received the email from the Democrats on that one; it is a consistent talking point approach lately … an attempt to make the case that because he is an alleged reverend he is therefore qualified to pass judgment on “how Christian” the Tea Party movement is.

This is where we get to hear how elitist, moral and intellectually superior liberatarians are, and how misguided, Marxist, socialist and "spread the wealth" losers everyone one else is. This weak presumptive rhetoric is all you see in the comments section of conservative blog's and websites.

In fact, his incredibly weak arguments fall well short of convincing any intelligent person of the merits of his position and simply made me want to find out who this clown was. It seemed clear that this guy was an Alinksy type, a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Wallis is not intellectually honest enough to understand the difference between individuals helping their fellow man when he truly needs it and the government seizing vast amounts of wealth to redistribute to those who have learned to game the system ... it is never compassion when you are spending someone else’s money and that one can love one’s neighbor without feeling any requirement to pay his bills.

Notice the unintended but revealing use of "projection" by the author in the following statement. Keep in mind, short sighted deregulation, tax cuts and wedge issues for political gain led to a global economic crash and the ecological disaster in the Gulf:

In fact, libertarians know that most poor people are poor not because they have encountered some misfortune in life but simply because they have made a series of stupid, short-sighted decisions … Libertarians believe – with good reason – that people who do not suffer from the stupidity of their actions will continue to do stupid things. Clearly Mr. Wallis thinks that one of the appropriate roles of government is to protect people from the consequences of their actions, but only if they are societal parasites. That plants him firmly in the camp of the Nanny State Left.

The truth is that the left’s supreme confidence in big government is not consistent with the reality of human nature and corruption. Their exclusive focus on wealth redistribution as the central goal ignores the real problem, which is that these people would not need to live off of the rest of us if the government had not created the lifestyle-subsidy welfare programs. Like our parasitic class in America, they will even get angry if the free food stops. That entitlement mentality is at the core of those 47% of Americans who pay no taxes and are therefore living off of the rest of us. Shockingly, liberals seem to believe in the myth of the blameless societal parasite and that giving someone else’s property to them will actually help rather than harm them.

…if Mr. Wallis actually took a clear look at the biblical view of human nature and sin he would realize that it in fact makes the best argument possible for limited government. We simply cannot trust human beings with that level of control over their fellows. it’s getting easy to understand how this clown is a democrat. But to be fair, being a leftist Mr. Wallis is unaccustomed to dealing with people who possess a command of logical thought, so we cannot blame him for attempting to foist tripe on us that works consistently with his normal bevy of parasitic myrmidons.

Cliché alert (created by the right to cloak actual racism):

Claims of racism are the last refuge of the scoundrel, the trump card played by someone who is losing the debate.

Name calling alert:

Mr. Wallis proves that he is a full-fledged race-hustling poverty pimp with this clumsy attempt to play the race card … it has nothing to do with his (Obama's) brown skin and everything to do with his red politics.

Projection and irony alert:

Wallis has the typically weak leftist knowledge of history and his world view clearly demonstrates that. Mr. Wallis is simply dishonestly attempting to use religion to sell tyranny. As always, that tyranny is disguised as false compassion and false security. His basic shtick is to attempt to use his status as an alleged religious leader to bash conservatives and push his own agenda.

The libertarian illusion of the U.S. is this: Our founding fathers were single minded in their desire for a free market system of autocrats, who earn and keep what they have, and dispensed what charity they could to the human rabble around them. If during the current Great Recession, where we saw 8 million jobs disappear, you couldn't find work; you weren't trying hard enough. Take your ill health, starving family and go away.

Rand Paul, Cafeteria Constitutionalist: Goodbye Citizenship for Newborns.

Cafeteria constitutionalist unite, Rand Paul has another amendment to repeal.

What were people thinking way back in the mid 1800's? Like the liberal concept of a living constitution, conservatives are anxious to reflect the changing times in our founding document by removing citizenship. How patriotic.

Thomas Frank joins Keith Olbermann and explains the libertarian lunacy of small government and what should be constitutional. Who knew we were still deciding.

Rand Paul Losing the Historical Argument.

Over at the Moderate Voice, you can read an amazing dissection of Rand Paul's outrageously libertarian positions on the Civil Rights Act. Historians and the Cato Institute are NOT on Rand's side.

Sometimes, a straight news story about some outrageous thing a politician said or did sparks a larger conversation about underlying issues. That is what is happening with the news item about a contentious interview Rand Paul had with Rachel Maddow, in which he refused to back down from previous statements he had made opposing Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bans discrimination in private accommodations on the basis of race, skin color, religion, or national origin.

AOL News asked three well-known libertarians for their thoughts on Rand Paul’s views on the private accommodations section of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. All three agreed that the key to an intelligent analysis of this issue is historical context: “I think Rand Paul is wrong about the Civil Rights Act,” libertarian Cato Institute
scholar Brink Lindsey wrote in an e-mail.

Accidents Happen, like Candidate Rand Paul.

What a loon. I love the spotlight on the libertarian small government view of the country. It'll scare the crap out of everyone but the selfish racists out there looking for another "well reasoned" talking point to not pay their fair share of living in this great country.

Ron Paul says too bad You Don't have a Safety Net. Randy Paul is just starting apparently.

The apple doesn't fall too far from the tree with Rand Paul. Here's dad Ron Paul and the brutal reality of libertarian safety net removals. Matthews tries to get along with Ron's inhumanity, but it doesn't change Paul's answers or soften his approach.

Enjoy daddy's just as crazy insane abandonment of human suffering.




Okay, some people don't save money, so they should die. Just like some people get sick and go broke. What about those who spend every dime on an illness, or college for their kids, or paying their bills while jobless, or an emergency of some sort.

Better yet, pull all the safety nets, and the kids of seniors will end up housing them and spending everything they have on medical care, unless you would let your parents die.

What’s Latin for “Employee Beware?”

In the libertarian world of little regulation and flourishing businesses, when people get hurt or killed by products or workplace environments, stuff happens. Stop passing blame, it's so un-American.

In one of the most revealing if not appalling statements from any conservative/ libertarian snake we've heard from so far, Paul's ideological view point is strikingly irresponsible. Take the killer BP oil spill:

MSNBC: Kentucky's Republican Senate nominee Rand Paul criticized President Barack Obama's handling of the Gulf oil spill Friday as anti-business and sounding "really un-American."

In Rand’s world view, you go to work and take your chances. So what if 11 workers were killed and the Gulf coasts ecosystem is heavily damaged by millions of gallons of oil, holding BP accountable is un-American and obviously just an accident.

"And I think it's part of this sort of blame-game society in the sense that it's always got to be somebody's fault instead of the fact that maybe sometimes accidents happen," Paul said.

The Senate candidate also referred to a Kentucky coal mine accident that killed two men, saying "We had a mining accident that was very tragic. ... Then we come in and it's always someone's fault. Maybe sometimes accidents happen," he said.

Maybe Rand Paul's got a point. So what if there’s lead in your food and children’s toys, mercury laced fish and cancer causing pollutants in the air…it happens. Stop being so anti-American.
Paul is giving every tea party protester and conservative nut job the language to use to justify their vision of a loner society where you get what you deserve. You bought the defective car, get over it. Your child choked on a toy, accidents happen.

Like the founding fathers wrote into the constitution, “quite your complaining,” or something like that.. right?

Republican, Tea Party Voters Love Rand Paul Discrimination, as long as it's Not Done with Government Money.

Here's the Rachel Maddow/Rand Paul interview that has ignited every Republican/conservative voter in America. From what I've noticed listening to conservative and liberal radio shows, Republicans callers appear to have had an Epiphany. It's okay for private businesses to shut their doors to anyone, including... minorities. They love it.


Every one of them agreed with Rand Paul, that any private entity can discriminate, as long as they don't take government money.


It would also appear that this one caveat mentioned by Paul would completely obliterate civil rights laws, freedoms, liberty and encourage a divided segregated America, as meant by the constitution.

The Rand Paul, Tea Party America. We're Road Kill.

What kind of America is Rand Paul, the U.S. Senate candidate, offering up? You might call it a "throwing out the baby with the bath water" solution, where the U.S. might have a balanced budget, but Americans are left picking up the whole tab they once shared at a lower price, alone and no safety nets. Again, if the government can't afford Social Security and Medicare, what makes Americans think they can make those payments alone? They won't and can't. Here's a list of pure ideological losers. Washington Post:

The retirement age would be raised to make Social Security solvent.

Congress would have to delay voting one day for every 20 pages of text in a bill.

A section of every law passed would have to include an explanation of what part of the Constitution empowers Congress to act on the issue.

Congress would have to balance its budget every year, a move that could result in billions of dollars in cuts to politically popular programs.

Lawmakers would simply send money to states for education, instead of imposing a variety of rules on schools through the U.S. Department of Education, which Paul wants to eliminate.

Paul hinted he would block unemployment aid to people out of work if Congress didn't find other programs to cut to fund the benefits.

John Stossel & Michael Medved Deny Income Gap. Stossel says "It's true in their world...not true in business."

American's are losing the income battle, earning less than they made 30 years ago, and watching the wealthy elite get million dollar bonuses at taxpayer bailed out companies.

So what's so difficult to understand ? If your John Stossel, there's another explanation:

"I know that's a myth now. So I was glad to see the publication of 'The 5 Big Lies About American Business' by Michael Medved ... Medved's second myth is that when the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. This is the old zero-sum fallacy, which ignores that when two people engage in free exchange, both gain -- or they wouldn't have traded. It's what I call the double thank-you phenomenon. I understand why politicians and lawyers believe it: It's true in their world. But it's not true in business.

It's the two worlds argument again, introduced during the Bush administration. The fact base reality, and the reality created by conservatives. Medved explains:

"If you believe that when the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, then you believe that creating wealth causes poverty, and you're an idiot," said Medved. "One of the things that I hate is this term 'obscene profits.' There are no obscene profits ... . (The current economic downturn shows) "that when the rich get poorer ... everybody gets poorer."

Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. Instead of ideologically based opinions passing for fact, why not use the available research? This article just appeared in last Sundays Parade Magazine:

Income Gap Grows During Recession

Even as the economy shrank last year, the income gap—the divide between the country’s richest and poorest citizens—kept growing. In 1978, CEOs at the largest U.S. companies earned 35 times as much as the average worker. Today, that figure is more than 300:1, according to the Harvard Business Review.

Research by Kevin Hallock, a professor at Cornell University, indicates that the trend persists: “From 1979 to 2009, after adjusting for inflation, the highest earners in the U.S. saw dramatic growth in their earnings while the lowest earners now make less than they did 30 years ago.” Countries with greater income inequality have higher rates of teen pregnancy, infant mortality, obesity, mental illness, drug use, imprisonment, and homicide than countries where wealth is more evenly distributed, according to research by epidemiologists Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett.

In the U.S., measures like the progressive income tax, Medicaid, and welfare are used to address income inequality, but some economists and advocates say that we should go further. Nations like Austria, Belgium, and the Netherlands spend 7% to 8% of national income on social services for working-age people, compared to 2% in the U.S.

That figure is unlikely to change, however, as polls show that Americans believe people get ahead in life by virtue of their own efforts. “If you think the process is just, you might think the outcome is just, even though some people are homeless and others are very comfortable,” says Gary Burtless of the Brookings Institution.

Libertarian Anti-Consumer Advocate John Stossel: Why Should Doctors have Licenses when there's Angies List!

This is the most incredible example of sheer idiocy and the best argument yet against the libertarian philosophy I've ever seen. Even Fox News host Megyn Kelly's response says it all:

Kelly: "Stossel's America is a very interesting one. It legalizes pot and prostitution, and doesn't require a license for doctors and lawyers. God help us all..."

Stossel: "Freedom!"

Kelly: "Yeah right."

Stossel: "You lawyers want to crimp us back."

Below, John Stossel with TV host license around is neck.