Let's get more stupid!

Michele Bachmann ponders some tough questions. Obviously she's clueless that her husband is a big Nelly, and it's also apparent that she has no problem using government services like Medicaid, and Fanie Mae, since her husband accepts medicaid at his clinic, and apparently  she financed her house through Fannie Mae.  AND she seems to have no problem with her son joining Americorps. 

It's just when the rest of us want to get medical care and have no money, and buy a house and obain a mortgage, or go out and work with organizations that help people, of Gods forbid be one of those that needs help. 

So when she asks today's question I am not a bit surprised. 

I mean really, why would we want educated people in this country considering the fact that if we had them she'd have been laughed off the national stage long ago. 

So here you have it:

Bachmann: Why is there a Department of Education?

By: CNN's Ed Hornick

(CNN) - Painting herself as a "constitutional conservative" Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann told Sen. Jim DeMint's forum Monday that if elected president she would look to get rid of the Department of Education, among other things.
"Because the Constitution does not specifically enumerate nor does it give to the federal government the role and duty to superintend over education that historically has been held by the parents and by local communities and by state governments," she said, responding to a question by DeMint, a popular figure among the tea party movement.

Another item on the chopping block: The Affordable Care Act.
People "see that the current government is acting outside the bounds of the Constitution. Probably the most obvious would be this, Obamacare and the individual mandate that is unconstitutional and is currently contained in Obamacare," she said.
Throughout the question and answer, Bachmann highlighted her understanding of the Constitution and the need to return to a limited federal government.
"And when I'm working with the Congress of the United States, my guiding principle will be that the government works best when it acts within the limitations of the Constitution," she said. "The current president of the United States has failed to demonstrate an understanding."
When asked about her jobs program, Bachmann pointed to her past as a tax litigation attorney and small business owner.
"(I) believe in profit and actually believe profit is a good thing and that we should encourage that in this country," she said. Bachmann called for a restructuring of tax rates for businesses – highlighting her experience in that area.
When asked if she would try and overturn Roe v. Wade, which gives women the right to an abortion, Bachmann said she would put forth a human life amendment and do everything in her power to restrict abortions. 

So let's celebrate stupid.  Without it Michele Bachmann would actually have to go out and get a real job and n ot be living off the dole like she apparently does.  

Quo Vadimus?

And so it goes:

I'm stuck in Folsom Prison..

I think this is amusing, but not really. I;m certain this idea has been kicked around.

‘Get Back To Work Camps’ Are The Linchpin Of Rick Perry’s New Jobs Program

Rick Perry, Texas governor and GOP Presidential contender, announced the linchpin of his jobs program today.  “Get Back To Work Camps,” he said, “will assure food and shelter for all our citizens, regardless of economic standing.”  Under Perry’s plan, debt would become a criminal offense, much as it was in Victorian England.


Those convicted of the crime of being in default on debt could, if employed, work out a repayment plan suitable to the courts and their creditors.  The defendant’s paychecks would be rendered directly to the court, with payments being made to creditors first.  Defendants would be allowed to keep 25 percent of their pay, after taxes.  However, those convicted of default without sufficient income would be sentenced to “Get Back To Work Camps.”  Here, various private companies will set up shop to utilize the labor.  Debtors might be assigned to an on-site factory or might be assigned to offsite work crews.


The private contractors will keep the camps open, providing each debtor with adequate food and shelter.  Debtor’s will be paid at minimum wage, with the costs of food and housing deducted from their pay.  The remaining money will go to pay off their debt.
Once the debt is satisfied, debtors will be free to join society with a clean financial slate.
Perry also announced that, under a Perry Presidency, personal bankruptcy would be outlawed.  Only corporations would be able to restructure debt.

Take a look at Paul Krugman's latest treatise on the economy too:

Op-Ed Columnist

The Fatal Distraction

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Friday brought two numbers that should have everyone in Washington saying, “My God, what have we done?”
One of these numbers was zero — the number of jobs created in August. The other was two — the interest rate on 10-year U.S. bonds, almost as low as this rate has ever gone. Taken together, these numbers almost scream that the inside-the-Beltway crowd has been worrying about the wrong things, and inflicting grievous harm as a result.
Ever since the acute phase of the financial crisis ended, policy discussion in Washington has been dominated not by unemployment, but by the alleged dangers posed by budget deficits. Pundits and media organizations insisted that the biggest risk facing America was the threat that investors would pull the plug on U.S. debt. For example, in May 2009 The Wall Street Journal declared that the “bond vigilantes” were “returning with a vengeance,” telling readers that the Obama administration’s “epic spending spree” would send interest rates soaring.
The interest rate when that editorial was published was 3.7 percent. As of Friday, as I’ve already mentioned, it was only 2 percent.
I don’t mean to dismiss concerns about the long-run U.S. budget picture. If you look at fiscal prospects over, say, the next 20 years, they are indeed deeply worrying, largely because of rising health-care costs. But the experience of the past two years has overwhelmingly confirmed what some of us tried to argue from the beginning: The deficits we’re running right now — deficits we should be running, because deficit spending helps support a depressed economy — are no threat at all.
And by obsessing over a nonexistent threat, Washington has been making the real problem — mass unemployment, which is eating away at the foundations of our nation — much worse.
Although you’d never know it listening to the ranters, the past year has actually been a pretty good test of the theory that slashing government spending actually creates jobs. The deficit obsession has blocked a much-needed second round of federal stimulus, and with stimulus spending, such as it was, fading out, we’re experiencing de facto fiscal austerity. State and local governments, in particular, faced with the loss of federal aid, have been sharply cutting many programs and have been laying off a lot of workers, mostly schoolteachers.
And somehow the private sector hasn’t responded to these layoffs by rejoicing at the sight of a shrinking government and embarking on a hiring spree.
O.K., I know what the usual suspects will say — namely, that fears of regulation and higher taxes are holding businesses back. But this is just a right-wing fantasy. Multiple surveys have shown that lack of demand — a lack that is being exacerbated by government cutbacks — is the overwhelming problem businesses face, with regulation and taxes barely even in the picture.
For example, when McClatchy Newspapers recently canvassed a random selection of small-business owners to find out what was hurting them, not a single one complained about regulation of his or her industry, and few complained much about taxes. And did I mention that profits after taxes, as a share of national income, are at record levels?
So short-run deficits aren’t a problem; lack of demand is, and spending cuts are making things much worse. Maybe it’s time to change course?
Which brings me to President Obama’s planned speech on the economy.
I find it useful to think in terms of three questions: What should we be doing to create jobs? What will Republicans in Congress agree to? And given that political reality, what should the president propose?
The answer to the first question is that we should have a lot of job-creating spending on the part of the federal government, largely in the form of much-needed spending to repair and upgrade the nation’s infrastructure. Oh, and we need more aid to state and local governments, so that they can stop laying off schoolteachers.
But what will Republicans agree to? That’s easy: nothing. They will oppose anything Mr. Obama proposes, even if it would clearly help the economy — or maybe I should say, especially if it would help the economy, since high unemployment helps them politically.
This reality makes the third question — what the president should propose — hard to answer, since nothing he proposes will actually happen anytime soon. So I’m personally prepared to cut Mr. Obama a lot of slack on the specifics of his proposal, as long as it’s big and bold. For what he mostly needs to do now is to change the conversation — to get Washington talking again about jobs and how the government can help create them.
For the sake of the nation, and especially for millions of unemployed Americans who see little prospect of finding another job, I hope he pulls it off.

Is there any question now that we're under attack?  And not from terrorists without, but the corporate terrorists from within!  We must speak out, and we must not stop until our voices are heard.  America is being systematically dismantled by those who would sell it off for the value of its parts including its people and not what it stands for, and what it means to everyone in the world. 

Will we continue to not only allow this behavior, but to encourage it by not challenging it?

Quo Vadimus?

And so it goes: