The New York Times is shocked, just shocked to find that a New Poll Finds Deep Distrust of Government:
With Election Day just over a year away, a deep sense of economic anxiety and doubt about the future hangs over the nation, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll, with Americans’ distrust of government at its highest level ever.
The Times credits the malaise to everything except one thing: Obama’s relentless agitation setting American against American based on jealously and envy, the Oval Office equivalent of the Occupy Wall Street protesters banging drums.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
” … two-thirds of the public said that wealth should be distributed more evenly in the country.”
I’ll bet the Times is using the transitive form of the verb “distribute” here.
LukeHandCool (who distributes attention and Christmas presents evenly to his children, because, unlike the government, that’s part of his job description).
Interesting how the the NYT emphasis seems to be on the “distribute” wealth factor versus the “earn” wealth phenomena of our past. As if that’s a viable theory. What happens to this model when there are much fewer “earners?”
Hello Greece … anyone available to advise?
Racking my brain trying to figure out why “Americans’ distrust of government….” came about in the first place? What could have caused it? Why, with all the safeguards we have in place – things like democracy and free elections and an independent fourth estate to vigorously keep citizens informed of facts – could this have come to pass? What went wrong? Who is to blame?
This might be a great subject for an honest, hard-hitting journalist to examine. Too bad there are so few left, none of whom actually write for the gray lady anymore.
Oh well, ……. wonder what Kim Kardashian is wearing today?
Obama also seemed to forget the obvious, he and the Congress are part of the same government. When he makes Congress look bad, the government, which includes the POTUS, looks bad.
“Cutting off the nose to spite the face”
It’s actually worse than that for Obama. As a lawyer in Illinois, he directly contributed to the development of the financial crisis.
Obama Sued Citibank Under CRA to Force it to Make Bad Loans
mediacircus.com/2008/10/obama-sued-citibank-under-cra-to-force-it-to-make-bad-loans/
The CRA, as Affirmative Action, are bad policies. In order to mitigate the occurrence of prejudice, they should have relied on ex post facto review. As it was, Obama was in it for the money. He is at best a mere opportunist.
His friends were anarchists, terrorists, slumlords/ladies, and tax evaders.
The American left denigrates individual dignity, devalues human life, and, as they oppose their primary competing interests, the social conservatives (principally religious individuals — for some reason the social liberals maintain an unhealthy obsession with the “right” to terminate human life), they have made a progressive effort to replace moral knowledge with totalitarian policies. This process is incompatible with a free society and has necessarily resulted in progressive corruption of individuals.
The only common thread that joins the many incompatible agendas of the left are dreams of instant gratification.
The “occupy” movement just happens to coincide with an ongoing investigation of Obama’s administration, including his attorney general, and himself, for betrayal of public trust, gross malfeasance, and even as accessories to murder of American citizens and others.
The progression of left-wing regression is unmistakeable. They are seeking to consolidate capital and power through authority. The crimes they have committed in the process represents the highest form of corruption. The “occupy” movement has improperly set their focus. They should be, as are other Americans, concerned with corruption of authoritarian interests. It is in no one’s interest to replace this society, certainly not with a left-wing (i.e., progressive totalitarian) regime, and suffer the collateral damage that is inevitable during a civil conflict.
We will not be able to cope with corruption in the exception, until fundamental corruption is either eradicated or marginalized. Americans would do well to review the Declaration of Independence. They would do well to consider the principles necessary for the existence of a free society. They would do well to reject unbounded democracy. We need neither tyranny of a minority nor a majority.