Progressives Melting Down; Admit They Want Socialism, Unrest, Fiscal Insolvency to Achieve Goals

I really have to wonder how much more proof is needed for people in this nation to at least accept progressives and their political/ideological wishes on face value? Consider: Steven Lerner of SEIU bigwig fame admits we have to crush the system by having students not repay loans and have homeowners intentionally default on their mortgages to drive the crisis to a head.

In the same video Frances Fox Piven plays the "knitting, frail granny" role objecting to even being mentioned as a subversive, then she is on tape recently arguing for bringing down the system by civil disobedience. Her admitted goal is to crash the American financial system by overloading it, and hoping people riot to force the change progressives demand.

MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell wants Obama to drop the talking points. O'Donnell believes we are not as Obama claimed "rugged individualists" but are instead "getting an education paid for by the government, if we live long enough, we all get retirement income from the government and health care paid for by the government. That is a very healthy dose of good old-fashioned socialism, but we remain the country that pretends to hate socialism."

Do O'Donnell and the other socialists and progressives grasp that is what the Tea Party is fighting against? We do not want to be socialists and we've made that clear. That FDR succeeded in entrenching so much socialism into our system isn't sitting well with we who do not want it. That's what all this fighting is about. The nation has reached the "brink" where we either reject further efforts to guide us to socialism or the progressives win. That we have some socialized elements already IS NOT a sound argument for more, nor is it fait accompli.

And to make my point about progressives melting down, consider MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski. On her gig as Joe Scarborough's sidekick on Morning Joe she came out and defended Obama's calling out Congressman Paul Ryan for his budget proposal. She defended Obama's actions by claiming it was "cowardly" for Republicans to ever be critical of Obama if he's not face-to-face when they do so. She defended her sycophant support for Barry with "Republican's have said some really critical things about the president on camera without him there, and that seems actually cowardly. Having him [Congressman Paul Ryan] in the room and looking him straight in the eye...." she justifies makes it okay for Obama to call his plan "un-American."

What happened to all that kinder, gentler rhetoric? So it's okay to call Ryan "un-American" but if one dares to level such a claim against progressives, somehow it's hate speech and threatening violence? That's such blatant hypocrisy and BS. Especially so when it seems 60% of Americans want drastic budget slashing and believe a balanced budget is our only way out of this mess, which for the record, I 100% agree with that opinion.

In what world is it hateful, unkind or irresponsible to be fiscally forthright and live only within one's means? How is that harming the nation? How is that an effort to hurt anyone? To live in a responsible manner is and act of hatred? To take ownership for one's misdeeds and attempt to correct them is harmful and "un-American?"

The final evidence I want to present to prove my point is found in an interview Neil Cavuto had with Democrat Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas. Congresswoman Johnson was clear to cut budgets will cause job loss, yada, yada, yada. Typical of progressives she favors raising taxes and still spending every penny the Congress can confiscate from the people. The Congresswoman claims we need to do more investment (read: green, etc.) to fix things. Cavuto pointed out over and over we have no money to invest. Her answer...to increase taxes.

How can these allegedly "smartest people in the room," progressives, actually think government is the source of wealth? Government does not generate wealth. Government CONFISCATES wealth to do everything it does. If the private sector collapses the government will not be able to tax people. Is it lost on progressives that his how we got in this mess in the first place?

The financial collapse of 2008 drove down government tax revenues and according to these same progressives that is what is causing the drastic budget shortfalls we currently enjoy. When tax revenues decrease due to slower economies, that IS NOT the time to raise taxes. The problem is reduced earnings leading to reduce tax collection. To demand a bigger cut form the private sector out of their already dwindling revenues is the quintessential manner of collapsing economy. How can these self-proclaimed smartest people ever not see this?

The only conclusion is either progressives are severely handicapped in their understanding of economy or they are purposely driving for financial collapse in order to bring about misery and citizen demands to fix it. Keynesian economics have always been a failure, yet nearly every progressive alive swears Keynes is the way to go. Clearly then it isn't stupidity, but it is ideology. At what other conclusion can a reasonable person arrive?

Our problem IS NOT we do not collect enough taxes. Our problem is what we spend the collected revenues upon. That is what the Tea Party is screaming about. We do not object to taxation or paying a fair share for the bounty of living in this nation but I'll be damned if we'll sit back and live under confiscatory taxation and then watch that money spent to keep Democrats in power by having them fund their various special interest groups. Contrary to MSM and progressive talking points the Tea Party is not populated by stupid people. We know national solvency and thus sovereignty is dependent upon fiscal responsibility.

Do people need any more proof the current struggle is about citizens no longer tolerating the left funding their favorite special interests to remain in power? For the explaining analogy, it's like union dues. No matter the ideology of the union due paying member much of his or her dues go to Democrat political causes and union members have a right to object to that. The similarity is when taxes are collected from citizens of all ideologies yet much of that money is then used to keep Democrat voters on their side with government payouts and programs that enrich them. Isn't this crystal clear?