From the president today, Thanksgiving 2009: "Too many are wondering if the dream of a middle-class life, that American dream, is slipping away".
Stunning ignorance of our history (what the pilgrims wanted and what they gave thanks for) and actual constitutional goals/principles in my opinion.
Hey Mr. President, THE REAL AMERICAN DREAM IS FREEDOM! Stuff is irrelevant when we've lost that ... and it's going fast!
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Monday, November 23, 2009
The Vast Left-Wing Fiscal Irresponsibility
The Constitution says it is CONGRESS(!), not the president, who has primary responsibility for spending, balancing the budget (or not) and controlling the national debt. Since taking over Congress (and, therefore, primary responsibility to reign in spending and the debt) nearly three years ago Democrats have spent themselves silly and, in the process, DOUBLED the INTEREST on the national debt from $100B to $200B. Assuming you think that's bad, it gets worse. Much worse. And Bush isn't responsible for any of this (read the Constitution if you don't believe me).
According to the NY Times(!) article linked in my previous blog, we're on track to continue doubling JUST THE INTEREST on our national debt approximately twice more in the next ten years to $700B in 2018. According to the NYT that's more than our spending this year on education, energy, homeland security and the wars in Iraq and Afganistan ... COMBINED! GASP!
Think about that for just a minute. That's the debt problem we'll have WITHOUT enacting the bills for health care reform, cap and trade, immigration, etc. Imagine what the interest will be WITH those bills passed. The Democrats' health care reform will cost at least $2.5 TRILLION the first ten years after the benefits kick in. (They like to say it's only going to cost $860B the first ten years but that's a lower number because the benefits don't kick in until 2014, more than 3 years AFTER the taxes increase. It's a great example how to lie with statistics.) We can't afford our debt BEFORE these bills pass! And guess what happens to our economy after adding on the economic burden of the cap and trade bill?
Any economist worth his salt will agree that we're headed for mind-boggling high debt, interest rates and unemployment. Devaluation of our currency followed by national bankruptcy is inevitable unless we change our course dramatically. Democrats are sailing this ship straight into economic chaos and the average American doesn't seem to know (or knows but doesn't care), certainly not the more liberal among us.
This problem is as serious as it gets people. Wake up!
According to the NY Times(!) article linked in my previous blog, we're on track to continue doubling JUST THE INTEREST on our national debt approximately twice more in the next ten years to $700B in 2018. According to the NYT that's more than our spending this year on education, energy, homeland security and the wars in Iraq and Afganistan ... COMBINED! GASP!
Think about that for just a minute. That's the debt problem we'll have WITHOUT enacting the bills for health care reform, cap and trade, immigration, etc. Imagine what the interest will be WITH those bills passed. The Democrats' health care reform will cost at least $2.5 TRILLION the first ten years after the benefits kick in. (They like to say it's only going to cost $860B the first ten years but that's a lower number because the benefits don't kick in until 2014, more than 3 years AFTER the taxes increase. It's a great example how to lie with statistics.) We can't afford our debt BEFORE these bills pass! And guess what happens to our economy after adding on the economic burden of the cap and trade bill?
Any economist worth his salt will agree that we're headed for mind-boggling high debt, interest rates and unemployment. Devaluation of our currency followed by national bankruptcy is inevitable unless we change our course dramatically. Democrats are sailing this ship straight into economic chaos and the average American doesn't seem to know (or knows but doesn't care), certainly not the more liberal among us.
This problem is as serious as it gets people. Wake up!
This Much Spending Has REAL Consequences
Even 'the media' is beginning to figure out what the more conservative among us have been saying for the past two years. Check this out:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34103722/ns/politics-the_new_york_times/
Debt, especially this much of it, has real consequences. As if this amount of debt isn't bad enough in the absolute sense, getting out of this debt will be really, REALLY difficult. That's 'difficult' as in REAL pain for the AVERAGE American ... including the poor! 'The spenders' in Congress (and some big minority of well-meaning Americans) think they're helping the poor but the result of this will make life more difficult for the poor, not better.
After we've ruined the economy it'll be worse for the poor, not better. How does doubling the cost of all the basics of life (via inflation and a ruined economy) help the poor? How does doubling the cost of gas, food, etc help people below the povery level? How does fewer jobs and a 20% unemployment rate (because the government has sucked the productive life out of the economy) help anyone, including the poor? Why don't more people understand this? It's just the same as when an individual spends his way into excessive debt. He pays so much in interest that he cannot afford the basics in life. Hello? He'll likely go bankrupt. Hello? Going into debt may feel like fun but it has REAL consequences. Hello? This 'government money' IS NOT FREE. Hello? This cure IS worse than the disease. Hello? We need to use the brains God gave us and think through this rationally.
For the sake of our future, we need new thinking at all levels of government:
1. Government is wayyyy too big ... we cannot afford it and we're losing freedoms at an alarming rate! In fact, we need government to be reduced by at least half ... quickly.
2. Government debt is not only bad, it should be UNacceptable. We're at a point where even balanced budgets are, by far, inadequate.
I have NO respect for what our representatives call a 'balanced budget'. Their version always, ALWAYS has loopholes that allow them to create more debt anyway. They're, collectively, a bunch of lying, conniving weasels.
Just think how difficult it is to get our governments to balance their budgets every year. Then consider the FACT that we need them to do better than that. We need them to spend way less than they take in for several years until the debt is gone. Do you honestly think they're capable of that? Of course not! At least not until The People take them to the political woodshed for a thrashing to change their behavior.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34103722/ns/politics-the_new_york_times/
Debt, especially this much of it, has real consequences. As if this amount of debt isn't bad enough in the absolute sense, getting out of this debt will be really, REALLY difficult. That's 'difficult' as in REAL pain for the AVERAGE American ... including the poor! 'The spenders' in Congress (and some big minority of well-meaning Americans) think they're helping the poor but the result of this will make life more difficult for the poor, not better.
After we've ruined the economy it'll be worse for the poor, not better. How does doubling the cost of all the basics of life (via inflation and a ruined economy) help the poor? How does doubling the cost of gas, food, etc help people below the povery level? How does fewer jobs and a 20% unemployment rate (because the government has sucked the productive life out of the economy) help anyone, including the poor? Why don't more people understand this? It's just the same as when an individual spends his way into excessive debt. He pays so much in interest that he cannot afford the basics in life. Hello? He'll likely go bankrupt. Hello? Going into debt may feel like fun but it has REAL consequences. Hello? This 'government money' IS NOT FREE. Hello? This cure IS worse than the disease. Hello? We need to use the brains God gave us and think through this rationally.
For the sake of our future, we need new thinking at all levels of government:
1. Government is wayyyy too big ... we cannot afford it and we're losing freedoms at an alarming rate! In fact, we need government to be reduced by at least half ... quickly.
2. Government debt is not only bad, it should be UNacceptable. We're at a point where even balanced budgets are, by far, inadequate.
I have NO respect for what our representatives call a 'balanced budget'. Their version always, ALWAYS has loopholes that allow them to create more debt anyway. They're, collectively, a bunch of lying, conniving weasels.
Just think how difficult it is to get our governments to balance their budgets every year. Then consider the FACT that we need them to do better than that. We need them to spend way less than they take in for several years until the debt is gone. Do you honestly think they're capable of that? Of course not! At least not until The People take them to the political woodshed for a thrashing to change their behavior.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Did You Think Democrats Were Fixing The Health Care 'Bankrupting The Country' Problem? Surprise!
Reported in today's newspapers: Nancy Pelosi spokeman just said a report just released by the Medicare oversight agency "shows that our health reform bill [the democratic bill that just passed in the House] will extend the life of the Medicare trust fund by five years". We don't get it. How is that a fix?
Doesn't that mean that in five years we'll have to pass ANOTHER GIANT HEALTH CARE BILL with MORE GIANT COSTS to keep from losing ground on the remaining life of Medicare? All your cost and savings claims look out ten years but you're telling us we'll have to make it bigger and even more costly in half that time? What's the point of looking out ten years if the fix won't last more than five? Gads, what are you thinking?
Ms. Pelosi, we thought you guys said you were going to fix our nation's medical costs problem with your legislation, not kick it down the road a few years. Kicking the problem down the road is what you all have been doing for years. THAT is what we citizens have been telling you that we're tired of! You said you agreed that it was time we stopped doing that and get serious about health care reform. You all ran on a platform of "health care in America will bankrupt the country soon ... elect us [democrats] and we will fix it". We bought that argument and now you're telling us this is your version of serious health care reform geared to reigning in the costs once and for all? Are you serious? This is not a fix. It barely qualifies as a Band-Aid on the problem. Here, again, is a question I keep asking in this blog, do you think we're stupid?
The biggest leverage you had trying to convince us to support your bill and its mind-boggling cost was that you were saying you were actually going to fix it this time. Don't you get it yet? ACTUALLY FIXING IT IS WHAT WE WANT! Hello? Anyone home there on capitol hill?
Doesn't that mean that in five years we'll have to pass ANOTHER GIANT HEALTH CARE BILL with MORE GIANT COSTS to keep from losing ground on the remaining life of Medicare? All your cost and savings claims look out ten years but you're telling us we'll have to make it bigger and even more costly in half that time? What's the point of looking out ten years if the fix won't last more than five? Gads, what are you thinking?
Ms. Pelosi, we thought you guys said you were going to fix our nation's medical costs problem with your legislation, not kick it down the road a few years. Kicking the problem down the road is what you all have been doing for years. THAT is what we citizens have been telling you that we're tired of! You said you agreed that it was time we stopped doing that and get serious about health care reform. You all ran on a platform of "health care in America will bankrupt the country soon ... elect us [democrats] and we will fix it". We bought that argument and now you're telling us this is your version of serious health care reform geared to reigning in the costs once and for all? Are you serious? This is not a fix. It barely qualifies as a Band-Aid on the problem. Here, again, is a question I keep asking in this blog, do you think we're stupid?
The biggest leverage you had trying to convince us to support your bill and its mind-boggling cost was that you were saying you were actually going to fix it this time. Don't you get it yet? ACTUALLY FIXING IT IS WHAT WE WANT! Hello? Anyone home there on capitol hill?
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Bet You Didn't Know: Denying Representation To Half of Americans IS Constitutional!
A little background first ...
The president and democratic leadership in the House and Senate continue to deny elected republican representatives participation in the legislative/governing processes. The president and other democratic leadership will only talk with republicans whom they believe may be persuaded to vote for their bills.
Official requests since April by republican leadership to meet with the president and democratic leadership to discuss important legislation have been ignored or rejected ... never accepted.
Democratic leadership in the executive and legislative branches campaigned on restoring bipartisanship and also promised it in their acceptance speeches. Then, within days(!) of taking office, the president's staff and democratic leaders in the House and Senate said "We won so we get to do it OUR way!". Of course we have seen that they, indeed, did exactly that. S'up with that? Does this bother anyone else?
Here's the deal ...
I told one of our US Senators in a town hall meeting 3 months ago that this partisanship whereby nearly half(!) of the citizens' elected (chosen!) representatives are denied a voice in legislation:
He was clearly saying (at least) four things: 1) yeah, I know we're doing it ... so what?, 2) you can't stop us (nyah, nyah, nyah), 3) we're going to keep doing it (nyah, nyah, nyah), and 4) I'm ignorant of constitutional history, constitutional limitations on federal government, and The People's right to representation (ie, not just a right of those people to whom those currently in charge choose to 'grant' representation).
There are tons of powers, actions and processes not specifically excluded in the constitution but that doesn't mean they're okay. What ARE you guys (democrats in the executive and legislative branches) thinking?
Then, when The People, upset with state of affairs, began practicing their constitutional(!) right to protest and free speech via town hall meetings and Tea Parties, the president actually said ... actually said: "be quiet and get out of the way" and was dismissive of us as "teabaggers". Double OMG to that!! The president ordering those who vocally protest his actions and those of his cohorts in the legislature to be quiet? I thought all these people (leaders in the executive, legislative and judicial branches) swore an oath to protect and preserve the constitution ... for ALL the people! I suppose these guys think that's constitutionally okay too, huh? Got news for you, the Bill of Rights IS part of the constitution.
Gotta feel sorry for the current democratic leadership in one way though. For them, the constitution certainly is "An Inconvenient Document"! Declaration of Independence too. Those pesky documents sure can get in the way of a perfectly good political, power-grabbing agenda.
There is good news however ... there appears to be hope, even from within the democratic party. I asked the same question of Senator Wyden in yesterday's Grants Pass town hall meeting and he said he thinks this partisanship is wrong. He said he is working hard to involve republicans. In fact, he is the sponsor of one of the Senate versions of health care reform and has worked diligently to get equal participation by and content from republicans. To that I've gotta say OMG! too ... in a good way.
The president and democratic leadership in the House and Senate continue to deny elected republican representatives participation in the legislative/governing processes. The president and other democratic leadership will only talk with republicans whom they believe may be persuaded to vote for their bills.
Official requests since April by republican leadership to meet with the president and democratic leadership to discuss important legislation have been ignored or rejected ... never accepted.
Democratic leadership in the executive and legislative branches campaigned on restoring bipartisanship and also promised it in their acceptance speeches. Then, within days(!) of taking office, the president's staff and democratic leaders in the House and Senate said "We won so we get to do it OUR way!". Of course we have seen that they, indeed, did exactly that. S'up with that? Does this bother anyone else?
Here's the deal ...
I told one of our US Senators in a town hall meeting 3 months ago that this partisanship whereby nearly half(!) of the citizens' elected (chosen!) representatives are denied a voice in legislation:
- Ends up denying approximately HALF of American citizens(!) a voice in government. [By the way, it's called disenfranchisement!]
- Was warned against by the founding fathers. [Madison even had a term for it: "Majority Oppression".]
- Represents the ultimate in hypocracy by a party that claims a monopoly on being truly fair to Americans.
He was clearly saying (at least) four things: 1) yeah, I know we're doing it ... so what?, 2) you can't stop us (nyah, nyah, nyah), 3) we're going to keep doing it (nyah, nyah, nyah), and 4) I'm ignorant of constitutional history, constitutional limitations on federal government, and The People's right to representation (ie, not just a right of those people to whom those currently in charge choose to 'grant' representation).
There are tons of powers, actions and processes not specifically excluded in the constitution but that doesn't mean they're okay. What ARE you guys (democrats in the executive and legislative branches) thinking?
Then, when The People, upset with state of affairs, began practicing their constitutional(!) right to protest and free speech via town hall meetings and Tea Parties, the president actually said ... actually said: "be quiet and get out of the way" and was dismissive of us as "teabaggers". Double OMG to that!! The president ordering those who vocally protest his actions and those of his cohorts in the legislature to be quiet? I thought all these people (leaders in the executive, legislative and judicial branches) swore an oath to protect and preserve the constitution ... for ALL the people! I suppose these guys think that's constitutionally okay too, huh? Got news for you, the Bill of Rights IS part of the constitution.
Gotta feel sorry for the current democratic leadership in one way though. For them, the constitution certainly is "An Inconvenient Document"! Declaration of Independence too. Those pesky documents sure can get in the way of a perfectly good political, power-grabbing agenda.
There is good news however ... there appears to be hope, even from within the democratic party. I asked the same question of Senator Wyden in yesterday's Grants Pass town hall meeting and he said he thinks this partisanship is wrong. He said he is working hard to involve republicans. In fact, he is the sponsor of one of the Senate versions of health care reform and has worked diligently to get equal participation by and content from republicans. To that I've gotta say OMG! too ... in a good way.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Reality Is No Fun So Forget About It!
Oh good. President Obama wants to convene a conference of employers next month to figure out how to create jobs in a meaningful way. Uh, didn't he promise us he knew how to do that? Isn't that what the stimulus package was all about? After all, he told us to trust him and give him all that stimulus money because he promised it would result in a ton of private sector jobs such that unemployment would stay below 8% or so.
What's that? You say that private sector jobs have just kept evaporating all year and unemployment is still increasing? How can that be with all the jobs that were created? Oh, those became jobs in ... drum roll ... government! Maybe no one told those in the White House that government jobs don't contribute to growth in private sector jobs or, in turn, the GDP and don't, therefore, make a real difference in unemployment. I guess they don't teach basic economics where they attended college. Sorry if that sounds harsh but I don't see any other way to explain what they've been believing and doing.
By the way, if a conference on creating jobs is good to do now, wouldn't it have been even better to do back in March? After all, wasn't this problem becoming big enough even then to warrant doing absolutely everything to stem this tide? Why is 'community organizing' of actual employers about how to increase jobs a last resort? Seriously, if this administration is so big on community organizing, why didn't they do that with employers back in March?
What are the chances that the president is calling these people together to listen to what they want done because he's actually interested in doing that? Recent history would suggest otherwise wouldn't it? What's more likely is that they're being summoned to his house to hear what he wants them to do. He'll probably throw money at their companies with all the usual government strings attached so that he can tell them how to manage their companies and pay employees/managers. When he gets done with them we'll probably own them too! Funny ... but not funny.
By the way, it's complete nonsense to assume there's a recovery going on just because the stock market is going through the roof. The housing sector is showing signs of 'recovery' too but that's not because of an economic reality. This thinking is totally built on smoke, mirrors and hope ... not reality. There's no rational way to connect the fundamentals of our economic condition with what's going on in the stock market. The next sound you'll hear will be the dollar and stock market coming apart after The Fed and those wizards on wall street finally get in touch with reality. Think this recession has been bad? Better fasten your seatbelts because we ain't seen nothing yet!
What's that? You say that private sector jobs have just kept evaporating all year and unemployment is still increasing? How can that be with all the jobs that were created? Oh, those became jobs in ... drum roll ... government! Maybe no one told those in the White House that government jobs don't contribute to growth in private sector jobs or, in turn, the GDP and don't, therefore, make a real difference in unemployment. I guess they don't teach basic economics where they attended college. Sorry if that sounds harsh but I don't see any other way to explain what they've been believing and doing.
By the way, if a conference on creating jobs is good to do now, wouldn't it have been even better to do back in March? After all, wasn't this problem becoming big enough even then to warrant doing absolutely everything to stem this tide? Why is 'community organizing' of actual employers about how to increase jobs a last resort? Seriously, if this administration is so big on community organizing, why didn't they do that with employers back in March?
What are the chances that the president is calling these people together to listen to what they want done because he's actually interested in doing that? Recent history would suggest otherwise wouldn't it? What's more likely is that they're being summoned to his house to hear what he wants them to do. He'll probably throw money at their companies with all the usual government strings attached so that he can tell them how to manage their companies and pay employees/managers. When he gets done with them we'll probably own them too! Funny ... but not funny.
By the way, it's complete nonsense to assume there's a recovery going on just because the stock market is going through the roof. The housing sector is showing signs of 'recovery' too but that's not because of an economic reality. This thinking is totally built on smoke, mirrors and hope ... not reality. There's no rational way to connect the fundamentals of our economic condition with what's going on in the stock market. The next sound you'll hear will be the dollar and stock market coming apart after The Fed and those wizards on wall street finally get in touch with reality. Think this recession has been bad? Better fasten your seatbelts because we ain't seen nothing yet!
Friday, November 6, 2009
Huh? I Say, Huh?
Reported in the media last week: President Obama's stimulus package created or saved about 600,000 jobs and they said that half of that number were 'saved' teacher's jobs. Similar numbers came from our state's (Oregon's) leadership ... thousands of jobs saved, half of which were teacher positions. I have a couple of questions about those claims.
That means they're saying that without the stimulus package, America WOULD HAVE fired 300,000 teachers. Think about that for a minute ... 300,000 teaching positions that are filled today would have been gone now were it not for the stimulus package. 300,000! Are you kidding me? Do these numbskulls actually expect us to believe that?
In fact, any reasonable person knows that without the stimulus money states would not have cut back teaching positions anywhere near that much. They would have cut back in other areas of state/local government so they could keep most teachers employed. They would NOT have discarded anywhere near 300,000 teaching positions. Probably would have eliminated some ... I'm guessing it would be closer to 10,000. (I may be off but my number is a LOT more rational than theirs!) It's nonsense to justify the stimulus after the fact by falacious and nonsensical jobs saved claims. C'mon folks! We're not stupid, although they apparently think we are.
By the way, how exactly does steering HALF of the stimulus money into education spending help create jobs that stimulate the economy? Said another way, how exactly does keeping government big in a time of economic crisis help the economy? The ONLY sector of the economy that didn't decline this year is ... drum roll ... government. How exactly does more government contribute to the gross national product? Answer: ZERO!
On a different front, if you were to hear that one American has been an official visitor to the White House at least 22 times since Obama took office, of which 7 were one-on-one visits with the president, whose name would come to mind? Would you believe it was Andy Stern, president of SEIU? Well, believe it! If we're to believe President Obama's PROMISE to bring a new era of bipartisanship to the executive office, how come Stern gets 7 one-on-one's with him and people like Republican House and Senate minority leaders get ZERO? Where is the slightest hint of bipartisanship in that? Seriously, how exactly is that better than under Bush?
Also, Democratic leadership, including President Obama, rags incessantly on Republicans in general and Bush in particular for catering to special interests. They also said they do not do that and will not do that. It's a new day with Democrats in charge, right? Wrong! The leadership of BOTH parties gives too much access and, therefore, influence to special interests. The only thing different about Democrats is their special interests are different from Republicans' special interests. They both corrupt the democratic process in this respect ... arguably equally.
That means they're saying that without the stimulus package, America WOULD HAVE fired 300,000 teachers. Think about that for a minute ... 300,000 teaching positions that are filled today would have been gone now were it not for the stimulus package. 300,000! Are you kidding me? Do these numbskulls actually expect us to believe that?
In fact, any reasonable person knows that without the stimulus money states would not have cut back teaching positions anywhere near that much. They would have cut back in other areas of state/local government so they could keep most teachers employed. They would NOT have discarded anywhere near 300,000 teaching positions. Probably would have eliminated some ... I'm guessing it would be closer to 10,000. (I may be off but my number is a LOT more rational than theirs!) It's nonsense to justify the stimulus after the fact by falacious and nonsensical jobs saved claims. C'mon folks! We're not stupid, although they apparently think we are.
By the way, how exactly does steering HALF of the stimulus money into education spending help create jobs that stimulate the economy? Said another way, how exactly does keeping government big in a time of economic crisis help the economy? The ONLY sector of the economy that didn't decline this year is ... drum roll ... government. How exactly does more government contribute to the gross national product? Answer: ZERO!
On a different front, if you were to hear that one American has been an official visitor to the White House at least 22 times since Obama took office, of which 7 were one-on-one visits with the president, whose name would come to mind? Would you believe it was Andy Stern, president of SEIU? Well, believe it! If we're to believe President Obama's PROMISE to bring a new era of bipartisanship to the executive office, how come Stern gets 7 one-on-one's with him and people like Republican House and Senate minority leaders get ZERO? Where is the slightest hint of bipartisanship in that? Seriously, how exactly is that better than under Bush?
Also, Democratic leadership, including President Obama, rags incessantly on Republicans in general and Bush in particular for catering to special interests. They also said they do not do that and will not do that. It's a new day with Democrats in charge, right? Wrong! The leadership of BOTH parties gives too much access and, therefore, influence to special interests. The only thing different about Democrats is their special interests are different from Republicans' special interests. They both corrupt the democratic process in this respect ... arguably equally.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)