News Flash #1: President Obama calls for discretionary spending freeze!
News Flash #2: Democrats say Republicans aren't focused on jobs!
RE NEWS FLASH #1:
Got news for the prez. A discretionary spending freeze is THE FIRST thing he should have done when the economy tanked. It should have taken our country's chief executive about a microsecond to do exactly that in response to this, our worst economic situation since the depression. It's something NO company's CEO hesitates to do immediately even before all the damage reports are in. The freeze gives them some breathing room in which to figure out how bad the situation is. He can always resume spending at any time, the second he knows for sure that the problem no longer requires it. This is one of those no-brainer things for a reasonably competent CEO. But not for our country's CEO. Two years(!) it has taken him to do this and then ONLY AFTER his party has been handed its hat election-wise. If a company's CEO took that long to take basic step like this he'd have been fired long ago because it's such a common-sense thing to do. Except in government I guess! :-(
A quick discretionary spending freeze is what you do to ensure you don't make the problem worse while working on causes and solutions. Responsible adults do this in their personal lives for crying out loud!
The next step well-run companies take (about two weeks after the spending freeze if a quick look at the situation makes it clear the financial problem is really, really bad) is to enact an across-the-board spending reduction ... such as 10% cuts by every department ... while they look at even more severe cuts. Within a month or so, well-run companies would have a list of projects, products, product lines, people, and even whole divisions on a prioritized list of what to eliminate with criteria listed as to how far down the list to go depending on periodic checks whether the problem is stabilizing.
That Obama didn't institute a discretionary spending freeze on spending long before now is irresponsible. Talk about NOT getting out in front on this issue!
RE: NEWS FLASH #2:
Two things NEED to be said about this. We're still well over 9% unemployment after spending trillions and taking over companies. And our debt has increased at warp drive speed. Can anyone deny that Democrats were more focused on health care reform than jobs recovery? What evidence IS there that Democrats have done much about jobs in the PRIVATE sector where the recovery must begin in order to even HAVE a recovery? Very little I'd say ... two years after they took control of everything and could do anything they wanted! Republicans have been in office for what ... three weeks? And ALREADY they haven't done enough about jobs? Hypocrisy of the first order I'd say. All the while they are complaining, Democrats KNOW there's a whole laundry list of Republican legislation lining up for debate that will indeed address jobs.
The president and other Democrats have been focused on forcing a progressive agenda down our throats all the while claiming it would fix everything long before now. Don't you remember they actually said that? After criticizing Bush's debt, they have increased it more than Bush did and in much less time. Now we're borrowing and printing money like crazy, devaluing the dollar all the while. Wonder why the prices of oil, food, clothing, and pretty much everything is skyrocketing? It's the progressive monetary policy that's doing it. Much (most?) of the recent price increases can be traced directly to printing money at light speed and, in the process, devaluing the dollar.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Obama Thinks Suppressing Ideas Isn't A Good Idea? HUH?
For the past four years congress suppressed Republican ideas on all manner of legislation. For the past two years Obama did likewise.
So pardon me if I find it laughable to hear Obama's latest comment to Mubarak as Egypt's leader: "Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away"! As if Obama is an authority on how to treat the opposition's ideas fairly? Are you kidding me?
He also lectured Mubarak in the following manner about rights. "The people of Egypt have rights that are universal. That includes the right to peaceful assembly and association, the right to free speech, and the ability to determine their own destiny. These are human rights. And the United States will stand up for them everywhere."
They're human rights everywhere except in the USA of course. Here, when people got peacefully noisy in the opposing party he commanded(!) us to "sit down and be quiet". His administration and the leaders of both houses when Democrats took over said "we won; we get to do it our way". So much for basic human rights as actually PRACTICED by those preaching it.
If President Obama wants to have real influence elsewhere in the world he'd be well advised to practice his pronouncement at home. Until he does, other world leaders will rightly see him as hypocritical and a person whose self-righteous claim to legitimacy and credibility on such matters as phony and undeserving of respect. He has no right to assume moral high ground on basic human rights nor to lecture other world leaders about it until and unless he establishes a track record of routinely(!) practicing it at home as a matter of fundamental principle that applies to all Americans engaged in political discourse of significance.
So pardon me if I find it laughable to hear Obama's latest comment to Mubarak as Egypt's leader: "Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away"! As if Obama is an authority on how to treat the opposition's ideas fairly? Are you kidding me?
He also lectured Mubarak in the following manner about rights. "The people of Egypt have rights that are universal. That includes the right to peaceful assembly and association, the right to free speech, and the ability to determine their own destiny. These are human rights. And the United States will stand up for them everywhere."
They're human rights everywhere except in the USA of course. Here, when people got peacefully noisy in the opposing party he commanded(!) us to "sit down and be quiet". His administration and the leaders of both houses when Democrats took over said "we won; we get to do it our way". So much for basic human rights as actually PRACTICED by those preaching it.
If President Obama wants to have real influence elsewhere in the world he'd be well advised to practice his pronouncement at home. Until he does, other world leaders will rightly see him as hypocritical and a person whose self-righteous claim to legitimacy and credibility on such matters as phony and undeserving of respect. He has no right to assume moral high ground on basic human rights nor to lecture other world leaders about it until and unless he establishes a track record of routinely(!) practicing it at home as a matter of fundamental principle that applies to all Americans engaged in political discourse of significance.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
We Need Honesty, Integrity and Leadership In Our President
I never expect much from State of the Union addresses but I do expect honesty. A little integrity is desirable too. Unfortunately, President Obama chose to promise many things he's been promising for years and has yet to deliver on. What's really missing? Leadership. He does great at delegating things to and demanding things of others. He certainly has expertise at organizing a 'here is what I want you to do' thing but many of our most intractible challenges require our president to get out in front and lead. He hasn't been doing that. Evidence and his resume suggest that he can't. It's unfortunate for us.
Also, he said things he wants us to believe that just aren't true. I don't like feeling our president isn't being truthful. Makes me think I can never trust him. To prove my point, here are just two of the big things Obama promoted in his State of the Union address last night that simply are less than honest, in fact pretty deceitful:
The health care reforms, in fact, cost over $500 Billion. They don't save any money at all. It's true that repealing the whole health care bill will result in $250 Billion less into the Treasury but it's because the health care bill included $250 Billion more in TAXES than is needed to pay for the reforms. That means the bill does bring $250 Billion more into the Treasury but it is NOT because the reforms save us money because they do not. My question is, why in this economy did congressional Democrats take $250 Billion more in taxes than needed to pay for it in the first place? The truth: because it's COVER for getting an EXTRA $250 Billion of our money in their hands to spend on other stuff THEY want.
Did Democrats say this during the bill's debate: "By the way, another benefit of this bill is that we take $250 Billion more from you than needed! Isn't that cool?" Of course not, even though (according to his own CBO) it's 100% true! It does allow him and other Democrats to say that repealing the bill eliminates that $250 Billion extra money but it's money they dishonestly took from us in the first place so they could spend it on other stuff they didn't want to honestly tell us about.
On top of that, many Democrats have been saying lately that the loss of that $250 Billion is $250 Billion less we'll have to pay down the debt. Even average Americans know the truth: they would have spent it on other stuff, NOT use it to pay down the debt!
The #2 item above is very dishonest too. In fact, troops are being withdrawn according to Bush's plan and HIS agreement with Iraqi leadership. Obama's claim to credit for this is double dishonest because, during his election campaign, he slammed Bush for not withdrawing troops fast enough and promised he'd withdraw them 6 months sooner. Then, after being in office a short time, he QUIETLY(!) moved his timetable out 6 months but conveniently forgot to tell the American people he decided to withdraw them according to Bush's plan after all. Hmmmm.
Btw, I wonder why he didn't mention Gitmo and many other things he promised to do looooong before now?
Also, he said things he wants us to believe that just aren't true. I don't like feeling our president isn't being truthful. Makes me think I can never trust him. To prove my point, here are just two of the big things Obama promoted in his State of the Union address last night that simply are less than honest, in fact pretty deceitful:
- He said that an independent analysis determined that repealing the health care reforms would "cost us" $250 Billion.
- He was taking credit for 100,000 troops being withdrawn from Iraq.
The health care reforms, in fact, cost over $500 Billion. They don't save any money at all. It's true that repealing the whole health care bill will result in $250 Billion less into the Treasury but it's because the health care bill included $250 Billion more in TAXES than is needed to pay for the reforms. That means the bill does bring $250 Billion more into the Treasury but it is NOT because the reforms save us money because they do not. My question is, why in this economy did congressional Democrats take $250 Billion more in taxes than needed to pay for it in the first place? The truth: because it's COVER for getting an EXTRA $250 Billion of our money in their hands to spend on other stuff THEY want.
Did Democrats say this during the bill's debate: "By the way, another benefit of this bill is that we take $250 Billion more from you than needed! Isn't that cool?" Of course not, even though (according to his own CBO) it's 100% true! It does allow him and other Democrats to say that repealing the bill eliminates that $250 Billion extra money but it's money they dishonestly took from us in the first place so they could spend it on other stuff they didn't want to honestly tell us about.
On top of that, many Democrats have been saying lately that the loss of that $250 Billion is $250 Billion less we'll have to pay down the debt. Even average Americans know the truth: they would have spent it on other stuff, NOT use it to pay down the debt!
The #2 item above is very dishonest too. In fact, troops are being withdrawn according to Bush's plan and HIS agreement with Iraqi leadership. Obama's claim to credit for this is double dishonest because, during his election campaign, he slammed Bush for not withdrawing troops fast enough and promised he'd withdraw them 6 months sooner. Then, after being in office a short time, he QUIETLY(!) moved his timetable out 6 months but conveniently forgot to tell the American people he decided to withdraw them according to Bush's plan after all. Hmmmm.
Btw, I wonder why he didn't mention Gitmo and many other things he promised to do looooong before now?
Monday, January 24, 2011
Hey Democrats, What Did You Expect? YOU Caused It!
We American citizens and congress are suffering(!) through this health care reform repeal effort because of what Democrats did, not because of those mean-spirited Republicans trying to repeal it. IF Democrats had included BOTH the American people AND congressional Republicans in the original health care debate and included congressional Republicans in the bill's creation, debate AND legislative process, WE WOULD NOT BE GOING THROUGH THIS NOW! THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THIS WOULD NOT BE HAPPENING HAD YOU PROCESSED THIS LEGISLATION IN A RATIONAL MANNER CONSISTENT WITH CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESSES AND FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS TOWARD THE HALF OF AMERICANS AT WHOM YOU BASICALLY THUMBED YOUR NOSE!
Democrats came into office saying "We won so we get to do it our way!" And 'do it our way' they did! Congressional Republicans and, by extension, their constitutents comprising approximately HALF(!) the country's citizens were shut out of the bill's creation AND legislative process.
I have a completely rational question for congressional Democrats. What exactly did you expect would happen when you totally shut the opposing party out of legislation as important as this one was? What did you expect they'd do after getting back control of congress? You're not stupid ... are you? After all, that monster legislation messes with 1/6th of the economy and creates HUGE bureaucracies and budget increases. It is by ALL accounts the single biggest social legislation in history by whatever metrics you choose to use. You just TELL the half of Americans to "sit down and be quiet" over it. Then you act all surprised and angry that they try to get it repealed? By what irrational logic could you have thought this wouldn't happen?
IF you had involved Republicans, representing approximately HALF of Americans in the creation of the legislation in a proportionally fair way, isn't it completely logical and rational that the repeal effort wouldn't have had enough support to go anywhere at all? Here's the bottom line for anyone thinking with an ounce of logic and/or common sense.
Congressional Democrats, what you did by blocking Republicans from the process was GUARANTEE(!) that future legislatures will be trying to repair the unfairness and lack of balance in this legislation for years to come. Yes, they have better things to do with their time. That they're 'wasting' so much time on this is a problem of YOUR creation and NO ONE else's. You GUARANTEED they'd be tied up trying to undo the harm you did at the cost of time lost on other important issues. YOU did this. Thanks a lot!
TO CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS: You passed a piece of legislation whose content and process GUARANTEED(!) this would happen. The Republican response is not only logical but inevitable. It's irrational to hold Republicans (or Tea-Partiers!) responsible for it when this outcome was the RATIONAL result of what YOU CHOSE TO DO in TOTAL contradiction to all constitutional and Republic principles. YOU are the irresponsible ones for this repeal effort, NOT Republican representatives now trying to take back their rights to participate in governance that you unilaterally took away from them. YOU HAVE NO ONE TO BLAME BUT YOURSELVES, PERIOD. And for doing that we're very, very upset with you and your collective arrogant attitude. Apparently you don't get it yet that we're a center-right country. Ramming through very progressive legislation and thumbing your nose at everyone who doesn't think the way you do is a formula for these problems totally of your creation.
Democrats came into office saying "We won so we get to do it our way!" And 'do it our way' they did! Congressional Republicans and, by extension, their constitutents comprising approximately HALF(!) the country's citizens were shut out of the bill's creation AND legislative process.
I have a completely rational question for congressional Democrats. What exactly did you expect would happen when you totally shut the opposing party out of legislation as important as this one was? What did you expect they'd do after getting back control of congress? You're not stupid ... are you? After all, that monster legislation messes with 1/6th of the economy and creates HUGE bureaucracies and budget increases. It is by ALL accounts the single biggest social legislation in history by whatever metrics you choose to use. You just TELL the half of Americans to "sit down and be quiet" over it. Then you act all surprised and angry that they try to get it repealed? By what irrational logic could you have thought this wouldn't happen?
IF you had involved Republicans, representing approximately HALF of Americans in the creation of the legislation in a proportionally fair way, isn't it completely logical and rational that the repeal effort wouldn't have had enough support to go anywhere at all? Here's the bottom line for anyone thinking with an ounce of logic and/or common sense.
Congressional Democrats, what you did by blocking Republicans from the process was GUARANTEE(!) that future legislatures will be trying to repair the unfairness and lack of balance in this legislation for years to come. Yes, they have better things to do with their time. That they're 'wasting' so much time on this is a problem of YOUR creation and NO ONE else's. You GUARANTEED they'd be tied up trying to undo the harm you did at the cost of time lost on other important issues. YOU did this. Thanks a lot!
TO CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS: You passed a piece of legislation whose content and process GUARANTEED(!) this would happen. The Republican response is not only logical but inevitable. It's irrational to hold Republicans (or Tea-Partiers!) responsible for it when this outcome was the RATIONAL result of what YOU CHOSE TO DO in TOTAL contradiction to all constitutional and Republic principles. YOU are the irresponsible ones for this repeal effort, NOT Republican representatives now trying to take back their rights to participate in governance that you unilaterally took away from them. YOU HAVE NO ONE TO BLAME BUT YOURSELVES, PERIOD. And for doing that we're very, very upset with you and your collective arrogant attitude. Apparently you don't get it yet that we're a center-right country. Ramming through very progressive legislation and thumbing your nose at everyone who doesn't think the way you do is a formula for these problems totally of your creation.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Democrats' Claim That Repealing The Health Care Law Will Result In Loss Of Protections And Coverage Is Mostly Bogus!
Democrats' claim that Republicans are going to just repeal ObamaCare and leave us without fixes for the broken health care system of the past is simply NONSENSE AND FEAR-MONGERING!
Republican representatives were put on notice by their constituents to repeal and replace, not just repeal. And we will DEFINITELY hold them accountable to do just that. It is troubling to even us conservatives that Republicans haven't yet said what they'll replace ObamaCare with but, rest assured, we'll be pushing them HARD to do the right thing vis a vis a replacement bill that restores the protections and coverage that our economy can afford AND balances left and right interests.
The hard truth of the matter is that it's the Democrats' fault that we're in this situation of the right wanting to repeal what the left did. If they had included Republicans in the legislative process in the first place and had sought a balanced serving of interests there would be no significant effort directed at repealing ObamaCare. Ram something the other side is totally opposed to down their throats and then you're surprised or even mad that they do what they're doing? What did you expect? Democrats basically guaranteed we'd be in this fight in this way.
Question: is it better for the country for both parties to hash out their difference in the original bill and pass something the first shot at it that everyone can live with or do something that guarantees(!) successive congresses for years to come will make their first order of business undoing what the 'other side' did last time?
We conservatives WILL NOT stand for a health care system that bankrupts the country NOR, REST ASSURED(!), will we stand for congressional Republicans doing too little too slowly about the broken system we've had for so long. Neither is acceptable. The solution must consist of a compromise of the best aspects of BOTH the liberal and conservative ideas. Neither side should have total say in what happens with legislation affecting so many Americans and so much of our economy. It's just fundamentally UN-American for either party to do that.
Republican representatives were put on notice by their constituents to repeal and replace, not just repeal. And we will DEFINITELY hold them accountable to do just that. It is troubling to even us conservatives that Republicans haven't yet said what they'll replace ObamaCare with but, rest assured, we'll be pushing them HARD to do the right thing vis a vis a replacement bill that restores the protections and coverage that our economy can afford AND balances left and right interests.
The hard truth of the matter is that it's the Democrats' fault that we're in this situation of the right wanting to repeal what the left did. If they had included Republicans in the legislative process in the first place and had sought a balanced serving of interests there would be no significant effort directed at repealing ObamaCare. Ram something the other side is totally opposed to down their throats and then you're surprised or even mad that they do what they're doing? What did you expect? Democrats basically guaranteed we'd be in this fight in this way.
Question: is it better for the country for both parties to hash out their difference in the original bill and pass something the first shot at it that everyone can live with or do something that guarantees(!) successive congresses for years to come will make their first order of business undoing what the 'other side' did last time?
We conservatives WILL NOT stand for a health care system that bankrupts the country NOR, REST ASSURED(!), will we stand for congressional Republicans doing too little too slowly about the broken system we've had for so long. Neither is acceptable. The solution must consist of a compromise of the best aspects of BOTH the liberal and conservative ideas. Neither side should have total say in what happens with legislation affecting so many Americans and so much of our economy. It's just fundamentally UN-American for either party to do that.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Some Folks Believe The Left's Erroneous Claims So Resistance To ObamaCare Is Decreasing
In addition to two recent blogs explaining the truth about the cost of ObamaCare and the fact that its health care reforms do NOT reduce the debt, here is a very interesting summary of the effects of enacting ObamaCare that most people don't know about, don't seem to care about, don't want to know about, or are in total denial about regardless of the truth backed up by rather reputable sources and sensible analyses. Does this sound like a good thing for much of anyone, really?
http://www.nationalreview.com/critical-condition/257313/rights-you-will-have-obamacare-grace-marie-turner
http://www.nationalreview.com/critical-condition/257313/rights-you-will-have-obamacare-grace-marie-turner
Government Bankruptcy Is A Blunt But Effective Tool For Resetting To Reality
Regarding federal, state and local government overspending at the taxpayers' expense, honesty and truth sometimes suck don't they? Sometimes the cure hurts but trying to live with the disease is just stupid! Check this out:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/257303/budget-crisis-rhetoric-thomas-sowell
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/257303/budget-crisis-rhetoric-thomas-sowell
That's Why Democrats Have Been Carrying On That Repealing ObamaCare INCREASES The Debt
Following up on my previous blog:
So, if we buy the nonsense that ObamaCare does result in debt reduction (because it takes $200 Billion more from us than the health care changes cost), repealing it does indeed increase the debt by the amount no longer available to use on debt reduction.
Hmmmmm, Democrats passed a bill that intentionally takes more taxes from us than needed to pay for it which makes it true for them to say that repealing it increases the debt.
What they want you to think:
So, if we buy the nonsense that ObamaCare does result in debt reduction (because it takes $200 Billion more from us than the health care changes cost), repealing it does indeed increase the debt by the amount no longer available to use on debt reduction.
Hmmmmm, Democrats passed a bill that intentionally takes more taxes from us than needed to pay for it which makes it true for them to say that repealing it increases the debt.
What they want you to think:
- Obama's health care reforms 'save' us money that can be used to pay down the debt,
- They will ACTUALLY use that 'extra' $200 Billion to pay down the debt (HA!) and
- Since the reforms 'save' us $200 Billion, repealing them adds to the debt.
- Obama's health care reforms don't save money, they COST $500+ Billion (that we can't afford),
- The taxes to pay for them cost taxpayers $700 Billion, $200 Billion more than needed,
- It's the repealing of $200 Billion more in taxes than the reforms cost that increases the debt but even that's not the truth because
- History proves they WOULD NOT use the 'extra' $200 Billion in tax revenues to pay down the debt. Their claim that repealing ObamaCare would increase the debt $200 Billion is a bald-faced lie and is completely laughable(!) because they would NOT use the bill's tax 'surplus' to pay down the debt in the first place ... they WOULD SPEND IT! DUH!
Monday, January 17, 2011
NO, ObamaCare's Health Care Fix Does NOT Reduce The Debt
If you think that the changes to health care in last years' health care bill will reduce the debt you are wrong. According to the CBO. In fact, the changes to health care have a net cost of $500 Billion. It INCREASES THE COST OF HEALTH CARE BY $500 BILLION!
It IS true that the health care BILL 'reduces the debt' but that is NOT due to the changes in health care delivery. The changes to our health care will cost us $500 Billion.
So, how does a new law that costs $500 Billion give the government a $200 Billion profit? The bill also includes over $700 Billion in NEW TAXES. Clever eh?
They could have added only enough taxes to pay for the increased cost of this new health care but that wouldn't look good to citizens because citizens said loudly that the health care costs are too high and must go down. They definitely don't want it to increase the debt. How do you get the people to think you made health care costs go down? Include MORE TAXES than you need so the bill produces an EXTRA $200 Billion and tell them that the health care bill doesn't cost money, it actually reduces the debt.
Sound like a shell game? Well, it is. Only someone in government can take an EXTRA $200 Billion from people and try to convince them that the government's actions are saving citizens money.
Ck out this link for the facts:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/256657/peculiar-path-deficit-reduction-yuval-levin
Here's what that link says and it comes from the CBO(!): ObamaCare costs = $540B. That would only require a tax increase of $540B to pay for it right? But Dems added tax increases into the bill of $770B to pay for ObamaCare. So, because they take some $200B MORE FROM TAXPAYERS THAN THEY NEED to pay for ObamaCare that $200B becomes 'extra' revenue they wouldn't have had without the health care bill. Yes, they can pay down $200 Billion worth of debt but it's only because of a new tax, NOT because of benefits from health care changes.
Devious, eh? That's government for you.
It IS true that the health care BILL 'reduces the debt' but that is NOT due to the changes in health care delivery. The changes to our health care will cost us $500 Billion.
So, how does a new law that costs $500 Billion give the government a $200 Billion profit? The bill also includes over $700 Billion in NEW TAXES. Clever eh?
They could have added only enough taxes to pay for the increased cost of this new health care but that wouldn't look good to citizens because citizens said loudly that the health care costs are too high and must go down. They definitely don't want it to increase the debt. How do you get the people to think you made health care costs go down? Include MORE TAXES than you need so the bill produces an EXTRA $200 Billion and tell them that the health care bill doesn't cost money, it actually reduces the debt.
Sound like a shell game? Well, it is. Only someone in government can take an EXTRA $200 Billion from people and try to convince them that the government's actions are saving citizens money.
Ck out this link for the facts:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/256657/peculiar-path-deficit-reduction-yuval-levin
Here's what that link says and it comes from the CBO(!): ObamaCare costs = $540B. That would only require a tax increase of $540B to pay for it right? But Dems added tax increases into the bill of $770B to pay for ObamaCare. So, because they take some $200B MORE FROM TAXPAYERS THAN THEY NEED to pay for ObamaCare that $200B becomes 'extra' revenue they wouldn't have had without the health care bill. Yes, they can pay down $200 Billion worth of debt but it's only because of a new tax, NOT because of benefits from health care changes.
Devious, eh? That's government for you.
Friday, January 14, 2011
More Truth About The Left's Rabid Hatred Toward Those On The Right
Regarding how The Left and their voices in The Media handle violence in America, check out the following links. The first link is among the best.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/256935/massacre-followed-libel-charles-krauthammer
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/257127/blame-righty-condensed-history-michelle-malkin
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/257140/let-me-be-equally-clear-tony-blankley
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/257045/tucson-and-failure-political-class-conrad-black
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/256987/systematic-assassinations-not-part-our-politics-michael-barone
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/256932/time-congressional-calm-editors
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/256907/what-we-can-learn-paul-wellstone-really-michael-tanner
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/256880/exploitative-rhetoric-tragedy-jonah-goldberg
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/256936/worst-sheriff-america-michelle-malkin
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/256935/massacre-followed-libel-charles-krauthammer
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/257127/blame-righty-condensed-history-michelle-malkin
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/257140/let-me-be-equally-clear-tony-blankley
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/257045/tucson-and-failure-political-class-conrad-black
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/256987/systematic-assassinations-not-part-our-politics-michael-barone
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/256932/time-congressional-calm-editors
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/256907/what-we-can-learn-paul-wellstone-really-michael-tanner
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/256880/exploitative-rhetoric-tragedy-jonah-goldberg
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/256936/worst-sheriff-america-michelle-malkin
Thanks For The Laugh New York Times!
In the next edition of the New York Times after president Obama's speech in Arizona about the recent shootings there, its editors gave Obama a hearty at-a-boy for telling those divisive conservatives to stop the rhetoric.
Apparently it never occurred to them that president Obama was talking to THEM at least as much as to conservatives. Leading up to the president's speech, the NY Times had led the charge of many liberal bastions of the liberal version of truth in quickly condemning conservatives in general for those killings. Never mind that there was no such link to what motivated that mass murderer ... before or after(!) the dust settled on that cowardly act.
Turns out that the murderer's friends have since all said he had no interest in 'talk radio' or Fox ... never listened to them and had no interest in what they had to say. That doesn't matter to the NY Times and other media and persons operating in the far left zone. To them, conservatives are guilty because they WANT them to be. Guilty even when later proven innocent. They'll mold whatever unfortunate event into a conspiracy that fits their 'conservative rhetoric is the cause of everything bad' narrative. Several congressional Democrats also took the same position as the Times. THIS is the key thing the president was addressing but they've become so rabid with hate they've became blind to the fact(!) that the president was talking about THEM!
Everyone understands there is too much divisiveness in America. We're too polarized politically. What the NY Times and other bastions of liberal truth, especially that on the far left, don't get is that they started this conservative push-back that started about a year and a half ago.
The first Tea Party gathering in resistance to the liberal swing of congress didn't happen until:
Apparently it never occurred to them that president Obama was talking to THEM at least as much as to conservatives. Leading up to the president's speech, the NY Times had led the charge of many liberal bastions of the liberal version of truth in quickly condemning conservatives in general for those killings. Never mind that there was no such link to what motivated that mass murderer ... before or after(!) the dust settled on that cowardly act.
Turns out that the murderer's friends have since all said he had no interest in 'talk radio' or Fox ... never listened to them and had no interest in what they had to say. That doesn't matter to the NY Times and other media and persons operating in the far left zone. To them, conservatives are guilty because they WANT them to be. Guilty even when later proven innocent. They'll mold whatever unfortunate event into a conspiracy that fits their 'conservative rhetoric is the cause of everything bad' narrative. Several congressional Democrats also took the same position as the Times. THIS is the key thing the president was addressing but they've become so rabid with hate they've became blind to the fact(!) that the president was talking about THEM!
Everyone understands there is too much divisiveness in America. We're too polarized politically. What the NY Times and other bastions of liberal truth, especially that on the far left, don't get is that they started this conservative push-back that started about a year and a half ago.
The first Tea Party gathering in resistance to the liberal swing of congress didn't happen until:
- AFTER the leaders of both houses of congress and the president's administration SAID(!): "we won so we get to do it OUR way".
- AFTER the Democratic party had shut Republicans completely OUT of the congressional processes and rammed through major legislation without allowing Republican participation, much less Republican amendments.
- AFTER the Democratic party had effectively rendered Republican citizens voiceless in congress ... effectively disenfranchised half of Americans who no longer had a voice into the legislative process or important legislation.
The Tea Party got most invigorated:
- AFTER president Obama told Americans in that conservative movement to "sit down and be quiet".
- AFTER the president and congressional Democrats began pushing through a health care reform that 2/3 of Americans opposed.
There is no precedent for the president's demand to peacefully participating Americans to "sit down and be quiet". Peaceful protests were not only unwelcome in America but the nation's top law enforcer told(!) these protestors to stop.
So, to the NY Times and others on the left who believe likewise:
- Do you not understand that our loss of representation at the hands of your representatives in congress PRECEEDED our protests?
- Do you not understand that this loss of freedom and representation is quite a big deal?
- Do you not understand that you created the divisiveness, not us, by blocking us out of our country's democratic process? Isn't it divisive for congress and the president to say "we won so we get to do it OUR way"? Isn't is divisive for the president to tell those protesting the 'we won' narrative to "sit down and be quiet"? All that preceeded our 'rhetoric'. C'mon be rational for a second!
- Do you not understand that this nonsensical divisiveness by Democrats in congress and the White House is unconstitutional in principle if not in fact?
- Do you not understand that the degree/extent of our opposition is IN DIRECT proportion and IN RESPONSE to the loss of freedom and representation we had experienced BEFORE we began protesting? It wouldn't be entirely illogical to argue that our peaceful protests are tame by comparison to the harm caused by the loss of freedom and representation.
- Do you not understand that WE have taken away no one's rights (as you have) by our actions?
- Do you not understand that Obama is supposed to be the president of ALL The People, not just the far left?
- Do you not understand that 'rhetoric' is protected by the constitution even when it's vigorous?
- Do you not understant that how others react to it is their responsibility? (Probably not since you all seem to think that bad stuff is always someone else's fault.)
- Do you not understand that our 98% peaceful (although vigorous) opposition is IN RESPONSE TO what the far left had PREVIOUSLY done to our freedoms and rights?
- Do you REALLY expect us to sit quietly by in the face of all that?
- Do you REALLY think as you claim that our protests and vigorous 'rhetoric' started only in the vacuum of our own doing?
- Do you REALLY not understand that you DID start the divisiveness, not us ... that if you and your representatives had not done what they did this wouldn't be happening?
- Do you REALLY not understand that the goal of our protests and opposition is to stop the divisiveness YOU started and to restore a fair balance in our federal government that you took away?
We will defend our rights and freedoms only as vigorously as necessary to re-establish them now that the far left has taken some away. No one should be surprised at Americans doing that. After all it's why we have a constitution in the first place. As long as we're not rioting, it's NOT un-American nor, certainly, unconsitutional to protest even vigorously when fundamental rights are being infringed upon. In fact, it's entirely American to do so.
Thanks for the laugh New York Times. You're a source of great amusement to us.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Let's Hope 'Undoing' Doesn't Become Job One For All Presidents And Congresses
Many on the left are getting all apoplectic over Republicans' promise and apparent real commitment to undo much of, if not repeal, Obamacare. Apparently they need to be reminded this is not just a one-sided conspiracy. In fact, most of what Obama and congressional Democrats have run on in recent years was repealing as much as possible of what Bush two had done.
Democrats, therefore, have no rational basis on which to raise a cry of 'unfair', eh? We need to be careful what we make of all this. While it's true that Democrats are at least as 'guilty' of doing such things as Republicans that doesn't mean we should just call it even as if there's nothing going on that needs to be addressed.
For the average American, I think the greater problem arising in this tit for tat approach to governing is the tendency for one party to spend too much of its time attempting to undo what the other party did its last time 'in power'. Where's room for real progress in that? Where does it leave room for things like balancing the budget? (We STILL don't have a federal budget that Dems were supposed to produce 6 months ago!) Aren't there other things more deserving of their attention than spending most of their time undoing previous legislation? How does that leave room for visionary things? How does that leave room the The People's normal business? Fact is, it doesn't and it makes many existing problems worse via neglect.
I know it can be boring but our governments were created to mind the 'normal business' of a nation in only fundamental areas of need. If you read the constitution, you'll find that most of what it says the federal government should be doing is pretty routine stuff. The household eqivalent of balancing the checkbook every month, taking out the trash, maintaining the yard, washing the car, etc. America's governments were never INTENDED to become powerful, full of themselves (individually and collectively) and expansive. That was NEVER intended to be their nature. Yet it has become so. Not good for The Republic I think. Hamilton et-al are thrashing in their graves no doubt!
I think all this attention on undoing what others have done is wrong for our country in many, many ways. Basically, they're moving away from The People's business to doing their own monkey business at The People's expense. They've become NEGLECTFUL of 'normal business' and we're seeing the consequences of that. What happens when you neglect producing a budget? YOU SPEND TOO MUCH, RIGHT? Isn't that what we citizens do if we don't watch the budget? What our country REALLY NEEDS is for these yahoos to stop this back and forth nonsense. Thing is, the back and forth stuff is just the consequence of the real cause. It's the root cause we need to recognize and FIX.
The real problem lies, I think, in the tendency of both parties to attempt to govern with as little participation by the other party as possible. If one party legislates in near exclusion of participation by the other party, it is completely natural (but unfortunate!) of the other party to want to get in its two cents whenever it can muster enough power. The consequences of doing things unilaterally is that it CONDEMNS the country to suffer the next congress spending time undoing stuff they didn't like from the previous congress. Let's see. There are two ways of legislating. The party in power can do things unilaterally which WILL result in the other party wasting a LOT of time undoing what they don't like. OR the party in power can invite full and fair participation by the minority party with the goal of creating legislation they can BOTH live with in the future. Which approach takes the least time in the end? Which approach will likely cost the least? Which approach allows more time to do 'normal' housekeeping such as creating a stinking budget? Which approach will result in more energy devoted to solving problems than in criticizing and campaigning on what the other party screwed up?
Another really bad consequence of agenda-driven legislation that's rammed through is that they don't really stop to assess what is the will of The People! It was clear that the Democratic party had no interest in finding out what The People thought about the health care legislation. They treated Americans as ignorant and incapable of understanding it. Fact is, most of the Democrats didn't understand it either. In fact, Pelosi famously said "We have to pass the health care bill so we can find out what's in it." HUH? Would YOU run YOUR life that way? Do something BIG before examining it very closely and waiting until the consequences hit to find out what you screwed up? Would you really? Of course not! So why on God's green earth is it okay for congressmen to do that?
Another consequence of tit for tat legislating is that it polarizes The People on issues and platforms that keep looking backward rather than forward. Look at all the energy spent on revisiting legislation haphazardly done. In the media. Among citizens. Among congressmen. Among/by special interests.
Don't get me going on special interests. Democrats go on and on about congressional Republicans catering to their special intersts AS IF Democrats don't do that. C'mon! Is there ANY doubt they both cater MORE to their special interests than to the will of The People? Honestly? Who cares which party does it more! They BOTH do it wayyyyyy too much! Special interests have more power than The People. That is NOT RIGHT! We need to take our republic back from ALL special interests! Those in congress probably won't listen to us until we do.
The Founders INTENDED for BOTH PARTIES to have their interests represented in legislation reasonably consistent with what The People want. All legislation should have the interests of BOTH parties' constituents represented within it to an extent approximately consistent with their percentages in congress.
This is, after all, a REPUBLIC, not a Democracy. At least it was created that way and the constitution was written consistent with that objective. In fact, Hamilton and others called on future majority parties to be responsible including the opposition party(s) in the creation of all legislation. They SAID that a REPUBLIC form of government REQUIRES that.
Seems to me that if our representatives adhered to that caution, legislation would have both parties' interests represented FAIRLY ENOUGH IN ITS FIRST(!) ITERATION that subsequent congresses and presidents wouldn't spend most of their time in office trying to undo what the other party did the last time they had the most power.
One very troubling problem that's resulting from this back and forth nonsense is that the party currently in power will try various means to gain more power for itself. (Senate Democrats are trying to do just that via revisions in the filibuster process.) That is SO contrary to the spirit of the constitution and a republican form of government! When the parties become more focused on their agenda than on cooperative progress regarding The People's business, The People lose. We WILL lose financially. We WILL lose security. We WILL lose our freedoms because 'the state' thinks it knows best in spite of what the majority of Americans want ... in spite of what worked pretty well for the first 200 years!
We need them to spend ALL their time maintaining the country and working together in an honest fashion on those things needing correction or (minimal) new/different regulation. Their job should be LARGELY ROUTINE if not mostly boring... just as most of the things are that we do as responsible citizens. We do our jobs like the people who hired us want us to do them. We go home and do mostly routine things there as well. We take care of boring but basic and important stuff like balancing our budget, ensuring the kids get three squares and a good education, keeping the house and yard orderly and clean/neat. We walk the dog and empty the trash. We are obliged by our heritage to live responsibly; responsible to ourselves, our family and our community ... not to live lives of dependency on others and CERTAINLY NOT on handouts from a 'benevolent government'.
To Congress: Stop this nonsense and work together cooperatively to do the people's business and, by doing so, faithfully execute your duties as you swore(!) to do in your oath of office! DO LEGISLATION RIGHT THE FIRST TIME (ie, cooperatively). Or doesn't your word and your oath mean anything any more?
Democrats, therefore, have no rational basis on which to raise a cry of 'unfair', eh? We need to be careful what we make of all this. While it's true that Democrats are at least as 'guilty' of doing such things as Republicans that doesn't mean we should just call it even as if there's nothing going on that needs to be addressed.
For the average American, I think the greater problem arising in this tit for tat approach to governing is the tendency for one party to spend too much of its time attempting to undo what the other party did its last time 'in power'. Where's room for real progress in that? Where does it leave room for things like balancing the budget? (We STILL don't have a federal budget that Dems were supposed to produce 6 months ago!) Aren't there other things more deserving of their attention than spending most of their time undoing previous legislation? How does that leave room for visionary things? How does that leave room the The People's normal business? Fact is, it doesn't and it makes many existing problems worse via neglect.
I know it can be boring but our governments were created to mind the 'normal business' of a nation in only fundamental areas of need. If you read the constitution, you'll find that most of what it says the federal government should be doing is pretty routine stuff. The household eqivalent of balancing the checkbook every month, taking out the trash, maintaining the yard, washing the car, etc. America's governments were never INTENDED to become powerful, full of themselves (individually and collectively) and expansive. That was NEVER intended to be their nature. Yet it has become so. Not good for The Republic I think. Hamilton et-al are thrashing in their graves no doubt!
I think all this attention on undoing what others have done is wrong for our country in many, many ways. Basically, they're moving away from The People's business to doing their own monkey business at The People's expense. They've become NEGLECTFUL of 'normal business' and we're seeing the consequences of that. What happens when you neglect producing a budget? YOU SPEND TOO MUCH, RIGHT? Isn't that what we citizens do if we don't watch the budget? What our country REALLY NEEDS is for these yahoos to stop this back and forth nonsense. Thing is, the back and forth stuff is just the consequence of the real cause. It's the root cause we need to recognize and FIX.
The real problem lies, I think, in the tendency of both parties to attempt to govern with as little participation by the other party as possible. If one party legislates in near exclusion of participation by the other party, it is completely natural (but unfortunate!) of the other party to want to get in its two cents whenever it can muster enough power. The consequences of doing things unilaterally is that it CONDEMNS the country to suffer the next congress spending time undoing stuff they didn't like from the previous congress. Let's see. There are two ways of legislating. The party in power can do things unilaterally which WILL result in the other party wasting a LOT of time undoing what they don't like. OR the party in power can invite full and fair participation by the minority party with the goal of creating legislation they can BOTH live with in the future. Which approach takes the least time in the end? Which approach will likely cost the least? Which approach allows more time to do 'normal' housekeeping such as creating a stinking budget? Which approach will result in more energy devoted to solving problems than in criticizing and campaigning on what the other party screwed up?
Another really bad consequence of agenda-driven legislation that's rammed through is that they don't really stop to assess what is the will of The People! It was clear that the Democratic party had no interest in finding out what The People thought about the health care legislation. They treated Americans as ignorant and incapable of understanding it. Fact is, most of the Democrats didn't understand it either. In fact, Pelosi famously said "We have to pass the health care bill so we can find out what's in it." HUH? Would YOU run YOUR life that way? Do something BIG before examining it very closely and waiting until the consequences hit to find out what you screwed up? Would you really? Of course not! So why on God's green earth is it okay for congressmen to do that?
Another consequence of tit for tat legislating is that it polarizes The People on issues and platforms that keep looking backward rather than forward. Look at all the energy spent on revisiting legislation haphazardly done. In the media. Among citizens. Among congressmen. Among/by special interests.
Don't get me going on special interests. Democrats go on and on about congressional Republicans catering to their special intersts AS IF Democrats don't do that. C'mon! Is there ANY doubt they both cater MORE to their special interests than to the will of The People? Honestly? Who cares which party does it more! They BOTH do it wayyyyyy too much! Special interests have more power than The People. That is NOT RIGHT! We need to take our republic back from ALL special interests! Those in congress probably won't listen to us until we do.
The Founders INTENDED for BOTH PARTIES to have their interests represented in legislation reasonably consistent with what The People want. All legislation should have the interests of BOTH parties' constituents represented within it to an extent approximately consistent with their percentages in congress.
This is, after all, a REPUBLIC, not a Democracy. At least it was created that way and the constitution was written consistent with that objective. In fact, Hamilton and others called on future majority parties to be responsible including the opposition party(s) in the creation of all legislation. They SAID that a REPUBLIC form of government REQUIRES that.
Seems to me that if our representatives adhered to that caution, legislation would have both parties' interests represented FAIRLY ENOUGH IN ITS FIRST(!) ITERATION that subsequent congresses and presidents wouldn't spend most of their time in office trying to undo what the other party did the last time they had the most power.
One very troubling problem that's resulting from this back and forth nonsense is that the party currently in power will try various means to gain more power for itself. (Senate Democrats are trying to do just that via revisions in the filibuster process.) That is SO contrary to the spirit of the constitution and a republican form of government! When the parties become more focused on their agenda than on cooperative progress regarding The People's business, The People lose. We WILL lose financially. We WILL lose security. We WILL lose our freedoms because 'the state' thinks it knows best in spite of what the majority of Americans want ... in spite of what worked pretty well for the first 200 years!
We need them to spend ALL their time maintaining the country and working together in an honest fashion on those things needing correction or (minimal) new/different regulation. Their job should be LARGELY ROUTINE if not mostly boring... just as most of the things are that we do as responsible citizens. We do our jobs like the people who hired us want us to do them. We go home and do mostly routine things there as well. We take care of boring but basic and important stuff like balancing our budget, ensuring the kids get three squares and a good education, keeping the house and yard orderly and clean/neat. We walk the dog and empty the trash. We are obliged by our heritage to live responsibly; responsible to ourselves, our family and our community ... not to live lives of dependency on others and CERTAINLY NOT on handouts from a 'benevolent government'.
To Congress: Stop this nonsense and work together cooperatively to do the people's business and, by doing so, faithfully execute your duties as you swore(!) to do in your oath of office! DO LEGISLATION RIGHT THE FIRST TIME (ie, cooperatively). Or doesn't your word and your oath mean anything any more?
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Why Isn't 30 to 0 Enough For Democrats!
So, Democrats are trying to change senate rules on the filibuster process in order to place new limits on the minority party. On the one hand it seems innocuous enough. On the other, it'll make it easier to pass legislation unimpeded by the minority party. That's hardly consistent with the principles behind the construction and writing of the constitution.
Hamiliton and other of our founders made MANY statements to the effect that this, being a REPUBLIC, requires that the majority party not only 'allow' the minority party fair participation in the legislative process but a REPUBLIC further REQUIRES that the majority party ENSURE fair participation by the minority party. Changing filibuster rules to further limit minority party participation and influence on legislation is completely contrary to those principles. The Founders' goal for such processes in congress was to ensure that the majority party not have unfettered power for fear of what they called tyranny of the majority.
This is ABSOLUTELY clear from the Founders' writings.
Consider that Democrats have held a veto-proof(!) majority in one or both houses for over 30 of my 68 years compared with Republicans holding such a majority exactly ZERO times. A reasonable person MUST admit that Democrats have no reason to feel short-changed on their ability to effect legislation, completely unfetterd MOST of the time. They've had extraordinary ability to force legislation through congress compared with Republicans. Indeed, they have done so.
Note that ALL the programs that are causing us debt problems today were created AND mismanaged by THEM including the one (sub-prime mortgages) that sank our economy over two years ago!
That Democrats want even greater ability to force legislation through congress is unconscionable, arrogant, UNconstitutional (at least in principle), self-serving (versus people-serving), and many other things representing behavior that's not only inconsistent with constitutional principles but also NOT necessarily in the best interests of The People.
Hamiliton and other of our founders made MANY statements to the effect that this, being a REPUBLIC, requires that the majority party not only 'allow' the minority party fair participation in the legislative process but a REPUBLIC further REQUIRES that the majority party ENSURE fair participation by the minority party. Changing filibuster rules to further limit minority party participation and influence on legislation is completely contrary to those principles. The Founders' goal for such processes in congress was to ensure that the majority party not have unfettered power for fear of what they called tyranny of the majority.
This is ABSOLUTELY clear from the Founders' writings.
Consider that Democrats have held a veto-proof(!) majority in one or both houses for over 30 of my 68 years compared with Republicans holding such a majority exactly ZERO times. A reasonable person MUST admit that Democrats have no reason to feel short-changed on their ability to effect legislation, completely unfetterd MOST of the time. They've had extraordinary ability to force legislation through congress compared with Republicans. Indeed, they have done so.
Note that ALL the programs that are causing us debt problems today were created AND mismanaged by THEM including the one (sub-prime mortgages) that sank our economy over two years ago!
That Democrats want even greater ability to force legislation through congress is unconscionable, arrogant, UNconstitutional (at least in principle), self-serving (versus people-serving), and many other things representing behavior that's not only inconsistent with constitutional principles but also NOT necessarily in the best interests of The People.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
P.S. To Previous Blog
A postscript regarding the previous blog: We The People didn't cause this debt problem but guess who gets to pay the price to fix it?
The vast majority of elected representatives in congress have been irresponsible, self-serving and neglectful of their constitutional and moral responsibilities for a very long time (approximately 30 years by my measure) but it has constituted gross negligence for over ten years. Even more so under democratic control of congress for the past four years. What is wrong with these people that they don't get it?
Now we who did NOT cause this problem and who, in fact, pay our representatives to manage things responsibly have to suffer REAL pain as a consequence of THEIR incompetence. I'm beyond sick of the lot of them. This new crop of 'representatives' in DC had better get it right or they'll have a citizens' revolt on their hands unlike anything seen for a very long time.
Good Grief You Guys! I say this to those in congress:
DO YOUR STINKING JOB FOR A CHANGE AND, BY IT: 1) HONOR (FOR A CHANGE) THE CONSTITUTION AND YOUR OATH OF OFFICE AND 2) SHOW SOME RESPECT FOR THOSE WHO SENT YOU THERE AND WHO PAY YOUR SALARY/BENEFITS!
The vast majority of elected representatives in congress have been irresponsible, self-serving and neglectful of their constitutional and moral responsibilities for a very long time (approximately 30 years by my measure) but it has constituted gross negligence for over ten years. Even more so under democratic control of congress for the past four years. What is wrong with these people that they don't get it?
Now we who did NOT cause this problem and who, in fact, pay our representatives to manage things responsibly have to suffer REAL pain as a consequence of THEIR incompetence. I'm beyond sick of the lot of them. This new crop of 'representatives' in DC had better get it right or they'll have a citizens' revolt on their hands unlike anything seen for a very long time.
Good Grief You Guys! I say this to those in congress:
DO YOUR STINKING JOB FOR A CHANGE AND, BY IT: 1) HONOR (FOR A CHANGE) THE CONSTITUTION AND YOUR OATH OF OFFICE AND 2) SHOW SOME RESPECT FOR THOSE WHO SENT YOU THERE AND WHO PAY YOUR SALARY/BENEFITS!
Monday, January 3, 2011
Polls Are Often Stupid; What About The Freedom To Be A Contributing Member Of Society?
A new Vanity Fair poll (that the media is making a big deal about ... of course!) shows that 65% of Americans think we should tax the rich to balance the budget. Hmmmm. What is the likelihood that one of the options they gave people on that poll was "spend less" to balance the budget?
Got news for y'all. It wasn't a lack of taxing the rich that got us into this difficulty. It was congress' irresponsible legislation and spending. The citizens didn't do this. In fact WE did NOT cause the mess with entitlements either! In fact, we are not the ones who allowed and contributed to the financial collapse. Congress did! So what is the first thing the more progressive among us want to do to fix the problem they and their peers caused? Take more money from The People so they don't have to reduce UNaffordable programs. Their fix is what their fix ALWAYS is: don't take responsibility for what they did but take more of The People's money to fix the problems congress created ALL ON THEIR OWN! Let someone else pay for the problems they created. Now that's a responsible thing to do/think, eh?
I wonder how many people in that poll won't pay any taxes for 2010? I wonder how many of those think that the rich aren't paying their 'fair share' but their own fair share is zero? By what definition of 'fair' does that make any sense? What's 'fair' is for every American to contribute to the cost of running a government from which they derive great benefits.
It's simply illogical that half of our citizens pay no federal income tax. It was only a hundred years ago that most people firmly believed that the burden of survival was shared. That our country was best when everyone had an oar in the water. Half the country paying no federal income tax for the security we all enjoy was largely unthinkable.
In fact, the founders and most elected representatives for our first 200 years firmly believed that each generation should pay its own way ... that passing debt on to future generations was FLAT unacceptable. America has always been at its best when its internal generosity and contribution to society was freely and responsibly given by everyone in the community (except for the few truly indigent and/or incapable). Others' needs came before their wants. The spirit of America is out of whack and we're not the better for it.
Got news for y'all. It wasn't a lack of taxing the rich that got us into this difficulty. It was congress' irresponsible legislation and spending. The citizens didn't do this. In fact WE did NOT cause the mess with entitlements either! In fact, we are not the ones who allowed and contributed to the financial collapse. Congress did! So what is the first thing the more progressive among us want to do to fix the problem they and their peers caused? Take more money from The People so they don't have to reduce UNaffordable programs. Their fix is what their fix ALWAYS is: don't take responsibility for what they did but take more of The People's money to fix the problems congress created ALL ON THEIR OWN! Let someone else pay for the problems they created. Now that's a responsible thing to do/think, eh?
I wonder how many people in that poll won't pay any taxes for 2010? I wonder how many of those think that the rich aren't paying their 'fair share' but their own fair share is zero? By what definition of 'fair' does that make any sense? What's 'fair' is for every American to contribute to the cost of running a government from which they derive great benefits.
It's simply illogical that half of our citizens pay no federal income tax. It was only a hundred years ago that most people firmly believed that the burden of survival was shared. That our country was best when everyone had an oar in the water. Half the country paying no federal income tax for the security we all enjoy was largely unthinkable.
In fact, the founders and most elected representatives for our first 200 years firmly believed that each generation should pay its own way ... that passing debt on to future generations was FLAT unacceptable. America has always been at its best when its internal generosity and contribution to society was freely and responsibly given by everyone in the community (except for the few truly indigent and/or incapable). Others' needs came before their wants. The spirit of America is out of whack and we're not the better for it.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
I'm Blessed
No words are adequate to express how blessed I feel by my family! I love my wife dearly! I love my three 'kids' dearly and I'm so proud of them! Regardless the bumps in life, nothing can take that away from me. Frankly, other than my faith, nothing else matters much by comparison.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)